The Viper Room - NO SCRUBS

[Nick Danger]

That doesn't explain why they went for Trump more enthusiastically than they have for more conventional Republicans. Did Trump have a stronger position on Obamacare and gay marriage than any other candidate?

I think Trump's actions regarding Obamacare speak for themselves. Far as gay marriage, that was never an issue Trump addressed, but it was a very divisive issue for Christian Democrats, many of whom abandoned the party in 2016. In general, gay marriage becomes a more divisive issue the lower you go on the income scale, which goes a long way toward explaining why Hildawg lost 10% of the usual Democratic poverty vote to Trump.

I don't think it's possible for people who live their entire lives outside of religious circles to fully grasp the magnitude of the gay marriage issue to people who believe that God considers homosexuality an "abomination." I have some very religious people in my family so I got to witness it.

[filghy2]

The reason people don't see the direct cause-and-effect of the Sandy Hook hoax is pretty simple - Republican control of Congress. Obama tried. Hard, at the federal level, but he was unsuccessful and unsuccessful efforts are forgotten.

Here's a Wiki page that lists ALL of the Democratic efforts at gun control legislation behind Sandy Hook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_co...chool_shooting

Frankly I'm not sure how it is the Democratic Party became identified with gun control, probably just a natural progression from its constituents' other beliefs, but that's how it is now.

Connecticut, New York, and Maryland, all blue states, DID succeed in introducing additional gun control legislation behind Sandy Hook.

To this day, the Sandy Hook "parents" are like a rock band out on tour, and I'll give you one guess which same old song they're playing over and over again.

Don't forget, there have been a lot of real school shootings. But Sandy Hook is still "the deadliest."

As for the plausibility problem, yes, there most certainly is one, Flighty. The entire event is totally implausible. Why has no one stepped forward to say "This was a hoax?" Could be the millions of dollars in bribes, Flighty. It could be that. On the other hand, the makers of that video We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook say they were threatened about going forward. With death! So there could be that happening too.

I personally don't think there were that many people involved. The parents. The police. Elements of the media. A small government coalition. All united in their sacred cause to disarm the citizenry. Oh, and become millionaires in the process.

Democrats have favoured gun controls legislation since the 1930s, so it's hardly a new position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la..._United_States

If that is their position then obviously they will try to push for tighter controls after any mass killing by guns. That how things work with every other problem. It doesn't require a conspiracy to explain.

Why they take this view is not some arcane mystery. The US has a much higher rate of gun deaths than any other developed country. It also has a much higher rate of gun ownership and the laxest gun laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi..._United_States

If you think it's so obvious that Sandy Hook was faked, how about you explain to us how exactly it worked, How exactly was it possible to stage the fake deaths of 27 people with numerous witness, keep them out of the public eye for 8 years, and manage to fool a town of 28,000 (particularly if they were obviously bad actors as you claim). Perhaps you could refer to this to avoid any inconsistencies or omissions, such as leaving medical workers out of the story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_...chool_shooting

While you're at it you might explain why it's implausible that every parent of murdered children should favour gun control, but it's not implausible that every one of a much larger group would keep quiet for over 8 years.

Contrary to your 'gotcha' claim about "unprecedented" redaction of victims' details, it appears that was in line with state law applying to all murder victims. In fact, restrictions of this kind exist in many states. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0364.htm The reason is obviously to protect the privacy of victims' families, including from unwanted harassment by arsehole conspiracy theorists.

[Nick Danger]

Democrats have favoured gun controls legislation since the 1930s, so it's hardly a new position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la..._United_States

If that is their position then obviously they will try to push for tighter controls after any mass killing by guns. That how things work with every other problem. It doesn't require a conspiracy to explain.

Why they take this view is not some arcane mystery. The US has a much higher rate of gun deaths than any other developed country. It also has a much higher rate of gun ownership and the laxest gun laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi..._United_States

Whether we have a high rate of gun deaths is irrelevant to the gun control debate. Yes, you read that correctly, I said "irrelevant to the gun control debate." Because the crux of the debate is actually the government's ability/inability to enforce gun control measures. As a law-abiding citizen, I could easily say, "Yes, it's a good idea if no one but the police and military have guns." I'd never say that but let's say I felt that way. So I vote accordingly, others do likewise, and eventually a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president are able to push through (after a series of progressively more and more restrictive laws) comprehensive overhaul of gun laws, the final nail in the coffin for American gun ownership.

That day, I dutifully report to the local police station and turn in all my guns. Perhaps I receive a cash payout! That's gonnna look good on the old bank statement. That night I go home and turn on the television, which is alive with news coverage of America turning in its guns. There's a knock on the door. I answer it, and much to my surprise, there's a fellow standing there pointing a gun at me!

"Good evening Sir," says the armed stranger. "I'm here to take your belongings."

"My belongings? I didn't request anyone. And hey, what's with the gun?"

"It's not by request Sir. I represent a group of armed criminals who didn't turn their illegally-obtained guns in today. We are making the rounds and taking the belongings of the law-abiding citizens who turned their legal weapons in today. It's a shame we won't be able to steal your guns, but we will take everything else please."

"Very well, come on in I guess."

The fact is that Americans are pretty evenly divided on citizen gun ownership. A recent Pew poll shows 46% favor it, and 46% are against it (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...r-gun-control/). There are, however, some periods of time when that percentage shifts heavily in favor of "against." Guess when that is, Flighty. Immediately following a school shooting. Of course, a quick poll of the Sandy Hook "parents" shows 100% in favor of gun control and 0% against, which bucks the national trend a bit.

If you think it's so obvious that Sandy Hook was faked, how about you explain to us how exactly it worked, How exactly was it possible to stage the fake deaths of 27 people with numerous witness, keep them out of the public eye for 8 years, and manage to fool a town of 28,000 (particularly if they were obviously bad actors as you claim). Perhaps you could refer to this to avoid any inconsistencies or omissions, such as leaving medical workers out of the story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_...chool_shooting

While you're at it you might explain why it's implausible that every parent of murdered children should favour gun control, but it's not implausible that every one of a much larger group would keep quiet for over 8 years.

I never would have thought it possible. I admit, I totally underestimated how mouth-breathing stupid some people are.

Personally I don't think anyone really believes it. I think you lock any American who knows all the facts about Sandy Hook in a room with a master interrogator, they're gonna admit they see the steam rising off the shit. But there are a few factors that keep an essentially-disbelieving public in line about Sandy Hook.

1. The Audacity. The audacity to claim 27 dead people in a hoax. You're probably familiar with the Joseph Goebbels quote on lying to the public. Here's the entire quote: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.” It's the size of the lie that scares people away from recognizing it. The potency of the big lie comes from the fact that if you disbelieve it, you have to disbelieve virtually everything else that holds you in your comfort zone. If you accept that Sandy Hook was a hoax, what else was a hoax? By far the easiest way to contend with a lie this audacious is simply to swallow it whole. As you've done, Flighty.

2. The Cult of Personality. "Barrack Obama believes Sandy Hook happened. Or at least, he seems to. I trust and respect Barrack Obama, and he obviously has more information at his disposal than I do about this matter."

3. Sentiment. Most people are good people, by which I mean they know the difference between good and evil and view themselves as good. "So the media is showing me this incident, and there are parents there who allege to have lost children but don't seem too upset about it. It gives all appearances of being a staged event but what if it's not? If I believe what my eyes and brain are telling me, but I'm wrong, then I'm really hurting the feelings of these already-grieving parents. My eyes and brain aren't reliable enough to go there." (MY eyes and brain ARE reliable enough to go there, Flighty).

4. Good Old-Fashioned Censorship. The latest strategy of the Sandy Hook parents is to sue people who are famously saying publicly that they're full of shit. Alex Jones was shut down by this strategy - though frankly, if I had a bullshit story I wanted people to believe and Alex Jones was nice enough to pick up the opposition, I'd probably just let him run with it. Another guy in Wisconsin had to pay $450,000 to millionaire celebrity parent Lenny Pozner for writing a book about the hoax. It's not illegal to talk about the hoax. But it will cost you plenty to do it publicly.

The argument that Sandy Hook was a hoax pretty much makes itself, Flighty. I could go through the entire timeline in this thread with you, but all that information is freely available and I've already summarized the bulk of it in previous posts. Sandy Hook was a hoax. Start from there and prove it wasn't. While you're trying to do that, unsuccessfully, think about how easy it would be to prove that ANY EVENT THAT REALLY HAPPENED actually happened. Want to prove that the 1893 Chicago World's Fair happened? Gravy. Prove 9/11 happened? No problem. Want to prove that Cheap Trick played the Boston Garden on Feb. 28, 1981? It can be done. What you can't prove is that anyone was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012.

Far as how they did it, well, a handful of people who's life work is gun control got together and decided to get their hands dirty. Is it really so hard to believe that people who feel strongly about an issue like this could go over the top to support their cause? I mean, you live in a country in which 39 people killed themselves in 1997 because they thought their souls were going to be taken aboard a spaceship and hauled to Heaven. Considering how wealthy the Sandy Hook "parents" have become out of all this, what could possibly motivate them to step forward? The truth, their conscience, a sudden change of mind about gun control, what? Do you think they'd get to keep their share of the Sandy Hook millions if they blew the whole ship out of the water now?

Again, I think the only people involved were "the parents," elements of the Newtown city and Connecticut state police, a few folks in the media, and a few folks in government - not even high-ranking government officials and I'll tell you why I think that. Airspace. If there was involvement at the highest levels of government they could have shut down the airspace above Sandy Hook and saved themselves the trouble of explaining a lot of VERY disturbing video. As it was, the best they could do was cut off ground access at the firehouse to all but insiders.

Contrary to your 'gotcha' claim about "unprecedented" redaction of victims' details, it appears that was in line with state law applying to all murder victims. In fact, restrictions of this kind exist in many states. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0364.htm The reason is obviously to protect the privacy of victims' families, including from unwanted harassment by arsehole conspiracy theorists.

Are you aware "all murder victims" was added to the law of which you speak because they couldn't get it passed in the legislature if they only applied it to Sandy Hook victims? But that was the original legislation that was introduced - just the Sandy Hook "parents" requesting that no evidence ever be available that this event happened. The entire law was made in response to Sandy Hook, and it was passed immediately after the event; certainly that is "expedited" by legislative timeframe standards.

And what kind of law is this? Who gave government the right to decide which public documents can and can't be released to the public, it's unconstitutional AF. If you had a crime, fine, we'll send the police, the fire department, medical services, helicopters, we'll do whatever we as a society can do to help you in your time of need. But after that, the incident becomes a matter of public record. We'll be wanting to know what our money paid for. You want to keep something to yourself, don't ask for taxpayer assistance.

I get a kick out of these so-called victims complaining about all the people who still don't believe their bullshit years after the fact. If it's so emotionally distressing for them, maybe they should reconsider "protecting the privacy" of their long-dead children and let the public see the evidence. Ask me why I know this will never happen, Flighty.

There's no aspect of the Sandy Hook event that isn't highly suspicious. Take one or two suspicious angles of an event and run with them, maybe you're a conspiracy theorist. But when every single element of an event is questionable, suspicious, or even outright impossible, the conspiracy theorist isn't the problem. The conspiracy is.

[broncofan]

Another guy in Wisconsin had to pay $450,000 to millionaire celebrity parent Lenny Pozner for writing a book about the hoax.

I decided to save myself the aggravation and not engage in an argument about Sandy Hook or 9/11. But I do find it amusing that being wealthy or rich is venerated until it's someone you don't like who has the money. Then it's suddenly a question of motive why a rich person would want to sue someone for a fraction of their net worth as though it doesn't happen all the time.

Also, millionaire is not the distinction it was in the 1980s. Likewise I could say having a million pesos is not the same as having a million 2021 dollars. Perhaps your pockets aren't as deep as you want us to believe

[Nick Danger]

I decided to save myself the aggravation and not engage in an argument about Sandy Hook or 9/11. But I do find it amusing that being wealthy or rich is venerated until it's someone you don't like who has the money. Then it's suddenly a question of motive why a rich person would want to sue someone for a fraction of their net worth as though it doesn't happen all the time.

Also, millionaire is not the distinction it was in the 1980s. Likewise I could say having a million pesos is not the same as having a million 2021 dollars. Perhaps your pockets aren't as deep as you want us to believe

You're a smart man, Bronco, it would indeed be aggravating to have that conversation with me. But I'll address just the point you're making here and try not to drag you into it against your will.

The fact that a 2021 millionaire isn't on the same eliteness level as a 1980 millionaire isn't part of my argument. A million dollars is still a lot of money. What's even more money is $93 million - the low-ball estimate for the amount taken in by Sandy Hook parents from the taxpayers and donations since the debacle.

I don't recall ever trying to convince anyone on this board that I have deep pockets, but I don't mind letting people know that I'm financially stable. It's all part of the program. "Work hard and live responsibly, children of the Millennium." Best I can do for them, I'm not going to feed them.

But ill-gotten gains are ill-gotten gains. When it's taxpayer money, moreso.

[filghy2]

I don't recall ever trying to convince anyone on this board that I have deep pockets.

But me, I am going to kick back and watch my bank account grow for the next few years while the big boys play their little games. As a counterpoint to your statement, "Americans are not about to get rich under this President," I can only tell you that I am already getting rich under this President.

You are far too modest

[filghy2]

Whether we have a high rate of gun deaths is irrelevant to the gun control debate. Yes, you read that correctly, I said "irrelevant to the gun control debate." Because the crux of the debate is actually the government's ability/inability to enforce gun control measures. As a law-abiding citizen, I could easily say, "Yes, it's a good idea if no one but the police and military have guns." I'd never say that but let's say I felt that way. So I vote accordingly, others do likewise, and eventually a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president are able to push through (after a series of progressively more and more restrictive laws) comprehensive overhaul of gun laws, the final nail in the coffin for American gun ownership.

That day, I dutifully report to the local police station and turn in all my guns. Perhaps I receive a cash payout! That's gonnna look good on the old bank statement. That night I go home and turn on the television, which is alive with news coverage of America turning in its guns. There's a knock on the door. I answer it, and much to my surprise, there's a fellow standing there pointing a gun at me!

Funnily enough, that sounds a lot like what they did in Australia after somebody massacred 35 people in 1996 (and under a conservative government). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia
And guess what? There have been no further massacres, no upsurge in violent crimes, citizens are not living in fear and almost all are pretty happy with the laws.

In any case, it's a straw man because I don't think anyone in a position of influence is seriously proposing to do that in the US. What they mainly want is to stop people buying military assault weapons that can inflict mass casualties very quickly. The real mystery about gun control in the US is why the NRA and it's Republican servants have been so fanatically opposed to this. Why is this necessary for self-defence?

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your diatribe because it's your usual mixture of evasion, distortion and bluster, but it is bizarre that you equate defamation suits to censorship. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that truth is a defence against defamation suits in the US. If people have had to pay damages that clearly shows they have been unable to establish the truth of their claims in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...defamation_law

[filghy2]

The argument that Sandy Hook was a hoax pretty much makes itself, Flighty. I could go through the entire timeline in this thread with you, but all that information is freely available and I've already summarized the bulk of it in previous posts. Sandy Hook was a hoax. Start from there and prove it wasn't.

I have to chuckle at the sheer chutzpah of this piece of circular reasoning. It's a neat trick. Even though you've offered no concrete proof (and none has been forthcoming in the defamation suits), nor any plausible explanation for how it could have been done without anyone in the community noticing anything, you simply assert is was a hoax and demand others prove it was not. Yet you refuse to except any evidence from government or the media because they are part of the hoax. You also claim the local people can't be trusted because they've either been bribed, intimidated or hoodwinked. I guess that means you can never be wrong.

[filghy2]

Alex Jones was shut down by this strategy - though frankly, if I had a bullshit story I wanted people to believe and Alex Jones was nice enough to pick up the opposition, I'd probably just let him run with it. Another guy in Wisconsin had to pay $450,000 to millionaire celebrity parent Lenny Pozner for writing a book about the hoax. It's not illegal to talk about the hoax. But it will cost you plenty to do it publicly.

You may have missed it, but Alex Jones admitted in a sworn deposition to the court that the hoax claim was false, and blamed it on a "form of psychosis". Perhaps you should schedule a few sessions with a psychiatrist, given you seem a little fixated on this 'conspiracy'.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/31/182892...andy-hook-hoax

[filghy2]

I decided to save myself the aggravation and not engage in an argument about Sandy Hook or 9/11. But I do find it amusing that being wealthy or rich is venerated until it's someone you don't like who has the money. Then it's suddenly a question of motive why a rich person would want to sue someone for a fraction of their net worth as though it doesn't happen all the time.

It's a common form of one-eyed blindness. If George Soros uses his money to finance liberal causes that is sinister. If the Murdochs, Kochs and Mercers use their money to finance conservative causes to advance their own self- interest they are just exercising their rights.

It's also interesting that the same person getting all righteous about the families supposedly benefiting from this has been indifferent about Trump and his cronies misusing public office for their own advantage. It seems a curious exception to his general amoral position that it's a crooked world and you can only expect people to take advantage if they can.

It's also notable that he responded to your comment, which related to a private defamation case, with a complete non sequitur about taxpayer money.