Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Does anyone here have a problem with a *reasonable registered concealed-carry law?

Hello


Reasonable as in no violent criminals or psychologically disturbed people need apply.

Uh, yes.

Look to Texas as an example, where the carry law has exceptions for, inter alia, hospitals, churches, schools, public buildings, any place where liquor is sold or consumed, banks, any establishment that posts no guns allowed.

The primary effect of the gun law in TX is that it has made it easier for criminals to get guns, since they no longer have to break into homes and gun safes. Now, they only have to find an unlocked vehicle and pull the inevitable "concealed" handgun out of the glove box or under the drivers seat.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

For all the conservatives who blamed Clinton for lobbing cruises missiles at Afghanistan and Sudan instead of sending in the troops, does it really piss you off when you see on the news that we've bombed another house in Fallujah or Samarra? We given up on maintaining a presence in much of Iraq, because it's just too dangerous.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Per Atrios, Robert Novak just said that CBS should reveal its sources.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Huh. I always figured that a position that can be expressed satirically is satire. To-ma-to, to-mah-to.

I know that the AW ban was a misnomer, and was woefully ineffective as a policy instrument. It's tough to know from your minimallist post about whether your criticism is that the law sucked and therefore there's no point in perpetuating it, or something else, so I'll resist the temptation to speculate about it.

They were going to call it the SAW ban -- but that really pissed off the GOP base.

S_A_M

(Not the tools! Damn you jack-booted thugs!)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Per Atrios, Robert Novak just said that CBS should reveal its sources.

Which face was he speaking out of?

[Apropos of Nothing]

"Hey! You broke a signed oath, missy!"



A member of the audience pulls a demonstrator's hair as he forces her out of an auditorium where President Bush (news - web sites) was addressing a crowd of supporters at Byers Choice in Colmar, Pa. Thursday Sept. 9, 2004. (AP Photo/Jacqueline Larma)

[Apropos of Nothing]

I'm agnostic on the whole "are they forgeries?" issue re the 60 Minutes National Guard memos, but I was interested to see that typewriters that did superscript and proportional spaced New Times Roman existed back in 1972.

Heck, they still may be forgeries. But at least it's no longer as obvious as the Elvis diaries being written on "Dukes of Hazard" stationary. (hi, bilmore!)

Anyway, from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603 (via www.wonkette.com)

• If you shrink each document to be approximately 400-500 pixels across, they do indeed look strikingly similar. But that is because you are compressing the information they contain to 400-500 pixels across. At that size, subtle differences in typeface or letter placement simply cannot be detected; the "pixels" are too big. If you compare the two documents at a larger size, the differences between them are much more striking.
  
  For instance: In the original CBS document, some letters "float" above or below the baseline. For example, in the original document, lowercase 'e' is very frequently -- but not always -- above the baseline. Look at the word "interference", or even "me". Typewriters do this; computers don't. Granted, if you are comparing a lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high with another lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high, you're not going to see such subtleties. That doesn't prove the differences aren't there; it just proves you're an idiot, for making them each 12 pixels high and then saying "see, they almost match!"
  
  "This typeface -- Times New Roman -- didn't exist in the early 1970s."
  
  There are several problems with this theory. First, Times New Roman, as a typeface, was invented in 1931. Second, typewriters were indeed available with Times New Roman typefaces.
  
  And third, this isn't Times New Roman, at least not the Microsoft version. It's close. But it's not a match.
  
  For example, the '8' characters are decidedly different. The '4's, as viewable on other memos, are completely different; one has an open top, the other is closed.
  
  So yes, we have proven that two typefaces that look similar to each other are indeed, um, similar. At least when each document is shrunk to 400-500 pixels wide... and you ignore some of the characters.
  
  "Documents back then didn't have superscripted 'th' characters"
  
  That one was easy. Yes, many typewriter models had shift-combinations to create 'th', 'nd', and 'rd'. This is most easily proven by looking at known-good documents in the Bush records, which indeed have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout.
  
  "This document uses proportional spacing, which didn't exist in the early 1970s."
  
  Turns out, it did. The IBM Executive electric typewriter was manufactured in four models, A, B, C, and D, starting in 1947, and featured proportional spacing. An example of its output is here. It was an extremely popular model, and was marketed to government agencies.
  
  "OK, fine, but no single machine had proportional spacing, 'th' characters, and a font like that one."
  
  No, again. The IBM Executive is probably the most likely candidate for this particular memo. There is some confusion about this, so to clear up: the IBM Selectric, while very popular, did not have proportional spacing. The Selectric Composer, introduced in 1966, did, and in fact could easily have produced these memos, but it was a very expensive machine, and not likely to be used for light typing duties. The proportional-spacing Executive, on the other hand, had been produced in various configurations since the 1940's, and was quite popular.
  
  (Note: However, it is not immediately clear that the Selectrics and Selectric IIs could not in fact emulate "proportional" spacing. There is skepticism in some circles that these memos really show "proportional" spacing. Looking at the blowups, it appears pretty obvious to me that there is, but still researching.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Apropos of Nothing
"Hey! You broke a signed oath, missy!"



A member of the audience pulls a demonstrator's hair as he forces her out of an auditorium where President Bush (news - web sites) was addressing a crowd of supporters at Byers Choice in Colmar, Pa. Thursday Sept. 9, 2004. (AP Photo/Jacqueline Larma)

For more fun, watch this video of a young Republican kicking a female protester at Madison Square Garden while she was being held on the ground by three Secret Service agents. She was arrested; he was not.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
For more fun, watch this video of a young Republican kicking a female protester at Madison Square Garden while she was being held on the ground by three Secret Service agents. She was arrested; he was not.

Well, she almost ripped his khakis and Polo shirt, and clearly scuffed up his Rockports.*

*is there anything dorkier than a young Republican?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Uh, yes.

Look to Texas as an example, where the carry law has exceptions for, inter alia, hospitals, churches, schools, public buildings, any place where liquor is sold or consumed, banks, any establishment that posts no guns allowed.

The primary effect of the gun law in TX is that it has made it easier for criminals to get guns, since they no longer have to break into homes and gun safes. Now, they only have to find an unlocked vehicle and pull the inevitable "concealed" handgun out of the glove box or under the drivers seat.

Just look to Virginia as a counterexample. Very few exceptions except for private premises where the proprietors object. Very little crime, 'cept in Richmond. I think they actually have some law that actually has an "open" unregistered carry for some types of guns.

And if Texas is so unsafe, why would all the smart liberals on this board live there. Or Chicago and Oakland for that matter. Huh?

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
For more fun, watch this video of a young Republican kicking a female protester at Madison Square Garden while she was being held on the ground by three Secret Service agents. She was arrested; he was not.

Do I have to dredge up the picture of the Bush supporter who got roughed up at the Kerry union rally in Cincinnati the other day? Being a lone protester at a union rally doesn't rank him as a rocket scientist to begin with, but he didn't deserve what he got...

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And if Texas is so unsafe, why would all the smart liberals on this board live there.

Fallacial argument.

They don't. (Duh.)











No! Nonono, RT! Put that down! I didn't mean it! We kid because we love!

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Fallacial argument.

Is that like a bad fight with makeup oral sex?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Just look to Virginia as a counterexample. Very few exceptions except for private premises where the proprietors object. Very little crime, 'cept in Richmond. I think they actually have some law that actually has an "open" unregistered carry for some types of guns.

And if Texas is so unsafe, why would all the smart liberals on this board live there. Or Chicago and Oakland for that matter. Huh?

I don't feel particularly unsafe living in Texas with a concealed carry law. There were guns in cars before, there are guns in cars now. I think everyone's pretty aware that guns are around. It was sort of jarring at first to see the signs go up everywhere that booze is served, but I don't think that the conceal carry law has had that much of an impact.

[Diane_Keaton]

As per Power Line, Pat Cadell predicting that if docs are forgeries, the race is unequivocally over, period.