Here and OT there is not a peep about Orlando? Why?

Mods wiped it out.

Because too many people seem to be incapable of discussing issues of this nature and having an adult discussion without constantly violating board rules with political and religious grandstanding and finger-pointing. The thread was initially moved to OT but it required so much moderation that it didn't make sense anymore.

At least with the Stanford rape thread, when it was moderated when it started to go off the rails, it got back on track after the moderation. There was no saving the Orlando thread.

Figured ... Administrators were like "we have seen enough of this"

Hope my comments/did not offend anyone

Admin;842700570 said:

---

Because too many people seem to be incapable of discussing issues of this nature and having an adult discussion without constantly violating board rules with political and religious grandstanding and finger-pointing. The thread was initially moved to OT but it required so much moderation that it didn't make sense anymore.

At least with the Stanford rape thread, when it was moderated when it started to go off the rails, it got back on track after the moderation. There was no saving the Orlando thread.

---

To the (probably) handful of posters who felt compelled to "cross the line": Not appreciated. Too bad we can't have a reasonable, reasoned discussion.

Big C_Cal;842700578 said:

---

To the (probably) handful of posters who felt compelled to "cross the line": Not appreciated. Too bad we can't have a reasonable, reasoned discussion.

---

Within seconds of it being posted it crossed the line. The issue is that most liberals and conservatives are intolerant of anyone that thinks differently then they do. And forget about having a libertarian talk about freedom.

One of things I LOVED about Cal was taking a break from my north side studies and strolling through Spoul Plaza and seeing "Berkeley Campus Republicans" with a table right next to the "American Communist Party". Different thought processes were not only allowed but even encouraged.

I'm not sure it is that way any more. The "age of intolerance" of the last 20 years may have swept that freedom of thought and expression completely under the rug...

txwharfrat;842700582 said:

---

Within seconds of it being posted it crossed the line. The issue is that most liberals and conservatives are intolerant of anyone that thinks differently then they do. And forget about having a libertarian talk about freedom.

---

Disagree. You may recall that the ACLU, an acknowledged "liberal" organization, often speaks up and spends lots of money defending the rights of people to voice their opinions. Even those people with whom it disagrees.
Freedom of speech is a NOT a concept that is honored solely by libertarians.

I wasn't suggesting that it was. However, I find liberals just as bad as conservatives at denouncing, demonizing, and ridiculing anyone that has a different view of their own. For myself, I am essentially on an island politically, with no party that shares my views entirely. I have a hard time ever finding anyone on isidewith.com with whom I have a greater than 70% "share rate". Kinda tough, to be honest - everyone despises my views universally! LOL.

I suppose it is primarily due to the fact that I believe the Holy Bible to be the word of God and yet I also can separate scriptures from the Constitution of the United States. They are two separate documents. For instance, my gay relatives that had to move away from Texas to Massachusetts just to get married, were overjoyed when I celebrated the supreme court decision with them last summer. Then, within less than an hour, they derided me for still believing that homosexuality is a sin. As a conservative Christian, multiple gun owning, oil industry executive, anti-abortion libertarian, I essentially have a penchant for pissing off everyone just by opening my mouth.

So, it does tend to be difficult to "have an adult discussion" as the mod suggested because people tend to get very angry when I simply mention my beliefs. I believe marijuana use and prostitution should be decriminalized. I strongly believe that people in the United States should have the legal right to sin all they want - as long as they are not causing others harm, taking their stuff, or limiting others right to freedom. The challenge for libertarians is to figure out whose liberties are more important. For instance ... is it the pregnant woman's freedoms or the unborn child's freedom? Is it the bakery owner's freedom or the gay couple getting married that want a cake? I tend to err on the side of the individual and lesser voice. If you own a business in the US - you can't discriminate against anyone.

I also don't want to live under secular judeo-Christian law any more than I want to live under sharia law. Turning the US into a Christian redux of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Sanhedrin of Jesus' time is not something I want to live under. Christ came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. Without human sin, then the sacrifice of Christ is meaningless.

Our freedoms in the US has always been something that makes us unique in the world. We just have to grapple with how to manage those freedoms in the modern world.

You have expressed yourself plainly and personally attacked no one. It CAN be done here. Thank you. Odds are this thread cannot go ten more posts without sarcasm directed at what you wrote.

1979bear;842700591 said:

---

You have expressed yourself plainly and personally attacked no one. It CAN be done here. Thank you. Odds are this thread cannot go ten more posts without sarcasm directed at what you wrote.

---

I, for one, respect txwharfrat and his beliefs. I respect anyone who doesn't impose their beliefs on others.

Good luck trying to discuss Orlando in a political vacuum.

And no, "thoughts and prayers" isn't a discussion.

NYCGOBEARS;842700593 said:

---

I, for one, respect txwharfrat and his beliefs. I respect anyone who doesn't impose their beliefs on others.

---

You, NYC, are as civil as anyone here ever is, and your ability to gently criticize with humor I greatly appreciate.

txwharfrat;842700582 said:

---

Within seconds of it being posted it crossed the line. The issue is that most liberals and conservatives are intolerant of anyone that thinks differently then they do. And forget about having a libertarian talk about freedom.

---

Maybe others feel like I do: I'm very anti-gun, and was raised that way. But, Orlando just doesn't feel like "that" kind of incident to me. It was a terrorist activity for me, and any "gun" discussion is available only because he wasn't wearing an explosive vest, but he certainly could have. So, I don't feel like it lends itself to "two sided" discussion as the other shootings might have.
Israel has strong security anywhere there is a large gathering of people-this tragedy brings us closer to that here in the US.
Ps: After Newtown, and the lack of any action, I have conceded that any strong anti-gun legislation is not going to happen in the near future. In my head, that issue is "lost."

1979bear;842700603 said:

---

You, NYC, are as civil as anyone here ever is, and your ability to gently criticize with humor I greatly appreciate.

---

Thank you, I appreciate that very much. If we all posted as if we personally knew one another, it'd greatly improve things.

1979bear;842700603 said:

---

You, NYC, are as civil as anyone here ever is, and your ability to gently criticize with humor I greatly appreciate.

---

+1000. for sure...

NYCGOBEARS;842700606 said:

---

If we all posted as if we personally knew one another, it'd greatly improve things.

---

+111111. How true that is.....how true.

It'd certainly cut down on one of the most annoying and common message-board behaviors (not necessarily here, but everywhere): "people talking AT, not to, each other"

NYCGOBEARS;842700593 said:

---

I, for one, respect txwharfrat and his beliefs. I respect anyone who doesn't impose their beliefs on others.

---

I take issue with txwharfrat's beliefs. He believed Yenser would be a good OLine Coach. haha

1979bear;842700603 said:

---

You, NYC, are as civil as anyone here ever is, and your ability to gently criticize with humor I greatly appreciate.

---

Civil but colorful indeed

dajo9;842700611 said:

---

I take issue with txwharfrat's beliefs. He believed Yenser would be a good OLine Coach. haha

---

Yeah, that he deserves to be clowned for. :p

I was following the Orlando thread, about the only real hot button issue I can recall was discussion about assault rifles and the NRA. My commencement was cancelled by a pro-gun politician so it is somewhat surprising that this forum would be protecting pro-gun sensitivities. I was a pretty stupid conservative when at Cal; voted for Ronnie several times, only years later did I fully realize how he and his advisers had screwed me over in various ways. I have no problem criticizing beliefs I once followed; hard lessons should not be forgotten.

Lost in the thread killing was my discussion about for me a very troubling aspect of the Orlando shooter; his status as a Federal security guard allowed to bring weapons onto Federal property. I worked at a Federal compound of about 700 employees with two security guards for 'protection'. We were prohibited from bringing weapons onto the base; the issue of carrying weapons for self-protection doesn't apply it was and I suspect always will be a crime to bring lethal weapons on base. Our protection was simply one security guard at each end of the compound. Before I retired, the danger of a rogue security guard was a life and death issue. Thanks to outsourcing, the number of Federal employees has been steadily reduced; replaced by private sector contractors. In DOD the workforce went from 70/30 in house/private sector to 30/70 during my career. However the government was not staffed to investigate contractor employees, requiring contractors to do their own security clearance investigations thru 3rd party contractors. Government security agents would review these 3rd party investigations, but rarely did actual field investigations of contractor employees. About five years ago we increased the security requirements imposed on Contractors; increasing the volume of security paperwork resulting in an increase of 5-10% in the cost of our contracts as this substantial workload had not been identified when the contracts had been negotiated. I worked with outsourcing contracts for 30+ years; frequently increased submittals resulted in old reports submitted with a new title page, the meat of the report was unchanged, rendering the submittal basically worthless.

The responsibility of linking the shooter's potential terrorist ties to his security access/clearance/status as a Federal security guard is that of the 3rd party private security investigators; I would expect that in most cases contract law/procedures prohibit the FBI and other Federal agencies from working directly with these 3rd party investigators; instead they have to go through the prime contractor. This process was convoluted and the threat of an ISIS operative licensed to carry weapons on Federal property becomes very real. In retrospect, that nightclub had more effective security than the bases where I worked for the last 30 years of my career. FWIW I developed and negotiated several West Coast base security contracts during my career.

Admin;842700570 said:

---

Because too many people seem to be incapable of discussing issues of this nature and having an adult discussion without constantly violating board rules with political and religious grandstanding and finger-pointing. The thread was initially moved to OT but it required so much moderation that it didn't make sense anymore.

At least with the Stanford rape thread, when it was moderated when it started to go off the rails, it got back on track after the moderation. There was no saving the Orlando thread.

---

1979bear;842700603 said:

---

You, NYC, are as civil as anyone here ever is, and your ability to gently criticize with humor I greatly appreciate.

---

I would second that, and NYC and I had a cross-fire on the thread.

wifeisafurd;842700620 said:

---

I would second that, and NYC and I had a cross-fire on the thread.

---

You were, as always, a gentleman about it. Kudos to you.

dajo9;842700611 said:

---

I take issue with txwharfrat's beliefs. He believed Yenser would be a good OLine Coach. haha

---

At the risk of injecting an on-topic topic, the work of Brandon Jones may be on surprising (to some) display this season.

dajo9;842700611 said:

---

I take issue with txwharfrat's beliefs. He believed Yenser would be a good OLine Coach. haha

---

Perhaps I was a little delusional back then. At first, I was just speculating that he would be the hire - because he was the trainer at the TFS seminars. So, I was right on that account. I actually thought the hire made sense, since he knew the TFS system.

How wrong was I? Jones has been a huge improvement to date for sure!

NYCGOBEARS;842700614 said:

---

Yeah, that he deserves to be clowned for. :p

---

OMG yes!

Lol

sp4149;842700619 said:

---

I was following the Orlando thread, about the only real hot button issue I can recall was discussion about assault rifles and the NRA. My commencement was cancelled by a pro-gun politician so it is somewhat surprising that this forum would be protecting pro-gun sensitivities. I was a pretty stupid conservative when at Cal; voted for Ronnie several times, only years later did I fully realize how he and his advisers had screwed me over in various ways. I have no problem criticizing beliefs I once followed; hard lessons should not be forgotten.

Lost in the thread killing was my discussion about for me a very troubling aspect of the Orlando shooter; his status as a Federal security guard allowed to bring weapons onto Federal property. I worked at a Federal compound of about 700 employees with two security guards for 'protection'. We were prohibited from bringing weapons onto the base; the issue of carrying weapons for self-protection doesn't apply it was and I suspect always will be a crime to bring lethal weapons on base. Our protection was simply one security guard at each end of the compound. Before I retired, the danger of a rogue security guard was a life and death issue. Thanks to outsourcing, the number of Federal employees has been steadily reduced; replaced by private sector contractors. In DOD the workforce went from 70/30 in house/private sector to 30/70 during my career. However the government was not staffed to investigate contractor employees, requiring contractors to do their own security clearance investigations thru 3rd party contractors. Government security agents would review these 3rd party investigations, but rarely did actual field investigations of contractor employees. About five years ago we increased the security requirements imposed on Contractors; increasing the volume of security paperwork resulting in an increase of 5-10% in the cost of our contracts as this substantial workload had not been identified when the contracts had been negotiated. I worked with outsourcing contracts for 30+ years; frequently increased submittals resulted in old reports submitted with a new title page, the meat of the report was unchanged, rendering the submittal basically worthless.

The responsibility of linking the shooter's potential terrorist ties to his security access/clearance/status as a Federal security guard is that of the 3rd party private security investigators; I would expect that in most cases contract law/procedures prohibit the FBI and other Federal agencies from working directly with these 3rd party investigators; instead they have to go through the prime contractor. This process was convoluted and the threat of an ISIS operative licensed to carry weapons on Federal property becomes very real. In retrospect, that nightclub had more effective security than the bases where I worked for the last 30 years of my career. FWIW I developed and negotiated several West Coast base security contracts during my career.

---

Holy sh#t

#priorities

txwharfrat;842700590 said:

---

I wasn't suggesting that it was. However, I find liberals just as bad as conservatives at denouncing, demonizing, and ridiculing anyone that has a different view of their own. For myself, I am essentially on an island politically, with no party that shares my views entirely. I have a hard time ever finding anyone on isidewith.com with whom I have a greater than 70% "share rate". Kinda tough, to be honest - everyone despises my views universally! LOL.

I suppose it is primarily due to the fact that I believe the Holy Bible to be the word of God and yet I also can separate scriptures from the Constitution of the United States. They are two separate documents. For instance, my gay relatives that had to move away from Texas to Massachusetts just to get married, were overjoyed when I celebrated the supreme court decision with them last summer. Then, within less than an hour, they derided me for still believing that homosexuality is a sin. As a conservative Christian, multiple gun owning, oil industry executive, anti-abortion libertarian, I essentially have a penchant for pissing off everyone just by opening my mouth.

So, it does tend to be difficult to "have an adult discussion" as the mod suggested because people tend to get very angry when I simply mention my beliefs. I believe marijuana use and prostitution should be decriminalized. I strongly believe that people in the United States should have the legal right to sin all they want - as long as they are not causing others harm, taking their stuff, or limiting others right to freedom. The challenge for libertarians is to figure out whose liberties are more important. For instance ... is it the pregnant woman's freedoms or the unborn child's freedom? Is it the bakery owner's freedom or the gay couple getting married that want a cake? I tend to err on the side of the individual and lesser voice. If you own a business in the US - you can't discriminate against anyone.

I also don't want to live under secular judeo-Christian law any more than I want to live under sharia law. Turning the US into a Christian redux of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Sanhedrin of Jesus' time is not something I want to live under. Christ came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. Without human sin, then the sacrifice of Christ is meaningless.

Our freedoms in the US has always been something that makes us unique in the world. We just have to grapple with how to manage those freedoms in the modern world.

---

I disagree with the generalizations about "liberals" and "conservatives". It is a natural and understandable human trait to see things as "us" vs. "them". But that is more apparent than real. Liberals are not a uniform group of individuals who share the same viewpoint on all issues. Nor are conservatives. Nor are all members of the various religions.

I am a very strong Progressive Democrat (but I don't support Bernie); I am a very devout Catholic and a BIG supporter of Pope Francis (but a number of Catholics I know disagree with Pope Francis on a number of topics.) I believe that the Bible was divinely inspired (but I do not believe that every word in the English version is literally true since it was not originally written in English and therefore requires some level of historical and cultural interpretation).

So we can share some points of agreement and some points of disagreement.

I totally agree with you last sentence "Our freedoms in the US has always been something that makes us unique in the world. We just have to grapple with how to manage those freedoms in the modern world."

I would not want some other religion or politician or corporation telling me what I should or should not believe. We live in a multicultural, multiracial, multi-religious society here in the US.
The Founders appreciated this and set up a fairly good system of allowing each of us to peacefully co-exist while maintaining a single country. It is up to us to figure out how to preserve it.

SP: "My commencement was cancelled by a pro-gun politician so it is somewhat surprising that this forum would be protecting pro-gun sensitivities"

I do not think that is what the moderators were doing. Regardless if someone is anti-guns or pro-guns, there was a lot of mudslinging.

I guess I subscribe to Klay Thompson's viewpoint. Whether you call it mudslinging or trash talking, I don't take it personally and find it interesting to see what other people have to say but I don't want to discount that some people feel differently.

Quote:

---

"Guys talk trash in this league all the time. I'm just kind of shocked some guys take it so personal," Thompson said. "I don't know how [James] feels. But obviously people have feelings, and people's feelings get hurt even if they're called a bad word. I guess his feelings just got hurt. I mean, we've all been called plenty of bad words on the basketball court before. Some guys just react to it differently."

---

Perhaps the moderators should just mandate that any discussion of gun politics is banned; it's far more than simply pro and anti-gun. I suspect there are many, like me, who own guns
but also belief in reasonable gun precautions like banning the sale of weapons to suspected terrorists as proposed by the Bush administration after 9/11.
(I just saw Feinstein's presser on that subject) Unless many were victims of friendly fire, the Orlando massacre body count from a single assault weapon could justify
reclassification as a weapon of mass destruction.

oski003;842700661 said:

---

SP: "My commencement was cancelled by a pro-gun politician so it is somewhat surprising that this forum would be protecting pro-gun sensitivities"

I do not think that is what the moderators were doing. Regardless if someone is anti-guns or pro-guns, there was a lot of mudslinging.

---

sp4149;842700684 said:

---

Unless many were victims of friendly fire, the Orlando massacre body count from a single assault weapon could justify reclassification as a weapon of mass destruction.

---

Should we do the same with pressure cookers?

There was a white guy who tried to blow up LA Gay Pride parade... no talk about that?

MiZery;842700687 said:

---

There was a white guy who tried to blow up LA Gay Pride parade... no talk about that?

---

That is a bit peculiar because:

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/06/13/heavily-armed-man-was-going-to-los-angeles-gay-pride-parade/

Quote:

---

An Indiana man arrested over the weekend in California with three assault rifles and ammunition in his car was forbidden from leaving his home state as part of probation stemming from a case in which he pointed a gun at neighbors, according to authorities and court records...Santa Monica Police Chief Jacqueline Seabrooks initially tweeted that Howell told officers he wanted to “harm” the gay pride event, but she later corrected her statement to say that the suspect only said he was going to the parade.

---

Here's the kicker:

Quote:

---

Howell was accused twice last year of threatening people with a gun, according to court records. Police in Charlestown, Indiana, said the first incident involved [U]Howell’s ex-boyfriend[/U] in October and the second involved a neighbor four days later.

In the first incident, [U]the ex-boyfriend[/U] said Howell pointed a rifle at him when he arrived at Howell’s home to pick up his belongings.

---

Not quite what you were expecting, huh?