He killed at least three people, one with a gun and two by blowing them up. But I didn't bother watching three guys pretend they have a chance of beating both Hillary and Bernie so I don't know what, if anything, prompted Webb to just mention killing somebody during a debate.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
They were all asked to name enemies they've made that their proud of. And the first four said typical shit like the NRA, pharmaceutical companies, republicans, other special interest groups, yadda yadda yadda. Then they got to Webb and he gave some really bizarre answer about a guy throwing a grenade at him and the guy not being around anymore. Given the question, it basically came across as "I'm proud I killed a guy."
If he was talking about a combat/war situation (I don't know if he was), then it seems like a pretty typical thing for a candidate to brag about. Though moreso for a republican candidate.
But it's typically in context of how they wouldn't be hypocrites when leading the US into war because they've served themselves. Or vague allusions about being an "American hero". Not creepy non sequitur alluding to the fact that you've killed people.
I flipped onto that channel by accident for a second and some guy (I don't know any names other than Clinton and Sanders) said that one of his first votes when getting to the Senate was on a bill concerning bank laws and these laws ended up being unpopular so Anderson Cooper brought that vote up to him and he stammered and spurted out some bullshit about how that was one of his first votes and he was frazzled and didn't really understand what he was voting for. That was his excuse. And Cooper seemed to do everything in his power not to laugh in this man's face. Then I realized I didn't give a shit and switched it back to the baseball game.
The agonies which are have their origin in the ecstasies which might have been.
Cassius Clay wrote:But it's typically in context of how they wouldn't be hypocrites when leading the US into war because they've served themselves. Or vague allusions about being an "American hero". Not creepy non sequitur alluding to the fact that you've killed people.
Well Jim Webb is from my state. I guess you can take the Virginian out of Virginia but you can't take Virginia out of the Virginisn.
sikax wrote:I flipped onto that channel by accident for a second and some guy (I don't know any names other than Clinton and Sanders) said that one of his first votes when getting to the Senate was on a bill concerning bank laws and these laws ended up being unpopular so Anderson Cooper brought that vote up to him and he stammered and spurted out some bullshit about how that was one of his first votes and he was frazzled and didn't really understand what he was voting for. That was his excuse. And Cooper seemed to do everything in his power not to laugh in this man's face. Then I realized I didn't give a shit and switched it back to the baseball game.
Okay, I watched a short clip of the gun-control portion on FB. I didn't know whether to laugh or scream when Hillary tried to imply that Bernie is pro-gun.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
I believe Bernie thinks the problem with gun violence is mental illness. And that no amount of gun control will decrease gun violence unless we make healthcare more readily available. I think he also voted against gun violence victims being able to sue gun manufacturers or something.
Cassius Clay wrote:I believe Bernie thinks the problem with gun violence is mental illness. And that no amount of gun control will decrease gun violence unless we make healthcare more readily available. I think he also voted against gun violence victims being able to sue gun manufacturers or something.
So Sanders did something smart and voted against people being able to sue a company for making a product correctly that is then used irresponsibly or illegally, and in the mind of Hillary this makes him pro-gun. I'm convinced.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
It sounded silly to me at first. Why should gun manufacturers be punished for making their products work right? But I think the point is to put pressure on manufacturers to make their products less easily available (costs, background check loopholes, etc).
Cassius Clay wrote:It sounded silly to me at first. Why should gun manufacturers be punished for making their products work right? But I think the point is to put pressure on manufacturers to make their products less easily available (costs, background check loopholes, etc).
The only "loophole" in background checks is that one is not needed for a person to sell his privately owned guns to another person, something which is not even relevant to the manufacturers. As far as cost, I don't get that at all.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
I dunno. I have to look into it more. But I have heard the implication that there is some borderline shady/roundabout shit gun manufacturers do in terms of making guns very easily available; shit that they should be pressured on.
I'm not going to defend gun manufacturers because they are corporations who don't need defending. But making them accountable for how someone uses their products, unless the products were manufactured incorrectly, just makes no sense. It just seems a dishonest way to drive up prices which will not even harm the corporations themselves in the long run but just do more harm to law-abiding, low income people when they want to buy a gun. Plus, like all corporations, they will and do take advantage of state laws and move their operations from the Northeast to the South real fast to lower their overall wage costs. Benelli is one of the latest to do so as just last year they moved their American manufacturing plant from Maryland (I think) to Tennessee and claimed it was because Tennessee is a more "gun-friendly" state. Bullshit, they did it because wages are cheaper in Tennessee, If they were interested in "gun-friendliness" then the companies headquarters wouldn't still be in Italy where it's always been. Of course the hicks believe every word of it. But this calls for regulations that apply to all corporations, not attacking one specific industry for nothing but misguided and disingenuous political reasons.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
. It just seems a dishonest way to drive up prices which will not even harm the corporations themselves in the long run but just do more harm to law-abiding, low income people when they want to buy a gun.
^This.
Also considering that, the whole "urban people" are different from "rural people", sounded very elitist. He might as well almost said "black people" are different from "rich white guys living in suburbs".
. It just seems a dishonest way to drive up prices which will not even harm the corporations themselves in the long run but just do more harm to law-abiding, low income people when they want to buy a gun.
^This.
Also considering that, the whole "urban people" are different from "rural people", sounded very elitist. He might as well almost said "black people" are different from "rich white guys living in suburbs".
I think he did a poor job of expressing himself but I'm sure what he meant is that the attitude toward guns is different in predominantly rural states than in predominantly urban states. This is true but for someone who likes to make speeches he didn't come across well at all on that one.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.