well, maybe should have tempered it a bit, 'cause was a bit disturbed about some of the things I've been reading...

1) https://news.yahoo.com/montana-lawmaker-suggested-she-d-182144655.html (some seriously sick stuff)

2)https://www.npr.org/2023/06/27/1184461263/iowa-meteorologist-harassment-climate-change-quits (loons being led by power lushing putz)

3)https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/26/garth-brooks-texas-greg-abbott-twitter-booed-satire (the stupidity and pride in ignorance is stupefying. also being ass hurt that trans people like a (horrible) beer?! lord have mercy...ate at a steak house, at the same table 'W' used previously. didn't put me off enjoying the t-bone. or revisiting the place if'n was in the area again. *did make me think "G** D*** it! why did the waitress tell me that!*)

4) https://news.yahoo.com/6-dead-including-3-children-161756984.html red flag af & TN will do nill

5) https://www.vice.com/en/article/ak3kz5/moms-for-liberty-hitler-quote (MFL were more upset w/asscoation then the message. The lack of self-awareness & irony - unreal)

6) & too many women dying from the abortion ban(s). don't get killing the living for the unborn if the unborn are d.o.a. & take mom w/them. lunacy.

a couple of those are pushing the limit. the lack of benignancy being a value among the right - just - ain't - right.

bob the parrot's stormtrooper comment lit the fuse. my gawd. even people in the middle ages had a sense of genetics. greeks, 3k years ago, knew androgyny was a thing. so why can't bobo's buds not bone up on the idea of biology?

it's not a choice, but living well is.

So apparently Trump’s final (secret) move in office was to erase the “red flags” on 2.7 million PPP loans that would have caused the recipients to be investigated, and most would have been forced to return the money. All loans over $2 million had red flags erased, apparently the smaller loans didn’t get the same treatment, the most common red flag was that the companies didn’t exist in February 2020. (They were created on paper to defraud the PPP loan process set up by Trump’s administration with no oversight intentionally to allow fraud.)

$190 BILLION worth of flagged >$2 million loans to millionaires he demanded not be investigated for obvious fraud and instead be totally forgiven.

Kinda puts a damper on the “we can’t afford student loan forgiveness” of loans in the tens of thousands to the needy when we can afford fraudulent millionaire loan forgiveness of loans in the millions to millionaires, and tax giveaways to them in the millions at the same time.

More Republican crime covered up by Trump. Another $190 BILLION handed to millionaire crooks by their public spokesman….after $2 TRILLION in tax breaks.

In case you missed it, Trump’s Proud Boys are pleading guilty to seditious conspiracy, admitting they were attempting a coup for Trump at his direction and with some direct assistance and communication directly from highest ranking members of his administration (Stone, Giuliani, secret service agents) that knew what they were doing ahead of time.
They stood back and stood by until Trump called them to help with his coup. That’s treason. All parties complicit in the conspiracy are guilty too…that includes Trump and his family.
The sentence for treason is death. America may soon inherit a number of deep in debt golf courses! (Unless some nut with high powered guns they shouldn’t have takes matters into their own hands)

“Yeat!” Ok, I’m listening. Tell me anything.

I ask you, can you explain why cons want mad men like him to have unfettered access to firearms?

It’s now being reported he was previously detained by police for threatening to murder his entire family and had 60 knives, swords, and daggers removed from his possession, but not his ability to purchase guns.

Cons are uncompromising about opposing red flag laws, which would have prevented this mad man from getting the weapons to commit mass murder…and about closing loopholes that let anyone buy firearms without background checks or registration…allowing those legally barred from ownership to gain possession of any weapons they like.

Can you explain why these remedies to secretly arming nut jobs are off the table for cons? Not being a panacea for all gun crimes is a red herring dodge, not an answer.

Why must every word you write be an intentional bold faced lie?

Bob…can you list the three branches of government ?

Democrats control 1 branch, Republicans (including Senema and Manchin) control the other 2 (one outright, one by overused veto power and filibuster) and they block any Democratic legislation out of spite whether or not it’s good for the country, just to deny Democrats any “wins”. It takes a >60/40 majority for Democrats to get anything passed because Republicans do not want anything to be bipartisan…voting WITH democrats is a career ender, no matter what the bill is.

Democrats have tried dozens of times to make improvements, like background checks for EVERY gun sale, clip size limits, red flag laws, trying to raise the purchase age to 21, temporary seizure if someone gets a restraining order against you, and much more….Republicans blocked every single effort because they need NRA money and support.

Republicans made it legal for any criminal or nut job to not only buy as many guns and ammunition as they wish, but also to concealed carry them anywhere except where Republicans gather (like the NRA convention, once again held days after a mass shooting, or the capitol building).

They voted against giving babies formula, they voted against working to release political prisoners, they voted against supporting Ukraine, they voted against removing gun registration loopholes, mental health gun laws, clip size limits, etc., they voted against investigating Jan 6, Republicans are so anti Democrat they went full anti democracy.

Here’s your negative attention, since I know that’s what you really want. I’ll keep it light in honor of your father, unless you don’t, and just say you are a total liar. I would say consummate liar, but you’re really just awful at it and just make yourself look so incredibly stupid and dishonest at every opportunity.

You’ve never changed a single mind with your nonsensical lies.

@newtboy,

Finally we're talking about my Canada .

I'm agreed with calling 90% of what the convoy and truckers are protesting as being misguided, ill informed or flat out wrong. That however shouldn't be what the right to protest is based upon.

The extent of the protestors illegal activity seems to have been blocking of roadways and borders. Which in Canada isn't exactly new:
-Blockading of roads to logging work sites to "protect old growth forest"
-Blockading of roads pipeline construction sites
-Blockading of transportation highways and railroads

In the past 2 years alone, those various sites have seen blockades ranging from weeks to months. In virtually every single one of those instances the Liberal government went out to meet and negotiate with the protestors while allowing them to continue for weeks to months. In one of the biggest protests Trudeau himself went to meet with the groups in person. Trudeau has a video of himself praising the farmer convoy and blockades in India, declaring his government will always defend the right of groups to protest.(those groups blocked multiple border crossings)

This time though, Trudeau started out with insulting, ridiculing and belittling the protestors. Within the first day of the protests, politicians and our national news corp in CBC were demanding an immediate end to the protests.

The protests that have seen comparable zero violence to the protests in the US in support of Floyd(which I support), where condemned repeatedly by the CBC and Trudeau as terrorizing the populace and inciting violence. For reference, Trudeau remained steadfast in support of the Floyd protestors right to protest.

The federal government essentially tried insults and ridicule to try and end this protest though, and when that didn't work they invoked a national emergency measures act that requires both:
-A threat to Canada's sovereignty
-A threat that can not be addressed by any other laws or means

The government then proceeded to empower themselves to not merely arrest protestors, but to freeze/seize the bank accounts of anyone considered to be supporting the protest, with no court oversight required.

The difference in how protestors are treated based upon what it is they are protesting is alarming and should be a red flag for anyone and everyone.

For reference, while these protests were going on, a pipeline worksite in BC that has been continually shut down by protests for the last several years was attacked in the night by a mob wielding machetes and axes. The workers and security were chased off and millions in damages were done to the site afterwards. Trudeau didn't feel the need to even address the incident though because he was to busy villianizing the convoy. The CBC media buried the incident under local BC news, and downplayed it as an 'alleged' incident, despite RCMP having responded and even having had an officer injured in the incident. CBC also emphasized there wasn't any verified connection to the ongoing protests against the pipeline...

When you look at the narrative, despite my disagreeing with the vast majority of what the convoy is wanting to say, I am disgusted by the attempt to remove their right to say it and everyone wanting to support a strong democracy with the right protest should feel the same.

initially some do exist but when their union and coworkers cover up all the time and IA is defunded and simpletons like beeeewb bootlick all day the whole bushel goes. this dolt was probably praised most of his career for his continuous quota busting record, instead it should be a red flag.

It's typical in short course racing to restart if there's a red flag (serious/injury crash) on or before lap 1. I would expect that if the driver/rider can get to the starting line before the restart, most circuits would wait a short time for doctors to give the ok or not.

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

Trump saying oranges instead of origins is a red flag to anyone, like me, with parents who had a stroke.
He substitutes a word after, indicating he knows the right word is eluding him. This is common for people who have aphasia or frontotemporal dementia. https://twitter.com/BettyBowers/status/1113243627176771584

I just keep thinking this is great as long as he isn't concerned with ever getting a job. lol

(Yes I know it's funny, but employers would red flag this in seconds. lol. )

I personally can't even begin to imagine wanting to teach in an "at risk" sort of environment. It's awesome that there are people like her that do want to be part of the solution in those kinds of places, but you couldn't pay me enough or otherwise motivate me to voluntarily work in that kind of environment.

That being said, it makes it all the more obvious that if you do have somebody like that on your staff, you'd damn well better listen to every single suggestion or idea that they have and do your utmost to keep them there and happy. If the environment is so bad that it forces someone like that out, that really wants to be there, it is a massive red flag.

I doubt that the school stays open. That might be for the best -- sometimes it is best to put a wounded beast out of its misery.

Canadian devil's advocate here.

We've got incredibly strict gun laws up here by comparison to the US. So our country has done the 'more than nothing' on gun laws. 3 days before the LA shooting we had a terror attack up here in Edmonton but the attacker used vehicles and a knife.

If we accept the rationale that current levels of freedom to own guns is leading to higher body counts and that restricting those freedoms will reduce body counts, that rationale is slippery.

Here's the parallel.

If we accept the rationale that current levels of freedom to 'practice religion' is leading to higher body counts then restricting those freedoms will reduce body counts.

Because, the Attacker in Edmonton was a Somali refugee. They had an ISIS flag in their car. The US tried to extradite him before Canada welcomed him with open arms. Canadian police even investigated him before when a co-worker reported him advocating genocidal ideas about Shiite scum.

We had a lot of potential red flags that we could have acted harder on or used for profiling and in this case having him in jail would've prevented the attacks.

The thing is, it is NOT immediately self evident that restricting those freedoms is objectively the best answer.

Personally, banning automatic weapons as my country has seems a very sane thing to do. Countering myself though, would the Catalonians in Spain be getting beaten up for holding a vote if the residents had automatic weapon in their basements or would the police show a little more respect to the citizen's than they did?

Your video, Casually Explained: Red Flags, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.