Quote of the day—Lauren Boebert @laurenboebert


Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for promises of security.

We see how that turned out.

This is why we must NEVER give up our guns to any government.

Lauren Boebert @laurenboebert
Tweeted on March 7, 2022
[This makes perfect sense to me. The principles which apply at a national level make sense when scaled down to an individual level.

But yet some people seem to think it is total nonsense. And they don’t (or can’t) explain why it is nonsense in a way that makes sense to me:

Oh my God, how are you not getting this? Two totally separate things. It’s like comparing apples to a dragon.

Does that mean we’re all getting nukes? We can pile them on a bookshelf behind us in Zoom conferences. Pose with them in Christmas photos. Have shirts that say, “Over my radioactive body.”

Comparing rifles to nukes is an extreme comparison considering that fact individuals can’t just walk into their local Walmart or bass pro shop and purchase a nuclear weapon.

Excellent argument for a 5th grader.

One screen. Two movies. Each think the other is delusional.

Reality is tough. Really, really tough.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Lauren Boebert @laurenboebert

  1. I don’t know who the person is replying to Lauren Boebert, but the reason their reply makes no sense to you is because they’re making no effort to make it make sense.

    Rep. Boebert has made an analogy: a country turning in its nuclear weapons for promises of security, and then having those promises broken, is analogous to citizens turning in their guns to a government that promises to protect them, but fears that government might break those promises too.

    It seems a fair analogy to me, actually. If you want to argue against it, then explain why the analogy doesn’t hold. If the United States does not have Ukraine’s back after it disarmed, just as it did not for Libya, then this means that promises to defend you if you disarm are not promises worth trusting on a national level. Does this not apply on a personal level? If the government promises to protect you if you give up your guns, can you trust them to, say, never defund the police? Is the record of disarming Native Americans relevant here?

    But it’s no counterargument just to say that there are differences between firearms and nuclear weapons. Of course there are… but are they relevant in this context?

    And throwing gratuitous insults (“excellent argument for a 5th grader”) is certainly not a counterargument at all.

    • “But it’s no counterargument just to say that there are differences between firearms and nuclear weapons. Of course there are… but are they relevant in this context?

      And throwing gratuitous insults (“excellent argument for a 5th grader”) is certainly not a counterargument at all.”

      When the left has no point to actually argument they always resort to smear and insult. And since they resort to smear and insult right off the bat, it’s clearly apparent they have no argument at all,….. and never have.

  2. The larger question is not whom is acting like a 5th. grader. Or wither the analogy is correct. The real question is;
    Joe, what hell are you doing over at the Huffington Post? That’s some commie ghetto shit down there. I mean that place has some incurable mental VD. And the rats. Communist cockroaches. The place stinks of government largesse garbage piles! Damn bro!
    I feel like I need a bleach-bath having just clicked on the link!
    (A little warning next time please?)

    • I visit places you don’t even know exist.

      Just because people and places are vile doesn’t mean good people must all avoid them.

      Automation of the monitoring of these type of places is part of my job during the week. I want to do this for civil rights purposes for my own reasons. I have some automation in place now and that automation led me, and you, here.

      I’ll keep the warning suggestion in mind for the future.

      • Ya, I bet you do. I’ve had to crawl through a few sewers. Mending pipes and such. But even if I could, there’s no way I would deep dive in the internet. Just looking on the surface tells one most all we need to know.
        Thanks for working down there, Joe.

        • Something I recently heard from an computer incident responder is that the bad guys will sometimes put child porn on a compromised computer. The legal issues involved (criminal charges if you don’t handle the situation exactly right) slow down and increase the costs of the investigation.

          My visits to the sewers are at more of a distance being limited checking that my automation is working correctly. My tools can pull the message traffic from the sewers and categorize the existence of many types of content as “true” or “false”. For example:

          Recruiting for an insider? True or False?
          Selling the training for fraud against XYZ corp? True or False?
          XYZ corp customer data for sale? True or False?
          XYZ corp employee network credentials for sale? True or False?

          My tool, running on an ordinary laptop, are answering about a dozen questions like this at a rate of about 500 messages per second. The problem is made difficult by the bad guys (probably deliberately) using extremely poor grammar and spelling, slang, multitude of abbreviations, and even emojis embedding in words.

          By automating the answering of questions like this we can reduce the analyst workload. They spend far less time putting eyeballs on every message and/or limiting the searches to a few (or even a hundred) search terms. Basically, open up the pipe and let the tool find the messages which “test positive” for things we are interested in. The messages end up being marked with easy true/false categories. This makes it easy to filter the messages for our “customers”. One set of messages goes to the legal department, this other set of messages goes to corporate investigations, and another set goes to the network security department.

          I’ve invented other tools for doing certain types of analysis at a much higher level than the individual messages. I would rather not discuss those in public.

          But the bottom line is that I’m making it easier for people to get the information they need without wading nearly as deep into the sewer and without spending as much time there.

          Someday, I hope to rewrite my own toolset for personal use (with next generation capabilities) after I leave the company.

  3. Once again we see the futility of attempting to have rational factual discourse with a segment of society ruled outright by their base emotions. It’s a waste of time. In saner times many of these people were institutionalized for the safety of both themselves and society. Then we start letting them wander around freely. Lately we’ve been electing them to office.

Comments are closed.