New Pornstar Galleries -
All smartbuydisc.rus > World News Nonsense > Gun Violence The Political Stuff > Gun Violence - The Political Stuff (page 9)
Page 9 of 10 First < 4 5 6 7 8 9 Last
AuthorPost

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 5 2019 : 6:21PM
What am I missing? What's the reasoning for asking for her resignation?

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Aug 5 2019 : 6:52PM



Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 5 2019 : 7:10PM
Okay, I misunderstood. The post said, "I understand the head of the Ohio GOP has already asked for this woman's resignation, which is actually pretty surprising." and was followed by a tweet from Amy McGrath, so I thought "this woman" referred to Amy McGrath.


Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Aug 5 2019 : 8:16PM
Ah, got it. I made an edit to clear that up.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28339 Posts
3/02
Posted - Aug 5 2019 : 11:41PM
Ordinary people have to juggle many priorities, the NRA doesn't. It only has one goal, and it has more cash than the entire city I live in does. Are politicians going to try to make me, and the rest of the citizens of this city happy, or are they going to try to make the NRA happy? The answer is obvious - the citizens either get ignored, or we get promises that go unfulfilled, while the NRA gets whatever it wants.

Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 12:10AM
67700302_1305573579598560_3166542128775954432_n.jpg

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 3:41AM
The latest comprehensive annual data we have on violent crime in America is for 2017.

Violent crime dropped, though almost negligibly, by 0.2%

Preliminary data for 2018 comes from the FBI, which indicates that violent crime dropped again, more significantly by 4.3%.

That's 4.5% overall drop in violent crimes, or 50,000 fewer violent crimes per year. 100,000 fewer victims between 2017-2018.

Remember, there's over a million violent crimes every year in America. Typically over 15,000 murders. Not even 1% of those are mass murders. But predictably the same brain trust of pundits thinks they are experts and qualified to make sweeping indictments and brilliant assessments which abound in their heady think pieces. These people are not honest nor intelligent. They're just exploiting dumb audiences for ratings, feeding them fear as usual.

"It's the ASSAULT rifles!"

Oh yeah, you mean as opposed to the tickle rifles? The squirt guns?

"It's white supremacists!"

Oh, of course. You mean the ones which account for less than 1/10th of that 1% of murders?

Glad we solved this. Now all that remains is the 99.9% of the problem.


Yet these useful idiots of punditry have the gall to finger point and talk about profiling for violent crime. Wow. The lack of self-awareness is stunning. As has been thoroughly established and recognized by all who have at least a rudimentary grasp of basic arithmetic, mass shootings are a small fraction of all shootings, and vanishingly small fraction of all violence. But that's the type of crime, just about the rarest type of violent crime that exists, which these smear merchants wish to exploit in order to push their propagandist narratives?

It's bad enough that they've all begun to pull the wool over their unwitting audience's eyes by conflating mass shootings with mass murders. But now they want to mainstream and legitimize profiling for the former with the latter.

I guess they forgot that profiling was supposed to be bad. I guess they forgot the beans were already spilled after it has been widely reported by all media from left to right wing, from The New York Times to The Economist, from CNN to Fox News, that mass shootings were overwhelmingly gang related.

So how bad do you think it will backfire on them when people realize what profiling mass shooters means?

Maybe they should stick to their original advice.

So just remember, every time you see some talking head or celebrity scrambling for attention by tweeting idiocy or sounding off about profiling for the rarest types of violent crime, they're just desperate and ignorant, and don't know what they're talking about. Worse still, they are unwittingly undermining their own agenda by supplying their opposition with greater substance.

Edited by - melvyn on 8/6/2019 3:43:57 AM

 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 8:53AM
1) Who is talking about "profiling" mass shooters?

2) If these murders were committed by somebody from say, Iran, Goblin would declare war tomorrow.

3) In keeping with your crime stats, And yet, your boy wants us to spend $25B on a wall to keep them out.


So if you want to talk about distorting crime stats, and overreaction, it can't be said that either has a monopoly on that.

 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 8:55AM
I guess they forgot the beans were already spilled after it has been widely reported by all media from left to right wing, from The New York Times to The Economist, from CNN to Fox News, that mass shootings were overwhelmingly gang related.


Um, what?

 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 10:11AM


“I’d like to see the perimeter of every school in America surrounded, secured by retired police … military and I want guys to donate fifteen hours,” Hannity explained.

“I think we could cover every school, every hour — add a metal detector and I think we’re going to have better schools,”

“Have one armed guard on every floor of every school, all over every mall, the perimeter and inside every hall of every mall.”

 
All-Star Member

flickr.com/jman5245
4291 Posts
5/09
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 10:49AM

Member

990 Posts
8/17
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 2:33PM
^^ So much for America and its love of freedom. There can never be freedom in a police state.

Member

52 Posts
8/18
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 5:05PM
Then we get to hear Hannity whine and rant, and blame Democrats, about how our taxes are going up to pay for his police state.

Edited by - HumptyRumpty on 8/6/2019 5:06:09 PM


Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 5:19PM
That's absurd.

There are little bitty rural towns all over the country that have schools for 100 kids, or 200 kids, and not a single retired cop in town. Where are they going to find enough of them to surround the perimeter of a school all day long? And they're just going to volunteer 15 hours, and that's going to do it?!!?

Even if you thought it was a 'good' idea, it's wildly impractical. Beyond impractical.

Way before things get that far, parents will home school their kids on the internet, schools will close down, and the kids will get shot instead when they go to Walmart for 'school' supplies.

to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

Starfucked bitch
5984 Posts
3/07
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 9:21PM
This is the bullshit they pull whenever there's a mass shooting to actually blame more shootings on black Americans and "WhAt AbOuT ChIcAgO?". Its an old racist dogwhistle deflection. It happens every mass shooting. They don't actually care about the inner cities. They only bring it up as a defense of something else.


Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 10:10PM
^





Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 10:29PM
Ah. Shit. Of course. Gangs = something black.

Well. The usual shit. There's no sense doing anything about mass shootings, because "Chicago."

Just like there's no reason to do anything about your leaking radiator, because you also need new tires. So let's not do anything about either one.

Benghazi.


Senior Member

Starfucked bitch
5984 Posts
3/07
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 11:19PM
^^I bet if you go back through Ivanka's timeline she's never mentioned Chicago until after these last two shootings. Guaranteed. It's like clockwork. Seriously.

 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 7 2019 : 1:00AM
OK, the way he worded it, I thought he was saying that the El Paso and Dayton shooters were gang members.
 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Aug 7 2019 : 10:20AM
CNN Calls Bullshit:

 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Aug 7 2019 : 10:38AM
Game. Set. Match.
Barack Owns Trump.jpg

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 3:54AM
1) To answer your question, try every ill-informed virtue signaling moron on every major social media platform. Do you really want a list of all the people, besides Trump, keen on profiling for this type of exceedingly rare crime? It's the same ignorant nonsense, and most of it is coming from these platitude-spewing dimwits on the left. However, as ill-informed as Trump is, what the virtue signaling morons who despise him are saying is even more ignorant and immediately disprovable nonsense. All these wastes of oxygen and bandwidth, from radical conspiracist Rachel Maddow to dopey lughead Chris "thinks he really is Captain America" Evans, from Buzzfeed to Time Magazine for fuck's sake. The vast majority of mainstream pundits parrot and propagate the same ludicrous bullshit about this "alarming trend in white nationalist terrorism and white supremacy" - based on what? A handful of cases, out of a million, which does not even amount to a perceptible fraction of 1/10th of 1% of all violence.

They inflate the number of mass shootings by broadening the definition from what most people understand it to be, generalizing beyond fatalities to casualties, in order to balloon the credible instances of mass murderer (their hottest stories generating their highest ratings) from half a dozen cases per year to hundreds. They are literally selling you lies in order to fool you into thinking these cases are literally 10 times more common than they are.

So when you're done reading the umpteenth "think-piece" about the looming threat of scary bogeymen and the specter of some mythical ideology, by anti-intellectual social-justice-exploiting identitarian-promoting pundits posing as progressive by pimping your vulnerable sensibilities for all they are worth, if you really wanted to get an honest general view of mass shooters, then brace yourself and behold:

Just look at all those white supremacists...

But unlike their retarded and completely backwards racial profiling narrative, which is the opposite of reality, the most conspicuous common thread among mass shooters, at least according to MotherJones research, is indeed mental illness. Crazy people doing crazy things? You mean it really isn't largely or even significantly driven by racist white ideology that we can somehow pin on Orange Man Bad? What a shocker. So ironically, as ill-informed as Trump typically is, his point about mental illness is at least 1 hex more credible than the white nationalist nonsense you will find in EVERY mainstream publication, from MSNBC to CNN to NewYorkTimes to Time Magazine.

2) Pure ridiculous nonsense. This is no less deranged than any right-wing nutter when they accused Obama of turning America into a radical Islamist caliphate. You don't honestly believe that, so why say it?

3) Irrelevant as it is unreliable. The wonderful aspect of with this issue is that it exposes hypocrisy and conflicting narratives among both the left and the right with a statistical paradox:

3a) The left wants to arbitrarily downplay the number of illegal immigrants, but in so doing, they inherently inflate the crime rates among them.
3b) The right wants to arbitrarily inflate the number of illegal immigrants, but in so doing, they inherently diminish the crime rates among them.

Neither party can have it both ways.

I could give a fuck what you think about the current occupant of White House whose name and reputation is only helped every time you lie about them (see: "no crisis at the border" fast forward 5 months "omg this is the worst crisis ever" coming from the same people who never batted an eye during the untold suffering of millions during the previous admin) or his base fretting over illegal immigrants. The fact of the matter is no one can reliably state anything conclusive on the crime rates among illegal immigrants, because in order to do so, you need a solid and empirical population size. Yet all we have is a wildly fluctuating population, with estimates ranging from 10 million to 30 million.

Do you know what that means? That means your presumed crime rates among illegal immigrants could be off by 200%. Such a margin of error makes any assertions as meaningless as fart in a hurricane.

Maybe it is higher. Or maybe it is lower. Either way, you've probably just failed to realize you're spouting embarrassingly debunked canards by partisan hacks.

And what difference does it make to anyone but partisan cheerleaders? Overall violent crime has been dropping for the last +25 years.

Please, fellow libs and progressives, I implore you to just stop digging. Virtually everything you say and believe is not only untrue, when we actually look into it objectively, the reality turns out to be the exact opposite of your claims.

It's already hard enough to push for positive reform and progress without most of you lying or unwittingly perpetuating lies.


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 4:04AM
Domestic_terrorism_incidents_by_type.png.jpg

If you're having trouble with the math here and need help understanding how this spoils your cartoon, just feel free to ask. Tip: Muslims are 2% of the population. Pro-tip: Look up "per capita" and learn why this term matters.

Also, see:


Don't feel bad you were fooled. The media make a lot of money specifically to achieve that end. The more fooled you are, the higher their ratings.

That's why I don't even blame you guys for being so misinformed. I place most blame on the media, but then again, they just cater to demand.


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 4:09AM
What aren't you getting? It should be common knowledge by now. It has been widely reported, but this just underscores my point: it doesn't go viral unless it's alarming, and it's only going to alarm you if it provokes you. Right now the big cash grab is provoking people who are innocent to feel guilty. It generates controversy and outrage, which studies have shown are key addicting elements exploited by social media, and of course general media.

So if you're a journalist and you just want to go viral, poke your readers in the eye, provoke controversy and outrage, and all you need is 1 late-breaking anecdote to do it. It doesn't matter what the overwhelming data says, even if it completely dismantles your hot new narrative.

to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 4:33AM
It's actually just common sense.

Why do you think 99% of mass shooting victims are unarmed? Are we to believe this is just a coincidence?

Consider that despite gun violence and mass shootings are overwhelmingly disproportionately impacting urban areas, mass shootings at schools are rare in urban areas, and that's because of heightened security measures which rural/suburban areas are likelier to lack.

You can take the libertarian fear-mongering line about "police state" if you wish, but what is the alternative? Just continue pretending that mass shooters obey the law? Continue pretending that they are not cowards who specifically attack soft targets knowing there will be minimal resistance?

The sad truth is, right now, even a pail of rocks is a damn sight better than what most people are proposing.

So honestly, could you say you would feel safer if your child was at a school with more security, or with less? If it works in the hood, where violent crime and murder rates are off the charts such as in Chicago, which is worse than war-torn Iraq, it can work anywhere.

Until we get some damn security, what can we expect will change? It's just a matter of time before the next one.

Stop pretending mass shooters obey the laws. Or do you think we should try and make murder illegal too? Maybe that will stop it!
Stop pretending "assault rifle" is a thing, and even if it was, that it would make a discernible difference. The Virginia Tech shooter broke all records with pistols.
Stop pretending video games and movies are the cause: murder rates have been cut in half in the last 25 years, just as games and movies have become increasingly violent. The murder rate was 2x higher before the Doom generation began than it is now.

If this is such an immediate concern, as millions who support the "march for our lives" and similar movements claim, then it needs an immediate solution.
Get some damn security and tackle mental health. These are not mutually exclusive.

School pretty much is a prison already, you may as well protect those defenseless kids.


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 5:06AM
Violent crime, including murder and mass shootings, was higher under Obama. It has dropped by about 100,000 fewer victims since Trump took office.

And one of the worst ones to happen under Trump was a direct consequence of Obama's "PROMISE" policy, pushed by his Chicagoan colleague who became the superintendent of the Miami area in which Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school operates.

PROMISE has been disastrous. That's why Cruz, the MSD shooter, got dozens of passes, despite dozens of calls to the police. That's why he even slipped through the FBI radar, despite being notified. No flags about charges because none were allowed.
With the implementation of PROMISE, assaults on teachers rose from 160,000 cases in 2013-2014, by nearly 50% to over 220,000 cases in the 2015-2016 period.

This is the root of all America's ills. Poor education. When a nation's education fails, the whole nation declines. Nothing is more important than education for civilization to thrive. It's hardly a failure unique to Obama's admin. I'm just saying it's patently ridiculous to hold him up as some great standard, when he is after all a failure and a war criminal just as bad if not worse than Bush, per Noam Chosmky. And that assessment came after just 2 years of Obama's first term. It only got much worse after that.

Enough pitiful memes. Like I said, guys. Please stop digging.

Or fine, just keep it up. You're only serving to expose mass graves of hypocrisy.

Edited by - melvyn on 8/16/2019 5:11:44 AM

Edited by - melvyn on 8/16/2019 5:12:34 AM


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 5:38AM
Oh yeah, that's so impractical. I mean gosh, how much can 100 poor kids' lives be worth collectively anyway? Just a few cents per hour to ensure the whole lot? No one will take that job. You're right. Too impractical Pieps.

Lord knows you guys are all about fiscal conservativism and by golly we just got to cut all these unnecessary costs!

It's weird how conservative and stingy you guys get, when young lives are in the balance, as if hundreds of lives aren't worth the seasonal wages of a couple guards. But I guess that's why free abortion on demand is so important. Cuz lives simply aren't worth the cost. "Just terminate and kill them or let them die"? Is this to be our new progressive motto? At least you guys are consistent when it comes to the worthlessness of young lives!

I'd like to see how you explain it to those communities that their children's lives aren't worth it.

But what happened to just taxing everyone else for all the stupid shit you want and feel entitled to? Where do you place the lives of kids on the spectrum between wants and needs? Probably one of the lower priorities? Cuz I mean mass shootings aren't that common after all? I mean, it is true that statistically speaking, a kid is about as likely to be hit by lightning as he or she is to be shot in school. What are the odds one will happen? Is it REALLY worth paying for?

Great point Pieps! I never realized you were such a cutthroat and shrewd treasurer.


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 5:44AM
And she's right. By the end of the year, Chicago by itself will have tallied up nearly 5x as many murder victims as all the mass murders in the year *combined*

That's just 1 fucking city > (all mass shooting victims x 5)


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 6:04AM
These people are so impaired...

LOL he got over 200,000 likes for such a vacuous, pandering and anti-intellectual sentiment one would need the IQ of mayonnaise to appreciate it.

It's always obvious when these celebs and pundits are so incurious that they never bothered to look into these matters for more than 1 minute before shitting their remedial takes out about it.

We are not too far from the day when you will be able to campaign on a platform with proclamations like "I for one staunchly oppose slavery and believe it is high time women get the right to vote!" and getting a million people to credulously applaud you for it. People say nothing of substance and become champions.

jfzebq4dq7z11.jpg

"You cannot put a price tag on our children's lives. They are invaluable. They are the future!"
"OK, so how about we just pay for a couple security guards, you know like we'd have present for any other massive gathering?"
"You fuckin kidding me? Money doesn't grow on trees, mate!"
"Well, can we at least give them some rocks to defend themselves with?"
"That is a ridiculous and dangerous idea and I will mock it!" *guffaws uproariously while twirling mustache*

Edited by - melvyn on 8/16/2019 6:06:24 AM


Member

52 Posts
8/18
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 6:50AM
1. NOBODY has claimed that mass shooters obey the laws. Period. So you can stop with that argument.

2. An assault rifle IS a thing. It is a weapon made for the battlefield, to inflict as much damage as possible, as quickly as possible. It has a much higher muzzle velocity, which causes far more bodily damage than a pistol. Also, there a many large-capacity magazines for assault rifles. Which result in a shooter spending less time reloading. And giving his victims less time to escape.

3. The only ones pretending that video games and movies are the cause is the NRA, who constantly try to deflect the blame. Ironic, considering that the blame lies with the NRA, pushing for guns everywhere, for everybody. And if you don't believe that, ask the NRA why they fought to allow people on the TSA's No-Fly List to be allowed to have guns. And why the NRA fought a rule that said Medicare patients who have been deemed not mentally capable of conducting their own affairs should be allowed to have guns. And why the NRA fought the banning of bullets that could pierce a police officer's bullet-proof vest.

4. We don't need to "get some damn security". You're proposing that we turn every school, movie theater, shopping mall, nightclub, heck even Walmarts, into mini-fortresses. And who's going to pay for all this security? I can guarantee you that the gun goofs aren't going to want to pay for it. Even tho all of their guns are the cause of all of these shooting.

The answer is common-sense limitations on who can own guns, what types of guns they can own, and registration of guns, so that criminals who commit crimes with guns can more easily be identified.


Edited by - HumptyRumpty on 8/16/2019 6:51:03 AM


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 7:19AM
How is it "bullshit" when it is literally 10 times more prevalent than what you will be breathlessly dedicated to grieve about? And how the hell can you accuse me of deflecting? I've taken the issue head-on, more than anyone else here. And the only way to do that is objectively.

I actually DO care, which is why I pointed out that, despite all of this hand-wringing and fear-mongering and alarmist nonsense, overall violent crime has been declining.

The problem arises when people insist on erupting into a hysteria over something which is literally less than 1/10th of 1% of all violent crime. How can you do that without losing your mind over the other 99.9% or even acknowledging it?

Do you not see the point yet? Without perspective, there is no substance in all the wailing grievances. And without substance, all discourse becomes meaningless.

You guys are so desperate for bogeymen and scapegoating in order to score political points and witlessly having your hateful hysteria whipped into a frenzy, you failed to recognize there were 100,000 fewer victims of violent crime between 2017-2018 than the period before.

As if there weren't enough legitimate causes to criticize the president for, now you want to condemn Trump for things you do not even begin to understand?

So does that mean Obama was to blame for the dozens of mass murderers under his admin? Was Obama to blame for the Pulse massacre? Was Obama to blame for San Bernardino? Was he to blame for the Dallas Police Department massacre?

If you want to place responsibility squarely on Orange Man Bad for a handful of these exceedingly rare mass shootings, then you have to credit him for 100,000 fewer victims of violent crime as well.

That is the corner you have painted yourselves into with the Orange Man Bad brush.
In the end, Obama and Trump are just puppets. Virtually nothing they do matters. It's still the same imperialist system as always. And none are bigger losers than the partisan loyalists within it.

And finally, never again in your life can you claim to care about racism or to take it seriously if you would so casually denigrate someone as employing racist tactics when it could not be further from the truth. If the harsh reality looks bad to you in a racial context, maybe you should consider taking off your racial lens.

Why don't you take stock of the overwhelming preponderance of racially charged narratives saturating media in the wake of these two recent mass shootings. How is that justified, despite the overwhelming and readily available statistics which destroy and preclude these narratives? But forget how wrong they were about the racial context, just consider how wrong they were about the political. They can't even get that right, even when the shooter spells it out for them.

They all ran with "white supremacist Trump supporter" for the Dayton attack, only to find out he detested Trump, and instead supported Antifa and Elizabeth Warren.
And we can be sure that came just as much of a shock to Warren herself, who had immediately placed blame for Dayton on Trump. This is why she will lose. And this was the lesson she evidently never learned from Hillary's loss. The same lesson it tragically seems so many people on this smartbuydisc.ru have yet to learn from. Again, I do not blame you all. I place most of the blame on media.

But that's how conditioned the mainstream media have become. You talk about clockwork, but why do you think people automatically associate mass shooters with white now? Why do you think you could poll the average American citizen what race they think of when they hear about a mass shooting, and the vast majority will say white?

It's because they don't read. They can't do math. They don't research. They don't know what they are talking about, and the media keeps brainwashing people.

Even I used to assume most mass shooters in America were white. That's seemingly all we see in the media. But why should that matter, given that most people in America are white? I remember the first time I brushed up on extensive research on the matter, I was reviewing a report by MotherJones. This is not some far right wring or even moderately conservative media outlet. It's a left-wing, self-fashioned social-justice watch dog media, far more preoccupied with pushing left wing agendas, naturally far more concerned with white racism and nonsense like the patriarchy.

EVEN THEY reported that there was no noticeable disproportion in the racial makeup of mass shooters. By their definition of mass shooting, their data showed roughly 2/3 of mass shooters were white, which is the same as the overall population.

And that came against the dominant narrative which was that mass shooters were disproportionately white. They are not. Not even by MotherJones own research.

That was over 5 years ago, and yet that myth persists to this day, even stronger. But it is even less true now when we look at mass shooters more broadly, and that's become an issue now because the mainstream has pushed it, by telling everyone that there are HUNDREDS of mass shootings every year.

The media cannot have it both ways. They cannot admonish racist blacks who vilify Hispanics or racist whites who vilify Muslims or racists of any stripe unfairly maligning any other race, while simultaneously fear mongering and pushing alarmist narratives specifically to demonize a certain race, which is what they plainly want to do with mass shootings.

This sort of anti-intellectual savagery and tribalism only perpetuates itself, much in the way racist whites vilify blacks, but then the media give the bogus impression that whites and by extension the police are villains running amok and "executing" innocent blacks. This is so far from reality, the only consequence has been increasingly irrationality and insane behavior which just gets more innocent people killed.

Whenever I see some bogus canards being bandied about in online spats, I take the author to task. That includes when I pointed out the error in an inaccurate meme circulated by Trump back when he was in the middle of his 2016 campaign.

I especially push back when said canard or myth has become accepted into the dominant narrative.

If you don't like when I push back against bogus claims or myths which have infected the dominant narrative, why is that? Why would you be averse to the truth? We are all worse off from lies, especially those echoing within a sympathetic domain. We are all better off with the truth, regardless where it comes from.

One major reason I suspect so many of you are averse to the truth is because you are so allegiant to a party, that you've simply become brainwashed. Eschew any such irrational blind partisanship, since they are just as deleterious to you ideologically as any pathogen would be to you biologically, and you'll immediately be far better off.

Abandon your partisan proclivity. Abandon your preconceived notions for the malicious myths that they are. Accept the truth and you'll feel much better.

The facts remain as I've always said: racial motive has no bearing whatsoever on 99.9% of violent crime. Nor do mass shootings account for even 1/10th of 1% of all the violence that goes on.

People who are hysterical do not have solutions. And if they want to scare you into a sense of alarmist petrification, that is either due to their being terrified themselves, because as I said they have no solutions, or because they want to take advantage of you. Learn the truth and resist them. This is the real Resistance movement to hold fast to.

Edited by - melvyn on 8/16/2019 8:23:34 AM


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 8:10AM
1. Who did I say claimed mass shooters will obey the laws? Seems you missed the point.

2. And yet the Virginia Tech shooter handily broke all records with a couple pistols. Should those pistols have been regarded as "assault pistols"? They were just standard 9mm, IIRC. And the same can still happen again. All guns are designed to be lethal, including handguns. If it's not lethal, it's defective or a bad design. That's why handguns are used in over 80% of mass shootings. The kinds of guns you think are especially dangerous are rarely if ever used (less than 3%). There are arguments to be made that handguns are even more dangerous, hence the increased restrictions on conceal carry. Cruz could have killed more people if he just used handguns. Most of the damage inflicted is situational. It has more to do with knowing the environment. Consider the recent massacre in Japan, which tragically claimed over 33 victims. He did all that just with gas cans. It was knowing the environment that was most critical.

3. Anyone scapegoating videogames is dumb or dishonest, but the NRA is not the only party doing that. I'm sure the NRA have more to answer for than you realize.

4. I don't know who the gun goofs are, but you can bet politicians on both sides of the aisle would like to cut the military budget, and I'm sure it won't be long before more people begin asking why we spend trillions of dollars destroying and rebuilding nations 10,000 miles away from us, instead of spending just a fraction of that on better security. It doesn't mean we need to re-purpose soldiers for domestic security, but just dial down the military personnel size, and get some much needed assistance to our police who are already stretched thin. For every 1 police officer on duty, there's over 400 citizens. No way can 1 person police 400 citizens. We are not in danger of a "Police State" by simply reducing that ratio of 400:1 to, say, 300:1 by increasing the police payroll 50%. Schools remain choice targets for because they are soft targets with minimal to zero resistance. And the media makes this clear to would-be mass murderers.

Or is it just ok for important and rich folk to have armed security detail? Maybe their lives are valuable enough, but not the lives of millions of kids across the nation who have zero protection? Maybe after a couple stories go viral about the attempted mass shooters who hardly get a shot off before being eliminated and eventually the picture becomes clear that schools are no longer the softest targets around, it could deter some of these cowards, at least as much as politically deranged psychos are deterred from assassinating said rich and powerful folk?

Just think about it. You've been told over and over about this "alarming" rise of political violence, of radical extremism and terror, and yet so few assassination attempts? Could that have anything to do with armed security detail? These mass shooters are cowards.

BTW, I've never opposed "common sense gun control" or "common-sense limitations" as you put it. This could help, perhaps as much as 1% of all the mass shootings could be mitigated.

I'm still a bit skeptical when it comes to the push for regulation coming from the same folks who insist that we have a fascist racist oppressive dictator in charge, but also the government should be the only ones with guns, and now only they should decide who may have gun rights.

Seems a bit insane.

"The police are racist, corrupt and brutal force of oppression" and also "Why do you need guns when we have police?"

Imagine the cognitive dissonance among some of these TDS sufferers, who swear up and down that Trump is Hitler, and also only the government should have guns.

I'm not ascribing that foolishness to you or anyone else here (probably), but does it not give you a moment of pause? Imagine pushing to give someone that sort of authority and control. As nutty as the gun-goofs are, in their desire for private bazookas and tanks, they are still more logically consistent by comparison to these leftist nutters who seem to have no grasp of tactics or basic cause and effect consequence. And I think this is once again largely due to our failing public education system. Everyone knows about Hitler, but I'd wager a good 80% of the population at least know nothing of Mao Zedong or Stalin. And even that 80% may be charitable. It may be more like 90% especially with this younger generation, who are the most vulnerable to misinformation and exploitation.

Most tragic of all is people fail to realize that governments are responsible for at least 98% of the murders in the last century. Literally over 100 million people slaughtered or otherwise killed off by their government.

So when the universal statistics bear out that I'm at least 98% likelier to be murdered by my own government, well, call me a libertarian then. I'm really not even a libertarian, but I'd rather go down with my neighbors and fellow citizens than as a pawn of the authoritarian regimes others unwittingly propose out of fear of their neighbors.

 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 8:11AM
So much misdirection, diversions, and evasions -- so little time to wade through it all.

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 8:25AM
lol I know you missin me with that, cuz I've submitted the most comprehensive, objective and non-partisan contributions to this thread.

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 9:03AM
Mass shooters, Pieps. Do try and stay on topic. You guys are the ones who want to make everything about race, now with the most inflammatory and hateful context conceivable. All I ever did was come in to caution against your typical hysteria and say you guys are overreacting. What you guys still don't realize is you are stuck in a mental trap of confirmation bias, which is just the mirror of the racists you purport to condemn. I'm the bad guy for cautioning against hysteria and irrational scapegoating? I'm the racist because I'm calling out the nonsensical racist narratives?

You guys obsess over this shit. You guys propagate these myths about white supremacy. But how is that squaring with the reality?

Now do you still want to focus on mass shooters, or nah? Or only when you thought it suited you?

Are you beginning to grasp the point of why I cautioned against this nonsense in the first place? Does it finally seem to give credence to what I said when I asserted that racial ideology has no bearing on 99% of shootings?

You can try and fall back and check your sources, the ones which led you astray but the data won't be there. It was never there. It is always anecdotal because this is the way of the demagogue.
Demagogues like Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Reza Aslan, Beto O'Rourke, Don Lemon, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Trevor Noah, Richard Spencer, Shaun King, Alexandria Cortez, David Duke, and countless other aggressively idiotic frauds.

But who said there's no sense doing anything about mass shootings? I've been optimistic about various solutions, none which need to be mutually exclusive.
Aren't you around here saying it's not even worth paying for security to protect otherwise defenseless kids? Wow.


Member

52 Posts
8/18
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 9:23AM
I think somebody's auditioning for their own show on Fox. (Sorry, I just CAN'T use the "N" word after saying "Fox". And it ain't the nasty "N" word.)
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 9:52AM
You sound like you've been mainlining Red Bull, Tucker Carlson and Brietbart all night.

"Mass Shootings" and "homicides in Chicago" are distinct things. That's why I couldn't understand what the fuck you were saying. No one person in Chicago killed 40 people.

Meanwhile, let's talk about Chicago (and other cities like St Louis and Baltimore) Are their bad neighborhoods in those cities? Yes there are. Is gun violence in urban areas seemingly unstoppable? Seems that way.

But the thing about urban violence is this: 1) most, not all, but most assailants and their victims are engaged in "tough guy" culture of the streets. They are not necessarily "gang members". In the last 20 years, law enforcement has actually been so good at tracking down drug dealers and organized factions, that what we have now are just small groups of 3-7 people who go around feuding with other groups. Often they know each other on at least that basic street-affiliation level.
2) Most homicides/shootings take place late at night in high crime areas.


We pay more attention to mass shootings because they are random, and taking place in areas where it's totally unexpected. I am not saying homicides in urban areas are "good" or "proper" but at least there's a kind of protocol. Websites and videos ranging from mainstream travelougues to White Nationalists regularly point out "bad neighborhoods" so you are unlikely to end up in one of those areas. The victims of Parkland, Las Vegas, Dayton, El Paso etc didn't get that chance.

Solution? Well where are the republicans stepping up and running for mayor of Chicago, St. Louis or Baltimore and solving the homicide rate problem?


Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 12:08PM
Yep. Lotsa misdirection and diversions.

I faithfully read a bunch of that stuff, but not the last few.

Please stop saying that I said things that I didn't say.

I did not say the lives were not worth a few cents per hour. That's whack. So knock it off.

I said -- there are literally no retired cops here. And there aren't. No retired cops. Here. Actually, there was one, but he died in 2002 (cancer), and his widow married another ex-law enforcement guy, but he only has one leg, is in his eighties and ill, hasn't left the house in a while. Their lawn doesn't even get mowed, and he used to be diligent about that. I forgot about him. But I don't think we are going to press him into service.

Tiny, isolated town. 35 miles to the nearest stoplight. Sixty miles to the nearest McDonald's. Rural. Rural towns have all sorts of problems attracting cops and medical people and a lot of other things. There has only ever been one doctor in town the whole 20 years that I've been here. I don't know how to paint you a better picture. There are no retired cops. Hence there are no retired cops who could be paid "a few cents" to do anything. You can stop saying absurd things.

There are tiny rural towns all over the country. Those places in the movies with one general store and a few tumbleweeds. Those places in Utah that are four hours from anything.

And it's another matter, but they aren't being stingy with their money. A lot of them don't have any money.


Edited by - Pieps on 8/16/2019 12:10:13 PM

 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 12:40PM


So, much like his , Two-Scoops has nearly equaled what Obama did in another election plot line.
And he did it all in half the time.

No Melvyn, it's you that has the facts biting them in the ass.

Edit:
Obama Domestic Shooting Death Toll: 351 - Avg of 8 Per event

Two-Scoops Domestic Shooting Death Toll: 251 - Avg of 10 Per Event

Fucktard In Chief Wins Again!
How do I figure that? He's already ahead of Obama's pace. On the same Timeline, Indy 1 will lap Obama. Maybe twice if the people are stupid enough to re-elect him.

Edited by - FlacFan on 8/16/2019 1:44:24 PM


Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 5:16PM
ECC4lEFX4AAUF0H.jpg

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Aug 16 2019 : 7:02PM
b61eb-thinkstockphotos-92134543.jpg

Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 17 2019 : 3:57AM
That's amazing Flac. You still cannot comprehend that mass shootings do not account for even 1/10th of 1% of all violent crime.

Overall violent crime has declined by over 100,000 fewer instances, including fewer murders.

Why you seem to be willing to trade fewer murders in the past 2 years for more in the years prior is astonishing.

You also don't seem to comprehend that MotherJones does NOT include all mass shootings, as most commonly defined, in their data. If there are "hundreds" of mass shootings each year, MotherJones is evidently not concerned with 90% of them. Find that odd?

Remember what I told you about questioning the definitions and their motives for how they define them that way?

Do you REALLY fail to comprehend why they would prefer a particular definition for mass shooting which dismisses 90% of mass shootings? You don't think that has anything to do with their political agenda?

Again, why you seem to be not just willing but relishing in this bizarre and perverse tradeoff of fewer murders for more is beyond me.

 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Aug 17 2019 : 5:05AM
Ah yes, the "What is a mass shooting?" miss direction ploy.
Considering that the lowest listing there is 3, with injured 0, you're distraction ploy fails in this case, unless your limited math skills consider 2 killed and less than zero wounded "mass"

The fact of the matter is your Fuhrer is a hateful, pig headed, bigoted son of a bitch.

Someone of color shoots someone, instant condemnation.
White shooter? No response until shamed into it, if then, then with massive excuse making as the above cartoon demonstrates.

If you cannot see that, you are the one with the problem. See, moderate Obama supporters acknowledge and condemn his mistakes.
On the other end, Trumpflakes deny that the Fuhrer has ever done anything wrong and insist that he is solely responsible
for the good things that have happened in the nation, when in fact he hasn't done a fucking thing but incite hate.

I can only hope that when all of this blows up in your faces and you awaken that I am around to mock, condemn and taunt you the way you and your ilk
so freely do now to those who dare to use the freedoms you supposedly support to express an opposing view.
smartbuydisc.ru code prevents the more blunt and expressive response I would usually make, however unlike you true believers, intelligent try to people learn from mistakes and strive not to repeat them.


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 17 2019 : 5:20AM
That's just wrong. They do not take place in areas where it's totally unexpected. The vast majority keep happening in the same places every year. And those extremely rare exceptions which do surprise us are still almost invariably in gun-free zones. That is NOT surprising in the least. The only way you come to your conclusion in which you characterize these are random and unexpected is by using the extremely narrow MotherJones definition of mass shooting, which is more specifically like mass murder by firearms.

The irony is that by narrowing the definition to such an obscure range, you cut out 90% of mass shootings. Don't you find that odd for a supposedly humanitarian and civil-rights oriented watch dog group? That they would dismiss 90% of mass shooting victims like so much useless garbage to them, because it doesn't further their agenda? 90%?!

This is where we are at in the discourse tainted by so much rank partisan political bias: the sad moment in which even discussing an infinitesimal subset (mass shootings) out of all violent crime (less than 00.0001%), even with such an extremely rare type of crime as this, propagandists will STILL ignore 90% even of that infinitesimal subset.

Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not asking again to insult the intelligence of anyone here, but because we have parsed the data to such an exceedingly slim margin, and I've explained this so exhaustively, we may just need a quantum physicist to explain to you how absurd it is that even this extremely infinitesimal subset of violence is still somehow FAR TOO LARGE for propagandists to deal with honestly.

What MotherJones is basically doing is saying that 00.0001% of all violence is still too much to deal with honestly. "We have to cut out 90% of that so that we are only talking about 00.00001%. This way we can score cheap and facile political points."

But don't tell us you still don't comprehend that mass shootings are less than 1/10th of 1% of all violent crime either?

If OVERALL violent crime, INCLUDING MURDER - of which there are more than 10,000 cases per year in America - has DECLINED by nearly 5% in 2017-2018, how can either of you dare feign outrage?

I already explained this as thoroughly and patiently as possible: the ONLY way you can make any claims about violent crime, including murder and mass shootings, in order to support your alarmist hysteria is by distorting the overwhelming statistical data by re-defining mass shootings in the manner MotherJones has. They narrow the parameters so much that 90% of mass shootings are dismissed.

So just as is the case with "hate crimes" - by narrowing the parameters of the definition to such an extreme degree, it only takes a handful of cases - literally just half a dozen - to observe "wild" fluctuations.

That is why hate crimes fluctuated up and down by around 10-15% under Obama. Not because there are so many, but because there are so few, in a nation of over 330,000,000 people, with over 10 million crimes every year.

When data came out last year that "hate crimes" supposedly saw an "alarming" spike of 17% in 2017, what the the manipulative propagandist pundits selectively ignored was that there was also an increase of hundreds of agencies beginning to document and classify hate crimes. So obviously when you add hundreds of agencies across the nation to the data pool, you will see an increase in total data. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. After accounting for this like a rational and intelligent human being, you would find that the supposed "spike" falls well within the normal range of fluctuating statistics under Obama.

So sure, as I'm having to explain once again for the slow folks, a few dozen mass shootings as uniquely defined by MotherJones (which I already pointed out ignores 90% of them) will make it SEEM like there's some alarming crime wave sweeping the nation. Then you remember there's over a million violent crimes every year. Why do you think I keep pointing out that you're still just fear-mongering over less than 1% of 1% of all this violence? And when you use the standard definition of mass shootings which is what is disseminated ubiquitously throughout mainstream media, by this definition you broaden the term enough that it falls within general gun violence which has declined.

Are you telling us you were happier with MORE murders per year prior to Trump? I don't care what you think of him. I didn't vote for him. I favored Hillary. But you have to get over it. I've been bored with these tedious and typical takes for years now.

Anyhow, I've explained all this for everyone already. It is worse than shameful. It is reckless and irresponsible.

This type of manipulation is precisely what propagandists and racists do to stoke tensions. And it's EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE BOTH FALLING FOR AND EVEN PERPETUATING YOURSELVES.

And lol at Republicans running for office in Chicago or Baltimore. Are you kidding? In the miraculous event any Republican could be viable in these areas, they'd likely just gut the cities. You never heard me say Republicans are the solution, so IDK wtf yall are even talking about.

I thought I had made it very clear by now I'm independent. Jesus tapdancing Christ I even favored war criminal Hillary over Trump. But now these zombie-like mindless masses of vassals have only seen their Trump-Derangement-Syndrome metastasize.

All I can do is warn them not to succumb to hysteria and fuck themselves over again like in 2016. If people had only listened to me back in 2016, there's no way in hell Hillary and her base could have forfeited such a shoo-in victory by vilifying half of her opposition, and the other half by familial extension.

I think some of you guys still don't realize the gravest mistake and consequently the most critical lesson from 2016. When you vilify and dehumanize half the nation, you simply do not come back from that. For all Trump's incendiary blather, he was never so utterly daft as to vilify half the electorate. But in one fell swoop Hillary eclipsed his hatred and contempt with her infamous "Deplorables" diatribe like a clarion signal of the apocalypse. The backlash has been resounding ever since.

Believe it or not, some people resent when you label them the worst things imaginable. Trump never said Mexicans are rapists. He never said half of them are rapists. He never said illegal immigrants from Mexico are rapists. He never said half of illegal immigrants from Mexico are rapists. All he said was "some."

So every time you guys persist with the debunked fraud about Trump calling Mexicans rapists, you're still failing to learn from the failures of 2016. You are the ones perpetuating that hate speech, so inaccurate as to almost be entirely fabricated from scratch. Trump described less than 00.0001% of Mexicans as rapists.

Meanwhile, Hillary labeled 30 million Americans in simplest terms Nazis. Sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. In short, Nazis.

It wouldn't even matter if it was true. How do you win people by demonizing them? Trump was never trying to win a share of illegal immigrants from Mexico.

So even the most demeaning and unbecoming sweeping aspersions from Trump never statistically amounted to even 5% of the targets of Hillary's hateful and ill-advised rant. The sad part is I never really believed she meant it. She didn't mean to vilify half of her opposition and the other half by extension as Nazis. It just came out that way, very casually I might add. She apologized and recanted shortly after, but imagine Trump saying half of Mexicans are evil. You know that is not toothpaste you can put back in the tube. He disparages 00.0001% of a minority group that doesn't even vote and we never hear the end of it. Imagine him vilifying HALF.

We are still forced to reckon with Hillary's political suicide.

Again, all I've ever aimed to do is dispel myths, to diminish hysteria and irrational hatred that fuels it.

When I see racist white nationalists spouting illogical bullshit on social media, I take them to task. It's easy to keep them in check. They have virtually zero power. Actually, they have even less than zero power. They have negative political power, which means whoever even associated with them forfeits political capital.

So why would anyone think I'm going to let their partisan bullshit slide? Need I remind you how much more devastating and self-defeating the left's own irrational hate has been? No one on the left or even slightly leaning left should be even remotely more concerned by anything other than leftist hysteria. Civilization collapses from within.


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 17 2019 : 5:41AM
You're so thoroughly wrong, comrade.

I'll say it again. Mass shootings are not most commonly defined in the way that MotherJones has defined them. They define it as 3 or more killed in a shooting. If a crowd of people at a fair or park are shot up, but none of them die, are you going to deny a mass shooting has occurred?

What if 5 people are shot and only 1 dies?
What if 9 people are shot, and only 2 die?

I guess that's just not relevant to you or MotherJones. Since 3 or more didn't die, despite it being a mass of people shot, it's somehow not a "mass shooting"?

After all my patience and thorough explanations and caveats and disclaimers and warning against this nonsense, do you folks still not yet understand the flaws in your politicized narratives which I've been pointing out from the beginning here?

But I guess it's not so surprising that the same folks who are eager to blow the topic of mass shootings out of proportion will also be quick to arbitrarily diminish them when it does not suit their agenda. The only thing consistent here is the inconsistency.

You know why I remain unassailable in this discussion? Because I am consistent. It's why I caution *against* manipulating mass shootings for cheap political points.

And he's not "my" Fuhrer. He's yours. You and your intolerant ilk gave birth to him. If people had listened to me years ago, and dialed down the specious alienating virtue signaling, couched in hysterical hypocritical nonsense, we'd be 3 years into the first female president's presidency.
But we'd also still have just as many mass shootings, btw. Can we please finally stop ignoring this harsh reality?

Like I said, at least overall violent crime including murders have fallen.

Another warning, free of charge: be careful when you are trying to arbitrarily label people as your opposition simply for pointing out the truth. If you keep doing this, you'll subliminally link truth with your opposition. And if you oppose truth, what can you possibly stand for?

Please quit vilifying the world, and have a blessed weekend.

Edited by - melvyn on 8/17/2019 5:42:56 AM

 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Aug 17 2019 : 6:04AM
Blessed by what supposed supreme being? The one that hates all those who oppose the Fuhrer, or the special one that says you won't burn in hell even though you watch people fornicate for money and frequent porn sites.
Get bent you hypocritical windbag.


Oh, by the way, are you the Fuhrers speech writer? He says pages full of meaningless non-sense that sounds exactly like your wall off bullshit you seem intent on posting.


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 17 2019 : 6:17AM
If they can afford a school, they should be able to afford security. And if they can't afford security, they should manage a couple volunteers. I would even volunteer myself if I lived in such a small town. Some people even did that back in the day. School shootings were comparatively rare back then, but not unheard of. Even after accounting for population increase, at a per-capita level the school attacks were less common.

What do you think is to blame? If it was just guns, we should have at least 10 times as many mass shootings as we do, but we don't. Gun ownership rose in the same 20 year period as gun homicides declined.

Still, do you feel safer knowing there are no guns or armed security available to defend kids at your local school in the event of an attack? I don't see how anyone could feel more assured by that.

Do I think we should arm all teachers? Of course not. No one worth listening to has proposed that. Some just feel like until we can get a grip on this, may as well give SOMEONE a chance to protect masses of unarmed people.

You guys are keen on screening and all this red flag regulation, I'm sure. So just screen for the best candidate, if you trust screening so much.

At the end of the day there's virtually nothing preventing any lunatic who wants to wreak havoc from doing that. All you are left with is the hope that door locks will hold.

And there's always those pails of rocks, which let's just face it, would ultimately prove as effective at reducing mass shootings as any of these other proposals. They are still going to happen.

I'm sorry about your poor town.

You know what occurs to me just now is that the state of education is such a joke in America today, home schooling has never been more ideal. I still think it's important for kids to socialize. But school sucked in my experience and I'm sure it only sucks even more now. The system is also more antiquated than ever given that the vast majority of learning youth gain is via the internet.

I think the only necessary time for bringing youth together for educational purposes will be to monitor testing and exams (so there's no cheating) which doesn't need to be every day. Teaching can be done remotely via streaming. It's already happening.

I think it could also save a decent amount of money which could easily cover costs of security in the few seasonal dates they need to brings students in for exams.

This is where the future is headed anyway. Education will be increasingly democratized. Costs should come down. People can face-time with teachers and professors much more easily and efficiently.

Seriously the whole system is beyond antiquated and could be revolutionized within a decade.

I still think it's ridiculous people cannot afford security, but as I said, what I'm proposing, if only hypothetically, should easily cover costs of the minimal security needed in a more efficient, inherently safer, compartmentalized and remote education system of the future.

Why even bother doing it the old way? It's slower, costlier, and more dangerous. I used to have to sit on the bus for almost 90 minutes every day when I was in high school. And even when we got cars, it just got more dangerous. There were some scary trips back then.

BTW, not to leave you and your poor Old Town Road community who cannot afford high speed internet in the dust bowl either, Pieps. Consider that the money saved by more affluent counties can go toward getting netbooks or tablets for the poorer communities. They can save on busing costs and textbook costs, utilities, maintenance and other infrastructure costs.

I'm sure Andrew Yang has figured all this out as well. This has been a great chat Pieps.


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 17 2019 : 6:29AM
I'm hypocritical how? Simply because my actual views conflict with some other guy's who I don't endorse?

I would be the best most amazing president ever. But the first thing I would do is change presidential terms to 3 years, just to fuck EVERYTHING up. If I achieved nothing else, I'd make sure to reduce the terms to the nearest odd number. Yes it's harder to keep track of and it won't sync up with mid-terms as they currently operate, but that's all for the better. And senators should be voted on every 5.

There shouldn't even be a single president. It's an antiquated system.

And don't forget


Senior Member

2891 Posts
12/12
Posted - Aug 17 2019 : 6:32AM
I've been criticizing Fox News since I was in high school.

But the sad thing is yall don't realize CNN and MSNBC have become just as bad, if not worse, for the cause of progressives. These networks have more responsibility because they pander to the left, and they've failed them.

 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Aug 17 2019 : 6:45AM
This has been my plan for years, too bad it won't ever happen:

A person may serve 1 {one} 6 {six} year term in each elected branch of government.
At no time may a person in one elected office run for a seat in another elected branch even if he/she resigns before their term is up.
A person who is elected Vice President Cannot be elected President.
One Branches Elections will be held every 2 years:
2024 President
2026 House
2028 Senate
and so on
No campaigning may be done OUTSIDE of that election year.

No retirement, parachutes. You serve the country as the founders intended. Then you get out. No more bullshit
Housing, food and medical are covered but your pay is capped at 50,000.

No previously elected person may become a lobbyist until 10 years after the last elected term ended, not the day they left office.
Any campaign contributions must be made to the person supplying the goods or services to the candidate - IE The money goes to the radio station, the office supply store and so on. No money directly to the campaign.
Contribution money capped at 100.00 per candidate. Super Pacs are banned.


Page 9 of 10 First < 4 5 6 7 8 9 Last



Jump To:

Online porn video at mobile phone