MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: Semmick Photo on February 06, 2018, 05:49
-
Why are off topic threads pulled from the off topic forum?
Isnt that what the forum is about?
Can the thread not be moderated by moderating comments instead of pulling whole threads?
I dont know any forum that deletes whole threads. Comments get moderated or a thread gets locked. But never pulled.
-
I blame Derek.
-
I blame Derek.
Maybe but he'd blame Oringer
-
You are right - threads could simply be locked.
When a thread has nothing to do with microstock and the trash talk goes back far down the thread, I don't feel like sorting through it to try clean it up. It is moved to a hidden area. I don't feel the forum is any worse off or any useful information really goes missing when the thread is gone.
-
Why are off topic threads pulled from the off topic forum?
Because they contribute to global warming.
-
You are right - threads could simply be locked.
When a thread has nothing to do with microstock and the trash talk goes back far down the thread, I don't feel like sorting through it to try clean it up. It is moved to a hidden area. I don't feel the forum is any worse off or any useful information really goes missing when the thread is gone.
So why there is an off topic section?
And at this point why don't you just remove/lock/close it?
Or okay for an off topic section, but only related to photo, video, sound and illustration.
-
There are a lot of other topics besides Trump and the USA we could discuss. The same basic thread has been started over and over so people can insult Americans and then devolve into insulting each other.
-
There are a lot of other topics besides Trump and the USA we could discuss. The same basic thread has been started over and over so people can insult Americans and then devolve into insulting each other.
Here's some Americans making fun of America. Quite amusing. Not about Trump.
https://www.theonion.com/fbi-warns-of-american-dream-scam-1822834360 (https://www.theonion.com/fbi-warns-of-american-dream-scam-1822834360)
-
There are a lot of other topics besides Trump and the USA we could discuss. The same basic thread has been started over and over so people can insult Americans and then devolve into insulting each other.
Here's some Americans making fun of America. Quite amusing. Not about Trump.
https://www.theonion.com/fbi-warns-of-american-dream-scam-1822834360 (https://www.theonion.com/fbi-warns-of-american-dream-scam-1822834360)
Self-deprecation is a sign of intelligence and confidence. This is why you will never hear self-deprecation from Trump ;D
-
You are right - threads could simply be locked.
When a thread has nothing to do with microstock and the trash talk goes back far down the thread, I don't feel like sorting through it to try clean it up. It is moved to a hidden area. I don't feel the forum is any worse off or any useful information really goes missing when the thread is gone.
So why there is an off topic section?
And at this point why don't you just remove/lock/close it?
Or okay for an off topic section, but only related to photo, video, sound and illustration.
Of topic is for off topic discussion - not off-topic fighting, hating, bashing. If off-topic discussion turns sour,I don't think we are missing much by having it removed.
-
You are right - threads could simply be locked.
When a thread has nothing to do with microstock and the trash talk goes back far down the thread, I don't feel like sorting through it to try clean it up. It is moved to a hidden area. I don't feel the forum is any worse off or any useful information really goes missing when the thread is gone.
So why there is an off topic section?
And at this point why don't you just remove/lock/close it?
Or okay for an off topic section, but only related to photo, video, sound and illustration.
Of topic is for off topic discussion - not off-topic fighting, hating, bashing. If off-topic discussion turns sour,I don't think we are missing much by having it removed.
Here a lot of people often speak about democracy…
In the concerned threads there are quiet and polite people just expressing their opinions in a gentle way, and you penalize/punish them closing the threads.
I think you should only remove the aggressive posts, this is the work of a moderator.
The way you closed these threads is surely not democratic, it remembers me more the way to act of those that we have fought for decades to get what today we consider as democracy…
But I also understand that for some people "freedom of speech" is valid only if they agree with the content of the speech…
So fix precise rules and it will avoid any kind of misunderstanding in the future.
-
Why are off topic threads pulled from the off topic forum?
Isnt that what the forum is about?
Can the thread not be moderated by moderating comments instead of pulling whole threads?
I dont know any forum that deletes whole threads. Comments get moderated or a thread gets locked. But never pulled.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ethiopia-declares-state-of-emergency/ar-BBJea1R?OCID=ansmsnnews11 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ethiopia-declares-state-of-emergency/ar-BBJea1R?OCID=ansmsnnews11)
Ethiopia state of emergency
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/brazilian-army-to-take-control-of-security-in-rio-as-violence-rises/ar-BBJdQkG?OCID=ansmsnnews11 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/brazilian-army-to-take-control-of-security-in-rio-as-violence-rises/ar-BBJdQkG?OCID=ansmsnnews11)
Army Takes over in Rio
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2018/Maldives-officials-are-accusing-two-arrested-Supreme-Court-justices-and-a-former-president-of-plotting-to-overthrow-the-government/id-949de25cada04b7092e47d13c334b386 (http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2018/Maldives-officials-are-accusing-two-arrested-Supreme-Court-justices-and-a-former-president-of-plotting-to-overthrow-the-government/id-949de25cada04b7092e47d13c334b386)
Two arrested Supreme Court justices and a former president had been plotting to overthrow the government of the Maldives
But you want to write about how its so bad in America. Open your eyes at home.
Ireland consistent poverty; low pay and inconsistent working hours; families with children living in emergency accommodation; disadvantaged can't get third level education.
-
Says it all:
https://youtu.be/KkH3mJnloO0
-
Says it all:
https://youtu.be/KkH3mJnloO0
He's right, this is not normal. But it's not the guns that do this, it's the nut jobs. There are at least 25 other countries with 25% of the people who own a gun, and they aren't going into schools and shooting children. It's the attitude and the people and copy cats. Weak minds, angry people taking out their hostility on the innocent. If the numbers were the same for the other 25 countries they would have similar shootings once a month. They don't.
How do you take 300 million firearms away from people who have the right to own them and why punish the honest for what a minority of people, who most aren't allowed to own a gun, are causing the problem. Lets say, every time I upload a rejected photo, for illegal copyright not allowed, they take away from you to upload a file that day? You didn't do anything wrong, but you get punished because I broke the rules.
Only 2% of all homicides are committed by legal gun owners, I say punish the illegal owners. But then some here will say we have a prison stat in the US where too many are in jail. Use a gun in a crime, you go to prison. Someone uses your gun, stolen or other, the owner goes to jail or is at least risks going to prison for not securing a dangerous weapon. Make the law 21 and do background checks for all purchases. How does a mentally ill young person get a cache of weapons and ammo? Prosecute the people that sell weapons or ammo to people not allowed to own. Prosecute the source along with the criminal.
License the gun by serial number to a licensed owner, no others.
-
Would you rather have a gun than your child?
. . . and yes, that is the bottom line.
-
Why are off topic threads pulled from the off topic forum?
Isnt that what the forum is about?
Can the thread not be moderated by moderating comments instead of pulling whole threads?
I dont know any forum that deletes whole threads. Comments get moderated or a thread gets locked. But never pulled.
[url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ethiopia-declares-state-of-emergency/ar-BBJea1R?OCID=ansmsnnews11[/url] ([url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ethiopia-declares-state-of-emergency/ar-BBJea1R?OCID=ansmsnnews11[/url])
Ethiopia state of emergency
[url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/brazilian-army-to-take-control-of-security-in-rio-as-violence-rises/ar-BBJdQkG?OCID=ansmsnnews11[/url] ([url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/brazilian-army-to-take-control-of-security-in-rio-as-violence-rises/ar-BBJdQkG?OCID=ansmsnnews11[/url])
Army Takes over in Rio
[url]http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2018/Maldives-officials-are-accusing-two-arrested-Supreme-Court-justices-and-a-former-president-of-plotting-to-overthrow-the-government/id-949de25cada04b7092e47d13c334b386[/url] ([url]http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2018/Maldives-officials-are-accusing-two-arrested-Supreme-Court-justices-and-a-former-president-of-plotting-to-overthrow-the-government/id-949de25cada04b7092e47d13c334b386[/url])
Two arrested Supreme Court justices and a former president had been plotting to overthrow the government of the Maldives
But you want to write about how its so bad in America. Open your eyes at home.
Ireland consistent poverty; low pay and inconsistent working hours; families with children living in emergency accommodation; disadvantaged can't get third level education.
It has become fashionable to bash America. And since Americans are even bashing America why not just keep your blinders on, ignore your own country's problems, and join the America bashing herd. Moooooooooo.
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
-
Says it all:
https://youtu.be/KkH3mJnloO0
He's right, this is not normal. But it's not the guns that do this, it's the nut jobs. There are at least 25 other countries with 25% of the people who own a gun, and they aren't going into schools and shooting children. It's the attitude and the people and copy cats. Weak minds, angry people taking out their hostility on the innocent. If the numbers were the same for the other 25 countries they would have similar shootings once a month. They don't.
How do you take 300 million firearms away from people who have the right to own them and why punish the honest for what a minority of people, who most aren't allowed to own a gun, are causing the problem. Lets say, every time I upload a rejected photo, for illegal copyright not allowed, they take away from you to upload a file that day? You didn't do anything wrong, but you get punished because I broke the rules.
Only 2% of all homicides are committed by legal gun owners, I say punish the illegal owners. But then some here will say we have a prison stat in the US where too many are in jail. Use a gun in a crime, you go to prison. Someone uses your gun, stolen or other, the owner goes to jail or is at least risks going to prison for not securing a dangerous weapon. Make the law 21 and do background checks for all purchases. How does a mentally ill young person get a cache of weapons and ammo? Prosecute the people that sell weapons or ammo to people not allowed to own. Prosecute the source along with the criminal.
License the gun by serial number to a licensed owner, no others.
The United States has more guns per capita than any other country in the world. Second place is Serbia, with half the number of guns per capita.
In Canada, where you live, there are 70% fewer guns per capita than in the U.S.A.
If you want to be honest about who's killing people with guns, let's admit it's men. Men commit about 90% of homicides worldwide. So it's a gun problem and a man problem. And most specifically a Wayne LaPierre, NRA and gun manufacturer problem, because that handful of men are the ones who buy the politicians (mostly Republicans) in the USA.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWA0rukqrYQ&t=0s&list=FLv4SMPkbKZNZlN2UAULK8gA&index=3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWA0rukqrYQ&t=0s&list=FLv4SMPkbKZNZlN2UAULK8gA&index=3)
-
Says it all:
https://youtu.be/KkH3mJnloO0
Look at this moron smiling, ear to ear, next to the a victim of this shooting!
That's worse than offering those stupid, boring, useless, empty "thoughts and prayers"!
What is he giving his thumbs up for? Another opportunity to appear on TV?
Creepy!
-
Says it all:
https://youtu.be/KkH3mJnloO0
He's right, this is not normal. But it's not the guns that do this, it's the nut jobs. There are at least 25 other countries with 25% of the people who own a gun, and they aren't going into schools and shooting children. It's the attitude and the people and copy cats. Weak minds, angry people taking out their hostility on the innocent. If the numbers were the same for the other 25 countries they would have similar shootings once a month. They don't.
How do you take 300 million firearms away from people who have the right to own them and why punish the honest for what a minority of people, who most aren't allowed to own a gun, are causing the problem. Lets say, every time I upload a rejected photo, for illegal copyright not allowed, they take away from you to upload a file that day? You didn't do anything wrong, but you get punished because I broke the rules.
Only 2% of all homicides are committed by legal gun owners, I say punish the illegal owners. But then some here will say we have a prison stat in the US where too many are in jail. Use a gun in a crime, you go to prison. Someone uses your gun, stolen or other, the owner goes to jail or is at least risks going to prison for not securing a dangerous weapon. Make the law 21 and do background checks for all purchases. How does a mentally ill young person get a cache of weapons and ammo? Prosecute the people that sell weapons or ammo to people not allowed to own. Prosecute the source along with the criminal.
License the gun by serial number to a licensed owner, no others.
The United States has more guns per capita than any other country in the world. Second place is Serbia, with half the number of guns per capita.
In Canada, where you live, there are 70% fewer guns per capita than in the U.S.A.
If you want to be honest about who's killing people with guns, let's admit it's men. Men commit about 90% of homicides worldwide. So it's a gun problem and a man problem. And most specifically a Wayne LaPierre, NRA and gun manufacturer problem, because that handful of men are the ones who buy the politicians (mostly Republicans) in the USA.
A graph that speaks a thousands words
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
There's no other country where people are killing each other?
-
... I say punish the illegal owners. ... Use a gun in a crime, you go to prison. Someone uses your gun, stolen or other, the owner goes to jail or is at least risks going to prison for not securing a dangerous weapon. Make the law 21 and do background checks for all purchases. How does a mentally ill young person get a cache of weapons and ammo? Prosecute the people that sell weapons or ammo to people not allowed to own. Prosecute the source along with the criminal.
License the gun by serial number to a licensed owner, no others.
Those are all good suggestions. I would add the obvious to also ban assault weapons, bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. Let hunters have the weapons they need, citizens keep guns at home if they feel the need for protection, but nobody needs a huge arsenal at home. If you want to fire an assault weapon, join the military.
-
People kill people, not guns.
And given how many American people like to kill other American people with guns, Americans probably are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.
-
People kill people, not guns.
And given how many American people like to kill other American people with guns, Americans probably are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.
Here we go again: another one using stereotypes, putting labels on hundreds of millions of very different people.
Let me break some news to you. It's not the people, it's the system. The system is stimulating the behaviour.
Transplant a different system in your country and don't be surprised to discover how your nationals will adapt to the new environment and begin behaving differently.
I see recent European migrants, embracing the American system by becoming more pro-guns than old generation Americans. And the other way around: I'm sure there are decent American residents in Europe who love the fact that guns are not easily accessible where they live and don't feel the need to own a gun for protection.
The fact is that a majority of Americans want to see the system changing. Some faster, some through smaller steps.
So, be careful with generalizations.
-
People kill people, not guns.
And given how many American people like to kill other American people with guns, Americans probably are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.
Here we go again: another one using stereotypes, putting labels on hundreds of millions of very different people.
Let me break some news to you. It's not the people, it's the system. The system is stimulating the behaviour.
Let me try again, using your generalisation about the American system:
People kill people, not guns.
And given that the American system stimulates people who live in America to kill so many people using guns, people who live under the American system are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.
-
There are a lot of other topics besides Trump and the USA we could discuss. The same basic thread has been started over and over so people can insult Americans and then devolve into insulting each other.
Should the forum have a "Trump and the USA" topic.
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
There's no other country where people are killing each other?
I have difficulty finding another country -- especially in the West -- where people slaughter so many children at school so often.
Perhaps you can help?
-
People kill people, not guns.
And given how many American people like to kill other American people with guns, Americans probably are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.
Here we go again: another one using stereotypes, putting labels on hundreds of millions of very different people.
Let me break some news to you. It's not the people, it's the system. The system is stimulating the behaviour.
Let me try again, using your generalisation about the American system:
People kill people, not guns.
And given that the American system stimulates people who live in America to kill so many people using guns, people who live under the American system are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.
Not logical.
Guns for all IS the American system (even if many Americans don't like it). So how can you imagine Americans not allowed to have guns, when the system is insuring they can?
If somehow, somebody will be able to restrict the access to guns for Americans, then we would be talking about a different system, wouldn't we?
And then, under a different system, you'll have no more reason to declare that Americans should be the "last people who should be allowed to have guns".
Too bad you don't see the lack of logic in your statement. Catch 22.
The correct slogan is "people are people". Everywhere. Systems are different.
So stop putting so easily the same label on millions of different people.
-
People kill people, not guns.
And given how many American people like to kill other American people with guns, Americans probably are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.
Here we go again: another one using stereotypes, putting labels on hundreds of millions of very different people.
Let me break some news to you. It's not the people, it's the system. The system is stimulating the behaviour.
Let me try again, using your generalisation about the American system:
People kill people, not guns.
And given that the American system stimulates people who live in America to kill so many people using guns, people who live under the American system are the last people who should be allowed to have guns.
Not logical.
Guns for all IS the American system. How can you imagine Americans not allowed to have guns, when the system is insuring they can?
If somehow, somebody will be able to restrict the access to guns for Americans, then we would be talking about a different system, wouldn't we?
And then, under a different system, you'll have no more reason to declare that Americans should be the "last people who should be allowed to have guns".
Too bad you don't see the lack of logic in your statement. Catch 22.
The correct slogan is "people are people". Everywhere. Systems are different.
My logic is perfect. But you moved the goal posts by adding additional information that you hadn't relied on before, by saying that the American system is "guns for all".
And if you're right, there may not be a solution the problem of mass slaughter by guns.
Perhaps the US is in a nasty positive feedback loop: gun sales there rise after a mass shooting.
The more guns there are, given Americans' propensity to use them to kill people, then the more gun deaths there.
That encourages more people to carry guns -- as it may be rational for an individual (especially criminals) to think that he or she needs a gun to defend him or herself against other people with guns.
But that means there are more incidents.... So more people buy guns.... etc.
The arms race is unstoppable. The cat is out of the bag. The horse has bolted. Etc.
(I'm sure other people can think of some more homespun clichés to go along with that.)
-
My logic is perfect. But you moved the goal posts by adding additional information that you hadn't relied on before, by saying that the American system is "guns for all".
"My logic is perfect" Ha! ::)
First of all there is NO logic in putting the same label on hundreds millions of different people. Unfortunately, I have to repeat myself for the 3rd time. Hopefully you'll realise you were wrong. 3rd time's the charm, usually.
Secondly, I didn't move any goal post.
What are you doing in this debate, if you don't know about the holiness of the second amendment?
That's the "system", or rather the system is the constitution and it's derivatives. What else? That's what the whole debate is about.
So, no goal post was ever moved. The constitution is in the same place now, as it was before you began using what you call the "perfect logic" of stamping all Americans.
Otherwise, I'm glad you realised the vicious circle and the unintended consequences created by an archaic, hard to change American system.
-
Why are off topic threads pulled from the off topic forum?
Isnt that what the forum is about?
Can the thread not be moderated by moderating comments instead of pulling whole threads?
I dont know any forum that deletes whole threads. Comments get moderated or a thread gets locked. But never pulled.
[url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ethiopia-declares-state-of-emergency/ar-BBJea1R?OCID=ansmsnnews11[/url] ([url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ethiopia-declares-state-of-emergency/ar-BBJea1R?OCID=ansmsnnews11[/url])
Ethiopia state of emergency
[url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/brazilian-army-to-take-control-of-security-in-rio-as-violence-rises/ar-BBJdQkG?OCID=ansmsnnews11[/url] ([url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/brazilian-army-to-take-control-of-security-in-rio-as-violence-rises/ar-BBJdQkG?OCID=ansmsnnews11[/url])
Army Takes over in Rio
[url]http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2018/Maldives-officials-are-accusing-two-arrested-Supreme-Court-justices-and-a-former-president-of-plotting-to-overthrow-the-government/id-949de25cada04b7092e47d13c334b386[/url] ([url]http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2018/Maldives-officials-are-accusing-two-arrested-Supreme-Court-justices-and-a-former-president-of-plotting-to-overthrow-the-government/id-949de25cada04b7092e47d13c334b386[/url])
Two arrested Supreme Court justices and a former president had been plotting to overthrow the government of the Maldives
But you want to write about how its so bad in America. Open your eyes at home.
Ireland consistent poverty; low pay and inconsistent working hours; families with children living in emergency accommodation; disadvantaged can't get third level education.
It has become fashionable to bash America. And since Americans are even bashing America why not just keep your blinders on, ignore your own country's problems, and join the America bashing herd. Moooooooooo.
Maybe you have a point but your leader and many of his followers are not exactly slow in denigrating countries all round the world. I think many from other countries just can't grasp the mindset of many Americans when it comes to guns. Maybe if they looked at the rest of the world they might learn something as clearly somethings not working .
-
First of all there is NO logic in putting the same label on hundreds millions of different people.
Yes there is such a logic We use it everyday.
Here is the tale of the Bertrand Russell's Inductivist Turkey
https://youtu.be/5oZCGh9q6NI
And here are a few sledgehammers to crack your nut from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Inductive logic.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
An inductive logic is a system of evidential support that extends deductive logic to less-than-certain inferences. For valid deductive arguments the premises logically entail the conclusion, where the entailment means that the truth of the premises provides a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. Similarly, in a good inductive argument the premises should provide some degree of support for the conclusion, where such support means that the truth of the premises indicates with some degree of strength that the conclusion is true.
And also probabilistic logic.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-probability/
By integrating the complementary perspectives of qualitative logic and numerical probability theory, probability logics are able to offer highly expressive accounts of inference. It should therefore come as no surprise that they have been applied in all fields that study reasoning mechanisms, such as philosophy, artificial intelligence, cognitive science and mathematics.
-
What are you doing in this debate, if you don't know about the holiness of the second amendment?
Whether I know about the alleged holiness of the second amendment is irrelevant.
I'm in this debate because I like debating.
Sometimes I take positions I agree with; sometimes I defend positions I don't agree with, just for the fun of debating.
-
Selma, Paulie, and the lot,
I dont care one iota if you bash Ireland or the Netherlands for whats wrong in those countries, if you have a point, you have a point and I will be more than happy to agree. I opened a thread about Trump, then thats the topic. If you want to start a thread on the 800 dead children found at the Tuam care home in Ireland, be my guest. I will share my opinion when you do.
People get upset when a topic about the USA is started here, and before anyone has insulted anyone a few come in saying, great another thread to insult Americans. Let me get my violin out.
Tyler, you allow someone here to constantly call Germans Nazi's, but do nothing about it. Yet a political topic gets pulled because you cant be bothered to spend 5 minutes moderating.
Anyway, since this thread has gone to bits, please lock it.
-
People kill people, not guns.
This bit of NRA-promoted idiocy is one of the dumbest statements out there. People certainly find many ways to kill each other, but they do it much more easily and efficiently with guns. Killing people is the main reason most guns exist. You can't say the same for other commonly used instruments of murder, such as knives.
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
There's no other country where people are killing each other?
I have difficulty finding another country -- especially in the West -- where people slaughter so many children at school so often.
Perhaps you can help?
Oh boy. Sure I can help. Why only focus on the West? Has it become acceptable and mainstream for certain countries to slaughter people so let's just ignore them and exclude them from the statistics? Hardly.
Here are some figures by country per 100,000 people which is a reasonable measurement based on percentage of killings by population.
General homicide by all methods. If you sort by homicides it should be no surprise, maybe except for you, that places like El Salvador and Honduras top the list by rate. Even by total count Brazil and India are at the top. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Killings by firearms. Again, sorting by homicides places like Honduras and Venezuela top that list which shouldn't be a surprise. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
School shootings. You'll notice there are countries on this list other than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
The information is there if you decide to look for it. Or you can blindly follow biased news media groups whose goal is to report information in a way that creates the most turmoil/division, gets them better ratings, and makes them more money. There are atrocities happening globally every day. Murder is horrible, Especially children. To say that United States is the only place where people, or children, are "slaughtered" is really naive. All countries have their problems. Quit blindly following the news media and focusing on the United States.
Now that I've presented some figures I fully expect to see responses with statistics being ignored, pivoting away from the topic, and more USA loves killing children drivel. Please proceed. I'll grab some popcorn.
-
Guns aren't the problem. The bought and paid for politicians are the problem.
Every poll will tell you most Americans are for some level of gun control, at least getting the assault rifles off the street.
There's no point arguing about it, the only ones left arguing against are the small percentage of hard core who will never be convinced. The types who run out and buy guns or contribute more to the NRA whenever there is another massacre. And the majority of them are only doing that because they are under a barrage of propaganda form right-wing media outlets and the aforementioned paid for politicians.
If you want sanity back go out and campaign to get money out of politics and vote in representatives who will make it happen.
Get behind a "shame on you" campaign naming and shaming every politician, from any party, taking NRA money. Take into account when the NRA pays to attack a politician too, consider that as a point in the politician's favour.
Arguing points that have already been won wont get you anywhere. All this division is a distraction. Start concentrating on organising, power and politics.
-
It's not about guns. It's not about people. It's about money and greed.
-
Oh boy. Sure I can help. Why only focus on the West? Has it become acceptable and mainstream for certain countries to slaughter people so let's just ignore them and exclude them from the statistics? Hardly.
Here are some figures by country per 100,000 people which is a reasonable measurement based on percentage of killings by population.
General homicide by all methods. If you sort by homicides it should be no surprise, maybe except for you, that places like El Salvador and Honduras top the list by rate. Even by total count Brazil and India are at the top. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Killings by firearms. Again, sorting by homicides places like Honduras and Venezuela top that list which shouldn't be a surprise. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
School shootings. You'll notice there are countries on this list other than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
The information is there if you decide to look for it. Or you can blindly follow biased news media groups whose goal is to report information in a way that creates the most turmoil/division, gets them better ratings, and makes them more money. There are atrocities happening globally every day. Murder is horrible, Especially children. To say that United States is the only place where people, or children, are "slaughtered" is really naive. All countries have their problems. Quit blindly following the news media and focusing on the United States.
Now that I've presented some figures I fully expect to see responses with statistics being ignored, pivoting away from the topic, and more USA loves killing children drivel. Please proceed. I'll grab some popcorn.
You should read the links you provided:
"School shootings are an "overwhelmingly American" phenomenon due to the availability of firearms in the United States.[40]"
That's why the US is the only country in the links with it's own dedicated School Shooting Wikipedia page page.
Take a look at the other pages you linked to too. Almost every (every?) country above the US in any one of those tables is either a war torn third world nation or has had like one murder but has a population so tiny that one killing threw the stats off massively. Are these the countries the US should be grouped with or aspire to emulate as the richest most powerful country in the world? Shouldn't it aspire to a positive rank among first world countries?
Or are the pages you linked to also "biased news media"?
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
There's no other country where people are killing each other?
I have difficulty finding another country -- especially in the West -- where people slaughter so many children at school so often.
Perhaps you can help?
Oh boy. Sure I can help. Why only focus on the West? Has it become acceptable and mainstream for certain countries to slaughter people so let's just ignore them and exclude them from the statistics? Hardly.
Here are some figures by country per 100,000 people which is a reasonable measurement based on percentage of killings by population.
General homicide by all methods. If you sort by homicides it should be no surprise, maybe except for you, that places like El Salvador and Honduras top the list by rate. Even by total count Brazil and India are at the top. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Killings by firearms. Again, sorting by homicides places like Honduras and Venezuela top that list which shouldn't be a surprise. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
School shootings. You'll notice there are countries on this list other than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
The information is there if you decide to look for it. Or you can blindly follow biased news media groups whose goal is to report information in a way that creates the most turmoil/division, gets them better ratings, and makes them more money. There are atrocities happening globally every day. Murder is horrible, Especially children. To say that United States is the only place where people, or children, are "slaughtered" is really naive. All countries have their problems. Quit blindly following the news media and focusing on the United States.
Now that I've presented some figures I fully expect to see responses with statistics being ignored, pivoting away from the topic, and more USA loves killing children drivel. Please proceed. I'll grab some popcorn.
From your own Wikipedia source about school shootings: "School shootings are an 'overwhelmingly American' phenomenon due to the availability of firearms in the United States."
More than half of all school shootings in the US have occurred since 1990. Wayne La Pierre has served as CEO of the NRA since 1991.
-
Guns for all IS the American system
This actually is not true, at least not according to the constitution. This idea of "second amendment rights" has now been perverted so thoroughly that even Zero Talent states the idea that people can own firearms at home as a fact.
The actual text of the second amendment is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The Founding Fathers were concerned about protecting the state from foreign powers, especially after the British had a policy of capturing the magazines of the colonies in 1774 and 1775. The second amendment, as you can clearly tell by reading what is written, only authorizes the right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. We can know this with absolute certainty by the key phrase "A well regulated militia". Not much interpretation required for that. Random yahoos having guns at home is not well regulated and not a militia (which can only be authorized by Congress), so absolutely, 100% is NOT authorized by the second amendment.
You could debate about whether "the security of a free state" would include personal weapons, but we can discount that by the first clause about militias and also by understanding the historical context. In the 1770s the colonies did not have their own armies. If there were a need for defense, every able-bodied (male, slave-holding in the south) citizen would be mustered into a militia and issued weapons from a communal store. Most people did not own firearms because they were 1) very expensive and 2) required loading with cartridges of gunpowder and primed with black powder. Keeping lots of gunpowder lying around in wooden houses that were lighted and heated with open flames is not a great idea. Instead, gunpowder and weapons were stored in community magazines that were present in most large cities. To prevent the citizens from rebelling, the British removed gunpowder from magazines in Massachusetts in 1774 and Virginia in 1775. This was fresh on the minds of the framers of the constitution and is likely why the second amendment was deemed so important.
The US was absolutely NOT set up as a gun state! The right to bear arms was only in the context of a well organized militia for the security of the state, which we can know with absolute certainty because it was written in clear, plain English. The modern equivalent of a 1780s militia is the National Guard, and nobody has ever talked about disarming them. That amendment was written before the age of professional, standing militaries and really should be removed since we no longer use militias for defense.
For over 150 years the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment as it was written. It is only during the past 50 years that the NRA, through consistent messaging and buying off of congresspeople, has perverted the public perception of the second amendment so much that even liberals talk about "second amendment rights" as if it means individuals can keep firearms at home. Yet, this clearly is not what the constitution says, and especially so when you consider the historical context in which it was written. The second amendment right to bear arms in modern society should only rest with the various state national guard units. The second amendment only applies to arms in the context of a militia; it is silent about firearms owned by individuals. This means that individuals owning firearms should be decided and regulated separately by the states.
It is a travesty that one organization has managed to twist the constitution to serve the ends of a single industry. It is long past time for the power of the NRA to end and the people to read the constitution and interpret it as it was written and intended.
-
Rest assured, all these weapons, nuclear bomb included, are just made to assure PEACE!!!!
And all the people who don't get it are idiots...
what did you expect?
[mode "ironic"=off]
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
There's no other country where people are killing each other?
I have difficulty finding another country -- especially in the West -- where people slaughter so many children at school so often.
Perhaps you can help?
Oh boy. Sure I can help. Why only focus on the West? Has it become acceptable and mainstream for certain countries to slaughter people so let's just ignore them and exclude them from the statistics? Hardly.
Here are some figures by country per 100,000 people which is a reasonable measurement based on percentage of killings by population.
General homicide by all methods. If you sort by homicides it should be no surprise, maybe except for you, that places like El Salvador and Honduras top the list by rate. Even by total count Brazil and India are at the top. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Killings by firearms. Again, sorting by homicides places like Honduras and Venezuela top that list which shouldn't be a surprise. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
School shootings. You'll notice there are countries on this list other than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
The information is there if you decide to look for it. Or you can blindly follow biased news media groups whose goal is to report information in a way that creates the most turmoil/division, gets them better ratings, and makes them more money. There are atrocities happening globally every day. Murder is horrible, Especially children. To say that United States is the only place where people, or children, are "slaughtered" is really naive. All countries have their problems. Quit blindly following the news media and focusing on the United States.
Now that I've presented some figures I fully expect to see responses with statistics being ignored, pivoting away from the topic, and more USA loves killing children drivel. Please proceed. I'll grab some popcorn.
Thanks for the information. I notice that there are far more children slaughtered at schools in the United States than in any other country.
And I"m glad you think it's relevant to compare the US to third-world countries -- many of which are far worse than the US -- rather than other developed democracies, whose gun killings, especiallly at schools, are tiny compared to the US.
-
Oh boy. Sure I can help. Why only focus on the West? Has it become acceptable and mainstream for certain countries to slaughter people so let's just ignore them and exclude them from the statistics? Hardly.
Here are some figures by country per 100,000 people which is a reasonable measurement based on percentage of killings by population.
General homicide by all methods. If you sort by homicides it should be no surprise, maybe except for you, that places like El Salvador and Honduras top the list by rate. Even by total count Brazil and India are at the top. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Killings by firearms. Again, sorting by homicides places like Honduras and Venezuela top that list which shouldn't be a surprise. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
School shootings. You'll notice there are countries on this list other than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
The information is there if you decide to look for it. Or you can blindly follow biased news media groups whose goal is to report information in a way that creates the most turmoil/division, gets them better ratings, and makes them more money. There are atrocities happening globally every day. Murder is horrible, Especially children. To say that United States is the only place where people, or children, are "slaughtered" is really naive. All countries have their problems. Quit blindly following the news media and focusing on the United States.
Now that I've presented some figures I fully expect to see responses with statistics being ignored, pivoting away from the topic, and more USA loves killing children drivel. Please proceed. I'll grab some popcorn.
You should read the links you provided:
"School shootings are an "overwhelmingly American" phenomenon due to the availability of firearms in the United States.[40]"
That's why the US is the only country in the links with it's own dedicated School Shooting Wikipedia page page.
Take a look at the other pages you linked to too. Almost every (every?) country above the US in any one of those tables is either a war torn third world nation or has had like one murder but has a population so tiny that one killing threw the stats off massively. Are these the countries the US should be grouped with or aspire to emulate as the richest most powerful country in the world? Shouldn't it aspire to a positive rank among first world countries?
Or are the pages you linked to also "biased news media"?
Exactly what I expected. Let's ignore and exclude statistics from places that have higher murder rates. It's okay to kill people and children in those countries. Let's not talk about those countries. It's the USA that's evil.
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
There's no other country where people are killing each other?
I have difficulty finding another country -- especially in the West -- where people slaughter so many children at school so often.
Perhaps you can help?
Oh boy. Sure I can help. Why only focus on the West? Has it become acceptable and mainstream for certain countries to slaughter people so let's just ignore them and exclude them from the statistics? Hardly.
Here are some figures by country per 100,000 people which is a reasonable measurement based on percentage of killings by population.
General homicide by all methods. If you sort by homicides it should be no surprise, maybe except for you, that places like El Salvador and Honduras top the list by rate. Even by total count Brazil and India are at the top. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Killings by firearms. Again, sorting by homicides places like Honduras and Venezuela top that list which shouldn't be a surprise. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
School shootings. You'll notice there are countries on this list other than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
The information is there if you decide to look for it. Or you can blindly follow biased news media groups whose goal is to report information in a way that creates the most turmoil/division, gets them better ratings, and makes them more money. There are atrocities happening globally every day. Murder is horrible, Especially children. To say that United States is the only place where people, or children, are "slaughtered" is really naive. All countries have their problems. Quit blindly following the news media and focusing on the United States.
Now that I've presented some figures I fully expect to see responses with statistics being ignored, pivoting away from the topic, and more USA loves killing children drivel. Please proceed. I'll grab some popcorn.
Thanks for the information. I notice that there are far more children slaughtered at schools in the United States than in any other country.
And I"m glad you think it's relevant to compare the US to third-world countries -- many of which are far worse than the US -- rather than other developed democracies, whose gun killings, especiallly at schools, are tiny compared to the US.
So killing children is okay in other countries then. It's only a problem in the USA apparently.
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
There's no other country where people are killing each other?
I have difficulty finding another country -- especially in the West -- where people slaughter so many children at school so often.
Perhaps you can help?
Oh boy. Sure I can help. Why only focus on the West? Has it become acceptable and mainstream for certain countries to slaughter people so let's just ignore them and exclude them from the statistics? Hardly.
Here are some figures by country per 100,000 people which is a reasonable measurement based on percentage of killings by population.
General homicide by all methods. If you sort by homicides it should be no surprise, maybe except for you, that places like El Salvador and Honduras top the list by rate. Even by total count Brazil and India are at the top. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Killings by firearms. Again, sorting by homicides places like Honduras and Venezuela top that list which shouldn't be a surprise. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
School shootings. You'll notice there are countries on this list other than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
The information is there if you decide to look for it. Or you can blindly follow biased news media groups whose goal is to report information in a way that creates the most turmoil/division, gets them better ratings, and makes them more money. There are atrocities happening globally every day. Murder is horrible, Especially children. To say that United States is the only place where people, or children, are "slaughtered" is really naive. All countries have their problems. Quit blindly following the news media and focusing on the United States.
Now that I've presented some figures I fully expect to see responses with statistics being ignored, pivoting away from the topic, and more USA loves killing children drivel. Please proceed. I'll grab some popcorn.
No-one is saying that the USA loves to slaughter children.
But we are all puzzled and horrified why the US seems to be the only country in the world where school shootings happen so frequently.
It happens so often that there's even a Wikipedia page on US school shootings.
#maga
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
There's no other country where people are killing each other?
I have difficulty finding another country -- especially in the West -- where people slaughter so many children at school so often.
Perhaps you can help?
Oh boy. Sure I can help. Why only focus on the West? Has it become acceptable and mainstream for certain countries to slaughter people so let's just ignore them and exclude them from the statistics? Hardly.
Here are some figures by country per 100,000 people which is a reasonable measurement based on percentage of killings by population.
General homicide by all methods. If you sort by homicides it should be no surprise, maybe except for you, that places like El Salvador and Honduras top the list by rate. Even by total count Brazil and India are at the top. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Killings by firearms. Again, sorting by homicides places like Honduras and Venezuela top that list which shouldn't be a surprise. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
School shootings. You'll notice there are countries on this list other than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
The information is there if you decide to look for it. Or you can blindly follow biased news media groups whose goal is to report information in a way that creates the most turmoil/division, gets them better ratings, and makes them more money. There are atrocities happening globally every day. Murder is horrible, Especially children. To say that United States is the only place where people, or children, are "slaughtered" is really naive. All countries have their problems. Quit blindly following the news media and focusing on the United States.
Now that I've presented some figures I fully expect to see responses with statistics being ignored, pivoting away from the topic, and more USA loves killing children drivel. Please proceed. I'll grab some popcorn.
Thanks for the information. I notice that there are far more children slaughtered at schools in the United States than in any other country.
And I"m glad you think it's relevant to compare the US to third-world countries -- many of which are far worse than the US -- rather than other developed democracies, whose gun killings, especiallly at schools, are tiny compared to the US.
So killing children is okay in other countries then. It's only a problem in the USA apparently.
So you are happy comparing the USA to a third world dingbat state.
At least we know where America is heading with 'Make America Great Again'.
What happened to moral leadership?
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
There's no other country where people are killing each other?
I have difficulty finding another country -- especially in the West -- where people slaughter so many children at school so often.
Perhaps you can help?
Oh boy. Sure I can help. Why only focus on the West? Has it become acceptable and mainstream for certain countries to slaughter people so let's just ignore them and exclude them from the statistics? Hardly.
Here are some figures by country per 100,000 people which is a reasonable measurement based on percentage of killings by population.
General homicide by all methods. If you sort by homicides it should be no surprise, maybe except for you, that places like El Salvador and Honduras top the list by rate. Even by total count Brazil and India are at the top. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Killings by firearms. Again, sorting by homicides places like Honduras and Venezuela top that list which shouldn't be a surprise. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
School shootings. You'll notice there are countries on this list other than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
The information is there if you decide to look for it. Or you can blindly follow biased news media groups whose goal is to report information in a way that creates the most turmoil/division, gets them better ratings, and makes them more money. There are atrocities happening globally every day. Murder is horrible, Especially children. To say that United States is the only place where people, or children, are "slaughtered" is really naive. All countries have their problems. Quit blindly following the news media and focusing on the United States.
Now that I've presented some figures I fully expect to see responses with statistics being ignored, pivoting away from the topic, and more USA loves killing children drivel. Please proceed. I'll grab some popcorn.
Thanks for the information. I notice that there are far more children slaughtered at schools in the United States than in any other country.
And I"m glad you think it's relevant to compare the US to third-world countries -- many of which are far worse than the US -- rather than other developed democracies, whose gun killings, especiallly at schools, are tiny compared to the US.
So killing children is okay in other countries then. It's only a problem in the USA apparently.
No, it's not OK.
The US has a bigger problem than other countries with school shootings.
And, unlike other countries where there have been school shootings, the US doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it because so many people don't seem to think it's a problem.
Perhaps killings in schools are so regular now that people in the US think they're normal -- a bit like car accidents.
-
Yes there is such a logic We use it everyday.
Ha, ha, there is no logic because your assumptions are false as well as your induction process.
Your are the turkey who got his head chopped in November. ;D
If only 1 (one) American is an exception, then your induction fails, because your statement was about ALL Americans.
Bigots, racists, xenophobes use your induction every day to "prove" that Muslim are terrorists, Mexicans are rapists, Gypsies are thieves, etc
Your "perfect logic" is also called stereotyping.
And it is very wrong, even if people like you use it every day.
-
Exactly what I expected. Let's ignore and exclude statistics from places that have higher murder rates. It's okay to kill people and children in those countries. Let's not talk about those countries. It's the USA that's evil.
Which country would you like to talk about with greater number of shooting per capita than the US? or more specifically greater number of school shootings?
You should start a thread about whichever country it is you want to discuss. There could be people on this forum from that country on here that would like to engage with you about the systemic and societal problems that have lead it to that situation.
This thread seems to be mostly discussing the situation in the US. It is the predominant superpower and richest nation in the world at this time, but we could switch to discussing Honduras and its unique problems I guess? I am not sure as many people would have a vested interest though?
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
There's no other country where people are killing each other?
I have difficulty finding another country -- especially in the West -- where people slaughter so many children at school so often.
Perhaps you can help?
Oh boy. Sure I can help. Why only focus on the West? Has it become acceptable and mainstream for certain countries to slaughter people so let's just ignore them and exclude them from the statistics? Hardly.
Here are some figures by country per 100,000 people which is a reasonable measurement based on percentage of killings by population.
General homicide by all methods. If you sort by homicides it should be no surprise, maybe except for you, that places like El Salvador and Honduras top the list by rate. Even by total count Brazil and India are at the top. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Killings by firearms. Again, sorting by homicides places like Honduras and Venezuela top that list which shouldn't be a surprise. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
School shootings. You'll notice there are countries on this list other than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
The information is there if you decide to look for it. Or you can blindly follow biased news media groups whose goal is to report information in a way that creates the most turmoil/division, gets them better ratings, and makes them more money. There are atrocities happening globally every day. Murder is horrible, Especially children. To say that United States is the only place where people, or children, are "slaughtered" is really naive. All countries have their problems. Quit blindly following the news media and focusing on the United States.
Now that I've presented some figures I fully expect to see responses with statistics being ignored, pivoting away from the topic, and more USA loves killing children drivel. Please proceed. I'll grab some popcorn.
Thanks for the information. I notice that there are far more children slaughtered at schools in the United States than in any other country.
And I"m glad you think it's relevant to compare the US to third-world countries -- many of which are far worse than the US -- rather than other developed democracies, whose gun killings, especiallly at schools, are tiny compared to the US.
So killing children is okay in other countries then. It's only a problem in the USA apparently.
So you are happy comparing the USA to a third world dingbat state.
At least we know where America is heading with 'Make America Great Again'.
What happened to moral leadership?
So what you're saying is "oh those countries kill people and children all the time. We're used to that and it's okay. Let's talk about the USA". Wow. And you want to throw around the word "moral"?
Why don't you do something to help those countries reduce their higher rates of murder? Go volunteer. Do something about it.
Oh I see. The underlying purpose of this, just like I said, is to bash the USA. Your "make America great again" comment says it all.
-
So the answer is 'Yes" you are happy comparing the USA to a third world dingbat state.
-
Guns for all IS the American system
This actually is not true, at least not according to the constitution. This idea of "second amendment rights" has now been perverted so thoroughly that even Zero Talent states the idea that people can own firearms at home as a fact.
The actual text of the second amendment is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The Founding Fathers were concerned about protecting the state from foreign powers, especially after the British had a policy of capturing the magazines of the colonies in 1774 and 1775. The second amendment, as you can clearly tell by reading what is written, only authorizes the right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. We can know this with absolute certainty by the key phrase "A well regulated militia". Not much interpretation required for that. Random yahoos having guns at home is not well regulated and not a militia (which can only be authorized by Congress), so absolutely, 100% is NOT authorized by the second amendment.
You could debate about whether "the security of a free state" would include personal weapons, but we can discount that by the first clause about militias and also by understanding the historical context. In the 1770s the colonies did not have their own armies. If there were a need for defense, every able-bodied (male, slave-holding in the south) citizen would be mustered into a militia and issued weapons from a communal store. Most people did not own firearms because they were 1) very expensive and 2) required loading with cartridges of gunpowder and primed with black powder. Keeping lots of gunpowder lying around in wooden houses that were lighted and heated with open flames is not a great idea. Instead, gunpowder and weapons were stored in community magazines that were present in most large cities. To prevent the citizens from rebelling, the British removed gunpowder from magazines in Massachusetts in 1774 and Virginia in 1775. This was fresh on the minds of the framers of the constitution and is likely why the second amendment was deemed so important.
The US was absolutely NOT set up as a gun state! The right to bear arms was only in the context of a well organized militia for the security of the state, which we can know with absolute certainty because it was written in clear, plain English. The modern equivalent of a 1780s militia is the National Guard, and nobody has ever talked about disarming them. That amendment was written before the age of professional, standing militaries and really should be removed since we no longer use militias for defense.
For over 150 years the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment as it was written. It is only during the past 50 years that the NRA, through consistent messaging and buying off of congresspeople, has perverted the public perception of the second amendment so much that even liberals talk about "second amendment rights" as if it means individuals can keep firearms at home. Yet, this clearly is not what the constitution says, and especially so when you consider the historical context in which it was written. The second amendment right to bear arms in modern society should only rest with the various state national guard units. The second amendment only applies to arms in the context of a militia; it is silent about firearms owned by individuals. This means that individuals owning firearms should be decided and regulated separately by the states.
It is a travesty that one organization has managed to twist the constitution to serve the ends of a single industry. It is long past time for the power of the NRA to end and the people to read the constitution and interpret it as it was written and intended.
If you read my statements correctly, you will notice that I have a problem with the second amendment: I called it archaic.
The problem is that it can be read in a different way than yours.
The interpretation goes like this:
Because a well regulated militia is necessary, people can have guns, in order to form a well regulated militia, when needed.
Because without arms today, there can be no militia, when needed.
In other words, your "Random yahoos" will form a militia, when the security of the free state will require it.
This is how courts have decided the 2nd amendment must be read.
Read it again, and you will have to agree with its ambiguity.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
It doesn't say that only well regulated militias can carry arms
Until we find a solution around it, like it or not, it IS the American "system" and the root cause of this evil vicious circle, unfortunately.
In my view, one way to do it is to tax guns very heavily, to make them very expensive.
Taxation is not infringement.
In fact, that's the reason why mass shootings are prevented elsewhere. Such guns can only be bought from the black market. And black market is very expensive.
When an AR-15 is $30k mass shootings are un-affordable.
-
So the answer is 'Yes" you are happy comparing the USA to a third world dingbat state.
So the answer is Yes. It's okay for people and children to be killed in other countries but lets single out the USA.
Wow, third world dingbat state? I wonder how many people here live in one of those countries. Seems similar to the statement made by the USA leader you all criticize so much. But let me guess. It's okay for you to say it.
-
Let's compare the United States to other wealthy, developed countries. How about that?
-
Wow, third world dingbat state? I wonder how many people here live in one of those countries.
For those people, it's just another Tuesday.
-
You can get almost any gun (legally) in Canada that you can in the US except fully automatic weapons and a few other restrictions that affect almost nobody. The difference is the number of hoops you need to jump through. You need a course run by the RCMP for basic ownership, a background check, and for "prohibited" weapons like handguns you need further courses, an exam and a list of rules for transport, storage and useage.
Banning would never work (from the outside looking in, I live right on the Can/US border), but I don't see why having some common sense laws are such an issue there. There are pros and cons to our system, like any other, but if even one mass shooting is prevented, then I will happily do the extra paperwork and really that is all it is for people who are not a threat to others.
We had our mass/school shootings and changed the laws. Seemed to work for the most part. A minor inconvenience to law abiding people, and much more difficult for people who really shouldn't have them. And yes, there are always ways to get a gun, but for every one who does, maybe so many more get caught trying.
Finally, the 2nd Amendment issue puzzles me. By definition it is something that has been added to or changed from the original. So it is not carved in stone IMHO. If you look at the 18th Amendment, you can see that when motivated, it is ok to change or even repeal an amendment.
-
You can get almost any gun (legally) in Canada that you can in the US except fully automatic weapons and a few other restrictions that affect almost nobody. The difference is the number of hoops you need to jump through. You need a course run by the RCMP for basic ownership, a background check, and for "prohibited" weapons like handguns you need further courses, an exam and a list of rules for transport, storage and useage.
Banning would never work (from the outside looking in, I live right on the Can/US border), but I don't see why having some common sense laws are such an issue there. There are pros and cons to our system, like any other, but if even one mass shooting is prevented, then I will happily do the extra paperwork and really that is all it is for people who are not a threat to others.
We had our mass/school shootings and changed the laws. Seemed to work for the most part. A minor inconvenience to law abiding people, and much more difficult for people who really shouldn't have them. And yes, there are always ways to get a gun, but for every one who does, maybe so many more get caught trying.
Finally, the 2nd Amendment issue puzzles me. By definition it is something that has been added to or changed from the original. So it is not carved in stone IMHO. If you look at the 18th Amendment, you can see that when motivated, it is ok to change or even repeal an amendment.
Good points, and to some others.
Guns per capita is a false number because I know many people who own no guns or have no pistol and except for a small number, none own automatic weapons of any sort. USA 100 but some of those are collectors or gun hobbyists who own 50 or more. Canada 30 per 100, same but many less of those owners have more than a couple of useful weapons for hunting or hobby or self protection.
Gun murders per 100,000 people, Canada 1.9, .38 homicide, 1.52 suicide, US 10.5, 3.6 homicide, 6.3 suicide. In easy numbers Canada is 80% less, 90% less homicides, with 66% less guns. One big difference is society. We have Detroit right across the border from Windsor. Detroit has gangs, poverty to the max, crime, murders and all kinds of problems. Go across the border bridge and Windsor is a different world. It's not just the guns.
Right we don't need semi-automatic weapons in the US with 20 round clips. For hunting the animals would be long gone, are these guys that terrible of a shot that they have to throw a big clip at some poor little deer? Bump stocks, no need. 5 rounds max for shotguns and big rifles, more for 22 because that's standard for small game.
The reason gun sales go up after one of these incidents is not because people are buying killing machines. They want more for two general reasons. Protection or because they fear a ban is coming.
You can't ignore these countries just because they are crap holes or third world in your narrow opinion, as some have claimed they don't count. Trump didn't shoot the gun, he didn't make the laws, blame is easy and avoiding the truth is just as simple. If anyone pays attention, the President doesn't write the law or introduce the bills.
Places with higher gun homicides rates than the US, you need to include the whole Earth not just those that fit a liberal agenda.
Honduras 67.18
Venezuela 59.13
Swaziland 37.16
Jamaica 30.72
Guatemala 34.10
El Salvador 45.6
Colombia 25.94
Brazil 21.2
Panama 15.11
Philippines 8.90
South Africa 8.3
Mexico 7.64
Costa Rica 7.50
Paraguay 7.76
Uruguay 11.52
Peru 5.53
Nicaragua 4.68
State after state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation also having the highest gun crime rates in the nation. Chicago would be an example.
Guns don't kill, people do. Copycat sociopaths seeking attention are a big problem. I'd say keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and people who are unstable should be first. I own a shotgun, one, don't punish me for what some kid does, when he shouldn't have the guns or that type of gun, in the first place. Enforce the laws we have, before thinking of taking away the right of honest law abiding citizens.
-
Unless you have strict border controls between states, State laws are pretty useless unless they are consistently applied across the country, making them federal instead of state. Like having a peeing section in a pool and about as effective.
My argument is that better control and management would help prevent those few people who truly shouldn't have access. It is almost the same argument your president uses about flight bans from certain countries by the way. Strict controls in hopes of preventing that one who is coming to do harm.
The laws were written, amended, modified and in some cases repealed. Search on restrictions on the ATF and how they could eliminate so much gun crime in a day (an exaggeration, but not by much) if they were allowed to enforce simple laws (like arrenting gun shops known to provide weapons to criminals for example) would show that there are some common sense laws, but that enforcement is virtually impossible.
-
Unless you have strict border controls between states, State laws are pretty useless unless they are consistently applied across the country, making them federal instead of state. Like having a peeing section in a pool and about as effective.
My argument is that better control and management would help prevent those few people who truly shouldn't have access. It is almost the same argument your president uses about flight bans from certain countries by the way. Strict controls in hopes of preventing that one who is coming to do harm.
The laws were written, amended, modified and in some cases repealed. Search on restrictions on the ATF and how they could eliminate so much gun crime in a day (an exaggeration, but not by much) if they were allowed to enforce simple laws (like arrenting gun shops known to provide weapons to criminals for example) would show that there are some common sense laws, but that enforcement is virtually impossible.
Very common sense but we're dealing with politicians and lawyers which throws all logic out the window.
I need to add one more for the subject.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15824831 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15824831)
There are bomb attacks almost daily, shootouts between police and militants, tales of torture and of people going missing. But what's everyone doing? Calling the US a bunch of killers because they have guns. Caracas, Venezuela has held on to its spot as the world's most dangerous city with a murder rate of 130.35. This staggering number is followed by Acapulco, Mexico with 113.24 per 100,000 inhabitants and San Pedro Sula, Honduras with 112.09 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.
Yes, just across the bridge of war, Canada has peace, and Cuban cigars!
-
Yup, agreed. But from the outside looking in, the USA very (internationally) publicly holds itself up as a beacon of peace and prosperity to the world and as a model for what democracy should be. The news you get inside your borders is vastly different from the news the rest of the world sees.
So yes, your country has a problem and because of the propensity of media to always fixate on your country, we will all get a front row seat.
-
Yup, agreed. But from the outside looking in, the USA very (internationally) publicly holds itself up as a beacon of peace and prosperity to the world and as a model for what democracy should be. The news you get inside your borders is vastly different from the news the rest of the world sees.
So yes, your country has a problem and because of the propensity of media to always fixate on your country, we will all get a front row seat.
Yada lives in Canada, not the USA, despite his proclivity for saying "we" and "us" when discussing issues in a country other than his own.
-
You can get almost any gun (legally) in Canada that you can in the US except fully automatic weapons and a few other restrictions that affect almost nobody. The difference is the number of hoops you need to jump through. You need a course run by the RCMP for basic ownership, a background check, and for "prohibited" weapons like handguns you need further courses, an exam and a list of rules for transport, storage and useage.
Banning would never work (from the outside looking in, I live right on the Can/US border), but I don't see why having some common sense laws are such an issue there. There are pros and cons to our system, like any other, but if even one mass shooting is prevented, then I will happily do the extra paperwork and really that is all it is for people who are not a threat to others.
We had our mass/school shootings and changed the laws. Seemed to work for the most part. A minor inconvenience to law abiding people, and much more difficult for people who really shouldn't have them. And yes, there are always ways to get a gun, but for every one who does, maybe so many more get caught trying.
Finally, the 2nd Amendment issue puzzles me. By definition it is something that has been added to or changed from the original. So it is not carved in stone IMHO. If you look at the 18th Amendment, you can see that when motivated, it is ok to change or even repeal an amendment.
Good points, and to some others.
Guns per capita is a false number because I know many people who own no guns or have no pistol and except for a small number, none own automatic weapons of any sort. USA 100 but some of those are collectors or gun hobbyists who own 50 or more. Canada 30 per 100, same but many less of those owners have more than a couple of useful weapons for hunting or hobby or self protection.
Gun murders per 100,000 people, Canada 1.9, .38 homicide, 1.52 suicide, US 10.5, 3.6 homicide, 6.3 suicide. In easy numbers Canada is 80% less, 90% less homicides, with 66% less guns. One big difference is society. We have Detroit right across the border from Windsor. Detroit has gangs, poverty to the max, crime, murders and all kinds of problems. Go across the border bridge and Windsor is a different world. It's not just the guns.
Right we don't need semi-automatic weapons in the US with 20 round clips. For hunting the animals would be long gone, are these guys that terrible of a shot that they have to throw a big clip at some poor little deer? Bump stocks, no need. 5 rounds max for shotguns and big rifles, more for 22 because that's standard for small game.
The reason gun sales go up after one of these incidents is not because people are buying killing machines. They want more for two general reasons. Protection or because they fear a ban is coming.
You can't ignore these countries just because they are crap holes or third world in your narrow opinion, as some have claimed they don't count. Trump didn't shoot the gun, he didn't make the laws, blame is easy and avoiding the truth is just as simple. If anyone pays attention, the President doesn't write the law or introduce the bills.
Places with higher gun homicides rates than the US, you need to include the whole Earth not just those that fit a liberal agenda.
Honduras 67.18
Venezuela 59.13
Swaziland 37.16
Jamaica 30.72
Guatemala 34.10
El Salvador 45.6
Colombia 25.94
Brazil 21.2
Panama 15.11
Philippines 8.90
South Africa 8.3
Mexico 7.64
Costa Rica 7.50
Paraguay 7.76
Uruguay 11.52
Peru 5.53
Nicaragua 4.68
State after state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation also having the highest gun crime rates in the nation. Chicago would be an example.
Chicago is not the most murderous city in the U.S., not by a long shot, despite Illinois having a very long border with a neighboring state with very lax gun laws. So please stop using that false example.
Trump blames the Democrats for not acting on gun control when they held power, but he and his fellow Republicans have all the power now, so what's stopping them from acting (other than being owned by the NRA)? Instead he's loosening gun laws while pointing blame elsewhere. Nice trick.
Who cares how many people you know who don't own guns? Do you know everyone in the U.S. and Canada? Because only then would your personal experience be relevant.
-
When especially Europeans have nothing to do. Lets bash America!! its simple Europe with Germany and France in the lead is turning into a crap-hole. In Europe they dont use guns but trucks, busses, knifes, dynamite just about anything that is at hand.
The simple answer is Europeans have an inferiority complex and they are dead jealous of America! and oh btw we have now also traded our cultures for weird cultures that are sort of stoning women and marrying 9 year olds!....yep we are very happy in Europe!
-
So the answer is 'Yes" you are happy comparing the USA to a third world dingbat state.
So the answer is Yes. It's okay for people and children to be killed in other countries but lets single out the USA.
Wow, third world dingbat state? I wonder how many people here live in one of those countries. Seems similar to the statement made by the USA leader you all criticize so much. But let me guess. It's okay for you to say it.
There you go comparing apples to grapefruits again.
I'm not the president of the usa + I'm not trying to stop immigration (even from dingbat states).
-
Yup, agreed. But from the outside looking in, the USA very (internationally) publicly holds itself up as a beacon of peace and prosperity to the world and as a model for what democracy should be. The news you get inside your borders is vastly different from the news the rest of the world sees.
So yes, your country has a problem and because of the propensity of media to always fixate on your country, we will all get a front row seat.
Yada lives in Canada, not the USA, despite his proclivity for saying "we" and "us" when discussing issues in a country other than his own.
Ignore the subject and attack him with false claims. Blame Trump, not the party in power the last 8 years.
Look at this, Churches are a common target for Islamic militants in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation. Police in Indonesia shot a sword-wielding man who attacked a church congregation during Sunday Mass, injuring four people, including a German priest. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/11/police-shoot-man-during-sword-attack-on-indonesian-church.html (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/11/police-shoot-man-during-sword-attack-on-indonesian-church.html)
The region has also seen a large number of people join Islamic State terror group, according to Reuters.
Dagestan is a predominantly Muslim region between Chechnya and the Caspian Sea. Following two separatist wars in neighboring Chechnya, an Islamist insurgency spread to Dagestan. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/18/russia-church-shooting-leaves-5-dead-after-gunman-opens-fire-on-people-leaving-service.html (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/18/russia-church-shooting-leaves-5-dead-after-gunman-opens-fire-on-people-leaving-service.html)
Why don't you stop defending the terrorists, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks) liberals like you love diversity but miss the truth.
Or these people who you want to take over the country, they can't read or write English. Illegal Alien Crime Accounts for over 30% of Murders in Many States. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/08/illegal-alien-crime-accounts-for-over-30-of-murders-in-some-states/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/08/illegal-alien-crime-accounts-for-over-30-of-murders-in-some-states/) Then blame Trump for pointing out the elephant in the room. These facts are not attacking hispanic people, just the illegals that are criminals. Same as others have said, don't punish the innocent for what the criminals do. Guns or illegals.
-
Yup, agreed. But from the outside looking in, the USA very (internationally) publicly holds itself up as a beacon of peace and prosperity to the world and as a model for what democracy should be. The news you get inside your borders is vastly different from the news the rest of the world sees.
So yes, your country has a problem and because of the propensity of media to always fixate on your country, we will all get a front row seat.
Yada lives in Canada, not the USA, despite his proclivity for saying "we" and "us" when discussing issues in a country other than his own.
Ignore the subject and attack him with false claims. Blame Trump, not the party in power the last 8 years.
Look at this, Churches are a common target for Islamic militants in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation. Police in Indonesia shot a sword-wielding man who attacked a church congregation during Sunday Mass, injuring four people, including a German priest. [url]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/11/police-shoot-man-during-sword-attack-on-indonesian-church.html[/url] ([url]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/11/police-shoot-man-during-sword-attack-on-indonesian-church.html[/url])
The region has also seen a large number of people join Islamic State terror group, according to Reuters.
Dagestan is a predominantly Muslim region between Chechnya and the Caspian Sea. Following two separatist wars in neighboring Chechnya, an Islamist insurgency spread to Dagestan. [url]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/18/russia-church-shooting-leaves-5-dead-after-gunman-opens-fire-on-people-leaving-service.html[/url] ([url]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/18/russia-church-shooting-leaves-5-dead-after-gunman-opens-fire-on-people-leaving-service.html[/url])
Why don't you stop defending the terrorists, [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks[/url] ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks[/url]) liberals like you love diversity but miss the truth.
Or these people who you want to take over the country, they can't read or write English. Illegal Alien Crime Accounts for over 30% of Murders in Many States. [url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/08/illegal-alien-crime-accounts-for-over-30-of-murders-in-some-states/[/url] ([url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/08/illegal-alien-crime-accounts-for-over-30-of-murders-in-some-states/[/url]) Then blame Trump for pointing out the elephant in the room. These facts are not attacking hispanic people, just the illegals that are criminals. Same as others have said, don't punish the innocent for what the criminals do. Guns or illegals.
Yes but it dont matter Jim! like my post above! bashing Trump is a must. A guy is having toothache in Djakarta, its Trumps fault!...the leftie/Lib crap never give up they make themselves look so stupid they dont even realize it and it all boils down to jealousy and especially in Europe where the IQ is so low among politicians they are close to surrender their culture, values and laws to that of the Islamic state!....never mind lets see who gets the last laugh?? hahaha!
-
What exactly have School shootings in the US got to do with Europe being a dump and taken over by Islamists? Is the argument that actually that school shootings isn't really a problem in the US?
My roof is leaking but never mind cos the guy down the road's walls are falling in.
-
Oh paws! havent you read all other posts as usual, its turned into a bashing Trump thread. been asleep have we? ::) ::) ::)
-
Oh paws! havent you read all other posts as usual, its turned into a bashing Trump thread. been asleep have we? ::) ::) ::)
I'm just trying to turn it back into something more interesting as its very easy to nod off reading the same predictable evidence free posts over and over. Trump is President now...whats his plan? Apart from bashing the FBI.
-
Guns for all IS the American system
This actually is not true, at least not according to the constitution. This idea of "second amendment rights" has now been perverted so thoroughly that even Zero Talent states the idea that people can own firearms at home as a fact.
The actual text of the second amendment is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The Founding Fathers were concerned about protecting the state from foreign powers, especially after the British had a policy of capturing the magazines of the colonies in 1774 and 1775. The second amendment, as you can clearly tell by reading what is written, only authorizes the right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. We can know this with absolute certainty by the key phrase "A well regulated militia". Not much interpretation required for that. Random yahoos having guns at home is not well regulated and not a militia (which can only be authorized by Congress), so absolutely, 100% is NOT authorized by the second amendment.
You could debate about whether "the security of a free state" would include personal weapons, but we can discount that by the first clause about militias and also by understanding the historical context. In the 1770s the colonies did not have their own armies. If there were a need for defense, every able-bodied (male, slave-holding in the south) citizen would be mustered into a militia and issued weapons from a communal store. Most people did not own firearms because they were 1) very expensive and 2) required loading with cartridges of gunpowder and primed with black powder. Keeping lots of gunpowder lying around in wooden houses that were lighted and heated with open flames is not a great idea. Instead, gunpowder and weapons were stored in community magazines that were present in most large cities. To prevent the citizens from rebelling, the British removed gunpowder from magazines in Massachusetts in 1774 and Virginia in 1775. This was fresh on the minds of the framers of the constitution and is likely why the second amendment was deemed so important.
The US was absolutely NOT set up as a gun state! The right to bear arms was only in the context of a well organized militia for the security of the state, which we can know with absolute certainty because it was written in clear, plain English. The modern equivalent of a 1780s militia is the National Guard, and nobody has ever talked about disarming them. That amendment was written before the age of professional, standing militaries and really should be removed since we no longer use militias for defense.
For over 150 years the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment as it was written. It is only during the past 50 years that the NRA, through consistent messaging and buying off of congresspeople, has perverted the public perception of the second amendment so much that even liberals talk about "second amendment rights" as if it means individuals can keep firearms at home. Yet, this clearly is not what the constitution says, and especially so when you consider the historical context in which it was written. The second amendment right to bear arms in modern society should only rest with the various state national guard units. The second amendment only applies to arms in the context of a militia; it is silent about firearms owned by individuals. This means that individuals owning firearms should be decided and regulated separately by the states.
It is a travesty that one organization has managed to twist the constitution to serve the ends of a single industry. It is long past time for the power of the NRA to end and the people to read the constitution and interpret it as it was written and intended.
Excellent post! That is one of the first things said after a mass shooting...”it’s my second amendment right to own a gun.” So buy yourself or your kid a musket and teach him/her to shoot with that, because that is what they had when the second amendment was written, NOT Ar-15s or uzis or whatever other weapon of mass destruction people think they should be allowed to own because it’s their right. ::)
-
Yes there is such a logic We use it everyday.
Ha, ha, there is no logic because your assumptions are false as well as your induction process.
Your are the turkey who got his head chopped in November. ;D
If only 1 (one) American is an exception, then your induction fails, because your statement was about ALL Americans.
Bigots, racists, xenophobes use your induction every day to "prove" that Muslim are terrorists, Mexicans are rapists, Gypsies are thieves, etc
Your "perfect logic" is also called stereotyping.
And it is very wrong, even if people like you use it every day.
No, the "perfect logic" was about the deductive reasoning from the information you supplied earlier. Deductive logic is different to inductive and probabilistic logic.
Secondly, you claimed there was "no logic" in labelling people. I showed you there was: inductive logic and probabilistic logic. You were wrong
Thirdly, we use labels for groups of people who share similar characteristics all the time: liberals, conservatives, sports fans, artists.
Fourthly, you obviously missed the point of the inductive turkey. You're the turkey, because you deny the value of induction and probabilistic logic.
-
Your killing your own children and you're talking about 'what's fashionable' - What is wrong with you people?
There's no other country where people are killing each other?
I have difficulty finding another country -- especially in the West -- where people slaughter so many children at school so often.
Perhaps you can help?
Oh boy. Sure I can help. Why only focus on the West? Has it become acceptable and mainstream for certain countries to slaughter people so let's just ignore them and exclude them from the statistics? Hardly.
Here are some figures by country per 100,000 people which is a reasonable measurement based on percentage of killings by population.
General homicide by all methods. If you sort by homicides it should be no surprise, maybe except for you, that places like El Salvador and Honduras top the list by rate. Even by total count Brazil and India are at the top. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Killings by firearms. Again, sorting by homicides places like Honduras and Venezuela top that list which shouldn't be a surprise. It's reasonable to assume children are part of these figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
School shootings. You'll notice there are countries on this list other than the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
The information is there if you decide to look for it. Or you can blindly follow biased news media groups whose goal is to report information in a way that creates the most turmoil/division, gets them better ratings, and makes them more money. There are atrocities happening globally every day. Murder is horrible, Especially children. To say that United States is the only place where people, or children, are "slaughtered" is really naive. All countries have their problems. Quit blindly following the news media and focusing on the United States.
Now that I've presented some figures I fully expect to see responses with statistics being ignored, pivoting away from the topic, and more USA loves killing children drivel. Please proceed. I'll grab some popcorn.
Thanks for the information. I notice that there are far more children slaughtered at schools in the United States than in any other country.
And I"m glad you think it's relevant to compare the US to third-world countries -- many of which are far worse than the US -- rather than other developed democracies, whose gun killings, especiallly at schools, are tiny compared to the US.
So killing children is okay in other countries then. It's only a problem in the USA apparently.
So you are happy comparing the USA to a third world dingbat state.
At least we know where America is heading with 'Make America Great Again'.
What happened to moral leadership?
So what you're saying is "oh those countries kill people and children all the time. We're used to that and it's okay. Let's talk about the USA". Wow. And you want to throw around the word "moral"?
Why don't you do something to help those countries reduce their higher rates of murder? Go volunteer. Do something about it.
Oh I see. The underlying purpose of this, just like I said, is to bash the USA. Your "make America great again" comment says it all.
And what are you doing in your own country about the high rate of slaughter in US schools?
If it's nothing, then I presume you think it's OK.
-
You can get almost any gun (legally) in Canada that you can in the US except fully automatic weapons and a few other restrictions that affect almost nobody. The difference is the number of hoops you need to jump through. You need a course run by the RCMP for basic ownership, a background check, and for "prohibited" weapons like handguns you need further courses, an exam and a list of rules for transport, storage and useage.
Banning would never work (from the outside looking in, I live right on the Can/US border), but I don't see why having some common sense laws are such an issue there. There are pros and cons to our system, like any other, but if even one mass shooting is prevented, then I will happily do the extra paperwork and really that is all it is for people who are not a threat to others.
We had our mass/school shootings and changed the laws. Seemed to work for the most part. A minor inconvenience to law abiding people, and much more difficult for people who really shouldn't have them. And yes, there are always ways to get a gun, but for every one who does, maybe so many more get caught trying.
Finally, the 2nd Amendment issue puzzles me. By definition it is something that has been added to or changed from the original. So it is not carved in stone IMHO. If you look at the 18th Amendment, you can see that when motivated, it is ok to change or even repeal an amendment.
Good points, and to some others.
Guns per capita is a false number because I know many people who own no guns or have no pistol and except for a small number, none own automatic weapons of any sort. USA 100 but some of those are collectors or gun hobbyists who own 50 or more. Canada 30 per 100, same but many less of those owners have more than a couple of useful weapons for hunting or hobby or self protection.
Gun murders per 100,000 people, Canada 1.9, .38 homicide, 1.52 suicide, US 10.5, 3.6 homicide, 6.3 suicide. In easy numbers Canada is 80% less, 90% less homicides, with 66% less guns. One big difference is society. We have Detroit right across the border from Windsor. Detroit has gangs, poverty to the max, crime, murders and all kinds of problems. Go across the border bridge and Windsor is a different world. It's not just the guns.
Right we don't need semi-automatic weapons in the US with 20 round clips. For hunting the animals would be long gone, are these guys that terrible of a shot that they have to throw a big clip at some poor little deer? Bump stocks, no need. 5 rounds max for shotguns and big rifles, more for 22 because that's standard for small game.
The reason gun sales go up after one of these incidents is not because people are buying killing machines. They want more for two general reasons. Protection or because they fear a ban is coming.
You can't ignore these countries just because they are crap holes or third world in your narrow opinion, as some have claimed they don't count. Trump didn't shoot the gun, he didn't make the laws, blame is easy and avoiding the truth is just as simple. If anyone pays attention, the President doesn't write the law or introduce the bills.
Places with higher gun homicides rates than the US, you need to include the whole Earth not just those that fit a liberal agenda.
Honduras 67.18
Venezuela 59.13
Swaziland 37.16
Jamaica 30.72
Guatemala 34.10
El Salvador 45.6
Colombia 25.94
Brazil 21.2
Panama 15.11
Philippines 8.90
South Africa 8.3
Mexico 7.64
Costa Rica 7.50
Paraguay 7.76
Uruguay 11.52
Peru 5.53
Nicaragua 4.68
State after state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation also having the highest gun crime rates in the nation. Chicago would be an example.
Chicago is not the most murderous city in the U.S., not by a long shot, despite Illinois having a very long border with a neighboring state with very lax gun laws. So please stop using that false example.
Trump blames the Democrats for not acting on gun control when they held power, but he and his fellow Republicans have all the power now, so what's stopping them from acting (other than being owned by the NRA)? Instead he's loosening gun laws while pointing blame elsewhere. Nice trick.
Who cares how many people you know who don't own guns? Do you know everyone in the U.S. and Canada? Because only then would your personal experience be relevant.
How about the people you know? How many are gun owners, how many have many guns and stockpiles of ammo. How many are against guns and won't have one in their home. I know more people who are not only against the violence but don't want a gun at home. Tell me about your friends.
Nice pass, Obama had power for eight years now you blame Trump for doing nothing. The question is why didn't all you know it all people who want to tell us how to live and think, do something? Maybe it's not as easy as just blaming Trump for everything that's wrong that you left behind.
Chicago is ridden with crime and you want to blame the states next to IL. Lets blame the countries next to the US for the gun and crime problems in the US. Start with Mexico? That's your plan.
-
Yes there is such a logic We use it everyday.
Ha, ha, there is no logic because your assumptions are false as well as your induction process.
Your are the turkey who got his head chopped in November. ;D
If only 1 (one) American is an exception, then your induction fails, because your statement was about ALL Americans.
Bigots, racists, xenophobes use your induction every day to "prove" that Muslim are terrorists, Mexicans are rapists, Gypsies are thieves, etc
Your "perfect logic" is also called stereotyping.
And it is very wrong, even if people like you use it every day.
No, the "perfect logic" was about the deductive reasoning from the information you supplied earlier. Deductive logic is different to inductive and probabilistic logic.
Secondly, you claimed there was "no logic" in labelling people. I showed you there was: inductive logic and probabilistic logic. You were wrong
Thirdly, we use labels for groups of people who share similar characteristics all the time: liberals, conservatives, sports fans, artists.
Fourthly, you obviously missed the point of the inductive turkey. You're the turkey, because you deny the value of induction and probabilistic logic.
You keep on repeating some concepts too complex for you to understand.
Go back to your high school calculus. YouTube is great, but not always good enough to replace a book.
For the inductive logic to work, it is not only sufficient to prove it for one, two, or one hundred particular cases. It is necessary to prove that what is valid for the nth case, is also logically valid for the n+1 case or by testing every single case, in case of finite sets.
You failed to prove that and so did the turkey who got his head chopped off.
What you have there is an incomplete induction, which is not sufficient for the conclusion to be true.
In the best case, you can use it for statistics to claim that "most Americans", or a "majority of Americans", or 49.52% of Americans share a characteristic.
You can only say Americans, ALL Americans or 100% of Americans are like this or like that, if you obtain certainty through complete induction (or by testing every single individual American)
You failed to do that, therefore your conclusion is not necessarily true.
Moreover, you only need 1 (one) exception from your rule, to make it logically false.
Fyi, statements that seem true through incomplete induction (without having a proof) but also no known exception to prove them false are called conjectures.
See, for example, the Goldbach Conjecture, which is a yet unproven conjecture stating that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers.
It looks true, we don't have known exceptions, but it is NOT a true statement, from a logical point of view.
Your statement is not even a conjecture, let alone true or "perfect logic", as you believe.
It is false, pure and simple. Easily provable. There is no country on earth more diverse than The United States. Exceptions are everywhere.
This is why the turkey lost his head.
This is why you are no different than those, bigots, racists, xenophobes or simple ignorants, who use similar flawed "logic" to justify their beliefs and assumptions, equating :
muslims = terrorists
mexicans = rapists
gypsies = thieves
russians = drunks
french = arrogants
british = bad teeth
germans = fascists
americans = fat
italians = mafia
...(add your stereotype here)
All these equations (including yours) are false.
Quot erat demonstrandum.
-
Chicago is ridden with crime and you want to blame the states next to IL. Lets blame the countries next to the US for the gun and crime problems in the US. Start with Mexico? That's your plan.
But that's not comparing like with like. Mexico is a different country.
There are no border checks between Illinois and neighbouring states.
Perhaps there should be.
Perhaps there will be once the second American civil war breaks out.
-
Obama had power for eight years now you blame Trump for doing nothing.
Wow, you complain about people bashing Trump and the first thing you do is mention Obama. Pot, Kettle, Black.
The problem is that your statement is disingenuous. Although Obama was the president, Democrats only controlled the house for the first two years of his presidency and only had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate for four months of his eight years - that was when Obamacare was passed. Obama tried very hard to get gun control passed. If Democrats had controlled the house and the senate when Obama was president you can be sure that some form of gun control would have passed.
Trump is in a similar situation - Republicans control the house, but don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. However, there is no doubt that if the Republicans propose laws for reasonable gun control they will be strongly if not unanimously supported by Democrats. On gun control Trump is doing nothing - he could use the power of his office to get his fellow Republicans to do the right thing, but has shown no leadership. Obama tried very hard but was thwarted by Republicans - to imply that he had the power to do this and didn't get it done is a lie.
-
Yes there is such a logic We use it everyday.
Ha, ha, there is no logic because your assumptions are false as well as your induction process.
Your are the turkey who got his head chopped in November. ;D
If only 1 (one) American is an exception, then your induction fails, because your statement was about ALL Americans.
Bigots, racists, xenophobes use your induction every day to "prove" that Muslim are terrorists, Mexicans are rapists, Gypsies are thieves, etc
Your "perfect logic" is also called stereotyping.
And it is very wrong, even if people like you use it every day.
No, the "perfect logic" was about the deductive reasoning from the information you supplied earlier. Deductive logic is different to inductive and probabilistic logic.
Secondly, you claimed there was "no logic" in labelling people. I showed you there was: inductive logic and probabilistic logic. You were wrong
Thirdly, we use labels for groups of people who share similar characteristics all the time: liberals, conservatives, sports fans, artists.
Fourthly, you obviously missed the point of the inductive turkey. You're the turkey, because you deny the value of induction and probabilistic logic.
You keep on repeating some concepts too complex for you to understand.
Go back to your high school calculus. YouTube is great, but not always good enough to replace a book.
For the inductive logic to work, it is not only sufficient to prove it for one, two, or one hundred particular cases. It is necessary to prove that what is valid for the nth case, is also logically valid for the n+1 case or by testing every single case, in case of finite sets.
You failed to prove that and so did the turkey who got his head chopped off.
What you have there is an incomplete induction, which is not sufficient for the conclusion to be true.
In the best case, you can use it for statistics to claim that "most Americans", or a "majority of Americans", or 49.52% of Americans share a characteristic.
You can only say Americans, ALL Americans or 100% of Americans are like this or like that, if you obtain certainty through complete induction (or by testing every single individual American)
You failed to do that, therefore your conclusion is not necessarily true.
Moreover, you only need 1 (one) exception from your rule, to make it logically false.
Fyi, statements that seem true through incomplete induction (without having a proof) but also no known exception to prove them false are called conjectures.
See, for example, the Goldbach Conjecture, which is a yet unproven conjecture stating that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers.
It looks true, we don't have known exceptions, but it is NOT a true statement, from a logical point of view.
Your statement is not even a conjecture, let alone true or "perfect logic", as you believe.
It is false, pure and simple. Easily provable. There is no country on earth more diverse than The United States. Exceptions are everywhere.
This is why the turkey lost his head.
This is why you are no different than those, bigots, racists, xenophobes or simple ignorants, who use similar flawed "logic" to justify their beliefs and assumptions, equating :
muslims = terrorists
mexicans = rapists
gypsies = thieves
russians = drunks
french = arrogants
british = bad teeth
germans = fascists
americans = fat
italians = mafia
...(add your stereotype here)
All these equations (including yours) are false.
Quot erat demonstrandum.
you are putting words into my mouth
My tag "perfect logic" was about a deductive argument I made before we started talking about induction.
Secondly, you said there was "no logic" in labelling people based on a sample of those people. There are: the branches of inductive logic and probabilistic logic.
Whether my conclusions derived from using these branches of logic are valid is another matter.
But every day we use probabilistic logic. You presume that people will drive on the correct side of the road based on your experience. You might run a red light on the basis that you've got away with it before.
This is why you are no different than those, bigots, racists, xenophobes or simple ignorants, who use similar flawed "logic" to justify their beliefs and assumptions, equating :
muslims = terrorists
mexicans = rapists
gypsies = thieves
russians = drunks
french = arrogants
british = bad teeth
germans = fascists
americans = fat
Indeed. That is cherry picking the misuse of induction, and most of those claims are based on flawed heuristics. But we use inductive logic and probabilistic logic for positive stereotypes as well.
For example, doctors want to cure you (and not murder you).
Or, Americans love democracy and freedom.
As for Americans being fat....
Overall, 70.7 percent of Americans are either overweight or obese, meaning that an unhealthy weight has become the norm, with normal weight Americans — a BMI of less than 25 — now in the minority.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/america-s-obesity-epidemic-reaches-record-high-new-report-says-n810231 (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/america-s-obesity-epidemic-reaches-record-high-new-report-says-n810231)
-
BTW, for those who want to do something, the survivors of the most recent Florida shooting are planning a march on DC for March 24 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43105701 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43105701)). These students are really taking a stand and their goal is to break the back of the NRA. If we can make NRA dollars toxic to politicians then there is hope of taking back the country. Baby steps. When 17-year-old high school students show more wisdom and intelligence than our "leaders" then it clearly is a time for a change of leadership!
I will try to go to the rally depending on schedule - the 11-hour drive each way makes it difficult with work. If not there then Indianapolis - a large rally now with a buildup to the elections could see a change in November.
-
You keep on repeating some concepts too complex for you to understand.
Go back to your high school calculus. YouTube is great, but not always good enough to replace a book.
For the inductive logic to work, it is not only sufficient to prove it for one, two, or one hundred particular cases. It is necessary to prove that what is valid for the nth case, is also logically valid for the n+1 case or by testing every single case, in case of finite sets.
I don't think that's calculus, but I'll let it pass.
As for complex concepts I don't understand: I'm out of practice.
It's thirty years since last I studied induction, predicate logic, theories of truth, philosophy of science etc at university. Although my training in statistics and methodology is more recent.
-
As for Americans being fat....
Overall, 70.7 percent of Americans are either overweight or obese, meaning that an unhealthy weight has become the norm, with normal weight Americans — a BMI of less than 25 — now in the minority.
You see, there is a big difference between what you said and what someone who knows logic wrote in this statement.
"70.7 percent of Americans are either overweight or obese" is the correct way to put it.
It is a factual statement. I can agree with it.
On the other hand "Americans are fat" is false, because 29.3% are not overweight nor obese (not fat)
Same goes for "doctors want to cure".
It is a false statement, because there are cases of doctors doing intentional harm to people.
A correct statement would be: Most doctors want to cure you.
Also not "all Americans love democracy and freedom". Counter-examples with American extremists, terrorists or mass-shooters are numerous.
Therefore, this statement is also false.
A correct way to say it would be "a large majority of Americans love democracy and freedom", if you don't know the exact percentage.
You keep on making the same mistake over and over again, when is so simple...Really!
-
As for Americans being fat....
Overall, 70.7 percent of Americans are either overweight or obese, meaning that an unhealthy weight has become the norm, with normal weight Americans — a BMI of less than 25 — now in the minority.
You see there, there is a big difference between what you said and what someone who knows logic wrote in that statement.
"70.7 percent of Americans are either overweight or obese" is the correct way to put it.
It is a factual statement. I can agree with it.
On the other hand "Americans are fat" is false, because 29.3% are not overweight or obese (not fat)
Same goes for "doctors want to cure".
It is a false statement, because there are cases of doctors doing intentional harm to people.
A correct statement would be: Most doctors want to cure you.
Also not "all Americans love democracy and freedom". Counter-examples are numerous.
Therefore, this statement is also false.
A correct way to say it would be "a large majority of Americans love democracy and freedom", if you don't know the exact percentage.
You keep on making the same mistake over and over again, when is so simple...Really!
"Americans are fat" is useful heuristic derived from probabilistic logic.
It's another way to say "in America, it is normal to be fat or obese"
PS I agree with what you say about the Second Amendment. It is archaic and ambiguous.
-
As for Americans being fat....
Overall, 70.7 percent of Americans are either overweight or obese, meaning that an unhealthy weight has become the norm, with normal weight Americans — a BMI of less than 25 — now in the minority.
You see there, there is a big difference between what you said and what someone who knows logic wrote in that statement.
"70.7 percent of Americans are either overweight or obese" is the correct way to put it.
It is a factual statement. I can agree with it.
On the other hand "Americans are fat" is false, because 29.3% are not overweight or obese (not fat)
Same goes for "doctors want to cure".
It is a false statement, because there are cases of doctors doing intentional harm to people.
A correct statement would be: Most doctors want to cure you.
Also not "all Americans love democracy and freedom". Counter-examples are numerous.
Therefore, this statement is also false.
A correct way to say it would be "a large majority of Americans love democracy and freedom", if you don't know the exact percentage.
You keep on making the same mistake over and over again, when is so simple...Really!
"Americans are fat" is useful heuristic derived from probabilistic logic.
It's another way to say "in America, it is normal to be fat or obese"
PS I agree with what you say about the Second Amendment. It is archaic and ambiguous.
We are making progress, then!
"in America, it is normal to be fat or obese" can be a correct statement, if we agree that "normal" means "a majority"
You still have to admit that a blanket statement like "Americans are fat" is a false statement, (because 29.7% are NOT).
And then, we are done, here ;)
-
As for Americans being fat....
Overall, 70.7 percent of Americans are either overweight or obese, meaning that an unhealthy weight has become the norm, with normal weight Americans — a BMI of less than 25 — now in the minority.
You see there, there is a big difference between what you said and what someone who knows logic wrote in that statement.
"70.7 percent of Americans are either overweight or obese" is the correct way to put it.
It is a factual statement. I can agree with it.
On the other hand "Americans are fat" is false, because 29.3% are not overweight or obese (not fat)
Same goes for "doctors want to cure".
It is a false statement, because there are cases of doctors doing intentional harm to people.
A correct statement would be: Most doctors want to cure you.
Also not "all Americans love democracy and freedom". Counter-examples are numerous.
Therefore, this statement is also false.
A correct way to say it would be "a large majority of Americans love democracy and freedom", if you don't know the exact percentage.
You keep on making the same mistake over and over again, when is so simple...Really!
"Americans are fat" is useful heuristic derived from probabilistic logic.
It's another way to say "in America, it is normal to be fat or obese"
PS I agree with what you say about the Second Amendment. It is archaic and ambiguous.
We are making progress, then!
"in America, it is normal to be fat or obese" can be a correct statement, if we agree that "normal" means "a majority"
You still have to admit that a blanket statement like "Americans are fat" is a false statement, (because 29.7% are NOT).
And then, we are done, here ;)
"all Americans are fat" is false
ME: What sort of house do you live in?
ZEROTALENT: Well, when I left home this morning, I was living in a three-bedroom detached colonial style house with a large garden. But I cannot say truthfully that the house is the same as when I left, or, indeed, whether I still live there. A mischievous philosopher may have burned the house to the ground, or my landlord may have got a court order evicting me and so I no longer live in the house. In fact, there are so many possibilities of what might have happened in the intervening time that I cannot answer your question sensibly at all.
ME: Whatever. BTW, did you see that the sceptical turkey who kept running away died of hunger?
-
Exactly what I expected. Let's ignore and exclude statistics from places that have higher murder rates. It's okay to kill people and children in those countries. Let's not talk about those countries. It's the USA that's evil.
Which country would you like to talk about with greater number of shooting per capita than the US? or more specifically greater number of school shootings?
You should start a thread about whichever country it is you want to discuss. There could be people on this forum from that country on here that would like to engage with you about the systemic and societal problems that have lead it to that situation.
This thread seems to be mostly discussing the situation in the US. It is the predominant superpower and richest nation in the world at this time, but we could switch to discussing Honduras and its unique problems I guess? I am not sure as many people would have a vested interest though?
Well, this thread is about "Forum Moderation" nothing else…
But like always some fanatic diverted it from its original purpose……
-
How about the people you know? How many are gun owners, how many have many guns and stockpiles of ammo. How many are against guns and won't have one in their home. I know more people who are not only against the violence but don't want a gun at home. Tell me about your friends.
Nice pass, Obama had power for eight years now you blame Trump for doing nothing. The question is why didn't all you know it all people who want to tell us how to live and think, do something? Maybe it's not as easy as just blaming Trump for everything that's wrong that you left behind.
Chicago is ridden with crime and you want to blame the states next to IL. Lets blame the countries next to the US for the gun and crime problems in the US. Start with Mexico? That's your plan.
The Obama thing has already been explained to you...clearly you don't understand the U.S. political system, being from Canada.
A lot of the problem in Mexico can be blamed on the U.S., since we supply them with guns.
The number of people I know is statistically insignificant, but let's just say they run the gamut from career criminals who commit armed robbery to rabid right-wing nutcases who are stockpiling weapons to staunch liberals AND conservatives who won't own a gun and want most of them destroyed.
Stop your obsession with Chicago. Look up the cities with the worst homicide rates in the U.S. instead of getting your talking points from Breitbart.
Let's talk about Regina instead, the murder capital of Canada, since that's where you live. "Bray [Regina's Chief of Police] gave four reasons what is driving crime in Regina: firearms, drugs, gang activity and street crime. "
Explain why he puts firearms at the top of his list.
-
Well, this thread is about "Forum Moderation" nothing else…
But like always some fanatic diverted it from its original purpose……
Because there is nothing to discuss, it's a private place and any post or thread or even subforum can be deleted without explanations. More to it, on a typical professional forum, only purely technical questions and answers are allowed. None of the venting or chit-chat, political or otherwise. So naturally, when the subject is non-issue, people go off on tangents and scratch where it itches.
-
"all Americans are fat" is false
Thank you.
Because "Americans are fat" is also False.
The same goes for "Muslim are terrorists",
"Mexicans are rapists", "Russians are drunks" and so on. All these are false.
Just be careful with your superficial generalizations in the future. Be more nuanced in your expression to avoid blaming innocent people for mistakes made by others, even when "others" means a majority.
-
hahaha! for some living in Brazil, Hong-Kong, NZ, etc, etc to say that Chicago this and that is riddled with crime?? how do they know? seen too many movies or TV series I suppose!
-
"all Americans are fat" is false
Thank you.
Because "Americans are fat" is also False.
The same goes for "Muslim are terrorists",
"Mexicans are rapists", "Russians are drunks" and so on. All these are false.
Just be careful with your superficial generalizations in the future. Be more nuanced in your expression to avoid blaming innocent people for mistakes made by others, even if "others" means a majority.
I bought a new fridge recently. I could not find one to fit between the kitchen cabinets. They were all too big.
The salesperson at Lowes said that "Fridges got bigger as Americans got fatter".
-
Funny to notice that, last night, John Oliver, with his usual humor, identified the same flaws of superficial generalizations, I was debating here:
https://youtu.be/QCjk_NPsIqU
His conclusion starts around 16:40 and it goes like this:
"Donald Trump does not reflect America! To be completely honest, it does reflect it A BIT"
;D
"The point is America is not one thing. It is a beautiful mess of contradictions, where good and bad are mixed together"
-
"all Americans are fat" is false
Thank you.
Because "Americans are fat" is also False.
The same goes for "Muslim are terrorists",
"Mexicans are rapists", "Russians are drunks" and so on. All these are false.
You guys spend far too much time debating minor points of semantics. The problem is that the statement "Americans are fat" could be true or false depending on whether it was meant absolutely, i.e., "all Americans are fat" - which clearly is false - or statistically, i.e., "on average, Americans are fat" - which unfortunately is true. It is impossible to tell whether the statement "Americans are fat" is true or false by itself without knowing whether it was meant absolutely or statistically.
Just be careful with your superficial generalizations in the future. Be more nuanced in your expression to avoid blaming innocent people for mistakes made by others, even when "others" means a majority.
Yes, this would solve the problem going forward.
-
"all Americans are fat" is false
Thank you.
Because "Americans are fat" is also False.
The same goes for "Muslim are terrorists",
"Mexicans are rapists", "Russians are drunks" and so on. All these are false.
Just be careful with your superficial generalizations in the future. Be more nuanced in your expression to avoid blaming innocent people for mistakes made by others, even when "others" means a majority.
Yes, this would solve the problem going forward.
Exactly. Thanks!
I would definitely agree with statements like: Statistically, Americans Love Guns. A majority of Americans Love Freedom and Democracy. I also agree that most Americans are fat (BTW, the same goes for a majority of Canadians, Australians, British, Spaniards, French, Italians, Swedes, Mexicans, Brazilians or Germans) ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_body_mass_index
Blanket statements like "Americans are fat" with no added nuance nor clarifications are false, wrong, unfair and often offensive.
-
Chicago is ridden with crime and you want to blame the states next to IL. Lets blame the countries next to the US for the gun and crime problems in the US. Start with Mexico? That's your plan.
But that's not comparing like with like. Mexico is a different country.
There are no border checks between Illinois and neighbouring states.
Perhaps there should be.
Perhaps there will be once the second American civil war breaks out.
Yeah you wouldn't want those horrible Indiana Hoosier's, Wisconsin Cheese Heads or Iowa corn farmers and hog producers, from sneaking across the border and causing trouble in Chicago. ;D The crocked politicians are afraid of the extra tough farmers will disrupt their control.
The point of Obama was just what I said, people blame Trump for what's going on now, because he's in power. That's the President. Why didn't Obama change things when he was President. I thought it was a simple enough question? Maybe because it's not the President who makes laws and can easily change things? Maybe? Not pot calling anything, just pointing out the contradiction. It's always somebody else's fault, never the Democrats.
In power the President is correcting what the previous did wrong, out of power they are blaming the current President. Crook and politician are synonyms in the US. Both parties, don't play innocent you liberals here. How's your record with politicians in jail, look to Michigan and IL for the most former governors.
muslims = terrorists
mexicans = rapists illegals
gypsies = thieves
russians = drunks
french = arrogants
british = bad teeth
germans = fascists
americans = fat
Most generalization come from facts adulterated and expanded. Italians are mobsters, truth is, too many were in the past, but they had Jewish accountants. Most terrorists are Muslims, not most Muslims are terrorists. Most of the gangsters were Italians, most Italians were not. Most of the drug dealers are Black, not most African American's are drug dealers. Russians are drunks, but not the majority. Brits actually don't have bad teeth, it's a false stereotype. American's are generally overweight compared to the rest of the world. Gypsies were thieves and transients. German's are arrogant, not the French, but the French are snobs about their cuisine? :)
Forum moderation should say, this whole thread is out of order and should be shut down for nothing more than a political shouting match with no end. Not one word has anything to do with Microstock.
-
muslims = terrorists
mexicans = rapists illegals
gypsies = thieves
russians = drunks
french = arrogants
british = bad teeth
germans = fascists
americans = fat
Most generalization come from facts adulterated and expanded. Italians are mobsters, truth is, too many were in the past, but they had Jewish accountants. Most terrorists are Muslims, not most Muslims are terrorists. Most of the gangsters were Italians, most Italians were not. Most of the drug dealers are Black, not most African American's are drug dealers. Russians are drunks, but not the majority. Brits actually don't have bad teeth, it's a false stereotype. American's are generally overweight compared to the rest of the world. Gypsies were thieves and transients. German's are arrogant, not the French, but the French are snobs about their cuisine? :)
All good, except that "Most terrorists are Muslims" is not true for the United States.
In the USA, there were almost twice as many terrorist incidents by right-wing extremists as by Islamist extremists.
We can add the mass-shooter from the recent attack in Florida to this list of white American terrorists.
-
but the French are snobs about their cuisine? :)
and rightfully so
-
muslims = terrorists
mexicans = rapists illegals
gypsies = thieves
russians = drunks
french = arrogants
british = bad teeth
germans = fascists
americans = fat
Most generalization come from facts adulterated and expanded. Italians are mobsters, truth is, too many were in the past, but they had Jewish accountants. Most terrorists are Muslims, not most Muslims are terrorists. Most of the gangsters were Italians, most Italians were not. Most of the drug dealers are Black, not most African American's are drug dealers. Russians are drunks, but not the majority. Brits actually don't have bad teeth, it's a false stereotype. American's are generally overweight compared to the rest of the world. Gypsies were thieves and transients. German's are arrogant, not the French, but the French are snobs about their cuisine? :)
All good, except that "Most terrorists are Muslims" is not true for the United States.
In the USA, there were almost twice as many terrorist incidents by right-wing extremists as by Islamist extremists.
We can add the mass-shooter from the recent attack in Florida to this list of white American terrorists.
Right wing extremists?? you mean suicide bombers and all that lark, driving trucks or cars into masses of people?? who were the right-wingers doing this?
-
muslims = terrorists
mexicans = rapists illegals
gypsies = thieves
russians = drunks
french = arrogants
british = bad teeth
germans = fascists
americans = fat
Most generalization come from facts adulterated and expanded. Italians are mobsters, truth is, too many were in the past, but they had Jewish accountants. Most terrorists are Muslims, not most Muslims are terrorists. Most of the gangsters were Italians, most Italians were not. Most of the drug dealers are Black, not most African American's are drug dealers. Russians are drunks, but not the majority. Brits actually don't have bad teeth, it's a false stereotype. American's are generally overweight compared to the rest of the world. Gypsies were thieves and transients. German's are arrogant, not the French, but the French are snobs about their cuisine? :)
All good, except that "Most terrorists are Muslims" is not true for the United States.
In the USA, there were almost twice as many terrorist incidents by right-wing extremists as by Islamist extremists.
We can add the mass-shooter from the recent attack in Florida to this list of white American terrorists.
Right wing extremists?? you mean suicide bombers and all that lark, driving trucks or cars into masses of people?? who were the right-wingers doing this?
OK, I take that back, since I don't want to start debating about what and who are right wing extremists, left wing extremists or unaffiliated extremists.
Let me rephrase, to properly explain that "Most terrorists are Muslim" is false.
In the USA, there were almost twice as many terrorist incidents by non-Muslims as by Islamist extremists.
Data is widely available, for example here: https://apps.revealnews.org/homegrown-terror/
Decide for yourself if their definition of right wing extremists or left wing extremists is correct. The fact is that none of these two categories, forming a large majority, contains muslims.
Therefore, the statement "Most terrorists are Muslim" is false.
-
Aren't Muslims Right Wing extremists though?...most of their beliefs about society such as the role of women views on homosexuality, capital punishment etc look pretty right wing to me. They certainly aren't left wing libtards ;-).
-
Aren't Muslims Right Wing extremists though?...most of their beliefs about society such as the role of women views on homosexuality, capital punishment etc look pretty right wing to me. They certainly aren't left wing libtards ;-).
Even so, they don't form a majority. Therefore "Most terrorists are Muslim" is false.
PS. on the other hand, Sharia forbids interest paid on loans of money, so one can argue that they are Marxists. ;)
-
muslims = terrorists
mexicans = rapists illegals
gypsies = thieves
russians = drunks
french = arrogants
british = bad teeth
germans = fascists
americans = fat
Most generalization come from facts adulterated and expanded. Italians are mobsters, truth is, too many were in the past, but they had Jewish accountants. Most terrorists are Muslims, not most Muslims are terrorists. Most of the gangsters were Italians, most Italians were not. Most of the drug dealers are Black, not most African American's are drug dealers. Russians are drunks, but not the majority. Brits actually don't have bad teeth, it's a false stereotype. American's are generally overweight compared to the rest of the world. Gypsies were thieves and transients. German's are arrogant, not the French, but the French are snobs about their cuisine? :)
All good, except that "Most terrorists are Muslims" is not true for the United States.
In the USA, there were almost twice as many terrorist incidents by right-wing extremists as by Islamist extremists.
We can add the mass-shooter from the recent attack in Florida to this list of white American terrorists.
Right wing extremists?? you mean suicide bombers and all that lark, driving trucks or cars into masses of people?? who were the right-wingers doing this?
OK, I take that back, since I don't want to start debating about what and who are right wing extremists, left wing extremists or unaffiliated extremists.
Let me rephrase, to properly explain that "Most terrorists are Muslim" is false.
In the USA, there were almost twice as many terrorist incidents by non-Muslims as by Islamist extremists.
Data is widely available, for example here: https://apps.revealnews.org/homegrown-terror/
Decide for yourself if their definition of right wing extremists or left wing extremists is correct. The fact is that none of these two categories, forming a large majority, contains muslims.
Therefore, the statement "Most terrorists are Muslim" is false.
And I stand corrected as well. Those left wing terrorists, blowing up and burning down buildings scare me, right wingers with all their guns and military compounds are also over the edge, but the religious fanatics, any of them, are the scariest people of all in the US. Left, Right, Muslim, Christian or anything else. Second only to political fanatics who can't see outside their party lines.
Depending on whatever a terrorist is, I'll concede that it's possible that most terrorists in the US are possibly not Muslim, looking at the totals and what constitutes terrorism. For example California is now a terrorist state because of the political leanings, the laws and the unamerican activities like harboring criminals plus the oppressive laws against everything from plastic bags to charcoal grills.
You're right, most terrorists in the US are not Muslims, they are the religious or political extremists.
-
Aren't Muslims Right Wing extremists though?...most of their beliefs about society such as the role of women views on homosexuality, capital punishment etc look pretty right wing to me. They certainly aren't left wing libtards ;-).
Even so, they don't form a majority. Therefore "Most terrorists are Muslim" is false.
PS. on the other hand, Sharia forbids interest paid on loans of money, so one can argue that they are Marxists. ;)
Yes the Left/Right dichotomy doesn't really work....They certainly aren't capitalists!
-
Aren't Muslims Right Wing extremists though?...most of their beliefs about society such as the role of women views on homosexuality, capital punishment etc look pretty right wing to me. They certainly aren't left wing libtards ;-).
Even so, they don't form a majority. Therefore "Most terrorists are Muslim" is false.
PS. on the other hand, Sharia forbids interest paid on loans of money, so one can argue that they are Marxists. ;)
Yes the Left/Right dichotomy doesn't really work....They certainly aren't capitalists!
Yeah, because there are many flavors of "left" and "right". It is not only about where the MPs choose to sit in the parliament.
It is not only about the position on economical freedoms or social freedoms. It is a more complex combination, which begins to make more sense if we see it in two dimensions.
See the attached matrix.
The matrix can explain why American liberals or progressives (Obama style) would sit on the right side, in most European parliaments.
Trump is shifting America from Liberalism/Progressivism up in the Nationalism box, beyond the classical GoP Conservatism.
-
Aren't Muslims Right Wing extremists though?...most of their beliefs about society such as the role of women views on homosexuality, capital punishment etc look pretty right wing to me. They certainly aren't left wing libtards ;-).
Even so, they don't form a majority. Therefore "Most terrorists are Muslim" is false.
PS. on the other hand, Sharia forbids interest paid on loans of money, so one can argue that they are Marxists. ;)
Yes the Left/Right dichotomy doesn't really work....They certainly aren't capitalists!
Yeah, because there are many flavors of "left" and "right". It is not only about where the MPs choose to sit in the parliament.
It is not only about the position on economical freedoms or social freedoms. It is a more complex combination, which begins to make more sense if we see it in two dimensions.
See the attached matrix.
The matrix can explain why American liberals or progressives (Obama style) would sit on the right side, in most European parliaments.
Trump is shifting America from Liberalism/Progressivism up in the Nationalism box, beyond the classical GoP Conservatism.
Interesting chart like any model it of course simplifies the mess that is reality. Certainly by most European measures Obama would be considered quite Right wing. The differences between Labour and Tory in the UK for example are presented as huge chasms but in fact the gap really is very small....just a bit more or less tax and state intervention.
-
What makes a gun an assault weapon. What are we supposed to ban?
-
What makes a gun an assault weapon. What are we supposed to ban?
Same thing that make the lie of 18 school shootings a factoid for news people. Then it gets quoted on the Internet and becomes a fact.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/18-school-shootings-this-year-thats-misleading/520550091 (http://www.wfaa.com/news/18-school-shootings-this-year-thats-misleading/520550091)
Misleading and over-blown claims. I'd like to know what makes any rifle into an assault weapon? Number of bullets, fully auto mode (which is already illegal), plastic stock and black?
-
Crook and politician are synonyms in the US. Both parties, don't play innocent you liberals here. How's your record with politicians in jail, look to Michigan and IL for the most former governors.
It's certainly true that neither party has a monopoly on corruption and there have been plenty of corrupt Democrats, but when it comes to the presidency there really is no comparison. Over the past nine presidencies covering 50 years, there were 87 people in the administrations of Republicans Nixon, Reagan and Bush II who received criminal convictions. Ford and Bush I had 1 each bringing the total to 89. People working in the four Democratic administrations over the same period had 1 criminal conviction of a Clinton crony. So for corruption at the highest level over the past 50 years the score is Republicans at 89 convictions versus Democrats with 1. Really no comparison. I expect Trump will set a new record once the investigations are done.
(Full disclosure - the graph came from the liberal source Mother Jones using data from Wikipedia).
Not one word has anything to do with Microstock.
What's Microstock? Who has time for that? My job flipping burgers at McDonalds gives me more time for forum posting.
-
Yada, you have this weird combination of saying things that are logical, rational and I mostly agree with like this:
Those left wing terrorists, blowing up and burning down buildings scare me, right wingers with all their guns and military compounds are also over the edge, but the religious fanatics, any of them, are the scariest people of all in the US. Left, Right, Muslim, Christian or anything else. Second only to political fanatics who can't see outside their party lines.
which mostly makes sense, except I don't really know of many left-wing terrorists who blow up or burn down anything in the US. I could provide many other examples of things you've said that I agree with.
Followed by bizarre, crazy stuff that makes no sense like this:
For example California is now a terrorist state because of the political leanings, the laws and the unamerican activities like harboring criminals plus the oppressive laws against everything from plastic bags to charcoal grills.
California is a terrorist state because they've banned plastic bags at grocery stores? I'll take your "terrorist state" of California over almost anyplace else any day!
-
Speaking of California, I used to have a girlfriend from southern California. When she was a kid her father made everyone in the family wear seat belts, because it was a safety issue and the right thing to do. When the state passed a law requiring everyone to wear seat belts, he stopped wearing his - wasn't going to let the state tell him what to do. It was the dumbest thing I ever saw. It proved to me I will never be able to understand human behavior.
-
Guns for all IS the American system
This actually is not true, at least not according to the constitution. This idea of "second amendment rights" has now been perverted so thoroughly that even Zero Talent states the idea that people can own firearms at home as a fact.
The actual text of the second amendment is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The Founding Fathers were concerned about protecting the state from foreign powers, especially after the British had a policy of capturing the magazines of the colonies in 1774 and 1775. The second amendment, as you can clearly tell by reading what is written, only authorizes the right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. We can know this with absolute certainty by the key phrase "A well regulated militia". Not much interpretation required for that. Random yahoos having guns at home is not well regulated and not a militia (which can only be authorized by Congress), so absolutely, 100% is NOT authorized by the second amendment.
You could debate about whether "the security of a free state" would include personal weapons, but we can discount that by the first clause about militias and also by understanding the historical context. In the 1770s the colonies did not have their own armies. If there were a need for defense, every able-bodied (male, slave-holding in the south) citizen would be mustered into a militia and issued weapons from a communal store. Most people did not own firearms because they were 1) very expensive and 2) required loading with cartridges of gunpowder and primed with black powder. Keeping lots of gunpowder lying around in wooden houses that were lighted and heated with open flames is not a great idea. Instead, gunpowder and weapons were stored in community magazines that were present in most large cities. To prevent the citizens from rebelling, the British removed gunpowder from magazines in Massachusetts in 1774 and Virginia in 1775. This was fresh on the minds of the framers of the constitution and is likely why the second amendment was deemed so important.
The US was absolutely NOT set up as a gun state! The right to bear arms was only in the context of a well organized militia for the security of the state, which we can know with absolute certainty because it was written in clear, plain English. The modern equivalent of a 1780s militia is the National Guard, and nobody has ever talked about disarming them. That amendment was written before the age of professional, standing militaries and really should be removed since we no longer use militias for defense.
For over 150 years the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment as it was written. It is only during the past 50 years that the NRA, through consistent messaging and buying off of congresspeople, has perverted the public perception of the second amendment so much that even liberals talk about "second amendment rights" as if it means individuals can keep firearms at home. Yet, this clearly is not what the constitution says, and especially so when you consider the historical context in which it was written. The second amendment right to bear arms in modern society should only rest with the various state national guard units. The second amendment only applies to arms in the context of a militia; it is silent about firearms owned by individuals. This means that individuals owning firearms should be decided and regulated separately by the states.
It is a travesty that one organization has managed to twist the constitution to serve the ends of a single industry. It is long past time for the power of the NRA to end and the people to read the constitution and interpret it as it was written and intended.
Not sure how anyone can argue with that !!
-
Yada, you have this weird combination of saying things that are logical, rational and I mostly agree with like this:
Those left wing terrorists, blowing up and burning down buildings scare me, right wingers with all their guns and military compounds are also over the edge, but the religious fanatics, any of them, are the scariest people of all in the US. Left, Right, Muslim, Christian or anything else. Second only to political fanatics who can't see outside their party lines.
which mostly makes sense, except I don't really know of many left-wing terrorists who blow up or burn down anything in the US. I could provide many other examples of things you've said that I agree with.
Followed by bizarre, crazy stuff that makes no sense like this:
For example California is now a terrorist state because of the political leanings, the laws and the unamerican activities like harboring criminals plus the oppressive laws against everything from plastic bags to charcoal grills.
California is a terrorist state because they've banned plastic bags at grocery stores? I'll take your "terrorist state" of California over almost anyplace else any day!
Part of the CA thing is humor, maybe I shouldn't bother. They pass resolutions for everything and want to control every aspect of lives, typical over the top liberals who know how to run our live, better than we do, so they make all kinds of laws. It's oppressive. I've always worn seat belts and don't care if they wear out my shirts, which is one argument, or rumple my sport coat. Just like most dumb arguments, the reasons are fabricated illogically and make no sense, but you'll always find a small group of defend them to the end. "I know someone who was thrown from a car and that saved him." and then there are the other 90 people who died because they wore no seat belt and can't talk about how they should have. :( Probably why we have mandated air bags to protect people who are too stupid to put on a seat belt?
In San Jose and Sunnyvale it is illegal for grocery stores to provide plastic bags. "Smog-causing barbecue equipment--including traditional types of lighter fluid and pre-soaked briquettes--must be removed from store shelves in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties by January, 1992, under the South Coast Air Quality Management District's new rule."
You want leftists who burn down buildings and blow things up? Really? Maybe you are too young, in the 70s the protesters burned down buildings on numerous college campuses, in Wisconsin blew up the math science building, accidentally killed someone. Weathermen 1970 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion) Oh what the heck, here, read this please, http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/liberal-violence-five-names-you-should-know/ (http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/liberal-violence-five-names-you-should-know/)
One of the longstanding members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's list of 10 most wanted persons is Bernardine Rae Dohrn, leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group that has said it was responsible for numerous bombings. One of their last was they bombed or took credit for bombing the state department building in Washington DC. SDS, students for a democratic society, turned into the weathermen and morphed into the weather underground. The weather underground wanted, the violent overthrow of the elected US government and the establishment of a communist dictatorship in the US. Read Prairie Fire their manifesto if you don't believe me.
Don't mistake this for one sided, the right wing nut jobs are just as bad. I just wanted to be fair that both sides are wrong when they get extreme and start harming innocent people or destroying property in terrorist acts for their cause.
For some reason people assume the right is the group that blows up and burns. It's all of them. Some of the worst currently are eco terrorists. That's like the religious right killing doctors to protest abortion clinics. I think that peaceful protests, action groups, spreading the policies and group goals through educations, both sides left or right, invites more people to join than terrorism or hate uprisings.
Normal Liberal thinking says, You don't like someone? Stalk him. Trash everything he does. Mock, demean, ridicule, and ostracize this person. For those who still hang with your victim, attack them as well. Harass, threaten, and blackball them until they too turn on your target. That's what liberals are teaching their children. All the claims of kindness and peace and they are teaching their children to be mean blind following bullies.
-
Normal Liberal thinking says, You don't like someone? Stalk him. Trash everything he does. Mock, demean, ridicule, and ostracize this person. For those who still hang with your victim, attack them as well. Harass, threaten, and blackball them until they too turn on your target. That's what liberals are teaching their children. All the claims of kindness and peace and they are teaching their children to be mean blind following bullies.
Funny to notice that all this would make The Donald a liberal ;D
Nobody mocks and his opponents more than him. There is no bigger bully, in politics, than our Moron in Chief.
Or maybe this thinking is not only a liberal thing?
Or maybe there are liberals thinking differently i.e. teaching their kids decency?
What say you? Another superficial generalization?
-
Normal Liberal thinking says, You don't like someone? Stalk him. Trash everything he does. Mock, demean, ridicule, and ostracize this person. For those who still hang with your victim, attack them as well. Harass, threaten, and blackball them until they too turn on your target. That's what liberals are teaching their children. All the claims of kindness and peace and they are teaching their children to be mean blind following bullies.
Funny to notice that all this would make The Donald a liberal ;D
Nobody mocks and his opponents more than him. There is no bigger bully, in politics, than our Moron in Chief.
Or maybe this thinking is not only a liberal thing?
What say you?
No one is right when everyone is wrong. Moron's don't get a free pass for being an embarrassing twitter idiot. Neither do people who claim diversity and compassion, for their fake faces while they bully and intimidate anyone who opposes their political agenda. I'm not going to make excuses for any of these people on either side. That's what's wrong with America right now, not all the fake news and diversionary issues. We are divided by hate and anger and most of all party politics, causing that situation. Both sides are unwilling to negotiate or act in any moderate civilized agreement. Polarized into such a divided nation that we have lost the ability to be functional.
That's what I say.
-
Normal Liberal thinking says, You don't like someone? Stalk him. Trash everything he does. Mock, demean, ridicule, and ostracize this person. For those who still hang with your victim, attack them as well. Harass, threaten, and blackball them until they too turn on your target. That's what liberals are teaching their children. All the claims of kindness and peace and they are teaching their children to be mean blind following bullies.
Funny to notice that all this would make The Donald a liberal ;D
Nobody mocks and his opponents more than him. There is no bigger bully, in politics, than our Moron in Chief.
Or maybe this thinking is not only a liberal thing?
What say you?
No one is right when everyone is wrong. Moron's don't get a free pass for being an embarrassing twitter idiot. Neither do people who claim diversity and compassion, for their fake faces while they bully and intimidate anyone who opposes their political agenda. I'm not going to make excuses for any of these people on either side. That's what's wrong with America right now, not all the fake news and diversionary issues. We are divided by hate and anger and most of all party politics, causing that situation. Both sides are unwilling to negotiate or act in any moderate civilized agreement. Polarized into such a divided nation that we have lost the ability to be functional.
That's what I say.
Fair point, but rather grim.
I would say the same thing in a more optimistic way, the way John Oliver said it in the clip I posted one page back:
"The point is America is not one thing. It is a beautiful mess of contradictions, where good and bad are mixed together"
-
Here you go again:
I think that peaceful protests, action groups, spreading the policies and group goals through educations, both sides left or right, invites more people to join than terrorism or hate uprisings.
Well said - logical, reasonable, intelligent, something I think we could all agree with. Followed by:
Normal Liberal thinking says, You don't like someone? Stalk him. Trash everything he does. Mock, demean, ridicule, and ostracize this person. For those who still hang with your victim, attack them as well. Harass, threaten, and blackball them until they too turn on your target. That's what liberals are teaching their children. All the claims of kindness and peace and they are teaching their children to be mean blind following bullies.
You clearly have no idea what liberal thinking is about - this is much more what the right wingers do than any liberals. Although nowadays with Russian troll bots deliberately setting both sides against each other it is hard to tell what real Americans believe. I think if you spent any time with actual liberals you would know better than to say such things. Do you think liberals are teaching their children such things in the charter schools that Betsy Devos is promoting? Not likely.
The Weather Underground - seriously? You can't possibly be comparing the actions of a fringe terrorist group with modern liberals. Besides, with all the mentions of Trump I thought we were talking about current events, not ancient history. How many buildings have been bombed or burned down by liberals recently? How many riots or hate crimes has Obama incited? How about Trump?
BTW, the highly regulated, relatively high tax, "terrorist" state of California has the sixth-largest economy in the world. Pretty much puts a lie to the statement that regulations and taxes kill economic development.
-
Neither do people who claim diversity and compassion, for their fake faces while they bully and intimidate anyone who opposes their political agenda. I'm not going to make excuses for any of these people on either side. That's what's wrong with America right now, not all the fake news and diversionary issues. We are divided by hate and anger and most of all party politics, causing that situation. Both sides are unwilling to negotiate or act in any moderate civilized agreement. Polarized into such a divided nation that we have lost the ability to be functional.
That's what I say.
So say we all (for anyone who used to watch Battlestar Gallactica).
Yes, I agree. This started mostly with Fox "News" and their highly partisan reporting - they were and still are the original fake news. I think it's also a problem with the two-party system and the primaries used to select candidates. To get the base activated, and thus the party nomination, candidates from each party have to go to the extremes, forcing the parties to diverge. Most people I think are in the middle and just want logical, reasonable solutions to the problems at hand, not fights over dogma. The current Republican party is now so extreme that their sainted Ronald Reagan would be kicked out as a flaming liberal. We need to get rid of Iowa and New Hampshire having such a large say in who runs for office and instead let New York and California go first, or at least select primary times by lottery so it varies from year to year.
The problem has been exacerbated by gerrymandering (mostly by Republicans although Dems have done it occasionally) which creates "safe" districts where representatives can be as extreme as they want and will still get elected - on both sides. The current system is that the party in power makes up the districts every ten years after the census. Last time Republicans were mostly in control and made districts that were so extremely gerrymandered in Republican favor that they fortunately have been ruled unconstitutional in several states. This leads to representation that does not reflect the makeup or will of the voters. Now Trump is trying to mess with the census as another way to steal elections in the future. What we should have is districts that are as even as possible, forcing the parties to compete every election - that way everyone would have to pull votes from the other party to get elected, hopefully forcing everyone into the center rather than the extremes. To be fair, it should be the losing party that gets to make up the next districts, not the winners - our current system is like giving the Super Bowl champions the first picks in the draft every year.
A big problem now that we really don't understand is that a lot of the division and hatred is being promoted from outside the country, in a coordinated and very successful effort to promote exactly this kind of division. There is no doubt that the Russians are behind this and that it has been their policy for many years. What I don't understand is, if twitter bots are well known, why aren't they stopped? Can't they be identified and shut down? Can't the fake facebook accounts be identified and deleted? Trump really needs to get behind this and promote ways to make our country safer rather than being the biggest dupe. Hopefully the rest of the Republicans will find their long-lost integrity and help Democrats and our security agencies to protect the country from such outside interference in the future. Then maybe we could get back to civil discourse rather than the rabid attacks that are common nowadays.
-
Here you go again:
I think that peaceful protests, action groups, spreading the policies and group goals through educations, both sides left or right, invites more people to join than terrorism or hate uprisings.
Well said - logical, reasonable, intelligent, something I think we could all agree with. Followed by:
Normal Liberal thinking says, You don't like someone? Stalk him. Trash everything he does. Mock, demean, ridicule, and ostracize this person. For those who still hang with your victim, attack them as well. Harass, threaten, and blackball them until they too turn on your target. That's what liberals are teaching their children. All the claims of kindness and peace and they are teaching their children to be mean blind following bullies.
You clearly have no idea what liberal thinking is about - this is much more what the right wingers do than any liberals. Although nowadays with Russian troll bots deliberately setting both sides against each other it is hard to tell what real Americans believe. I think if you spent any time with actual liberals you would know better than to say such things. Do you think liberals are teaching their children such things in the charter schools that Betsy Devos is promoting? Not likely.
The Weather Underground - seriously? You can't possibly be comparing the actions of a fringe terrorist group with modern liberals. Besides, with all the mentions of Trump I thought we were talking about current events, not ancient history. How many buildings have been bombed or burned down by liberals recently? How many riots or hate crimes has Obama incited? How about Trump?
BTW, the highly regulated, relatively high tax, "terrorist" state of California has the sixth-largest economy in the world. Pretty much puts a lie to the statement that regulations and taxes kill economic development.
Didn't ever say that CA killed anything or their economy. Don't put words or thoughts into what I write please. I said that CA was regulation nuts.
The question was what liberals bombed or burned. I was just pointing out that there are extremist liberals, now we have the eco terrorists. Obama never incited a riot? Neither has Trump. You're really stepping into fringe blame there. Now the Presidents are responsible for riots? Not the people and the politics who organize them!
Guns don't run along party lines, far right and far left all have and use them. We don't need big clips, or bump stocks. If a hunter can't shoot in one shot, maybe two, they are incompetent. Even a hobby shooter at a range doesn't need more than a 10 round clip. There is no argument for either of those.
The hate politics could have started on TV but I think it started with AM radio talk hosts who did nothing but run down Clinton for years. There was division before that but not the hate and daily bashing. Amusing is the liberals tried to fund a network of their own, Air America one of Al Franken's projects, and it failed. I never could figure that out. My liberal friends listen to Rush and the rest, maybe for things to hate, I find those type shows distasteful and dividing. Calling hate politics entertainment is an insult. Yes I know the left controls most of the TV news and PBS, fair is fair. That's just bending and leaning, not hate. Disagreement and varied viewpoints are just fine, but when it comes to polarization and hate, I'm out.
That's why I say both sides are wrong. United and working together, beyond differences is a positive way to govern. One sided inability to negotiate or bend, is where we are now. That just breeds more division and stops the progress of moderate decisions.
Yes I know what liberals teach schools, most the teachers are spreading the liberal propaganda to our children. Everything is green, we can have celebrations for Kwanzaa or Ramadan but can't have a Christmas pageant. I know many teachers, the ones that aren't liberal are ridiculed and badgered, basically silenced by the system. Ask your teacher friends before you start getting all defensive about that. Look at who's fighting against better education, against higher standards and protecting teachers who shouldn't be in schools. The teachers union. I'll add that teachers are terribly underpaid for the work that they do. Education has become administration heavy, over paid I might add and neglected the source of education, the teachers who are in the classrooms.
But school choice should be a choice not a union driven political agenda. Want to make America great again, improve the schools.
-
Sorry, the CA statement was an aside, I didn't mean to imply you had said that. Just trying to point out that being heavy on regulations is not a negative.
As to schools, one of my sisters teaches seventh grade in public schools in Maryland. She has taught at a predominantly minority, inner-city school and now has moved to one with more affluent students. One of my nieces has done substitute teaching in Virginia and South Carolina. I suspect I know much more about teachers and teaching than you do. To say that schools are teaching liberal propaganda is a lie.
We could agree on many things - that gives me hope that compromise could be reached. One of those is that teachers are underpaid and not always supported by their administrations. Teachers in many schools have to spend way too much time dealing with disciplinary problems and can't teach those who want to learn. Some of this is due to well intentioned but poorly implemented liberal policies that give too much power to the students - they know the teachers can't do much about them and so they misbehave. That needs to change. Having too much school choice is not the answer - that just takes tax money away from public schools and puts it in the pockets of for-profit and religious schools, many of which have very poor records and/or teach division. Improving education is easy - increase salaries to attract the best and brightest and give them enough resources to do their jobs. Getting taxpayers to pay for it is the difficult part.
-
Sorry, the CA statement was an aside, I didn't mean to imply you had said that. Just trying to point out that being heavy on regulations is not a negative.
As to schools, one of my sisters teaches seventh grade in public schools in Maryland. She has taught at a predominantly minority, inner-city school and now has moved to one with more affluent students. One of my nieces has done substitute teaching in Virginia and South Carolina. I suspect I know much more about teachers and teaching than you do. To say that schools are teaching liberal propaganda is a lie.
We could agree on many things - that gives me hope that compromise could be reached. One of those is that teachers are underpaid and not always supported by their administrations. Teachers in many schools have to spend way too much time dealing with disciplinary problems and can't teach those who want to learn. Some of this is due to well intentioned but poorly implemented liberal policies that give too much power to the students - they know the teachers can't do much about them and so they misbehave. That needs to change. Having too much school choice is not the answer - that just takes tax money away from public schools and puts it in the pockets of for-profit and religious schools, many of which have very poor records and/or teach division. Improving education is easy - increase salaries to attract the best and brightest and give them enough resources to do their jobs. Getting taxpayers to pay for it is the difficult part.
People, I just want to say, can we all get along? Can we get along? Rodney King :)
We need moderate views, not party line division and opposition. A little tolerance and less extremist polarization. And I'm tired of politicians telling me what I should think because their side has some moral or pseudo intellectual superior agenda. None of them do. They are mostly lawyers, crooks and above all self serving politicians. Mostly not all. I don't know why anyone in this age would want to be President of the United States, take the abusive personal attacks, twisted partizan scrutiny and false accusations. And BTW I liked Obama.
-
Obama never incited a riot? Neither has Trump.
Hmmm ... what about "I'd like to punch him in the face" while remembering the old days when such protesters "were carried out on stretches"?
Does it count as inciting to violence (possibly riot)?
https://nyti.ms/2lc8x3e (https://nyti.ms/2lc8x3e)
Yes I know what liberals teach schools, most the teachers are spreading the liberal propaganda to our children. Everything is green, we can have celebrations for Kwanzaa or Ramadan but can't have a Christmas pageant. I know many teachers, the ones that aren't liberal are ridiculed and badgered, basically silenced by the system. Ask your teacher friends before you start getting all defensive about that. Look at who's fighting against better education, against higher standards and protecting teachers who shouldn't be in schools. The teachers union. I'll add that teachers are terribly underpaid for the work that they do. Education has become administration heavy, over paid I might add and neglected the source of education, the teachers who are in the classrooms.
But school choice should be a choice not a union driven political agenda. Want to make America great again, improve the schools.
I agree that teacher's immunity (tenure) is fundamentally wrong, maybe one of the main reasons for the decaying American school competitiveness.
We need competition between schools and between teachers. We need to change a broken system that restricts the school "choice" for our kids, only to the local school.
Please take note that you have nut jobs suing schools for teaching about Islam, in "World Cultures and Geography" classes, therefore trying to impose their sheer ignorance on others! Do you think they are liberals?
https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/chatham-mom-files-federal-lawsuit-against-chatham (https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/chatham-mom-files-federal-lawsuit-against-chatham)
What about other religious nut jobs fighting against teaching evolution in schools? Are they liberals as well?
-
Sorry, the CA statement was an aside, I didn't mean to imply you had said that. Just trying to point out that being heavy on regulations is not a negative.
As to schools, one of my sisters teaches seventh grade in public schools in Maryland. She has taught at a predominantly minority, inner-city school and now has moved to one with more affluent students. One of my nieces has done substitute teaching in Virginia and South Carolina. I suspect I know much more about teachers and teaching than you do. To say that schools are teaching liberal propaganda is a lie.
We could agree on many things - that gives me hope that compromise could be reached. One of those is that teachers are underpaid and not always supported by their administrations. Teachers in many schools have to spend way too much time dealing with disciplinary problems and can't teach those who want to learn. Some of this is due to well intentioned but poorly implemented liberal policies that give too much power to the students - they know the teachers can't do much about them and so they misbehave. That needs to change. Having too much school choice is not the answer - that just takes tax money away from public schools and puts it in the pockets of for-profit and religious schools, many of which have very poor records and/or teach division. Improving education is easy - increase salaries to attract the best and brightest and give them enough resources to do their jobs. Getting taxpayers to pay for it is the difficult part.
Heavy on regulations won't save them from their own doing.
Go California or is it many have gone. I see where Diane Finestein is now just a white jewish woman with no party support. This is going to be fun watching as Calif. sinks from their glory. Starting sooner then I thought. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/california-ranks-last-in-quality-of-life-in-new-report/ar-BBJKVwm?OCID=ansmsnnews11 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/california-ranks-last-in-quality-of-life-in-new-report/ar-BBJKVwm?OCID=ansmsnnews11) California ranks last in quality of life in new report this is all going to be the payback for the state that's gone over the edge politically and is going farther toward the bottom faster. Water crisis could be a terrible tragedy in the making which will be sad, caused by the over population. The state also found itself second-to-last in voter participation, 44th in community engagement and 38th in social support.
-
Sorry, the CA statement was an aside, I didn't mean to imply you had said that. Just trying to point out that being heavy on regulations is not a negative.
As to schools, one of my sisters teaches seventh grade in public schools in Maryland. She has taught at a predominantly minority, inner-city school and now has moved to one with more affluent students. One of my nieces has done substitute teaching in Virginia and South Carolina. I suspect I know much more about teachers and teaching than you do. To say that schools are teaching liberal propaganda is a lie.
We could agree on many things - that gives me hope that compromise could be reached. One of those is that teachers are underpaid and not always supported by their administrations. Teachers in many schools have to spend way too much time dealing with disciplinary problems and can't teach those who want to learn. Some of this is due to well intentioned but poorly implemented liberal policies that give too much power to the students - they know the teachers can't do much about them and so they misbehave. That needs to change. Having too much school choice is not the answer - that just takes tax money away from public schools and puts it in the pockets of for-profit and religious schools, many of which have very poor records and/or teach division. Improving education is easy - increase salaries to attract the best and brightest and give them enough resources to do their jobs. Getting taxpayers to pay for it is the difficult part.
Heavy on regulations won't save them from their own doing.
Go California or is it many have gone. I see where Diane Finestein is now just a white jewish woman with no party support. This is going to be fun watching as Calif. sinks from their glory. Starting sooner then I thought. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/california-ranks-last-in-quality-of-life-in-new-report/ar-BBJKVwm?OCID=ansmsnnews11 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/california-ranks-last-in-quality-of-life-in-new-report/ar-BBJKVwm?OCID=ansmsnnews11) California ranks last in quality of life in new report this is all going to be the payback for the state that's gone over the edge politically and is going farther toward the bottom faster. Water crisis could be a terrible tragedy in the making which will be sad, caused by the over population. The state also found itself second-to-last in voter participation, 44th in community engagement and 38th in social support.
Has it not occurred to you that some of the people here must be Jewish? Antisemitism is not attractive.
-
Sorry, the CA statement was an aside, I didn't mean to imply you had said that. Just trying to point out that being heavy on regulations is not a negative.
As to schools, one of my sisters teaches seventh grade in public schools in Maryland. She has taught at a predominantly minority, inner-city school and now has moved to one with more affluent students. One of my nieces has done substitute teaching in Virginia and South Carolina. I suspect I know much more about teachers and teaching than you do. To say that schools are teaching liberal propaganda is a lie.
We could agree on many things - that gives me hope that compromise could be reached. One of those is that teachers are underpaid and not always supported by their administrations. Teachers in many schools have to spend way too much time dealing with disciplinary problems and can't teach those who want to learn. Some of this is due to well intentioned but poorly implemented liberal policies that give too much power to the students - they know the teachers can't do much about them and so they misbehave. That needs to change. Having too much school choice is not the answer - that just takes tax money away from public schools and puts it in the pockets of for-profit and religious schools, many of which have very poor records and/or teach division. Improving education is easy - increase salaries to attract the best and brightest and give them enough resources to do their jobs. Getting taxpayers to pay for it is the difficult part.
Heavy on regulations won't save them from their own doing.
Go California or is it many have gone. I see where Diane Finestein is now just a white jewish woman with no party support. This is going to be fun watching as Calif. sinks from their glory. Starting sooner then I thought. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/california-ranks-last-in-quality-of-life-in-new-report/ar-BBJKVwm?OCID=ansmsnnews11 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/california-ranks-last-in-quality-of-life-in-new-report/ar-BBJKVwm?OCID=ansmsnnews11) California ranks last in quality of life in new report this is all going to be the payback for the state that's gone over the edge politically and is going farther toward the bottom faster. Water crisis could be a terrible tragedy in the making which will be sad, caused by the over population. The state also found itself second-to-last in voter participation, 44th in community engagement and 38th in social support.
Has it not occurred to you that some of the people here must be Jewish? Antisemitism is not attractive.
Shelma: we may disagree on caps, but I'm 100% in agreement with you on this.
-
Although, unless I missed something... if saying "a white jewish woman" is antisemitic, then surely it's also sexist and racist?
-
Although, unless I missed something... if saying "a white jewish woman" is antisemitic, then surely it's also sexist and racist?
Yup.
-
Ok, cool. Well, it's not cool... but I was just wondering why only one out of the three transgressions was called out. Seemed like the other two didn't warrant mentioning or something. No worries.
-
Also its considered perfectly acceptable to use the term "white middle aged man" in a derogatory way.
-
As long as they're not Jewish.
-
I want to be called a PNOC
Person Not Of Colo(u)r
-
I've never been that keen on the term person of colour, for exactly the same reasons why most people aren't too keen on the term coloured people. I've never quite understood how moving the words around makes it any better. But if people of colour are happy with the term people of colour... then I guess that's the main thing.
I've always though 'person of colour' would be a much better fit for a person within the LGBTQ+ community. What with the flag and all that.
-
I've never been that keen on the term person of colour, for exactly the same reasons why most people aren't too keen on the term coloured people. I've never quite understood how moving the words around makes it any better. But if people of colour are happy with the term people of colour... then I guess that's the main thing.
I've always though 'person of colour' would be a much better fit for a person within the LGBTQ+ community. What with the flag and all that.
And yet in the United States it's still the NAACP and not the NAAPC
-
Also its considered perfectly acceptable to use the term "white middle aged man" in a derogatory way.
I wasn't calling the lady out, just pointing out a facts like, she's former mayor of San Francisco, old, White, Jewish and a Woman. Whenever we see a crime, anyone notice how they don't say White man shoots neighbor, but they will when it's someone Black or Hispanic? I think that's terribly wrong to profile race in crimes. What's happening in Calif. is the Democratic party has been taken over by younger people, Hispanic and people of color. They don't need Diane anymore because she doesn't represent the actual population of CA anymore, they want to represent their own.
JFK was noted for being a Catholic, anyone know the specific religion of Nixon, Ford, Carter and the rest since JFK? Was it picking on Kennedy to say he was a White Catholic Man? Feinstein isn't just too old, she's out of touch, doesn't represent her constituents or the views of the Democratic party. Another good argument for term limits. She isn't Hispanic, Black or representing the people of CA anymore, they are tossing her to the kerb. https://www.thenation.com/article/dianne-feinstein-isnt-too-old-but-she-is-too-out-of-touch/ (https://www.thenation.com/article/dianne-feinstein-isnt-too-old-but-she-is-too-out-of-touch/)
When CA becomes a shithole past the lowest standard of quality of life, lets see who's running the show.
There was nothing antisemetic in my previous and nothing in this. Stop finding off topic arguments. Many of you make fun of Trumps hair, do you also make fun of fat people, mentally ill and cripples? But that's alright to pick on the President for his hair or mock his looks? Hypocrites
-
So you're doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on your ageism, sexism, antisemitism and racism.
-
I want to be called a PNOC
Person Not Of Colo(u)r
Actually, when you think about it, from a scientific point of view, white and black are not colors.
"White" means ALL colors, while "Black" means NO color.
So you might want to call yourself either POAC (person of all colors) or PONC (person of no color) ;D
But none of these skin tones are really black nor white.
-
Also its considered perfectly acceptable to use the term "white middle aged man" in a derogatory way.
I wasn't calling the lady out, just pointing out a facts like, she's former mayor of San Francisco, old, White, Jewish and a Woman. Whenever we see a crime, anyone notice how they don't say White man shoots neighbor, but they will when it's someone Black or Hispanic? I think that's terribly wrong to profile race in crimes. What's happening in Calif. is the Democratic party has been taken over by younger people, Hispanic and people of color. They don't need Diane anymore because she doesn't represent the actual population of CA anymore, they want to represent their own.
JFK was noted for being a Catholic, anyone know the specific religion of Nixon, Ford, Carter and the rest since JFK? Was it picking on Kennedy to say he was a White Catholic Man? Feinstein isn't just too old, she's out of touch, doesn't represent her constituents or the views of the Democratic party. Another good argument for term limits. She isn't Hispanic, Black or representing the people of CA anymore, they are tossing her to the kerb. https://www.thenation.com/article/dianne-feinstein-isnt-too-old-but-she-is-too-out-of-touch/ (https://www.thenation.com/article/dianne-feinstein-isnt-too-old-but-she-is-too-out-of-touch/)
When CA becomes a shithole past the lowest standard of quality of life, lets see who's running the show.
There was nothing antisemetic in my previous and nothing in this. Stop finding off topic arguments. Many of you make fun of Trumps hair, do you also make fun of fat people, mentally ill and cripples? But that's alright to pick on the President for his hair or mock his looks? Hypocrites
FYI, Feinstein made your moron idol declare that he wants to take your guns away. Say whaaat? :o
So she is not just "whatever you said". She is smart and able to seize the right moment to influence the "moron in chief" to say what she wants ;)
https://youtu.be/PfZvj0_O_Jc (https://youtu.be/PfZvj0_O_Jc) jump to 1:36
Of course, the moron's opinions are changed by whoever speaks last. Nevertheless, her reaction is priceless, same as the embarrassed smile of those republican NRA employees ;D
-
Many of you make fun of Trumps hair, do you also make fun of fat people, mentally ill and cripples? But that's alright to pick on the President for his hair or mock his looks? Hypocrites
Just to clarify this misinterpretation, as well:
Very few would make fun of Trump's "hair" if he would just accept his baldness and wear it like many of us, ;), naturally, without hiding it and without an inferiority complex.
But no, your idol is so vain, he can't accept his human imperfections and goes out of his way to hide them. He is the one who claimed that everything is "natural".
This is why people make fun of him, because he is lying about the obvious!
The problem is that he is lying about many, many other more serious things.
If someone is a hypocrite, then the moron you defend is the biggest of them all.
Is it clearer for you now?
-
Many of you make fun of Trumps hair, do you also make fun of fat people, mentally ill and cripples? But that's alright to pick on the President for his hair or mock his looks? Hypocrites
Just to clarify this misinterpretation, as well:
Very few would make fun of Trump's "hair" if he would just accept his baldness and wear it like many of us, ;), naturally, without hiding it and without an inferiority complex.
But no, your idol is so vain, he can't accept his human imperfections and goes out of his way to hide them. He is the one who claimed that everything is "natural".
This is why people make fun of him, because he is lying about the obvious!
The problem is that he is lying about many, many other more serious things.
If someone is a hypocrite, then the moron you defend is the biggest of them all.
Is it clearer for you now?
I'm not so sure about that....Politicians have pretty much always been mocked for their physical appearance from all sides throughout history.......of course Trump makes it easy and his personality makes it more entertaining and tempting. Whether they are hurt or not the more dignified politicians brush it off or ignore it.
-
Many of you make fun of Trumps hair, do you also make fun of fat people, mentally ill and cripples? But that's alright to pick on the President for his hair or mock his looks? Hypocrites
Just to clarify this misinterpretation, as well:
Very few would make fun of Trump's "hair" if he would just accept his baldness and wear it like many of us, ;), naturally, without hiding it and without an inferiority complex.
But no, your idol is so vain, he can't accept his human imperfections and goes out of his way to hide them. He is the one who claimed that everything is "natural".
This is why people make fun of him, because he is lying about the obvious!
The problem is that he is lying about many, many other more serious things.
If someone is a hypocrite, then the moron you defend is the biggest of them all.
Is it clearer for you now?
I'm not so sure about that....Politicians have pretty much always been mocked for their physical appearance from all sides throughout history.......of course Trump makes it easy and his personality makes it more entertaining and tempting. Whether they are hurt or not the more dignified politicians brush it off or ignore it.
Sure. That's exactly the point. Maybe I should have wrote "fewer", instead of "very few".
Obama was also mocked because of his big ears. But he had no problem with that. Even more, he didn't ignore it nor brush it off. He embraced the joke and joked himself about it.
Self deprecation stole the thunder from other jokers.
Trump is doing the opposite, hiding it, faking it and denying it. This why his "hair" is mocked so often. And the same goes about everything else he is lying, denying or bragging about, when the opposite is obvious.
-
I agree with you Zero.
My concern is that our 'Liar in Chief' creates chaos and confusion as a way of distracting us from his lies.
As Mueller closes in and Trump's lies get bigger, he will need larger distractions.
Your typical tin pot dictator usually starts a war.
-
I want to be called a PNOC
Person Not Of Colo(u)r
Actually, when you think about it, from a scientific point of view, white and black are not colors.
"White" means ALL colors, while "Black" means NO color.
So you might want to call yourself either POAC (person of all colors) or PONC (person of no color) ;D
But none of these skin tones are really black nor white.
:-)
Perhaps we should give the HSB values of our skins :-)
-
So you're doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on your ageism, sexism, antisemitism and racism.
Doing what you can't comprehend. At a White House summit on gun violence this past week, Trump urged Republicans and Democrats to include Feinstein's priorities in any legislation, even suggesting including her long-sought bid to restore a ban on assault weapons. Sitting at his side, she gleefully clasped her hands.
Any cooperation with Trump, even a good-faith effort on immigration or gun control, is anathema to California Democrats, who see themselves as the vanguard of the resistance movement. Last weekend, the California Democratic Party declined to endorse Feinstein's re-election bid and cast more ballots for state Sen. Kevin de León, who has launched the best-organized primary challenge to her since she won her seat in 1992.
Trump and Feinstein working together while the California Democrats are tossing her out. Working together to end the horrible gun laws that allow people to have WMD in the form of bump stocks, large magazines and the uncontrolled sales at shows and over the web.
Hope you're happy with your angry blind hate instead of working towards mutual solutions.
-
As long as they're not Jewish.
Sammy Davis Jr, what a great one and a hero for any youth. Born in Harlem New York. In 1954, he lost his left eye in a car accident, and several years later, he converted to Judaism finding commonalities between the oppression experienced by African-American and Jewish communities.
Golfing, "My handicap? Man, I am a one-eyed, black Jew! That's my handicap!"
A mind is your parachute. It won't work unless it's open.
-
So you're doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on your ageism, sexism, antisemitism and racism.
Doing what you can't comprehend. At a White House summit on gun violence this past week, Trump urged Republicans and Democrats to include Feinstein's priorities in any legislation, even suggesting including her long-sought bid to restore a ban on assault weapons. Sitting at his side, she gleefully clasped her hands.
Any cooperation with Trump, even a good-faith effort on immigration or gun control, is anathema to California Democrats, who see themselves as the vanguard of the resistance movement. Last weekend, the California Democratic Party declined to endorse Feinstein's re-election bid and cast more ballots for state Sen. Kevin de León, who has launched the best-organized primary challenge to her since she won her seat in 1992.
Trump and Feinstein working together while the California Democrats are tossing her out. Working together to end the horrible gun laws that allow people to have WMD in the form of bump stocks, large magazines and the uncontrolled sales at shows and over the web.
Hope you're happy with your angry blind hate instead of working towards mutual solutions.
It's often impossible to tell what you're talking about, but it's easy to spot when you've cut and pasted a news article without attribution, because it's the only coherent part of your post.
-
So you're doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on your ageism, sexism, antisemitism and racism.
Doing what you can't comprehend. At a White House summit on gun violence this past week, Trump urged Republicans and Democrats to include Feinstein's priorities in any legislation, even suggesting including her long-sought bid to restore a ban on assault weapons. Sitting at his side, she gleefully clasped her hands.
Any cooperation with Trump, even a good-faith effort on immigration or gun control, is anathema to California Democrats, who see themselves as the vanguard of the resistance movement. Last weekend, the California Democratic Party declined to endorse Feinstein's re-election bid and cast more ballots for state Sen. Kevin de León, who has launched the best-organized primary challenge to her since she won her seat in 1992.
Trump and Feinstein working together while the California Democrats are tossing her out. Working together to end the horrible gun laws that allow people to have WMD in the form of bump stocks, large magazines and the uncontrolled sales at shows and over the web.
Hope you're happy with your angry blind hate instead of working towards mutual solutions.
It's often impossible to tell what you're talking about, but it's easy to spot when you've cut and pasted a news article without attribution, because it's the only coherent part of your post.
It's from the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/california-democrats-demanding-defiance-weigh-feinsteins-reelection-bid/2018/03/03/eb4bce30-1e2b-11e8-ae5a-16e60e4605f3_story.html?utm_term=.d06b4cf76f21 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/california-democrats-demanding-defiance-weigh-feinsteins-reelection-bid/2018/03/03/eb4bce30-1e2b-11e8-ae5a-16e60e4605f3_story.html?utm_term=.d06b4cf76f21)