|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Let's not get confused /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1527256409 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 05/25/18 at 06:53:29 |
|
Title: Let's not get confused Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/25/18 at 06:53:29 School shooters are NOT robbing a store. They know what their future is. Death or prison. Cruz is the only one who had a get away. Why do invisible CC guns matter when Visible signs don't stop bad guys? That needs Explained? I'll do it if necessary, but it's kinda obvious isn't it? |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by WebsterMark on 05/25/18 at 07:07:21 so my experiment last night was 4 for 4. 4 retail facilities with no weapons allowed signs, 4 with no guards. Not a surprise. I still hope a victim sues a business for failure to keep them safe because by putting a sign up that says you are forbidden to protect yourself, by default then, the facilities assumes responsibility for your safety. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 05/25/18 at 09:03:53 283731362B2C1D2D1D25373B70420 wrote:
in the school shootings, the shooters KNEW there were armed security there, NO IF ANDS OR BUTS about it. no concealed "oh what if....." do you think that criminals really think.... oh there's a 1 in 15 chance that this person may be carrying concealed before committing whatever idiotic violent crime they are going to? aren't most violent crimes crimes of passion? anyway..... found this study https://economics.nd.edu/assets/165124/craig_chval_concealed_carry_laws_bernoulli.pdf Abstract Over the past 30 years, a number of U.S. states have relaxed concealed carry laws. An argument for this shift in statutes is the claim that such laws deter criminals who fear their potential victims will be armed. Using state-level data from 1981 to 2012 within a difference-in-difference framework, I investigate the effect of shall-issue concealed carry laws on violent crime rates. I find the passage of such laws is an associated with a statistically significant 7 percent increase in violent crime. I illustrate this effect with 14 states that adopted right-to-carry laws between 1994 and 1996. Because concealed carry permit holders tend to be law abiding, I conclude that a general rise in gun culture that comes with concealed carry laws is likely to contribute to higher violent crime rates. here's another one: Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws increase violent crime http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-ol-patt-morrison-asks-john-donohue-guns-20170802-htmlstory.html Does carrying a gun make you safer? Does it make other people safer? Millions of Americans who pack heat think so, and 33 states with “right to carry” laws permit them to tote a gun. But a long-range study released by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that these states would have had less violent crime had they restricted gun-carrying. John J. Donohue, a Stanford law professor and economist, is a lead author of the analysis, which used more than 30 years of crime statistics and a novel algorithm: Researchers identified states whose crime rates paralleled those of states like Texas before it passed a “right to carry” law, and came up with models -- called synthetic states -- to look at before-and-after violent crime in right-to-carry states and non-right-to-carry “synthetic” states. It’s comparing apples and virtual apples, and Donohue – who’s also an expert witness in a right-to-carry lawsuit against the state of California -- concluded that gun-toting indeed makes a difference in violent crime: it can increase it, by as much as 15% and I could probably do this all day.... are these biased.. maybe, but your NRA ones are too... are the methods and criteria flawed in some way.. maybe, but maybe the studies you cite have similar issues.. so we are stuck with everyone believing their own confirmation biases and believing the stats they want to and calling the rest "fake news" what a useless freaking argument. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by verslagen1 on 05/25/18 at 09:43:46 6B747275686F5E6E5E66747833010 wrote:
The FBI report states that CC increased from 3 to 16% in 3 years. So it was less than 3% previously. Would there be a tipping point when CC will reduce VC? If the chance meeting someone with a gun was 1 in a 100 vs. 1 in 6? Or is it 'hey I'm packing so I can go where ever I want'? |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 05/25/18 at 11:00:51 2E3D2A2B34393F3D3669580 wrote:
The FBI report states that CC increased from 3 to 16% in 3 years. So it was less than 3% previously. Would there be a tipping point when CC will reduce VC? If the chance meeting someone with a gun was 1 in a 100 vs. 1 in 6? Or is it 'hey I'm packing so I can go where ever I want'?[/quote] no, unfortunately, it appears that it goes the other way, more concealed carry = more violent crime, but sure... only the NRA study is valid... |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by MnSpring on 05/25/18 at 11:43:25 694A56516457514C5651250 wrote:
So then something from the, Washington Post, is not at all valid ? After 8 Years of Gun Sales, and CC's going through the roof ? "...Older data suggests that gun violence might have been even more widespread previously..." "...This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime..." "...the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place..." And LOOK, where this info is From ! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8bad3a73829c |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by verslagen1 on 05/25/18 at 13:27:08 7E5D41467340465B4146320 wrote:
NRA story FBI report but spin it. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 05/25/18 at 13:49:04 62417C5F5D4641482F0 wrote:
So then something from the, Washington Post, is not at all valid ? After 8 Years of Gun Sales, and CC's going through the roof ? "...Older data suggests that gun violence might have been even more widespread previously..." "...This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime..." "...the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place..." And LOOK, where this info is From ! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8bad3a73829c [/quote] did you read this??? it says: Much of the decline in violence is still unexplained, but researchers have identified several reasons for the shift. Here are five. 1. More police officers on the beat .... <--indicates that there is more text here, I'm just listing the big subtitles here 2. Police using computers ... 3. Less booze .... 4. Less lead ..... 5. A better economy ...... no where does it say anything about CCLs did you miss-link this or something? |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by MnSpring on 05/25/18 at 14:17:38 7D5E4245704345584245310 wrote:
Nop it dosen't, and I didn't say it did. Yet the statements:"...Older data suggests that gun violence might have been even more widespread previously..." "...This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime..." "...the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place..." (Coming from a rather Liberal place) Coupled with the Very Well KNOWN FACT. That under B.O. Gun sales, and Permits, went up at a rate never seen before. So adding 2 + 2 ...... (Oh that's right, for some 2+2, can = 3 or 5) The, More police, and using computers, Less booze, Less lead, better economy, certainly contributed to it. Yet it most certainly was NOT the fundamental reason. Oh, Point out, where, it was said: ‘Banning Guns, leads to Less Violence’ ? |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 05/25/18 at 14:19:32 okay, someone help me out here.... in this report... https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view or this report: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view which are used in this article https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2018/5/21/fbi-report-highlights-effectiveness-of-concealed-carry/ posted by JOG it doesn't mention anything about CCL... like anywhere? or did I miss it??? in the one report it says: it says "8 shooters stopped by citizens" of the 50 incidents... that's actually 16%.... not 10%... and in the other it says, out of 40, 6 were stopped by citizens and if you combine the two that's 17%.... so, what gives??? okay, it seems the word "permit" is what's used in the report, not CCL or conceal or anything else I was searching for... still...idk, I'm going to read through these reports more thoroughly ... but something smells wrong right now with the article from the obviously unbiased and no agenda driven "shootingillustrated.com" |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by MnSpring on 05/25/18 at 14:34:47 1734282F1A292F32282F5B0 wrote:
Depending on where you are, State, County, City. Their is no 'universal, one word', to mean. 'A License to publicly carry a firearm' I have heard it referred to as CCW, CCP, CC, CP, PTC, Permit, and their are more. So, in the, 'Context', of the article/s One knows what is being talked about. (Oh, got to remember, 2 + 2, just may, = 5) |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 05/25/18 at 16:43:28 7D5E4245704345584245310 wrote:
Nop it dosen't, and I didn't say it did. yes, yes you did, or at least you implied it heavily by saying something and then linking to a source article to defend that something "So then something from the, Washington Post, is not at all valid ? After 8 Years of Gun Sales, and CC's going through the roof ?" this something, that article that doesn't mention CC's at all... that's the only something it could be right? after all you LINKED to that article from the Washington Post..... Yet the statements:"...Older data suggests that gun violence might have been even more widespread previously..." "...This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime..." "...the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place..." (Coming from a rather Liberal place) Coupled with the Very Well KNOWN FACT. That under B.O. Gun sales, and Permits, went up at a rate never seen before. So adding 2 + 2 ...... (Oh that's right, for some 2+2, can = 3 or 5) "decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991" see that's your problem, you are assuming that much of that 49% decrease happened recently, under Obama.... when IN REALITY, much of that drop really happened under Clinton http://https://shadowboxinghemmingway.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/img_0950-1.jpg?w=700 https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/ in fact, didn't Trump and the Republican party in general keep saying that under Obama, in his last 2 years that violent crime went UP??? but if there were more CC's than EVER before... why'd that happen??? see how it just doesn't add up for you?? so which is it? did violent crime go UP with the most CC's ever... or maybe CCs and violent crime aren't really all that strongly correlated.... The, More police, and using computers, Less booze, Less lead, better economy, certainly contributed to it. Yet it most certainly was NOT the fundamental reason. even though that's the ONLY reasons given in the article, you just go ahead and put your own imaginary reason in there... Oh, Point out, where, it was said: ‘Banning Guns, leads to Less Violence’ ? well, when the major part of the reduction of violent crime happens under an "assault" weapons.... maybe that's not unfair.. but I didn't say that, and neither did the article/s I say education will lead to less violence |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 05/25/18 at 16:44:24 694A7754564D4A43240 wrote:
Depending on where you are, State, County, City. Their is no 'universal, one word', to mean. 'A License to publicly carry a firearm' I have heard it referred to as CCW, CCP, CC, CP, PTC, Permit, and their are more. So, in the, 'Context', of the article/s One knows what is being talked about. (Oh, got to remember, 2 + 2, just may, = 5) [/quote] yeah, I figured that part out genius.... the math still doesn't work |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/25/18 at 18:40:51 Let's try to just Think. Are there more CC guns now than when lefties were screaming about the coming Blood in the Streets? Yep. Blood in the Streets? Go to the shitholes of lefty logic. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 05/29/18 at 15:48:57 213E383F22251424142C3E32794B0 wrote:
what? so, what time period are you looking at cause You've lost me, I mean, I've only been alive for 40 years so maybe you remember some awfulness I don't, but there have been many studies about why crime went down since the 90's, none of them point to CC I really don't know what the heck you are talking about though... but sure, just keep thinking you are right, no point in arguing with you anyway GFY |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by MnSpring on 05/30/18 at 07:48:47 0F2C30370231372A3037430 wrote:
"... The Florida legislature had actually passed a shall-issue concealed carry law in 1985 as well, but it was vetoed by Democratic Governor Bob Graham. So it was not until 1987 that Republican Governor Bob Martinez signed shall-issue concealed carry into law..." |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/30/18 at 08:52:06 Bad guys are aware of the CC guns. The bigger the crowd, the more likely there is an off duty cop and or a GGWAG, and that IS a DETERRENT. A campus with two or three people who Might be walking the halls isn't so smart. The bad guys need to not Know WHO or how many people are armed. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 05/30/18 at 09:58:54 here's the problem you have, is that on national averages, it just doesn't matter. violent crime does not really seem deterred by concealed carry, I'm sure SOME criminals might think about concealed carry before they commit crime, but I doubt that's a vast majority of them, violent crime is mostly a crime of passion, drug induced, or in the moment kind of stuff. The result has been an explosion in the number of concealed-carry permit holders in the United States, from 2.7 million in 1999 to 14.5 million in 2016. That figure doesn't account for individuals living in states without permitting requirements so in 1999, there were 2.7 million concealed permits, let's assume (call me out if you have info that that's wrong) that's higher than in the years before it, and violent crime has been reducing since 1992-ish From 1992 to 2002 violent crime reduced from about 750,000 to about 500,000, so with 2.7 million concealed carry, give or take a million, that's a 250,000 drop however, since 2002 to 2016 violent crime reduced from 500,000 to 350,000 or so, that's a 150,000 drop with EVEN MORE, like 12 million MORE, concealed carry permits so why did violent crime reduce more with LESS concealed carry if concealed carry is such a great deterrent? so yes, all the stories and anecdotes you've heard and are presenting are true, but statistically, the slowdown of violent crime isn't really being affected by even MORE concealed carry permits. and I really can pull out study after study after study, saying that the more concealed carry, the more crime actually happens. I know, I know, but but anecdote here! and in 2015 and 2016, violent crime went UP, with the most concealed carry permits out there until 2017 at least... I don't have data for that. so, as much as your assumptions make sense, when scrutinized, they don't hold up, even on a surface level like I did here. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/30/18 at 10:31:01 here's the problem you have, is that on national averages, it just doesn't matter. violent crime does not really seem deterred by concealed carry, I'm sure SOME criminals m Says WHO?You? And WHILE violent crime has dropped CC has grown Hmm, howbout That? And WHEN the governor of Louisiana told the people Arm yourselves Fight back against carjacking Suddenly Carjacking Stopped being the lead story five of seven days. You can say what you want to believe, But evidence to the contrary exists. Or, maybe you can explain how adding CC guns in the mix DIDN'T cause more crime. According to lefties Blood in the Streets is the certain outcome of allowing people to carry weapons, unless they were born with the Special cop or military blood. All others are not qualified. Phhht. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by verslagen1 on 05/30/18 at 10:37:11 The seems to be 2 types of crime, premeditated and crimes of passion. Crimes of passion will have no deterrent. Premeditated is another story and seems to be the crux of the story. They will be deterred by the fact that there are more cc's out there. The reduction in car jackings in FL are evidence of this. But instead you get nut jobs shooting at cars on the hwy. If a nut job is confronted by police, why would he not shoot it out with them? Instead they got it in their head there's a soft target out there for him to be famous with. A school, a mall, doesn't matter let's go there and kill people w/out guns. I think you would agree that 2015/6 were very contentious times and would explain a rise. If crime is dropping and cc's are on the rise, while there are many other factors involved you should be able to see that cc's do play a contributing factor. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by Eegore on 05/30/18 at 10:44:44 Its pretty clear what the math being presented initially represents, and if we stick to the math discussion we might get somewhere. Violent crime nationwide reduced at a larger ratio when the public had fewer CCW permits issued. 12 million additional CCW permits did not reduce violent crime at a larger, or even the same rate. The percentage reduction was lower. This represents a well-known nationwide data table, however individual communities may vary. Comparing what happens in one section of the nation to its collective data is useless. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 05/30/18 at 10:45:58 lets give ALL THE CREDIT to concealed carry, that the whole drop from 2002 to 2016, that 150,000 drop in violent crime to the 14.5 MILLION concealed carry holders. that means that 150,000 violent criminal were aware and focused enough to be deterred by those 14.5 MILLION potential concealed carry holders. so 150,000 prevented crimes were caused by 14.5 MILLION concealed carry holders . 150,000 divided by 14.5 MILLION is 0.010714285714286 so 1% it takes 100 concealed carry holders, to prevent 1 violent crime if my math is correct, I might not have all that worked out, is it 100 or 1000???? guess it's better than nothing oh, and violent crime went UP in 2015 and 2016, when there were the most concealed carry permits EVER just for your entertainment, cause I know you wont' believe it, check this out: CONCEALED CARRY OF FIREARMS: FACT VS FICTION https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/concealed-carry-of-firearms.pdf |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/30/18 at 20:49:03 takes 100 concealed carry holders, to prevent 1 violent crimeS Really? Says WHO? Gosh, I'm just Shocked that there is an ADMISSION that CC guns actually stop crime. Your statistics are in question. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by Eegore on 05/31/18 at 06:53:35 There are multiple sources that show the number of CCW's do not correlate to reduction of direct violent crime nationwide. This has been known for a long time, and is part of why those stats aren't used in CCW campaigns. On college campus settings however the number of direct violent crimes specifically against women have decreased with the allowance of firearms on campus. Those stats are used in CCW campaigns as they show favorable results. College campus data does not match national data and can not be reliably compared. Apples and Oranges situation, but lets just keep repeating our points in different words over and over and see if we can convince anyone that national statistics and regional statistics are the same thing. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by verslagen1 on 05/31/18 at 07:33:18 54776B6C596A6C716B6C180 wrote:
This is a bloomberg study and when you compare Bloomberg studies on how easy it is to get a gun thru the internet vs. the ATF or GAO(?) studies run completely counter to their findings. 65% yes vs 0/72 absolutely none in 2.5 years says they are completely biased. Another study was every WTB ad was shady vs. 9% which you gotta think how stupid do you gotta be to be a felon and take out an ad to buy a gun when you can go to any back alley and get one. So I would rate FACT VS FICTION as mostly fiction. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by Trippah on 05/31/18 at 08:08:01 Just for shistles, isn't our wonderful inner city eg Hartford, Detroit, Cleveland, Youngstown LA examples of CC (Card Carrying er Conceiled Carry) places where everyone knows everyone over 10 is carrying (legally or not) and aren't the incredibly high number of gun deaths in those Urban Utopias (compared to upper Darby PA, Concord Ma etc- you know uppah class places) our government has helped to create an argument against the effectiveness of such a program? Back to baby Robin watching, out of the nest and stretching - wife calls it a toddler Robin ;D |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by MnSpring on 05/31/18 at 08:19:44 2C0F1314211214091314600 wrote:
Is, FICTION ! (verslagen1 said it very good) So Bought a new handgun, (Well not new, but used, and ’new’ to me) Anyway, got on ‘BOOB Tub’, where, 78.5% of ‘Gun’, experts, don’t have the FIRST CLUE. (Yet their is a nugget or two among the rocks) If you want to learn about firearms, Take a FSTC, Yea mostly 12 year year olds their. But if you need it, it is a First Step. Then go to a good gun club/range, and shoot/learn. And if your instructor is the least bit condescending, rude, uppity, snide, cocky. Find another place. Their are Many. Watching some of those videos, this phrase came to be the consummate, statement. “You, are making decisions, on False, Incorrect, information, which is, Purposely false” When this was explained to the, ‘Collage Students from Calf Schools’, the Intelligent ones said, Hmmmmm, I’ll check that out. And the FACT, that CNN and the Like, are, ON Purpose, NOT, telling/reporting, All of the News ! Then, at the Very BASE. The, Students did NOT, Understand, ‘Rights’, They did NOT know, the 1st & 2nd, ‘rights’, are NOT, Given, by the Government. But they are, RIGHTS, which the government says they will NOT take away. Because they are, Inalienable Rights. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by MnSpring on 05/31/18 at 08:32:54 082E352C2C3D345C0 wrote:
Would those places you mention, be like, say, Chicago ? Where a, 'Part' of the population is probably: "...everyone over 10 is carrying..." So the next question is, are those carrying, in a group of people we will call, 'Good' or 'Bad' guys. Then, which ones, follow the law. Then which group has the government NOT ALLOWED, to have/carry a gun. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/31/18 at 08:39:17 The, Students did NOT, Understand, ‘Rights’, They did NOT know, the 1st & 2nd, ‘rights’, are NOT, Given, by the Government. But they are, RIGHTS, which the government says they will NOT take away. Because they are, Inalienable Rights. Government is the God of the godless I'm not sure they understand natural rights Or consider the natural state of man |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 06/01/18 at 14:47:40 3F2026213C3B0A3A0A32202C67550 wrote:
how do you stay logically consistent when in the last 2 years, violent crime has gone up, while CC has gone up as well? |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 06/01/18 at 14:50:28 2F3C2B2A35383E3C3768590 wrote:
This is a bloomberg study and when you compare Bloomberg studies on how easy it is to get a gun thru the internet vs. the ATF or GAO(?) studies run completely counter to their findings. 65% yes vs 0/72 absolutely none in 2.5 years says they are completely biased. Another study was every WTB ad was shady vs. 9% which you gotta think how stupid do you gotta be to be a felon and take out an ad to buy a gun when you can go to any back alley and get one. So I would rate FACT VS FICTION as mostly fiction.[/quote] I showed you my study, show me yours. Until then you're full of hearsay, chirp chirp.... |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by MnSpring on 06/01/18 at 17:47:18 7A5945427744425F4542360 wrote:
Do you think for yourself ? Do you research for yourself ? Do you make decisions for yourself ? If you do, then great, that is your opinion. Again if after the 3 items above, you have come to that conclusion, great, that is, YOUR, conclusion, made by learning, looking at, all sides, all things, and making a decision. YET ! Your posts here, sound, just like, someone is, ‘whispering’, in your ear ! |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by MnSpring on 06/02/18 at 09:21:02 Apologies to JOG, and to MANY others, this is known Information. Because I also know a breed of dogs, I will use dogs/kennels as a example. Kennel A: Real Nice, Real clean, Shiny Bright, personal overly friendly, smells like Pine Shavings, Just Perfect. Kennel B: Old building, wire kennels rusty, smells bad, light poor, owner sometimes grumpy. Both: Dogs are well taken care of. Both sell the dogs for the same money. Both are the same, breed, of dog. Yet the last 30 Years, One owner has produced 10 times MORE, Champions that the other. And the dogs, sold out of the same kennel, the owners of, have made, 20 times MORE, Champions. Can you guess which kennel/dogs, have made so many MORE Champions ? A Person knows NOTHING, about that dog. They go to both kennels. The, ’shiny’ one they are told, what basically amounts to, ‘sugar on a cookie’. The, ‘dirty’ one, they are told, what hard work it is to make a field champion. Now which one, ’sells’, more dogs? I relate the, Johns Hopkins, ‘report’, which was funded by a total Anti-Gun person. to the, Shiny Kennel. Baffle with Bull$hit. And the, Other, finding the Facts, observing, ‘Observed Reality’, reading all sorts of things, understanding them, and knowing the subject. As the other kennel. So in a Nutshell, when one knows nothing about a subject. They will ’trust’ the Shiny, Glib, Smooth, perfectly Presented version. Over, the one they have to work for, to get the information. In most cases, it is something insignificant, like; ‘This car is better than That car’. However when it comes to, someone, LYING, by omission of Facts, Spinning, and Distortion. It is TIME, for someone to LEARN ! the, TRUTH ! (For the Fairy Dust Sprinklers, NO, I do Not have a Kennel, and sell dogs) |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/02/18 at 09:59:04 People today have a mindset that anyone who doesn't speak with the rhythm of a preacher/politician, isn't polished and stands perfectly erect, looking down the nose, and Ohhh so classy Can't be a leader, certainly not a president,, and they know nothing about the people who built this nation. The fistfight and duels, the arguments and counter arguments, and they actually believe that the most pantywaist pushover we've had was the best, because he was smooth and polished. The racial division that I expected to see close, got WORSE, and why escapes me, but it did. Maybe because they made a religion out of butthurt. |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by LostArtist on 06/07/18 at 13:27:24 617E787F62655464546C7E72390B0 wrote:
I don't see how it's bad to expect a certain amount of polish and diplomacy from a leader. Why is calling your competitors names and ridiculing them seen as "refreshing?" so, now this is about racial division? I'm assuming some kind of logical transition happened, I'm not reading MNsprings posts cause they give me a headache, I"m just not good enough to understand his way of typing, and I've just given up and the racial division got worse cause people in power started shooting black people on camera and were exposed. Sure there's debate over how justified those shootings were. I like cops, I support cops, but they aren't perfect, and there's be a rather disturbing growth of militarization of the cops recently, and all that underlines the idea that black people, just by being black, are innately more scary than white people. that idea, judging on the surface of it by statistics, seems to have some validity, the word some there is important, please don't just skip over that I said that. And that idea, by itself, seems to have gotten a lot of cops and white people all angry that black people just want the cops to be better, sure their protests and language could probably have been more diplomatic, I do not support the "...Fry them like bacon" chant or some of the other more disturbing protest antics. and the other side said NO, how dare "you people" even bring attention to this and found stats that support their own position on this, and said you can't even play football if you protest to make cops better. I'm sure it's all way more complicated than all that but, it's not a case of who's right or wrong, it's one side being overly forceful (maybe) in their presentation and the other side totally rejecting any validity of their idea because of that presentation both sides are flawed, but it does take 2 to divide. but now I"m sure you will all go on and yell and tell me how stupid I am for missing that the stats really say this or that black poor people are more desperate which makes them scarier or something something blah blah to justify denying them the "golden rule" treatment "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" I'm just sad we can't address the issue in a pragmatic way to make us all better |
|
Title: Re: Let's not get confused Post by MnSpring on 06/07/18 at 15:51:00 7C5F4344714244594344300 wrote:
WOOOOOIE, I can post on Lost's Posts with Impunity !!!!!!!! WOOOIEEEEEE !!!!!!!!! "...I'm just sad we can't address the issue in a pragmatic way to make us all better..." Reminds me of a old song: Nobody likes me, Everybody hates me, Guess I'll go eat worms. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |