Have Republicans Gone Insane?

[Roll the Bones 74]

So, this is exactly what you posted;

 

"England and Japan have a combined death from gun total of about 50 per year. Are those countries worried about being overthrown by their governments? And really, we aren't even talking about taking the guns away, simply some sensible precautions like we do for every other dangerous thing in the US. Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people."

It's roughly 155, not 50 (.25 per 100,000, 62 million people). So yes, less death than US, but at the same time a clear increase in gun violence which will what? Lessen those numbers? And how are they showing any increase in gun violence despite all those restrictive gun laws? Just how does that happen? Would not more restrictive laws equal less gun violence? Fewer deaths? I thought that was the point of more restrictive gun laws. I understand that it cannot compare to our own rates, however, it is on the rise despite all those restrictions. Why? How? "Most believe it is carry over violence from the US as disgruntled youth emulate Americans." Really? That is awfully convenient. So, no matter what we do, it is still our fault? Our fault that gun crime is increasing in other countries? That isn't a lame excuse? Why is this effect showing only in the last few years? If that were true, there would there be a history showing that, right? I should think so.

 

So restrictions do work as expected and if they do not, blame it on America, not the restrictions for failing to work as promised. That about right? Have I got that correct?

 

Don't know why I'm bothering...

 

England deaths by firearm 2005 -50, 2006-59, 2007- 53, 2008-39, 2009- 40, 2010-58, 2011-42

 

Japan is seriously far less than them.

 

As for my comment about America's influence on England, I am sorry if you see it as "convenient", but facts usually are. Rises in violence in most societies can often be attributed to a disenfranchised younger male population, who when faced with bleak economic prospects look to gang type groups for authority and justification. England has a growing problem due to the economic crisis (exacerbated by ignorant conservative austerity) of their youth emulating American gangs.

 

But to compare their violence to what we have is an extreme joke. 9000 assaults? Really? #Detroitlaughs I mean, Louisiana has a death per 100K that rivals those in the 1700's.

 

Gun violence is a societal problem. It's an American problem.

[Roll the Bones 74]

So, has everyone noticed that since the conservatives have been exposed as frauds for Benghazi, the IRS scandal and all the others, to distract from their blatant false attacks, they quickly have moved back to their War on Women and abortion. I mean, how ****ed up is this. They demand women have babies and yet want to close and fight against any health care options they might have, especially the poor and minorities. They aren't pro-life, they are pro-fetus/anti-people. They want them born but then don't give a shit about them.

 

Gotta hand it to Obama for his recent slick move pushing off large businesses having to implement Obamacare for another year until after the 2014 elections. All the Republicans were planning on running on an anti-Obamacare platform and they just had their main talking points and reason for support yanked out from under them. I mean, they certainly can't run on anything they have accomplished. They can't tout their record on jobs or the economy since their main goal has been to thwart it.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

So, has everyone noticed that since the conservatives have been exposed as frauds for Benghazi, the IRS scandal and all the others, to distract from their blatant false attacks, they quickly have moved back to their War on Women and abortion. I mean, how ****ed up is this. They demand women have babies and yet want to close and fight against any health care options they might have, especially the poor and minorities. They aren't pro-life, they are pro-fetus/anti-people. They want them born but then don't give a shit about them.

 

Gotta hand it to Obama for his recent slick move pushing off large businesses having to implement Obamacare for another year until after the 2014 elections. All the Republicans were planning on running on an anti-Obamacare platform and they just had their main talking points and reason for support yanked out from under them. I mean, they certainly can't run on anything they have accomplished. They can't tout their record on jobs or the economy since their main goal has been to thwart it.

 

See, spewing the Liberal talking points makes you look exactly as ignorant as retards like MPaler. Someone mentioned Cognitive Dissonance at some point. I have to agree it is the primary thing that makes politics so stupid in this country.

[NickCave 194]

 

 

My problem with the crux of your post is that the American public is so far removed from actually having the ability to defend itself from the government that it shouldn't even be used as an argument for or against. If we were debating whether private citizens should be able to own tanks and nuclear weapons, or whether someone should or shouldn't be held in jail while awaiting trial for shooting a police officer if they claim self defence, then we'd be arguing that point.

 

The Second Amendment is dead. It is an anachronism. There's no reason to discuss gun control except as it pertains to public safety (which may mean more or less), because relating it to your ability to defend yourself against the current state of government is absurd.

 

Youve already conceeded to some degree that this is an overstatement, and I'm not trying to pile on, but you did say my point was absurd, so I don't feel too bad.

 

By your logic, Canada should completely disarm. I mean, they couldn't defend themselves against the American government if they decided to attack, so why bother at all?

 

Of course that's a silly example. But to suggest, "Well America could just nuke or firebomb the populace into submission" seems to me to be equally silly. An armed populace at least has a chance against tyranny, right? And that's point. A free people MUST have the potential to defend itself against its rulers, or freedom is an illusion.

 

Again, I'm just as shocked as you that I'm making this argument.

 

 

And, wait, did MPaler really make fun of me for changing my mind on guns after careful consideration? And for being centrist? Like I'm some kind of flip flop fag?

[Cha! Cha! 628]

Like I'm some kind of flip flop fag?

 

Well...aren't you?

[MPaler 72]

Don't know why I'm bothering...

 

England deaths by firearm 2005 -50, 2006-59, 2007- 53, 2008-39, 2009- 40, 2010-58, 2011-42

 

Japan is seriously far less than them.

 

As for my comment about America's influence on England, I am sorry if you see it as "convenient", but facts usually are. Rises in violence in most societies can often be attributed to a disenfranchised younger male population, who when faced with bleak economic prospects look to gang type groups for authority and justification. England has a growing problem due to the economic crisis (exacerbated by ignorant conservative austerity) of their youth emulating American gangs.

 

But to compare their violence to what we have is an extreme joke. 9000 assaults? Really? #Detroitlaughs I mean, Louisiana has a death per 100K that rivals those in the 1700's.

 

Gun violence is a societal problem. It's an American problem.

 

Using that, ahem, reasoning, that it is because of us passing on our societal problems on to the rest of the world, what country do we blame for passing their societal problems on to the youth of the United States? Wait, let me guess: it all started here, so it's all our fault. Gee, I don't know why I am bothering, either.

 

"I am sorry if you see it as "convenient", but facts usually are." Facts are not convenient or inconvenient, they are simply the truth. Only arguments put forth, using false information passed on as being factual, are convenient or inconvenient.

[MPaler 72]

Like I'm some kind of flip flop fag?

 

I did not call you a fag. However, if that was the only insult you took from that...nevermind, lets just go with that, ok?

[CaneBrain 95]

"[/font][/color]

It's roughly 155, not 50 (.25 per 100,000, 62 million people). So yes, less death than US

 

Good news. I submitted this to the annual understatement of the year awards and you won first prize. Congrats.

[ShakeZuma 585]

I'm some kind of flip flop fag?

 

thought you said "flip flop flag" at first and I was like yeah that's appropriately patriotic for today but it still doesn't make any sense.

 

 

and you actually read mpaler's posts? come on bro.

[mrdannyg 274]

Does gun ownership rivaling population hasten the will to enter a conflict, as it is far easy to start a revolution with an armed population than without? I should think so, yes. On the flip side of that coin, does that alone keep our Government in check; prevent them from going too far, making them eventually pull back in fear of that conflict? I also think so, yes. Are they aware of the quote "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." (http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html) Then, could gun ownership actually be the biggest obstacle standing in the way of tyranny being put upon us by our own Government? Has there ever been, in world history, such a well armed population that has fallen into tyranny at the hands of their own government? I do not think there has.

 

 

So how do you explain...the current state of government? Do you not consider the government's ability to monitor your communications in secret and to hold and prosecute American citizens without trial as "tyranny"?

 

 

Then the mere absence of a threat alone is not a good reason to reduce or disarm. A man standing holding a gun might not ever use it in his defense. Many would then ask "why stand with that gun then, if you have never had to use it in your defense against criminals?” And he would answer "because without it, I am visibly defenseless and therefore invite the criminals to commit their crimes against me. By standing here with this gun, they will instead seek out others they can more safely commit crimes against, those standing without a gun, like...you.”

 

So, a balanced approach is called for, is it not? More guns should go into areas that have higher crime/are vulnerable (schools and other public locations via more concealed carry permits). More restrictions should be placed on the “full tilt war” grade guns (you need to defend your house against an invading army? If ever you do, you will clearly have problems that larger/more guns will not help). Change the "no guns allowed" signs to "This is a concealed carry weapon permit only zone", as that makes you think twice about just how much resistance you will come up against should you decide to go on a shooting spree; simply put, you will not know.

 

Does that sound too far out?

 

That is just stupid. You have presented no evidence that an armed person actually dissuades conflict, and certainly have not presented evidence that the dissuasion of conflict is more significant than the possibility for accidental or erroneous injuries.

 

Well, that's not true. You have presented evidence a couple times, and each time other people have demonstrated that you were just making shit up.

 

People who commit mass murders do so because of severe psychological trauma and other reasons that me and you don't have a hope of understanding. Suggesting that if we just put up a sign that says "people might have guns here" than all these people will just not do it (since of course, finding somewhere else isn't a solution, right?) is absurd. Most of these people end up dead, and planned on ending up dead. If you told them they'd get shot in the head by a private citizen after killing 5 children rather than shot by police after shooting 15 it wouldn't change a goddamn thing.

 

So, the dissuasion aspect is completely wrong. You'll probably flop to another argument, as you typically do, and jump on my statement about them killing 5 instead of 15. That would be pretty much the one you're flailing in against Randy Reed, so I won't bother.

 

 

Again, I'm just as shocked as you that I'm making this argument.

 

I'm pleased that you're shocked, since it is an indication my stock is moving upward if me saying something stupid and regrettable is shocking.

[Sal Paradise 57]

don't worry danny, it's just cause he's new

[MPaler 72]

So how do you explain...the current state of government? Do you not consider the government's ability to monitor your communications in secret and to hold and prosecute American citizens without trial as "tyranny"?

 

If they monitor in secret, how do you know they are monitoring? (Sorry, could not resist) Where are all these american citizens being held without trial? Where? How do you both prosecute AND hold without trial? Did you mean persecute? Persecute them by holding them without a trial? Is that what you mean? Go get an english book and get back to me on that one.

 

That is just stupid. You have presented no evidence that an armed person actually dissuades conflict, and certainly have not presented evidence that the dissuasion of conflict is more significant than the possibility for accidental or erroneous injuries.

 

Really? Are you serious? I think this is common sense, don't you? So, what you are telling me then is, a criminal, given a choice of robbing (A) an unarmed man or (B) an armed man, the criminal will still rob both with equal frequency? I think we know who is making shit up as they go. You do not think criminals pick the easy target? "Well, I could attack Bob over there, as he does not have a gun. But Jim, well he has a shotgun. Yep, Jim it is!" Is that what you are saying? Sure! And maybe criminals flee the police because the cop ate a burger with onions for lunch, not to avoid a conflict with an armed man. As for the rest, lets just stick to this. Once again you are desperately trying to muddy the waters by throwing in a new aspect; "the dissuasion of conflict is more significant than the possibility for accidental or erroneous injuries." Look who is just making shit up now.

 

Well, that's not true. You have presented evidence a couple times, and each time other people have demonstrated that you were just making shit up.

 

Well, of course! Others you just assume to be correct, when it supports your argument, yet I who disagree just must supply facts and figures for every damn statement I make, or I am "making it up". Then, by all means, PROVE ME WRONG.

 

People who commit mass murders do so because of severe psychological trauma and other reasons that me and you don't have a hope of understanding. Suggesting that if we just put up a sign that says "people might have guns here" than all these people will just not do it (since of course, finding somewhere else isn't a solution, right?) is absurd. Most of these people end up dead, and planned on ending up dead. If you told them they'd get shot in the head by a private citizen after killing 5 children rather than shot by police after shooting 15 it wouldn't change a goddamn thing.

 

Then please explain how none of this happens where there are (1) no "no guns allowed" signs. (2) a place where guns are probably being carried by civilians. Coincidence, right? And you clearly just assume that all people with "severe psychological trauma" are stupid, drooling idiots who spontaneously go out and shoot up a mall or school. They are just as capable of using common sense as you and I. Well, me, anyway. Why do police and investigators always seem to find long standing plans to do this by the perpetrator? Like, facebook postings or clear signs of careful preparation? None of these people with this "severe psychological trauma" just "snap" and grab a gun and go out shooting. Finding a weak spot to do it at is clearly part of a plan. According to you then, the "batman" theater shooter, he was suffering from "severe psychological trauma", RIGHT? So then why did he not go to the theater closest to him? The most crowded one? WHY? Presence of mind to pick the one least like to have armed people in? Could be! Next argument against, please? How much more do I have to shred you?

 

So, the dissuasion aspect is completely wrong. You'll probably flop to another argument, as you typically do, and jump on my statement about them killing 5 instead of 15. That would be pretty much the one you're flailing in against Randy Reed, so I won't bother.

 

No, the dissuasion aspect is not wrong, your idea of common sense is. Read what I wrote above. Notice, no flipping, since making you sound ridiculous is what I did in the first place and continue to do now.

 

[mrdannyg 274]

Alright, I'll play for a little.

 

1) Edward Snowden helped out there. And you know, every news story for the past month or so. And yes, I meant prosecute. There are lots of ways to prosecute that don't involve a transparent and fair trial. Pretty sure it is not controversial at this point to say that the US required private companies to assist in spying on Americans, forced them to lie about it, did not disclose their activities to the public, have held American citizens without charge or trial and targeted Americans with drones.

 

2) Yes, I would think that is common sense. And yet, that's not how it works. Why doesn't even junkie with a handgun fly over to England and commit crimes all day. They have no guns! It's so easy! Criminals pick targets for a lot of reasons. The potential for the victims to have a gun or be protected by someone who does is a small part of their decision-making, and often not at all. For crimes like mass murders where most would argue that the criminal did so despite knowing they were going to be killed, and because their brain was goddamn broken, the possibility that someone in the vicinity has a gun is probably a non-factor.

 

3) I assume people have facts behind them unless their points sound weird, or they have been showing to make things up on several occasions. You fit into the latter category.

 

4a) You made this argument before. Someone pointed out evidence you were making it up. You admitted you were, then posted the link where you got the information that you misconstrued. That was that. Now you're repeating the same thing?

 

4b) You have no understanding of psychological trauma, apparently. I'm not pointing them out to be drooling idiots, I'm pointing out that what is "important" to them differs from what is important to us, or what might me considered common sense to us. We can tell this because THEY JUST MURDERED PEOPLE. If they were "just as capable of common sense as you or I" then they wouldn't have long-laid plans to murder people, and they wouldn't have just murdered people. If you allow for the fact that they are most likely much more willing to die than you or I (as evidenced by them putting themselves in a situation where they are very likely to be killed), then you have to discount how much they are working to avoid situations of danger. But yeah, you just made up that stuff about the "Batman" theatre guy, and that's your only evidence, so arguing logic against a total strawman is kind of like hitting a brick wall with a rock.

 

5) No flipping, good for you. Repeating the same evidence that you admitted was made up might not be a good alternate strategy though.

[MPaler 72]

Alright, I'll play for a little.

 

1) Edward Snowden helped out there. (You have tea in China with him? Did you ask him "where is your proof?) And you know, every news story for the past month or so. And yes, I meant prosecute. There are lots of ways to prosecute that don't involve a transparent and fair trial. (No, there is not. Try looking up that word "prosecute" in a dictionary and you will see, you either mean "persecute" or are an ig-nat) Pretty sure it is not controversial at this point to say that the US required private companies to assist in spying on Americans, forced them to lie about it, did not disclose their activities to the public, have held American citizens without charge or trial and targeted Americans with drones.

 

You should not have played. Edward Snowden has yet to provide one scintilla of actual PROOF of anything. Thought you, ahem, demanded more from your sources. As for those US companies "assisting" in the spying of US Citizens, you mean by subpoena (AP)? That is your idea of "assisting" the government, right? Sure. And I was unaware that any scandal you speak of has yet been proven, charged and been through the courts. Thought it was still ongoing, but OK, you might want to let the press know. Silly nuts, they are still looking for proof. (I will agree, yes, clearly some shady dealings have been going on, but without PROOF, it's still just a scandal. This is not like watergate, yet. Please do not jump the gun, if you will pardon the pun.) And I am still waiting for you to back up "all those American citizens being held without trial or charges" and which "Americans" have been targeted by drones. You keep saying it and keep dodging the proof of this. Oh, by the way, was this unfounded claim you make about that on American soil, as well? I should think not, as we would have heard about it in the news. Or are they "assisting" the Gov. by not putting these drone attacks on the news as they occur? So, who are these poor Americans being held without trial and being attacked from above? Who? Where? When? How? Do you have ANYTHING but supposition? After two chances to put it forth here, It does not look like it.

 

 

 

2) Yes, I would think that is common sense. And yet, that's not how it works. (Really? Again, clear examples of this being the exact case, yet you still deny it. Amazing. I guess ignoring facts are one way to "win" your argument.) Why doesn't even junkie with a handgun fly over to England and commit crimes all day. They have no guns! It's so easy! (This is just stupid, come on. Take his handgun to England, ahem, on a plane, to use there because it is "so much easier". In a country you cannot pick your nose in without it being on tape. This stupid comment invalidates my argument. ROFLMAO. You keep grasping at straws, like this, and you will only continue to look like an ignorant fool.) Criminals pick targets for a lot of reasons. (Number one of which is apparent "ease of success" in committing the crime against them, duh.) The potential for the victims to have a gun or be protected by someone who does is a small part of their decision-making, and often not at all. .(Then why are more crimes committed where it is harder to get a concealed carry permit than locations it is not? Why is it when these restrictions are relaxed, crime goes down? Here, zippy, check this out; http://www.nraila.or...aspx?s=&st=&ps= and for back up to their claims, as it is from the NRA and I do not trust them as they clearly have a horse in this race, http://www.fbi.gov/s...ices/crimestats and http://www.gallup.co...ghest-1993.aspx That shows they are correct, like it or not. Gun ownership has increasd, while crime has gone down. Kind of blows a BIG hole in your suppostition, does it not? If not, give me a link showing as gun ownership increases, crime also increases. You can't, can you?) For crimes like mass murders where most would argue that the criminal did so despite knowing they were going to be killed, and because their brain was goddamn broken, the possibility that someone in the vicinity has a gun is probably a non-factor ("Probably". Well, that is a good fact. Again, then why are they going out of their way to do it? Explain why the Batman theatre shooter did not pick the crowded one closest to home. The one without "no guns allowed" signs?)

 

3) I assume people have facts behind them unless their points sound weird, or they have been showing to make things up on several occasions. You fit into the latter category.(This is a nice trick. What did I make up? Oh, I made ONE semi-mistake about Columbine. Yes, well you have made FAR MORE than I, and continue to do so. But I have listed links above, if you care to look. Those links I provided prove my case. You are just making shit up as you go in your first paragraph, and refuse to back up your claims at all. But no, I make one half a mistake that I corrected, then I must be full of it. Right. Weak, man, weak. But more on this below. You will love it.)

 

4a) You made this argument before. Someone pointed out evidence you were making it up. You admitted you were, then posted the link where you got the information that you misconstrued. That was that. Now you're repeating the same thing? (No, I admitted I made a mistake in the example I used. That does not invalidate my entire argument, but you sure would like it to, now wouldn't you? Also, friend, you continually insist that Americans are being held without trial and drones used against us, refuse to back that BS up, but here I am the only one with faulty or misleading statements. Right. Again, just wait, you are going to love this...)

 

4b) You have no understanding of psychological trauma, apparently. I'm not pointing them out to be drooling idiots, I'm pointing out that what is "important" to them differs from what is important to us, or what might me considered common sense to us. (Again, you accused, I responded, you ignored. Explain the Theatre shooter. You cannot. Explain others like him. You refuse. Especially since it blows another hole in your own "expert on mental health" explanations.) We can tell this because THEY JUST MURDERED PEOPLE. If they were "just as capable of common sense as you or I" then they wouldn't have long-laid plans to murder people, and they wouldn't have just murdered people. If you allow for the fact that they are most likely much more willing to die than you or I (as evidenced by them putting themselves in a situation where they are very likely to be killed), then you have to discount how much they are working to avoid situations of danger. But yeah, you just made up that stuff about the "Batman" theatre guy, and that's your only evidence, so arguing logic against a total strawman is kind of like hitting a brick wall with a rock. (GOT YOU. Just made it up did I? Well, ok. First, here is this quote "With court proceedings now taking place for three alleged mass murderers, it might be instructive to review the incorrect assumption, held by many people, including perhaps Piers Morgan (and you, mrdannyg), that there is a link between these massacres and mental illness." and the link that is from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-david-jaffee/mass-murderers-on-trial-a_b_3395006.html. And this quote "So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience. Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. " and here is the link: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/. Now, I shall await your apology by admitting YOU WERE TOTALLY WRONG and falsly accused me of providing bogus info, as you continue to do yourself. But, I will not hold my breath. Clearly only you can just throw out statments about things without links to prove it, I am not allowed to do that. Typical leftist tatics. Nice try (NOT). lol,lol,lol.

 

 

5) No flipping, good for you. Repeating the same evidence that you admitted was made up might not be a good alternate strategy though.(No, I think I cleared that up nicely, don't you? And again, It was columbine that I was wrong about, not the batman shooter. Again, try reading this when not high on meds or pot.)

 

So, lets see...I have (1) blown your own arguments right out of the water and provided the links to prove it, (2) proven you do not have a clue and just make shit up as you go far more than I ever supposedly did by (3) proving my conclusions stated about the "batman" shooter, which, ahem, means I did not just make it up, again, as you claim I did, (I just thought you knew but were conveniently ignoring it), (4) Shown you cannot admit when you make a mistake, as I have, and (5) Shown you take things out of context in a vain attempt to counter arguments you cannot win, because you cannot find anything to back you up (not surprising).

 

Does that about sum it up? Oh, wait, maybe you thought my figures about the death rate in England were wrong as well? So, If you want, I can give you proof of my numbers, to show that 150+ is the correct number, not 50 as stated. Want me to? Ok, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate and here https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+Uk&oq=population&aqs=chrome.1.57j59j0l2j62l2.6063j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 , so, .25 deaths per 100,000 people, 62.75 million people, = 156.85 deaths per year (I rounded down, sorry), NOT 50!! Maybe you guys can learn how to use a calculator as well as learning english. (And start showing your links as well, please, like I have to) And you keep trying zippy. Keep trying.

[MPaler 72]

That's hilarious. Don't you really have the ability to look at this and discern what I said or what they wrote. Notice they don't list the actual deaths, which as I said, averages around 50 per year. You scream about gun violence rising in that country and list yearly stats that wouldn't be a good night in half the Louisiana counties. And do you know why the gun violence is rising there? Most believe it is carry over violence from the US as disgruntled youth emulate Americans. England along with the rest of the civilized world looks on us with horror, and simply wonder if we'll ever get it. As long as their are people like you here looking at any information with confirmation bias to confirm your love of violence over children dying or people wanting to live free from gun violence, then they will continue to consider us the uncivilized heathens that we are.

 

Asked and answered: http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate and here https://www.google.c...chrome&ie=UTF-8 , so, .25 deaths per 100,000 people, 62.75 million people, = 156.85 deaths per year (I rounded down, sorry), NOT 50!! Try this new device called a "calculator", or you can just type it into google.

[mrdannyg 274]

Ah, you got me. Wish we had proof of the US spying. Like, maybe, senators discussing it openly or the FBI Director admitting use of drones inside the US:

http://newsela.com/articles/fbi-drones/levels/1040

 

And I'll give you the 156 number (even though it involves overly simplistic rounding, as opposed to the explicit figures in RR's link). So 156 deaths in Britain, a population of 62.75 million. 156. Over 23000 in the United States, with 5x the population. So, about 29.5x as likely. But yeah, let's quibble about whether the real number is 50 or 150.

[MPaler 72]

Ah, you got me. Wish we had proof of the US spying. Like, maybe, senators discussing it openly or the FBI Director admitting use of drones inside the US:

http://newsela.com/a...nes/levels/1040 Just saying, give it time, we are in middle of this scandal. And, you got those examples of prosecutions? You know, those Americans being held without trial? Drone attacks on US persons on US soil? Nothing? No comment? How about my assertions you said I was wrong about, concerning the Batman shooter? That stuff I just "threw out"? No retractions to your accusations against me? No? Nothing? No comment here either? Hmmm....

 

And I'll give you the 156 number (even though it involves overly simplistic rounding, as opposed to the explicit figures in RR's link) (which were false, period. And I used a calculator and the same figures they supposedly did and the same math they supposedly did.). So 156 deaths in Britain, a population of 62.75 million. 156. Over 23000 in the United States, with 5x the population. So, about 29.5x as likely. But yeah, let's quibble about whether the real number is 50 or 150. (just thought you were a stickler for detail, like you demand that I be. Speaking of "quibbles", why use a totally different society with a much smaller population as direct comparison to the US? No, lets not answer that or go there until you fix your other inaccuracies, huh?)

Thanks.

[mrdannyg 274]

lol, others have posited you are a 16-year old who doesn't read newspapers. I'm going to suggest you're a bad 28-year old lawyer. The old "keep dumping shit and hope you can dump faster than they clean it up" strategy.

 

If you say something like "there's no proof" then I link to an explicit admission by the FBI Director, I'm not going to waste my time continuing to provide links to things that people with valid opinions don't even consider controversial. If you want to have tin foil hat arguments about the moon landing while you're at it, I'm sure you can find a forum for that.

[Roll the Bones 74]

lol, others have posited you are a 16-year old who doesn't read newspapers. I'm going to suggest you're a bad 28-year old lawyer. The old "keep dumping shit and hope you can dump faster than they clean it up" strategy.

 

If you say something like "there's no proof" then I link to an explicit admission by the FBI Director, I'm not going to waste my time continuing to provide links to things that people with valid opinions don't even consider controversial. If you want to have tin foil hat arguments about the moon landing while you're at it, I'm sure you can find a forum for that.

 

What's hilarious is his view that gun violence is caused by the lack of people owning and carrying guns, and signs forbidding their use. It's always amazing the pyschoogical contortions people will go to defend something when their bias is so strongly attached, and their only reasoning involved is parroting Fox news or conservative websites. The fact he is making a deal that he used math to come up with 150 over the actual numbers is hilarious, "It's not 50, it's 150!" I mean, that isn't a good night in the US.

 

Until Americans develope a civilized attitude about the rule of law and the realization that violence is never the answer to a dissagreement, we will always have this problem. This "honor code" attitude that has permeated for centuries in the south simply needs to go away. Other country? "Nuke the sombitches". Not white, "**** em!". Women, "should be owned as property". Some one looks at you wrong? "Shoot em tween the eyes".

[Roll the Bones 74]

What is astonishing, really, is that after four years of obstruction, phony debtt crises, killing jobs, attacks on women, False attacks on the liberals over Benghazi, IRS or anything else they can manufacture, and obviously deliberate attempts to thwart economic recovery, rather than back off in fear of reprisal having lost the 2012 elections, they just seem to double down in the amount of evil they can perpetrate on American citizens. They block gun safety measures, vote 937 times to repeal Obamacare and keep people from having health care, hold the nation hostage budget with austerity demands, which is coming yet again, They are continually attacking women's rights, including the most whacked out evil abortion restrictions yet, which they conveniently slide through by attaching to bills such as Anti-Sharia laws. They wrap themselves up in the flag claiming they are fighting theocracy irnically while attempting to institute their own theocracy. 20 states have rejected Medicaid expansion effectively denying health care to millions of people and who knows how many resulting deaths. They tried to crush SNAP in a farm bill, which is food for children and elderly. I mean, I'm sure they are just jealous of Hitler who just took the old and undesirable to camps and killed them, but they do the best they can with they're allowed.

 

And none of this is popular, so they are using every trick in the book to gerrymander districts and restrict people from voting to try to maintain power. I mean **** people voting.

 

Up next, Medicaid, Social Security, more on food stamps, and tax cuts for the rich and attacks on the poor or needy who can't contribute to their campaign funds or retirement. Oh yeah, let's not forget overtime pay, sick leave, climate denial, anything Alec tells them to do, anti-worker, anti-union, anti America.

 

It's like going back in time and watching the rise of Fascism in Germany.

[MPaler 72]

lol, others have posited you are a 16-year old who doesn't read newspapers. I'm going to suggest you're a bad 28-year old lawyer. The old "keep dumping shit and hope you can dump faster than they clean it up" strategy.

 

If you say something like "there's no proof" then I link to an explicit admission by the FBI Director, I'm not going to waste my time continuing to provide links to things that people with valid opinions don't even consider controversial. If you want to have tin foil hat arguments about the moon landing while you're at it, I'm sure you can find a forum for that.

 

What a wuss. You cannot back it up, so you ignore it first, then slide out of it because of what I supposedly did or did not do.

 

What a coward.

[MPaler 72]

What's hilarious is his view that gun violence is caused by the lack of people owning and carrying guns, and signs forbidding their use. It's always amazing the pyschoogical contortions people will go to defend something when their bias is so strongly attached, and their only reasoning involved is parroting Fox news or conservative websites. The fact he is making a deal that he used math to come up with 150 over the actual numbers is hilarious, "It's not 50, it's 150!" I mean, that isn't a good night in the US.

 

Until Americans develope a civilized attitude about the rule of law and the realization that violence is never the answer to a dissagreement, we will always have this problem. This "honor code" attitude that has permeated for centuries in the south simply needs to go away. Other country? "Nuke the sombitches". Not white, "**** em!". Women, "should be owned as property". Some one looks at you wrong? "Shoot em tween the eyes".

 

Another coward talking to hear himself talk and getting validation from loons just like himself. Well, at least that way, you will always be right. Won't you?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Anarchists of the House

 

 

The Republican Congress is testing a new frontier of radicalism—governmental sabotage.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Well...aren't you?

He's in better shape than I expected:

 

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

that's some serious beef.