INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: odeon on October 02, 2017, 12:25:42 PM
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
-
Well that's what you get for having a well regulated militia. :'(
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world. :finger:
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world. :finger:
But you do for the US? Guessing there are people in Las Vegas and elsewhere that would disagree. :finger:
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle
Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world. :finger:
But you do for the US? Guessing there are people in Las Vegas and elsewhere that would disagree. :finger:
I'm not trying to, you are. You're both deflecting and projecting. God you're fucking dense.
-
It sounded like it was a fully automatic weapon aren't they currently "controlled" and not sold anymore? So would "controlling the weapon that he used or any other weapon have made ANY difference to him having used the weapon?
These are serious questions.
-
I don't know.
I'm on the fence anymore. I used to think people had enough common sense to decide. Then I see people like a woman I know with a permit to carry with her hand on the gun in her purse every time she encounters a strange man. She is honestly terrified of being raped, she's never been raped...and I'll be blunt...no one sane wants a piece of that...there is no past trama...she's just a very, very paranoid nutcase. I question whether she should own knives let alone have a permit to carry.
The older I get the more I'm around people, the more I'm around them the more I see how stupid some truly are.
My big question...they are reporting now that they found 42 guns in the motel room...10 of them rifles. How the fuck did he get them in??? The motels I've stayed at you were lucky if you could sneak in a coffee pot and you had to lock up any loose change or towels brought from home or they disappeared at cleaning time.
They can find $2.00 in quarters and a coffee pot, but not one cleaning person saw anything...are they fucking blind?? They definitely aren't cleaning under that bed.
-
As for the automatic....some are very easily modified.
-
As for the automatic....some are very easily modified.
Are they legal to own and are they legal to buy? I am not sure whether or not they are legal to own BUT in terms of restricting the ability to purchase one, my understanding is that they ARE restricted and not available for purchase and that "gun control" is, therefore, a moot point as "restricting it via gun control" would not have made a difference if it is ALREADY not available for purchase. I MAY be wrong.
-
It sounded like it was a fully automatic weapon aren't they currently "controlled" and not sold anymore?
You need to get a class 3 firearms license from the Fed government. The number of permits was frozen a couple of decades ago so in order to get one, you have to have one given to you from a previous license holder. The background check to qualify for one is the same as getting a top secret security clearance.
So would "controlling the weapon that he used or any other weapon have made ANY difference to him having used the weapon?
These are serious questions.
No. Either he modified the AR-15's that he had to be full auto or he used one of many trigger manipulating devices which mimic automatic fire.
-
As for the automatic....some are very easily modified.
That's somewhat of a myth.
They can be modified but it takes a competent gunsmith to do it.
-
As for the automatic....some are very easily modified.
That's somewhat of a myth.
They can be modified but it takes a competent gunsmith to do it.
Not technically "fully automatic" (bump firing) but changing the stock on something like an AR-15 is easy enough and legal.
400 to 800 rounds a minute.
-
Just read another news clip...apparently that's exactly what he used.
http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooter-massacre-ar-15-rifle-guns/
-
Just read another news clip...apparently that's exactly what he used.
http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooter-massacre-ar-15-rifle-guns/
Yeah, I saw that too.
Technically it's still a semi-auto though because it only fires 1 round for each pull of the trigger, it simply manipulates the trigger mechanically (perfectly legal).
-
As it turns out, one of the survivors is one of my buddies from the Marines.
I might post some of his testimony if he's ok with that.
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle
Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.
Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world. :finger:
But you do for the US? Guessing there are people in Las Vegas and elsewhere that would disagree. :finger:
I'm not trying to, you are. You're both deflecting and projecting. God you're fucking dense.
I'm not deflecting and I'm not projecting, I'm *reacting*, and you seem unable to. I'm wondering if maybe you'll simply never see it. Maybe it's a cultural thing, your constitutional excuse to kill each other.
-
I'm not deflecting and I'm not projecting,
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, you know.
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle
Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.
Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?
No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.
Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.
Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .
Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.
What of what I said is incorrect?
-
"No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence."
Which is why the 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."
One site I looked at said that the amendment was used to keep the Southern states in the union. Their militias were slave owners and hunters who needed guns to keep the slaves in line. Not sure how accurate this is, but it sounds possible.
-
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too. :zoinks:
-
Gun sales/stocks will go up ten-fold now, and people will be waiting in line and buying ammo like pez. Always happens after something like this.
Some nutter does something like this here and everybody panics and starts stocking up like they're going to discontinue their favorite flavor of soda pop.
They can ban guns right now and honestly it still would take 20 years to probably see any effect, because every gun owner from here to California is going to be hiding and stockpiling anything they can get their hands on. First few years will probably work as well as prohibition did...and that's if after 8 years a new administration doesn't come in financially backed to the teeth by some gun organization/company and change the rules back again. :P
-
I'm not deflecting and I'm not projecting,
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, you know.
Do you? You're deflecting. Is the right to carry a gun so important to you?
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle
Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.
Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?
No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.
Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.
Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .
Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.
What of what I said is incorrect?
I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.
But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.
-
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too. :zoinks:
Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle
Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.
Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?
No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.
Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.
Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .
Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.
What of what I said is incorrect?
I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.
But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.
Sure, how do you suppose you "remove" them. YOu are open to that possibility.
The American culture of hands off my gun and the fact that hundreds of millions there think that it is a right and most of them a necessity and most of them would consider measures to take guns off them as a way of a tyrannical government trying to disarm lawful citizens with the bad so that people cannot defend themselves. SO they will NOT allow that....AT ALL.
So that being the case, what was the possibility you were mentioning?
Sure in OTHER cultures it worked. Sure people who are anti-gun and pro-gun control WILL likely agree BUT they are hardly the people with guns.
So what is your suggestion? Just curious.
-
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too. :zoinks:
Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?
Because people like trophies? :dunno:
-
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22089369_1746936788714132_4447231473543275308_n.jpg?oh=aec9772be13e84a244b543ef39e764b0&oe=5A450F19)
-
I don't understand the gun laws in the US at all. We have reasonable laws in Canada which allow people to own guns but more restrictions on who can carry. We don't have conceal/carry or open/carry here for the general population.
-
I don't understand the gun laws in the US at all. We have reasonable laws in Canada which allow people to own guns but more restrictions on who can carry. We don't have conceal/carry or open/carry here for the general population.
They also vary a bit by state which makes it more interesting.
-
I don't understand the gun laws in the US at all. We have reasonable laws in Canada which allow people to own guns but more restrictions on who can carry. We don't have conceal/carry or open/carry here for the general population.
They also vary a bit by state which makes it more interesting.
Yeah I've lived in several states. It gets confusing down there. :laugh:
-
I will admit my bias against guns except under well regulated situations. My my great grandfather shot himself and the effects were still to be found with my mother (and probably me). We have a standing military, state police, local police, security guards, etc. It's a shame they're not effective. I do realize that if a gun isn't handy a frying pan, knife, strangulation will do in the heat of a domestic argument. But I have the impossible wish that killing would stop.
-
I don't understand the gun laws in the US at all. We have reasonable laws in Canada which allow people to own guns but more restrictions on who can carry. We don't have conceal/carry or open/carry here for the general population.
They also vary a bit by state which makes it more interesting.
Yeah I've lived in several states. It gets confusing down there. :laugh:
In Pa owning a gun is perfectly legal, a permit to carry is easy to obtain...but potentially non-lethal brass knuckles and tasers are illegal. :zoinks:
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle
Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.
Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?
No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.
Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.
Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .
Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.
What of what I said is incorrect?
I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.
But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.
Sure, how do you suppose you "remove" them. YOu are open to that possibility.
The American culture of hands off my gun and the fact that hundreds of millions there think that it is a right and most of them a necessity and most of them would consider measures to take guns off them as a way of a tyrannical government trying to disarm lawful citizens with the bad so that people cannot defend themselves. SO they will NOT allow that....AT ALL.
So that being the case, what was the possibility you were mentioning?
Sure in OTHER cultures it worked. Sure people who are anti-gun and pro-gun control WILL likely agree BUT they are hardly the people with guns.
So what is your suggestion? Just curious.
First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.
Second, I'd challenge the sensibility of allowing anything firing hundreds of rounds per minute. I mean, what the fuck, what's the fucking point? It won't help against nukes but it will kill the daughter that is sneaking into the house at night a hell of a lot faster.
Third, there are states that think allowing a legally blind person to own a gun is a good idea. Why are we even talking about this when people die because of your immense stupidity?
I could go on.
-
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too. :zoinks:
Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?
Because people like trophies? :dunno:
Because someone thought it was a good idea to practise aiming at something without actually killing was a good idea.
-
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22089369_1746936788714132_4447231473543275308_n.jpg?oh=aec9772be13e84a244b543ef39e764b0&oe=5A450F19)
+
-
I'm not deflecting and I'm not projecting,
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, you know.
Do you? You're deflecting. Is the right to carry a gun so important to you?
You continue your attempt to shift the goalposts and misdirect.
You started this thread by claiming to speak for the rest of the world when you clearly don't.
That was just a pissweak attempt at triangulation and I called you out on it.
Now that this has been established, do you have a point? or a question?
-
I will admit my bias against guns except under well regulated situations. My my great grandfather shot himself and the effects were still to be found with my mother (and probably me). We have a standing military, state police, local police, security guards, etc. It's a shame they're not effective. I do realize that if a gun isn't handy a frying pan, knife, strangulation will do in the heat of a domestic argument. But I have the impossible wish that killing would stop.
It does make sense, doesn't it? Make it harder to get a gun and people will have to make do with what they have. Can you imagine what happened in Las Vegas carried out with a frying pan?
-
Gun sales/stocks will go up ten-fold now, and people will be waiting in line and buying ammo like pez. Always happens after something like this.
Some nutter does something like this here and everybody panics and starts stocking up like they're going to discontinue their favorite flavor of soda pop.
They can ban guns right now and honestly it still would take 20 years to probably see any effect, because every gun owner from here to California is going to be hiding and stockpiling anything they can get their hands on. First few years will probably work as well as prohibition did...and that's if after 8 years a new administration doesn't come in financially backed to the teeth by some gun organization/company and change the rules back again. :P
QFT
-
I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.
You know fuckall about the 2nd amendment.
In order to understand it, you need to read the Federalist Papers, which you haven't and I have.
-
First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.
Again, you know fuckall about the US constitution.
-
I'm not deflecting and I'm not projecting,
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, you know.
Do you? You're deflecting. Is the right to carry a gun so important to you?
You continue your attempt to shift the goalposts and misdirect.
You started this thread by claiming to speak for the rest of the world when you clearly don't.
That was just a pissweak attempt at triangulation and I called you out on it.
Now that this has been established, do you have a point? or a question?
Dear idiot, I know you love your guns above anything and everything, but you are deflecting, again. People die because of morons like you. When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility? Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.
Fucking weak.
-
I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.
You know fuckall about the 2nd amendment.
In order to understand it, you need to read the Federalist Papers, which you haven't and I have.
I don't think I misunderstood. I think you're hiding behind it.
-
First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.
Again, you know fuckall about the US constitution.
Quote it. Tell me where I'm wrong.
-
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too. :zoinks:
Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?
Because people like trophies? :dunno:
Because someone thought it was a good idea to practise aiming at something without actually killing was a good idea.
Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??
Many people here put meat on the table that way.
-
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too. :zoinks:
Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?
Because people like trophies? :dunno:
Because someone thought it was a good idea to practise aiming at something without actually killing was a good idea.
Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??
Many people here put meat on the table that way.
:LMAO:
Yes. That is why you have guns. Your're an idiot, but then we had already established that.
-
What you want us to believe is that you haven't evolved since the 18th century.
-
People die because of morons like you.
Prove it or STFU!
When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility?
Oh, I do have a responsibility. I'm responsible to use my guns in a safe and responsible manner, which I do. See how easy that was?
Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.
You're talking about the supreme law of the land in the United States which was established because the founding fathers read these things called history books, and THEY didn't trust governments.
You're a special kind of stupid to think that I would have any power to change it, even Trump can't do that.
-
Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??
Many people here put meat on the table that way.
:LMAO:
Yes. That is why you have guns. Your're an idiot, but then we had already established that.
Millions of deer tags are issued and filled out every year in the US.
I'm one of those going deer hunting this season.
At this point I have to say you are being willfully ignorant.
-
What you want us to believe is that you haven't evolved since the 18th century.
The bill of rights was designed to protect us from fascist dickheads like you.
-
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too. :zoinks:
Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?
Because people like trophies? :dunno:
Because someone thought it was a good idea to practise aiming at something without actually killing was a good idea.
I think practice is a good idea if someone is going to be a gun owner. :lol1: Anyway, I thought you were asking about both competitive marksmanship and racing. I think I'll stick with my trophy theory. :zoinks:
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle
Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.
Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?
No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.
Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.
Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .
Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.
What of what I said is incorrect?
I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.
But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.
Sure, how do you suppose you "remove" them. YOu are open to that possibility.
The American culture of hands off my gun and the fact that hundreds of millions there think that it is a right and most of them a necessity and most of them would consider measures to take guns off them as a way of a tyrannical government trying to disarm lawful citizens with the bad so that people cannot defend themselves. SO they will NOT allow that....AT ALL.
So that being the case, what was the possibility you were mentioning?
Sure in OTHER cultures it worked. Sure people who are anti-gun and pro-gun control WILL likely agree BUT they are hardly the people with guns.
So what is your suggestion? Just curious.
First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.
Second, I'd challenge the sensibility of allowing anything firing hundreds of rounds per minute. I mean, what the fuck, what's the fucking point? It won't help against nukes but it will kill the daughter that is sneaking into the house at night a hell of a lot faster.
Third, there are states that think allowing a legally blind person to own a gun is a good idea. Why are we even talking about this when people die because of your immense stupidity?
I could go on.
These are all things that could be argued and you are making reasonable arguments towards them but ALL of these are a long way from
But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.
Which is what I was responding to.
I was not asking whether legally blind should have guns nor whether guns capable of firing a lot of rounds ought to be restricted or anything of teh sort. You expressly said (and in simple terms) that because of guns were designed to kill people they should be possible to be removed from society.
I have made a case that in America, this would be impossible. You have now pivoted to the legally blind owning guns and how some guns fore to many rounds.
-
^^^ odeurn isn't making much sense at this point.
I think he just want's to lash out at people because he doesn't have any real answers.
Trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate 300,000,000 guns would just spark a civil war.
-
People die because of morons like you.
Prove it or STFU!
When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility?
Oh, I do have a responsibility. I'm responsible to use my guns in a safe and responsible manner, which I do. See how easy that was?
Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.
You're talking about the supreme law of the land in the United States which was established because the founding fathers read these things called history books, and THEY didn't trust governments.
You're a special kind of stupid to think that I would have any power to change it, even Trump can't do that.
Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Columbine... How much proof do you need? Though I'm sure there will be more.
I'm talking about a piece of bs by people long since dead, and about people alive now but in denial when they should be able to connect the dots and do something. It's not rocket science. How many people must die first?
And you can change it. Not alone, but then, that is how democracy works. Or should work.
-
Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??
Many people here put meat on the table that way.
:LMAO:
Yes. That is why you have guns. Your're an idiot, but then we had already established that.
Millions of deer tags are issued and filled out every year in the US.
I'm one of those going deer hunting this season.
At this point I have to say you are being willfully ignorant.
Are you being deliberately dense?
-
What you want us to believe is that you haven't evolved since the 18th century.
The bill of rights was designed to protect us from fascist dickheads like you.
How's that working out for you so far?
-
^^^ odeurn isn't making much sense at this point.
I think he just want's to lash out at people because he doesn't have any real answers.
Trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate 300,000,000 guns would just spark a civil war.
Ah, yes, that is what I proposed. Your stupidity knows no boundaries.
And you keep deflecting. Anything but your precious guns. Anything but changing a dated piece of 18th century stupidity.
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle
Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.
Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?
No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.
Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.
Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .
Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.
What of what I said is incorrect?
I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.
But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.
Sure, how do you suppose you "remove" them. YOu are open to that possibility.
The American culture of hands off my gun and the fact that hundreds of millions there think that it is a right and most of them a necessity and most of them would consider measures to take guns off them as a way of a tyrannical government trying to disarm lawful citizens with the bad so that people cannot defend themselves. SO they will NOT allow that....AT ALL.
So that being the case, what was the possibility you were mentioning?
Sure in OTHER cultures it worked. Sure people who are anti-gun and pro-gun control WILL likely agree BUT they are hardly the people with guns.
So what is your suggestion? Just curious.
First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.
Second, I'd challenge the sensibility of allowing anything firing hundreds of rounds per minute. I mean, what the fuck, what's the fucking point? It won't help against nukes but it will kill the daughter that is sneaking into the house at night a hell of a lot faster.
Third, there are states that think allowing a legally blind person to own a gun is a good idea. Why are we even talking about this when people die because of your immense stupidity?
I could go on.
These are all things that could be argued and you are making reasonable arguments towards them but ALL of these are a long way from
But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.
Which is what I was responding to.
I was not asking whether legally blind should have guns nor whether guns capable of firing a lot of rounds ought to be restricted or anything of teh sort. You expressly said (and in simple terms) that because of guns were designed to kill people they should be possible to be removed from society.
I have made a case that in America, this would be impossible. You have now pivoted to the legally blind owning guns and how some guns fore to many rounds.
I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
-
Anything but changing a dated piece of 18th century stupidity.
Federal gun laws are in fact different now than they were back then, and those differences serve as a prime example to show the constitution doesn't have to be rewritten or even infringed upon in order to enact and enforce new regulations. Though the government isn't exactly doing a decent job of enforcing state participation in the most recent federal gun regulations. 80% of the general public is supportive of stricter gun control laws. The people don't directly vote for gun legislation; they vote for the people who draft and vote on gun legislations, and is isn't done regardless of public support. That's how democracy works.
-
I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
Some of it's that it's been culturally packaged into the same clusterfuck of ideals as white american evangelical christianity and masculinity- the idea that real men love god, their country, and their guns. (Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)
Don't know why the fuck sir les is infected with that that, he's halfway across the fucking planet.
-
I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
Some of it's that it's been culturally packaged into the same clusterfuck of ideals as white american evangelical christianity and masculinity- the idea that real men love god, their country, and their guns. (Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)
Don't know why the fuck sir les is infected with that that, he's halfway across the fucking planet.
Typical leftist regressive race-baiting tripe. :finger: :minusevil:
This is the type of straw-man argument parroted by non-thinking pod people.
(http://stevetobak.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Invasion-of-the-Body-Snatchers.jpg)
-
I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
Some of it's that it's been culturally packaged into the same clusterfuck of ideals as white american evangelical christianity and masculinity- the idea that real men love god, their country, and their guns. (Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)
Don't know why the fuck sir les is infected with that that, he's halfway across the fucking planet.
Respectfully, Elle, you are a moron and ideologically off your rocker.
What exactly am I infected by? Yes, yes you ran through an imagined group collective mentality for enforcing a set of views you say they do on the basis they are white, Christians and males.
So we have this right, the people that would want to defend gun rights in America are White American Evangelical Christians? Well, what do you have to fear then? IF this IS true, then only 25% of America is Evangelical. Of that, you specifically said only men (I know you only point to men because you are a sexist but it works in making my point) so we will say that 25% is down by 51% to 12.25% but then you also stipulated that they had to be white (Because you are trying to make the ridiculous Progressive stack argument that white men are the font of all evil, because you are a bigot) so we will need to take into account the evangelists in America that are not white, so we are down to maybe 9% - 10%.
So genius, that is the first problem with what you said. IF it was just this block and 90% of Americans had different views, this block of people would be negligible. It is not though, and you know that. This clusterfuck of ideals is simply what YOUR founding Fathers (despicable white men, I am sure BUT the ones who paved the way for every privilege you enjoy in your life and everything you hold dear) set down in their experiment called America. So people who respect these founding principles that are protected under the constitution are not women hating, fetus loving, racists and only the stupidest of the stupid would even infer this. You did though.
I would actually like you to make some rudimentary attempt to make a case for
(Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)
applying to all white male evangelist Christians.
You could not even clear the lowest bar on intellectual discourse here, God only knows why you commented?
Lastly, what I said and what I am apparently infected by. Well, what exactly did I say that got you fired up about? Odeon put it about that it should be easy for guns to be removed from America. I asked exactly how this could happen given all the cultural factors, resistance to Government interference and wide availability and a small thing about Constitutional protections. He did not have an answer and pivoted away to other measures which seemed a lot more reasonable and less extreme. I bought him back to his initial statement and now in YOU come with your textual vomit.
The truth of the matter is "Someone should do something" is virtue signalling and nothing more. Saying "all guns are bad" or " Guns are killing you, take them away" is stupid. At the end of the day the rational will look at ways to approach and meet in the middle.
The problem seems to me that the Left do what both you and Odeon seem to be doing and the Right gets mighty attached to their constitution and goes all "from my cold dead hands" on the foaming mouthed Liberals. Both are decidedly unhelpful. The Left, unfortunately, makes no qualms about it saying that it wants to restrict and keep restricting guns and will do away with them entirely if given the chance which gives the Right the impression that they do not care about the Second Amendment at all. The Right is of course correct. The Right does not want the Left to use any concession as a thin end of the wedge to petition for more and more restrictions, which the Right and Left know they absolutely will.
What they need is open forum and some reasonable idea and discuss what would be acceptable. Clearly, guns have evolved since the 1700's. Being able to hunt or defend your home via the Castle Doctrine or defend yourself from a tyrannical government does not seem to mean you should have the ability to unload round after round uninterrupted for 5 minutes, spraying hundreds of rounds. However, the ability to hunt and defend yourself means you need to be able to have access to weapons to do this. Restricting people to have only Matchlock rifles, for example, is not a solution.
In the same way that there are speed limits decided and drinking limits decided and so on means that there is likely to be things that could be agreed on by most people IF they only let the conversion not get sidetracked with emotional responses and bigotry and virtue signalling "outrage".
Oh and Elle, you will have to make a case for me having the sexist, religious, racist ideal you presume people of this presumed clusterfuck of ideals have
-
Just to let you ALL know I am doing my part to keep America safe:
The PR
Has the intellect of an eight or nine year old
Has the emotional age of a six year old
Has been diagnosed with moderate to severe depression
Has unpredictable rages
Has threatened violence against certain people
I have not told her she is legally able to buy a gun in Louisiana.
You are welcome.
P.S. This is a sincere post. I'll not reply to any responses positive or negative.
-
Anything but changing a dated piece of 18th century stupidity.
Federal gun laws are in fact different now than they were back then, and those differences serve as a prime example to show the constitution doesn't have to be rewritten or even infringed upon in order to enact and enforce new regulations. Though the government isn't exactly doing a decent job of enforcing state participation in the most recent federal gun regulations. 80% of the general public is supportive of stricter gun control laws. The people don't directly vote for gun legislation; they vote for the people who draft and vote on gun legislations, and is isn't done regardless of public support. That's how democracy works.
I'd vote for those politicians that will actually act on stricter gun control. That is how democracy should work.
-
I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
Some of it's that it's been culturally packaged into the same clusterfuck of ideals as white american evangelical christianity and masculinity- the idea that real men love god, their country, and their guns. (Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)
Don't know why the fuck sir les is infected with that that, he's halfway across the fucking planet.
"Clusterfuck" describes the situation well.
-
Typical leftist regressive race-baiting tripe. :finger: :minusevil:
This is the type of straw-man argument parroted by non-thinking pod people.
As opposed to yours? You're not worth my time.
-
I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
Some of it's that it's been culturally packaged into the same clusterfuck of ideals as white american evangelical christianity and masculinity- the idea that real men love god, their country, and their guns. (Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)
Don't know why the fuck sir les is infected with that that, he's halfway across the fucking planet.
Respectfully, Elle, you are a moron and ideologically off your rocker...
...Oh and Elle, you will have to make a case for me having the sexist, religious, racist ideal you presume people of this presumed clusterfuck of ideals have
Al, 1) I doubt she is going to read and respond to something this long. 2) Elle seems to be projecting in regards to being ideologically possessed. As we know, SJW's are pod people who parrot the party line.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBQcpRE4JS8&list=PL0hKMB1-xkc-XWNf9VL-LxVYysdHpjyMF&index=2
-
Anything but changing a dated piece of 18th century stupidity.
Federal gun laws are in fact different now than they were back then, and those differences serve as a prime example to show the constitution doesn't have to be rewritten or even infringed upon in order to enact and enforce new regulations. Though the government isn't exactly doing a decent job of enforcing state participation in the most recent federal gun regulations. 80% of the general public is supportive of stricter gun control laws. The people don't directly vote for gun legislation; they vote for the people who draft and vote on gun legislations, and is isn't done regardless of public support. That's how democracy works.
I'd vote for those politicians that will actually act on stricter gun control. That is how democracy should work.
But they don't. There were eight years of the Obama administration and they only bothered to target disabled people with an executive order at the last minute while walking out the door.
-
But they don't. There were eight years of the Obama administration and they only bothered to target disabled people with an executive order at the last minute while walking out the door.
Sad part is, that's the only "gun control" that makes sense, keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses that would likely use them(schizophrenics and the like).
-
But they don't. There were eight years of the Obama administration and they only bothered to target disabled people with an executive order at the last minute while walking out the door.
Sad part is, that's the only "gun control" that makes sense, keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses that would likely use them(schizophrenics and the like).
There are already poorly enforced laws against mentally ill people. What Obama did was try to specifically target people who don't personally manage their own disability income.
-
But they don't. There were eight years of the Obama administration and they only bothered to target disabled people with an executive order at the last minute while walking out the door.
Sad part is, that's the only "gun control" that makes sense, keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses that would likely use them(schizophrenics and the like).
There are already poorly enforced laws against mentally ill people. What Obama did was try to specifically target people who don't personally manage their own disability income.
That's fucked up. They have a right to self defense too.
-
But they don't. There were eight years of the Obama administration and they only bothered to target disabled people with an executive order at the last minute while walking out the door.
Sad part is, that's the only "gun control" that makes sense, keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses that would likely use them(schizophrenics and the like).
There are already poorly enforced laws against mentally ill people. What Obama did was try to specifically target people who don't personally manage their own disability income.
That's fucked up. They have a right to self defense too.
It's one of the fist things the new congress voted to squash. This is what I had to say about it at the time.
It's not really a stupid question, but more of a matter of stupid unnecessary rules. Let's stop disabled people who don't manage their own benefit income from buying guns because that's a real problem, right? There are ways the federal government could strengthen gun control without imposing on the constitution or needlessly targeting individual groups. For example, license/permits and safety training courses, which are already required for concealed arms; similar to driver's licenses that process excludes people without making specific laws against them. There's also no need for federal laws against blind people driving cars.
-
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308652_1909160139344878_5172262103318434776_n.jpg?oh=c114d5bce57d75847fc87904e55da29e&oe=5A447C0B)
-
(http://images2.onionstatic.com/onion/2648/4/original/800.jpg)
-
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308652_1909160139344878_5172262103318434776_n.jpg?oh=c114d5bce57d75847fc87904e55da29e&oe=5A447C0B)
The US used to have a federal assault rifle ban, signed into law by Bill Clinton and lasting ten years. It expired during the Obama administration. Not sure why renewal never made it beyond the legislative committee to be pretended for congressional vote. Congress renewing an existing ten year old law seems highly plausible. It's as if it were allowed to die.
-
It expired during the Obama administration.
Correction. It was during the George W Bush administration.
-
I'm not sure who PMS Elle is trying to convince with her propaganda, us or herself.
-
I'm not sure who PMS Elle is trying to convince with her propaganda, us or herself.
It was unexpected.
-
https://reason.com/blog/2017/10/04/a-statistician-reconsiders-her-support-f
-
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308652_1909160139344878_5172262103318434776_n.jpg?oh=c114d5bce57d75847fc87904e55da29e&oe=5A447C0B)
Assault riffles have been banned since before they even existed, in 1934. But don't let fact get in the way of your propaganda PMS Elle! :thumbup:
-
Assault riffles have been banned since before they even existed, in 1934.
That's a valid point and the federal assault weapons ban of the 90s was directed at semi-automatics that have a certain appearance, essentially guns that 'look' like assault weapons are now considered to be assault weapons. Though the more pertinent aspect of that particular law is it included a ban on high capacity ammunition feeds and magazines.
-
Assault riffles have been banned since before they even existed, in 1934.
That's a valid point and the federal assault weapons ban of the 90s was directed at semi-automatics that have a certain appearance, essentially guns that 'look' like assault weapons are now considered to be assault weapons. Though the more pertinent aspect of that particular law is it included a ban on high capacity ammunition feeds and magazines.
"Assault weapons" is a fictitious category.
Assault rifles are an actual category of guns first developed in WWII with the German MP-43. It fired a lower powered rifle round and was capable of semi-auto or full auto fire. That's the definition of an assault rifle, it must be capable of firing more than one round with each pull of the trigger.
Such firearms have needed a class 3 firearms license to own since 1934.
-
I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.
-
People die because of morons like you.
Prove it or STFU!
When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility?
Oh, I do have a responsibility. I'm responsible to use my guns in a safe and responsible manner, which I do. See how easy that was?
Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.
You're talking about the supreme law of the land in the United States which was established because the founding fathers read these things called history books, and THEY didn't trust governments.
You're a special kind of stupid to think that I would have any power to change it, even Trump can't do that.
Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Columbine... How much proof do you need? Though I'm sure there will be more.
I'm talking about a piece of bs by people long since dead, and about people alive now but in denial when they should be able to connect the dots and do something. It's not rocket science. How many people must die first?
And you can change it. Not alone, but then, that is how democracy works. Or should work.
I think after Sandy Hook I gave up any hope that the gun laws would change at all. Gun nuts and NRA fuckwits would prefer dead kids over budging just a bit on restrictions. :dunno:
Of course, removing or banning the guns outright is a terrible idea. That might work somewhere like the UK or France but guns have probably been a part of American culture since before they dumped the tea in the harbour. There is a firearm for at least every three people. People will resist their guns being taken away and there will be even more bloodshed.
That, and the black market's a thing. It would be like prohibition but with bullets rather than booze, which wouldn't be good for anyone except the next Al Capone.
What sane people want (and what NRA fuckwits and gun nuts can't seem to understand) is restrictions on the type of firearms and who can have them. Of course, that's too much and said nuts and fuckwits would rather have entire schools full of dead children instead.
This debate will never truly die, but I can assure you that plenty of people will die. :thumbup:
-
I think after Sandy Hook I gave up any hope that the gun laws would change at all. Gun nuts and NRA fuckwits would prefer dead kids over budging just a bit of restrictions. :dunno:
Of course, removing or banning the guns outright is a terrible idea. That might work somewhere like the UK or France but guns have probably been a part of American culture since before they dumped the tea in the harbour. There is a firearm for at least every three people. People will resist their guns being taken away and there will be even more bloodshed.
That, and the black market's a thing. It would be like prohibition but with bullets rather than booze, which wouldn't be good for anyone except the next Al Capone.
What sane people want (and what NRA fuckwits and gun nuts can't seem to understand) is restrictions on the type of firearms and who can have them. Of course, that's too much and said nuts and fuckwits would rather have entire schools full of dead children instead.
This debate will never truly die, but I can assure you that plenty of people will die. :thumbup:
Exactly- all of it, but especially the emphasized part.
-
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308652_1909160139344878_5172262103318434776_n.jpg?oh=c114d5bce57d75847fc87904e55da29e&oe=5A447C0B)
Parts of the UK (but especially London) have a big problem with knife crime, which is an argument pro-gun folks tend to throw around quite a lot, and with the two recent attacks in London this year they tend to bring those up too.
To me it's about a difference in the damage that can be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack
Deaths: 6 (including the fucker that did it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2017_London_Bridge_attack
Deaths: 11 (including the fuckers that did it)
Whereas here's a terrorist attack that used guns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting
Deaths: 49
And as I've brought it up before, here's Sandy Hook again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
Deaths: 28 (including Lanza's mother)
The fuckers in London, on both occasions used knives and a truck, and yet with the two combined attacks they still killed less people than Lanza. If he'd walked into that school with a few knives (instead of the guns he shouldn't have had access to due to being fucking insane) a lot less people would have been killed.
Schools in America (and even some in the UK) have lockdown procedures in case nutters break in to the school. I remember in my college we had something similar because some mad, drunk bastards had ran in. We just stayed in locked rooms and waited for the police. If those men had guns, well I wouldn't be writing this shit.
If they had knives, I'd still be writing this shit though. The lockdown would have held and I would have been okay so long as I followed instructions.
-
People die because of morons like you.
Prove it or STFU!
When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility?
Oh, I do have a responsibility. I'm responsible to use my guns in a safe and responsible manner, which I do. See how easy that was?
Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.
You're talking about the supreme law of the land in the United States which was established because the founding fathers read these things called history books, and THEY didn't trust governments.
You're a special kind of stupid to think that I would have any power to change it, even Trump can't do that.
Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Columbine... How much proof do you need? Though I'm sure there will be more.
I'm talking about a piece of bs by people long since dead, and about people alive now but in denial when they should be able to connect the dots and do something. It's not rocket science. How many people must die first?
And you can change it. Not alone, but then, that is how democracy works. Or should work.
I think after Sandy Hook I gave up any hope that the gun laws would change at all. Gun nuts and NRA fuckwits would prefer dead kids over budging just a bit on restrictions. :dunno:
Of course, removing or banning the guns outright is a terrible idea. That might work somewhere like the UK or France but guns have probably been a part of American culture since before they dumped the tea in the harbour. There is a firearm for at least every three people. People will resist their guns being taken away and there will be even more bloodshed.
That, and the black market's a thing. It would be like prohibition but with bullets rather than booze, which wouldn't be good for anyone except the next Al Capone.
What sane people want (and what NRA fuckwits and gun nuts can't seem to understand) is restrictions on the type of firearms and who can have them. Of course, that's too much and said nuts and fuckwits would rather have entire schools full of dead children instead.
This debate will never truly die, but I can assure you that plenty of people will die. :thumbup:
The problem I see, is that anything like this happens and what does the Left do....pretty much to a person?:
1. They accuse the Right of being unfeeling monsters
2. They make sweeping statements of needing to take away all guns
3. They climb onto intellectual soapboxes and moral high horses to preach their superiority
4. They push to railroad and steamroll the Right
The Right in return:
1. They shut down ALL discussion on gun control or restriction
2. Phrases like "Out of my cold dead hands" creeps into the discourse
3. They dismiss ALL Liberal arguments
4. They push back against any efforts to railroad them or steamroll them.
What is the end result?
See the Right know the Left will not stop until the Second Amendment is in tatters and they do not trust that the Left will compromise and let it go at that. They feel IF they give away or make concessions, it will never stop. They will be feeding a starving beast that will never be sated.
There are those on the Right who are dyed in the wool gun nuts too, but I think there are enough people that if not "forced" to take a hard side would actually say "Yeah, we could probably stop selling guns that can (or can be modified to) shoot x number of rounds a second" or whatever. I think that there is enough middle ground for compromise. But when the Left smears the Right and talks down to them and tries to ride roughshod over them whilst threatening to diminish the constitution, the Right becomes dug in and both sides are polarised. Nothing gets done because there is no points of commonality between "You all are monsters who love dead kids" and "Come try and take my guns in person".
-
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308652_1909160139344878_5172262103318434776_n.jpg?oh=c114d5bce57d75847fc87904e55da29e&oe=5A447C0B)
Parts of the UK (but especially London) have a big problem with knife crime, which is an argument pro-gun folks tend to throw around quite a lot, and with the two recent attacks in London this year they tend to bring those up too.
To me it's about a difference in the damage that can be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack
Deaths: 6 (including the fucker that did it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2017_London_Bridge_attack
Deaths: 11 (including the fuckers that did it)
Whereas here's a terrorist attack that used guns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting
Deaths: 49
And as I've brought it up before, here's Sandy Hook again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
Deaths: 28 (including Lanza's mother)
The fuckers in London, on both occasions used knives and a truck, and yet with the two combined attacks they still killed less people than Lanza. If he'd walked into that school with a few knives (instead of the guns he shouldn't have had access to due to being fucking insane) a lot less people would have been killed.
Schools in America (and even some in the UK) have lockdown procedures in case nutters break in to the school. I remember in my college we had something similar because some mad, drunk bastards had ran in. We just stayed in locked rooms and waited for the police. If those men had guns, well I wouldn't be writing this shit.
If they had knives, I'd still be writing this shit though. The lockdown would have held and I would have been okay so long as I followed instructions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack
86 Deaths
-
See the Right know the Left will not stop until the Second Amendment is in tatters and they do not trust that the Left will compromise and let it go at that. They feel IF they give away or make concessions, it will never stop. They will be feeding a starving beast that will never be sated.
There are those on the Right who are dyed in the wool gun nuts too, but I think there are enough people that if not "forced" to take a hard side would actually say "Yeah, we could probably stop selling guns that can (or can be modified to) shoot x number of rounds a second" or whatever. I think that there is enough middle ground for compromise. But when the Left smears the Right and talks down to them and tries to ride roughshod over them whilst threatening to diminish the constitution, the Right becomes dug in and both sides are polarised. Nothing gets done because there is no points of commonality between "You all are monsters who love dead kids" and "Come try and take my guns in person".
Hence why I didn't say Leftists were pushing for restrictions but "sane people", the left has just as many loonies as the right and I've actually talked to some people who consider themselves pro-guns who would be alright with some restrictions. I'm on the left (Jeremy Corbyn fan) and although I'm not the sanest person even I recognise that banning the guns is a fucking terrible idea.
I said "gun nuts and NRA fuckwits" rather than just referring to gun owners in general, although I can see why someone might think when I use those terms it's a sweeping statement on gun owners in general. It's not, I know some gun owners who are decent folks and like I said would be alright with some decent restrictions.
However, I still don't think there will be any budging when it comes to this issue. :dunno:
-
See the Right know the Left will not stop until the Second Amendment is in tatters and they do not trust that the Left will compromise and let it go at that. They feel IF they give away or make concessions, it will never stop. They will be feeding a starving beast that will never be sated.
There are those on the Right who are dyed in the wool gun nuts too, but I think there are enough people that if not "forced" to take a hard side would actually say "Yeah, we could probably stop selling guns that can (or can be modified to) shoot x number of rounds a second" or whatever. I think that there is enough middle ground for compromise. But when the Left smears the Right and talks down to them and tries to ride roughshod over them whilst threatening to diminish the constitution, the Right becomes dug in and both sides are polarised. Nothing gets done because there is no points of commonality between "You all are monsters who love dead kids" and "Come try and take my guns in person".
Hence why I didn't say Leftists were pushing for restrictions but "sane people", the left has just as many loonies as the right and I've actually talked to some people who consider themselves pro-guns who would be alright with some restrictions. I'm on the left (Jeremy Corbyn fan) and although I'm not the sanest person even I recognise that banning the guns is a fucking terrible idea.
I said "gun nuts and NRA fuckwits" rather than just referring to gun owners in general, although I can see why someone might think when I use those terms it's a sweeping statement on gun owners in general. It's not, I know some gun owners who are decent folks and like I said would be alright with some decent restrictions.
However, I still don't think there will be any budging when it comes to this issue. :dunno:
Yeah, that is fair enough too.
I think the idea of having a gun for protection if someone comes to attack you in your home, in principle is not a terrible idea. BUT I see no reason you would need to be able to empty 200 rounds into them in one minute. Some with hunting. Having a rifle high powered enough to take down a large animal and to be able to let off a half a dozen rounds before they get away seems to make sense but filling the creature with 50 rounds seems excessive.
So I think there is a middle ground. There could be some reaching across the aisle but people get emotional and dig their heels in and the ones who are "sane" drift over to the cemented positions.
-
See the Right know the Left will not stop until the Second Amendment is in tatters and they do not trust that the Left will compromise and let it go at that. They feel IF they give away or make concessions, it will never stop. They will be feeding a starving beast that will never be sated.
There are those on the Right who are dyed in the wool gun nuts too, but I think there are enough people that if not "forced" to take a hard side would actually say "Yeah, we could probably stop selling guns that can (or can be modified to) shoot x number of rounds a second" or whatever. I think that there is enough middle ground for compromise. But when the Left smears the Right and talks down to them and tries to ride roughshod over them whilst threatening to diminish the constitution, the Right becomes dug in and both sides are polarised. Nothing gets done because there is no points of commonality between "You all are monsters who love dead kids" and "Come try and take my guns in person".
Hence why I didn't say Leftists were pushing for restrictions but "sane people", the left has just as many loonies as the right and I've actually talked to some people who consider themselves pro-guns who would be alright with some restrictions. I'm on the left (Jeremy Corbyn fan) and although I'm not the sanest person even I recognise that banning the guns is a fucking terrible idea.
I said "gun nuts and NRA fuckwits" rather than just referring to gun owners in general, although I can see why someone might think when I use those terms it's a sweeping statement on gun owners in general. It's not, I know some gun owners who are decent folks and like I said would be alright with some decent restrictions.
However, I still don't think there will be any budging when it comes to this issue. :dunno:
Yeah, that is fair enough too.
I think the idea of having a gun for protection if someone comes to attack you in your home, in principle is not a terrible idea. BUT I see no reason you would need to be able to empty 200 rounds into them in one minute. Some with hunting. Having a rifle high powered enough to take down a large animal and to be able to let off a half a dozen rounds before they get away seems to make sense but filling the creature with 50 rounds seems excessive.
So I think there is a middle ground. There could be some reaching across the aisle but people get emotional and dig their heels in and the ones who are "sane" drift over to the cemented positions.
Fuckin', hell, I get emotional over this and it's not even my country. After Sandy Hook, I sort of became numb to mass shootings and the like, there'd be reports of one on TV and I'd shrug and say "Another one? For fuck's sake."
Same with terrorist attacks. Manchester was the last one in the UK to get to me, and before that it was the one in March but then again I was in London the day it happened. Whenever children get killed in some war or in an attack by fuckwits due to religious or other cuntish reasons I tend to lose my shit. :dunno:
The Florida one struck a cord with me for obvious reasons, being a big gay poofter and all but that's a whole other topic.
-
The problem I see, is that anything like this happens and what does the Left do....pretty much to a person?:
1. They accuse the Right of being unfeeling monsters
2. They make sweeping statements of needing to take away all guns
3. They climb onto intellectual soapboxes and moral high horses to preach their superiority
4. They push to railroad and steamroll the Right
The Right in return:
1. They shut down ALL discussion on gun control or restriction
2. Phrases like "Out of my cold dead hands" creeps into the discourse
3. They dismiss ALL Liberal arguments
4. They push back against any efforts to railroad them or steamroll them.
What is the end result?
See the Right know the Left will not stop until the Second Amendment is in tatters and they do not trust that the Left will compromise and let it go at that. They feel IF they give away or make concessions, it will never stop. They will be feeding a starving beast that will never be sated.
There are those on the Right who are dyed in the wool gun nuts too, but I think there are enough people that if not "forced" to take a hard side would actually say "Yeah, we could probably stop selling guns that can (or can be modified to) shoot x number of rounds a second" or whatever. I think that there is enough middle ground for compromise. But when the Left smears the Right and talks down to them and tries to ride roughshod over them whilst threatening to diminish the constitution, the Right becomes dug in and both sides are polarised. Nothing gets done because there is no points of commonality between "You all are monsters who love dead kids" and "Come try and take my guns in person".
I agree with this.
-
By the way, if anyone with whom there seems to be a snowball's chance in hell of actually having a dialogue with wants to know how I feel about the specifics of all this, feel free to ask. I feel right now like it'd be wasted time and effort to get into. I'm not looking to outlaw all guns- I was fucking literally making plans to go shooting with a couple of friends a week ago as of today (and yes, I have my FID).
However (and the following paragraphs are the very broad version), I see no goddamn reason that we shouldn't have more restrictions on gun ownership (my state had a decent set of common sense restrictions, anyway). That wouldn't have stopped this guy, but maybe it'll stop the next one. I also see no goddamn good reason (as stated by other people here) for people to have access to the level of sophistication and deadliness in weaponry that gun nuts (not sane gun owners, but the actual nuts) seem to want. Before the shooting, we were going to consider making silencers legal, ffs. Why the actual fuck do we need those, exactly? And silencers WOULD have made this last shooting a hell of a lot worse.
I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings, and I woudln't be surprised if it played a role in that one. Don't believe me, look at the fucking gender breakdown of who commits mass shootings. Something's up there- and I do think part of it is also part of the cancer that's fucking my country all up for everyone who isn't a rich white man.
I also think the NRA flooding politics and culture with dirty money plays a huge role. Libertarians like to say follow the money (and I think that's valid and wise in general). The NRA fucking profits off of these mass shootings, because the debate about gun laws comes up, people panic, and stockpile more guns. They have too many politicians in their pockets, and they literally profit from murder. I defy anyone to come up with a reason that THAT isn't a problem.
-
By the way, if anyone with whom there seems to be a snowball's chance in hell of actually having a dialogue with wants to know how I feel about the specifics of all this, feel free to ask. I feel right now like it'd be wasted time and effort to get into. I'm not looking to outlaw all guns- I was fucking literally making plans to go shooting with a couple of friends a week ago as of today (and yes, I have my FID).
However (and the following paragraphs are the very broad version), I see no goddamn reason that we shouldn't have more restrictions on gun ownership (my state had a decent set of common sense restrictions, anyway). That wouldn't have stopped this guy, but maybe it'll stop the next one. I also see no goddamn good reason (as stated by other people here) for people to have access to the level of sophistication and deadliness in weaponry that gun nuts (not sane gun owners, but the actual nuts) seem to want. Before the shooting, we were going to consider making silencers legal, ffs. Why the actual fuck do we need those, exactly? And silencers WOULD have made this last shooting a hell of a lot worse.
I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings, and I woudln't be surprised if it played a role in that one. Don't believe me, look at the fucking gender breakdown of who commits mass shootings. Something's up there- and I do think part of it is also part of the cancer that's fucking my country all up for everyone who isn't a rich white man.
I also think the NRA flooding politics and culture with dirty money plays a huge role. Libertarians like to say follow the money (and I think that's valid and wise in general). The NRA fucking profits off of these mass shootings, because the debate about gun laws comes up, people panic, and stockpile more guns. They have too many politicians in their pockets, and they literally profit from murder. I defy anyone to come up with a reason that THAT isn't a problem.
What is the reduction in noise of a silencer? Do you know? Do you know whether or not it would not still have sounded like firecrackers going off? Do silencers make a possible ear damaging noise out of ear-damaging range BUT still very loud range? Apparently, this is the case and so the knock-on effect is that it would have likely made not a single difference despite being claimed unequivocably by Hillary Clinton.
Why exactly is toxic masculinity? How does it differ from toxic feminity? How does a male become toxic or are they all born toxic? Is it like original sin? You seemed to suggest previously that men who were Christian and Evangelical Christians (oh and white) meant that they were masculine then ascribed them loving guns, God and the country as meaning they hated women and were racist. So I guess THAT is toxic masculinity and stems from them being Christian and white men? I am sure you can spell this all out, you are the one with a degree in applicable social sciences. You must know the human condition and what makes people tick...right? You are the one with these answers.
The NRA will absolutely benefit when gun sales are made. Now are you suggesting that they sponsored Stephen Paddock? You aren't are you? As for dirty money in politics. It is absolutely true that the NRA will have more support for the GOP who has more support in them. NRA paid about $6 million to the GOP last year. Similarly, Planned Parenting for similar reasons has more support with the Democrats and they paid $38 million to the DNC. But what exactly is the point?
Hell, that argument is like saying that shrinks will do a piss poor job in deliberately reading people so that the person is never truly much better and always dependent. That they will do a job just good enough to get an appointment the next week but bad enough that they are never cured or removed from their illness or condition. Creating a dependence to make them money.
I think such conspiracy theory arguments are usually stupid. Not all though.
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world. :finger:
Dear Kek,
odeon is speaking for us.
Regards
the Rest of the World.
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world. :finger:
Dear Kek,
odeon is speaking for us.
Regards
the Rest of the World.
No Odeon is speaking for Odeon and You agree with Odeon. Only an idiot would imply that is the same as Odeon speaking for the rest of the world.
-
You're completely correct Al. odeon doesn't speak for North Korea or certain parts of Syria and Somalia, but he does speak for the majorities in most countries of the world.
-
Can someone point me towards a report of a mass shooting that has been stopped by privately owned assault rifles in the hands of a "citizen"?
I'm asking for a friend.
-
You're completely correct Al. odeon doesn't speak for North Korea or certain parts of Syria and Somalia, but he does speak for the majorities in most countries of the world.
No, he really does not. Neither do you and only a moron would imagine that there is a shared consciousness between Odeon and the people of the world as a whole. Flattering in a really greasy brown-nosing way and all, FourAce but simply not true.
People throughout the world will have a variety of opinions about a variety of things. There is not an "Odeon's thoughts and North Korea". That is what we call, batshit crazy.
Even if we look at the gun debate in isolation, you will see in this thread varying degrees of agreement and disagreement. You will likely find that when you times these interactions over billions of people, the variety and diversity of opinion will be vast.
-
This appeared in the Times-Picayune today. Thoughtful.
American can-do vanishes when the NRA check arrives | Opinion By Robert Mann, Columnist
The instinct is common; the pattern is clear: When people die in accidents or from defective or faulty products, Americans are quick to assess the problem and work to prevent it from happening again. For instance:
Whenever a commercial airliner crashes and kills hundreds of people, we determine the cause and work to prevent similar occurrences. That's why airlines are the world's safest mode of travel.
On American highways, cars often cross medians and strike oncoming traffic. That's why many states, including Louisiana, erect barriers to prevent future crashes.
After decades during which more than 40,000 -- sometimes 50,000 -- people died annually on our highways, federal law in 1968 required automakers to install seat belts in new cars. By 1998, the government also mandated airbags in all new automobiles.
When someone tainted bottles of Tylenol with potassium cyanide in 1981, killing seven people in the Chicago area, it sparked a revolution in the packaging of over-the-counter medication and resulted in the 1983 Federal Anti-Tampering Act.
Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government dramatically increased security at airports and on airplanes.
A would-be shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane on a flight from Paris to Miami in 2001. Today, most U.S. passengers cannot board a commercial jet without removing their shoes.
After 32 infants died in drop-down cribs from 2000 to 2010, the federal Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the manufacture, sale and resale of such cribs.
In the 1980s, more than 6,000 people were injured in lawn dart accidents. In 1982, an errant dart killed a 7-year-old child in California. By 1988, the CPSC banned them in the United States.
Thousands of children once opened medicine bottles and died or became ill after they ingested the contents. Today, child-resistant caps are used for almost all medicine bottles and many other products, such as pesticides and other household chemicals.
Several dozen people, including children, died each year after being locked inside the trunks of cars. In 2001, the federal government required that all new passenger vehicles with trunks must be equipped with an interior release latch.
After scientists proved that second-hand cigarette smoke causes a range of health problems, the tobacco companies fought efforts to ban smoking in offices and restaurants. In spite of Big Tobacco's lobbying against it, many states and hundreds of cities have banned smoking in public places.
If it's a car accident, plane crash, deadly drug interaction, animal attack or botched hurricane recovery, we summon our outrage, muster our courage and dive into doing whatever it takes to eliminate or reduce the threat.
-
You're completely correct Al. odeon doesn't speak for North Korea or certain parts of Syria and Somalia, but he does speak for the majorities in most countries of the world.
No, he really does not. Neither do you and only a moron would imagine that there is a shared consciousness between Odeon and the people of the world as a whole. Flattering in a really greasy brown-nosing way and all, FourAce but simply not true.
People throughout the world will have a variety of opinions about a variety of things. There is not an "Odeon's thoughts and North Korea". That is what we call, batshit crazy.
Even if we look at the gun debate in isolation, you will see in this thread varying degrees of agreement and disagreement. You will likely find that when you times these interactions over billions of people, the variety and diversity of opinion will be vast.
Eventually the mass of evidence and proof renders an opinion a matter of fact. You're just behind the fucking curve.
There are people who think that their invisible friend made the earth 8000 years ago. That's not an opinion. They are simply incorrect. And funnily enough they are also a subgroup of the gun lobby. Go figure.
You need cold hard facts to justify an opinion.
-
Please post those NRA sourced "statistics. I find them so hilarious.
-
You're completely correct Al. odeon doesn't speak for North Korea or certain parts of Syria and Somalia, but he does speak for the majorities in most countries of the world.
No, he really does not. Neither do you and only a moron would imagine that there is a shared consciousness between Odeon and the people of the world as a whole. Flattering in a really greasy brown-nosing way and all, FourAce but simply not true.
People throughout the world will have a variety of opinions about a variety of things. There is not an "Odeon's thoughts and North Korea". That is what we call, batshit crazy.
Even if we look at the gun debate in isolation, you will see in this thread varying degrees of agreement and disagreement. You will likely find that when you times these interactions over billions of people, the variety and diversity of opinion will be vast.
Eventually the mass of evidence and proof renders an opinion a matter of fact. You're just behind the fucking curve.
There are people who think that their invisible friend made the earth 8000 years ago. That's not an opinion. They are simply incorrect. And funnily enough they are also a subgroup of the gun lobby. Go figure.
You need cold hard facts to justify an opinion.
Mass of evidence at this point seems to be that the world thinks the same thoughts as Odeon except for Almighty Kek (and perhaps North Korea, Syria, Somalia and maybe America?) of which you cite NO evidence.
Odeon thinks Odeon's thoughts in Odeon's head. Without looking at the merits of any individual thought and what nuances he has on such thoughts, it is difficult without certainty to say whether ANYONE thinks EXACTLY the same thing as he does and to the same degree and for the same reasons and in the same way and with all the same nuance and from the same experience and so on. Likely not.
The fact that you imagine that his thoughts, in general, would be the same as the rest of the world is....well, it is kind of special.
-
Yes, we can tell that you're a spazz. :P
-
I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings.
Touched on this very very lightly before, the last time in a gun discussion here. Wont go as far as to make the call of knowing if it's sociological or biological, and personally think it's possibly more biological. It's easy to analyze crime stats and logically point to multiple different areas as the source of the problem, some blame guns, some blame race, some blame poverty, some blame sociological aspects, and even I successfully used data to blame the baby boomers. These are all logical conclusions supported by hard facts. Though if one were to take an brass tacks look at the bottom line of the stats, violent crime is primarily a male problem. It can be a harsh thing to put out there in a conversation, but there it is.
-
I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.
Was this aimed at me too? You are correct, what to do is to elect the people who do. Gun control ranks high on the list of expectations when there's a democrat elected and appointed administration in the white house. There were over seventy mass shootings that took place during the Obama administration. The only new gun law that was enacted during eight years of democrat party rule, is a law which protects manufacturers and dealers from liability suits when people commit crimes with their product. With mass shootings come an inundation of calls, letters, emails, and petitions, demanding for leaders who can do something to do. People are in fact outraged, the do in fact speak out, but this time the difference is, it's not expected for a republican administration to push the topic of stricter gun control. Really, what's to discuss other than hairs?
-
I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.
You're not offering solutions, just police state tyranny.
Trying to repeal the 2nd amendment will just result in civil war.
-
I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings, and I woudln't be surprised if it played a role in that one. Don't believe me, look at the fucking gender breakdown of who commits mass shootings. Something's up there- and I do think part of it is also part of the cancer that's fucking my country all up for everyone who isn't a rich white man.
You've been rightfully called out for this one, trying to pathologize an entire gender and race.
The NRA fucking profits off of these mass shootings, because the debate about gun laws comes up, people panic, and stockpile more guns. They have too many politicians in their pockets, and they literally profit from murder. I defy anyone to come up with a reason that THAT isn't a problem.
The NRA isn't a gun retailer you fuckwit!
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world. :finger:
Dear Kek,
odeon is speaking for us.
Regards
the Rest of the World.
You don't represent the rest of the world either, just the lefty echo chambers you inhabit.
-
Yes, we can tell that you're a spazz. :P
Yup, I am in very good company here. :) (It has been a long time that anything you wrote actually got me laughing with you)
-
This is interesting. I personally do not think the acts restricted as much as all that BUT I absolutely understand that this is exactly what Conservatives feel and rightly so. Progressives are NOT prepared to stop until the only people with any guns are the military and the police (then see what they do in forming the militia and defending themselves against a tyrannical government or defending their homes or hunting).
(https://i.redd.it/mqvhts7c2aqz.png)
This is not to say that the Left has no decent points or that some alterations or restrictions are not a good idea, I think they are BUT I CAN see why Conservatives feel they get little out of it and their reluctance.
-
Yes, we can tell that you're a spazz. :P
Yup, I am in very good company here. :) (It has been a long time that anything you wrote actually got me laughing with you)
I'm glad because it was actually meant that way. :)
-
I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.
Was this aimed at me too? You are correct, what to do is to elect the people who do. Gun control ranks high on the list of expectations when there's a democrat elected and appointed administration in the white house. There were over seventy mass shootings that took place during the Obama administration. The only new gun law that was enacted during eight years of democrat party rule, is a law which protects manufacturers and dealers from liability suits when people commit crimes with their product. With mass shootings come an inundation of calls, letters, emails, and petitions, demanding for leaders who can do something to do. People are in fact outraged, the do in fact speak out, but this time the difference is, it's not expected for a republican administration to push the topic of stricter gun control. Really, what's to discuss other than hairs?
It wasn't aimed at you.
I think what needs to change first is a mindset. There needs to be a discussion about that 18th century piece of junk and what was intended back then and if it is, or ever was, useful. Kill your darlings, as they say in the film business.
It was never intended to be about the individual citizens's gun ownership, no matter how much the NRA spins it, and it was written at a time when hundreds of rounds per minute was a nutcase's pipe dream and equipping both sides with muskets would set a level playing field.
Of course, you can also embrace the fact that every now and then, a few dozen innocent people will die a senseless death. The upside is that your misconceptions will be allowed to remain intact and you can move on to vote about things like allowing silencers in public or whatever the fuck it was that they wanted to do.
-
I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings, and I woudln't be surprised if it played a role in that one. Don't believe me, look at the fucking gender breakdown of who commits mass shootings. Something's up there- and I do think part of it is also part of the cancer that's fucking my country all up for everyone who isn't a rich white man.
You've been rightfully called out for this one, trying to pathologize an entire gender and race.
The NRA fucking profits off of these mass shootings, because the debate about gun laws comes up, people panic, and stockpile more guns. They have too many politicians in their pockets, and they literally profit from murder. I defy anyone to come up with a reason that THAT isn't a problem.
The NRA isn't a gun retailer you fuckwit!
No, it's a terror organisation. :orly:
-
This is interesting. I personally do not think the acts restricted as much as all that BUT I absolutely understand that this is exactly what Conservatives feel and rightly so. Progressives are NOT prepared to stop until the only people with any guns are the military and the police (then see what they do in forming the militia and defending themselves against a tyrannical government or defending their homes or hunting).
(https://i.redd.it/mqvhts7c2aqz.png)
This is not to say that the Left has no decent points or that some alterations or restrictions are not a good idea, I think they are BUT I CAN see why Conservatives feel they get little out of it and their reluctance.
I think this misses the point completely. All we see here is an abstraction of restrictions placed on guns but no discussion whatsoever about why they need to happen. It's an extremely one-sided view.
QV's recent post illustrates just how unreasonable this view is:
This appeared in the Times-Picayune today. Thoughtful.
American can-do vanishes when the NRA check arrives | Opinion By Robert Mann, Columnist
The instinct is common; the pattern is clear: When people die in accidents or from defective or faulty products, Americans are quick to assess the problem and work to prevent it from happening again. For instance:
Whenever a commercial airliner crashes and kills hundreds of people, we determine the cause and work to prevent similar occurrences. That's why airlines are the world's safest mode of travel.
On American highways, cars often cross medians and strike oncoming traffic. That's why many states, including Louisiana, erect barriers to prevent future crashes.
After decades during which more than 40,000 -- sometimes 50,000 -- people died annually on our highways, federal law in 1968 required automakers to install seat belts in new cars. By 1998, the government also mandated airbags in all new automobiles.
When someone tainted bottles of Tylenol with potassium cyanide in 1981, killing seven people in the Chicago area, it sparked a revolution in the packaging of over-the-counter medication and resulted in the 1983 Federal Anti-Tampering Act.
Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government dramatically increased security at airports and on airplanes.
A would-be shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane on a flight from Paris to Miami in 2001. Today, most U.S. passengers cannot board a commercial jet without removing their shoes.
After 32 infants died in drop-down cribs from 2000 to 2010, the federal Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the manufacture, sale and resale of such cribs.
In the 1980s, more than 6,000 people were injured in lawn dart accidents. In 1982, an errant dart killed a 7-year-old child in California. By 1988, the CPSC banned them in the United States.
Thousands of children once opened medicine bottles and died or became ill after they ingested the contents. Today, child-resistant caps are used for almost all medicine bottles and many other products, such as pesticides and other household chemicals.
Several dozen people, including children, died each year after being locked inside the trunks of cars. In 2001, the federal government required that all new passenger vehicles with trunks must be equipped with an interior release latch.
After scientists proved that second-hand cigarette smoke causes a range of health problems, the tobacco companies fought efforts to ban smoking in offices and restaurants. In spite of Big Tobacco's lobbying against it, many states and hundreds of cities have banned smoking in public places.
If it's a car accident, plane crash, deadly drug interaction, animal attack or botched hurricane recovery, we summon our outrage, muster our courage and dive into doing whatever it takes to eliminate or reduce the threat.
Where is the will to act here? Why, in this day and age, are we even having this discussion?
-
Actually whilst this has been happening and I have been saying that between "come and try and take my guns from my cold dead hands" and "Ban all guns and if you do not agree with me you are complicit in murder of children", is some room for negotiation and that it is entirely possible for the respect of hunting, the castle doctrine and the ability for lawful citizens to have arms in case of a tyrannical government, whilst appreciating none of this needs weapons to be able to unleash hundreds of rounds a minute.
So I am interested in seeing the conversation around bump stocks coming out of this. This is the middle ground and compromise.
-
I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.
Was this aimed at me too? You are correct, what to do is to elect the people who do. Gun control ranks high on the list of expectations when there's a democrat elected and appointed administration in the white house. There were over seventy mass shootings that took place during the Obama administration. The only new gun law that was enacted during eight years of democrat party rule, is a law which protects manufacturers and dealers from liability suits when people commit crimes with their product. With mass shootings come an inundation of calls, letters, emails, and petitions, demanding for leaders who can do something to do. People are in fact outraged, the do in fact speak out, but this time the difference is, it's not expected for a republican administration to push the topic of stricter gun control. Really, what's to discuss other than hairs?
It wasn't aimed at you.
I think what needs to change first is a mindset. There needs to be a discussion about that 18th century piece of junk and what was intended back then and if it is, or ever was, useful. Kill your darlings, as they say in the film business.
It was never intended to be about the individual citizens's gun ownership, no matter how much the NRA spins it, and it was written at a time when hundreds of rounds per minute was a nutcase's pipe dream and equipping both sides with muskets would set a level playing field.
Of course, you can also embrace the fact that every now and then, a few dozen innocent people will die a senseless death. The upside is that your misconceptions will be allowed to remain intact and you can move on to vote about things like allowing silencers in public or whatever the fuck it was that they wanted to do.
The mindset of the vast majority of citizens is open to stricter regulations for obtaining/operating guns and ammunition feeds. Don't think the constitution is a piece of junk, but do think it's irrelevant to the discussion of this mindset because the constitution simply isn't affected by certain types of regulation. It possible to embrace both without embracing the deaths of mass shootings. I don't get to vote on silencers, or any federal regulation for that matter, so not sure of the point in saying something like that to me. It either implies condescension or a lack of understanding for the civics behind the discussion, but not sure which so will take a wait and see approach to responding.
-
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.
-
This is not to say that the Left has no decent points or that some alterations or restrictions are not a good idea, I think they are BUT I CAN see why Conservatives feel they get little out of it and their reluctance.
The cake analogy is a bad one, because it's hardly as if citizens have only a sliver of the gun rights of the people of 1934. Don't even think it's about getting anything out of it. 911 and the so-called war on terror resulted in the NSA and the Patriot Act, and thus a number of new rights for the government along with restrictions on the population. There's no foundation that grants citizens any rights under these changes, so there's definitely a section of the population who feel their freedoms are under attack in the name of safety, and so balk when there actually is a foundation which grants them the right to not be treated under the assumption of being a criminal.
-
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.
I noticed you did not get any response on this. It is a curious event, not getting any reaction on that statement.
-
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.
I think it is a little more than that. Men have more testosterone and more muscel mass, thicker bone density and so on. We are physical beings and even as kids are instinctually driven to the rough and tumble. As a whole and as a generality.
Men, however, are socialised and have the drive to protect women and children. That is why we are collectively appalled when we hear of women being raped or beaten or kids abused by men. Not only have they broken a taboo but they have rebelled against the instinct of using our strength to protect. I consider it on par with eating shit, having sex with corpses or other abhorrent behaviours. The comparison being alike in the way that what we are both socialised and instinctually repelled from would generally mean that NO man would do these things BUT we know some actually do.
I think that high testosterone alone is neither here nor there. High testosterone and mental disorder or something weird going on with them and yeah they suddenly could cross the line to behave in ways that other males do not. I think it is rather they are batshit crazy AND if they have high testosterone then it is more likely that their bad will be something violent.
-
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.
I think it is a little more than that. Men have more testosterone and more muscel mass, thicker bone density and so on. We are physical beings and even as kids are instinctually driven to the rough and tumble. As a whole and as a generality.
Men, however, are socialised and have the drive to protect women and children. That is why we are collectively appalled when we hear of women being raped or beaten or kids abused by men. Not only have they broken a taboo but they have rebelled against the instinct of using our strength to protect. I consider it on par with eating shit, having sex with corpses or other abhorrent behaviours. The comparison being alike in the way that what we are both socialised and instinctually repelled from would generally mean that NO man would do these things BUT we know some actually do.
I think that high testosterone alone is neither here nor there. High testosterone and mental disorder or something weird going on with them and yeah they suddenly could cross the line to behave in ways that other males do not. I think it is rather they are batshit crazy AND if they have high testosterone then it is more likely that their bad will be something violent.
Defending and protecting people isn't a crime. There's no arguing that men have sociological pressures to be protectors, but if you'd like to discuss sociological pressures of being macho manly then discuss that with Elle. I don't think violent crime is fundamentally sociological. While the number of people who commit violent crimes small and the number of people with high testosterone is also small, there still has been established a correlation for violence with abnormal testosterone levels in both men and women, and society doesn't pressure anyone to be violent criminals. Your statements seem to suggest abnormally high testosterone levels don't make people bat shit crazy.
-
This appeared in the Times-Picayune today. Thoughtful.
American can-do vanishes when the NRA check arrives | Opinion By Robert Mann, Columnist
The instinct is common; the pattern is clear: When people die in accidents or from defective or faulty products, Americans are quick to assess the problem and work to prevent it from happening again. For instance:
Whenever a commercial airliner crashes and kills hundreds of people, we determine the cause and work to prevent similar occurrences. That's why airlines are the world's safest mode of travel.
On American highways, cars often cross medians and strike oncoming traffic. That's why many states, including Louisiana, erect barriers to prevent future crashes.
After decades during which more than 40,000 -- sometimes 50,000 -- people died annually on our highways, federal law in 1968 required automakers to install seat belts in new cars. By 1998, the government also mandated airbags in all new automobiles.
When someone tainted bottles of Tylenol with potassium cyanide in 1981, killing seven people in the Chicago area, it sparked a revolution in the packaging of over-the-counter medication and resulted in the 1983 Federal Anti-Tampering Act.
Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government dramatically increased security at airports and on airplanes.
A would-be shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane on a flight from Paris to Miami in 2001. Today, most U.S. passengers cannot board a commercial jet without removing their shoes.
After 32 infants died in drop-down cribs from 2000 to 2010, the federal Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the manufacture, sale and resale of such cribs.
In the 1980s, more than 6,000 people were injured in lawn dart accidents. In 1982, an errant dart killed a 7-year-old child in California. By 1988, the CPSC banned them in the United States.
Thousands of children once opened medicine bottles and died or became ill after they ingested the contents. Today, child-resistant caps are used for almost all medicine bottles and many other products, such as pesticides and other household chemicals.
Several dozen people, including children, died each year after being locked inside the trunks of cars. In 2001, the federal government required that all new passenger vehicles with trunks must be equipped with an interior release latch.
After scientists proved that second-hand cigarette smoke causes a range of health problems, the tobacco companies fought efforts to ban smoking in offices and restaurants. In spite of Big Tobacco's lobbying against it, many states and hundreds of cities have banned smoking in public places.
If it's a car accident, plane crash, deadly drug interaction, animal attack or botched hurricane recovery, we summon our outrage, muster our courage and dive into doing whatever it takes to eliminate or reduce the threat.
My major boo-boo. Because of ads placed on the on-line paper I missed the rest of the opinion. FWIW here is the rest (which I haven't read. So sue me.)
There is one notable, scandalous exception.
Gun violence is the manner of death Americans seem willing to ignore. We meet other ways of dying with indignation and determination. But gun deaths? We shrug our shoulders, bow our heads and send a few thoughts and prayers to the victims. We mourn a few days before we move on, afraid to do what it would take to prevent future tragedies.
Why is that? What is it about guns that leaves us weak and our leaders feckless?
Perhaps it's the false choices the gun lobby brandishes to brainwash its members. The National Rifle Association (NRA) meets any effort to inject sanity into our gun laws with the same refrain: They are trying to take away your firearms.
The truth is Barack Obama was a boon to the NRA, which used the phony threat of gun seizures to increase its membership and for the manufacturers, who used it to sell more firearms and ammo.
The specter of gun confiscation is difficult to dispel because it's so irrational. Almost no one proposes to take away guns from law-abiding citizens.
Many meaningful, sensible gun-violence-control measures enjoy widespread public support, including universal background checks, preventing sales to mentally ill people, closing the private-sale loophole, mandatory safety features, outlawing cop-killing bullets and regulating the production, sale and ownership of high-velocity weapons designed only to kill as many people as possible.
No matter how reasonable the proposal in the wake of a mass killing, the gun lobby will try to smother it under a blanket of fear and lies.
The NRA has persuaded its members and many politicians that nothing can be done about mass killings. Forget the other tragedies and calamities we have addressed. Stopping gun violence, it seems, is an impossible feat for a great nation that eradicated polio and put men on the moon.
As someone observed on Twitter the other day after a gunman in Las Vegas murdered 59 people and wounded another 527: "American can-do vanishes when the @NRA check arrives."
Robert Mann, an author and former U.S. Senate and gubernatorial staffer, holds the Manship Chair in Journalism at the Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University. Read more from him at his blog, Something Like the Truth. Follow him on Twitter @RTMannJr or email him at bob.mann@outlook.com.
-
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.
I think it is a little more than that. Men have more testosterone and more muscel mass, thicker bone density and so on. We are physical beings and even as kids are instinctually driven to the rough and tumble. As a whole and as a generality.
Men, however, are socialised and have the drive to protect women and children. That is why we are collectively appalled when we hear of women being raped or beaten or kids abused by men. Not only have they broken a taboo but they have rebelled against the instinct of using our strength to protect. I consider it on par with eating shit, having sex with corpses or other abhorrent behaviours. The comparison being alike in the way that what we are both socialised and instinctually repelled from would generally mean that NO man would do these things BUT we know some actually do.
I think that high testosterone alone is neither here nor there. High testosterone and mental disorder or something weird going on with them and yeah they suddenly could cross the line to behave in ways that other males do not. I think it is rather they are batshit crazy AND if they have high testosterone then it is more likely that their bad will be something violent.
Defending and protecting people isn't a crime. There's no arguing that men have sociological pressures to be protectors, but if you'd like to discuss sociological pressures of being macho manly then discuss that with Elle. I don't think violent crime is fundamentally sociological. While the number of people who commit violent crimes small and the number of people with high testosterone is also small, there still has been established a correlation for violence with abnormal testosterone levels in both men and women, and society doesn't pressure anyone to be violent criminals. Your statements seem to suggest abnormally high testosterone levels don't make people bat shit crazy.
I am suggesting that the reason people do batshit crazy things is because they are batshit crazy. I am suggesting that with people who are batshit crazy and have high testosterone, this can mean that the way they be batshit crazy is with violent acts.
-
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.
I think it is a little more than that. Men have more testosterone and more muscel mass, thicker bone density and so on. We are physical beings and even as kids are instinctually driven to the rough and tumble. As a whole and as a generality.
Men, however, are socialised and have the drive to protect women and children. That is why we are collectively appalled when we hear of women being raped or beaten or kids abused by men. Not only have they broken a taboo but they have rebelled against the instinct of using our strength to protect. I consider it on par with eating shit, having sex with corpses or other abhorrent behaviours. The comparison being alike in the way that what we are both socialised and instinctually repelled from would generally mean that NO man would do these things BUT we know some actually do.
I think that high testosterone alone is neither here nor there. High testosterone and mental disorder or something weird going on with them and yeah they suddenly could cross the line to behave in ways that other males do not. I think it is rather they are batshit crazy AND if they have high testosterone then it is more likely that their bad will be something violent.
Defending and protecting people isn't a crime. There's no arguing that men have sociological pressures to be protectors, but if you'd like to discuss sociological pressures of being macho manly then discuss that with Elle. I don't think violent crime is fundamentally sociological. While the number of people who commit violent crimes small and the number of people with high testosterone is also small, there still has been established a correlation for violence with abnormal testosterone levels in both men and women, and society doesn't pressure anyone to be violent criminals. Your statements seem to suggest abnormally high testosterone levels don't make people bat shit crazy.
I am suggesting that the reason people do batshit crazy things is because they are batshit crazy. I am suggesting that with people who are batshit crazy and have high testosterone, this can mean that the way they be batshit crazy is with violent acts.
Thanks.
-
Actually whilst this has been happening and I have been saying that between "come and try and take my guns from my cold dead hands" and "Ban all guns and if you do not agree with me you are complicit in murder of children", is some room for negotiation and that it is entirely possible for the respect of hunting, the castle doctrine and the ability for lawful citizens to have arms in case of a tyrannical government, whilst appreciating none of this needs weapons to be able to unleash hundreds of rounds a minute.
So I am interested in seeing the conversation around bump stocks coming out of this. This is the middle ground and compromise.
The "tyrannical government" thing is an excuse. A bad one at that.
-
I think what needs to change first is a mindset.
Yes, we need to purge the world of wrongthink. :tard:
There needs to be a discussion about that 18th century piece of junk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery
It was never intended to be about the individual citizens's gun ownership,
Yes it was, it is clearly stated so in The Federalist Papers WHICH YOU HAVE NOT READ.
Of course, you can also embrace the fact that every now and then, a few dozen innocent people will die a senseless death. The upside is that your misconceptions will be allowed to remain intact and you can move on to vote about things like allowing silencers in public or whatever the fuck it was that they wanted to do.
Of course you can embrace a totalitarian police state that has the power to confiscate millions of guns deemed "too dangerous" by smug, pompous twits like odious. The upside is that your misconceptions about an authoritarian nanny state will be allowed to remain intact and you can vote about things like should the unwashed masses be allowed to watch whatever they want or is state run TV all they need.
-
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant federalist paper(s). In the meantime, I'll settle for this (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/1/7/1052523/-).
Take your time.
-
I blame my testosterone levels on the beef and dairy industry. :zoinks:
-
You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think that just guns were the problem. We don't have legal guns in the UK but people get killed with knives, bats, bottles, fists and feet. We can't ban all of those unfortunately ::) There needs to be some of sensible licensing I think, and try to meet both sides halfway. Trouble is, this is very politically motivated even if some are too simple to see it. All you have to do is see that most Democrats want to ban guns in the US but also like giving guns to organ eating Jihadis in Syria or Libya. We need to make sure that not just any lunatic can own a load of guns but really must get down to the route causes.
-
Welcome back
-
You'd have to be a special kind of moron
*Humps Benji's leg* :zoinks:
-
You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think that just guns were the problem. We don't have legal guns in the UK but people get killed with knives, bats, bottles, fists and feet. We can't ban all of those unfortunately ::) There needs to be some of sensible licensing I think, and try to meet both sides halfway. Trouble is, this is very politically motivated even if some are too simple to see it. All you have to do is see that most Democrats want to ban guns in the US but also like giving guns to organ eating Jihadis in Syria or Libya. We need to make sure that not just any lunatic can own a load of guns but really must get down to the route causes.
Wanting to stop 59 people being killed and 500+ hurt within minutes is a political problem now? Where is that middle ground? 30 people killed, 250 hurt?
-
Thing is, any cunt can slaughter masses. If they don't have access to buyable automatic firearms, there are shrapnel-bombs, nerve agents, hell, if somebody so chose, mustard 'gas' (they aren't gases) could be prepared with a trip to a garden center, a DIY store and somewhere to get a car battery charger, if a jihadi wanted to do it from scratch. Or if you want to keep it simple, release a load of arsine gas (the arsenic answer to ammonia, AsH3, rather than NH3) by fusing arsenic with a metal, such as iron perhaps and creating the metal arsenide, and on exposure to acid, this would release the lethally toxic arsine. Stinks something heinous too, like rotting garlic/onion laced with whatever that smell is you get from holding copper coins in your hand for a while, or like rotting leeks mixed with a hint of rust.
Or hell, bet as much if not more damage would be done if a jihadi type were to target the infrastructure of a country, by setting off something like an explosively-pumped magnetic flux compression generator, and doing it close to power plants, using the resulting massive electromagnetic pulse to fry the circuitry of the power plants, and that would go tenfold for a nuclear power plant. Or even simpler, target the plant with a high-powered vircator (a vacuum-tube based microwave pulse generator, at max output and correct design, capable of terawatt-level output)
Country loses power after coordinated attacks of that kind and everything would devolve into mass panic.
And if the terrorists are set on stone-age primitive, just look at the truck attacks in the UK.
-
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant federalist paper(s).
Here you go Federalist Papers (https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers) and if you'd rather read it in Swedish, I imagine the Gothenburg University Library might have a copy.
You can do the same thing I did 20+ years ago and slog through the whole thing to get its meaning in its proper context.
In the meantime, I'll settle for this (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/1/7/1052523/-).
:LMAO:
So you'd rather go for the simple minded, cherry picked, quote mined propaganda from a Neo-Marxist propaganda site?? :rofl:
-
You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think that just guns were the problem. We don't have legal guns in the UK but people get killed with knives, bats, bottles, fists and feet. We can't ban all of those unfortunately ::) There needs to be some of sensible licensing I think, and try to meet both sides halfway. Trouble is, this is very politically motivated even if some are too simple to see it. All you have to do is see that most Democrats want to ban guns in the US but also like giving guns to organ eating Jihadis in Syria or Libya. We need to make sure that not just any lunatic can own a load of guns but really must get down to the route causes.
Wanting to stop 59 people being killed and 500+ hurt within minutes is a political problem now? Where is that middle ground? 30 people killed, 250 hurt?
How many people were killed in that truck attack? 89??
-
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant federalist paper(s).
Here you go Federalist Papers (https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers) and if you'd rather read it in Swedish, I imagine the Gothenburg University Library might have a copy.
You can do the same thing I did 20+ years ago and slog through the whole thing to get its meaning in its proper context.
In the meantime, I'll settle for this (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/1/7/1052523/-).
:LMAO:
So you'd rather go for the simple minded, cherry picked, quote mined propaganda from a Neo-Marxist propaganda site?? :rofl:
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant passages to (attempt to) prove whatever point you thought you had--it's not enough to provide a link to them all.
I have to say, though, reading your ramblings and comparing them to some of the more well-considered thoughts out there, I'm not holding my breath. You very much like to call things you disagree with propaganda, neo-Marxist and whatnot, but your actual arguments are non-existent. I think I am right about your approach here--it's all a belief system for you, not something based in rational thought.
-
You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think that just guns were the problem. We don't have legal guns in the UK but people get killed with knives, bats, bottles, fists and feet. We can't ban all of those unfortunately ::) There needs to be some of sensible licensing I think, and try to meet both sides halfway. Trouble is, this is very politically motivated even if some are too simple to see it. All you have to do is see that most Democrats want to ban guns in the US but also like giving guns to organ eating Jihadis in Syria or Libya. We need to make sure that not just any lunatic can own a load of guns but really must get down to the route causes.
Wanting to stop 59 people being killed and 500+ hurt within minutes is a political problem now? Where is that middle ground? 30 people killed, 250 hurt?
How many people were killed in that truck attack? 89??
You're deflecting. Focus.
-
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant passages to (attempt to) prove whatever point you thought you had--it's not enough to provide a link to them all.
I'm not your fucking employee, you do the work.
I have to say, though, reading your ramblings and comparing them to some of the more well-considered thoughts out there, I'm not holding my breath. You very much like to call things you disagree with propaganda, neo-Marxist and whatnot, but your actual arguments are non-existent. I think I am right about your approach here--it's all a belief system for you, not something based in rational thought.
You're projecting, you're the one who exists in an echo chamber and has no argument.
-
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant passages to (attempt to) prove whatever point you thought you had--it's not enough to provide a link to them all.
I'm not your fucking employee, you do the work.
In other words, you don't actually know what to quote.
-
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant passages to (attempt to) prove whatever point you thought you had--it's not enough to provide a link to them all.
I'm not your fucking employee, you do the work.
In other words, you don't actually know what to quote.
It's not a single statement, it's several paragraphs. too complicated for you.
-
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant passages to (attempt to) prove whatever point you thought you had--it's not enough to provide a link to them all.
I'm not your fucking employee, you do the work.
In other words, you don't actually know what to quote.
It's not a single statement, it's several paragraphs. too complicated for you.
Translation: I can't find the bit I googled.
-
Google didn't exist when I read it.
BTW, that's 2 counts of Admin abuse.
-
Google didn't exist when I read it.
BTW, that's 2 counts of Admin abuse.
?
Explanation?
-
Google didn't exist when I read it.
BTW, that's 2 counts of Admin abuse.
?
Explanation?
There was this period of time when we read these things called books, which were kind of like message boards except they were made out of trees.
-
Google didn't exist when I read it.
BTW, that's 2 counts of Admin abuse.
?
Explanation?
There was this period of time when we read these things called books, which were kind of like message boards except they were made out of trees.
I am aware of the concept of books. I do have a few of them at home. And am in the middle of reading four at the moment. Oh, no, make that five, started reading on regicide yesterday.
But I fail to see what books have to do with double admin abuse.
-
But I fail to see what books have to do with double admin abuse.
Am guessing it's because Odeon doesn't have time restrictions for changing karma.
-
Google didn't exist when I read it.
Translation: Still deflecting.
-
But I fail to see what books have to do with double admin abuse.
Am guessing it's because Odeon doesn't have time restrictions for changing karma.
Ah, that makes sense.
Maybe he (Odeon) took my question of practice too serious? Easy does it, no hurry. Best things in life take time and such. It's like fine wine and old cheeses. Hurrying them destroys the flavour. Restrain yourself. :P
But it has nothing to do with books. :M
Maybe Pappy did not understand my question.
-
Google didn't exist when I read it.
Translation: Still deflecting.
Translation: When people figure out my red-herring tactics and don't fall for the distraction, I'll accuse them of deflecting.
BTW, 3 counts of admin abuse.
-
Google didn't exist when I read it.
Translation: Still deflecting.
Translation: When people figure out my red-herring tactics and don't fall for the distraction, I'll accuse them of deflecting.
BTW, 3 counts of admin abuse.
You claim the federalist papers support your views but are unable to produce any quotes when asked to.
Did you understand the question?
Oh, and poor you. Must be terrible to be you.
-
Another two counts of admin abuse.
-
You claim the federalist papers support your views but are unable to produce any quotes when asked to.
[/quote]
And I've given my reasons, which you refuse to accept.
Are you this pig headed, manipulative and controlling with your daughters?
-
Idiot. If you're unable to back up your shit, then shut up.
Also, leave my family out of this.
-
Am still holding out hope Elle might wish to discuss the topic of toxic masculinity with Jack.
This got kind of buried in the peanut gallery, where I wasn't technically supposed to reply to it, but- did you have questions, comments, something in particular you wanted to discuss?
-
Am still holding out hope Elle might wish to discuss the topic of toxic masculinity with Jack.
This got kind of buried in the peanut gallery, where I wasn't technically supposed to reply to it, but- did you have questions, comments, something in particular you wanted to discuss?
Got a bunch of questions and they are not rhetorical and are in the callout. Saying effectively "you are a bad person and I dislike your personality does not address any point you were called on. Sure as Hell makes no case as to me being anything you accused me of nor does it make a case for any of your bullshit claims.
As for the high testosterone thing. I would imagine that every person chased down and mauled to death by a predator animal had unusually high adrenaline levels. It would not necessarily mean that the animals were attracted to attacking people with high adrenaline levels. Similar, with the high testosterone. The fact that someone has high testosterone probably means that IF they are crazy and have high testosterone that they are likely to do crazy things in their craziness and if they have high testosterone this will more likely be something violent in their crazy behaviour.
-
IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE...
Oh, oh, Odeon. You're quite the comedian, as always.
i'll give you all some insight on Mr Adulterer who loves to act as the arbiter of US gun control. (Could be false, for all I know.)
From his work, Odeon has allegedly profited from the arms industry - he had work contracts with militaries . It's humourous how he lectures a former US Marine, who has seen death and destruction in Kosovo, on gun violence which he himself has benefited from to ensure a comfortable existence for him and his family.
As for your daughters, well, when they get cheated on, you have to scold them for not putting out enough to satiate their significant other's sexual desires. You did betray their mother for similar reasons, I seem to recall.
Hahahaha...
Arms industry, Odeon? How have you benefited from the arms industry?
-
Am still holding out hope Elle might wish to discuss the topic of toxic masculinity with Jack.
This got kind of buried in the peanut gallery, where I wasn't technically supposed to reply to it, but- did you have questions, comments, something in particular you wanted to discuss?
This.
I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings.
Touched on this very very lightly before, the last time in a gun discussion here. Wont go as far as to make the call of knowing if it's sociological or biological, and personally think it's possibly more biological. It's easy to analyze crime stats and logically point to multiple different areas as the source of the problem, some blame guns, some blame race, some blame poverty, some blame sociological aspects, and even I successfully used data to blame the baby boomers. These are all logical conclusions supported by hard facts. Though if one were to take an brass tacks look at the bottom line of the stats, violent crime is primarily a male problem. It can be a harsh thing to put out there in a conversation, but there it is.
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.
-
Unfortunately for pms elle, mgtow is on the rise.
Men quitting the gynocentric system in droves, especially in Japan - herbivore men.
Let the world burn.
-
Am still holding out hope Elle might wish to discuss the topic of toxic masculinity with Jack.
This got kind of buried in the peanut gallery, where I wasn't technically supposed to reply to it, but- did you have questions, comments, something in particular you wanted to discuss?
This.
I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings.
Touched on this very very lightly before, the last time in a gun discussion here. Wont go as far as to make the call of knowing if it's sociological or biological, and personally think it's possibly more biological. It's easy to analyze crime stats and logically point to multiple different areas as the source of the problem, some blame guns, some blame race, some blame poverty, some blame sociological aspects, and even I successfully used data to blame the baby boomers. These are all logical conclusions supported by hard facts. Though if one were to take an brass tacks look at the bottom line of the stats, violent crime is primarily a male problem. It can be a harsh thing to put out there in a conversation, but there it is.
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.
I'm not clear what you want from me, then. Is there a question you want me to answer?
-
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
-
Men are at fault, blah, blah.
Les is wasting his precious time on this earth to debate within this atmosphere of misandry.
-
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
If there's something specific you want to debate or have answered, let me know, and but I'm not trying to write a thesis on something as incredibly broad and depressing as the origins of violence just to entertain you. :P
-
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
If there's something specific you want to debate or have answered, let me know, and but I'm not trying to write a thesis on something as incredibly broad and depressing as the origins of violence just to entertain you. :P
Okay. Then just tell me what you think about what I said. You seemed to present the point that violent criminal acts are rooted in social influences. That's a fairly common stance and not too difficult to argue. I purposely said society doesn't encourage anyone to be violent criminals, hoping you might point out the falsehood in that statement. :laugh: My taking the stance that they have a chemical imbalance and basically they can't help it would be much harder. What do you think of the idea of monitoring and managing the testosterone levels of people convicted of violence? Violent crime goes well beyond the topic of guns, so even removing guns from the equation might no make a huge difference. Don't think people always fit some mental health diagnosis to be violent, but do think it's interesting criminally violent acts don't automatically qualify one for mandated mental health care. Do you think medically treating violence as a mental health condition would be beneficial, or is it more important to address culture?
-
I think she simply likes the opportunity to dump on white cishet males and if they are rich or christian too, all the better. Its all about the oppressor/victim hierachy structure of tge Progressive stack. It is evolved Marxist theory.
-
Men are at fault, blah, blah.
Les is wasting his precious time on this earth to debate within this atmosphere of misandry.
You are right Redface. Progressive Politics and progressive Feminism suck all rationality out of any discussion.
-
It is not that simple as violence boiling down to more endogenous androgenic steroids=more likely to rob little old ladies, beat up kids and were unaware, autism has also a tie-in with elevated test levels. Also, Males who are not on the spectrum, but who have an XYY karyotype (frequency-approximately 1/1000) are usually tall, but have typically few if any other distinguishing phenotypical features and do not tend to show ill health due to the aneuploidy. They have been studied, also, specifically with angles examining rates of violence and the two have been found not to correlate, at least according to the wikipedia article on XYY, although I haven't gone so far as to read the cited studies, if anybody wants the papers and they are paywalled, just ask and I'll upload them somewhere.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, XXYY karyotype males also, don't show an increased propensity towards criminal violence. Although interestingly there is apparently a correlation with being on the autistic spectrum, as well as for certain health, fertility problems and for a higher rate of learning or other cognitive disabilities.
And it shouldn't be forgotten that whilst people can be altered biochemically, generally what is not there to begin with does not manifest. For example, get two people absolutely staggering, batshit drunk or give the benzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics either to a degree where their inhibitions are taken away, and let one of this pair be of a mild-mannered, caring, gentle disposition not through force of will and iron self-discipline in order to fit in with society, but be he such as to whom this manner is an inherent trait and part of who they are, and the other to be considered, let him be when sober, behave himself well in manner and without malice, but let it also fall upon this man to require a conscious (or subconscious) effort on their part to keep their anger in check, to refrain from being domineering and altogether unpleasant.
Get both intoxicated to the point where they are in an equally dissociated state, and without provocation, observe the situation unfold. I should very much think that the first man, the one by nature mild mannered and of good character would of course, end up a drunken, shambolic, quite possibly gobby, uncoordinated mess. But the second example, the man who by day and when sober keeps his domineering personality and his propensity towards violence as it were, held on a tight leash, is going to be more likely to assault somebody. Whilst in the case of the gentleman by character they are IMO unlikely to for example, rape somebody, batter them, or both. Because it is a lot easier to unmask a trait hidden, than to create de novo one which formerly is not there under the surface, however deeply buried.
Easy enough to bring out somebody's inner bastard, but an awful lot harder to make a thug from a tender, caring, loving and unaggressive person, at least when out of the critical phase of childhood, and internalizing the values of others, of society etc. etc. You can breed a cunt, but not really magic one up. So to speak.
Or at the very least, it is a lot harder to do so in the good mannered subject, than it would be to provoke somebody who is already going about their day-to-day business whilst having to check impulses to let their inner bastard slip the leash. The closer to the surface it is in somebody's nature, the easier it is going to be.
I am not for the 'nature vs nurture' argument setting. Rather, both are very important. You can start with somebody who's basest makeup is to surrender to their animal instincts, and save for the extreme cases, psychopathy etc. 'train' and educate them, surround them with a loving family as a child and hopefully have them grow up to be decent human beings, but starting out, would be people who either left to their own devices would grow to have their inner bastard not only slip the leash but who'd never fit it with a collar to begin with, or those who could go either way, yet place someone in a dysfunctional pestilence of a household and it is likely to end up carrying over, the apple falling not far from the tree.
Although the converse does happen, there do seem to be people who, albeit in the worst kind of way possible, learn from their own awful experiences that they would never want to become that which had abused them. To me, its quite obvious that both are important. Both inherent disposition and their upbringing. Nature and nurture both, are critical.
-
Despite people not always appearing how they really are, some people clearly have "creep" stamped on their faces. And no, I'm not talking about a bunch of male aspies ever accused of being a creep.
Thing is, if high profile people like him were predicted to become mass murderers, nothing could be done to prevent it anyway because of their positions.
-
Yeah I know what you mean FWM. Some people seem almost BORN with a birthmark in the shape of the sigil of baphomet and the letters 'C R E E P'
on their foreheads at the points of the inverted pentagram :P
And for those of that sort who aren't, then there are plenty who need tattooing.
My former housemate showcases a good example (in two ways, the second being that she was a klepto, real nutcase klepto that'd do anything from my catching her running into my old man's bedroom when he woke up and went for a piss, and yank a fucking bunch of banknotes out of his wallet and quletly dive back out and into her at the time bedroom, now reconverted to better purposes than housing that fucking hell-whore, namely part of my lab.
She'd bloody pinch things that had neither value monetarily nor even entertainment value, old man once saw her steal a little coil of hair-fine wire thats of no use outside electronics development and fabrication. Had to be solely for the fuck of it. And if confronted she would lie her dick off her face in spite of being seen doing something)
Even worse, she was an ultra-rapid cycling bipolar, borderline PD (in hindsight, and after being warned about her by kassiane S, now obviously so) fucking piece of gutter infesting dog waste of the worst possible kind. Slowly, I found out later, had been stealing my meds, although she couldn't take them herself, wasn't a drug abuse thing since she is apparently allergic, potentially fatally so to hydrocodone (vicodin etc), we don't use it here but my pain meds, morphine and oxycodone are very close chemically and it wouldn't be at all surprising if they would trigger her allergy. In hindsight, that would have been great had I thought of it at the time, could have poisoned her, offed the bloody bitch and gotten away with it. Rather than using them, or antiseizure meds, she'd hide them, found a great fucking pile she'd stolen of all sorts of meds off me after she snapped her last shred of sanity and attempted to gut me with a katana, and ended up kicked to the curb after having the snot knocked out of her, and narrowly avoiding ending up with a bullet in her ugly face.
Stashing the meds, and forcing me into WD, trying to trick me into thinking I was just wasted and didn't know it. I wasn't, she'd been systematically fucking with things so she could try to get a handle on me, and offer her own pain meds and fucking temazepam/valium if things were done her way.
Stole (at least) two kittens. Who from I don't know but one day there wasn't a cat in her room the next there was. That one escaped so another, looking just like the one who got away from her, only a kitten, age-wise, that one stayed, wasn't really much I could do other than end up feeding and caring for the poor wee mite. Even if I'd known where the kitten came from, there would have been one hell of a lot of explaining to do, IF they weren't of the type to just shoot the messenger first and read the message later, no idea what I'd be walking into, so he stayed.Stole (at least) two kittens. Who from I don't know but one day there wasn't a cat in her room the next there was. That one escaped so another, looking just like the one who got away from her, only a kitten, age-wise, that one stayed, wasn't really much I could do other than end up feeding and caring for the poor wee mite. Even if I'd known where the kitten came from.
Falsely cried rape against her then bf when she had, it appears, bled him dry and had no further use for him; she was a really spiteful, nasty and vengeful little slag. Cried rape against her own parents although whether that was true or false, or even a joint effort between her and her parents to get rid of her to somebody else, since they won't have been able to stand her anymore
than I can. Also made the same claim against a previous BF, again short term, who she used for a plane ticket here after deciding to flee the US, allegedly, according to the whore from hades, because of her abusive parents and then claimed raped her.
Although I am somewhat dubious about that guy even with HER history of bitch-dom. He's got creepy scumbag written all over him (quite a natural partner for her then :P), since he WAS a stalky creep, who's best friend is a mentally twisted piece of shit who stalks a dead baby, and has gone to the baby's parents house expressing 'a closeness' and 'sympathy', who IIRC also has some weird fucked up thing for babies shoes and possibly diapers.
So that I could see actually being true. Kassi told me a few things about him too and his friend that were...shall we say, rather less than favourable or complimentary.The kinds of things most people here wouldn't ask questions and move straight to slamming his head into the nearest brick wall should they hear them and he subsequently be found in the same US state as their kids. Or for that matter, for those without kids, beaten senseless on sight, on general principle of it being the correct thing to do for the good of the species, his diaper-molestering, dead-baby-stalking companion and his existence being expediently removed from being part thereof being unarguably a damned good thing indeed :P)
Not sure if that guy DID rape her, given her history and the fact she is a lying creep and a total psychotic cunt, but if he did, good. Serves her right (no, I'd not usually say this about ANYONE, but given she's lied about exactly that most likely at least twice, minimum once and potentially, four times that I know of. I hope she does. I sincerely some sick piece of shit does kidnap her, torture her and rape her, and dump her out in the wilderness to walk back to the civilization she is not and never will be part of; only to seek help and end up being told to eat shit and die, and have nobody believe her; so she can suffer for the rest of her vile, miserable days as she so richly deserves)
People who make claims like that for no more reason than they have either tired of somebody or have bled them dry of resources and need a fresh victim with money and shelter, deserve everything they get and so much the better if they do end up raped, their face stamped to a pulp and thrown in a back alley for the crows to pick at, going unbelieved by the pigs because of their history. Serves the fuck right if she was raped by that prick. In all honesty I'd just as soon round them both up, nail their ankles, knees and arms to a wooden plank atop a pyre and burn them both alive. Slowly, so CO poisoning or suffocation wouldn't end their suffering any faster or more mercifully, but leave them to slowly cook over a fire until the wooden plank they are nailed to are consumed and their raw, bleeding bodies can be salted before they die and left spasming and twitching to roast until the juices run clear when a knife is stuck in them. Especially the hell bitch. I've had the displeasure of running into some deepply unpleasant people at times before, but this creature, she was a real weapons-grade creep, and a borderline fucking bitch who deserves nothing less than to die screaming. She is as close to true cold, calculating, utterly depraved an example of actual evil as I have ever met or ever could wish not to.
God I fucking hate borderlines.
-
It is not that simple as violence boiling down to more endogenous androgenic steroids=more likely to rob little old ladies, beat up kids and were unaware, autism has also a tie-in with elevated test levels. Also, Males who are not on the spectrum, but who have an XYY karyotype (frequency-approximately 1/1000) are usually tall, but have typically few if any other distinguishing phenotypical features and do not tend to show ill health due to the aneuploidy. They have been studied, also, specifically with angles examining rates of violence and the two have been found not to correlate, at least according to the wikipedia article on XYY, although I haven't gone so far as to read the cited studies, if anybody wants the papers and they are paywalled, just ask and I'll upload them somewhere.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, XXYY karyotype males also, don't show an increased propensity towards criminal violence. Although interestingly there is apparently a correlation with being on the autistic spectrum, as well as for certain health, fertility problems and for a higher rate of learning or other cognitive disabilities.
And it shouldn't be forgotten that whilst people can be altered biochemically, generally what is not there to begin with does not manifest. For example, get two people absolutely staggering, batshit drunk or give the benzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics either to a degree where their inhibitions are taken away, and let one of this pair be of a mild-mannered, caring, gentle disposition not through force of will and iron self-discipline in order to fit in with society, but be he such as to whom this manner is an inherent trait and part of who they are, and the other to be considered, let him be when sober, behave himself well in manner and without malice, but let it also fall upon this man to require a conscious (or subconscious) effort on their part to keep their anger in check, to refrain from being domineering and altogether unpleasant.
Get both intoxicated to the point where they are in an equally dissociated state, and without provocation, observe the situation unfold. I should very much think that the first man, the one by nature mild mannered and of good character would of course, end up a drunken, shambolic, quite possibly gobby, uncoordinated mess. But the second example, the man who by day and when sober keeps his domineering personality and his propensity towards violence as it were, held on a tight leash, is going to be more likely to assault somebody. Whilst in the case of the gentleman by character they are IMO unlikely to for example, rape somebody, batter them, or both. Because it is a lot easier to unmask a trait hidden, than to create de novo one which formerly is not there under the surface, however deeply buried.
Easy enough to bring out somebody's inner bastard, but an awful lot harder to make a thug from a tender, caring, loving and unaggressive person, at least when out of the critical phase of childhood, and internalizing the values of others, of society etc. etc. You can breed a cunt, but not really magic one up. So to speak.
Or at the very least, it is a lot harder to do so in the good mannered subject, than it would be to provoke somebody who is already going about their day-to-day business whilst having to check impulses to let their inner bastard slip the leash. The closer to the surface it is in somebody's nature, the easier it is going to be.
I am not for the 'nature vs nurture' argument setting. Rather, both are very important. You can start with somebody who's basest makeup is to surrender to their animal instincts, and save for the extreme cases, psychopathy etc. 'train' and educate them, surround them with a loving family as a child and hopefully have them grow up to be decent human beings, but starting out, would be people who either left to their own devices would grow to have their inner bastard not only slip the leash but who'd never fit it with a collar to begin with, or those who could go either way, yet place someone in a dysfunctional pestilence of a household and it is likely to end up carrying over, the apple falling not far from the tree.
Although the converse does happen, there do seem to be people who, albeit in the worst kind of way possible, learn from their own awful experiences that they would never want to become that which had abused them. To me, its quite obvious that both are important. Both inherent disposition and their upbringing. Nature and nurture both, are critical.
Not suggesting targeting everyone based on testosterone levels, but rather people who have been convicted for violence. Studies of prison populations show a person could basically walk in and separate the violent crime from the non-violent crime based only on testosterone levels and be less than ten percent wrong. Correlation doesn't always prove causation, but these are scientific results that deserve attention. Even if it's true that nurture is important, should anyone care? It may be too late to treat their nurture. Am questioning if society could benefit from taking a medial approach to violence.
-
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
If there's something specific you want to debate or have answered, let me know, and but I'm not trying to write a thesis on something as incredibly broad and depressing as the origins of violence just to entertain you. :P
Okay. Then just tell me what you think about what I said. You seemed to present the point that violent criminal acts are rooted in social influences. That's a fairly common stance and not too difficult to argue. I purposely said society doesn't encourage anyone to be violent criminals, hoping you might point out the falsehood in that statement. :laugh: My taking the stance that they have a chemical imbalance and basically they can't help it would be much harder. What do you think of the idea of monitoring and managing the testosterone levels of people convicted of violence? Violent crime goes well beyond the topic of guns, so even removing guns from the equation might no make a huge difference. Don't think people always fit some mental health diagnosis to be violent, but do think it's interesting criminally violent acts don't automatically qualify one for mandated mental health care. Do you think medically treating violence as a mental health condition would be beneficial, or is it more important to address culture?
I think it's a combination of both nature and nurture, like everything else.
How about actually linking these studies you keep mentioning?
Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about. It's none of those things to me. I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.
-
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
If there's something specific you want to debate or have answered, let me know, and but I'm not trying to write a thesis on something as incredibly broad and depressing as the origins of violence just to entertain you. :P
Okay. Then just tell me what you think about what I said. You seemed to present the point that violent criminal acts are rooted in social influences. That's a fairly common stance and not too difficult to argue. I purposely said society doesn't encourage anyone to be violent criminals, hoping you might point out the falsehood in that statement. :laugh: My taking the stance that they have a chemical imbalance and basically they can't help it would be much harder. What do you think of the idea of monitoring and managing the testosterone levels of people convicted of violence? Violent crime goes well beyond the topic of guns, so even removing guns from the equation might no make a huge difference. Don't think people always fit some mental health diagnosis to be violent, but do think it's interesting criminally violent acts don't automatically qualify one for mandated mental health care. Do you think medically treating violence as a mental health condition would be beneficial, or is it more important to address culture?
I think it's a combination of both nature and nurture, like everything else.
How about actually linking these studies you keep mentioning?
Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about. It's none of those things to me. I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.
Pick fights about? She wasn't.
Hey Elle, stop pretending that you are some kind of victim. You aren't. You are just a dickhead
-
Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about. It's none of those things to me. I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.
In what context do you think it should be discussed? Is it a professional boundaries thing, like a serious discussion is too much like your work? Or a personal objection maybe?
-
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
If there's something specific you want to debate or have answered, let me know, and but I'm not trying to write a thesis on something as incredibly broad and depressing as the origins of violence just to entertain you. :P
Okay. Then just tell me what you think about what I said. You seemed to present the point that violent criminal acts are rooted in social influences. That's a fairly common stance and not too difficult to argue. I purposely said society doesn't encourage anyone to be violent criminals, hoping you might point out the falsehood in that statement. :laugh: My taking the stance that they have a chemical imbalance and basically they can't help it would be much harder. What do you think of the idea of monitoring and managing the testosterone levels of people convicted of violence? Violent crime goes well beyond the topic of guns, so even removing guns from the equation might no make a huge difference. Don't think people always fit some mental health diagnosis to be violent, but do think it's interesting criminally violent acts don't automatically qualify one for mandated mental health care. Do you think medically treating violence as a mental health condition would be beneficial, or is it more important to address culture?
I think it's a combination of both nature and nurture, like everything else.
How about actually linking these studies you keep mentioning?
Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about. It's none of those things to me. I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.
Am not trying to pick a fight with you, but do think conversations with or between people who agree aren't interesting. I like having things explained to me, and I like when people challenge me to think differently about what I'm saying, and challenging them to think about what they say, even if it means contradicting them with things I don't even agree with. As said to someone else recently, disagreeing isn't always fighting, or something like that. Though correct, it's nothing more than an interesting topic to me. Do you really want links? Does it matter if they're abstracts or full access studies? Testosterone and violence have been studied for a long time so there's probably hundreds of them, but would be willing to take the time to sift for a couple of good ones if you could overcome my shits and giggles. If not, it's not that big of a deal.
-
I just think it's interesting that society doesn't look at people who are a danger to others, similar to how it looks at people who are a danger to themselves. There's something wrong with them. Testosterone connected to violence isn't a new idea. Since no one will contradict me, I'll contradict myself. There's also been post mortem brain studies which show the serotonin levels of suicide victims are comparable to murderers. Haven't read it said why serotonin would make some suicidal while others homicidal, but maybe hormonal imbalance is worth looking at as the difference. Is society partially to blame? Maybe it is, for locking these people in a cage and then letting them out later with no treatment. A key argument for the sociological foundation of violence is that it's a cycle. Maybe that's true too and some violent people are simply victims of violence. If it's either, or, both, or none of the above, it still seems odd medical intervention isn't a primary course of action to balancing them, subduing them, breaking the cycyle, or whatever people want to call it.
-
Medical intervention, if it took the form of drugging them against their will, could be seen as a more invasive punishment than simply locking them in a room.
-
Medical intervention, if it took the form of drugging them against their will, could be seen as a more invasive punishment than simply locking them in a room.
Mandated mental health treatment by a court of law already exists, not only for people mandated to mental health facilities or with outpatient commitments, but also people with mental health conditions in prisons, and as conditions for parole and probation. It does happen with criminals, but it's not the standard because criminal violence isn't considered a mental health issue on its own. It makes sense not all will accept treatment, and maybe can't or shouldn't be force to, but it's also not widely accepted that's what they need. Violent criminals need to be punished; that's what's widely accepted.
-
The cycle of violence point you make is more on the mark than you could possibly know.
There is little to no mental health help available for those who seek it, let alone those who outright need it, not until people start screaming it was the ghost of santa-claus that made them turn into satan's messenger and kill all those inmates with a sock full of pool balls and drawing messages on the walls using their brain matter as paint.
And they tend to keep people in primitive conditions, extreme overcrowding. Anybody particularly vulnerable mentally (physically they might get treated with some compassion by other inmates, but mentally, they are going to get thrown to the wolves without the least bit of doubt, and it won't change until and unless they do something drastic to somebody that the ravening hordes will back off.)
Its worse when the specific prison is full of young, hotheaded thug types. A lot better when it is lifers in max sec, they tend to be older, have cooled down and to just want to get on with as little conflict as possible. The other kind, they have something to prove, in their own outlook, and are actively looking for a target to use to prove it. Its not pretty. Really, really not pretty at all.
And there is a cycle, a revolving door often enough. You take somebody who's spent a long time on the inside and had to adapt to those kinds of conditions, forever watching their back to avoid getting a shiv stuck in it, and they end up on an adrenaline-primed pre fight-flight response, a prolonged state of hypervigilance and alert, that tears at the psyche and is over a long term if not quickly overcome, going to wear somebody down into the ground. And thats if they don't, as a result, end up getting into a fight that the prison environment primed them for, or worse.
And then these people who may know little else, have had no counselling or similar pre-release help, are simply handed their property, whatever they might have, if they have anything more than a packet of smokes a box of matches and a few bits of food, the clothing on their back, and told right, get out of here.
That is no way at all to prime somebody for reintegration into society.
-
And they tend to keep people in primitive conditions,
Think it's important for the accommodations of prison to be unappealing, else it might not be much of a deterrent. Plus it is supposed to be a punishment. Once was criticized for pointing out the positives of being imprisoned. Being removed from society makes people exempt from the responsibilities and demands of living in society, so prisoners have a level of freedom that free people don't really know or have. If it were a comfortable place to be, then the company one would have to keep might be the only deterrent for people who would rather have that freedom from society than to have the freedom to roam around in it.
-
IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE...
Oh, oh, Odeon. You're quite the comedian, as always.
i'll give you all some insight on Mr Adulterer who loves to act as the arbiter of US gun control. (Could be false, for all I know.)
From his work, Odeon has allegedly profited from the arms industry - he had work contracts with militaries . It's humourous how he lectures a former US Marine, who has seen death and destruction in Kosovo, on gun violence which he himself has benefited from to ensure a comfortable existence for him and his family.
As for your daughters, well, when they get cheated on, you have to scold them for not putting out enough to satiate their significant other's sexual desires. You did betray their mother for similar reasons, I seem to recall.
Hahahaha...
Arms industry, Odeon? How have you benefited from the arms industry?
I am actually interested in this clain.
Association with the nefarious arms industry?
-
I'm sure you are, but why is that? Are you looking for more drama?
-
I'm sure you are, but why is that? Are you looking for more drama?
It is something that has never come up before and not only is it left field but it also seems in complete contrast and contradiction to your gun control narratives. If you WERE involved in the arms industry (even tangentially) it would, on its face, be massively hypocritical. Of course, it may be that you weren't. It may also mean that you did have your hands in this and now feel disgust for the arms industry from an informed point of view (given previous involvement).
ALL of that is interesting to me and for those reasons.
-
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.
-
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.
No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.
Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.
-
Jack, you misunderstand entirely the magnitude of HOW primitive and barbaric the conditions are. It is only recently after appeals to central authorities that the practice of 'slopping out' was outlawed. This means removing the contents of the buckets prisoners had to piss and shit in during lockup time.
Also personal safety within prisons is at a minimum. Its one thing if a fight breaks out in the central space of the wing, there it is visible and can be broken up quickly, likewise prison riots. But entirely another when somebody is in their cell during unlock time, doing whatever, keeping themselves to themselves, its perfectly easy for one (or a group) person to go into another cell (and this often happens for completely benign reasons also) with ill-intentions, be it robbery, physical assault, or worse.
I know of one person who, because of quite how medieval the conditions are, attempted to commit suicide by ramming a broom-handle up their arse and jumping off the top bunk in a 2-man cell. That ought to give you an idea of quite how bad things can be. And nobody can go to seek help, other than if they have sufficient support, to round up a posse of other inmates and go and put somebody in hospital. Anybody who would report an incident (to prison staff) would instantly end up a pariah and have the entire wing turn against them and be considered fair game for any kind of action whatsoever.
And if that doesn't give you an idea of how bad things can get. I..know of somebody who had to resort to, to avoid being raped and killed by some hard-case thug with a pack of similar friends, responsible for a terror-campaign initiated without any reason than their entertainment, to have to resort to the extermination by poison of the ringleader. Successfully I might add. Should conditions be SO bad, that inmate on inmate killings in a defensive capacity need be resorted to in order for an inmate to preserve their own life and to avoid being violated sexually? (the ringleader thug in question made the fatal mistake of issuing a threat and telling the..other inmate, what they intended) and dissappeared shortly after to hospital. To the best of my knowledge they did not return.
And there are also things I have not personally witnessed, but just as bad or worse, on documentaries about UK prisons, that I couldn't even stand to watch. People being forced to fight each other like dogs for drugs by other inmates, being filmed on smuggled in mobile phones, known of by the screws, who were uninterested in putting a stop to it. Couldn't keep watching the rest of it. It was as barbaric as the leaked footage from abu ghraib and guantanamo bay. Not joking, I've seen both and there was little difference, only in (some of) the methods.
-
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.
No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.
Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.
I can't imagine why Odeon wouldn't want to have a personal discussion about beliefs with you. :M
-
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.
No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.
Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.
Learn to live with it, then.
-
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.
No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.
Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.
Learn to live with it, then.
Meh, it is curiosity, no biggie.
-
Jack, you misunderstand entirely the magnitude of HOW primitive and barbaric the conditions are. It is only recently after appeals to central authorities that the practice of 'slopping out' was outlawed. This means removing the contents of the buckets prisoners had to piss and shit in during lockup time.
Had never heard of it and had to look it up. Wouldn't expect that sort of thing in wealthy countries, so yes, entirely misunderstood the magnitude of what was said. Some people think US prisons can be a bit too accommodating, but having access to a toilet isn't part of that argument. :laugh:
-
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.
No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.
Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.
I can't imagine why Odeon wouldn't want to have a personal discussion about beliefs with you. :M
Ni idea. I think he gets the reaction he fishes for when he insults me though.
-
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.
No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.
Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.
I can't imagine why Odeon wouldn't want to have a personal discussion about beliefs with you. :M
Does it help that I'm interested too? :laugh:
-
I can't imagine why Odeon wouldn't want to have a personal discussion about beliefs with you. :M
Ni idea.
You honestly have no idea?
-
I can't imagine why Odeon wouldn't want to have a personal discussion about beliefs with you. :M
Ni idea.
You honestly have no idea?
Yeah I don't. If he were simply not wishing to discuss it then, rationally speaking, he would hace said something along the lines of " Yeah, loo, I really don't want to get into that."
Is that what he did? Nope.
He engaged and asked why I was interested and whrre my motivation was and then insulted me (mindless of his own offered truce).
So yes, I have no idea
-
Reads to me like the behavior of a person who is suspicious about your intent.
-
He responded to a troll's less than well-founded claims and then again to his own reply to the troll. Seemed to me that he was fishing for more drama and said as much, thinking that "get a life" is an appropriate response. Honestly, I can't see how that is particularly insulting.
Also, if he has no idea of why I won't engage in this discussion, I can't help him.
-
He responded to a troll's less than well-founded claims and then again to his own reply to the troll. Seemed to me that he was fishing for more drama and said as much, thinking that "get a life" is an appropriate response. Honestly, I can't see how that is particularly insulting.
Also, if he has no idea of why I won't engage in this discussion, I can't help him.
Try greeting people for one week with the phrase "Get a life"
As I say the claim was new, left field AND even topically relevant. Hardly drama. A "no idea" or "not really wanting to talk about it" would have put it to the sword without the drama that you have now created (presuming you were genuine in not wanting to either insult or start drama).
Me? I was curious (and am not the only one) and simply asked the question.
-
Jack. I've never been in a US prison. I've never been to the US for that matter.
But England is a wealthy enough first-world nation with the capacity to ensure that the facilities are, whilst no lap of luxury, not barbaric. There is a difference and a big one between unfavourable conditions and utter barbarism. I've SEEN it; firsthand, I KNOW what I'm talking about.
And you know what? the access to medical care is so primitive, that I was in seizure for so long, I was unaware there was food thrown through the door-hatch (and this on the medical wing) for so long that by the time it stopped I had, going from the looks of me, almost starved to death. Yes. No joking. I looked like the pictures you see of jews liberated from auschwitz and other concentration camps. It did permanent damage, and honestly, I am surprised either the seizures didn't kill me or the starvation did not (there was food thrown in, but you cannot eat what you do not know is there)
-
Am not trying to pick a fight with you, but do think conversations with or between people who agree aren't interesting. I like having things explained to me, and I like when people challenge me to think differently about what I'm saying, and challenging them to think about what they say, even if it means contradicting them with things I don't even agree with. As said to someone else recently, disagreeing isn't always fighting, or something like that. Though correct, it's nothing more than an interesting topic to me. Do you really want links? Does it matter if they're abstracts or full access studies? Testosterone and violence have been studied for a long time so there's probably hundreds of them, but would be willing to take the time to sift for a couple of good ones if you could overcome my shits and giggles. If not, it's not that big of a deal.
Why on earth woudln't you link them?
Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about. It's none of those things to me. I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.
In what context do you think it should be discussed? Is it a professional boundaries thing, like a serious discussion is too much like your work? Or a personal objection maybe?
It's a me at my own personal limit thing. This isn't abstract to me.
-
Also, because the question of "victim mentality" keeps coming up- in this particular context, how the actual fuck else should we be conceptualizing the people who were on the receiving end of a bullet just for going to a fucking country music concert? How should we conceptualize their loved ones? Like, do you know the definition of the word victim? They are victims of murder. Fucking christ.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooting-victims/index.html
-
BTW for studies which are not open access and require payment I can get them without this inconvenience, just give me the DOI numbers, or at the very least, the PMIDs so that I can track the DOI down for a paper and download it, then upload it to a sharing/hosting site for anybody to download. Or alternatively just give a direct link to the paper in question.
And if this is too much then use sci-hub.cc or sci-hub.io (no www this will cause the site not to display) although not by way of a deliberate block, simply reentering the address without the www prefix will cause it to work as it should.
-
And in respect of my earlier point Re: unfavourable conditions vs barbarism, an important point, is that such an environment as fostered by the latter, with an inmate constantly having no choice but to watch their backs against hostile encroachment upon personal space and if (or rather, WHEN) it happens, to demonstrate with extreme violence. Not only violence sufficient to end the immediate event, but also, in a 'dramatic' kind of way, to ensure that others seeing the event take place are made aware that the same would happen also to them, were they to try the same thing. To send a message that any messing with the person subject to attack will be met with extreme retaliation; this will, once become an ingrained pattern of behavior as it must do as a survival adaptation in such an environment of constant and unpredictable hostility, become the default response of the person in question without pre-release (or preferably during their incarceration mental healthcare accessibility that goes beyond simply continuing to medicate already diagnosed schizophrenics [and thats about as far as it gets inside], here, even in by far the best conditions)
The vulnerable, are as good as dead. And god help anybody who is LFA who were to get banged up, unless they were physically strong enough to beat the aggressor senseless or if not then of a very heavy-set build so as to deter people from trying merely by sight.
Even after putting weight back on, I was forced to fight for my life on a near daily basis. Until transferred, after something bad happened to somebody who attempted violence upon my person for the last time I was prepared to merely fight against, to max-sec at a different prison entirely, I don't remember there being a single day, other than those spent in solitary (the prison staff may not have known this, but this was to me, being autie, not a punishment, in fact they could well have used it in my case as a reward for good conduct, I'd actively try to get myself sent down the block since it meant not being surrounded by thugs, not being surrounded by the worst parts of society (bar the paeophiles. The vulnerable do have the option of requesting protective custody, but that means being housed in the same wing as the nonces, and it being assumed that the person in question IS a paedo, regardless of the reason. And its probably as unsafe as being in the main wings or more so. At least in the main section of the jails youre not likely to find ground up glass or poisons in your food, or human excrement. Never been in such 'protective' areas myself, but housing the vulnerable (for any other reason) with the sex offenders seems to me like a gross injustice way above and beyond the sentence handed down judicially as a function of legal due process, knowing that other, non-pervert offenders will take any and every opportunity available to make suffer, wound or kill anybody in this area of 'protective' custody. And from what I know of it, although never having been in this environment myself, having the only contact being through those in the hospital wing the screws themselves aren't particularly shy about joining in if they get the chance and cannot be seen to do it, and they certainly, from what I've been told by other inmates, won't lift a finger to break up a fight until it becomes obvious to all of the staff that permanent and serious injury or/and potential fatality is going to be the outcome (I.e they don't want the paperwork for somebody dying on their watch))
Once conditioning, and having to use that conditioning for potentialy many decades, its going to become ingrained deeply and a first response, making post-release violence more likely. And for those without a home to return to, being kicked out onto the street with nothing but whatever they are wearing, and whatever commissary they have at the time (I.e food, tobacco etc.) that gives them next to nothing to survive on, and their most basic need-food (water of course being more accessible without cost) an immediate concern, they are liable to get caught committing petty crime such as shoplifting just to put a meal in their stomachs, and when on parole, if caught, then sent back to serve the rest of their sentence, because they committed a further criminal offence, although petty, and for the direst of reasons (I.e do so and risk getting caught, or starve)
The employment prospects for ex-offenders are poor to near nonexistent for as long as the conviction is declarable so earning money legitimately is made extremely difficult also, leaving people with little recourse, getting hungrier and hungrier, weaker and weaker by the day unless the individual is extremely lucky. That is of course, for those either without family or those who do but which will not take the back.
If it wasn't for the fact I had family, and a place to return to, that is the situation I would myself have been forced into. I'd have had to steal, just to continue supplying my body with the carbohydrate and protein it needs to continue to function and have been on the street with nothing bar a few plastic bottles of drink, a few candy-type snacks of little nutritive value and some tobacco, papers and matches as well as the clothing on my back, were I most prisoners. I was in a sense, lucky, in that my family sent in, at my request, my personal stereo and music CDs, plus TIHKAL, PIHKAL and some other books. And during family visits, they'd buy food from vending machines and give it to me rather than eat it themselves, as well as send in some money for me to buy commissary food, and tobacco, since I couldn't do heavy manual labor courtesy of the joint injuries of old, and nerve damage resulting from the surgery I had on it and resultant mobility issues. (in the affected area of that leg its caused two effects, loss of sensation aside from pain, and below this, a constant and severe spasm of the calf. And inside I was denied even the myorelaxant I take to enable me to move properly and stop the calf muscle from being in severe, unremitting pain, the med in question also being somewhat hazardous physically to suddenly cease, being liable, in addition to subjectively most unpleasant rebound symptoms, to cause a massive and prolonged spike in blood pressure that in a severe case, or in the case of somebody with other cardiac or vascular issues could cause a heart attack or stroke)
There is a HUGE difference between 'negative reinforcement' and 'inhumane barbarism'
Jack-have you seen it from both sides? Have you ever had to stab somebody or stamp on somebody's face repeatedly just for the 'privilege' of sitting in your own cell to get some peace and quiet rather than going to the central communal mess-hall to consume your food, and to avoid having that food contaminated or outright stolen from you after a beating? Is this something you would condone as part of a judicial sentence?
-
Am not trying to pick a fight with you, but do think conversations with or between people who agree aren't interesting. I like having things explained to me, and I like when people challenge me to think differently about what I'm saying, and challenging them to think about what they say, even if it means contradicting them with things I don't even agree with. As said to someone else recently, disagreeing isn't always fighting, or something like that. Though correct, it's nothing more than an interesting topic to me. Do you really want links? Does it matter if they're abstracts or full access studies? Testosterone and violence have been studied for a long time so there's probably hundreds of them, but would be willing to take the time to sift for a couple of good ones if you could overcome my shits and giggles. If not, it's not that big of a deal.
Why on earth woudln't you link them?
Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about. It's none of those things to me. I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.
In what context do you think it should be discussed? Is it a professional boundaries thing, like a serious discussion is too much like your work? Or a personal objection maybe?
It's a me at my own personal limit thing. This isn't abstract to me.
Didn't you pick a fight with me? You got clowned, sure, but you did pick a fight...I think this goes some ways to the "victim" thing you are now trying to project to people being killed in Las Vegas? For an encore are you gonna tap dance on their graves?
-
He responded to a troll's less than well-founded claims and then again to his own reply to the troll. Seemed to me that he was fishing for more drama and said as much, thinking that "get a life" is an appropriate response. Honestly, I can't see how that is particularly insulting.
Also, if he has no idea of why I won't engage in this discussion, I can't help him.
Try greeting people for one week with the phrase "Get a life"
As I say the claim was new, left field AND even topically relevant. Hardly drama. A "no idea" or "not really wanting to talk about it" would have put it to the sword without the drama that you have now created (presuming you were genuine in not wanting to either insult or start drama).
Me? I was curious (and am not the only one) and simply asked the question.
Fair enough, but surely you can see where I'm coming from. Honestly, Al, I don't think we have the kind of relationship where my first thought when asked that question in the middle of a flame war is "it's an honest question, no harm intended". If you think this is overly negative, then I'm glad to hear it.
-
Why on earth woudln't you link them?
Because it wasn't read recently and didn't feel like looking it up. Crime has been a personal interest for about 25 years. Here's some links.
http://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/1987/03000/Saliva_testosterone_and_criminal_violence_in_young.7.aspx
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886988900888
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699400177T
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00200.x
-
Jack. I've never been in a US prison. I've never been to the US for that matter.
But England is a wealthy enough first-world nation with the capacity to ensure that the facilities are, whilst no lap of luxury, not barbaric. There is a difference and a big one between unfavourable conditions and utter barbarism. I've SEEN it; firsthand, I KNOW what I'm talking about.
And you know what? the access to medical care is so primitive, that I was in seizure for so long, I was unaware there was food thrown through the door-hatch (and this on the medical wing) for so long that by the time it stopped I had, going from the looks of me, almost starved to death. Yes. No joking. I looked like the pictures you see of jews liberated from auschwitz and other concentration camps. It did permanent damage, and honestly, I am surprised either the seizures didn't kill me or the starvation did not (there was food thrown in, but you cannot eat what you do not know is there)
That's really awful, Lestat; it was wrong of them to do that to you.
BTW for studies which are not open access and require payment I can get them without this inconvenience,
Thanks for the offer, but I don't want or need it for those links. Will keep it in mind for some other time.
-
He responded to a troll's less than well-founded claims and then again to his own reply to the troll. Seemed to me that he was fishing for more drama and said as much, thinking that "get a life" is an appropriate response. Honestly, I can't see how that is particularly insulting.
Also, if he has no idea of why I won't engage in this discussion, I can't help him.
Try greeting people for one week with the phrase "Get a life"
As I say the claim was new, left field AND even topically relevant. Hardly drama. A "no idea" or "not really wanting to talk about it" would have put it to the sword without the drama that you have now created (presuming you were genuine in not wanting to either insult or start drama).
Me? I was curious (and am not the only one) and simply asked the question.
Fair enough, but surely you can see where I'm coming from. Honestly, Al, I don't think we have the kind of relationship where my first thought when asked that question in the middle of a flame war is "it's an honest question, no harm intended". If you think this is overly negative, then I'm glad to hear it.
I can't see where you are coming from. I rarely can these days.
But what was curiosity and mild interest was hardly worth this investment in things. I suspect there was more than a little bit of truth in the original claim. I think it rubbed you up the wrong way.
That all said, I don't much care.
As for you insulting me, I don't much care there either. I insulted you back and you made it clear there was miscommunication or misunderstanding....whatever, all good. shit happens.
-
Jack-have you seen it from both sides? Have you ever had to stab somebody or stamp on somebody's face repeatedly just for the 'privilege' of sitting in your own cell to get some peace and quiet rather than going to the central communal mess-hall to consume your food, and to avoid having that food contaminated or outright stolen from you after a beating? Is this something you would condone as part of a judicial sentence?
No. Have no criminal history, though had a friend who did years ago. She said everyone has to sidle up to a group in prison; she chose the born-again Christians. She also lost a lot of weight, but she said that's because the food is crap.
-
It's a me at my own personal limit thing.
That's fair enough. Had actually given up on it until it was brought up again.
-
Why on earth woudln't you link them?
Because it wasn't read recently and didn't feel like looking it up. Crime has been a personal interest for about 25 years. Here's some links.
http://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/1987/03000/Saliva_testosterone_and_criminal_violence_in_young.7.aspx
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886988900888
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699400177T
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00200.x
An immediate question that came to mind when the articles were described, that still remains unanswered for me, is the question of what causes elevated testosterone. The last article at least touches on that, as well as the effect of nature vs nurture, even if we were to assume testosterone is always at a constant in individuals (I don't assume that).
Last article still supports the "be better as a society" solution.
-
Why on earth woudln't you link them?
Because it wasn't read recently and didn't feel like looking it up. Crime has been a personal interest for about 25 years. Here's some links.
http://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/1987/03000/Saliva_testosterone_and_criminal_violence_in_young.7.aspx
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886988900888
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699400177T
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00200.x
An immediate question that came to mind when the articles were described, that still remains unanswered for me, is the question of what causes elevated testosterone. The last article at least touches on that, as well as the effect of nature vs nurture, even if we were to assume testosterone is always at a constant in individuals (I don't assume that).
Last article still supports the "be better as a society" solution.
Not really certain if the last article touches on the cause elevation, but rather notes that the correlation between testosterone and delinquency is less evident in educated wealthy people. That particular study isn't a good example for a link to violence, as now seeing it's not clear what portion of 'delinquency' is violence, if at all. Here's a better version of that one. http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=psych_facpub Though as for causes for changes in testosterone levels, have read being married can lower it and being recently divorced can make it rise. Age is also a factor for testosterone levels. Age was the reason for blaming the baby boomers before.
The sociological factors are very interesting to consider. US homicide rates differ dramatically by age, with the highest rates among ages 20-30. Homicide drops dramatically at age 40, and at that same age suicide rates begin to take over, with adults 45-60 equally suicidal as the young are murderous. While homicide has dramatically decreased to less than half the rates in 1990, US suicide rates have seen similar dramatic increase over the past two decades. When considering age, one could contemplate the young adult generation after then end of the Vietnam war and the age they are now today, and conclude the baby boomers are a sociologically damaged generation.
It's easy to look at US homicide rates over time, and wonder what happened from 1970 to 1990, and easy to look at suicide rates for the last fifteen years and wonder what is happening now. It's doesn't seem so difficult to understand when one considers who are these people.
-
That particular study isn't a good example for a link to violence
Was thinking the conversation was over so didn't take the time to find good links. :laugh: Here's a couple of full text papers, one study and one peer review, related to the possible combination of testosterone and serotonin. The study is a primate study; the combined topic isn't easy to find for open access. Studies linking testosterone and violence generally focus on violent people, so while it seems clear violent people have high testosterone, what isn't clear is why some people with high testosterone are violent. In addition to what makes testosterone high, another question is what makes serotonin low.
https://www.ima.org.il/FilesUpload/IMAJ/0/54/27288.pdf
http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(95)00675-3/pdf
The point of socioeconomic status in the other link is also a point difficult for me to get away from. It's common for race to come up in violent crime discussions, but the bottom line of violent crime statistics is gender, and the next to the bottom line is poverty. There aren't many reliably sourced statistics for violent crime by race and income, but they do show that violence has no racial preference when it comes to being poor. There isn't much information available to discuss if poverty may affect serotonin, or if people with low serotonin simply more likely to fail to achieve.
-
That particular study isn't a good example for a link to violence
Was thinking the conversation was over so didn't take the time to find good links. :laugh: Here's a couple of full text papers, one study and one peer review, related to the possible combination of testosterone and serotonin. The study is a primate study; the combined topic isn't easy to find for open access. Studies linking testosterone and violence generally focus on violent people, so while it seems clear violent people have high testosterone, what isn't clear is why some people with high testosterone are violent. In addition to what makes testosterone high, another question is what makes serotonin low.
https://www.ima.org.il/FilesUpload/IMAJ/0/54/27288.pdf
http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(95)00675-3/pdf
The point of socioeconomic status in the other link is also a point difficult for me to get away from. It's common for race to come up in violent crime discussions, but the bottom line of violent crime statistics is gender, and the next to the bottom line is poverty. There aren't many reliably sourced statistics for violent crime by race and income, but they do show that violence has no racial preference when it comes to being poor. There isn't much information available to discuss if poverty may affect serotonin, or if people with low serotonin simply more likely to fail to achieve.
Yeah, I'm not exactly seeing evidence to advocate any kind of minority report/eugenics reaction to testosterone or serotonin levels. What I'm seeing is "there's something there; it's complex."
Poverty is a constant stressor to experience (IMO it's inherently traumatic, and I'm not alone in thinking that), and it creates a higher risk of a lot of other traumas, with fewer resources to recover. I don't think it's an either/or with mental illness and poverty- people who are mentally ill are more likely to *become* poor, but anything with a diathesis-stress component is more likely to express under stress, and poor people typically have access to fewer resources to get help.
-
Elle-I agree with a lot of those point. Although IMO not with the statement that people with mental illneses are not somehow more likely to end up in poverty as a result. IMO those who are either mentally ill or mentally handicapped ARE more likely to be poor as a result, due to less ability (possibly, and of course depennding on the individual and nature of their issues,) but also much more likely not to be able to find work in the first place, especially if the disability is one of those which makes an individual evidently 'different' than the herd. With physical disabilities employers will bend over backwards to accommodate the disabled person,and there are a lot of laws granting physically disabled people protection in that respect, ostensibly doing so also for those with mental issues, but in their cases it seems a lot more likely to 'just not work out' that way.
-
That particular study isn't a good example for a link to violence
Was thinking the conversation was over so didn't take the time to find good links. :laugh: Here's a couple of full text papers, one study and one peer review, related to the possible combination of testosterone and serotonin. The study is a primate study; the combined topic isn't easy to find for open access. Studies linking testosterone and violence generally focus on violent people, so while it seems clear violent people have high testosterone, what isn't clear is why some people with high testosterone are violent. In addition to what makes testosterone high, another question is what makes serotonin low.
https://www.ima.org.il/FilesUpload/IMAJ/0/54/27288.pdf
http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(95)00675-3/pdf
The point of socioeconomic status in the other link is also a point difficult for me to get away from. It's common for race to come up in violent crime discussions, but the bottom line of violent crime statistics is gender, and the next to the bottom line is poverty. There aren't many reliably sourced statistics for violent crime by race and income, but they do show that violence has no racial preference when it comes to being poor. There isn't much information available to discuss if poverty may affect serotonin, or if people with low serotonin simply more likely to fail to achieve.
Yeah, I'm not exactly seeing evidence to advocate any kind of minority report/eugenics reaction to testosterone or serotonin levels. What I'm seeing is "there's something there; it's complex."
Poverty is a constant stressor to experience (IMO it's inherently traumatic, and I'm not alone in thinking that), and it creates a higher risk of a lot of other traumas, with fewer resources to recover. I don't think it's an either/or with mental illness and poverty- people who are mentally ill are more likely to *become* poor, but anything with a diathesis-stress component is more likely to express under stress, and poor people typically have access to fewer resources to get help.
Yes, eugenics would be pushing it a bit, I just think society would benefit if they were drugged as standard course of action. It doesn't have to be anything unconventional related to this discussion. There's already drugs known to reduce violent aggression. That's not to say violent people shouldn't be jailed too. Though there doesn't seem much point to letting them back out without even some semblance of attempting to treat their symptom.
-
Also, it is a gross oversimplification of things just to look at levels of one or more neurotransmitters and assign values such as 'low' or 'high' (outside of quite obviously pathological such as neurotransmitter/hormone-secreting tumors like phaeochromocytomas [a type of adrenal gland tumor which secretes massive, potentially fatal levels of noradrenaline, causing very high blood pressure and heart rate, can lead to strokes for example, and additionally in this particular case can tie into violence, with people ending up having hair-trigger tempers, or believing themselves in danger due to the constant fight-or-flight response caused by a phaeochromocytoma]
Things such as overall neurological architecture, sensitivities of receptors in synapses, distribution and trafficking of neuron types, (this is often altered in many neurological diseases of genetic origin, where the neurons meant to migrate to a particular area fail to get the full way, or are altered in performance, are of altered morphology etc,) are a lot more important than simplistic interpretations such as 'has low/high XYZ'. And not only that, but the same neurotransmitter can and usually does do different things in different areas of the brain. For example dopamine, a catecholamine neurotransmitter; is responsible for both inhibitory control over movement in the area of the brain known as the substantia nigra, located, along with the striatum, in the nigro-striatal tract, here DA blocks spurious movement signalling and allows conscious, voluntary movement to be fluid and to proceed as it should (impairment hear is a prototypical feature of parkinson's disease) whereas DA signalling in the prefrontal cortex is strongly associated with attention and focus, whilst within the nucleus accumbens (you could, crudely, think of this area as a 'pleasure center', in a manner of speaking) is associated with rewarding and highly reinforcing effects. Many, perhaps even most, of the drugs of abuse having addictive properties such as cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, methylphenidate/ritalin, these cause large releases of DA within the nucleus accumbens.
So simple neurotransmitter levels don't tell the whole story, in fact they usually don't tell you very much at all, the WHEN, the WHY and critically, the WHERE are far more important.
-
Shit!
Fifteen pages on this already. Doubt there are any posts associated with helping the families of the fallen.
I will have to read some to know how to respond in my opinion.
I will say this on the outset. without reading it all: I am a gun owner. I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I do. None of that would have mattered in this case.
They want more strict gun laws, but from what I have read, this guy had bought legal weapons over a period of many years.
Now I will concede that a two hundred round drum magazine is not necessary.
I own a number of hunting weapons and I hunt for deer when I can but to be most honest, as a hunter tracking a live prey animal, I will probably only get ONE SHOT when it is time to shoot. It would be VERY rare to take a shot and miss and have the opportunity to take another shot. Most of my hunting rifles are five shot. I do have several that are single shot. As I said, hunting, you only rarely get one shot; forget needing a thirty round magazine.
Now all that sporting shit aside, I used to hunt for bounty on coyotes which were ravaging cattle ranches. I often had a twenty round magazine in my rifle, but again, I only rarely had a chance to shoot more than two or three rounds, even with a whole pack of predators in my sites.
-
That particular study isn't a good example for a link to violence
Was thinking the conversation was over so didn't take the time to find good links. :laugh: Here's a couple of full text papers, one study and one peer review, related to the possible combination of testosterone and serotonin. The study is a primate study; the combined topic isn't easy to find for open access. Studies linking testosterone and violence generally focus on violent people, so while it seems clear violent people have high testosterone, what isn't clear is why some people with high testosterone are violent. In addition to what makes testosterone high, another question is what makes serotonin low.
https://www.ima.org.il/FilesUpload/IMAJ/0/54/27288.pdf
http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(95)00675-3/pdf
The point of socioeconomic status in the other link is also a point difficult for me to get away from. It's common for race to come up in violent crime discussions, but the bottom line of violent crime statistics is gender, and the next to the bottom line is poverty. There aren't many reliably sourced statistics for violent crime by race and income, but they do show that violence has no racial preference when it comes to being poor. There isn't much information available to discuss if poverty may affect serotonin, or if people with low serotonin simply more likely to fail to achieve.
Yeah, I'm not exactly seeing evidence to advocate any kind of minority report/eugenics reaction to testosterone or serotonin levels. What I'm seeing is "there's something there; it's complex."
Poverty is a constant stressor to experience (IMO it's inherently traumatic, and I'm not alone in thinking that), and it creates a higher risk of a lot of other traumas, with fewer resources to recover. I don't think it's an either/or with mental illness and poverty- people who are mentally ill are more likely to *become* poor, but anything with a diathesis-stress component is more likely to express under stress, and poor people typically have access to fewer resources to get help.
Yes, eugenics would be pushing it a bit, I just think society would benefit if they were drugged as standard course of action. It doesn't have to be anything unconventional related to this discussion. There's already drugs known to reduce violent aggression. That's not to say violent people shouldn't be jailed too. Though there doesn't seem much point to letting them back out without even some semblance of attempting to treat their symptom.
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.
And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
-
Absolutely it would Elle. And medical care is both piss poor AND neglectful in the extreme. People are more likely to go without medical help than they are to get it by a long shot, even to the extent of having the essential medications they already took at the time of arrest, etc. knowingly and deliberately denied them.
-
Absolutely it would Elle. And medical care is both piss poor AND neglectful in the extreme. People are more likely to go without medical help than they are to get it by a long shot, even to the extent of having the essential medications they already took at the time of arrest, etc. knowingly and deliberately denied them.
Or given them improperly (ex. grinding up pills that aren't supposed to be ground up).
-
IMO that just falls under negligence. It isn't really of much point to try to define WHAT prison medical care is negligent with, WHAT they do wrong or just don't do, its more a case of what DON'T they fuck up.
Although one particular thing that strikes me as both fucked up and potentially dangerous depending on what people are on is a blanket 'no medication given in the first 24 hours' I'm surprised they haven't inflicted that on a diabetic or heart patient and that it as of yet (that I know of at least) has not come to bite them on the arse, in the form of a corpse.
Although due to medical negligence they nearly did. Leaving somebody having severe seizures that ought to have been in the ICU in a proper hospital untreated and for that matter not even WATCHED for so long that they nearly starve to death because they were unable to even realize food is thrown onto the floor let alone stand...if that isn't fucking close to attempted murder I don't know what is.
-
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.
And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.
-
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.
And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.
Give literally everyone in every large-enough group the same medication, and at least one of those people will have an adverse reaction to that medication.
-
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.
And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.
Give literally everyone in every large-enough group the same medication, and at least one of those people will have an adverse reaction to that medication.
The potential for adverse reaction is true for a lot of people conditions and medications. The adverse result of their violence seems clear enough. It wasn't a suggestion for a one stop answer for all dished out by a layman. It would be better to argue that criminal violence on its own doesn't qualify as a mental disorder and psychotropic drugs don't sit well with people who don't actually need them, than to suggest violent people shouldn't be routinely prescribed medications because someone might have an adverse reaction.
-
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.
And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.
Give literally everyone in every large-enough group the same medication, and at least one of those people will have an adverse reaction to that medication.
The potential for adverse reaction is true for a lot of people conditions and medications. The adverse result of their violence seems clear enough. It wasn't a suggestion for a one stop answer for all dished out by a layman. It would be better to argue that criminal violence on its own doesn't qualify as a mental disorder and psychotropic drugs don't sit well with people who don't actually need them, than to suggest violent people shouldn't be routinely prescribed medications because someone might have an adverse reaction.
...Jack, why don't you just sit and argue both sides by yourself, then?
-
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.
And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.
Give literally everyone in every large-enough group the same medication, and at least one of those people will have an adverse reaction to that medication.
The potential for adverse reaction is true for a lot of people conditions and medications. The adverse result of their violence seems clear enough. It wasn't a suggestion for a one stop answer for all dished out by a layman. It would be better to argue that criminal violence on its own doesn't qualify as a mental disorder and psychotropic drugs don't sit well with people who don't actually need them, than to suggest violent people shouldn't be routinely prescribed medications because someone might have an adverse reaction.
...Jack, why don't you just sit and argue both sides by yourself, then?
Hey PMSElle, why don't you answer the allegations you made about me, that you were called out on rather than trying for unwarranted condescending snark at Jack? Just a thought.
-
I like Jack's open-mindedness and willingness to see both sides. You need that sort of mind to figure out answers, and decent ones.
-
She has a tendency to *argue* both sides, though.
-
That's the point.
-
Which always makes me want to say "yes, but what do yo REALLY think?"
-
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.
And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.
Give literally everyone in every large-enough group the same medication, and at least one of those people will have an adverse reaction to that medication.
The potential for adverse reaction is true for a lot of people conditions and medications. The adverse result of their violence seems clear enough. It wasn't a suggestion for a one stop answer for all dished out by a layman. It would be better to argue that criminal violence on its own doesn't qualify as a mental disorder and psychotropic drugs don't sit well with people who don't actually need them, than to suggest violent people shouldn't be routinely prescribed medications because someone might have an adverse reaction.
...Jack, why don't you just sit and argue both sides by yourself, then?
Don't even really know how to respond to the suggestion people shouldn't be medicated because someone might have a bad reaction, nor Lestat suggesting neuroscience is too complicated for the medical establishment to move forward with what is known and what works. Maybe you're right and I just shouldn't have responded to it at all, like I didn't to him.
-
Which always makes me want to say "yes, but what do yo REALLY think?"
I really think there's a lot of things it simply doesn't matter what I think.
-
I like Jack's open-mindedness and willingness to see both sides. You need that sort of mind to figure out answers, and decent ones.
Critical thinking is a great skill
-
I don't think the thought of greater good is necessarily a justification for drugging the violence out of prisoners. I'm not even convinced that the forced drugging that already routinely happens is a good idea.
-
I don't think the thought of greater good is necessarily a justification for drugging the violence out of prisoners. I'm not even convinced that the forced drugging that already routinely happens is a good idea.
Not certain it's about the idea of the greater good. People have the right to be protected from violent criminals, and not just short term. Half of the people in state prisons are violent offenders, and the five year repeat offender rate for violent criminals is seventy percent with about half of those reoffending within the first year of release. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986 If they're really only bad people and not mentally disordered, then they shouldn't be let out. If violence is a mental problem then their addressing their need for treatment could be a stipulation to being a member of society.
A sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period.
Think this is interesting. One sixth from one year, responsible for half over five years. It brings me back to a previous silly idea about the decline in violent crime since the 90's. Violent crime is declining but the recidivism rates suggest it's largely the same people stuck in a revolving door. Society may not be breeding many more violent criminals and violent crime may be on the decline because a lot of them are just dyeing off. Baby boomers.
-
By people, do you mean the prison guards, during the incarceration? I don't see any viable way to enforce medication after the end of a sentence.
Maybe if I had more faith in medication as a long term and lasting solution to psychological issues, I could see it working, but the mind is more complex than that. Chemical imbalances are interwoven with conscious attitudes and patterns of experience and history. That's not the sort of thing you can make go away with a convenient little pill. Even mandated therapy, like anger management classes, is questionable. Do the people who are forced to attend actually have any lasting changes in behavior, or are they just being warm bodies in a room, learning to give the answers that people are looking for?
-
People means people, everyone. It does happen for criminals with mental illness to be mandated to maintain mental healthcare as a condition of parole or probation; though have only heard of it as condition of lifetime supervised release for certain sex offenders. It's true medication doesn't work for everyone but it does help a lot of people, and sometimes that means maintaining it long term. Locking them up for a few years so they can get out to injure or kill someone again isn't good enough. Placing violent people back into society with the idea their debt has been paid isn't good enough. They owe it to society to stop being violent, and society isn't meeting its own obligation to enforce that.
-
Which always makes me want to say "yes, but what do yo REALLY think?"
I really think there's a lot of things it simply doesn't matter what I think.
True for most of us. Doesn't stop us from arguing, though.
-
Which always makes me want to say "yes, but what do yo REALLY think?"
I really think there's a lot of things it simply doesn't matter what I think.
True for most of us. Doesn't stop us from arguing, though.
That's correct. Find it stimulating and healthy though. It's common in the learning of debate for people to simply be assigned a topic and a side. This challenges people to search for the validity of views which may be in opposition to their own. As a fundamentally black and white thinker and linear thinker, that personal challenge is probably often more important to fostering my own sense of tolerance than expressing my own personal bias, even though it probably makes my presence here come across as an argumentative cunt. That's more difficult to do in real life with people who don't really know me and therefore don't know what I really think, because there are situations where it is more important others don't get the impression I believe or support something I really don't.
-
I find assigned sides in arguments boring because it will usually--not always--kill the passion. I also tend to think that if you don't believe in an argument, why do it in the first place?
-
I find assigned sides in arguments boring because it will usually--not always--kill the passion. I also tend to think that if you don't believe in an argument, why do it in the first place?
Am the opposite and find spouting my own rigid opinions to be boring. It leaves no room for conversation other than agreement, which is boring too, and only fuels a self-serving sense of importance in what I think. It's rare in certain types of discussions for there to be a simple right and wrong, and it's hard to know how to deal with opposition if unwilling to have an appreciation for it. Plus sometimes some of the things I think are just interesting to think. Lacking in any real passion, and even recognizing some level of absurdity in it, doesn't make it any less interesting to think. Shouldn't necessarily have to believe in something to make it worth discussing.
-
^ Damn I wish I could plus you.
-
^ Damn I wish I could plus you.
Not sure how plus worthy that is. People are just different. Odeon mentioned something worth consideration, and that's passion, which is different than stubbornness. When considering personal passions, they're all people, things, information, or activities, so can't really claim to even have an understanding of what it means to be truly passionate about an opinion, belief, or philosophy. That in itself may be a great and important thing and I don't know how to relate to it. Really only know how to relate to being stubborn about ideas.
-
I find assigned sides in arguments boring because it will usually--not always--kill the passion. I also tend to think that if you don't believe in an argument, why do it in the first place?
Am the opposite and find spouting my own rigid opinions to be boring. It leaves no room for conversation other than agreement, which is boring too, and only fuels a self-serving sense of importance in what I think. It's rare in certain types of discussions for there to be a simple right and wrong, and it's hard to know how to deal with opposition if unwilling to have an appreciation for it. Plus sometimes some of the things I think are just interesting to think. Lacking in any real passion, and even recognizing some level of absurdity in it, doesn't make it any less interesting to think. Shouldn't necessarily have to believe in something to make it worth discussing.
I certainly agree that you can--and frequently should--discuss things without believing in them, but that's not the same as having a side assigned to you. I'd assume that in the former, something makes it interesting enough to be discussed whereas in the latter, it's simply an exercise.
But we're different and that, in itself, is a good thing.
-
Getting away from any of the debates on guns and meds and back to it as a whole. This has to be one of the strangest incidents like this in a long time with the changing timelines, odd police response and lack of motive even after weeks of looking. The whole thing is playing out like some sort of movie plot :zombiefuck: In Vegas there are cameras everywhere and I mean everywhere they should be able to track is every move from the moment he came in on the highway till he entered his room
-
Yeah, it's weird. One would think they'd be able to track him.
-
By people, do you mean the prison guards, during the incarceration? I don't see any viable way to enforce medication after the end of a sentence.
Maybe if I had more faith in medication as a long term and lasting solution to psychological issues, I could see it working, but the mind is more complex than that. Chemical imbalances are interwoven with conscious attitudes and patterns of experience and history. That's not the sort of thing you can make go away with a convenient little pill. Even mandated therapy, like anger management classes, is questionable. Do the people who are forced to attend actually have any lasting changes in behavior, or are they just being warm bodies in a room, learning to give the answers that people are looking for?
A subset of the probation clients my company treats do seem to eventually get something out of it; another subset are clearly just playing the game. (Same with our DCF clients.)
We're really blessed to have a couple of clinicians who're especially good at empathically and nonjudgementally connecting with that population, and I think that helps.
-
Getting away from any of the debates on guns and meds and back to it as a whole. This has to be one of the strangest incidents like this in a long time with the changing timelines, odd police response and lack of motive even after weeks of looking. The whole thing is playing out like some sort of movie plot :zombiefuck: In Vegas there are cameras everywhere and I mean everywhere they should be able to track is every move from the moment he came in on the highway till he entered his room
I don't understand why everyone thinks there is no motive. His father was a notorious criminal, FFS. What happened to classic human motivations like wanting to outdo Daddy or wanting to live up to Daddy? Or a simple genetic inheritance of antisocial traits?
-
In Vegas there are cameras everywhere and I mean everywhere they should be able to track is every move from the moment he came in on the highway till he entered his room
Is it that they can't track him, or they don't want to release the information they have about where/how he was tracked?
-
Jack-to answer the question as to why generically giving any one group of medication-requiring prisoners the same medication or type of med from a class of similarly acting meds (E.g antipsychotics, antidepressants of various types etc.) without regard to the prisoner's individual response then yes, it could. Antipsychotics in particular are very unpleasant drugs, and are pretty toxic, in the short term capable of causing very unpleasant side effects, severe akathisia, dystonic reactions and other extrapyramidal reactions, and are mentally dulling, and stulting, plenty of people taking them would rather be dead than stuck on the neuroleptics.
Chronically they can cause tardive reactions, such as tardive dyskinesia or dystonias, which are PERMANENT, and from everything I've ever read, agonizing, and a fate worse than death. Also, in the acute timeframe, some people, who are extremely sensitive to D2 dopamine receptor antagonists (the primary mechanism of action for most antipsychotics) can develop a condition called malignant hyperthermia, which can resut in rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of muscle tissue, the byproducts of the destroyed muscle tissue then flood the kidneys and cause kidney failure, in addition to potential for brain damage due to the severe hyperthermia. Untreated (and it requires hospital treatment, and rapidly. If it occurs, the prisoner would be incapacitated and unable themseves to request assistance. And if they did they probably would just be dismissed as malingering and fucked off. Or assumed to be trying to get to a hospital, and escape under lesser security.)
Untreated, malignant hyperthermia has a death rate of about 75 percent. Treated in hospital the fatality rate is reduced to just 5% or so. It requires, usually a drug called dantrolene, hospitals have to carry it, but it is not a drug which would be stocked in a prison, its a specialist treatment for malignant hyperthermia and used in serotonin syndrome to prevent rhabdomyolysis, being a directly acting skeletal muscle relaxant, acting directy on muscle tissue via ryanodine receptors, even if prisons did have access to dantrolene they wouldn't know how to use it. And its injection only.
And just the side effects in general would make a lot of people suffer, and those who are misdiagnosed by halfarsed prison doctors that are more concerned with avoiding any prisoner getting anything potentially recreational than they are with actually treating disease (this is true, I've seen it, I've been a victim of it. They'd rather leave me having repeated grand-mal seizures for months and nearly starve to death as a result, in a near delirious state, than allow me a benzodiazepine, or chlormethiazole as I was already prescribed before being nicked, and at the same time, aggravating the problem and leaving me in a living breathing hell by forcing me cold-turkey from my GP-prescribed oxycontin (80mg OCs several times daily) and fobbing me off with a completely, utterly useless 8/500 codeine/paracetamol. Which needless to say to a longterm chronic pain patient is absolutely without action. They even had the cheek to tell me they were being generous in giving me TWO of those per day!. They almost did kill me. I'm pretty surprised they didn't.
And they tried putting me on mirtazepine, another time, because I've always had trouble sleeping, after I rejected an antipsychotic for use as a sedative (I was lucky in that I already knew I cannot take them, because I'm hypersensitive to D2 antagonists, I can't even take domperidone, the antiemetic, which is a weak D2 antagonist that isn't meant to cross the blood-brain barrier. And I've had the misfortune, after being hospitalized due to a real nasty ass bout of food poisoning to be treated with trifluoroperazine, to which I reacted very badly indeed. I was cautious, as I'd never taken it before, with the mirtazepine, and took just a small portion of the lowest dose tablets available, took just 2.5mg to start with. Its primarily a sedating antihistamine, and tetracyclic antidepressant, in fact it is, if I am not mistaken the antihistamine with the lowest Ki in medical use (lower Ki values mean higher potency), but its also an alpha2 adrenergic autoreceptor antagonist, like for example, yohimbine, and causes release of noradrenaline. I also cannot tolerate most adrenergic drugs, at least unless adrenergic release is a side-trait when accompanied by dopamine release, and even then in small quantities (low dose amphetamines for example, or with stimulants that can be dosed at high levels and tolerated, they MUST, for me, be highly selective DA-releasers or DA-reuptake inhibitors, with the Ki for DAT vastly lower than that for NET (noradrenaline transporter) or NA release. For example, the selective NA releasers ephedrine or pseudoephedrine are poison to me and make me feel like hell. Yet with the additional dopaminergic activity of amphetamine or methamphetamine/ethamphetamine, even racemic amphetamines (the laevo-isomers having primarily just noradrenergic activity) I can tolerate low doses. With pure dextro-isomers I can tolerate more, and with those psychostimulants which act as extremely selective dopamine reuptake inhibitors or releasers I'm fine (plenty have some serotonergic activity too, which doesn't really act badly with me, although SSRIs don't agree with me)
But the mirtazepine, causing the unmitigated noradrenaline release, that reacted so badly that I felt so horrible that I would have thrown myself out of a window, if only it would make it stop. It was that bad. Words cannot even describe the absolute utter misery that even that tiny test dose caused me. The remainder went straight down the toilet.
So yes, casually fucking about like prison doctors do, they are idiots and they have zero compassion, could easily end up killing a prisoner. It nearly killed ME. By the time I'd stopped seizing as a direct result of them terminating my antiseizure medication cold turkey (which even a student trainee would know never, ever to do, because it can easily be lethal, and will almost certainly cause grand-mal convulsions), by the time it stopped of its own accord (the physical withdrawal) it'd been so long, I had almost fucking starved to death, and was very severely dehydrated. Ever seen the pictures of starved auschwitz victims or other nazi death camp liberated victims? thats what I fucking looked like. I'd gone from my usual nine stone nine to barely able to stand, and barely able physically to eat when I again could see that there was food thrown at me.
I won't go into the worst of it. And what I've just described wasn't. I can't. I just can't. And it took a long time after I got out (after being wrongfully remanded for something I was not responsible for, and ending up, after 8 months or so, just tagged for a short time with an ankle-tag and curfew) and a lot of entactogen/psychedelic catalyzed solitary meditation, in a favourite little quiet woodland grove, that I've always found a peaceful place, and amongst the forests, a favourite spot. Its only small, a few tens of meters, but soft broken down leaflitter, surrounded by large stands of scented basam, with a couple of large beech trees, I've liked this particular spot since I was a kid, so it was there I chose to spend much of my meditation time, using AMT and a low-dose dissociative to help maintain a sort of emotional detachment from the worst of it, so I could stand by and be there at the same time, if that makes sense. (AMT, short for alpha-methytryptamine is both an empathogen/entactogen like MDMA, and a bona-fide 5HT2a agonist psychedelic (its also a rather weak MAOI and a moderatey powerful psychostimulant, although the MAOI effects are weak enough that AMT can be safely taken without serotonin syndrome)
And with its help, I eventually managed, with some intensive self-psychoanalysis, meditation and time spent integrating things, to come to terms with the worst of it, and deal with the resultant PTSD. I don't think I'd have been at all comfortable talking to a therapist about it, any of it, and didn't even try seeking one out. But I dealt with it myself, not without difficulty and much effort put into it. But I did succeed in dealing with it, and for the vast part, curing mysef of the PTSD.
I still can't talk about most of what happened, but I no longer suffer the terrifying nightmares, the waking up screaming and sweating bullets, the shaking like crazy, hand tremors. Used to be in a state of hypervigilance, extreme, constant fight-flight state of stress response. Now I've managed to rid mysef of most of it. I still take an adrenergic blocking agent (two, actually, although one of them is taken as a muscle relaxant due to some nerve damage in my leg after a botched knee surgery) but incidentally works the same way exactly, as the clonidine I take to block the excessive overloading that is still a residue of the trauma (its an alpha2 adrenoreceptor agonist, works in exactly the opposite way to the side-effect of that awful shit mirtazepine that made me just want to fucking well go die in a fire. And it both helps me not overload, but in blocking noradrenaline release helps deal with overstimulation too. The other one is tizanidine, the muscle relaxer, although they both work in a very similar way. There are some side-effects, especially with using the two in combination, mainly a powerful drop in blood pressure, and orthostatic hypotension as a result, which means that when changing from a recumbent position to standing, my heart doesn't compensate with an increase in BP fast enough, and as a result, I have to stand bent double, as if bowing, and then slowly rise to allow for the slower compensatory rise in BP, otherwise it can drop so low on standing too quickly that my legs start twitching and give out, and I pass out, or else stay conscious but just can't maintain any muscle tone and hit the deck, although quickly recover as soon as I do, when I flatten out, and my BP returns to the (albeit lowered) resting rate.
-
Getting away from any of the debates on guns and meds and back to it as a whole. This has to be one of the strangest incidents like this in a long time with the changing timelines, odd police response and lack of motive even after weeks of looking. The whole thing is playing out like some sort of movie plot :zombiefuck: In Vegas there are cameras everywhere and I mean everywhere they should be able to track is every move from the moment he came in on the highway till he entered his room
I don't understand why everyone thinks there is no motive. His father was a notorious criminal, FFS. What happened to classic human motivations like wanting to outdo Daddy or wanting to live up to Daddy? Or a simple genetic inheritance of antisocial traits?
Lack of obvious motive. These things typically involve some sort of research trail, documented planning, or manifesto left behind.
Is it that they can't track him, or they don't want to release the information they have about where/how he was tracked?
It's related to the sequence of events. A security guard at the hotel was shot and the official statement changed as to when that occurred.
-
without regard to the prisoner's individual response
Not sure why it's been interpreted as a suggestion to disregard an individual's response to medication. The complexity of the individual could just as easily be used as an argument that no one in prison should receive psychotropic medications for any reason at all. The suggestion being presented is that violent criminals are dangerously mentally unstable by the mere symptom of their violence, and for them to be treated as such. Suggesting mandated mental healthcare as a standard rule of thumb is more compassionate than suggesting permanent removal from society, but either of those solutions is being suggested as better than the current one.
-
I find assigned sides in arguments boring because it will usually--not always--kill the passion. I also tend to think that if you don't believe in an argument, why do it in the first place?
To quote Bertram Russell: He who only knows his own side of an argument, knows very little of that.
Well, well, well, haven't you proven that in spades. :hahaha:
-
I find assigned sides in arguments boring because it will usually--not always--kill the passion. I also tend to think that if you don't believe in an argument, why do it in the first place?
To quote Bertram Russell: He who only knows his own side of an argument, knows very little of that.
Well, well, well, haven't you proven that in spades. :hahaha:
If you were a superhero, your special power would be superhuman misunderstanding of anything.
-
Jack-good points, however you misinterpreted my meaning. In that I was not suggesting that prisoners SHOULD be treated that way. It was more an observation that it can, and very bloody well likely WILL be done without the slightest bit of care. Even medical emergencies, if they are not so visually dramatic and obvious, as for example a hanging, stabbing, somebody getting boiing sugar-water thrown in their eyes (prisoners add loads of sugar if they attack like that because it sticks to the victim and inflicts greater severity of the burns. Nasty, crude but it happens) or some poor cunt jumps off an upper bunk with a broom handle up their arse trying to off themselves due to the grim conditions, if self-reported and medical care begged for by a prisoner, typically they'll wait at least a week, maybe two, unless they collapse in front of a screw first.
When conditions are that primitive, inhumane and barbaric, and the doctors if they can be called such that attend prisons are primarily interested only in making sure that they do not, with for some political rights based reason, allowing opioid detox on subutex or methadone (subs-buprenorphine, and high-denomination currency inside for non-addict prisoners so they can temporarily alleviate some of the ambient barbarousness of the environment and the viler of its inhabitants, of which there are many), give out anything potentially pleasurable or recreational for any reason, other than detox or maintainence of H addicts, inside you'd probably barey get an aspirin if you snapped your arm severely enough for the broken bone to rip through muscle, tear through and point out of the skin (compound fracture). Somebody gets their head stamped on, or battered senseless with a pool cue then they won't even get to see a doctor unless they are dragged there unconscious. Their rule of thumb basically goes 'if they are physically able to ask for medical assistance then they neither need it nor deserve it'
That is how it is. Seen it, nearly killed because of it.
-
Getting away from any of the debates on guns and meds and back to it as a whole. This has to be one of the strangest incidents like this in a long time with the changing timelines, odd police response and lack of motive even after weeks of looking. The whole thing is playing out like some sort of movie plot :zombiefuck: In Vegas there are cameras everywhere and I mean everywhere they should be able to track is every move from the moment he came in on the highway till he entered his room
I don't understand why everyone thinks there is no motive. His father was a notorious criminal, FFS. What happened to classic human motivations like wanting to outdo Daddy or wanting to live up to Daddy? Or a simple genetic inheritance of antisocial traits?
Lack of obvious motive. These things typically involve some sort of research trail, documented planning, or manifesto left behind.
A research trail or documented planning isn't a motive, it's a strategy...
-
Well spoken 'raxy. Although its surey not improbable that the writing style/content may sometimes overty give such information if anayzed and covertly by more technically sophisticated psychological profiling.
-
A research trail or documented planning isn't a motive, it's a strategy...
That's a good point. Does seem strange though; it seems there's no indication of what he was thinking or why.
-
Could just of been a complete and utter mental case fuckmuppet with a wasp up his ass-hole about the latest thing to piss him off.
Those kinds of idiosyncratically obnoxiously incapable, subnormal shit for brains warmongers do happen. One of them is running the united states of america currentlly as president. Or at least is trying to look like he's going through the motions (instead of talking and being a steaming great heap of 'motions' in the other sense of the word , instead of being a psychotic prick that gets himself locked up in a jail cell he's a rich psychotic prick who gets other people locked up in jail cells, at least first. Not that it'd be surprising if he ends up in one at some point. It is to be hoped so. Or shot. Either way works for me. So long as he isn't turning the whitehouse into the shitehouse-cum-whorehouse :wanker:
-
I've heard plenty of people say Mike Pence is his life insurance. He doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun his friend.
-
He was friends with Mike Pence?
-
I have no idea. I assumed they had some degree of goodwill towards each other if only as coworkers.
-
I've heard plenty of people say Mike Pence is his life insurance. He doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun his friend.
I used to think so, but it's not even a year in yet and I already feel like Pence would be profoundly better. Seems like Trump's pandering to that audience anyway, and I don't think Pence would be as likely to send nukes off because someone pissed him off on twitter. (At least Pence is lawful evil; Trump's chaotic evil, which is scarier in a world leader.)
-
Trump is mentally unstable while Pence is the devil we know.
-
Trump is mentally unstable while Pence is the devil we know.
Yeah. My hopes that Trump would at least be more centrist are already out the window, so if we're getting all this evil backwards shit, at least let it be from someone who can connect behavior to consequence.
-
Thinking lately that if there had to be one from that lot to lead your country, it should probably be Kelly. He lies but he also knows enough to be properly ashamed. The mental facepalms that man has had to live through... I'd drink myself to oblivion in his shoes.
-
I've heard plenty of people say Mike Pence is his life insurance. He doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun his friend.
I used to think so, but it's not even a year in yet and I already feel like Pence would be profoundly better. Seems like Trump's pandering to that audience anyway, and I don't think Pence would be as likely to send nukes off because someone pissed him off on twitter. (At least Pence is lawful evil; Trump's chaotic evil, which is scarier in a world leader.)
And speaking as a Dungeon Master, a Lawful Evil player character is a hell of a lot easier to manage than a Chaotic Evil one.
Mike Pence as President would be a disaster, but Trump as President keeps looking more and more like it could be an actual apocalypse. The worst thing I expect Pence to do is to open up camps for the gay community, and even that's a bit far fetched.
At worst (realistically) he'd just overturn gay marriage and invest money into those fucked up "cure" camps. Mighty fucked up, but a lot less fucked up than causing World War III. Trump treats nukes like toys he can just throw out of his oversized pram. He's very far removed from reality.
I mean, Pence is far removed from reality as well but on a less dangerous scale. He's a bible-bashing sociopath kind of far removed from reality while Trump might as well have come from another planet where he already ruled it as a figurehead but other people did all the work behind the scenes without him knowing. Kind of like a boy king of sorts.
Trump is Joffrey, Mike Pence is the High Sparrow. He's a religious fuckwit, but he's not going to start any wars over his tiny penis and he somehow manages to treat women better than Trump.
If Trump isn't impeached I just hope WWIII doesn't start before Avengers 3 comes out. I have waited for the better part of my brief existence to see that movie (Iron Man came out in 2008 and Avengers 3 is next year). It might turn out to be shit, sure but that's a hell of a lot less disappointing than being reduced to a pile of ash before getting to see it.
-
No one here is ridiculous enough to even remotely suggest an apocalyptic nuclear war are we? Fantastic. Because we know that "He has the codes" is NOT in any way giving any reference to the fact that EVEN were a madman in office that it is NOT at the President's discretion to simply fire nukes at will. There are checks and balances and it would require every layer to be completely aligned in this decision.
So if we can logically and rationally agree with this then we can say that there is NO imminent threat there regardless of whether he truly hold views that make nuclear war viable options.
So what HAS he done in respect to war? He has left it to the people who actually know war and what to do to defeat ISIS. That seems okay. In fact given the defeat of ISIS in Raqqa, I would say he is not doing terribly. Of course whilst many are leaving ISIS many ISIS members are regrouping in Africa and such and he is taking it to them there too. One defeat at a time it ACTUALLY looks like he is winning that war.
As to his tough talk with North Korea, North Korea has been used to being able to act a little crazy, "test a few rockets" and have the world scared and kowtow and seek diplomatic terms to make him stop. Trump went a slightly different approach. He called his bluff and said, "Who you trying to get crazy with Ese, don't you know I'm Loco?". Everyone has been desperately trying to make Kim Jong Un and his Father before not lose face. He does the opposite. Suddenly the tests have stopped. The world has backed resolutions around North Korea headed by Trump. Now, did that frighten the shit out of billions of people? Yup? Does that mean that Trump personally thought that nuclear attacks were the best measure against Kim Jong Un? No idea? Was he trying to make it appear to everyone including his enemies that he was not bluffing? No idea. The fact is that no one except him knows despite any "fact-based" assertions and claims to know more than what they can. It DOES look to have worked.
But people saying that Pence would be better than Trump is basically amounting to, "Trump's personality is odious and he does not politick like other established politicians in the political establishment. We want either a Democrat with Liberal views OR a snout in the trough establishment democrat like Ryan, Rubio or McCain that understand the way the establishment run and upholds the globalist fundamentals".
Trump was voted in precisely because he was NOT pro-immigration, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-Obamacare, pro-common core, and pro-Globalist. Now you may find any or all of those things objectionable. You may also find his personality and way he speaks bad, BUT I have not cared one way or another about this and I do not think anyone should.
If you want people you feel nice and safe and happy, make friends, find a partner, get a dog. If you want a someone to run a country these skillsets are not needed. I am far more interested in two things only. Is he doing what he said he would do and how is that working out?
If you can get past the things like the breathless and hysterical headlines, the US is doing better economically, a LOT better. He seems, despite the attacks against him over this Russian collusion thing, to be turning the table nicely as the collusion SEEMS to have come from the Democrat and NOT the Trump Administration direction. Those that seek to bring him down from Jeb Bush to Kathy Griffin to Hillary Clinton seem to get squashed.
Trump will not be impeached. My personal prediction is that if Trump continues to keep doing and pushing what he is and with the same tenacity that history books will show him as a very successful President but one that was a firebrand and a little divisive and odd. As the years pass, history books writing back on Trump will be kinder and kinder in degrees as his achievements and successes will get the focus and the hysterics and his personality will become less and less factually and objectively important.
-
It's not about his personality (although I'll agree that it's odious), it's about his thin skin and his dangerous unpredictability along with his fixation with never ever admitting he was wrong. Some speculate there is a mental disorder and I wouldn't disagree, although there is no way to confirm it, and if that is even a remote risk (and I'd say it is, along with quite a few people who are better placed than I am to make that suggestion) then it is the duty of the other two pillars the US constitution rests on to investigate and possibly remove him from office.
Those of us without that particular burden can safely and reasonably accurately observe that we are talking about a 70-yo man-child with impulse control issues, someone who would have been deemed unsafe if he had applied for a job with any kind of direct responsibility over other human beings--think pilot--but was voted into office by people who've never had to make that kind of decision.
As for NK nuclear testing, how dd you come to the conclusion they have stopped?
-
It's not about his personality (although I'll agree that it's odious), it's about his thin skin and his dangerous unpredictability along with his fixation with never ever admitting he was wrong. Some speculate there is a mental disorder and I wouldn't disagree, although there is no way to confirm it, and if that is even a remote risk (and I'd say it is, along with quite a few people who are better placed than I am to make that suggestion) then it is the duty of the other two pillars the US constitution rests on to investigate and possibly remove him from office.
Those of us without that particular burden can safely and reasonably accurately observe that we are talking about a 70-yo man-child with impulse control issues, someone who would have been deemed unsafe if he had applied for a job with any kind of direct responsibility over other human beings--think pilot--but was voted into office by people who've never had to make that kind of decision.
As for NK nuclear testing, how dd you come to the conclusion they have stopped?
Trump was voted in by a pretty substantial portion of America. It was not a City Council voting him in. It ought not be a show of hands in Senate to vote him out. Six two million Americans said yes to his agenda and a what? One 310000th of that number wish to vote him out? I think you know as well as I that if the election was redone, that he would still beat Hillary and likely get the popular vote as well. It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.
As for having a thin skin, I do not think so. I am not at all saying that he does not choose his battles and that he reacts strongly on everything, I think he does, I just do not think that necessarily means he has a thin-skin.
One thing I learned in life (as it pertains to me) is that if you let people shit on you, they will. If you push back hard against everything, then people will accuse you of being thin-skinned but it is better than the alternative (which is to give the appearance that whatever thrown at you was justified or deserved - no dignity in that). I also find it very poor form where people can say whatever they like to him, and that is all fine but it is unPresidential for him to throw it back in their faces. That seems a little unfair.
I speculate that he has no mental disorder. I do think he is flawed and eccentric but not mentally disordered. I think he is arrogant and egotistic but not a narcissist. I think he is driven and high energy but not manic. I think he can be cold and brutal when he feels he need to be but I do not think that Sociopathic. I think anyone inferring that their presumption of any of these types of things, or if him making decisions or in fulfilling an agenda that is not aligned with their politics, is NOT any kind of a basis or impeachment or declaring him unfit for office.
North Korea has three things going on. They have: a country whereby the peasants are about at breaking point and will revolt in the next ten years no matter what Kim Jong Un does or does do; an entitled authoritarian used to getting his own way and people kowtowing to him; and he will continue his nuclear program and continue to refine and test nuclear capabilities. What I think is very clear though, is that in the past he occasionally goes a little crazy and launches a few rockets or otherwise causes trouble and concern in order to intimidate the world and show his power and authority. To get other nations cowed by him and willing to placate him. It feeds his ego and lifts his status. Calling him "Rocket man" does not. Nor does effectively saying that should they really push things, they will be unceremoniously wiped off the face of the globe. He has not had that level of disrespect and disregard before.
Trump is pretty predictable he just is not behaving in a way that most would like him to. That does not mean he is unpredictable. Lash out at him and he will lash back. Completely predictable. You may say that such things are UnPresidential or unexpected or wild or whatever else but it really isn't. It is completely expected. Him backing friends and pushing his agenda and doing things consistent with his values are not revelations or out of left field either. The media playing any of this to be so is simply saying they do not approve of it and want to pressure others to make him stop or the masses to rail against what they do not like. But it is not unpredictable.
-
It ought not be a show of hands in Senate to vote him out.
Why ought it not be? If it were left to public vote then impeachment would turn into a popularity contest like elections. Presidential impeachment hinges on acts of crime. Congress are elected representatives of the people and it's their job to hold impeachment trial in situations of criminal acts of the president.
-
It ought not be a show of hands in Senate to vote him out.
Why ought it not be? If it were left to public vote then impeachment would turn into a popularity contest like elections. Presidential impeachment hinges on acts of crime. Congress are elected representatives of the people and it's their job to hold impeachment trial in situations of criminal acts of the president.
My understanding is that this is not entirely true. My understanding is that all they have to do is make the accusation and vote him out. Enough show of hands on both sides of the aisle and he is gone ...all for the greater good. A charge and a conviction sure make things easier, gives them good reasoning and they can face their constituents better. But I do not think it is necessarily required
-
It ought not be a show of hands in Senate to vote him out.
Why ought it not be? If it were left to public vote then impeachment would turn into a popularity contest like elections. Presidential impeachment hinges on acts of crime. Congress are elected representatives of the people and it's their job to hold impeachment trial in situations of criminal acts of the president.
My understanding is that this is not entirely true. My understanding is that all they have to do is make the accusation and vote him out. Enough show of hands on both sides of the aisle and he is gone ...all for the greater good. A charge and a conviction sure make things easier, gives them good reasoning and they can face their constituents better. But I do not think it is necessarily required
No these processes are detailed trials with evidence and witnesses and federal judiciary committees and defense attorneys. It's certainly not a simple matter of anyone voting based on a mere accusation. A president must be both impeached and convicted to be removed from office. Impeachment is really more like the process of being indicted for a federal crime; it's the trial before the trial where a jury determines the validity of a formal charge of a crime. It's the house's responsibility to hold a hearing and vote to formally charge the president with a crime, and if it passes the house then that's an impeachment. The senate's responsibility is then to hold trial based on the evidence of impeachment presented by the house with a two thirds senate majority required for a conviction. A president convicted by congress can then be removed from office and be charged in federal criminal court. It's not an easy thing to do, which is why there have been a couple of instances of presidents being impeached in the house but not removed from office because they were never convicted in the senate. It's probably not even as simple as all that, but these are times the forum could benefit from a Semicolon.
-
It ought not be a show of hands in Senate to vote him out.
Why ought it not be? If it were left to public vote then impeachment would turn into a popularity contest like elections. Presidential impeachment hinges on acts of crime. Congress are elected representatives of the people and it's their job to hold impeachment trial in situations of criminal acts of the president.
My understanding is that this is not entirely true. My understanding is that all they have to do is make the accusation and vote him out. Enough show of hands on both sides of the aisle and he is gone ...all for the greater good. A charge and a conviction sure make things easier, gives them good reasoning and they can face their constituents better. But I do not think it is necessarily required
No these processes are detailed trials with evidence and witnesses and federal judiciary committees and defense attorneys. It's certainly not a simple matter of anyone voting based on a mere accusation. A president must be both impeached and convicted to be removed from office. Impeachment is really more like the process of being indicted for a federal crime; it's the trial before the trial where a jury determines the validity of a formal charge of a crime. It's the house's responsibility to hold a hearing and vote to formally charge the president with a crime, and if it passes the house then that's an impeachment. The senate's responsibility is then to hold trial based on the evidence of impeachment presented by the house with a two thirds senate majority required for a conviction. A president convicted by congress can then be removed from office and be charged in federal criminal court. It's not an easy thing to do, which is why there have been a couple of instances of presidents being impeached in the house but not removed from office because they were never convicted in the senate. It's probably not even as simple as all that, but these are times the forum could benefit from a Semicolon.
No, I get the two-thirds majority thing. But Trump is HATED by the Democrats and HAted by the Establishment Republicans. The impeachment sought against him is based around Russian collusion and around the Obstruction of Justice.
I have said all along there was no Russia government collusion to win the Presidency in the Trump Administration, but many in Congress and Media were banging that drum. In fact, some here were.
The obstruction of justice argument seems based on Trump asking if Comey could let Flynn go because he is a nice guy. Comey not doing so and starting proceedings against him anyhow and Trump not stopping the proceedings.
In both cases, there seems there is nothing there as the proceedings are coming to completion. It looks like Podesta is in trouble and maybe the DNC.
However, prior to any of this, people like Maxine Waters and Al Green have demanded Trump's impeachment. Trump IS seen as a threat. He is thoroughly disliked. They will try getting a show of hands to vote him out whether it is through impeachment or through a pretence of him not being fit for office, again without psychological evidence to back this. It is essentially approximately 130 people trying to invalidate the votes of 62 million Americans, because they do not like him.
It would be a travesty BUT it would be pretty cool in one sense. Imagine any time that the Democrats get Presidency to an overwhelming Republican majority in the Senate and House. Having set the precedent, The Republicans would do a "Remember Trump" and vote out the Democrat President" whenever they pissed them off. It would be hilarious.
-
Impeachment is only a formal charge. There's a difference between being charged and convicted, and if there's sufficient evidence the president has committed a crime then he should rightfully face those charges. Only being impeached wont remove him from office. The accusation of being unfit is a different matter. To even get the ball rolling, it would take the vice president and the majority of the president's own personally appointed cabinet, or the vice president and the majority of congress, to formally declare the president is unable to fulfill his duties of office, and again a subsequent two thirds majority in both the house and senate. Then the president can simply formally declare he isn't unfit, there's room for appeal if he's voted as unfit, both of which puts him back in charge, and an appeal starts the congressional voting all over again. See this as less likely to happen than impeachment.
-
I think you know as well as I that if the election was redone, that he would still beat Hillary and likely get the popular vote as well. It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.
I think it very likely that he would lose, given his approval ratings, so no; I don't know "as well as you do". Also, a "handful of people"? Really?
I think there are quite a few people who want to remove this president because they consider him to be harmful to the country. I wouldn't disagree.
-
And speaking of the Russian probe, charges have now been filed in the investigation. Is this what you knew all along too?
-
And speaking of the Russian probe, charges have now been filed in the investigation. Is this what you knew all along too?
Yes, Mueller did not take on his role to come away empty handed.
-
I think you know as well as I that if the election was redone, that he would still beat Hillary and likely get the popular vote as well. It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.
I think it very likely that he would lose, given his approval ratings, so no; I don't know "as well as you do". Also, a "handful of people"? Really?
I think there are quite a few people who want to remove this president because they consider him to be harmful to the country. I wouldn't disagree.
Yes the pollsters are the same pollsters that were being relied upon to inform us of Hillary vs Trump's chances to win the Presidency and using the same skewed techniques and for the same reasons. You are not giving them credibility they do not deserve, are you?
-
A number of US polling organizations quite reputable and credible, and their techniques are not considered as skewed. Poll results did well reflect the popular vote, but it's difficult to determine how the popular vote will translate to electoral votes. Comparing two states with the same number of electoral votes, it doesn't matter if a candidate wins one state by 60%, while another candidate wins the other state by 90% and thus having more popular votes; they still each get the same number of votes. The electoral college process in no way reflects negatively on the accuracy or methodology of a polling organization's results.
-
I think you know as well as I that if the election was redone, that he would still beat Hillary and likely get the popular vote as well. It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.
I think it very likely that he would lose, given his approval ratings, so no; I don't know "as well as you do". Also, a "handful of people"? Really?
I think there are quite a few people who want to remove this president because they consider him to be harmful to the country. I wouldn't disagree.
Yes the pollsters are the same pollsters that were being relied upon to inform us of Hillary vs Trump's chances to win the Presidency and using the same skewed techniques and for the same reasons. You are not giving them credibility they do not deserve, are you?
No need. Jack already did.
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
-
I think you know as well as I that if the election was redone, that he would still beat Hillary and likely get the popular vote as well. It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.
I think it very likely that he would lose, given his approval ratings, so no; I don't know "as well as you do". Also, a "handful of people"? Really?
I think there are quite a few people who want to remove this president because they consider him to be harmful to the country. I wouldn't disagree.
Yes the pollsters are the same pollsters that were being relied upon to inform us of Hillary vs Trump's chances to win the Presidency and using the same skewed techniques and for the same reasons. You are not giving them credibility they do not deserve, are you?
No need. Jack already did.
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
What WOULD be stupid is for someone like....perhaps yourself...misunderstand that the "handful of people" is the Congress NOT the voting public nor any part of it. Being that 60 million people + voted for him and a significant portion of the 100 people are trying to re-decide the election results to suit them, my point is VERY valid. I think Jack got it. You obviously did not. Why is that? Is it because YOU are stupid, Odeon?
Are YOU going to stick with pursuing the "handful of people" point and look for a gotcha moment in this discussion? No? That moment passed? Good.
-
I didn't say "a handful people". You did. Own it.
It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.
Highlighting that for your benefit. Did you know that Trump lost the popular vote by a wide margin? Do you think they all want to keep him now?
Now, I said sticking to this false claim would be stupid. You replied by calling me stupid, which at once makes this personal again. do you try to pick a fight or is it simply that this, too, is a bit subtle for you?
-
A number of US polling organizations quite reputable and credible, and their techniques are not considered as skewed. Poll results did well reflect the popular vote, but it's difficult to determine how the popular vote will translate to electoral votes. Comparing two states with the same number of electoral votes, it doesn't matter if a candidate wins one state by 60%, while another candidate wins the other state by 90% and thus having more popular votes; they still each get the same number of votes. The electoral college process in no way reflects negatively on the accuracy or methodology of a polling organization's results.
Nope. Just no.
There is a number of ways they will skew the polling and they will all do it in unison because they do not want to appear as a freak outlier. Firstly they will poll the percentages not to be aligned with the voting makeup of the US. They may for example poll 900 people of which 280 are Conservatives 290 are Independents and 330 Liberal. They will overrepresent women to men. None of these things unto themselves are huge things but with small skewings it paints a picture that is not accurate.
Why would they do this? Because they are, like the media, like Hollywood and so on, biased. They are trying to influence Trump. If Trump does something that they like, they will skew things back and "reward" him with "nice" poll results. If he does something they do not like they will "punish him". But they are also trying to create a climate whereby the public becomes disillusioned with him. Thus influencing the public to adopt the results they created. Social engineering. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Only it did not on election day. It was SUPPOSED to be that none of the key states was, according to state polling, going to be close. The national polls the day before had Hillary to comprehensively win and not ONLY the popular vote. These are the same pollsters that we are supposed to humour now. Their reason for their skewed polling was the same. They were wanting to influence the voters.
Even IF we consider the popular vote Clinton 65,794,399 and Trump 62,955,202, did anyone predict it was going to be close? Even with this 2 700 000 or so votes.
http://prntly.com/2016/11/25/californias-millions-of-illegals-who-voted-causing-hillarys-popular-vote-count-to-rise/
<**Cannot copy paste this but have a read, it is interesting**>
http://cdjnews.com/2016/10/california-disqualified-2016-elections/#.WfZPlFuCzcs
By enacting Assembly Bill 1461, the State of California created a circumstance in which it allows illegal aliens to vote in the 2016 elections, thereby abridging the legal right of every legal American citizen living in California to enjoy the full weight and power of their vote, countered by illegal votes making it impossible to identify “legal” versus “illegal” votes in the State of California.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/illinois-counties-have-mo_n_852141.html
"An analysis of census figures and voter registration numbers in Illinois reveals a baffling conundrum: fourteen of the state’s 102 counties have more registered voters than voting-age residents.
Rock Island County is the largest county with such a discrepancy: its elections website lists 125,875 registered voters, while the latest census figures list only 114,359 residents 18 years of age or older. That’s a difference of 11,516 people."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/voter-fraud-much-more-widespread-than-virginia-pennsylvania/
A new report by a national watchdog organization found evidence of major voter fraud going on in Virginia and Pennsylvania, but the problems are likely affecting many more states, says the group’s leader.
The same organization that uncovered fraud in Virginia and in Philadelphia – the Public Interest Legal Foundation – is also filing lawsuits claiming voter fraud is taking place in Broward County, Florida, and in Wake County, North Carolina.
And, WND has learned, an investigation by a separate watchdog group in Maryland has uncovered major irregularities there.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s report found more than 1,000 instances of illegal immigrants or non-citizens being registered to vote in just eight Virginia counties
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0
https://clashdaily.com/2016/10/trump-votes-tossed-make-sure-vote-counts/
In addition to this I hear anecdotal reports of DNC surrogates having people in psychiatrist wards getting people who are citizens but not in a place they can understand what they are doing, to vote for Hillary and likewise people in aged care facilities with Dementia voting for Hillary. "Guiding their hands to vote right".
So Hillary got 2 700 000 and we know this because the polls said so. The statistics bear that out. But with ALL of the above and more that I have not touched on, I am thinking that the 2700000 difference may not be accurate.
I think that scepticism is what we should all have. They tried to push a narrative that Trump was completely out of his league and could not win the electoral college because he was double digits behind in every state that mattered and was even behind in previously solid red states. Then he won BUT lost the popular vote and now the narrative is that they were actually sort of correct and proof is "3 million votes difference". Only it wasn't 3 million. Probably not even close.
I will grant she likely won the popular vote...I do not know (given the above) but I think that the difference is large enough that even allowing for illegal voters, electoral inconsistencies and fraudulence and incompetance, and dirty tricks, probably will not wipe out 2700000 votes.
So what does it mean? It means that both Trump and Clinton were VERY close and out of the 128,749,601 votes they were close to even and after factoring all the above to account, they will be closer still.
No one predicted these two candidates were close or anything close to close. So I dispute you saying that the polls were right or kind of right or nearly right. They were wrong. Their methodology and reasoning behind it are faulty. I also predict that they will get it wrong on the 2018 midterms and for similar reasons. After next US election, there will be a reckoning for them when they get it wrong again. There will be too many questions asked and they will not be able to feign embarrassment or play off their attempts to influence the public politically.
-
I didn't say "a handful people". You did. Own it.
It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.
Highlighting that for your benefit. Did you know that Trump lost the popular vote by a wide margin? Do you think they all want to keep him now?
Now, I said sticking to this false claim would be stupid. You replied by calling me stupid, which at once makes this personal again. do you try to pick a fight or is it simply that this, too, is a bit subtle for you?
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
You are picking a fight and yes I am more than happy to start up hostilities with you.
Now as to the context of my "handful of people" (which I have NO problem owning), 62,955,202 people voted for Trump. Assuming that the Democrats will vote in unison. That means any vote for impeachment or to vote him out by the suggestion of unverified and unproven psychological inability to fulfil his office.
So of 200 members of the, 100 Democrats are in the bag. They would not need 100 Republicans. They have 50% of the Senate and need 66%. So they would actually need 32 Republicans (probably the VP included) to sign off on that. Now of those Republicans, McCain, Justin Amash, Carlos Curbleo, Jamie Beutler, Mike Coffman, Brian Fitzpatrick, Frank LoBiondo are voting pretty much exclusively along Democrat lines.
So we are down to 25.
25 people could rewrite the election result voted by 62,955,202. So comparatively and in context with what I said....yes a handful of people.
Now you could be a complete idiot and say "25 is not a handful because a handful is only 5 or less. herp derp".
Try it and see how that argument goes. So going back to what you said:
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
I am and was always going to stick to what I said and YOU are calling me stupid and when I return the compliment.
which at once makes this personal again. do you try to pick a fight or is it simply that this, too, is a bit subtle for you?
Listen closely, you little worm. You are picking a fight and doing so passively aggressively and trying to pretend that I initiated it. YOU did and I have no issue in engaging. I was doing you and the forum a service by agreeing to end the hostilities. But it is transparent to me that not engaging in you niggles you enough to want to engage. You are just too chicken shit to admit to it and try to be a passive aggressive bitch and not own your own bullshit.
-
No one predicted these two candidates were close or anything close to close.
That's exactly what happened. There are several respected and credible polling agencies in the US and the results of those agencies reported Clinton leading the popular vote by a range of 1-4 points. The pollsters ranked the highest in the country for their methodology and historical accuracy still all have a margin of error ranging from 3-5 points and openly disclose this margin when reporting results. So anyone reading the poll results should have known the polls actually showed no clear winner, but rather a very close race. The real downfall to the potential accuracy of public polling is that people simply aren't willing to engage in them anymore. Less than 10% of the country participate in polls, compared to over 35% fifteen years ago.
-
I think Jack got it.
Yes, got it, and do think it's fair to refer to the 535 members of congress as a handful of people compared to the national population. Though disagree it's fair to say they ought not be the ones to vote on matters of presidential impeachment, or to suggest the majority of them would knowingly falsely convict the president of a crime he didn't commit.
-
I think Jack got it.
Yes, got it, and do think it's fair to refer to the 535 members of congress as a handful of people compared to the national population. Though disagree it's fair to say they ought not be the ones to vote on matters of presidential impeachment, or to suggest the majority of them would knowingly falsely convict the president of a crime he didn't commit.
Again, I understand what you are saying but I disagree. They hate him and to the GOP establishment, he is a barbarian who is seeking to take over and recreate the Republican party forevermore, in his image. To the Democrat Party he is the antiChrist. People like Max Waters and Al Green have been threatening to do it and keep hammering on it.
They would all consider it a moral choice and for the greater good. They would not view it as underhanded.
It will not happen though and the reason is that Republicans have to face their constituents. They have to hang in until at least the midterms. However, after the midterms, they will likely find that with Bannon's help the Trumpian/Bannonite vs establishment GOP Republicans will be more even and they will not risk any coup then. Trump will either die in office or get a second term.
-
"Listen closely?"
You did initiate this, with one passive-aggressive post after another. You know those "only an idiot would..." style of comments you spread around? Totally innocent, were they? The oh-so-innocent questions about me and whom I might have worked for, a mere public service for the board, right? After one taste of your bullshit and it's *me* calling you names, *me* starting this?
Fucking liar. Fucking spineless little creep.
After weeks of passive-aggressive insinuations, you now start to show your true colours. You were doing me a service? Fuck off, you little twat. Go hide under that bridge.
-
Manafort and Gates turn themselves in...now facing house arrest.
...and Papadopoulos admits he lied to the feds.
:popcorn:
Who's next?
Place your bets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Uy0Uznw4E
-
I've heard plenty of people say Mike Pence is his life insurance. He doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun his friend.
I used to think so, but it's not even a year in yet and I already feel like Pence would be profoundly better. Seems like Trump's pandering to that audience anyway, and I don't think Pence would be as likely to send nukes off because someone pissed him off on twitter. (At least Pence is lawful evil; Trump's chaotic evil, which is scarier in a world leader.)
And speaking as a Dungeon Master, a Lawful Evil player character is a hell of a lot easier to manage than a Chaotic Evil one.
Mike Pence as President would be a disaster, but Trump as President keeps looking more and more like it could be an actual apocalypse. The worst thing I expect Pence to do is to open up camps for the gay community, and even that's a bit far fetched.
At worst (realistically) he'd just overturn gay marriage and invest money into those fucked up "cure" camps. Mighty fucked up, but a lot less fucked up than causing World War III. Trump treats nukes like toys he can just throw out of his oversized pram. He's very far removed from reality.
I mean, Pence is far removed from reality as well but on a less dangerous scale. He's a bible-bashing sociopath kind of far removed from reality while Trump might as well have come from another planet where he already ruled it as a figurehead but other people did all the work behind the scenes without him knowing. Kind of like a boy king of sorts.
Trump is Joffrey, Mike Pence is the High Sparrow. He's a religious fuckwit, but he's not going to start any wars over his tiny penis and he somehow manages to treat women better than Trump.
If Trump isn't impeached I just hope WWIII doesn't start before Avengers 3 comes out. I have waited for the better part of my brief existence to see that movie (Iron Man came out in 2008 and Avengers 3 is next year). It might turn out to be shit, sure but that's a hell of a lot less disappointing than being reduced to a pile of ash before getting to see it.
And continue to work on eroding the rights and safety of women, POC and poor people, and to continue to try to turn the US into a theocracy (and based on the evangelical capitalist belief system, at that, which is one of the worst ones you could pick if you had to pick a religion to run the fucking country might I add). But yes, since trump's doing all that shit anyway, Pence would at least not blow us all up over a twitter fight.
-
Manafort and Gates turn themselves in...now facing house arrest.
...and Papadopoulos admits he lied to the feds.
:popcorn:
Who's next?
Place your bets.
Papadopolous is interesting. He was charged in July and plead guilty three weeks ago, but it was all kept secret because he was serving a 'proactive cooperator'. *stares at popcorn*
-
"Listen closely?"
You did initiate this, with one passive-aggressive post after another. You know those "only an idiot would..." style of comments you spread around? Totally innocent, were they? The oh-so-innocent questions about me and whom I might have worked for, a mere public service for the board, right? After one taste of your bullshit and it's *me* calling you names, *me* starting this?
Fucking liar. Fucking spineless little creep.
After weeks of passive-aggressive insinuations, you now start to show your true colours. You were doing me a service? Fuck off, you little twat. Go hide under that bridge.
But Odeon, you are a little grub.
I will admit that I am abrasive and when I use terms like "only an idiot would believe x" I mean it. I like things literal, concrete and non-abstract. When people are being coy and suggestive of things and inferring things without actually outright saying them, I prefer to cut through the bullshit. In this very thread, there were people saying a number of things about Trump, some with some merit and some without BUT there was a kind of a suggestion that because Trump has nuclear codes that this is a major issue. It was a lot of build-up to that suggestion and my claim of what only an idiot would believe is accurate. No one here does. It was simply ways to underline how "unfit" and "terrible" Trump was.
So my saying "only an idiot would believe x" is simply saying, "let's get rid of the bullshit and get to brass tacks. "What ARE you REALLY talking about". I then helped out. I talked about what is understandable. What IS understandable? Many believe he has a terrible personality, that he is thin-skinned, speaks eccentrically, is unPresidential, is brash, is impulsive....and so on. That does not mean that World War Three or a big nuclear winter is nigh. In fact, his warring has been delegated to very effective war leaders who are proving very effective. Generals like Matthis. So the World War Three seems further and further away.
Saying "only an idiot would believe x" is NOT in this instance, saying anyone here is believing that. They are just having a little Trump hatefest.
YOU, however, did not mean it in ANY other way than "You believe x and so you are an idiot". So let's not try for false equivalencies, shall we? So, no "the taste of your bullshit", is dishonest as only you can be. Butthurt and dishonest.
But it is more than just butthurt and dishonest, isn't it, Odeon?
You did this BECAUSE I asked a question about what the Hell a seemingly random stranger posted on here. Something not ONLY I was curious about. Something YOU kept asking to explain myself over. Something I was happy to let die a death. Something you kept trying to tell me I cared about and something I have not talked about for about a week.
A week or o later you are picking a fight with that as your moral justification. You are not just butthurt and dishonest. You are a little bitch. This is grade schoolgirl cattiness. Hitch up your panties and get over it.
-
Manafort and Gates turn themselves in...now facing house arrest.
...and Papadopoulos admits he lied to the feds.
:popcorn:
Who's next?
Place your bets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Uy0Uznw4E
So what I want to know and perhaps someone can tell me. Why the Hell is Mueller looking out of his scope as it relates to the 2016 election. Mannafort seems like a weasel and did some illegal stuff years before the election BUT THAT is not within scope of what Mueller is supposed to be looking at right?
Aren't we looking at Trump and his Administration colluding with the Russians and doing this specifically as it relates to the 2016 election victory? The premise I thought is that they won because the Russians colluded with them and allowed them to win the election, which they would not have otherwise done? That is what social media, mainstream media and the Democrats told us over and over again for 12 months.
I am sure Mannafort is a baddie. No doubt. I have disliked him pushing out Lewindowski, who I quite liked. I think anything he did bad he should be punished for. BUT is ANY of this stuff from before 2014 even relevant to the investigations?
Anyone else seeing goalpost moving or mission creep or some such. I am not trying to be funny here either. Charge him and lock him away but what has this got to do with the 2016 election? "Trump colluded with Russia which allowed him to win the 2016 election over Hillary", that is the charge, now let's see it.
-
I've heard plenty of people say Mike Pence is his life insurance. He doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun his friend.
I used to think so, but it's not even a year in yet and I already feel like Pence would be profoundly better. Seems like Trump's pandering to that audience anyway, and I don't think Pence would be as likely to send nukes off because someone pissed him off on twitter. (At least Pence is lawful evil; Trump's chaotic evil, which is scarier in a world leader.)
And speaking as a Dungeon Master, a Lawful Evil player character is a hell of a lot easier to manage than a Chaotic Evil one.
Mike Pence as President would be a disaster, but Trump as President keeps looking more and more like it could be an actual apocalypse. The worst thing I expect Pence to do is to open up camps for the gay community, and even that's a bit far fetched.
At worst (realistically) he'd just overturn gay marriage and invest money into those fucked up "cure" camps. Mighty fucked up, but a lot less fucked up than causing World War III. Trump treats nukes like toys he can just throw out of his oversized pram. He's very far removed from reality.
I mean, Pence is far removed from reality as well but on a less dangerous scale. He's a bible-bashing sociopath kind of far removed from reality while Trump might as well have come from another planet where he already ruled it as a figurehead but other people did all the work behind the scenes without him knowing. Kind of like a boy king of sorts.
Trump is Joffrey, Mike Pence is the High Sparrow. He's a religious fuckwit, but he's not going to start any wars over his tiny penis and he somehow manages to treat women better than Trump.
If Trump isn't impeached I just hope WWIII doesn't start before Avengers 3 comes out. I have waited for the better part of my brief existence to see that movie (Iron Man came out in 2008 and Avengers 3 is next year). It might turn out to be shit, sure but that's a hell of a lot less disappointing than being reduced to a pile of ash before getting to see it.
And continue to work on eroding the rights and safety of women, POC and poor people, and to continue to try to turn the US into a theocracy (and based on the evangelical capitalist belief system, at that, which is one of the worst ones you could pick if you had to pick a religion to run the fucking country might I add). But yes, since trump's doing all that shit anyway, Pence would at least not blow us all up over a twitter fight.
Big claims. Where is anything to back what you said? No seriously.
I remember the Religious Right too and they were poisonous. Not a lot of what Pence has said has given me pause over his thoughts on black people or POC, or women. He HAS given me pause in respect to something and that is some comments he has made about gay people. Even so, I do not know what his true thoughts are were he to ever be able to be President. Would he express his faith like the President, before sending all issues that in any way impact the community and fly against Christian sensibilities, to the states to deal with? Would he give the greenlight to pushing Christianity into public schools? Would he push for Roe vs Wade to be overturned, would he greenlight Gay conversion camps and how insidious would they be? How regulated? (I personally think the concept of a re-education camp is bizarre. A gay person is a gay person. You do not "re-educate" that. But if people want to set them up and confused self-hating gay people want to attend....I dunno....If they are not forced, then they are a market niche).
So with all of that, it says pretty much fuck all about the Progressive stack of oppression you cite. (I could be persuaded to him being anti-gay and anti-trans...perhaps) I know it is cool to lump in all minorities together and say "prominent Republican so therefore he is naturally bigoted, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, racist" without actually making a case for any of that AND is a female is a Democrat notable then she is very tolerant and not any of these things. I get it. Progressive talking point.
But Trump is no better on these issues? Really? What issues?
Big claims and no substance.
-
I've heard plenty of people say Mike Pence is his life insurance. He doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun his friend.
I used to think so, but it's not even a year in yet and I already feel like Pence would be profoundly better. Seems like Trump's pandering to that audience anyway, and I don't think Pence would be as likely to send nukes off because someone pissed him off on twitter. (At least Pence is lawful evil; Trump's chaotic evil, which is scarier in a world leader.)
And speaking as a Dungeon Master, a Lawful Evil player character is a hell of a lot easier to manage than a Chaotic Evil one.
Mike Pence as President would be a disaster, but Trump as President keeps looking more and more like it could be an actual apocalypse. The worst thing I expect Pence to do is to open up camps for the gay community, and even that's a bit far fetched.
At worst (realistically) he'd just overturn gay marriage and invest money into those fucked up "cure" camps. Mighty fucked up, but a lot less fucked up than causing World War III. Trump treats nukes like toys he can just throw out of his oversized pram. He's very far removed from reality.
I mean, Pence is far removed from reality as well but on a less dangerous scale. He's a bible-bashing sociopath kind of far removed from reality while Trump might as well have come from another planet where he already ruled it as a figurehead but other people did all the work behind the scenes without him knowing. Kind of like a boy king of sorts.
Trump is Joffrey, Mike Pence is the High Sparrow. He's a religious fuckwit, but he's not going to start any wars over his tiny penis and he somehow manages to treat women better than Trump.
If Trump isn't impeached I just hope WWIII doesn't start before Avengers 3 comes out. I have waited for the better part of my brief existence to see that movie (Iron Man came out in 2008 and Avengers 3 is next year). It might turn out to be shit, sure but that's a hell of a lot less disappointing than being reduced to a pile of ash before getting to see it.
And continue to work on eroding the rights and safety of women, POC and poor people, and to continue to try to turn the US into a theocracy (and based on the evangelical capitalist belief system, at that, which is one of the worst ones you could pick if you had to pick a religion to run the fucking country might I add). But yes, since trump's doing all that shit anyway, Pence would at least not blow us all up over a twitter fight.
America's fucked either way, but with Pence as President rather than Trump at least the chances of WWIII go down significantly. :dunno:
-
WWIII has been taking place for over fifteen years.
-
I've heard plenty of people say Mike Pence is his life insurance. He doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun his friend.
I used to think so, but it's not even a year in yet and I already feel like Pence would be profoundly better. Seems like Trump's pandering to that audience anyway, and I don't think Pence would be as likely to send nukes off because someone pissed him off on twitter. (At least Pence is lawful evil; Trump's chaotic evil, which is scarier in a world leader.)
And speaking as a Dungeon Master, a Lawful Evil player character is a hell of a lot easier to manage than a Chaotic Evil one.
Mike Pence as President would be a disaster, but Trump as President keeps looking more and more like it could be an actual apocalypse. The worst thing I expect Pence to do is to open up camps for the gay community, and even that's a bit far fetched.
At worst (realistically) he'd just overturn gay marriage and invest money into those fucked up "cure" camps. Mighty fucked up, but a lot less fucked up than causing World War III. Trump treats nukes like toys he can just throw out of his oversized pram. He's very far removed from reality.
I mean, Pence is far removed from reality as well but on a less dangerous scale. He's a bible-bashing sociopath kind of far removed from reality while Trump might as well have come from another planet where he already ruled it as a figurehead but other people did all the work behind the scenes without him knowing. Kind of like a boy king of sorts.
Trump is Joffrey, Mike Pence is the High Sparrow. He's a religious fuckwit, but he's not going to start any wars over his tiny penis and he somehow manages to treat women better than Trump.
If Trump isn't impeached I just hope WWIII doesn't start before Avengers 3 comes out. I have waited for the better part of my brief existence to see that movie (Iron Man came out in 2008 and Avengers 3 is next year). It might turn out to be shit, sure but that's a hell of a lot less disappointing than being reduced to a pile of ash before getting to see it.
And continue to work on eroding the rights and safety of women, POC and poor people, and to continue to try to turn the US into a theocracy (and based on the evangelical capitalist belief system, at that, which is one of the worst ones you could pick if you had to pick a religion to run the fucking country might I add). But yes, since trump's doing all that shit anyway, Pence would at least not blow us all up over a twitter fight.
America's fucked either way, but with Pence as President rather than Trump at least the chances of WWIII go down significantly. :dunno:
What WW3? ISIS?
-
I doubt that donald bloody duck (or he might as well be) needs that much of a cause to start WWIII.
He'd throw his nuke out of the crib just because somebody weaned him from breast milk onto formula or changed his diaper using economy cost ones rather than brand named ones with pictures on them. If bush was co-president with god himself (according to bush, last I heard the almighty was busy telling Uriel to draft a 'cease and fucking desist, you failed experiment in lemur-design' notice to bush.) then trump is viceregent with Satan. And I think I know who wears the trousers in that relationship. And if he isn't ruling WITH Satan, thats only because he IS Satan :autism:
-
America's fucked either way, but with Pence as President rather than Trump at least the chances of WWIII go down significantly. :dunno:
Oh, I agree, just saying I do think the scope of who Pence would hurt would extend well past the scope of just LGBTQ+. :/
-
Manafort and Gates turn themselves in...now facing house arrest.
...and Papadopoulos admits he lied to the feds.
:popcorn:
Who's next?
Place your bets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Uy0Uznw4E
I just love it. Betting someone will start talking before long.
Also love how the idiot desperately tries to shift focus elsewhere. How long before we'll have a "I'm not a crook" moment? :zoinks:
-
"Listen closely?"
You did initiate this, with one passive-aggressive post after another. You know those "only an idiot would..." style of comments you spread around? Totally innocent, were they? The oh-so-innocent questions about me and whom I might have worked for, a mere public service for the board, right? After one taste of your bullshit and it's *me* calling you names, *me* starting this?
Fucking liar. Fucking spineless little creep.
After weeks of passive-aggressive insinuations, you now start to show your true colours. You were doing me a service? Fuck off, you little twat. Go hide under that bridge.
But Odeon, you are a little grub.
I will admit that I am abrasive and when I use terms like "only an idiot would believe x" I mean it. I like things literal, concrete and non-abstract. When people are being coy and suggestive of things and inferring things without actually outright saying them, I prefer to cut through the bullshit. In this very thread, there were people saying a number of things about Trump, some with some merit and some without BUT there was a kind of a suggestion that because Trump has nuclear codes that this is a major issue. It was a lot of build-up to that suggestion and my claim of what only an idiot would believe is accurate. No one here does. It was simply ways to underline how "unfit" and "terrible" Trump was.
So my saying "only an idiot would believe x" is simply saying, "let's get rid of the bullshit and get to brass tacks. "What ARE you REALLY talking about". I then helped out. I talked about what is understandable. What IS understandable? Many believe he has a terrible personality, that he is thin-skinned, speaks eccentrically, is unPresidential, is brash, is impulsive....and so on. That does not mean that World War Three or a big nuclear winter is nigh. In fact, his warring has been delegated to very effective war leaders who are proving very effective. Generals like Matthis. So the World War Three seems further and further away.
Saying "only an idiot would believe x" is NOT in this instance, saying anyone here is believing that. They are just having a little Trump hatefest.
YOU, however, did not mean it in ANY other way than "You believe x and so you are an idiot". So let's not try for false equivalencies, shall we? So, no "the taste of your bullshit", is dishonest as only you can be. Butthurt and dishonest.
But it is more than just butthurt and dishonest, isn't it, Odeon?
You did this BECAUSE I asked a question about what the Hell a seemingly random stranger posted on here. Something not ONLY I was curious about. Something YOU kept asking to explain myself over. Something I was happy to let die a death. Something you kept trying to tell me I cared about and something I have not talked about for about a week.
A week or o later you are picking a fight with that as your moral justification. You are not just butthurt and dishonest. You are a little bitch. This is grade schoolgirl cattiness. Hitch up your panties and get over it.
Lie as much about it as you want. We both know the truth, though, don't we? Dishonest little Al, coming apart at the seams.
-
"Listen closely?"
You did initiate this, with one passive-aggressive post after another. You know those "only an idiot would..." style of comments you spread around? Totally innocent, were they? The oh-so-innocent questions about me and whom I might have worked for, a mere public service for the board, right? After one taste of your bullshit and it's *me* calling you names, *me* starting this?
Fucking liar. Fucking spineless little creep.
After weeks of passive-aggressive insinuations, you now start to show your true colours. You were doing me a service? Fuck off, you little twat. Go hide under that bridge.
But Odeon, you are a little grub.
I will admit that I am abrasive and when I use terms like "only an idiot would believe x" I mean it. I like things literal, concrete and non-abstract. When people are being coy and suggestive of things and inferring things without actually outright saying them, I prefer to cut through the bullshit. In this very thread, there were people saying a number of things about Trump, some with some merit and some without BUT there was a kind of a suggestion that because Trump has nuclear codes that this is a major issue. It was a lot of build-up to that suggestion and my claim of what only an idiot would believe is accurate. No one here does. It was simply ways to underline how "unfit" and "terrible" Trump was.
So my saying "only an idiot would believe x" is simply saying, "let's get rid of the bullshit and get to brass tacks. "What ARE you REALLY talking about?". I then helped out. I talked about what is understandable. What IS understandable? Many believe he has a terrible personality, that he is thin-skinned, speaks eccentrically, is unPresidential, is brash, is impulsive....and so on. That does not mean that World War Three or a big nuclear winter is nigh. In fact, his warring has been delegated to very effective war leaders who are proving very effective. Generals like Matthis. So the World War Three seems further and further away.
Saying "only an idiot would believe x" is NOT in this instance, saying anyone here is believing that. They are just having a little Trump hatefest.
YOU, however, did not mean it in ANY other way than "You believe x and so you are an idiot". So let's not try for false equivalencies, shall we? So, no "the taste of your bullshit", is dishonest as only you can be. Butthurt and dishonest.
But it is more than just butthurt and dishonest, isn't it, Odeon?
You did this BECAUSE I asked a question about what the Hell a seemingly random stranger posted on here. Something not ONLY I was curious about. Something YOU kept asking to explain myself over. Something I was happy to let die a death. Something you kept trying to tell me I cared about and something I have not talked about for about a week.
A week or o later you are picking a fight with that as your moral justification. You are not just butthurt and dishonest. You are a little bitch. This is grade schoolgirl cattiness. Hitch up your panties and get over it.
Lie as much about it as you want. We both know the truth, though, don't we? Dishonest little Al, coming apart at the seams.
By we, you mean you and whatever shitshow you have happening in your mind doesnt project into reality. Theory of mind is not a strong suit for you.
As far as coming apart at the seams, not at all, I don't care about you. I am more than happy to be at your throat. I do not mind that at all. I have to restrain myself to do otherwise because you are an obnoxious bitch.
I never thought you would do other than what you've done now. Neither the breaking of a truce, nor projecting blame of it on me. You are a little bitch, it is in your nature.
Now I can point out the time and specific comments and lay blame back at your feet. Off comes the self-restraint. I am more than happy with that. Hardly coming apart at the seams.
What a pathetic and twisted mindset you must have. You are a joke. An immoral little grub
-
Yeah, right. So many words, so little substance. Lies will be lies.
-
So what I want to know and perhaps someone can tell me. Why the Hell is Mueller looking out of his scope as it relates to the 2016 election.
These things do tend to come up when looking closely at the affairs of public people and those around them, and it was fully expected. In fact have wondered if nothing would come out of this other than some people around trump tumbling for charges like tax evasion, fraud, embezzlement, and various other dirty money practices, simply because someone took the time to look. A Russian money trail would be the most damning evidence, so yes Mueller is looking at their money. Papadopoulos is the more interesting. The news reporting of evidence gained by investigating him doesn't appear to show evidence of collusion, but certainly a willingness to collude, and that in itself is a very interesting for day one news reveal for the topic. Haven't had the chance to see if there's anything new in the news today, but grand jury matters are kept secret unless charges are filed so it's hard to know if there's more to come.
-
Mueller is investigating a possible crime.
With any criminal investigation you need to first establish a motive...and prove that the person involved had the means and the associations to carry out that motive.
Manafort has done business with Trump in various forms since the 1980's and knows how to do "laundry".
But out of the 3, I'd say Papa the "coffee boy's" testimony is the most damning ATM.
This is just the beginning.
-
Also love how the idiot desperately tries to shift focus elsewhere.
It's not completely unwarranted. It's come out the Clinton campaign and DNC did fund the Trump Russia dossier which the information is supposed to have come from kremlin sources, suggesting the democrats colluded with Russia to affect the election, although indirectly. It's a multi-faceted shit show and possibly some heads may roll on both sides.
-
Also love how the idiot desperately tries to shift focus elsewhere.
It's not completely unwarranted. It's come out the Clinton campaign and DNC did fund the Trump Russia dossier which the information is supposed to have come from kremlin sources, suggesting the democrats colluded with Russia to affect the election, although indirectly. It's a multi-faceted shit show and possibly some heads may roll on both sides.
DC elite are fully of swamp creatures. I would reckon 70% of Congress is corrupt and thw various libbyists moreso.
I want to see plenty of heads roll. I do think that Clinton Foundation, fusion GPS, DNC and the Podesta group are really neck deep
I think the RNC is probably as corrupt but not as reckless or flippant.
The more of these people they lock up the better.
-
Yeah, right. So many words, so little substance. Lies will be lies.
But odeon you have NO substance. You are so slimy yoy leave a trail in your wake. You have no arguments, just denunciations, denials and projection.
There is nothing of substance there. Just a little bitch whose feelings were so hurt that a week after we had discussed your work for defence contractors (even in the most abstract and uninterested way and only then because you kept asking me to continually explain what I thought about it) you pick a fight and break the truce because you could not mve past this.
There is a word for that kind of behaviour and it isn't flattering
-
Yeah, right. So many words, so little substance. Lies will be lies.
But odeon you have NO substance. You are so slimy yoy leave a trail in your wake. You have no arguments, just denunciations, denials and projection.
There is nothing of substance there. Just a little bitch whose feelings were so hurt that a week after we had discussed your work for defence contractors (even in the most abstract and uninterested way and only then because you kept asking me to continually explain what I thought about it) you pick a fight and break the truce because you could not mve past this.
There is a word for that kind of behaviour and it isn't flattering
Is this your equivalent to "if you build it they will come"? If you lie enough, it... what?
-
Also love how the idiot desperately tries to shift focus elsewhere.
It's not completely unwarranted. It's come out the Clinton campaign and DNC did fund the Trump Russia dossier which the information is supposed to have come from kremlin sources, suggesting the democrats colluded with Russia to affect the election, although indirectly. It's a multi-faceted shit show and possibly some heads may roll on both sides.
The timing alone makes the accusation suspicious.
-
Yeah, right. So many words, so little substance. Lies will be lies.
But odeon you have NO substance. You are so slimy yoy leave a trail in your wake. You have no arguments, just denunciations, denials and projection.
There is nothing of substance there. Just a little bitch whose feelings were so hurt that a week after we had discussed your work for defence contractors (even in the most abstract and uninterested way and only then because you kept asking me to continually explain what I thought about it) you pick a fight and break the truce because you could not move past this.
There is a word for that kind of behaviour and it isn't flattering
Is this your equivalent to "if you build it they will come"? If you lie enough, it... what?
Slimy, butthurt, immoral, and insubstantial.
-
Yes, you are. I guess you can't help it but it still took some time for you to show your real colours. Now fuck off.
-
Yes, you are. I guess you can't help it but it still took some time for you to show your real colours. Now fuck off.
Nothing but impotent whimperings from a slimy little slug. Hey, you chose to break the truce. It is on you. Own it, you little bitch. Revel in it. Don't foist your responsibility elsewhere. Marinate in it.
-
Also love how the idiot desperately tries to shift focus elsewhere.
It's not completely unwarranted. It's come out the Clinton campaign and DNC did fund the Trump Russia dossier which the information is supposed to have come from kremlin sources, suggesting the democrats colluded with Russia to affect the election, although indirectly. It's a multi-faceted shit show and possibly some heads may roll on both sides.
The timing alone makes the accusation suspicious.
What accusation? The law firm for the Clinton campaign and the DNC have acknowledged it's true. The company they paid is currently fighting subpoenas for the financial records on claims of client confidentiality. Now it's acknowledged by the client that may not pan out for them.
-
Also love how the idiot desperately tries to shift focus elsewhere.
It's not completely unwarranted. It's come out the Clinton campaign and DNC did fund the Trump Russia dossier which the information is supposed to have come from kremlin sources, suggesting the democrats colluded with Russia to affect the election, although indirectly. It's a multi-faceted shit show and possibly some heads may roll on both sides.
The timing alone makes the accusation suspicious.
What accusation? The law firm for the Clinton campaign and the DNC have acknowledged it's true. The company they paid is currently fighting subpoenas for the financial records on claims of client confidentiality. Now it's acknowledged by the client that may not pan out for them.
I think that there is likely to be enough dirt on both the Podestas and Mannafort to get some bigger people dragged into the light for misdoings. I honestly think that the only threat Trump has is through association and not with Mannafort or Pappadopolous (who was a volunteer and pretty low on the radar), but Jared Kushner. I do not think it is ANYTHING that has come up yet and possibly nothing to do with Russia. I DO think that Kushner is dirty and I think that Trump will if push comes to shove protect and pardon him and THAT WILL reflect very badly on Trump. I do not like Kushner. Never have. Did not like Mannafort either. Do not like McMaster or Dina Powell. A lot of people Trump is surrounded by. I think Kushner is Trump's Achilles Heel.
-
This is just the beginning.
Yup.
-
Also love how the idiot desperately tries to shift focus elsewhere.
It's not completely unwarranted. It's come out the Clinton campaign and DNC did fund the Trump Russia dossier which the information is supposed to have come from kremlin sources, suggesting the democrats colluded with Russia to affect the election, although indirectly. It's a multi-faceted shit show and possibly some heads may roll on both sides.
The timing alone makes the accusation suspicious.
What accusation? The law firm for the Clinton campaign and the DNC have acknowledged it's true. The company they paid is currently fighting subpoenas for the financial records on claims of client confidentiality. Now it's acknowledged by the client that may not pan out for them.
Collusion with Russia.
-
Yes, you are. I guess you can't help it but it still took some time for you to show your real colours. Now fuck off.
Nothing but impotent whimperings from a slimy little slug. Hey, you chose to break the truce. It is on you. Own it, you little bitch. Revel in it. Don't foist your responsibility elsewhere. Marinate in it.
Except I didn't, you did, and we both know it.
-
Also love how the idiot desperately tries to shift focus elsewhere.
It's not completely unwarranted. It's come out the Clinton campaign and DNC did fund the Trump Russia dossier which the information is supposed to have come from kremlin sources, suggesting the democrats colluded with Russia to affect the election, although indirectly. It's a multi-faceted shit show and possibly some heads may roll on both sides.
The timing alone makes the accusation suspicious.
What accusation? The law firm for the Clinton campaign and the DNC have acknowledged it's true. The company they paid is currently fighting subpoenas for the financial records on claims of client confidentiality. Now it's acknowledged by the client that may not pan out for them.
Collusion with Russia.
Ah yes, believe nothing will come of that. Not sure how many degrees of separation are needed to keep someone's hands clean but it appears there's probably enough there. Though it's highly possible something will come of it. Oppositional research is legal in a campaign, but it also has to be reported as such, which it's reported they didn't do.
-
get some bigger people dragged into the light for misdoings.
My guess is no one big will fall. That's the way it usually works; the people around them take the falls. Still do like all the cage rattling though, especially the rattling of dirty money. The dirty money is boring and expected, but it still makes a nice rattling sound.
-
Yes, you are. I guess you can't help it but it still took some time for you to show your real colours. Now fuck off.
Nothing but impotent whimperings from a slimy little slug. Hey, you chose to break the truce. It is on you. Own it, you little bitch. Revel in it. Don't foist your responsibility elsewhere. Marinate in it.
Except I didn't, you did, and we both know it.
It doesn't fucking matter who started it. You're both clearly back at it again.
-
Yes, you are. I guess you can't help it but it still took some time for you to show your real colours. Now fuck off.
Nothing but impotent whimperings from a slimy little slug. Hey, you chose to break the truce. It is on you. Own it, you little bitch. Revel in it. Don't foist your responsibility elsewhere. Marinate in it.
Except I didn't, you did, and we both know it.
It doesn't fucking matter who started it. You're both clearly back at it again.
Yup, we are.
-
Yes, you are. I guess you can't help it but it still took some time for you to show your real colours. Now fuck off.
Nothing but impotent whimperings from a slimy little slug. Hey, you chose to break the truce. It is on you. Own it, you little bitch. Revel in it. Don't foist your responsibility elsewhere. Marinate in it.
Except I didn't, you did, and we both know it.
It doesn't fucking matter who started it. You're both clearly back at it again.
Ask yourself if it mattered to you if you were me.
-
Yes, you are. I guess you can't help it but it still took some time for you to show your real colours. Now fuck off.
Nothing but impotent whimperings from a slimy little slug. Hey, you chose to break the truce. It is on you. Own it, you little bitch. Revel in it. Don't foist your responsibility elsewhere. Marinate in it.
Except I didn't, you did, and we both know it.
It doesn't fucking matter who started it. You're both clearly back at it again.
Ask yourself if it mattered to you if you were me.
I can do a much better hypothetical.
If Pyraxis were in your position and something left field and personal was raised, and confused and curious members on the forum were asking about it, how would she have reacted?
Would it be to:
A) dismiss it?
OR
B) Say that she didn't wish to discuss it?
OR
C) Ask the curious and baffled members to explain themselves and their position ad infinitum, getting shittier as they did so, malign their assumed intent, call them out on such assumptions, get shittier still that they would defend their position, then a week or so of stewing over this non-issue, you deliberately break a truce to "pay them back" for your butthurt and to sate your ego, and then project blame on them?
I am thinking she'd have gone A or B. I do not think she'd have done an Odeon.
Marinate in your own bad choices.
It's no point asking Py this, not because she is not in your position but because she is not a dickhead and would not have found herself in your position.
You had a perfectly good truce going. You wanted to break it and over a desire to hit back at someone. She wouldn't have done this.
She is not a slimy little grub like you, Odeon.
-
Ask yourself if it mattered to you if you were me.
Okay.
But in order to give a thoughtful answer, I need to not be packing for a flight. There's going to be a time delay on this one. (Work conference impending. Luckily I don't have to speak at it.)
-
Ask yourself if it mattered to you if you were me.
Yeah... it would matter. I'd want to see myself as the good guy and justified in any retaliation I did.
I'd also be resentful over people questioning the form of the retaliation. Like, I know my own fucking boundaries, don't try to redefine them for me.
From the outside, I still saw a growing contempt in the way you were responding to Al as the political argument progressed. So it wasn't entirely unexpected when he lost his cool again, and it makes it more difficult to point the blame entirely on one side.
-
If Pyraxis were in your position and something left field and personal was raised, and confused and curious members on the forum were asking about it, how would she have reacted?
I would be internally shitting myself and cursing myself out for having somehow allowed the information leak. But like I said in the other thread, I would do everything I could to hide that and hope that no one would realize I cared and it would be quickly forgotten.
I would lose all trust in whoever did it, if I hadn't already.
I guess that would count as option A. It's possible I would start an Elder's thread to explain it, but unlikely if the people asking questions about it were ones I'd fought with extensively in the past.
-
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
Coming from someone who went on to say that people will find patterns where none actually exist.
(of course this only applies when it's something that odeot doesn't agree with, when he agrees with it then he is just self-evidently correct) :tard:
What about the Paris attacks that left over 100 dead in a country with strict gun control??
-
With people like you, the US is not likely to connect a single dot.
-
What about the Paris attacks that left over 100 dead in a country with strict gun control??
-
Have another think about it. See if you can figure it out.
-
Guns are not the problem.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
-
Your point?
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
Being.that you.KNOW the shooting had NOTHING to do with what Milo said AND was said in private to journalists after they had been deliberately misrepresenting him with being a White Supremacist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and a white nationalist....what point are you making?
I hope George Soros is killed. If that actually happens are you going to imply there was a connection or his killers were inspired by me?
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
Typical Free Speech Warrior.
Loves his freedom to say whatever the fuck he wants. Doesn't want to own the consequences.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
Typical Free Speech Warrior.
Loves his freedom to say whatever the fuck he wants. Doesn't want to own the consequences.
What were the consequences of him saying that? Hint Ramos shooting journalists nothing to do with what Milo said AND everything to do with a mentally unbalanced man losing a case and appeal of a defamation case on the journalists of that paper who reported.on his stalking of a young lady
-
Honestly, if people want kill each other, I'm ok with it.
-
Honestly, if people want kill each other, I'm ok with it.
I'd go farther.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
Being.that you.KNOW the shooting had NOTHING to do with what Milo said AND was said in private to journalists after they had been deliberately misrepresenting him with being a White Supremacist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and a white nationalist....what point are you making?
I hope George Soros is killed. If that actually happens are you going to imply there was a connection or his killers were inspired by me?
I don't know. Do you?
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
Typical Free Speech Warrior.
Loves his freedom to say whatever the fuck he wants. Doesn't want to own the consequences.
What were the consequences of him saying that? Hint Ramos shooting journalists nothing to do with what Milo said AND everything to do with a mentally unbalanced man losing a case and appeal of a defamation case on the journalists of that paper who reported.on his stalking of a young lady
Glad you have all the facts. Have you notified the police handling the case?
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
Typical Free Speech Warrior.
Loves his freedom to say whatever the fuck he wants. Doesn't want to own the consequences.
What were the consequences of him saying that? Hint Ramos shooting journalists nothing to do with what Milo said AND everything to do with a mentally unbalanced man losing a case and appeal of a defamation case on the journalists of that paper who reported.on his stalking of a young lady
Glad you have all the facts. Have you notified the police handling the case?
They have these facts already
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
Typical Free Speech Warrior.
Loves his freedom to say whatever the fuck he wants. Doesn't want to own the consequences.
What were the consequences of him saying that? Hint Ramos shooting journalists nothing to do with what Milo said AND everything to do with a mentally unbalanced man losing a case and appeal of a defamation case on the journalists of that paper who reported.on his stalking of a young lady
Encourages mass shootings of journalists. Mass shooting happens. Immediately starts making excuses for himself and claiming that he was "just trolling".
Fuck that. Wanna be a FSW? Then own your words and their consequences.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
Typical Free Speech Warrior.
Loves his freedom to say whatever the fuck he wants. Doesn't want to own the consequences.
What were the consequences of him saying that? Hint Ramos shooting journalists nothing to do with what Milo said AND everything to do with a mentally unbalanced man losing a case and appeal of a defamation case on the journalists of that paper who reported.on his stalking of a young lady
Encourages mass shootings of journalists. Mass shooting happens. Immediately starts making excuses for himself and claiming that he was "just trolling".
Fuck that. Wanna be a FSW? Then own your words and their consequences.
Again WHAT consequences? The mass shooting of journalists was NOT a consequence of his words.
-
How do you know?
-
Because they think what's in their head is from god rather than from them. Psychosis risk alert...
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
Typical Free Speech Warrior.
Loves his freedom to say whatever the fuck he wants. Doesn't want to own the consequences.
What were the consequences of him saying that? Hint Ramos shooting journalists nothing to do with what Milo said AND everything to do with a mentally unbalanced man losing a case and appeal of a defamation case on the journalists of that paper who reported.on his stalking of a young lady
Encourages mass shootings of journalists. Mass shooting happens. Immediately starts making excuses for himself and claiming that he was "just trolling".
Fuck that. Wanna be a FSW? Then own your words and their consequences.
Again WHAT consequences? The mass shooting of journalists was NOT a consequence of his words.
It doesn't need to be a consequence of his words.
If you encourage people to do something horrific, and they then go and do that exact thing, it doesn't really matter whether it can be proven that your encouragement contributed to that act. You're a dick either way, and people have a right to see you as a dick.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
Typical Free Speech Warrior.
Loves his freedom to say whatever the fuck he wants. Doesn't want to own the consequences.
What were the consequences of him saying that? Hint Ramos shooting journalists nothing to do with what Milo said AND everything to do with a mentally unbalanced man losing a case and appeal of a defamation case on the journalists of that paper who reported.on his stalking of a young lady
Encourages mass shootings of journalists. Mass shooting happens. Immediately starts making excuses for himself and claiming that he was "just trolling".
Fuck that. Wanna be a FSW? Then own your words and their consequences.
Again WHAT consequences? The mass shooting of journalists was NOT a consequence of his words.
It doesn't need to be a consequence of his words.
If you encourage people to do something horrific, and they then go and do that exact thing, it doesn't really matter whether it can be proven that your encouragement contributed to that act. You're a dick either way, and people have a right to see you as a dick.
I think that is ridiculous but okay. I personally think that the hate and lies and misrepresentations that they put out constantly and to millions, they have to realise that people are going to wish bad things on them for their horrible natures. Journalists ought not do and say the kinds of things that are hateful and false. Should Milo say horrible things? No BUT he she not just take hit piece after hit piece and claims of him being homophobic, Anti-Semitic, a Pedophile and a White Supremacist either and the people who push this and other assorted lies are the media. He has a right to be nasty back and it looks like he was.
If the media is not prepared to be slammed for what they do in their generally dishonest and nasty agendas then I do not think he has any real claim to answer for. The media at large has squandered their sympathy in their behaviour. They have to stop saying and printing hate and lies.
Does that mean I think they SHOULD be killed? No. Do I think Milo was responsible for them being Killed? No. Do I think there is a conversation to be had here? Sure but I do not think portraying them as innocent white hats is the way to do that. It is not villain (Milo) /Hero (Media) or villain (Milo) vs Victim (Press) and any effort to further such discourse is a bit ridiculous too.
-
Milo likes to troll. Milo makes a good living out of being nasty to people for no reason other than he is a professional troll.
That's all well and good. But Milo doesn't much like the consequences of saying nasty shit and being s troll. The media says nasty shit about him and poor Milo, those media are such meanies.
So Milo trolls the media, and it bites him in the arse.
-
Milo likes to troll. Milo makes a good living out of being nasty to people for no reason other than he is a professional troll.
That's all well and good. But Milo doesn't much like the consequences of saying nasty shit and being s troll. The media says nasty shit about him and poor Milo, those media are such meanies.
So Milo trolls the media, and it bites him in the arse.
Only it really hasn't bitten him in the arse has it?
I mean the have been righteously indignant and blamed him and are angry and say bad things about him.....which is I guess another day for him right? But he defended his position and said that they were wrong and argued with them...which is what he does all the time.
So how has it bitten him in the arse? What is the net effect? the people that do not like him still don't or dislike him more and those that don't know him still don't and those that like him think it is a big ball of nothing. Right?
Yes Milo and the media were saying bad things to each other and are still saying bad things to each other. Neither is the other's victim. So the big story is what?
-
Again, how do you know?
-
Milo clearly doesn't want to be seen as the guy who motivated or inspired a mass shooting of journalists. If there was no issue for Milo then why would he bother making a statement on the issue and trying to play the innocent.
Milo is a hero to some. He openly seeks infamy. He says stuff that public figures aren't supposed to say and he's proud of it. But when something like this happens... it just further reinforces the fact that he is a nasty (and potentially dangerous) troll with nothing useful to add to public dialogue.
Once again, wanna be a FSW? You gotta own the consequences of your words.
-
He should own his words. Little cunt troll.
-
Don't really see what the issue is. Trolling is as much of a sport as football. You kick people about until scoring a trigger into something funny happening.
-
Gives you something to aspire to, eh?
-
Nope, it's just a game. Clearly he is a bit of a noob for being sorry for scoring an own goal.
-
Clearly he is a bit of a noob for being sorry for scoring an own goal.
I've got to agree with you on that one McDangly.
You're right. He should be as proud of his words involved in this controversy as he is of all his other trolling.
-
Well, clearly. The duplicity of his fanbase never ceases to astonish.
-
Milo clearly doesn't want to be seen as the guy who motivated or inspired a mass shooting of journalists. If there was no issue for Milo then why would he bother making a statement on the issue and trying to play the innocent.
Milo is a hero to some. He openly seeks infamy. He says stuff that public figures aren't supposed to say and he's proud of it. But when something like this happens... it just further reinforces the fact that he is a nasty (and potentially dangerous) troll with nothing useful to add to public dialogue.
Once again, wanna be a FSW? You gotta own the consequences of your words.
Milo did NOT inspire that guy to kill journalists. If someone makes such a false implication, he should pushback on a lie? Yes?
I mean this is rather a silly position. What you are effectively saying is.
"Guy A did B for C reason but Guy X said he wanted B so therefore Guy A did B for Z reason" It is patently false BUT now you are saying "Whatever Guy X ought not have said what he said he cannot defend the truth that Guy A did not do B for Z reason"
Fucking stupid. Being that it is fucking stupid why are you supporting this?
-
Well, clearly. The duplicity of his fanbase never ceases to astonish.
The fact that such a vacuous troll even has a fanbase never ceases to astonish.
-
Well, clearly. The duplicity of his fanbase never ceases to astonish.
The fact that such a vacuous troll even has a fanbase never ceases to astonish.
Milo is a very smart guy. He is also a bit of a troll and a contrarian. Fortunately, being counter to most cultural narratives actually makes sense in this climate. But he is over the top and often say dumb shit for the sake of a stir up.
It neither excuses him nor erases a lot of meritous positions.
I don't get this all or nothing approach people have.
X said y and t was not to my liking so therefore everything they have said done or thought is hprrible. Doesnt logically follow.
-
Well, clearly. The duplicity of his fanbase never ceases to astonish.
The fact that such a vacuous troll even has a fanbase never ceases to astonish.
Milo is a very smart guy. He is also a bit of a troll and a contrarian. Fortunately, being counter to most cultural narratives actually makes sense in this climate. But he is over the top and often say dumb shit for the sake of a stir up.
It neither excuses him nor erases a lot of meritous positions.
I don't get this all or nothing approach people have.
X said y and t was not to my liking so therefore everything they have said done or thought is hprrible. Doesnt logically follow.
I'm sure that some of what you consider to be Milo's "meritorious positions" is just more dumb shit to me.
And that's the problem. When you make a profession out of saying dumb shit, how can you expect your fanbase to know the difference?
I'm sure that there are many things that Milo says that Milo intends to be dumb shit that some of his fan base think are really smart positions that they agree with.
-
Well, clearly. The duplicity of his fanbase never ceases to astonish.
The fact that such a vacuous troll even has a fanbase never ceases to astonish.
Milo is a very smart guy. He is also a bit of a troll and a contrarian. Fortunately, being counter to most cultural narratives actually makes sense in this climate. But he is over the top and often say dumb shit for the sake of a stir up.
It neither excuses him nor erases a lot of meritous positions.
I don't get this all or nothing approach people have.
X said y and t was not to my liking so therefore everything they have said done or thought is hprrible. Doesnt logically follow.
I'm sure that some of what you consider to be Milo's "meritorious positions" is just more dumb shit to me.
And that's the problem. When you make a profession out of saying dumb shit, how can you expect your fanbase to know the difference?
I'm sure that there are many things that Milo says that Milo intends to be dumb shit that some of his fan base think are really smart positions that they agree with.
Maybe some of them do. But it goes the other way too. People whilst they are so ready to taint every opinion of someone they disagree with, based on a bad action, turn of phrase or whatever, they also do the opposite. They fall in and almost cultishly back people based on a handful of actions and words and can do no wrong.
Me? I think Milo is smart and gets a lot right and in serious debate about serious things or when presenting his opinions more often what he says is quite good. His trollish and michievious and such falls short a bit though some of that is amusing too.
-
Well, clearly. The duplicity of his fanbase never ceases to astonish.
The fact that such a vacuous troll even has a fanbase never ceases to astonish.
Lesser trolls need someone to look up to. +
-
X said y and t was not to my liking so therefore everything they have said done or thought is hprrible. Doesnt logically follow.
Everything? I thought we were talking about that one thing he said he now doesn't want to own up.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455
Typical Free Speech Warrior.
Loves his freedom to say whatever the fuck he wants. Doesn't want to own the consequences.
Now where is the moral outrage of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb when Maxine Waters calls for violence against Trump administration officials. :apondering:
-
Pappy, provide a link to what was actually said and I'll tell you whether I'm outraged or not.
-
Pretty easy to do actually, but I will defer to Scr'eap for this one. It is just annoying to me, but it will be fun for him.
-
Remember that some of us are not based in the US. We normally only see certain types of news from the US, such as "what outrageous things did Trump tweet or say in the last 24 hours". Just as you would not even know who our current President is, and only see news about Australia that the media thinks would be relevant or interesting to you.
I did a quick google on Maxine Waters and clicked "News" and there wasn't anything that looked relevant to what Pappy is saying. Not doubting that all sorts of people in politics say stupid sh*t, Trump doesn't quite have a monopoly on that.
-
Pappy, provide a link to what was actually said and I'll tell you whether I'm outraged or not.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html
-
You're right Pappy, this is obviously on a par with calling on your supporters to shoot journalists. Or calling on the crowd at your rallies to beat people up. Maybe worse.
But yeah, she's a progressive and she said stupid sh1t. She really needs to work on that, if she can take it up a couple of levels of stupid and start posting stupid sh1t while sitting on the toilet at 2 am, maybe you guys will make her the next President.
-
Pappy, provide a link to what was actually said and I'll tell you whether I'm outraged or not.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html
That's sort of old news now. Look at the date. But I'm outraged.
I just wish they'd shoot Trump.
-
Pappy, provide a link to what was actually said and I'll tell you whether I'm outraged or not.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html
That's sort of old news now. Look at the date. But I'm outraged.
I just wish they'd shoot Trump.
Yes killing people with differing ideological opinions is a rational and well-educated response, Herr Odeon.
-
Pappy, provide a link to what was actually said and I'll tell you whether I'm outraged or not.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html
That's sort of old news now. Look at the date. But I'm outraged.
I just wish they'd shoot Trump.
Yes killing people with differing ideological opinions is a rational and well-educated response, Herr Odeon.
He doesn't have an ideology. He's an opportunist and a moron. You know, a bit like you, only more successful.
And I firmly believe that the world would be a better place without him.
-
I don't like Trump, but I don't wish him killed. :thumbdn:
-
I don't generally wish people to be killed but in Trump's case, I'm happy to make an exception. The rest of the world would benefit.
-
I don't generally wish people to be killed but in Trump's case, I'm happy to make an exception. The rest of the world would benefit.
Better off how? What has Trump done to the rest of the world that his successor wouldn't perpetuate? :dunno:
-
I don't generally wish people to be killed but in Trump's case, I'm happy to make an exception. The rest of the world would benefit.
Better off how? What has Trump done to the rest of the world that his successor wouldn't perpetuate? :dunno:
So many reasons, but perhaps most importantly that he's dangerously volatile, a compulsive liar, easily insulted, and not well read. I very much doubt they can find a successor with all of these "qualities".
The Trump administration and Authentic Trump co-exist in an exhausting tension. One day Trump suggests that he might step away from Nato; the next he insists that he would not do so. One day he sides explicitly with Theresa May’s Brexit critics, while her guest; the next he gives her fulsome support. This tension might be manageable so long as the key institutions are not damaged irretrievably, and the situation is not aggravated by some unexpected crisis.
Meanwhile, inflammatory rhetoric and even half-baked policy initiatives still have corrosive effects. They have already changed the way that the country is viewed by those many allies for which the United States was a friend, partner and protector.
-
I don't generally wish people to be killed but in Trump's case, I'm happy to make an exception. The rest of the world would benefit.
Better off how? What has Trump done to the rest of the world that his successor wouldn't perpetuate? :dunno:
So many reasons, but perhaps most importantly that he's dangerously volatile, a compulsive liar, easily insulted, and not well read. I very much doubt they can find a successor with all of these "qualities".
The Trump administration and Authentic Trump co-exist in an exhausting tension. One day Trump suggests that he might step away from Nato; the next he insists that he would not do so. One day he sides explicitly with Theresa May’s Brexit critics, while her guest; the next he gives her fulsome support. This tension might be manageable so long as the key institutions are not damaged irretrievably, and the situation is not aggravated by some unexpected crisis.
Meanwhile, inflammatory rhetoric and even half-baked policy initiatives still have corrosive effects. They have already changed the way that the country is viewed by those many allies for which the United States was a friend, partner and protector.
A politician who lies and talks out of both sides of their mouth? Go figure. The stuff you said and quoted seems mostly about people being offended, why people don't like him, or how the world views the US. That's not a good reason to call for death. :dunno:
-
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/07/trump-vs-world
That was good article, and it does identify something Trump has done to the rest of the world. He's made them nervous, but personally think that could be happening with or without him. It's easy to associate the actions of a country to the leader, but this article identifies that unease is based in actions of the US as a nation, which may speak to the direction of the future even after Trump is no longer in office. The author recognizes, while Trump may say things to question contributions from allies and if alliances serve US interests, the big picture may be more about the world adjusting to the US taking a less active world leadership role. Have long said the US has had a role to play over the past two decades, a role as the bad guy. While the US has been long and harshly criticized as the bad-guy busy-body who should mind their own business, this article seems to speculate that era may be winding to an end, and other countries may be nervous at the idea of the US not minding their business for them. Maybe it's not such a bad thing.
-
... a compulsive liar...
Like Pence isn't? I think I'd prefer one who wasn't actually good at it.
-
To build a successful career as a politician you need to be good at lying. At least in the vast majority of cases, there are always outliers.
Now Trump never built a successful career as a politician. In the "career" that led him to politics, his utterances were not subject to anywhere near as much scrutiny. He had lawyers to go over anything he signed and could be held accountable for. But in terms of what came out of his mouth, he could basically make it up as he went along.
I'm like Cal. I prefer someone like Trump who is very bad at lying to someone who is very good at lying. I prefer someone like Trump who says what he is thinking rather than someone who is adept at saying one thing, signalling another, and meaning something else again.
-
There's another side though - the cheeto in chief is probably doing more damage in other ways
than little miss prissy would on his own.
-
His machinations in respect to NATO got a bunch of countries who were shamelessly not paying their obligations to pay.
Same as his "dangerous talk" with North Korea. Having a positive effect.
His zero tolerance policy with ISIS being "problematic" but ultimately fine.
His Putin praising whilst arming Ukraine, sanctioning Russia and expelling Russian diplomats.
And yes Theresa May too.
None of this makes him dangerous. It is a boring narrative that only the dishonest promote and the stupid believe.
-
I don't generally wish people to be killed but in Trump's case, I'm happy to make an exception. The rest of the world would benefit.
Better off how? What has Trump done to the rest of the world that his successor wouldn't perpetuate? :dunno:
So many reasons, but perhaps most importantly that he's dangerously volatile, a compulsive liar, easily insulted, and not well read. I very much doubt they can find a successor with all of these "qualities".
The Trump administration and Authentic Trump co-exist in an exhausting tension. One day Trump suggests that he might step away from Nato; the next he insists that he would not do so. One day he sides explicitly with Theresa May’s Brexit critics, while her guest; the next he gives her fulsome support. This tension might be manageable so long as the key institutions are not damaged irretrievably, and the situation is not aggravated by some unexpected crisis.
Meanwhile, inflammatory rhetoric and even half-baked policy initiatives still have corrosive effects. They have already changed the way that the country is viewed by those many allies for which the United States was a friend, partner and protector.
A politician who lies and talks out of both sides of their mouth? Go figure. The stuff you said and quoted seems mostly about people being offended, why people don't like him, or how the world views the US. That's not a good reason to call for death. :dunno:
This combination is a very dangerous one, to your country and to pretty much the entire globe.
-
... a compulsive liar...
Like Pence isn't? I think I'd prefer one who wasn't actually good at it.
Didn't say he wasn't.
-
To build a successful career as a politician you need to be good at lying. At least in the vast majority of cases, there are always outliers.
Now Trump never built a successful career as a politician. In the "career" that led him to politics, his utterances were not subject to anywhere near as much scrutiny. He had lawyers to go over anything he signed and could be held accountable for. But in terms of what came out of his mouth, he could basically make it up as he went along.
I'm like Cal. I prefer someone like Trump who is very bad at lying to someone who is very good at lying. I prefer someone like Trump who says what he is thinking rather than someone who is adept at saying one thing, signalling another, and meaning something else again.
His lying in itself is not a problem. He's piss-poor at it. In combination with all those other traits, however... Basically, the world's most powerful country has a man-child in charge. Think Al with power.
-
His machinations in respect to NATO got a bunch of countries who were shamelessly not paying their obligations to pay.
Same as his "dangerous talk" with North Korea. Having a positive effect.
His zero tolerance policy with ISIS being "problematic" but ultimately fine.
His Putin praising whilst arming Ukraine, sanctioning Russia and expelling Russian diplomats.
And yes Theresa May too.
None of this makes him dangerous. It is a boring narrative that only the dishonest promote and the stupid believe.
You actually believe this stuff, don't you? Honestly, I don't know what to say.
-
His machinations in respect to NATO got a bunch of countries who were shamelessly not paying their obligations to pay.
Same as his "dangerous talk" with North Korea. Having a positive effect.
His zero tolerance policy with ISIS being "problematic" but ultimately fine.
His Putin praising whilst arming Ukraine, sanctioning Russia and expelling Russian diplomats.
And yes Theresa May too.
None of this makes him dangerous. It is a boring narrative that only the dishonest promote and the stupid believe.
You actually believe this stuff, don't you? Honestly, I don't know what to say.
And you honestly don't? Honestly, I don't know what to say. Actually I do. You are a dickhead and such sentiments and stupidity is hardly surprising.
-
There's another side though - the cheeto in chief is probably doing more damage in other ways
than little miss prissy would on his own.
That's vague. Maybe Pence would do a lot more damage and the only real difference would be, more people would like him as a person.
-
I don't generally wish people to be killed but in Trump's case, I'm happy to make an exception. The rest of the world would benefit.
Better off how? What has Trump done to the rest of the world that his successor wouldn't perpetuate? :dunno:
So many reasons, but perhaps most importantly that he's dangerously volatile, a compulsive liar, easily insulted, and not well read. I very much doubt they can find a successor with all of these "qualities".
The Trump administration and Authentic Trump co-exist in an exhausting tension. One day Trump suggests that he might step away from Nato; the next he insists that he would not do so. One day he sides explicitly with Theresa May’s Brexit critics, while her guest; the next he gives her fulsome support. This tension might be manageable so long as the key institutions are not damaged irretrievably, and the situation is not aggravated by some unexpected crisis.
Meanwhile, inflammatory rhetoric and even half-baked policy initiatives still have corrosive effects. They have already changed the way that the country is viewed by those many allies for which the United States was a friend, partner and protector.
A politician who lies and talks out of both sides of their mouth? Go figure. The stuff you said and quoted seems mostly about people being offended, why people don't like him, or how the world views the US. That's not a good reason to call for death. :dunno:
This combination is a very dangerous one, to your country and to pretty much the entire globe.
Now you wish him dead to save me too? :orly: At least give me one example of something deserving of death, because if you don't then you're basically saying you wish him dead because he's a dummy poopy head sensitive liar who makes the US look bad. :dunno:
-
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/07/trump-vs-world
That was good article, and it does identify something Trump has done to the rest of the world. He's made them nervous, but personally think that could be happening with or without him. It's easy to associate the actions of a country to the leader, but this article identifies that unease is based in actions of the US as a nation, which may speak to the direction of the future even after Trump is no longer in office. The author recognizes, while Trump may say things to question contributions from allies and if alliances serve US interests, the big picture may be more about the world adjusting to the US taking a less active world leadership role. Have long said the US has had a role to play over the past two decades, a role as the bad guy. While the US has been long and harshly criticized as the bad-guy busy-body who should mind their own business, this article seems to speculate that era may be winding to an end, and other countries may be nervous at the idea of the US not minding their business for them. Maybe it's not such a bad thing.
:hahaha:
-
The US, through its agencies and proxies, regularly assassinates people who are far less dangerous than Trump. So isn't it just a little precious to be outraged when someone suggests that assassinating Trump might not be so bad?
-
The US, through its agencies and proxies, regularly assassinates people who are far less dangerous than Trump. So isn't it just a little precious to be outraged when someone suggests that assassinating Trump might not be so bad?
In short, no it's not. Rationalizing unjustifiable acts by justifying then with unjustifiable acts is a very strange argument to make.
-
The US, through its agencies and proxies, regularly assassinates people who are far less dangerous than Trump. So isn't it just a little precious to be outraged when someone suggests that assassinating Trump might not be so bad?
In short, no it's not. Rationalizing unjustifiable acts by justifying then with unjustifiable acts is a very strange argument to make.
I don't believe that Odeon is actively planning or encouraging the assassination of Trump. In this context it's a bit of rhetoric, the sort that you tend to see and hear a lot about politicians and public figures.
While the United States, through its agencies and proxies, carries out actual assassinations on a regular basis.
Sorry, it does still seem a little precious to express such outrage about one while saying nothing about the other.
-
The US, through its agencies and proxies, regularly assassinates people who are far less dangerous than Trump. So isn't it just a little precious to be outraged when someone suggests that assassinating Trump might not be so bad?
In short, no it's not. Rationalizing unjustifiable acts by justifying then with unjustifiable acts is a very strange argument to make.
I don't believe that Odeon is actively planning or encouraging the assassination of Trump. In this context it's a bit of rhetoric, the sort that you tend to see and hear a lot about politicians and public figures.
While the United States, through its agencies and proxies, carries out actual assassinations on a regular basis.
Sorry, it does still seem a little precious to express such outrage about one while saying nothing about the other.
What outrage? I gave him a thumbs down for saying it. If it had been some other members here who said it, then I might not have reacted. I've never seen Odeon say something like that, and even he said he doesn't generally wish people dead, so if he was only spouting rhetoric then he can say so. I think genuinely wishing people dead is usually a really emotional thing, but that's probably because I've only ever wished one person dead and I'm very emotionally invested in that wish. I don't have to agree with murder to understand that other people believe there are good reasons why people should be dead. Maybe I just don't want to walk away from this conversation thinking Odeon is simply too emotionally invested in my president, so I'm asking for a reason. Don't don't exaggerate this to imply I'm accusing Odeon of planning anything. I'm communicating with Odeon the only way I know how, and I feel certain my precious outrage isn't harming his precious feelings at all. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother, because he might wish me dead. :zoinks:
-
His machinations in respect to NATO got a bunch of countries who were shamelessly not paying their obligations to pay.
Hmm...you mean no longer trusting the US, and considering their own super-power sized military to be able to directly challenge us?
Same as his "dangerous talk" with North Korea. Having a positive effect.
For the fearless leader yes. Not sure I see what value was gained other than some rather vague platitudes.
His zero tolerance policy with ISIS being "problematic" but ultimately fine.
Has helped extend Russian power in the Middle East. Has weakened our own position, vis a vis both
Russia and Iran. But that was a cluster fuck anyhow. I don't blame him too much for losing whatever
there might actually have been to gain.
At least (at the cost to the Kurds) Turkey wouldn't completely fall into the Russian camp - except for
Trump's mishandling of the Saudi relationship. He's managing to put himself in a position of supporting
a lucrative opportunity for his family, in exchange for a(nother?) cornerstone of the Western barrier to Russia.
His Putin praising whilst arming Ukraine, sanctioning Russia and expelling Russian diplomats.
Maybe. Though the anti-Russian actions at least seem to have happened over his objections.
If I believed he had more brains than the snack he looks like...
The same could have been done without giving Putin blowjobs (or whatever).
And yes Theresa May too.
Dunno much 'bout her. She seems a windbag, at best. Probably not in power for long.
None of this makes him dangerous. It is a boring narrative that only the dishonest promote and the stupid believe.
He's only not dangerous because he's fairly incompetent. Yet, there is still the danger that people
won't take him at his words, and assume that all the lousy lying means he doesn't mean the
musings (and in some cases ranting) on establishing the destruction of democratic institutions,
along with finding natural alliances with dictatorships rather than those who shared the prior
ideology of the US.
-
The US, through its agencies and proxies, regularly assassinates people who are far less dangerous than Trump. So isn't it just a little precious to be outraged when someone suggests that assassinating Trump might not be so bad?
In short, no it's not. Rationalizing unjustifiable acts by justifying then with unjustifiable acts is a very strange argument to make.
I don't believe that Odeon is actively planning or encouraging the assassination of Trump. In this context it's a bit of rhetoric, the sort that you tend to see and hear a lot about politicians and public figures.
While the United States, through its agencies and proxies, carries out actual assassinations on a regular basis.
Sorry, it does still seem a little precious to express such outrage about one while saying nothing about the other.
I just do not believe it to be wise to even muse about the assassination of a sitting United States President.
Just so that I can go on record here, I do not have anything to do with any conspiracy involving any harm to any individual, and most especially not any officer of our government sworn to uphold out constitution.
I would never harm anyone with the possible exception of one who is directly threatening my own personal safety or that of my family.
This shit is getting weird, guys!! Your threats will not be taken lightly by those involved in making sure that kind of thing never happens.
I am out of this.
-
I don't generally wish people to be killed but in Trump's case, I'm happy to make an exception. The rest of the world would benefit.
Better off how? What has Trump done to the rest of the world that his successor wouldn't perpetuate? :dunno:
So many reasons, but perhaps most importantly that he's dangerously volatile, a compulsive liar, easily insulted, and not well read. I very much doubt they can find a successor with all of these "qualities".
The Trump administration and Authentic Trump co-exist in an exhausting tension. One day Trump suggests that he might step away from Nato; the next he insists that he would not do so. One day he sides explicitly with Theresa May’s Brexit critics, while her guest; the next he gives her fulsome support. This tension might be manageable so long as the key institutions are not damaged irretrievably, and the situation is not aggravated by some unexpected crisis.
Meanwhile, inflammatory rhetoric and even half-baked policy initiatives still have corrosive effects. They have already changed the way that the country is viewed by those many allies for which the United States was a friend, partner and protector.
A politician who lies and talks out of both sides of their mouth? Go figure. The stuff you said and quoted seems mostly about people being offended, why people don't like him, or how the world views the US. That's not a good reason to call for death. :dunno:
This combination is a very dangerous one, to your country and to pretty much the entire globe.
Now you wish him dead to save me too? :orly: At least give me one example of something deserving of death, because if you don't then you're basically saying you wish him dead because he's a dummy poopy head sensitive liar who makes the US look bad. :dunno:
No, I'm not trying to save you, but what happens to the US affects the entire world.
I could give you a number of reasons, from his enabling of Putin to him wanting to build more nukes again. Or why not his trade wars that do little to help his country but affect the whole world? Any number of things he does to destabilise the entire world.
Or why not discuss his climate policies? Leaving an agreement that needs to be followed up, not ignored? Seriously?
I can think of few people more deserving of a bullet. Certainly, him being the target of the next gun nutter (give it a few days, it will happen) rather than a dozen innocent people would not make me lose any sleep.
If it only was about him making the US look bad. ::)
-
The US, through its agencies and proxies, regularly assassinates people who are far less dangerous than Trump. So isn't it just a little precious to be outraged when someone suggests that assassinating Trump might not be so bad?
In short, no it's not. Rationalizing unjustifiable acts by justifying then with unjustifiable acts is a very strange argument to make.
Let's take the ultimate what if: What if you'd have this one chance to kill Hitler in 1919 or so?
-
The US, through its agencies and proxies, regularly assassinates people who are far less dangerous than Trump. So isn't it just a little precious to be outraged when someone suggests that assassinating Trump might not be so bad?
In short, no it's not. Rationalizing unjustifiable acts by justifying then with unjustifiable acts is a very strange argument to make.
I don't believe that Odeon is actively planning or encouraging the assassination of Trump. In this context it's a bit of rhetoric, the sort that you tend to see and hear a lot about politicians and public figures.
While the United States, through its agencies and proxies, carries out actual assassinations on a regular basis.
Sorry, it does still seem a little precious to express such outrage about one while saying nothing about the other.
What outrage? I gave him a thumbs down for saying it. If it had been some other members here who said it, then I might not have reacted. I've never seen Odeon say something like that, and even he said he doesn't generally wish people dead, so if he was only spouting rhetoric then he can say so. I think genuinely wishing people dead is usually a really emotional thing, but that's probably because I've only ever wished one person dead and I'm very emotionally invested in that wish. I don't have to agree with murder to understand that other people believe there are good reasons why people should be dead. Maybe I just don't want to walk away from this conversation thinking Odeon is simply too emotionally invested in my president, so I'm asking for a reason. Don't don't exaggerate this to imply I'm accusing Odeon of planning anything. I'm communicating with Odeon the only way I know how, and I feel certain my precious outrage isn't harming his precious feelings at all. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother, because he might wish me dead. :zoinks:
To clarify, yes, it's rhetoric - I am not planning anything - but I truly and honestly believe that the world would massively benefit from him dying. A bullet, a massive cardiac event, a banana peel on the top the stairs, I don't really care how.
I can think of few other world leaders whose demise would help as much. In China, one would be replaced by another. Plenty of people to replace Putin. Kim? What he does affects a country, not the globe, and he'd be replaced by someone else like him.
Etc.
He is uniquely positioned, and while there are plenty of scumbag politicians around - I only need to look at my country - he's one of the few who has the right combination of populism, bigotry and hatred, and quite possibly mental issues who can destroy so much by the virtue of his day job.
-
The US, through its agencies and proxies, regularly assassinates people who are far less dangerous than Trump. So isn't it just a little precious to be outraged when someone suggests that assassinating Trump might not be so bad?
In short, no it's not. Rationalizing unjustifiable acts by justifying then with unjustifiable acts is a very strange argument to make.
I don't believe that Odeon is actively planning or encouraging the assassination of Trump. In this context it's a bit of rhetoric, the sort that you tend to see and hear a lot about politicians and public figures.
While the United States, through its agencies and proxies, carries out actual assassinations on a regular basis.
Sorry, it does still seem a little precious to express such outrage about one while saying nothing about the other.
I just do not believe it to be wise to even muse about the assassination of a sitting United States President.
Just so that I can go on record here, I do not have anything to do with any conspiracy involving any harm to any individual, and most especially not any officer of our government sworn to uphold out constitution.
I would never harm anyone with the possible exception of one who is directly threatening my own personal safety or that of my family.
This shit is getting weird, guys!! Your threats will not be taken lightly by those involved in making sure that kind of thing never happens.
I am out of this.
DD, while the man is surely listening, nobody is planning anything here. No threats. To be absolutely clear: I'm not going to murder anyone. I'm not a murderer, end of.
But I wouldn't mind if the next gun nutter targeted the president of the United States - Trump - rather than some innocent churchgoer or high school student.
-
The US, through its agencies and proxies, regularly assassinates people who are far less dangerous than Trump. So isn't it just a little precious to be outraged when someone suggests that assassinating Trump might not be so bad?
In short, no it's not. Rationalizing unjustifiable acts by justifying then with unjustifiable acts is a very strange argument to make.
Let's take the ultimate what if: What if you'd have this one chance to kill Hitler in 1919 or so?
Is this meant to compare Trump to Hitler? :laugh: Though to answer the question, no.
-
I don't generally wish people to be killed but in Trump's case, I'm happy to make an exception. The rest of the world would benefit.
Better off how? What has Trump done to the rest of the world that his successor wouldn't perpetuate? :dunno:
So many reasons, but perhaps most importantly that he's dangerously volatile, a compulsive liar, easily insulted, and not well read. I very much doubt they can find a successor with all of these "qualities".
The Trump administration and Authentic Trump co-exist in an exhausting tension. One day Trump suggests that he might step away from Nato; the next he insists that he would not do so. One day he sides explicitly with Theresa May’s Brexit critics, while her guest; the next he gives her fulsome support. This tension might be manageable so long as the key institutions are not damaged irretrievably, and the situation is not aggravated by some unexpected crisis.
Meanwhile, inflammatory rhetoric and even half-baked policy initiatives still have corrosive effects. They have already changed the way that the country is viewed by those many allies for which the United States was a friend, partner and protector.
A politician who lies and talks out of both sides of their mouth? Go figure. The stuff you said and quoted seems mostly about people being offended, why people don't like him, or how the world views the US. That's not a good reason to call for death. :dunno:
This combination is a very dangerous one, to your country and to pretty much the entire globe.
Now you wish him dead to save me too? :orly: At least give me one example of something deserving of death, because if you don't then you're basically saying you wish him dead because he's a dummy poopy head sensitive liar who makes the US look bad. :dunno:
No, I'm not trying to save you, but what happens to the US affects the entire world.
I could give you a number of reasons, from his enabling of Putin to him wanting to build more nukes again. Or why not his trade wars that do little to help his country but affect the whole world? Any number of things he does to destabilise the entire world.
Or why not discuss his climate policies? Leaving an agreement that needs to be followed up, not ignored? Seriously?
I can think of few people more deserving of a bullet. Certainly, him being the target of the next gun nutter (give it a few days, it will happen) rather than a dozen innocent people would not make me lose any sleep.
If it only was about him making the US look bad. ::)
I don't have to agree, but thank you for saying something substantial. Your initial liar-poopy-head-trump answer, combined with that lame ass article was really awful. :zoinks: So I appreciate the clarification using your own thoughts. :thumbup:
-
This shit is getting weird, guys!!
Aw shucks, DirtDawg. :grouphug: I sort of like that Trump stirs people this way, because it chips away at apathy. This year's midterm elections had the highest voter turnout in the past hundred years. If it makes you feel better, here's an article about Trump's accomplishments over the past two years from the fake newz. :zoinks: https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-first-year-his-top-82-accomplishments-786130 Like the man says, if Trump had some level of composure, more people might actually notice he's fulfilling his campaign promises. I don't know why it appeals to me that he doesn't seem to care if these things are recognized. :dunno:
-
I don't know why it appeals to me that he doesn't seem to care if these things are recognized. :dunno:
I think it's because they didn't matter to him. Means to an end.
It's not like he made good on the most vociferous of his campaign rants/promises either.
Hillary's still at large, there's no physical wall, the 'swamp' overfloweth....
To me though, this is the biggest story: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/job-gains-for-the-manufacturing-industry-are-the-most-since-1995.html - the one that might just keep him in office.
-
The US, through its agencies and proxies, regularly assassinates people who are far less dangerous than Trump. So isn't it just a little precious to be outraged when someone suggests that assassinating Trump might not be so bad?
In short, no it's not. Rationalizing unjustifiable acts by justifying then with unjustifiable acts is a very strange argument to make.
Let's take the ultimate what if: What if you'd have this one chance to kill Hitler in 1919 or so?
Is this meant to compare Trump to Hitler? :laugh: Though to answer the question, no.
No, Trump is no Hitler. :laugh:
-
I don't generally wish people to be killed but in Trump's case, I'm happy to make an exception. The rest of the world would benefit.
Better off how? What has Trump done to the rest of the world that his successor wouldn't perpetuate? :dunno:
So many reasons, but perhaps most importantly that he's dangerously volatile, a compulsive liar, easily insulted, and not well read. I very much doubt they can find a successor with all of these "qualities".
The Trump administration and Authentic Trump co-exist in an exhausting tension. One day Trump suggests that he might step away from Nato; the next he insists that he would not do so. One day he sides explicitly with Theresa May’s Brexit critics, while her guest; the next he gives her fulsome support. This tension might be manageable so long as the key institutions are not damaged irretrievably, and the situation is not aggravated by some unexpected crisis.
Meanwhile, inflammatory rhetoric and even half-baked policy initiatives still have corrosive effects. They have already changed the way that the country is viewed by those many allies for which the United States was a friend, partner and protector.
A politician who lies and talks out of both sides of their mouth? Go figure. The stuff you said and quoted seems mostly about people being offended, why people don't like him, or how the world views the US. That's not a good reason to call for death. :dunno:
This combination is a very dangerous one, to your country and to pretty much the entire globe.
Now you wish him dead to save me too? :orly: At least give me one example of something deserving of death, because if you don't then you're basically saying you wish him dead because he's a dummy poopy head sensitive liar who makes the US look bad. :dunno:
No, I'm not trying to save you, but what happens to the US affects the entire world.
I could give you a number of reasons, from his enabling of Putin to him wanting to build more nukes again. Or why not his trade wars that do little to help his country but affect the whole world? Any number of things he does to destabilise the entire world.
Or why not discuss his climate policies? Leaving an agreement that needs to be followed up, not ignored? Seriously?
I can think of few people more deserving of a bullet. Certainly, him being the target of the next gun nutter (give it a few days, it will happen) rather than a dozen innocent people would not make me lose any sleep.
If it only was about him making the US look bad. ::)
I don't have to agree, but thank you for saying something substantial. Your initial liar-poopy-head-trump answer, combined with that lame ass article was really awful. :zoinks: So I appreciate the clarification using your own thoughts. :thumbup:
Fair enough.
-
No, Trump is no Hitler. :laugh:
Correct. Hitler served his country with distinction during wartime.
-
I don't know why it appeals to me that he doesn't seem to care if these things are recognized. :dunno:
I think it's because they didn't matter to him. Means to an end.
It's not like he made good on the most vociferous of his campaign rants/promises either.
Hillary's still at large, there's no physical wall, the 'swamp' overfloweth....
To me though, this is the biggest story: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/job-gains-for-the-manufacturing-industry-are-the-most-since-1995.html - the one that might just keep him in office.
I don't really know what to think about the economic factors. Sometimes I'll read about how things are better now than they've been in 12-17 years. Unemployment is down, welfare is down, jobs are up, pay rates are up, the stock market is up, so there's no denying a lot of things are better today than they were two years ago. Then I'll read something else where someone takes a more critical look at those numbers, and points out all of the improvements have already been trending in those directions for eight years, and most of those trends haven't accelerated in the past two years, while the rate of some improvements have slightly decreased. But sure, things are better and if people want to give Trump credit for that, then it very well might get him re-elected. :dunno:
-
Nazism is National Socialism. It is hardly Right Wing
-
I don't really know what to think about the economic factors. Sometimes I'll read about how things are better now than they've been in 12-17 years. Unemployment is down, welfare is down, jobs are up, pay rates are up, the stock market is up, so there's no denying a lot of things are better today than they were two years ago. Then I'll read something else where someone takes a more critical look at those numbers, and points out all of the improvements have already been trending in those directions for eight years, and most of those trends haven't accelerated in the past two years, while the rate of some improvements have slightly decreased. But sure, things are better and if people want to give Trump credit for that, then it very well might get him re-elected. :dunno:
A president's first couple years economic results are largely an effect of the prior administration. HOWEVER, any Republican tends
to get a bit of a bounce off of Wall Street's greater trust that their efforts won't be undermined. Strangely, given the effects of
conservative principles seen through the lens of the last 50 years or so, you'd think the opposite would be true - as deregulation
has led to the greatest economic catastrophes, but, no one said free market behavior was sensible.
-
And speaking of Trump being offed for the greater good: I'm sure he'd understand the pragmatism behind the concept, considering his stance on the Saudis.
-
Most of the noise around Trump doesn't matter as much as the media tries to make out. When it comes to whether Trump gets reelected or not, it's the economy, stupid!
-
And speaking of Trump being offed for the greater good: I'm sure he'd understand the pragmatism behind the concept, considering his stance on the Saudis.
That's got NOTHING to do with any 'greater good'.
-
And speaking of Trump being offed for the greater good: I'm sure he'd understand the pragmatism behind the concept, considering his stance on the Saudis.
That's got NOTHING to do with any 'greater good'.
Sure it does. What's a single life (a journalist at that!) when compared to the US-Saudi relations? So what's a single life (Trump) when compared to a more stable globe?
-
And speaking of Trump being offed for the greater good: I'm sure he'd understand the pragmatism behind the concept, considering his stance on the Saudis.
That's got NOTHING to do with any 'greater good'.
Sure it does. What's a single life (a journalist at that!) when compared to the US-Saudi relations? So what's a single life (Trump) when compared to a more stable globe?
You are so far down the ideological rabbit hole you have become the Mad Hatter
-
And speaking of Trump being offed for the greater good: I'm sure he'd understand the pragmatism behind the concept, considering his stance on the Saudis.
That's got NOTHING to do with any 'greater good'.
Sure it does. What's a single life (a journalist at that!) when compared to the US-Saudi relations? So what's a single life (Trump) when compared to a more stable globe?
What's a single life (some wanker from Sweden) when compared to a more democratically run message board?? BIG FUCKING PETERS
-
And speaking of Trump being offed for the greater good: I'm sure he'd understand the pragmatism behind the concept, considering his stance on the Saudis.
That's got NOTHING to do with any 'greater good'.
Sure it does. What's a single life (a journalist at that!) when compared to the US-Saudi relations? So what's a single life (Trump) when compared to a more stable globe?
I highly doubt the Cheeto in Chief cares much about Saudi-US relationships, except where 'US' stands for his family.
-
And speaking of Trump being offed for the greater good: I'm sure he'd understand the pragmatism behind the concept, considering his stance on the Saudis.
That's got NOTHING to do with any 'greater good'.
Sure it does. What's a single life (a journalist at that!) when compared to the US-Saudi relations? So what's a single life (Trump) when compared to a more stable globe?
I highly doubt the Cheeto in Chief cares much about Saudi-US relationships, except where 'US' stands for his family.
I highly doubt Trump is that stupid. Most people know how central the Saudi-US relationship is to the stability of the Dollar. If the Saudis decided to switch currencies the dollar would most likely collapse.
-
Oh, bullshit. China's the one country that could totally tank the dollar, and Trump's perfectly fine being aggressive there.
What's the big difference? The house of Saud has been bankrolling his family (and Kushner) businesses - much as Russia has.
You look at where his money comes from, and that's where the 'US' is. Every fucking time.
-
Oh, bullshit. China's the one country that could totally tank the dollar, and Trump's perfectly fine being aggressive there.
What's the big difference? The house of Saud has been bankrolling his family (and Kushner) businesses - much as Russia has.
You look at where his money comes from, and that's where the 'US' is. Every fucking time.
Part of why Trump wouldn't want to get the Saudis offside, apart from personal interests which are no doubt a huge factor, is that it's more difficult than it used to be to get the public to support bloody warfare in that part of the world. But if you've got a proxy who you can arm to the teeth and get them to do your wet work for you, it's a win-win.
-
Oh, bullshit. China's the one country that could totally tank the dollar, and Trump's perfectly fine being aggressive there.
What's the big difference? The house of Saud has been bankrolling his family (and Kushner) businesses - much as Russia has.
You look at where his money comes from, and that's where the 'US' is. Every fucking time.
And you claim to be a history expert. ::)
-
Part of why Trump wouldn't want to get the Saudis offside, apart from personal interests which are no doubt a huge factor, is that it's more difficult than it used to be to get the public to support bloody warfare in that part of the world. But if you've got a proxy who you can arm to the teeth and get them to do your wet work for you, it's a win-win.
I didn't realize we wanted to bomb yemani civilians so much.
-
Oh, bullshit. China's the one country that could totally tank the dollar, and Trump's perfectly fine being aggressive there.
What's the big difference? The house of Saud has been bankrolling his family (and Kushner) businesses - much as Russia has.
You look at where his money comes from, and that's where the 'US' is. Every fucking time.
And you claim to be a history expert. ::)
No. No I don't.
But prior economic importance, when Saudi oil was so important are of less value today.
Mainly, the Saudi can be used to destabilize the oil market to put pressure on the other big
natural energy economies - Russia and Venezuela. I haven't seen Trump using them this way,
although Obama certainly seems to have.
-
And speaking of Trump being offed for the greater good: I'm sure he'd understand the pragmatism behind the concept, considering his stance on the Saudis.
That's got NOTHING to do with any 'greater good'.
Sure it does. What's a single life (a journalist at that!) when compared to the US-Saudi relations? So what's a single life (Trump) when compared to a more stable globe?
What's a single life (some wanker from Sweden) when compared to a more democratically run message board?? BIG FUCKING PETERS
You should start one.
-
And speaking of Trump being offed for the greater good: I'm sure he'd understand the pragmatism behind the concept, considering his stance on the Saudis.
That's got NOTHING to do with any 'greater good'.
Sure it does. What's a single life (a journalist at that!) when compared to the US-Saudi relations? So what's a single life (Trump) when compared to a more stable globe?
I highly doubt the Cheeto in Chief cares much about Saudi-US relationships, except where 'US' stands for his family.
OK, fair point.
-
Part of why Trump wouldn't want to get the Saudis offside, apart from personal interests which are no doubt a huge factor, is that it's more difficult than it used to be to get the public to support bloody warfare in that part of the world. But if you've got a proxy who you can arm to the teeth and get them to do your wet work for you, it's a win-win.
I didn't realize we wanted to bomb yemani civilians so much.
It's either that your leadership wants the military actions against Yemen, or has a callous disregard for the Yemenis because they continue to supply the military hardware used. Neither reflects well. Not that my country is any different, we support the same regimes as you do.