Most Americans believe progressive liberal politicians are very concerned over gun deaths in America.
But they're not, and they make no real attempt to stop it.
Two out of three gun deaths are actually self-inflicted suicides, and as we all know, Democrats are big on the right to die, so they make no attempt to stop it. Of the remaining deaths, over 80% are inner city drug gangs killing each other, mostly in Democrat controlled big cities, and once again, Democrats make little to no attempt to stop it. In fact, until gun rights advocates pointed out who is actually committing all the US gun murders, we thought our streets weren't safe.
The fact is, if you're not suicidal, not a criminal, not a brave police officer, not an inner city gang member, and stay out of those bad neighborhoods, your chance of being shot in the US is near zero! There is no gun crisis in America. There's a suicide and gang murder crisis, but that's ignored.
So why don't progressive liberal politicians make any real effort to stop suicides and inner city gang killings? Because they want to disarm us and do away with the Second Amendment, so they need those statistics in order to justify it. After all, if they stopped 90+% of all gun deaths, there'd be no issue and no excuse to disarm Americans, would there?
The real question then, is why they want to disarm We, the People? What do they have in mind?
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 09:52:32 AM
Most Americans believe progressive liberal politicians are very concerned over gun deaths in America.
But they're not, and they make no real attempt to stop it.
Two out of three gun deaths are actually self-inflicted suicides, and as we all know, Democrats are big on the right to die, so they make no attempt to stop it. Of the remaining deaths, over 80% are inner city drug gangs killing each other, mostly in Democrat controlled big cities, and once again, Democrats make little to no attempt to stop it. In fact, until gun rights advocates pointed out who is actually committing all the US gun murders, we thought our streets weren't safe.
The fact is, if you're not suicidal, not a criminal, not a brave police officer, not an inner city gang member, and stay out of those bad neighborhoods, your chance of being shot in the US is near zero! There is no gun crisis in America. There's a suicide and gang murder crisis, but that's ignored.
So why don't progressive liberal politicians make any real effort to stop suicides and inner city gang killings? Because they want to disarm us and do away with the Second Amendment, so they need those statistics in order to justify it. After all, if they stopped 90+% of all gun deaths, there'd be no issue and no excuse to disarm Americans, would there?
The real question then, is why they want to disarm We, the People? What do they have in mind?
O-Boy, we got an NRA/Republican who want to blame the left wing and the Democrats for all of this gun violence. :doh: :kickcan:
"O-Boy, we got an NRA/Republican who want to blame the left wing and the Democrats for all of this gun violence."
Which of course is not at all what I said, so I guess you have no real rebuttal.
BTW, Mr. Troll, if you really are a "fighter for the little guy", why would you want big government to disarm all those 'little people' out there in in fly over country?
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 12:38:42 PM
"O-Boy, we got an NRA/Republican who want to blame the left wing and the Democrats for all of this gun violence."
Which of course is not at all what I said, so I guess you have no real rebuttal.
That is a typical Troll response...that is about all he is capable of doing.....
I noticed how several others on here have read, then quietly just slip away without a response....I think that says a whole lot Cowboy!
Nice post! ;) :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2016, 12:41:48 PM
I noticed how several others on here have read, then quietly just slip away without a response....I think that says a whole lot Cowboy!
Perhaps because the entire post rests on the premise that liberal politicians want to do away with the 2nd amendment and disarm everyone which is bullshit?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2016, 12:41:48 PM
Nice post! ;) :yes:
Given the content of their first post, is this a friend of yours? ;D
"Perhaps because the entire post rests on the premise that liberal politicians want to do away with the 2nd amendment and disarm everyone which is bullshit?"
Well I think everyone knows better than that, but here's a list of quotes in case you've been sleeping for the last thirty years:
http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml
Here's a few from folks you know and admire:
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
Joseph Biden
We must get rid of all the guns.
Sarah Brady
And we should -- then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.
Bill Clinton
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 01:24:48 PM
http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml
Here's a few from folks you know and admire:
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
Joseph Biden
We must get rid of all the guns.
Sarah Brady
And we should -- then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.
Bill Clinton
Quotations taken out of context are rarely useful. Perhaps we can have a discussion if you can provide those quotes in context?
BTW, welcome to the Zone. I see you've already met Troll. ;D
As an aside, if you press the "Quote" button on someone's reply, it'll frame their quote in your next post and then you can just type your reply after the quotation like is shown on this post here. It makes it easier to see to whom you're replying. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on July 21, 2016, 01:55:06 PM
Quotations taken out of context are rarely useful. Perhaps we can have a discussion if you can provide those quotes in context?
Thank you. Here we go again... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 21, 2016, 02:03:33 PM
Thank you. Here we go again... :rolleyes:
It's a recurring problem. ;D
Quote from: Exterminator on July 21, 2016, 02:03:33 PM
Thank you. Here we go again... :rolleyes:
How are they out of context.......it seems like an easy way to dodge this one, but blaming all of the quotes to be "out of context".
Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein
November 18, 1993
We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true!. We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer
November 30, 1993
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.
Diane Feinstein
February 5, 1995
I think — you know, we can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles...
Bill Clinton
March 1, 1993
I think these quotes are pretty direct with their meaning an intent....
OK, lots of snark and derision, but so far, no one wants to rebut the OP point by point. That tells me that you know I'm right.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 03:08:16 PM
OK, lots of snark and derision, but so far, no one wants to rebut the OP point by point. That tells me that you know I'm right.
How does asking you to provide the quote in context, welcoming you to the Zone, and attempting to provide assistance to someone new, constitute "snark and derision?"
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2016, 03:07:20 PM
I think these quotes are pretty direct with their meaning an intent....
Hank, we've been down this road before numerous times. You can't glean the meaning of any quote, regardless of who it's from, without seeing it in context. Your hero network "Fox News" does this kind of crap all the time. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Locutus on July 21, 2016, 01:20:30 PM
Given the content of their first post, is this a friend of yours? ;D
It is indeed, a very good friend of mine.... ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2016, 03:16:07 PM
It is indeed, a very good friend of mine.... ;D
Thought it might be. ;D
I hope he likes it here and decides to stick around for awhile. :yes:
Quote from: Locutus on July 21, 2016, 03:15:23 PM
Hank, we've been down this road before numerous times. You can't glean the meaning of any quote, regardless of who it's from, without seeing it in context. Your hero network "Fox News" does this kind of crap all the time. :rolleyes:
C'mon, Locutus...you really don't need the entire transcript to understand that Diane Feinstein meant exactly what she said with quotes like:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
Anyway, let's not get too side tracked from Cowboys point...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2016, 03:19:35 PM
C'mon, Locutus...you really don't need the entire transcript to understand that Diane Feinstein meant exactly what she said with quotes like:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
Anyway, let's not get too side tracked from Cowboys point...
I haven't had a chance to research these quotes just yet, but I'd be willing to wager at least some of them are from debates/discussion regarding the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994-2004. Feinstein was a sponsor of that legislation if you recall. If they are, then providing these quotes to support the original assertion that they want "to disarm, we the people" is simply not factual.
Quote from: Locutus on July 21, 2016, 03:26:08 PM
I haven't had a chance to research these quotes just yet, but I'd be willing to wager at least some of them are from debates/discussion regarding the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994-2004. Feinstein was a sponsor of that legislation if you recall. If they are, then providing these quotes to support the original assertion that they want "to disarm, we the people" is simply not factual.
Indeed they are and every president dating back to at least Reagan has made similar statements regarding assault weapons.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2016, 03:16:07 PM
It is indeed, a very good friend of mine.... ;D
Shocking. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 21, 2016, 03:40:28 PM
Indeed they are and every president dating back to at least Reagan has made similar statements regarding assault weapons.
Oh, then that's it? You just say, indeed they are? You are "assuming" they are referring to assault weapons, but you don't know that.
Maybe you are right? These quotes seem pretty solid.
If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own handguns .... Richard Daley (Chicago Mayor); Federal gun legislation press conference in Washington, D.C., 1998-11-13
He didn't say assault weapons........he said HANDGUNS....
We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to own handguns and rifles that we are unable to think clearly about reality. Bill Clinton (US President); press conference in Piscataway, New Jersey;
USA Today, p. 2A, 1993-03-01
Quote from: Exterminator on July 21, 2016, 03:40:28 PM
Indeed they are and every president dating back to at least Reagan has made similar statements regarding assault weapons.
You know I don't believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state.Michael Dukakis
in conversation with Mike Yacino, MA Gun Owner's Action League, and Roy Innis, CORE
Massachusetts Governor
1986-06-16
That is not out of context...he is pretty clear on his words.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2016, 04:22:15 PM
You know I don't believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state.
Michael Dukakis
in conversation with Mike Yacino, MA Gun Owner's Action League, and Roy Innis, CORE
Massachusetts Governor
1986-06-16
That is not out of context...he is pretty clear on his words.
Any sort of state ban on the ownership of firearms in general isn't going to pass constitutional muster, and you know that.
That's also what I don't get about all of you 'thinkers.' As long as the Constitution is in place, your rights are secure. What in the hell are you all worried about? Everyone was screaming, "Obama is going to take our guns!" as soon as he was elected, yet nothing along those lines ever occurred.
Here is a doosy!!
"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson
This lib nut, wants to arrest people BEFORE they commit crimes!!!! That is very telling about her and her intent! She is even to the point, that declaring if you HAVE a gun, you are likely to be a criminal!!! :spooked:
Quote from: Locutus on July 21, 2016, 04:26:09 PM
Any sort of state ban on the ownership of firearms in general isn't going to pass constitutional muster, and you know that.
But with nutjobs like I just listed, who is in our congress, TRYING to pass laws.......well, that is why we have a NRA. That is why there is concern.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 21, 2016, 04:29:19 PM
But with nutjobs like I just listed, who is in our congress, TRYING to pass laws.......well, that is why we have a NRA. That is why there is concern.
There shouldn't be. The SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed the right to keep and bear arms.
And still no one wants to address the OP.
Progressive liberal politicians want all sorts of new regulations, including so-called 'universal background checks', which means that if you give your brother a gun, you must first do a background check. Obviously no one would know if you did that, so the next step would be universal gun registration. Neither of course would prevent any of the suicide deaths or the gang murders so why do it, unless confiscation is the true goal?
If you won't (can't?) address the OP, I'll understand, but I will not respond to deflections, diversions, or quibbling over quote sources. They're in the link I provided.
You're not getting a virgin.
Quote from: Locutus on July 21, 2016, 04:33:34 PM
There shouldn't be. The SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed the right to keep and bear arms.
Both Heller and McDonald were 5-4. If the Court now becomes 5-4 liberal, they'll reverse both decisions. No doubt about that at all.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 12:38:42 PM
"O-Boy, we got an NRA/Republican who want to blame the left wing and the Democrats for all of this gun violence."
Which of course is not at all what I said, so I guess you have no real rebuttal.
We all know that there are misguided people who want to take out guns. :yes: I believe in owning guns and I own a small collection. :yes: We know that if they take our guns, which they won't. :yes: The only people who will have guns are the cops and the criminals. :rant: We have a police state now and we have criminal gangs and both are both killers. :rant:
But will the Republican controlled House of Representatives do anything about it? No! :no: :no: :no: Hell, they won't even pass a bill to keep people on the no fly list from buying a gun or a person on the terrorist list from buying guns. :no: :no: :no:
Tell me what your plan is, everybody wants to complain, but no one has a plan. :trustme:
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 06:29:35 PM
Both Heller and McDonald were 5-4. If the Court now becomes 5-4 liberal, they'll reverse both decisions. No doubt about that at all.
True about the 5-4, but the court justices place a lot of weight on
stare decisis. That's why they're quizzed on it so much during confirmation hearings. There's nothing sure in pure supposition about future court cases or rulings.
BTW, I still don't buy your original premise that democrats are trying to disarm everyone. That's just factually incorrect. You absolutely have zealots on both sides, but that's an extremely blanket statement to make.
Quote from: The Troll on July 21, 2016, 06:48:36 PM
But will the Republican controlled House of Representatives do anything about it? No! :no: :no: :no: Hell, they won't even pass a bill to keep people on the no fly list from buying a gun or a person on the terrorist list from buying guns. :no: :no: :no:
The no fly list is a no brainer in my opinion. They need to get that legislation passed.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 09:52:32 AM
Two out of three gun deaths are actually self-inflicted suicides, and as we all know, Democrats are big on the right to die, so they make no attempt to stop it. Of the remaining deaths, over 80% are inner city drug gangs killing each other, mostly in Democrat controlled big cities, and once again, Democrats make little to no attempt to stop it. In fact, until gun rights advocates pointed out who is actually committing all the US gun murders, we thought our streets weren't safe.
Hi DC3Cowboy! Welcome aboard! Would you please tell me where you got your stats from? A link would be great for this. TIA!
Quote from: AbbyTC on July 21, 2016, 07:49:22 PM
Hi DC3Cowboy! Welcome aboard! Would you please tell me where you got your stats from? A link would be great for this. TIA!
Thank you.
From the CDC: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
The FBI: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data
Heather MacDonald: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myths-of-black-lives-matter-1468087453
Plus dozens of others.
Look, we all know that the stats are correct. 2 out of 3 gun deaths are suicides and the vast majority of the murders are committed by inner city drug gangs, but the left always insists on endlessly quibbling over the stats in order to avoid talking about what we need to do, because they dread being viewed as racists.
Quote from: Locutus on July 21, 2016, 07:25:54 PM
True about the 5-4, but the court justices place a lot of weight on stare decisis. That's why they're quizzed on it so much during confirmation hearings. There's nothing sure in pure supposition about future court cases or rulings.
BTW, I still don't buy your original premise that democrats are trying to disarm everyone. That's just factually incorrect. You absolutely have zealots on both sides, but that's an extremely blanket statement to make.
And I don't buy your premise that it's factually incorrect that Democrats want to disarm America. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have said that the gun control system they want to implement is Australia's. Since I doubt that you know what this, allow me to tell you: Australia passed a law requiring everyone to register their firearms, all the while promising that they would not come after them. Then they almost immediately reneged on that promise and ordered all of them surrendered.
All those quotes I gave you are factual and all of them are sourced.
Again, the real 'gun' problem in America is the inner city drug gang/criminal murders and that's where we need to take action.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 10:19:21 PM
Again, the real 'gun' problem in America is the inner city drug gang/criminal murders and that's where we need to take action.
Welcome DCeCowboy. I've been out of town so haven't been posting. Good to see someone on mine and HH's side finally. Probably won't post much for a few days while I get caught up on some things but look forward to posting with you. :yes:
Quote from: me on July 21, 2016, 10:37:16 PM
Welcome DCeCowboy. I've been out of town so haven't been posting. Good to see someone on mine and HH's side finally. Probably won't post much for a few days while I get caught up on some things but look forward to posting with you. :yes:
Thank you...Me!
Bump....
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 05:28:21 PM
And still no one wants to address the OP.
Progressive liberal politicians want all sorts of new regulations, including so-called 'universal background checks', which means that if you give your brother a gun, you must first do a background check. Obviously no one would know if you did that, so the next step would be universal gun registration. Neither of course would prevent any of the suicide deaths or the gang murders so why do it, unless confiscation is the true goal?
If you won't (can't?) address the OP, I'll understand, but I will not respond to deflections, diversions, or quibbling over quote sources. They're in the link I provided.
You're not getting a virgin.
The vast majority of gun murders are in our inner cities or coming from there and are committed by young black and Hispanic males. We know who they are and where they are so why aren't we making those streets safe by flooding them with cops and even the National Guard in places like South Chicago?
The biggest problem is, it is considered racist and politically incorrect to even name the culprits.
This is why it is hard to take the Black Lives Matter movement serious.
If they were truly concerned about Black Lives........then they would be protesting in Chicago and Baltimore. Why isn't Sharpton or Jackson there screaming for help?
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She is a recipient of the 2005 Bradley Prize:
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Imprimis_April16.pdf
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 22, 2016, 10:27:45 AM
This is why it is hard to take the Black Lives Matter movement serious.
If they were truly concerned about Black Lives........then they would be protesting in Chicago and Baltimore. Why isn't Sharpton or Jackson there screaming for help?
This is a quote that tells it all, and it's one that progressive liberalism despises because it's true and the man who said it is unimpeachable:
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
― Jesse Jackson
This is what I meant about progressive liberalism supporting the right to die:
Vermont doctors push back against assisted-suicide requirement
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/21/vermont-doctors-push-back-against-assisted-suicide/
Apparently then, the only objection to suicide by firearm is the do-it-yourself method and the cost! A legal and lethal dose of secobarbital costs between $3,000 and $5,000. A round of 9mm costs under 30 cents.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 22, 2016, 10:29:40 AM
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She is a recipient of the 2005 Bradley Prize:
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Imprimis_April16.pdf
This is exactly what I have trying to relay on here for quite some time, but since it makes sense and goes against the liberal agenda, I'm a racist.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 22, 2016, 11:16:33 AM
This is exactly what I have trying to relay on here for quite some time, but since it makes sense and goes against the liberal agenda, I'm a racist.
That's the whole point of political correctness...silencing the opposition by demonizing them with labels like 'racist' for simply telling the truth.
BTW, there's an obviously false report of a gunman shooting up a shopping mall in Munich, Germany. I know it's false because Germany outlawed citizen-owned firearms long ago, and as we all know, that makes it impossible for anyone to commit a mass shooting. Those attacks in France never happened either and for the same reason.
If we just outlaw gun ownership in America, we'll be as safe as they were in Paris and Munich. I know that because Obama and Mrs. Clinton said so.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 22, 2016, 02:27:21 PM
BTW, there's an obviously false report of a gunman shooting up a shopping mall in Munich, Germany. I know it's false because Germany outlawed citizen-owned firearms long ago, and as we all know, that makes it impossible for anyone to commit a mass shooting. Those attacks in France never happened either and for the same reason.
If we just outlaw gun ownership in America, we'll be as safe as they were in Paris and Munich. I know that because Obama and Mrs. Clinton said so.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 22, 2016, 02:18:43 PM
That's the whole point of political correctness...silencing the opposition by demonizing them with labels like 'racist' for simply telling the truth.
I have been saying this same thing, only a little differently, for quite sometime also.
Quote from: me on July 22, 2016, 02:43:23 PM
I have been saying this same thing, only a little differently, for quite sometime also.
It's an obvious truth, isn't it?
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 22, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
It's an obvious truth, isn't it?
It is to me but some people can't seem to grasp it for some reason.
Aw, look at the neocon suck-fest; how adorable. :rolleyes:
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 22, 2016, 02:18:43 PM
That's the whole point of political correctness...silencing the opposition by demonizing them with labels like 'racist' for simply telling the truth.
You just described the GOP keystone. . . :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 22, 2016, 03:32:09 PM
Aw, look at the neocon suck-fest; how adorable. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 22, 2016, 06:48:48 PM
You just described the GOP keystone. . . :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Translation, "we've got nothing".
Quote from: me on July 22, 2016, 07:14:30 PM
Translation, "we've got nothing".
:rolleyes:
Quote from: me on July 22, 2016, 07:14:30 PM
Translation, "we've got nothing".
Actual translation: it's pointless to try to discuss issues with illiterate morons.
Quote from: me on July 22, 2016, 07:14:30 PM
Translation, "we've got nothing".
You really don't. . . :yes:
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 22, 2016, 02:18:43 PM
That's the whole point of political correctness...silencing the opposition by demonizing them with labels like 'racist' for simply telling the truth.
Yep
Example
Quote from: Exterminator on July 24, 2016, 04:46:08 PM
Actual translation: it's pointless to try to discuss issues with illiterate morons.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 09:52:32 AM
Most Americans believe progressive liberal politicians are very concerned over gun deaths in America.
But they're not, and they make no real attempt to stop it.
Two out of three gun deaths are actually self-inflicted suicides, and as we all know, Democrats are big on the right to die, so they make no attempt to stop it. Of the remaining deaths, over 80% are inner city drug gangs killing each other, mostly in Democrat controlled big cities, and once again, Democrats make little to no attempt to stop it. In fact, until gun rights advocates pointed out who is actually committing all the US gun murders, we thought our streets weren't safe.
The fact is, if you're not suicidal, not a criminal, not a brave police officer, not an inner city gang member, and stay out of those bad neighborhoods, your chance of being shot in the US is near zero! There is no gun crisis in America. There's a suicide and gang murder crisis, but that's ignored.
So why don't progressive liberal politicians make any real effort to stop suicides and inner city gang killings? Because they want to disarm us and do away with the Second Amendment, so they need those statistics in order to justify it. After all, if they stopped 90+% of all gun deaths, there'd be no issue and no excuse to disarm Americans, would there?
The real question then, is why they want to disarm We, the People? What do they have in mind?
Hello and welcome to the Zone, DC3Cowboy. I won't comment on the subject now. It's one that gets folks all riled up, and it's Sunday, and a rare lazy day for me.
Quote from: libby on July 24, 2016, 06:30:33 PM
Hello and welcome to the Zone, DC3Cowboy. I won't comment on the subject now. It's one that gets folks all riled up, and it's Sunday, and a rare lazy day for me.
Aw! C'mon! :biggrin:
I'm waiting for Y to get on and notice this topic. :wink:
Quote from: Locutus on July 24, 2016, 06:33:00 PM
Aw! C'mon! :biggrin:
I'm waiting for Y to get on and notice this topic. :wink:
Yes! I like the way he stirs things up. :wink:
Quote from: libby on July 24, 2016, 06:44:06 PM
Yes! I like the way he stirs things up. :wink:
You mean you like the way he thinks he can use big words to twist what he's saying to make himself come out looking like he's right about everything. When you take out all the unnessary BS he spews and get to the point he's got nothing but a pointless non argument.
Quote from: me on July 24, 2016, 07:13:55 PM
You mean you like the way he thinks he can use big words to twist what he's saying to make himself come out looking like he's right about everything. When you take out all the unnessary BS he spews and get to the point he's got nothing but a pointless non argument.
No. I think Y likes to make people stop and think, and, arguments with a lot of different personalities can be fun.
Quote from: libby on July 25, 2016, 12:04:57 AM
No. I think Y likes to make people stop and think, and, arguments with a lot of different personalities can be fun.
No, he wants people to agree with him because he sounds educated and some who don't agree don't want to sound uneducated so they don't question him even when he's wrong.
Quote from: libby on July 25, 2016, 12:04:57 AM
No. I think Y likes to make people stop and think, and, arguments with a lot of different personalities can be fun.
I agree. He and I may not agree on certain things but he is fun to read and he is knowledgeable about things.
Quote from: me on July 25, 2016, 12:36:30 AM
No, he wants people to agree with him because he sounds educated and some who don't agree don't want to sound uneducated so they don't question him even when he's wrong.
Wrong.
Quote from: me on July 24, 2016, 07:13:55 PM
You mean you like the way he thinks he can use big words to twist what he's saying to make himself come out looking like he's right about everything. When you take out all the unnessary BS he spews and get to the point he's got nothing but a pointless non argument.
Kind of like you just did. You could have said that in a shorter sentence but instead you dragged it out you could have said he tries to appear to be more intellectual than others and he isn't.
Quote from: me on July 25, 2016, 12:36:30 AM
No, he wants people to agree with him because he sounds educated and some who don't agree don't want to sound uneducated so they don't question him even when he's wrong.
Since when have you ever cared that you sound uneducated? You flaunt that here daily! :biggrin:
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on July 25, 2016, 07:12:51 AM
Kind of like you just did. You could have said that in a shorter sentence but instead you dragged it out you could have said he tries to appear to be more intellectual than others and he isn't.
Or, he knows how to twist things using big words and spew BS. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on July 25, 2016, 08:15:34 AM
Or, he knows how to twist things using big words and spew BS. :biggrin:
I've never seen Y spewing BS.
Quote from: Locutus on July 25, 2016, 08:43:34 AM
I've never seen Y spewing BS.
It's only BS to her because with her limited vocabulary, she has no idea what he's talking about. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 25, 2016, 09:01:02 AM
It's only BS to her because with her limited vocabulary, she has no idea what he's talking about. :rolleyes:
He's talking democratic socialist garbage which I don't agree with at all.
Quote from: me on July 25, 2016, 09:27:05 AM
He's talking democratic socialist garbage which I don't agree with at all.
You don't even know what socialism is, whack job.
Quote from: Locutus on July 25, 2016, 08:43:34 AM
I've never seen Y spewing BS.
I haven't either. Now, granted I don't know him that well but I guess what she considers facts is BS.
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on July 25, 2016, 10:16:42 AM
I haven't either. Now, granted I don't know him that well but I guess what she considers facts is BS.
Facts???? They are mostly theory and opinions based on other opinions. Theory is not fact:
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of theory
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true : the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
Quote from: libby on July 25, 2016, 12:04:57 AM
No. I think Y likes to make people stop and think, and, arguments with a lot of different personalities can be fun.
Absolutely. :yes:
I encountered him well over a decade ago. How he put up with my ignorance and emotional turbulence is well beyond my ability to comprehend. I said some things to him I came to deeply regret a long time ago, and I still regret them to this very day. But he never held any of that against me and we became friends; a fact that I am proud of despite my idiotic behavior very early on.
He has taught me things I would have never learned otherwise, and still does so. I value his perspectives even when I disagree with them. They force me to think outside of the box and to use critical thought. Many times his views have been responsible for leading me to new paths and thoughts / ideas.
THAT is a true teacher in my view. And he does it extremely well. :yes: And the thing about it is it is free and doesn't cost you anything except the time to listen or read. And he gives it freely and in the true spirit of enlightenment. :yes:
Quote from: Locutus on July 25, 2016, 08:43:34 AM
I've never seen Y spewing BS.
Me neither. In fact he is the closest thing to a human BS detector I have ever seen. :yes:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 25, 2016, 07:43:24 PM
Absolutely. :yes:
I encountered him well over a decade ago. How he put up with my ignorance and emotional turbulence is well beyond my ability to comprehend. I said some things to him I came to deeply regret a long time ago, and I still regret them to this very day. But he never held any of that against me and we became friends; a fact that I am proud of despite my idiotic behavior very early on.
He has taught me things I would have never learned otherwise, and still does so. I value his perspectives even when I disagree with them. They force me to think outside of the box and to use critical thought. Many times his views have been responsible for leading me to new paths and thoughts / ideas.
THAT is a true teacher in my view. And he does it extremely well. :yes: And the thing about it is it is free and doesn't cost you anything except the time to listen or read. And he gives it freely and in the true spirit of enlightenment. :yes:
Don't know him myself but usually people who spout off like he does is only trying to impress and it turns me off from the get go. Most of what he says is theory and, IMO, cannot be considered as fact. Some of it is opinion which is also not fact. Maybe that makes me close minded but so be it. I do listen to different opinions and sometimes have changed my mind about something but skip all the BS and big words and just talk I'm not impressed.
Where's DC3Cowboy?
:icon_twisted: :icon_twisted:
;D
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2016, 09:16:16 PM
Where's DC3Cowboy?
:icon_twisted: :icon_twisted:
;D
I've been wondering the same thing.
Quote from: AbbyTC on July 26, 2016, 09:17:54 PM
I've been wondering the same thing.
I'm waiting for Y to show up.
:devil29:
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2016, 09:18:51 PM
I'm waiting for Y to show up.
:devil29:
He must have better things to do.
:yes: :biggrin:
Could be on an extended vacation. It is summer ya know. :biggrin:
Maybe he's just being a forum slacker. :razz:
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2016, 09:51:48 PM
Maybe he's just being a forum slacker. :razz:
Maybe???? I think that would be definitely.... :razz:
:biggrin:
Oh well, maybe tomorrow.
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2016, 09:16:16 PM
Where's DC3Cowboy?
:icon_twisted: :icon_twisted:
;D
I'm here. Just waiting for someone to dispute me on the facts.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 27, 2016, 07:54:54 PM
I'm here. Just waiting for someone to dispute me on the facts.
Glad you didn't desert us I was wonderin' for a bit there.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 27, 2016, 07:54:54 PM
I'm here. Just waiting for someone to dispute me on the facts.
I really didn't see where you presented any facts. :wink:
----v
Quote from: Exterminator on July 21, 2016, 01:12:07 PM
Perhaps because the entire post rests on the premise that liberal politicians want to do away with the 2nd amendment and disarm everyone which is bullshit?
Why aren't we declaring America's inner cities disaster areas due to all the shootings and taking appropriate measures to put a halt to it? Why not flood those areas with police officers and even the National Guard if needed.Why not find out who the leaders are and slap them in prisons? Why not man the borders and stop the flow of the illegal drugs these killers are selling?
And why not create an effective program to drastically lower suicide rates?
Why are our politicians not making this a national priority?
My guess is that they don't want to lose the issue. If inner city gun murders and gun suicides were drastically reduced, there would be no excuse to disarm the rest of us.
It would help if they'd admit the largest part of shootings and crime is in the gun free zones and places with the most strict gun laws.
Quote from: Locutus on July 28, 2016, 03:21:23 PM
I really didn't see where you presented any facts. :wink:
----v
Then you're being deliberately obtuse. The fact is, the vast majority of gun deaths in America are either self-inflicted suicides or inner city drug gangs killing each other. That is a fact.
The other half of my statement is that the DC Beltway political class seems content to allow these deaths since none of them are seriously trying to stop it. I suspect that is because they need the issue.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 28, 2016, 06:15:58 PM
Then you're being deliberately obtuse. The fact is, the vast majority of gun deaths in America are either self-inflicted suicides or inner city drug gangs killing each other. That is a fact.
Do you have a link for some data to back up this claim besides just claiming that everyone, save you, is obtuse? I'm not necessarily saying you're lying, I just haven't studied this kind of data in depth for awhile.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 28, 2016, 06:15:58 PM
The other half of my statement is that the DC Beltway political class seems content to allow these deaths since none of them are seriously trying to stop it. I suspect that is because they need the issue.
Addressing inner city gun violence/gangs/drugs/suicides are separate issues from the gun control issue that you're apparently here to discuss. There are multiple causes and issues in play here from the local level all the way up to the federal government.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 28, 2016, 06:15:58 PM
Then you're being deliberately obtuse. The fact is, the vast majority of gun deaths in America are either self-inflicted suicides or inner city drug gangs killing each other. That is a fact.
The other half of my statement is that the DC Beltway political class seems content to allow these deaths since none of them are seriously trying to stop it. I suspect that is because they need the issue.
A singular 'fact', not multiple 'facts', is what you've presented.
The rest is a Non-Sequitur...look it up.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 09:52:32 AM
Most Americans believe progressive liberal politicians are very concerned over gun deaths in America.
But they're not, and they make no real attempt to stop it.
Those aren't 'facts', those are opinions...and unsupported ones at that.
What we know about opinions is that unless they are supported by, and based on, evidence, facts, and logic, they are inherently worthless and fall under the old adage of "opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and most of them stink!"
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 09:52:32 AM
...So why don't progressive liberal politicians make any real effort to stop suicides and inner city gang killings? Because they want to disarm us and do away with the Second Amendment, so they need those statistics in order to justify it. After all, if they stopped 90+% of all gun deaths, there'd be no issue and no excuse to disarm Americans, would there?
The real question then, is why they want to disarm We, the People? What do they have in mind?
You appear to be another 'gun nut' perpetuating the "they're gonna' take our guns" RW rhetoric.
First, if you want to argue the Second Amendment, bring it on. That amendment neither says, nor confers, what you appear to think it does.
Secondly, you've established no basis upon which to ask the 'disarm' question. You've put the cart before the horse.
I sincerely hope you have the gumption to do the necessary work - research wise and intellectually - to argue this issue.
BTW, your fiction - and I happen to like Western fiction - doesn't bear any relationship with reality and you shouldn't use it as any apparent basis for forming your worldview. ; )
Where is the like button? :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 28, 2016, 08:07:04 PM
Where is the like button? :biggrin:
:headbang:
Quote from: Y on July 28, 2016, 07:17:03 PM
You appear to be another 'gun nut' perpetuating the "they're gonna' take our guns" RW rhetoric.
First, if you want to argue the Second Amendment, bring it on. That amendment neither says, nor confers, what you appear to think it does.
Secondly, you've established no basis upon which to ask the 'disarm' question. You've put the cart before the horse.
I sincerely hope you have the gumption to do the necessary work - research wise and intellectually - to argue this issue.
BTW, your fiction - and I happen to like Western fiction - doesn't bear any relationship with reality and you shouldn't use it as any apparent basis for forming your worldview. ; )
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: (I found it eh?)
Quote from: Y on July 28, 2016, 07:17:03 PM
You appear to be another 'gun nut' perpetuating the "they're gonna' take our guns" RW rhetoric.
First, if you want to argue the Second Amendment, bring it on. That amendment neither says, nor confers, what you appear to think it does.
Secondly, you've established no basis upon which to ask the 'disarm' question. You've put the cart before the horse.
I sincerely hope you have the gumption to do the necessary work - research wise and intellectually - to argue this issue.
BTW, your fiction - and I happen to like Western fiction - doesn't bear any relationship with reality and you shouldn't use it as any apparent basis for forming your worldview. ; )
1) Thanks for the expected progressive liberal labeling. You did not disappoint.
2) We don't need to argue the Second Amendment. That's settled law and I accept it. You should too. See Heller and McDonald.
3) I gave the board hundreds of quotes from progressives that adequately demonstrate that gun confiscation is their goal.. That you progressives choose to ignore them is not my problem.
4) I sincerely hope you have the gumption to be honest in this debate. However, I doubt it. You've already demonstrated that.
In 2014, there were 33599 gun deaths. 21344 were suicides, which, at 64% is right at 2 out 3. Of the 12,225 remaining deaths, 10,945 were homicides, and right at 3 out of four were committed by blacks and Hispanics (72.4%). (All but a few homicides are committed by the same race as the victim.)
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 28, 2016, 08:16:16 PM
1) Thanks for the expected progressive liberal labeling. You did not disappoint.
2) We don't need to argue the Second Amendment. That's settled law and I accept it. You should too. See Heller and McDonald.
3) I gave the board hundreds of quotes from progressives that adequately demonstrate that gun confiscation is their goal.. That you progressives choose to ignore them is not my problem.
4) I sincerely hope you have the gumption to be honest in this debate. However, I doubt it. You've already demonstrated that.
In 2014, there were 33599 gun deaths. 21344 were suicides, which, at 64% is right at 2 out 3. Of the 12,225 remaining deaths, 10,945 were homicides, and right at 3 out of four were committed by blacks and Hispanics (72.4%). (All but a few homicides are committed by the same race as the victim.)
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
1. Don't whine, your words/positions here create the basis for you to fall under that label. Wear it proudly, and defend it, or stop acting like one if you don't like it. ; )
2. Pfft! You only accept it because that political decision - yes political, not one based on the Second Amendment had there been less 'conservative' ideologues on the Court - suits the fallacies to which you adhere. ; )
3. Quotes, especially cherry-picked quotes without context, are inherently useless. Do you have any examples of passed legislation which is directly responsible for confiscating all guns?
Actually, you're playing a usual RW game of riding both sides of the fence. You claim legislators are both lax and inactive when it come to this issue, THEN you claim they're trying to confiscate ALL you 'gun nutz' guns and trying to disarm everyone.
You can't have it both ways. ; )
4. If you want to make the 'honesty' claim, then you have to face the fact that you threw away 'honesty' right out of the gate.
Now, that aside, what do you think are the logical conclusions to actually be drawn from those statistics?
And here's something else that shows the inanity of your argument/position.
You give statistics, and make the claim, that under most situations the populace doesn't need to worry about 'gun violence'.
Then you make the claim (unsubstantiated by fact) the 'libs' are 'coming to get everyone's guns' which has at its basis the assumptions that living in America IS dangerous, AND that you NEED your guns for protection in this 'dangerous' America'
You DO see the absurdity of such an argument, don't you?
I'm also STILL waiting for your Second Amendment argument. :wink:
Ain't google great?
:)
Best regards,
Duke (where's me back-up) Jupiter
Quote from: Y on July 28, 2016, 08:40:33 PM
1. Don't whine, your words/positions here create the basis for you to fall under that label. Wear it proudly, and defend it, or stop acting like one if you don't like it. ; )
2. Pfft! You only accept it because that political decision - yes political, not one based on the Second Amendment had there been less 'conservative' ideologues on the Court - suits the fallacies to which you adhere. ; )
3. Quotes, especially cherry-picked quotes without context, are inherently useless. Do you have any examples of passed legislation which is directly responsible for confiscating all guns?
Actually, you're playing a usual RW game of riding both sides of the fence. You claim legislators are both lax and inactive when it come to this issue, THEN you claim they're trying to confiscate ALL you 'gun nutz' guns and trying to disarm everyone.
You can't have it both ways. ; )
4. If you want to make the 'honesty' claim, then you have to face the fact that you threw away 'honesty' right out of the gate.
Now, that aside, what do you think are the logical conclusions to actually be drawn from those statistics?
Typical progressive liberal response which is to divert, deflect, deny, and dismiss. That means you have absolutely no intention of actually addressing the topic, which is why our political classes (and you) refuse to address the real gun death problem, which is suicides and minority crime.
Quote from: Y on July 28, 2016, 08:52:30 PM
And here's something else that shows the inanity of your argument/position.
You give statistics, and make the claim, that under most situations the populace doesn't need to worry about 'gun violence'.
Then you make the claim (unsubstantiated by fact) the 'libs' are 'coming to get everyone's guns' which has at its basis the assumptions that living in America IS dangerous, AND that you NEED your guns for protection in this 'dangerous' America'
You DO see the absurdity of such an argument, don't you?
Yes, which is why I never made such a stupid argument. Those are your words, not mine. Do you really have to be such a typical liberal ass?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 22, 2016, 11:16:33 AM
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 22, 2016, 10:29:40 AM
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She is a recipient of the 2005 Bradley Prize:
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Imprimis_April16.pdf
This is exactly what I have trying to relay on here for quite some time, but since it makes sense and goes against the liberal agenda, I'm a racist.
No, your views are racist not because of some imagined 'liberal agenda' but because they are demeaning, discriminatory, and anti persons of color.
MacDonald is a closeted racist and 'conservative' (read racist) RW apologist.
Her adapted article in Imprimis - which I receive from Hillsdale and read - is simply racist apologetics and attacks and founded on faulty premise.
That the cowgirl would use it - and that you would agree with it - doesn't surprise me at all.
PS: don't either of you cry about the use of 'cowgirl' as it is apropo. You can't be such a girly to claim America is SO dangerous that you need guns to protect yourself and then claim America doesn't need to worry about gun violence all while presenting yourself as a 'cowboy' without placing yourself firmly in the 'sissy' - hence 'cowgirl' - category. :biggrin:
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 28, 2016, 09:29:01 PM
Typical progressive liberal response which is to divert, deflect, deny, and dismiss. That means you have absolutely no intention of actually addressing the topic, which is why our political classes (and you) refuse to address the real gun death problem, which is suicides and minority crime.
I see you're not addressing anything, cowgirl. :biggrin:
You don't appear to have any argument, or skills.
Anyway, what about that Second Amendment argument?
Since you can't defend your original flawed mish-mash. :biggrin:
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 28, 2016, 09:31:00 PM
Yes, which is why I never made such a stupid argument. Those are your words, not mine. Do you really have to be such a typical liberal ass?
LOL!
Another typical RW trait, lying. :wink:
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 09:52:32 AM
The fact is, if you're not suicidal, not a criminal, not a brave police officer, not an inner city gang member, and stay out of those bad neighborhoods, your chance of being shot in the US is near zero! There is no gun crisis in America.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 09:52:32 AM
Because they want to disarm us and do away with the Second Amendment, so they need those statistics in order to justify it. After all, if they stopped 90+% of all gun deaths, there'd be no issue and no excuse to disarm Americans, would there?
The real question then, is why they want to disarm We, the People? What do they have in mind?
So, oh, but you did. :wink:
<snicker>
Quote from: Palehorse on July 28, 2016, 08:15:05 PM
:headbang:
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: (I found it eh?)
:wave: :wave:
"I'm not here to repeal the 2nd amendment; I'm not here to take away your guns; I just don't want you to be shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place." -- Hillary Clinton
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 09:52:32 AM
The real question then, is why they want to disarm We, the People? What do they have in mind?
Doesn't sound like they want to disarm We, the People.
Quote from: Locutus on July 28, 2016, 11:22:08 PM
"I'm not here to repeal the 2nd amendment; I'm not here to take your guns; I'm here to make sure you don't get shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place." -- Hillary Clinton
Seems pretty clear to me.
Quote from: AbbyTC on July 28, 2016, 11:26:23 PM
Doesn't sound like they want to disarm We, the People.
Seems pretty clear to me.
It is to sensible people.
Well, I guess I'm going to have to wait until the next time I drop in to see if the cowgirl makes himself a useful RW idjit - instead of a useless one.
Hell, maybe ole' Hank can help him...
...NOT! :razz:
:biggrin:
Quote from: Locutus on July 28, 2016, 11:27:03 PM
It is to sensible people.
Don't you mean sensible
thinking people? ;)
Quote from: Y on July 28, 2016, 11:28:58 PM
Well, I guess I'm going to have to wait until the next time I drop in to see if the cowgirl makes himself a useful RW idjit - instead of a useless one.
Hell, maybe ole' Hank can help him...
...NOT! :razz:
:biggrin:
:biggrin:
It's now obvious that if you're looking for a civil discussion with adults, you won't find it here. Sneers, jeers, juvenile 'cowgirl' nic-twisting, and the obvious progressive-liberal circle-jerk has convinced me, so have a great time and goodbye.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 29, 2016, 12:58:49 PM
It's now obvious that if you're looking for a civil discussion with adults, you won't find it here. Sneers, jeers, juvenile 'cowgirl' nic-twisting, and the obvious progressive-liberal circle-jerk has convinced me, so have a great time and goodbye.
It is fun, most of the time, to see them make fools of themselves when they can't come up with a valid argument and see them resort to name calling and childish behaviour.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 29, 2016, 12:58:49 PM
It's now obvious that if you're looking for a civil discussion with adults, you won't find it here. Sneers, jeers, juvenile 'cowgirl' nic-twisting, and the obvious progressive-liberal circle-jerk has convinced me, so have a great time and goodbye.
This isn't a progresive-liberal circle jerk. There are at least 2 that tip to the conservative side around here.
You came in and made an unsubstantiated claim in your very first post. It was pointed out to you a couple of times. Unfortunately, you then met Y who is an absolute
expert at holding ones feet to the fire when making unsubstantiated claims.
I invite you to stick around. You're just going to have to have your facts in order.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 29, 2016, 12:58:49 PM
It's now obvious that if you're looking for a civil discussion with adults, you won't find it here. Sneers, jeers, juvenile 'cowgirl' nic-twisting, and the obvious progressive-liberal circle-jerk has convinced me, so have a great time and goodbye.
You're just a thin skinned Republican who is just a big cry baby. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: Bye bye cry baby. :cry: :haha: :haha: Now go vote for Trump, Dumbass. :finger2:
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 29, 2016, 12:58:49 PM
It's now obvious that if you're looking for a civil discussion with adults, you won't find it here. .
Prime example Cowboy.......
Quote from: The Troll on July 31, 2016, 11:03:41 PM
You're just a thin skinned Republican who is just a big cry baby. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: Bye bye cry baby. :cry: :haha: :haha: Now go vote for Trump, Dumbass. :finger2:
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2016, 09:18:51 PM
I'm waiting for Y to show up.
:devil29:
THIS is what pisses me off!!! :rant:
Instead of discussing a very good topic with Cowboy........you sandbagged, until Y came and threw insults.
NO wonder nobody sticks around here that has opposing opinions.
Even EX, could only muster up some insults, instead of TRYING to have a conversation.
This place sucks! :rant:
At least the political side does. :yes:
We have had the same folks for 10 years now.........nobody here is going to change anybody's mind.
How many times can YOU guys claim "You can't fix stupid" .. :rolleyes:
It is a waste of time...and useless. :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 01, 2016, 12:26:04 PM
THIS is what pisses me off!!! :rant:
Instead of discussing a very good topic with Cowboy........you sandbagged, until Y came and threw insults.
NO wonder nobody sticks around here that has opposing opinions.
Even EX, could only muster up some insults, instead of TRYING to have a conversation.
This place sucks! :rant:
At least the political side does. :yes:
We have had the same folks for 10 years now.........nobody here is going to change anybody's mind.
How many times can YOU guys claim "You can't fix stupid" .. :rolleyes:
It is a waste of time...and useless. :yes:
you're right Henry, you just can't fix stupid and that's why we can't fix you. :music1: :guitarist: :music1: :boohoo: :music1: and a little drum roll. :drummer: :haha:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 01, 2016, 12:26:04 PM
Even EX, could only muster up some insults, instead of TRYING to have a conversation.
How is it insulting to suggest that his argument wasn't valid because it was based entirely on a false premise?
Quote from: Exterminator on July 22, 2016, 03:32:09 PM
Aw, look at the neocon suck-fest; how adorable. :rolleyes:
Yeah, well, once I realized that he was just another right-wing moron unwilling to even consider the fact that his logic was flawed, I had no reason to engage him further. I also don't engage crazy homeless people who wander around talking to themselves for pretty much the same reason.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 01, 2016, 12:26:04 PM
THIS is what pisses me off!!! :rant:
Instead of discussing a very good topic with Cowboy........you sandbagged, until Y came and threw insults.
He came in and his very first post was based, like Ex said, on a false premise. Inner city gun violence, and its causes, are a completely separate conversation that could have been had. Yet he includes with it a shot at liberal politicians which is completely unfounded and untrue.
People have been screaming, "They're coming for our guns!!" ever since Obama was elected, and not once has a gun grab, or anything even remotely close to it, been attempted by Obama or anyone else. Yet the screaming continues up to and including the very first post made by your friend. If you recall back in the 2009 time frame, there was a very real shortage of ammunition that occurred because of these gun nut jobs hoarding ammunition out of fear. Of course, they blamed their little self-created shortage on Obama anyway and still screamed, "They're coming for our guns!"
Again, as Ex noted, it's a false premise.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 21, 2016, 09:52:32 AM
So why don't progressive liberal politicians make any real effort to stop suicides and inner city gang killings? Because they want to disarm us and do away with the Second Amendment, so they need those statistics in order to justify it. After all, if they stopped 90+% of all gun deaths, there'd be no issue and no excuse to disarm Americans, would there?
The real question then, is why they want to disarm We, the People? What do they have in mind?
Quote from: Locutus on August 01, 2016, 01:51:36 PM
He came in and his very first post was based, like Ex said, on a false premise. Inner city gun violence, and its causes, are a completely separate conversation that could have been had. Yet he includes with it a shot at liberal politicians which is completely unfounded and untrue.
People have been screaming, "They're coming for our guns!!" ever since Obama was elected, and not once has a gun grab, or anything even remotely close to it, been attempted by Obama or anyone else. Yet the screaming continues up to and including the very first post made by your friend. If you recall back in the 2009 time frame, there was a very real shortage of ammunition that occurred because of these gun nut jobs hoarding ammunition out of fear. Of course, they blamed their little self-created shortage on Obama anyway and still screamed, "They're coming for our guns!"
Again, as Ex noted, it's a false premise.
They are trying just haven't accomplished it yet because they're finding they're having to go the long way around. If you don't see what's going on it won't do any good to try to explain it because until it affects you you won't see it.
Quote from: me on August 01, 2016, 02:04:19 PM
They are trying just haven't accomplished it yet because they're finding they're having to go the long way around. If you don't see what's going on it won't do any good to try to explain it because until it affects you you won't see it.
You're just as nuts as he is.
Everything I posted above is factual.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 01, 2016, 01:12:14 PM
Yeah, well, once I realized that he was just another right-wing moron unwilling to even consider the fact that his logic was flawed, I had no reason to engage him further. I also don't engage crazy homeless people who wander around talking to themselves for pretty much the same reason.
BULLSHIT! He merely was starting a conversation. You didn't do shit until Y came to your rescue. I guess people either have to think like you or they are not welcome here.....
You always claim you wanted more here.....THAT is why. I'm out too!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 01, 2016, 02:21:53 PM
BULLSHIT! He merely was starting a conversation. You didn't do shit until Y came to your rescue.
That's not true at all; I was one of the first people to respond to his drivel.
QuoteI guess people either have to think like you or they are not welcome here.....
I have no control over who is or isn't welcome here nor do I really care whether or not people think like me. I would, however, like it if they would simply think.
QuoteTHAT is why. I'm out too!
Again?
Quote from: Locutus on August 01, 2016, 02:05:14 PM
You're just as nuts as he is.
Everything I posted above is factual.
You can suggest or explain your view on a subject just as I or anyone else can but you cannot dictate what my opinion should be on it just as I cannot dictate to what yours should be. Name calling and put downs are totally uncalled for in a civil discussion and it becomes bullying rather than discussing and is no longer an exchange of ideas and views. Arguing is pointless but true discussion is a good thing.
<-----------
Quote from: me on August 01, 2016, 03:36:16 PM
Arguing is pointless but true discussion is a good thing.
The problem is that you, when factual data are presented, cast the data aside because they don't fit in with your view or opinion. It's almost as bad as laying a black piece of paper down in front of you, and you claiming it's white just because that's your 'opinion' of the color. :rolleyes:
As Y, I, and others have said countless times around here, your opinion isn't valid unless it's based on facts, evidence, and logic.
Quote from: Locutus on August 01, 2016, 03:53:17 PM
The problem is that you, when factual data are presented, cast the data aside because they don't fit in with your view or opinion. It's almost as bad as laying a black piece of paper down in front of you, and you claiming it's white just because that's your 'opinion' of the color. :rolleyes:
As Y, I, and others have said countless times around here, your opinion isn't valid unless it's based on facts, evidence, and logic.
Not everyone can see things the same and some things which are presented as facts are, in actuallity, only theroies created by info plugged into a computer or polls taken which may have different outcomes when taken in different places with different people. If what you say is correct everyone would have to think alike and that just isn't going to happen.
Quote from: me on August 01, 2016, 04:18:01 PM
If what you say is correct everyone would have to think alike and that just isn't going to happen.
That's not remotely true either, and is exactly why Exterminator has said what he's said about you.
Quote from: Locutus on August 01, 2016, 04:19:54 PM
That's not remotely true either, and is exactly why Exterminator has said what he's said about you.
Tell me then how can theory stand as fact when it can't be proved one way or the other and will have different outcomes depending on the info used to arrive at the theory? The person trying to prove a point will always use info supporting what they are trying to convey and tend to ignore things which disagree with it, or maybe use just enough to come up with a percentage, favoring them of course.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 01, 2016, 02:21:53 PM
THAT is why. I'm out too!
When your sore meat curtains heal and you decide to come back, you will be required to fill out this form. :biggrin:
(http://cdn.pophangover.com/wp-content/uploads/butthurt.jpg)
I love the Butthurt Report Form. ;D
Any one want to bet that chicken Henry :chick: wouldn't fill it out even if you paid him. :hellur: :hellur: :hellur: :hellur: :hellur: :hellur: :hellur:
Where's DC3Cowboy? His tongue is tied. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on August 03, 2016, 12:28:46 AM
Where's DC3Cowboy? His tongue is tied. ;D
Or he has better things to do. Hum, that would be a good song title..... :biggrin: Maybe I've got better things to do. I'll have to give that some thought.... :yes:
Quote from: me on August 03, 2016, 12:30:20 AM
Or he has better things to do. Hum, that would be a good song title..... :biggrin: Maybe I've got better things to do. I'll have to give that some thought.... :yes:
He's reading the thread right now. Look at the top. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on August 03, 2016, 12:28:46 AM
Where's DC3Cowboy? His tongue is tied. ;D
Oh he's probably out getting drunk, drinking koolaid :koolaid: He's probably at the same Republican bar as our right wing christian, Henry.
Quote from: DC3Cowboy on July 29, 2016, 12:58:49 PM
It's now obvious that if you're looking for a civil discussion with adults, you won't find it here. Sneers, jeers, juvenile 'cowgirl' nic-twisting, and the obvious progressive-liberal circle-jerk has convinced me, so have a great time and goodbye.
Do you need a 'whaaaaaaaambulance!'?
You're simply a crybaby who, when starting out posting a bunch of baiting, foolish, crap, got shown - even before I showed up - the absolute trolling and stupidity you spewed, whines around here lying about what you posted, refusing to own up to your foolishness, and going behind the scenes fermenting trouble with at least one long time poster.
'Cowgirl' is apt, but whining weasel is more apropo.
Why don't you accept it when you're on the losing side of an argument and change your 'opinions' as well as forming more cogent arguments able to withstand dissection and analysis.
Whydon'tcha'!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 01, 2016, 12:26:04 PM
THIS is what pisses me off!!! :rant:
Instead of discussing a very good topic with Cowboy........you sandbagged, until Y came and threw insults.
NO wonder nobody sticks around here that has opposing opinions.
Even EX, could only muster up some insults, instead of TRYING to have a conversation.
.........nobody here is going to change anybody's mind.
As I pointed out to that 'Whiny Weasel', people had already shown the lack of thoughtfulness and cogency behind that crap he posted long before I showed up to waste more time than I should have on that tripe.
The reason I keep seeing for no change in opinions is that people like you simply do not want to give up your biases and prejudices in the face of incontrovertible evidence, fact, and logic.
Therefore, we keep remaining at an impasse.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 01, 2016, 02:21:53 PM
BULLSHIT! He merely was starting a conversation. You didn't do shit until Y came to your rescue. I guess people either have to think like you or they are not welcome here.....
You always claim you wanted more here.....THAT is why. I'm out too!
Jeezus-peezus, Hank!
He was FAR from 'merely...starting a conversation', and you know it. People here had already pointed it out before I came on the scene.
Who 'unwelcomed' him or told him to leave??? No one.
People did exactly what forums do, and that's argue for/against propositions.
He couldn't argue for his, and several people promoted cogent arguments against.
His widdle feelings got hurt - most likely because he, like you, are used to all that glad hand circle jerking that goes on at the Hub - and cried both here and to you, and you were manipulated into sticking up for your Hub 'bud' instead of taking a good close look at his original post and his posts from there on.
If he had any ballz and the gumption of the moniker 'Cowboy' he uses, he'd pick himself up, dust himself off, and not make the same mistakes again when dealing with folks that are guided by evidence, facts, and logic...
...otherwise, 'Cowgirl' it is. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on August 01, 2016, 04:31:45 PM
Tell me then how can theory stand as fact when it can't be proved one way or the other and will have different outcomes depending on the info used to arrive at the theory? The person trying to prove a point will always use info supporting what they are trying to convey and tend to ignore things which disagree with it, or maybe use just enough to come up with a percentage, favoring them of course.
How many time have we explained to you and your ilk your constant mixed up usage of the term theory?
Pay attention!:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theory
theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural theories.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.Not everyone only looks at, or uses, information preferential to their premise etc.. There are many of us who analyze by looking at all sides and using facts, evidence, and logic to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that passes such scrutiny.
It appears that your ilk are the ones who can't, or won't, put away your prejudices and biases in order to do that.
Quote from: Y on August 31, 2016, 06:40:27 PM
How many time have we explained to you and your ilk your constant mixed up usage of the term theory?
Pay attention!:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theory
theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural theories.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
Not everyone only looks at, or uses, information preferential to their premise etc.. There are many of us who analyze by looking at all sides and using facts, evidence, and logic to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that passes such scrutiny.
It appears that your ilk are the ones who can't, or won't, put away your prejudices and biases in order to do that.
Logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Quote from: Y on August 31, 2016, 06:40:27 PM
How many time have we explained to you and your ilk your constant mixed up usage of the term theory?
Pay attention!:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theory
theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural theories.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
Not everyone only looks at, or uses, information preferential to their premise etc.. There are many of us who analyze by looking at all sides and using facts, evidence, and logic to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that passes such scrutiny.
It appears that your ilk are the ones who can't, or won't, put away your prejudices and biases in order to do that.
theory
/ˈθɪərɪ/
noun (pl) -ries
1.
a system of rules, procedures, and
assumptions used to produce a result
2.
abstract knowledge or reasoning
3.
a
speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that
Quote from: me on September 01, 2016, 10:46:29 AM
theory
/ˈθɪərɪ/
noun (pl) -ries
1.
a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result
2.
abstract knowledge or reasoning
3.
a speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that
:me: I sure would like to see a debate between you and "Y". :haha: :haha: You would make such a wonderful LOSER. :yes: Miss Froggy. :frog: