Leftards Beware When Assaulting Trump Fans

[Dr Grump]

Difficult to find them right now, but here's a start:

Violent Crime: The US and Abroad - Criminal Justice Degree Hub

Germany is mostly white. They have .5% of Africans.
France is 85% white, or other European decent. About 3.5% blacks.
Austria is over 80% white when you include their German population. They list 10% as other.
The only statistics I can find about Canada is that 23% of their population are people of color.
Australia is about 77% white, about 15% Asians, and only .7% African.

The US is 72% white, 16% Hispanic, and 12.6% black. So there is a huge difference in demographics, especially among those who are the most violent groups in our country.

The link is pretty much useless. It is a site created by friends and it doesn't do comparison well. If you want me to give examples, more than happy to.

So Canada, Australia and the US have similar Demographics. Germany has 80 per cent native population. You seem to single out blacks as if they make a difference. The most hated race in Germany is Turks who are a huge minority. Just because they are European doesn't mean they are liked. In Australia it is the Arabaic people, especially Lebanese (or Lebs as is the derisive name they are called by racists down here) who get the most shit and those from the Balkans who make up significant minorities in this country. Your excuse doesn't wash. I'd argue it's because of your gun culture these figures are so high.

 

[Dr Grump]

And you made no effort to refute it. Because you can't.

Funny how that works.

You made the statement. It's yours to prove. Saying "because I said so" and then give an asinine statement like who is more likely to be assaulted, is just pathetic. Give me your stats. Give me your links. I know you can't. Most Fake News Deplorables are always found wanting.

 

[Dr Grump]

Detroit has more than 3 times the population of Windsor and totally different culture. Nothing like comparing Apples to a pile of shit.

.

If it had three times the population then it should have had three murders over that time. It had over 100 times that. 86 per cent with firearms. Yes indeed, a polite society is an armed society (cough cough bullshit)...

 

[candycorn]

Very fine people do not march carrying torches and chanting Nazi slogans. Blob supporters do. Why do you continue to pretend otherwise. It’s what you guys are..,bigoted, hyper antagonistic, and dishonest.

Perhaps you commies should get the timeline right. The torch march was the night before the protest of removing the statues. People form all walks were there the day of the protest. But that doesn't fit you lying propaganda, does it?

.

The torch march by blob supporting Nazi wasn’t a protest? What was it? Just blob supporters being blob supporters?

So people who are trying to protect history and preserve public displays are Nazi's, but the people who want to tear history and relics down are not.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

George Orwell, 1984

Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.

NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".

???

Dear Pogo
The same way SOME posters on the wall are political propaganda,
but some are framed art prints, and others might be both,
doesn't the same apply to STATUES?

The ancient Buddha statues carved into the mountainsides
were considered landmarks of world history.

The fertility goddess statues unearthed at various sites
serve as historical records of those previous matriarchal cultures.
Certainly those are a key stages in both art history and world cultural history.

Why would you assume that just because certain statues
are interpreted as propaganda to pit one class above others,
that ALL of these are limited to only THAT interpretation in that limited context?

Why would you impose your beliefs about this on everyone else.
Don't all people deserve equal freedom to research, process
and decide their own beliefs. How is it fair to dictate and push your view on others?

Let me first say that you’re imposing your beliefs in your post.

That being said, the entire discussion of removing statues vs preserving them is a wash. Again, not sure how angry torch carrying Nazi wannabe’s landed in this discussion over statues.

I do wonder though...I’ve been to Vicksburg and saw the monuments most states erected to their participation in the battle. If the NPS were opening Vicksburg today, how many of these pathetic southern shitholes would spend tax money to commemorate their crushing defeat. Lol


Different times.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You be looking down the barrel of a 9mm with hollow points.

Trump Supporter Draws Gun In Self-Defense After Politically Motivated Attack

Wonderful to see. We need to start taking these cowards out. PERMANENTLY.

Uhhh... no we dont. This is exactly the ammunition the left LOVES to use against the right.

Someone is going to to post "see, these gun nut just want to shoot everybody", and statements like this give them all the proof they need.

How about instead of killing the dems, maybe try to help them understand that difference of opinion is good, and just because we all disagree, you are not the enemy, and it's ok that we dont see eye to eye.

We've tried this approach. Doesn't work. Still, they are attacking Trump supporters for wearing a hat that triggers them. Even in some liberal run cities, some assaults perpetrated by the left have been ignored.

My response was to him saying we need to get rid of dems "permanently". Yeah, if someone wants to attack you, by all means , defend yourself, but what I'm saying is the answer isnt to be trying to "take them out". That's just another talking point the left doesnt need to be able use against the right.

Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.

Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!

When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.

Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.

I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.

It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.

What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.

I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".

Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.

 

[emilynghiem]

Perhaps you commies should get the timeline right. The torch march was the night before the protest of removing the statues. People form all walks were there the day of the protest. But that doesn't fit you lying propaganda, does it?

.

The torch march by blob supporting Nazi wasn’t a protest? What was it? Just blob supporters being blob supporters?

So people who are trying to protect history and preserve public displays are Nazi's, but the people who want to tear history and relics down are not.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

George Orwell, 1984

Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.

NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".

???

Dear Pogo
The same way SOME posters on the wall are political propaganda,
but some are framed art prints, and others might be both,
doesn't the same apply to STATUES?

The ancient Buddha statues carved into the mountainsides
were considered landmarks of world history.

The fertility goddess statues unearthed at various sites
serve as historical records of those previous matriarchal cultures.
Certainly those are a key stages in both art history and world cultural history.

Why would you assume that just because certain statues
are interpreted as propaganda to pit one class above others,
that ALL of these are limited to only THAT interpretation in that limited context?

Why would you impose your beliefs about this on everyone else.
Don't all people deserve equal freedom to research, process
and decide their own beliefs. How is it fair to dictate and push your view on others?

Let me first say that you’re imposing your beliefs in your post.

That being said, the entire discussion of removing statues vs preserving them is a wash. Again, not sure how angry torch carrying Nazi wannabe’s landed in this discussion over statues.

I do wonder though...I’ve been to Vicksburg and saw the monuments most states erected to their participation in the battle. If the NPS were opening Vicksburg today, how many of these pathetic southern shitholes would spend tax money to commemorate their crushing defeat. Lol

Different times.

Dear candycorn
The DIFFERENCE between ME defending my beliefs in inclusion and equal protection of ALL OTHER BELIEFS
is that
A. I seek to PROTECT AND DEFEND - not EXCLUDE OR CENSOR - the beliefs and expressions of others
B. People who believe in voting out, removing, excluding, overruling, bullying, badmouthing, coercing or punishing
people of other beliefs are NOT acting or working toward being "MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE"

Do you understand the difference?

If two groups are arguing to
A. only use the POSITIVE numbers on the number line
B. only use the NEGATIVE numbers on the number line
C. vs. ME "imposing my viewpoint/belief" that we need BOTH the positive numbers,
negative numbers, rational and irrational, whole and natural, real and complex, etc etc.
to express ALL the relationships and values out there "in different contexts"

WHICH of these viewpoints A B or C is going to accommodate all the other views equally?
candycorn

MAJOR NOTE:
I STILL believe if there is going to be any change in people's beliefs or approach
it should be by INFORMED CONSENT, free choice and will of that person,
NOT by coercion, NOT by insulting or attacking, NOT by forcing change through
govt against the beliefs or consent of that person.

If you don't believe in any opponents "forcing their beliefs on you through govt"
I AGREE WITH YOU. That's what I'm against.

So that's ANOTHER difference candycorn
I don't believe in "imposing" my beliefs THROUGH GOVT.

All I do is DEFEND and EXPLAIN why it's better to be inclusive, to respect
and protect ALL people's views and beliefs from such "imposition through govt."

I hope you understand BOTH areas where my beliefs and approach are DIFFERENT.

Is this more clear? Thank you!

 

[Pogo]

As the old saying goes: "An armed society is a polite society."

Thanks for the setup.

Can't argue truth.... so just mock truth. Sure it makes you look stupid, but it'll feel good in the moment.

Truth cannot be mocked. But inane stupid ideas can.

You wouldn't recognize truth if it marched past you playing Thriller on a pink Sousaphone.

Actually I wouldn't recognize "Thriller" sooooooooooo......

 

[Pogo]

Wonderful to see. We need to start taking these cowards out. PERMANENTLY.

Uhhh... no we dont. This is exactly the ammunition the left LOVES to use against the right.

Someone is going to to post "see, these gun nut just want to shoot everybody", and statements like this give them all the proof they need.

How about instead of killing the dems, maybe try to help them understand that difference of opinion is good, and just because we all disagree, you are not the enemy, and it's ok that we dont see eye to eye.

We've tried this approach. Doesn't work. Still, they are attacking Trump supporters for wearing a hat that triggers them. Even in some liberal run cities, some assaults perpetrated by the left have been ignored.

My response was to him saying we need to get rid of dems "permanently". Yeah, if someone wants to attack you, by all means , defend yourself, but what I'm saying is the answer isnt to be trying to "take them out". That's just another talking point the left doesnt need to be able use against the right.

Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.

Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!

When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.

Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.

I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.

It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.

What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.

I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".

Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.

The only purpose of a political party is to consolidate power into a collective. Has nothing to do with ideologies, which will change with the winds. I think a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a period of 20 years, nonrenewable. After that time it's gone whether it's accomplished what it set out to do 20 years before or not. Because if you didn't, you haven't been effective, and if you did, 20 years is about the span of time a collective's interests start drifting away and whatever the original ideals were get supplanted by the one that all parties devolve to, which is perpetuating its own power for the sake of power.

Of course the other major factor that creates this division is the frickin' Electoral College, more specifically the WTA system, without which the bullshit concepts of "red" states and "blue" states would not exist.

 

[Pogo]

Unproveable eh?

Tell me which person you're more likely to assault:

A) The guy with no gun.
B) The guy with a gun.

Case closed.

Wow. That's a convincing argument!

And you made no effort to refute it. Because you can't.

Funny how that works.

It's not possible to "refute" a point when it isn't a point in the first place. Ipse dixit is not a "point". It's more like a "wank".

 

[Pogo]

Very fine people do not march carrying torches and chanting Nazi slogans. Blob supporters do. Why do you continue to pretend otherwise. It’s what you guys are..,bigoted, hyper antagonistic, and dishonest.

Perhaps you commies should get the timeline right. The torch march was the night before the protest of removing the statues. People form all walks were there the day of the protest. But that doesn't fit you lying propaganda, does it?

.

The torch march by blob supporting Nazi wasn’t a protest? What was it? Just blob supporters being blob supporters?

So people who are trying to protect history and preserve public displays are Nazi's, but the people who want to tear history and relics down are not.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

George Orwell, 1984

Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.

NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".

???

Dear Pogo
The same way SOME posters on the wall are political propaganda,
but some are framed art prints, and others might be both,
doesn't the same apply to STATUES?

The ancient Buddha statues carved into the mountainsides
were considered landmarks of world history.

The fertility goddess statues unearthed at various sites
serve as historical records of those previous matriarchal cultures.
Certainly those are a key stages in both art history and world cultural history.

Why would you assume that just because certain statues
are interpreted as propaganda to pit one class above others,
that ALL of these are limited to only THAT interpretation in that limited context?

Why would you impose your beliefs about this on everyone else.
Don't all people deserve equal freedom to research, process
and decide their own beliefs. How is it fair to dictate and push your view on others?

Because I know who put those statues up, when they did it, what they did it for, and why they put them where they did.

A poster on your wall isn't going to loom over everybody in the city like the monument at the foot of Canal Street, like the structure erected in front of City Hall or the county courthouse. These are high-traffic high-profile areas; that's why they're chosen for that purpose --- to send a message to the public mind, which is what propaganda does.

If your genuine interest were to honor war casualties, you'd put monuments in cemeteries or museums. And sometimes they are. But cemeteries and museums don't get the same ratings, do they. Those will only be seen by that part of the public already interested in that war or that time. But put it on the circle where the city streetcar makes its turn in the heart of the business district and everybody has to look at it, including those it puts down.

The same group, we might add, that commandeered control of school history books for the same propaganda purpose -- they actually put more energy into that than into the monuments.

​

When you're taking the hearts and minds of children in the schools --- that's reach. It's even better than the statue in front of city hall, because now you can indoctrinate everybody from the earliest impressionable age.

Still on the table is the fact that these city traffic circles, city halls, courthouses etc are public property, which means the public --- the citizens of that city --- still have the say over how it gets used. These cities elected to evict propaganda transmitters that do not reflect their ideals. There is NO argument, literally not one, that says David Dukes and Richard Spencers and Tiki Torchers and James Fieldses dragstrip drivers can come running to a city they don't live in to dick-tate how they can use their own public space.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wonderful to see. We need to start taking these cowards out. PERMANENTLY.

Uhhh... no we dont. This is exactly the ammunition the left LOVES to use against the right.

Someone is going to to post "see, these gun nut just want to shoot everybody", and statements like this give them all the proof they need.

How about instead of killing the dems, maybe try to help them understand that difference of opinion is good, and just because we all disagree, you are not the enemy, and it's ok that we dont see eye to eye.

We've tried this approach. Doesn't work. Still, they are attacking Trump supporters for wearing a hat that triggers them. Even in some liberal run cities, some assaults perpetrated by the left have been ignored.

My response was to him saying we need to get rid of dems "permanently". Yeah, if someone wants to attack you, by all means , defend yourself, but what I'm saying is the answer isnt to be trying to "take them out". That's just another talking point the left doesnt need to be able use against the right.

Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.

Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!

When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.

Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.

I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.

It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.

What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.

I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".

Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.

Chances are you don't agree with your party or candidate on some things. You vote for your party because they are the closest to your beliefs.

 

[Pogo]

As the old saying goes: "An armed society is a polite society."

Total, utter, shit. US has one of the biggest homicide rates when it comes to guns compared to the rest of the western world. I would say an armed society increases the chances of you being shot.

Yet, the more people who arm, the less shootings we have. Until the Ferguson Effect, our violent crime and gun crimes were on the decrease since the mid 90's. During that time, more and more states adopted CCW programs that allowed Americans to carry their loaded weapons just about anyplace we go.

Yeah, but even as you decrease, it is still way above other nations. NZ and Australia are polite societies, yet we have strict gun control laws. Just saying Satrebil's quote is a load of hogwash. Totally unproveable.

Probably nation most associated with "polite" would be Canada, which reminds me of one of my golden oldie hits.
From the wayback machine, begin paste:

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

Windsor, Ontario: 72% White, 4.9% Black
Detroit Michigan: 10.6% White, 82.7% Black

But I'm sure that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the crime rates, right? It's totally racist to point out these facts.

Yep, you're right again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Difficult to find them right now, but here's a start:

Violent Crime: The US and Abroad - Criminal Justice Degree Hub

Germany is mostly white. They have .5% of Africans.
France is 85% white, or other European decent. About 3.5% blacks.
Austria is over 80% white when you include their German population. They list 10% as other.
The only statistics I can find about Canada is that 23% of their population are people of color.
Australia is about 77% white, about 15% Asians, and only .7% African.

The US is 72% white, 16% Hispanic, and 12.6% black. So there is a huge difference in demographics, especially among those who are the most violent groups in our country.

The link is pretty much useless. It is a site created by friends and it doesn't do comparison well. If you want me to give examples, more than happy to.

So Canada, Australia and the US have similar Demographics. Germany has 80 per cent native population. You seem to single out blacks as if they make a difference. The most hated race in Germany is Turks who are a huge minority. Just because they are European doesn't mean they are liked. In Australia it is the Arabaic people, especially Lebanese (or Lebs as is the derisive name they are called by racists down here) who get the most shit and those from the Balkans who make up significant minorities in this country. Your excuse doesn't wash. I'd argue it's because of your gun culture these figures are so high.

I highlight the minorities because they cause most of the violence in our country. Our discussion was about guns, and I merely pointed out that the difference between countries is not just guns, but of the people.

We cannot get rid of guns anymore than we were able to get rid of recreational narcotics. They have been illegal all of my life. Yet today, we have a worse problem with narcotics than we've ever had before. They are illegal to posses and even more illegal to sell. So if we made any attempt to disarm America, all it would do is disarm the law abiding citizens leaving us with only the criminals and police to have them.

 

[Pogo]

I remember a time when parents, teachers, adults in general, would try to shield kids from those things, so as to not cause anxiety and harm the child. Nowadays, the schools are like, "you kids are going to DIE from climate change, and it's all your parents' fault! Hate them!"

Lol! Poor kids. They have no childhoods with this and all the other crap they have to hear about, like gender confusion, etc. I still believe that childhood should be carefree. It's the ONLY time in your life when that is allowed, but I guess not so much anymore.

"Shield", my ass. Forcing kids into cookie-cutter robot schooling isn't "shielding". It's "imprisoning", "stifling" and "indoctrinating".

Sounds like a very apt description of the current public schools.

It's certainly a description of the ones I went to in the '50s.

Really, how many different schools did you go to in any given year?

.

One, assuming you mean a school year and not a calendar year.

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps you commies should get the timeline right. The torch march was the night before the protest of removing the statues. People form all walks were there the day of the protest. But that doesn't fit you lying propaganda, does it?

.

The torch march by blob supporting Nazi wasn’t a protest? What was it? Just blob supporters being blob supporters?

So people who are trying to protect history and preserve public displays are Nazi's, but the people who want to tear history and relics down are not.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

George Orwell, 1984

Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.

NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".

No, it is history, just history the commies can't stand. If we allow them to remove history in statues, what's stopping them from removing history in books?

They're already rewriting the books.

Actually that was done well before you or I got here. See the nice video in post 450.

 

[Pogo]

As the old saying goes: "An armed society is a polite society."

Thanks for the setup.

Leave it to a commie to run right to the absurd.

I wooden know if Sartrebull is a "commie" but he sure ain't Jean Paul Sartre.

So yeah when he went to the absurd, I countered with the appropriate satire of it. You're welcome.

 

[Pogo]

As the old saying goes: "An armed society is a polite society."

Total, utter, shit. US has one of the biggest homicide rates when it comes to guns compared to the rest of the western world. I would say an armed society increases the chances of you being shot.

Yet, the more people who arm, the less shootings we have. Until the Ferguson Effect, our violent crime and gun crimes were on the decrease since the mid 90's. During that time, more and more states adopted CCW programs that allowed Americans to carry their loaded weapons just about anyplace we go.

Yeah, but even as you decrease, it is still way above other nations. NZ and Australia are polite societies, yet we have strict gun control laws. Just saying Satrebil's quote is a load of hogwash. Totally unproveable.

Probably nation most associated with "polite" would be Canada, which reminds me of one of my golden oldie hits.
From the wayback machine, begin paste:

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

Detroit has more than 3 times the population of Windsor and totally different culture. Nothing like comparing Apples to a pile of shit.

You just hit the nail on the head --- culture.

However unwittingly.

Gun culture -- "polite" culture. "Soory for stabbing you, eh?" versis BLAM.

 

[OKTexas]

Detroit has more than 3 times the population of Windsor and totally different culture. Nothing like comparing Apples to a pile of shit.

.

If it had three times the population then it should have had three murders over that time. It had over 100 times that. 86 per cent with firearms. Yes indeed, a polite society is an armed society (cough cough bullshit)...

Windsor doesn't have the criminal gangs to the extent Detroit has. Like I said, a totally different culture. People who are inclined to kill will find a tool to do it.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I remember a time when parents, teachers, adults in general, would try to shield kids from those things, so as to not cause anxiety and harm the child. Nowadays, the schools are like, "you kids are going to DIE from climate change, and it's all your parents' fault! Hate them!"

Lol! Poor kids. They have no childhoods with this and all the other crap they have to hear about, like gender confusion, etc. I still believe that childhood should be carefree. It's the ONLY time in your life when that is allowed, but I guess not so much anymore.

"Shield", my ass. Forcing kids into cookie-cutter robot schooling isn't "shielding". It's "imprisoning", "stifling" and "indoctrinating".

Sounds like a very apt description of the current public schools.

It's certainly a description of the ones I went to in the '50s.

Really, how many different schools did you go to in any given year?

.

One, assuming you mean a school year and not a calendar year.

Yep.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Total, utter, shit. US has one of the biggest homicide rates when it comes to guns compared to the rest of the western world. I would say an armed society increases the chances of you being shot.

Yet, the more people who arm, the less shootings we have. Until the Ferguson Effect, our violent crime and gun crimes were on the decrease since the mid 90's. During that time, more and more states adopted CCW programs that allowed Americans to carry their loaded weapons just about anyplace we go.

Yeah, but even as you decrease, it is still way above other nations. NZ and Australia are polite societies, yet we have strict gun control laws. Just saying Satrebil's quote is a load of hogwash. Totally unproveable.

Probably nation most associated with "polite" would be Canada, which reminds me of one of my golden oldie hits.
From the wayback machine, begin paste:

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

Detroit has more than 3 times the population of Windsor and totally different culture. Nothing like comparing Apples to a pile of shit.

You just hit the nail on the head --- culture.

However unwittingly.

Gun culture -- "polite" culture. "Soory for stabbing you, eh?" versis BLAM.

No it's a difference of whether the lives and property of others is respected. I've had guns or access to guns all my life and have never harmed anyone with them.

.