Sanders shifts on gun control

[g5000]

But seniors would have been far better off investing their own money for retirement rather than sinking it into the Ponzi scheme of SS.

Yeah, they would have been better off investing in Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch and General Motors and Enron and pets.com.

Oh, wait...

 

[The Rabbi]

If gun manufacturing were banned, then it would make gun availability drop. Which would lead to a drop in gun homicides. Common sense. And the evidence bears this out in countries which have significantly restricted guns.

However, all of this would require a repeal of the Second Amendment, which is never going to happen. So these arguments over banning guns are specious.

If you ban gun manufacturing then you ban police having guns.
Oops.

 

[The Rabbi]

It takes a special kind of retard to think the gun homicide problem has something to do with a lack of guns in schools.

It takes someone guzzling piss to think anyone believes it does.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's an idea. Poverty begets violence and other crimes.

Let's solve the poverty problem and everything else will fall into place.

More than 5 trillion on poverty in the last 50 years and we have as much of it as ever

Not true. Seniors are far better off economically than they were prior to 1964. And overall poverty is much lower.

Everyone is better off than they were in 1964, dumbshit. Its called rising GDP.

Oh my God. The innumeracy of this statement is simply mind-boggling.

Translation: Shit, he's right. Gotta make general statement to save my ass.
Hint: It isnt working.

 

[g5000]

Here's an idea. Poverty begets violence and other crimes.

Let's solve the poverty problem and everything else will fall into place.

More than 5 trillion on poverty in the last 50 years and we have as much of it as ever

Not true. Seniors are far better off economically than they were prior to 1964. And overall poverty is much lower.

Everyone is better off than they were in 1964, dumbshit. Its called rising GDP.

Oh my God. The innumeracy of this statement is simply mind-boggling.

Translation: Shit, he's right. Gotta make general statement to save my ass.
Hint: It isnt working.

I know that math and facts don't work on you. That's right.

 

[The Rabbi]

But seniors would have been far better off investing their own money for retirement rather than sinking it into the Ponzi scheme of SS.

Yeah, they would have been better off investing in Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch and General Motors and Enron and pets.com.

Oh, wait...

Yeahbecause those are the only investments available.
Hint, dumbshit: Millions of people have 401ks and IRAs and not everyone was wiped out by investing all their money in those companies. In fact hardly anyone was.

 

[The Rabbi]

More than 5 trillion on poverty in the last 50 years and we have as much of it as ever

Not true. Seniors are far better off economically than they were prior to 1964. And overall poverty is much lower.

Everyone is better off than they were in 1964, dumbshit. Its called rising GDP.

Oh my God. The innumeracy of this statement is simply mind-boggling.

Translation: Shit, he's right. Gotta make general statement to save my ass.
Hint: It isnt working.

I know that math and facts don't work on you. That's right.

Hint: You have presented neither math nor facts.
Snap!

 

[OKTexas]

More than 5 trillion on poverty in the last 50 years and we have as much of it as ever, I guess money isn't the solution, maybe a cultural shift is needed?

The most crime ridden cities are also ones run by Democrats for generations. Lets ban Democrats and solve the gun problem.

How about we make the death penalty swift and certain for those who claim a life through criminal activity, probably 50+% of murders have killed before, and many of the new ones are influenced by those who have killed before. Removing previous killers and their influence would go a long way to fixing the problem. You'll never totally eliminate murder.

No you won't, but I think this topic is supposed to be about guns, not the act of murder.

The death penalty has never been an effective deterrent. That's borne out by history. And in the case of mass shootings, those guys (and they're always guys, big hint there), they usually administer their own death penalty as their final act, either self-administered or suicide by cop.

I don't give a shit about a deterrent, I want to ensure there are no repeat offenders and their influence is removed from society at large.

Then why did you specify "death penalty" --- as if that's the only way to "remove" offenders?

Here's an idea, hold the offenders responsible, not the people who make the tool they use, regardless if it's a bat, hammer, vehicle, knife or a gun.

Here's a better idea: stop arguing against your own strawman.

Ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime, you are aware that gang bangers wear tattoos to brag about their body counts, right? If those people are in the prison population or on the streets they have the opportunity to do it again or to influence others. You catch a murder and they are convicted, you keep them isolated then you kill them, just like any other cancer. That's the way you solve the majority of gun crime deaths.

 

[g5000]

If gun manufacturing were banned, then it would make gun availability drop. Which would lead to a drop in gun homicides. Common sense. And the evidence bears this out in countries which have significantly restricted guns.

However, all of this would require a repeal of the Second Amendment, which is never going to happen. So these arguments over banning guns are specious.

If you ban gun manufacturing then you ban police having guns.
Oops.

Atomic weapons manufacturing is banned as far as public sales go. Has this prevented the government from having atom bombs?

Oops.

Anyone in Chicago have a nuke?

 

[OKTexas]

Here's an idea. Poverty begets violence and other crimes.

Let's solve the poverty problem and everything else will fall into place.

More than 5 trillion on poverty in the last 50 years and we have as much of it as ever

Not true. Seniors are far better off economically than they were prior to 1964. And overall poverty is much lower.

Deflection noted.

 

[g5000]

Here's an idea. Poverty begets violence and other crimes.

Let's solve the poverty problem and everything else will fall into place.

More than 5 trillion on poverty in the last 50 years and we have as much of it as ever

Not true. Seniors are far better off economically than they were prior to 1964. And overall poverty is much lower.

Deflection noted.

BWA-HA-HA! The truth is a deflection, eh?

I guess for rubes who don't live in reality it actually is!

 

[g5000]

But seniors would have been far better off investing their own money for retirement rather than sinking it into the Ponzi scheme of SS.

Yeah, they would have been better off investing in Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch and General Motors and Enron and pets.com.

Oh, wait...

Yeahbecause those are the only investments available.
Hint, dumbshit: Millions of people have 401ks and IRAs and not everyone was wiped out by investing all their money in those companies. In fact hardly anyone was.

Once you rubes opt out of SS and then lose your ass on whatever MLM commemorative gold coin scam sold to you by the advertisers on AM talk radio, you would come whining to the government to support you in your old age for free.

 

[OKTexas]

Enough with the damn posters, this is the second thread you've spammed with this bullshit, just stop.

 

[g5000]

And now for some painful reality and math for the deluded and innumerate rubes:

Who's poor in America? 50 years into the 'War on Poverty', a data portrait | Pew Research Center

Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an "anchored" supplemental measure - essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation - and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were.

Seniors are far better off. If that's a Ponzi scheme, they're doing it wrong.

Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Medicare2000.pdf

Medicare has made a dramatic difference in the number of seniors who are insured
against health care costs. In 1964, nearly half of all seniors were uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans to have health insurance. Today, with 97 percent of seniors covered by Medicare, the elderly are the most likely to have insurance.

 

[The Rabbi]

But seniors would have been far better off investing their own money for retirement rather than sinking it into the Ponzi scheme of SS.

Yeah, they would have been better off investing in Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch and General Motors and Enron and pets.com.

Oh, wait...

Yeahbecause those are the only investments available.
Hint, dumbshit: Millions of people have 401ks and IRAs and not everyone was wiped out by investing all their money in those companies. In fact hardly anyone was.

Once you rubes opt out of SS and then lose your ass on whatever MLM commemorative gold coin scam sold to you by the advertisers on AM talk radio, you would come whining to the government to support you in your old age for free.

I think you're priojecting.
I guess all those people with 401ks and IRAs lost all their money on commermorative gold coins. Right?

 

[g5000]

All we need to do to fix Social Security for good is raise the eligibility age to 70, and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

But our American Politboro is too afraid to do that.

 

[The Rabbi]

And now for some painful reality and math for the deluded and innumerate rubes:

Who's poor in America? 50 years into the 'War on Poverty', a data portrait | Pew Research Center

Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an "anchored" supplemental measure - essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation - and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were.

Seniors are far better off. If that's a Ponzi scheme, they're doing it wrong.

Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Medicare2000.pdf

Medicare has made a dramatic difference in the number of seniors who are insured
against health care costs. In 1964, nearly half of all seniors were uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans to have health insurance. Today, with 97 percent of seniors covered by Medicare, the elderly are the most likely to have insurance.

Complete fallacy. Nor does it refute my statement that everyone is better off than in 1964,
Logic not your strong point obviously.

 

[g5000]

But seniors would have been far better off investing their own money for retirement rather than sinking it into the Ponzi scheme of SS.

Yeah, they would have been better off investing in Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch and General Motors and Enron and pets.com.

Oh, wait...

Yeahbecause those are the only investments available.
Hint, dumbshit: Millions of people have 401ks and IRAs and not everyone was wiped out by investing all their money in those companies. In fact hardly anyone was.

Once you rubes opt out of SS and then lose your ass on whatever MLM commemorative gold coin scam sold to you by the advertisers on AM talk radio, you would come whining to the government to support you in your old age for free.

I think you're priojecting.
I guess all those people with 401ks and IRAs lost all their money on commermorative gold coins. Right?

Those coins are sold on right wing radio shows for a reason, rube.

 

[g5000]

And now for some painful reality and math for the deluded and innumerate rubes:

Who's poor in America? 50 years into the 'War on Poverty', a data portrait | Pew Research Center

Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an "anchored" supplemental measure - essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation - and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were.

Seniors are far better off. If that's a Ponzi scheme, they're doing it wrong.

Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Medicare2000.pdf

Medicare has made a dramatic difference in the number of seniors who are insured
against health care costs. In 1964, nearly half of all seniors were uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans to have health insurance. Today, with 97 percent of seniors covered by Medicare, the elderly are the most likely to have insurance.

Complete fallacy.

See, this is the part where Rabbi is confronted with cold hard facts and then decides he can simply say they are false. As if that works! BWA-HA-HA-HA!

 

[The Rabbi]

All we need to do to fix Social Security for good is raise the eligibility age to 70, and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

But our American Politboro is too afraid to do that.

Bush wanted to reform SS and the Democrats all insisted there was no problem and nothing needed changing.