Texas radio station: Chicago 2017: 450 "multiple shootings", 30 mass shootings, 10 police shootings

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You're the one talking gunlaws, not me. I'm responding to that.

We are talking about them together. It's called "having a discussion".

I'm discussing the source of bad people who abuse guns, etc., and that starts with Democrat policy which creates, perpetuates, encourages and embraces depletion of family structure.

Well since pre-cogs like in Minority Report don't exist, we have to be proactive in how we protect people from gun violence. Hard to see how universal background checks limit your freedom to get a gun in any way. The only reason you'd be opposed to it is if you couldn't pass the background check yourself.

Family structure! That's a joke. You're the one who perpetuates the destruction of the so-called "family structure" when you force women to give birth because you took away or prevented her free access to contraception and birth control, and when you teach abstinence in schools. None of your policies on this matter do anything to restore the so-called "family structure" you claim is under assault. In fact, your policies only make it worse. So you are the cause of the very thing you are complaining about. In other words, mental masturbation.

You're completely brainwashed and made devoid of expecting personal responsibility.
I nowhere said anything about opposing abortion. You jump to those conclusions due to your brainwashing. As soon as anyone strays from the narrative they default to something you're brainwashed into labeling.
Sex can result in pregnancy so it is up to the individuals to consider that consequence and use discretion.
Your dogma makes excuses for and encourages the shirking of responsibility.
The consquences ultimately generate a culture that leads to, among other things, disproportionate murders in Chicago.

 

[The Derp]

You're completely brainwashed and made devoid of expecting personal responsibility.

Conservatives wouldn't know "personal responsibility" if it was sitting on their faces. You tried to abscond responsibility for your own position on this thread. You create and prepetuate issues for no other reason than to complain about them. You do that because you recognize your own insignificance, so you have a need to be heard. Since your voice has no authority, credibility, or anything else when it comes to actual problems facing us, you instead adhere to dogmatic ideas that run contrary to your stated goals. For instance, the "family structure"...you say it's someone else's fault for the breakdown of this mythical "family structure". But let's look at that. Obviously, you are referring to single parents (single mothers in particular). So here's what happens; you restrict and remove free and open access to contraception and birth control, which would have prevented the single mother from becoming a single mother in the first place, then you tell those women that them getting pregnant is a consequence of them having casual sex. So because you've also restricted abortion and remove the tax credit for adoption (in your current tax bill, BTW), how are you not perpetuating the cycle of single motherhood and the breakdown of the "family structure"? Because it seems like that's all on you. With free and open access to birth control and contraception, that single woman doesn't get pregnant, and thus doesn't become a single-parent household which you say is the cause of the destruction of the "family structure".

Nearly everything you say, believe, and adhere to is like this. All of it. All of the things you complain about most likely have their root cause in policies and dogma you support and you adhere to.

• Us liberals don't want single-parent households...that's why we support free and open access to birth control and contraception.
• You don't want single-parent households...which is why you support not having casual sex.

So which one of us has the more realistic position? I'll give you a hint; it's not the person who thinks casual sex should have consequences when there doesn't have to be.

I think you just hate the fact that people have casual sex because you can't get any.

 

[The Derp]

I nowhere said anything about opposing abortion.

So then you support abortion...OK. Great! So if you support abortion, why wouldn't you want to make it safe and easily accessible in order to prevent the breakdown of the "family structure"? Seems like you're working against your own goal thanks to your dogmatic position, pal. You screech about the breakdown of the family structure and you think the way to combat that is to tell people to not have casual sex.

You might as well tell a shark to stop eating.

 

[The Derp]

Sex can result in pregnancy so it is up to the individuals to consider that consequence and use discretion.

But it doesn't have to be a consequence because we have science and medicine that makes it possible to have sex without those consequences.

If the consequence of having sex is the breakdown of the "family structure", then you should be supporting free and open access to birth control. That's how you prevent the breakdown of the "family structure" you're pretending to care about so much. Not telling people like a frigid church lady to keep your knees together or whatever other bullshit you're thinking.

Fuckin' idiot.

 

[The Derp]

Your dogma makes excuses for and encourages the shirking of responsibility.

So it's crystal clear you don't know what "dogma" means and you are only abusing that word because you saw me use it and you think it makes you sound clever using it too. But it doesn't when you use it incorrectly. Please explain how my position that free and open access to BC and contraception reduces unintended pregnancies and single-parent households is dogma? I don't think you even know what the word "dogma" means. That's how little I think of you.

The consquences ultimately generate a culture that leads to, among other things, disproportionate murders in Chicago.

A consequence which you admit is wholly avoidable by exercising birth control and contraception. SO if the breakdown of the "family structure" is as much of a concern as you're making it out to be, then you should be supporting free and open access to BC and contraception, as those are the two things that will best reduce single-parent households.

Also, single parent households via divorce are more common than via unintended pregnancy. So what's your grand plan for fixing the biggest cause of the breakdown of the "family structure"? Nothing, obviously because you don't have a well thought out position on this. Because you're involuntarily celibate and it gives you A SAD.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Sex can result in pregnancy so it is up to the individuals to consider that consequence and use discretion.

But it doesn't have to be a consequence because we have science and medicine that makes it possible to have sex without those consequences.

If the consequence of having sex is the breakdown of the "family structure", then you should be supporting free and open access to birth control. That's how you prevent the breakdown of the "family structure" you're pretending to care about so much. Not telling people like a frigid church lady to keep your knees together or whatever other bullshit you're thinking.

Fuckin' idiot.

We have medicine to address heart disease but that doesn't mean smoking is inevitable or excusable.
You're brainwashed. Until you get your head out of that box, this discussion is a dead end.

 

[The Derp]

We have medicine to address heart disease but that doesn't mean smoking is inevitable or excusable.

Heart disease medicine treats heart disease, it doesn't prevent it. So not only is your point shitty, but so is your analogy.

Also, why do you think smoking and casual sex are equivalent? You think casual sex is as bad for your health as smoking? Really?

Consequences of smoking: Heart disease, cancer, death
Consequences of casual sex: pregnancy

Yeah, so similar. There isn't even an eye roll emoji big enough to capture how much my eyes rolled just now. Will try capturing in gif:

You're brainwashed. Until you get your head out of that box, this discussion is a dead end.

I'm not brainwashed but you are definitely sexually repressed.

 

[The Derp]

You're brainwashed. Until you get your head out of that box, this discussion is a dead end.

Your position:

I cry about the destruction of the "family structure" from all these single parents, so I oppose free and open access to birth control and contraception which will reduce unintended pregnancies and single parents.

Cognitive dissonance.

 

[blastoff]

Sex can result in pregnancy so it is up to the individuals to consider that consequence and use discretion.

But it doesn't have to be a consequence because we have science and medicine that makes it possible to have sex without those consequences.

If the consequence of having sex is the breakdown of the "family structure", then you should be supporting free and open access to birth control. That's how you prevent the breakdown of the "family structure" you're pretending to care about so much. Not telling people like a frigid church lady to keep your knees together or whatever other bullshit you're thinking.

Fuckin' idiot.

We have medicine to address heart disease but that doesn't mean smoking is inevitable or excusable.
You're brainwashed. Until you get your head out of that box, this discussion is a dead end.

Never heard anyone ever refer to a rectum as a box before.

 

[The Derp]

The consquences ultimately generate a culture that leads to, among other things, disproportionate murders in Chicago.

Murders committed with guns bought out of state in places like Kentucky and Indiana who have lax gun laws.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Thanks, but no thanks, Obama.

Chicago close to recording 600th homicide for only second time since 2003

#KeepTheChange

 

[Snouter]

Show me a incident in Chicago near the magnitude of Texas

Stats for Chicago (Where Hussaine Obama Alleged Community Organized) Year to Date:

Shot & Killed: 558
Shot & Wounded: 2646
Total Shot: 3204
Total Homicides: 602

2017 Stats

And I agree guns should not be in the possession of anyone on welfare, anyone who is mentally ill, and anyone with an IQ below 105. Do you agree?

I mean look what happens when mentally ill and low IQ individuals get firearms.