Quote:You don't know JJ. Dude literally has never posted a worthwhile read. He was talking about my comments for the record.
Somehow out of the stratosphere you blame Christian fundamentalism and MY posts aren't worthwhile? Lol
Quote:you are living in fear. fear of guns.
then you fear monger everybody into also being afraid of guns.
Forgive me for being blunt, but that seems to me to be a stunningly ignorant response. I see him as pointing out what he sees to be likely consequences of increased carrying of guns by individuals. You may not agree, but to call it fear mongering is much different from what I read from him.
Repeal the second amendment or im moving to canada aka heaven
next up, repeal the first amendment so people cant say mean things or im moving to france aka heaven deux
Quote:Forgive me for being blunt, but that seems to me to be a stunningly ignorant response. I see him as pointing out what he sees to be likely consequences of increased carrying of guns by individuals. You may not agree, but to call it fear mongering is much different from what I read from him.
everybody who disagrees with me is fear mongering. i learned that from the left.
Quote:Somehow out of tge stratosphere you blame Christian fundamentalism and MY posts aren't worthwhile? Lol
Jesus was the first suicide bomber, look it up bruh
Quote:
<div style="color:rgb(41,47,51);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(245,248,250);">Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 9m9 minutes ago
Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.
if you disagree with this then i guess you hate LGBTGDDTT community
</div>
Quote:The cognitive dissonance this must create for the Democrats...
Cognitive dissonance - discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.
(source)
In this case, would not cognitive dissonance require one to be dumb enough to believe what Trump says in that particular Tweet, or just about anything he says, and also support Hillary?
Quote:Interesting isn't it. How do you go from initial reports that an off duty officer took them out, even garnering praise HLS to a swat team was responsible. Maybe Paul Craig Roberts isn't that far off?
While I read the article, I didn't find much of value in it. In order for these incidents to be fake, the first responders, medical examiners, any witnesses, etc would all have to be bogus. The dead would have to be fictional. I must admit I felt a twinge of sympathy when the writer referred to the justifications for the Iraq war, as I remember getting into lengthy exchanges of posts with FBT and others differing with their support of claims of WMDs at the time of the Iraq war. In a case like this, however, the author seems to be supporting the same arguments that Byron stated earlier, that all (or at least many) of the incidents of mass violence were fake. To me, someone making such a claim had damned well bring more than innuendo, or they are disrespecting the dead and compounding the real pain suffered by many of their fellow citizens. Also, on a not too related technical note, exactly how long does it take to change a clip on an AR-15. I doubt would provide that much of a window free from bullets as the author suggests, but don't have direct experience.
Note that these incidents are being used to reshape Federal policy on guns. But not to reshape or even examine our policies on immigration, refugee resettlement, or massive intervention in the Middle East.
Quote:Note that these incidents are being used to reshape Federal policy on guns. But not to reshape or even examine our policies on immigration, refugee resettlement, or massive intervention in the Middle East.
They aren't faking incidents, but you could argue that the feds are complicit. They put the explosive ingredients together, boom, then use the tragedy as an opportunity for policy.
Yes, it's a standard tactic called problem-reaction-solution. But Obama leaked the "solution" even before the "problem" happened and only allowed 48 hours of "reaction" before announcing (again) his "solution".
I am more of a Kalashnikov kinda guy, but with all this anti-AR15 talk I figure I better get moving.
Colt, Bushmaster, or Armalite?
Quote:Nothin' wrong with a little self medication from time to time.
I think the concept of the "War on Terror" is really the discussion that needs to be had. The gun issue is also important. But I tend to grow weary of discussing it over and over again.
To my recollection, we've never really discussed the "War on Terror", and I think it would be a good discussion. Have you noticed, with every one of these acts of violence, we talk about the terrorist, then we talk about the victims, then we talk more about the terrorist, and then we move on. The media absolutley sucks at actually discussing the causes of terrorism, potential reasons for why these people do what they do, and what can be done to solve the problem.
Trump's idiocy of keeping muslims out won't work, and is not a true discussion. So, if any trumpette wants to weigh in, please provide my depth then your simpleton candidate has. Or at least, link him saying something more than we need to keep muslims out.
Otherwise, I'd like to hear some thoughts... Starting with this:
What do you think are the causes that have resulted in us declaring a "War on Terror"? And is a "War on Terror" even the right approach? I mean, look how much an abject failure our other so called "Wars" have been... I'm lookin' at you drugs, poverty, et all...
To answer your first question, I do think that the "final nail in the coffin" so-to-speak was the attack on 9/11. Events that happened after that are directly a result of us finally saying "enough is enough" regarding terrorist attacks. As far as the causes leading up to us declaring the War on Terror, what immediately comes to my mind is the
hostage crisis in Iran. However, there were events leading up to that which are really the root cause. It basically boils down to predominately Muslim countries choosing a government that follows religious (in this case Sharia) law. As the world became more "Westernized" there were some that were so much against what "Westernized" was really all about.
To answer your second question, that's pretty difficult. At what point should we impose and enforce our version of Freedom on other countries? As an example, because a certain country and their people think that women should have to dress a certain way (
hijabs) or outlaws gay activity with the consequence of death. Does that mean that we need to invade them and "fix" their country? I would say no. However, if a country harbors people (including their own government) that want to kill us or our allies because we don't follow their beliefs, then I have a problem with that.
Quote:1.)The father shouldn't have been in the country.
2.) if you publicly swear allegiance to a foreign power or terrorist cell and express the desire to harm Americans your citizenship should be revoked.
3.) San Bernardino was a migrant here on a fiancé visa.
4.) boston: asylum seekers.
5.) 9-11 over stayed student visas in some cases.
Is there a magic bullet? No. Are there logical steps that we should take as a country? Yes.
Stop importing people from parts of the world that don't share our basic values.
All those that do come into the country must be affirmatively vetted over long periods of time.
The importance of assimilation and maintaining our culture can never take a back seat to PCism.
1. Why?
2. I can agree with this, but what's the point? He did it as he was committing the crime.
3. Only one was a migrant, the other was a citizen.
4. So is there any reason that they shouldn't have been allowed asylum prior to the bombing? After all, both migrated here at a young age.
Quote:Cognitive dissonance - discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.
(source)
In this case, would not cognitive dissonance require one to be dumb enough to believe what Trump says in that particular Tweet, or just about anything he says, and also support Hillary?
I just have a hard time understanding how people say these type of things with a straight face.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/its-honor-continue-being-valued-over-countless-hum-53094?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing'>http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/its-honor-continue-being-valued-over-countless-hum-53094?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing</a>
The onion nails it as usual
This confirms the conservative suspicion that the left thinks guns commit crimes all by themselves
Sacremento Pastor upset over this... that more people didn't die.
http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news/news...o/40049716
No sir, you're allowed your opinion. Just as people are allowed to think you're an inconsiderate wretch. And youtube is allowed to decide what content they host.
Quote:Come on, jt, I even have a link from the wall street journal that states the fathers tv show, while way out there can not directly link him to being a pro Taliban sympathizer. Context, my friend, it's key. His quote you just provided is more likely a tribal statement, not one of terrorist leanings...
You should read that article I linked. It's very eye opening, and its a right wing paper, I'm providing as much objectivity as I can.
Is more likely a tribal statement? You know this how? There is nothing eye opening other than you coming to your own conclusions based on what you read. You state his quote is more than likely a tribal statement backed with nothing else other than that is what you feel. You aren't being objective. That isn't objective.
I simply stated I would not believe anything the father is saying. Maybe he is telling the truth and maybe he isn't. I have no clue. His son pledging his allegiance to ISIS during the killings and his dad showing support to the Taliban movement is not what one would call normal behavior. Obviously the son is a psycho and the dad, IMO, can't be trusted. You took me stating that I don't trust him and inferred I believed in something I do not. You seem to be doing that on what you wrote above. You have no idea what he is more than likely stating, but you state it anyways. That isn't objective, that is bias.
Quote:I am more of a Kalashnikov kinda guy, but with all this anti-AR15 talk I figure I better get moving.
Colt, Bushmaster, or Armalite?
None of the above. It was a modular Sig carbine.
Quote:Sacremento Pastor upset over this... that more people didn't die.
http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news/news...o/40049716
No sir, you're allowed your opinion. Just as people are allowed to think you're an inconsiderate wretch. And youtube is allowed to decide what content they host.
It just reemphasizes how dangerous religion and ideology can be. I think most people would think someone who wants people to die simply for living life that has zero effect on anyone else is a psycho. He is no better than the ISIS sympathizers and extremists.