Geeto67's Political Playground

[cdk 4219]

I don't think I'm smarter than a lot of people I have met in ohio, but for damn sight I'm superior to you. Heck, so are most household pets and inanimate objects. I think the underside of your rock misses you, you should go find it.

 

You sure bring your class directly from Manhasset, and it shows. The true colors of a New York buffoon. Keep preaching

[Brandon]

Fundamentally, the majority of them are diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, are on medication, are 63% white, and are 90% male. Prove to me that the lack of father figure is a more important factor than the other ones I have mentioned in cobtributing to the event. Can you? Because I'm pretty sure you need research to do that.

 

I think it's sad that you think the goal of science is to disprove itself. The purpose of science is to better understand our world. The concept you are mis remembering is that we know so little about our world that it's far easier to disprove a theory than it is to prove it because you always have to be open to a possibility not considered as new things are discovered. My point is research will get us closer to more common sense legislation than what we are doing now ever will. So why not try it?

 

They are diagnosed with metal disorders, sure. On medication, isn't everyone in the 21st miracle century? Ah yes white privilege, 63% of those bastards (literally).

 

The percentage of race in America is approximately 61.3% of white or no-Hispanic, or 76.9% including white Hispanics and Latinos. The distribution looks about the same in mass shootings as it does in the population to me. I think that distribution lines up with the population, maybe I am not thinking correctly however I will admit. I believe though its not nearly as big of a "white dude" problem as is lead out to. But fuck I am white, so I need to check that privilege of even typing this memo on CR.

 

Why is it always prove to you as well? If you are curious just go google some of the information on families structures, divorce rates, fatherless homes and the statistics of crime, murder, domestic abuse, mass shooting, mental health ect ect ect. There is science, research out there that is showing the tough inconvenient news about what family structure actually does to humans, and its deep hidden correlation to a multitude of issues. I also for some crazy reason read a fair amount of your tripe. However I then choose to go and search about it vs just cracking my knuckles and smearing back with a "show me research" high horse megaphone. Then I can form my own opinion and see if what you said maybe justified or if you're in fact just a loud mouthed idiot. Again, it is not my job to do the research, there is a plethora of university studies on crime and its relation to broken families and bastard children; just google it honestly, maybe you will learn something.

 

How is it sad a theory of science is to disprove itself, honestly? Do you understand science? If we just took one study and said, sure looks great that is the winner with out another study trying to disprove that study where would we be? That is what I am alluding to, the fact that again fundamentally they goal of science is to test against or disprove itself....I am not arguing it is not worth trying, I am not arguing to abandon research and throw caution to the wind with regard to policy, in fact quite the opposite. I would also agree science is worth trying as well a research, just dont put all your eggs in that one basket.

 

Also Tim, I agree the hard truth is staring most back in the mirror. The real reality is people from broken families are also good people, but they really do not want to hear it may have contributed to many of the problems we see in the country, much more so then is understood. Its far from the sole reason, chemical imbalances, genetics, ect also heavily contribute but to ignore the family structure implications is ignorant.

[Geeto67]

The point wasn't to discuss the numbers, the point was to illustrate that you guys keep saying its this one factor without any study or evidence to back it up in the face of many other factors.

 

Industries suppressing research and knowledge don't have a good track record of doing it for altruistic reasons. The tobacco industry did it with cancer, the sugar industry did it with sugar's connection to heart disease, so what is it that the political arm of the gun industry is hiding by suppressing knowledge?

 

You guys want to point to broken homes because it's easy and convinent, but honestly you can't really prove it, and that's my point. There are many people that come from broken homes and become functioning members of society, and there are some that become criminals but not murders. If it was really "the cause" those people should be the outliers but they aren't.

 

Anybody who says "the reality is its this one factor" is full of shit. They don't know anymore than anybody else in this landscape because this one organization, the NRA, used the corruption of out political system to hide knowledge and keep the whole country stupid and uninformed.

 

Keep in mind here what my argument is: I'm not supporting any current measure for gun control, I'm just saying the conversation needs to get a whole lot smarter about it and one of the ways it does that is through an increase in the knowledge base through research. In the Heller decision, the supreme court ruled that an outright ban will never happened and that the country has a right to gun control measures - those two issues are settled, if your argument is the NRA party line of there should never be any gun control of any kind, you have already lost that fight. But if you are at least open to reasonable gun control measures, then reasonable starts with knowledge and knowledge starts with research.

 

I don't get why you guys argue so much in favor of letting someone keep you in the dark about something? It is because you are embarrassed as NRA members that you are paying them to do it?

[Brandon]

The point wasn't to discuss the numbers, the point was to illustrate that you guys keep saying its this one factor without any study or evidence to back it up in the face of many other factors.

 

Industries suppressing research and knowledge don't have a good track record of doing it for altruistic reasons. The tobacco industry did it with cancer, the sugar industry did it with sugar's connection to heart disease, so what is it that the political arm of the gun industry is hiding by suppressing knowledge?

 

You guys want to point to broken homes because it's easy and convinent, but honestly you can't really prove it, and that's my point. There are many people that come from broken homes and become functioning members of society, and there are some that become criminals but not murders. If it was really "the cause" those people should be the outliers but they aren't.

 

Anybody who says "the reality is its this one factor" is full of shit. They don't know anymore than anybody else in this landscape because this one organization, the NRA, used the corruption of out political system to hide knowledge and keep the whole country stupid and uninformed.

 

Keep in mind here what my argument is: I'm not supporting any current measure for gun control, I'm just saying the conversation needs to get a whole lot smarter about it and one of the ways it does that is through an increase in the knowledge base through research. In the Heller decision, the supreme court ruled that an outright ban will never happened and that the country has a right to gun control measures - those two issues are settled, if your argument is the NRA party line of there should never be any gun control of any kind, you have already lost that fight. But if you are at least open to reasonable gun control measures, then reasonable starts with knowledge and knowledge starts with research.

 

I don't get why you guys argue so much in favor of letting someone keep you in the dark about something? It is because you are embarrassed as NRA members that you are paying them to do it?

 

Industries suppressing research is alarming, and very real. Its rampant right now in the food industry as well, beyond sugar.

 

How are broken homes families easy and convenient? It is a very abstract idea in relation to solving or understanding the puzzle of people whom will or would commit crime, violence, murder and so on. And again we CAN prove it, and it is being proven. It is no more or no less "provable" then climate change frankly. Are you a climate change denier?

 

I think I can agree with you that we as a country should envelope more then a one size fits all approach to solving this problem, with out striping the second amendment. The NRA can do their thing, no different then any other lobbying arm, either allow them or ban them all, they cant be any more or less evil then some pharma, energy sector guys and gals. The scary thing about the NRA is they just are the face of "guns" evil fucking guns! wah.

 

However they are wrong about common sense reforms with in reason. Banning assault rifles will not have any real affect to the problem in my eyes, its just and easy low hangin fruit with our the facts to back it up. Syncing federal agencies, improving the NICs system, improved mental health screening, 48-72 processing windows, and a slew of other small measure would do wonders. Nichloas Cruz should have never even had the opportunity to commit this crime frankly, 30 times the "system" failed to stop him in one form or another; not the gun laws.

[TTQ B4U]

The market is creating the data, so say what you want about the market, it doesn't agree with you.

 

so then why are the dems constantly talking about the need for immigrants to come here and take jobs our people they say people won't take? Where are all the illegals getting their money to contribute to the economy then?

 

Yes the analysis part of research can skew, but remember 1) if it skews it will be obvious in the analysis and will be pointed out by it's critics (which isn't really happening so it must be pretty good)

 

perhaps MSNBC and the other left wing orgs aren't reporting on it but there are plenty of folks daily talking about it.

 

incentive drives the need to skew, and honestly financial incentive to solve the problem does a pretty good job of keeping things honest. I get that you like your xenophobia and you love to call Ethiopians or Somalians turds because it makes you feel good, but don't pretend that your narrow view of immigrants being the problem is actually the problem.

 

honest? LOL! putting resources behind giving illegals state ID's and drivers licenses and schooling for their kids, putting them on aid, it's all wasted resources that should just be put towards moving them out of our system entirely. In terms of the turds, it applies to those that are. There are ghetto areas full of them in a number of cities around this country. Perhaps as I travel I'll grab you some videos of them. No Xeno here dude. Love me ones that are valuable and contributing to our country but not the ones who are not.

 

Do you want to solve societal problems? or do you just want to talk about how the poor are inferior?

 

how about we help people solve their problems so they can function in society and not be poor? don't patronize them and hurt everyone around them by calling for higher wages just because. it's those types of solutions that create the anger and frustration and put people in a bucket where they appear inferior. stop holding them down and help them help themselves.

 

All this talk about "entitlement" is a lot of things, but the main thing thing it isn't is helpful to the current situation. It's a fact of life we have children in this country malnourished and dying, growing up in homes that lack stable shelter, and that those situations have long standing effects on society.

 

^^ then start with the basics of common sense and human decency and address the family unit and when NOT to have kids. it's not society's fault that people are having kids when they can't afford to feed themselves or put a roof over their own head. seriously, you see nothing wrong with the current mindset of people like that?

 

It literally wears me out to hear your "entitlement garbage" because it offers nothing. No solution, no assistance, not even a unique or novel perspective on the problem. It's just you saying your fellow man is worthless.

 

Kerry, there's plenty of assistance out there even right now. The main pivot-point that's control and change the outcome of a persons in society is within themselves. No one is saying cut-off all assistance. The clamoring is for accountability and responsibility that comes with the assistance. Over-paying someone for a job that the market has set wages for isn't helping them or others. It's just a socially more acceptable way of redistributing wealth and creating more animosity. Wal-Mart cashier is not a career and to try and adjust that so it is will not solve the problem.

 

I deal with it fine. I just find it intensely hypocritical of you that you blast immigrants for stealing jobs, but have no problem letting the machines take them from Americans while you denigrate your fellow Americans.

 

I blast our policy around immigration where it applies. Do we need to import more poor people just because? No. In terms of technology, I do embrace it because it's how our market and system works. Life is full of change and the Americans that need to take note are the ones not willing to adapt. People need to have both the skill and will to adapt and change with the times. If they don't then they will be left behind. The motivation to continue on and not get passed by has to come from within them. There's only so much the rest of society can do to help them along until that light bulb goes off.

 

For someone so anti-government, it's surprising for you to be so anti worker as well. When the market shifts in favor of the worker, it's not stomping their feet and demanding more money - its monetizing the market value of the employee. Their intrinsic value goes up the company shouldn't get that for free, the worker should get paid what they are worth.

 

So where is that not happening today? I you stating that just because McDonalds is doing well and the economy is up that all of a sudden the cashier's there need to be paid more for the job they do just because of that? That's not how it works and you know it. Supply and demand for the labor that is skilled to do the job is what is going to determine that.

 

Companies have no problem doing furloughs, pay adjustments, wage decreases, and even mass layoffs when it goes the other way, why shouldn't the employee play the same game in the rare chance it goes their way?

 

they do play that game, but they can only do that successfully when the market supply of labor is in their favor. let the cashiers at fast food places walk away from their jobs as they demand $15/hr. one of a few things will happen, they will be replaced by someone willing to take their spot - likely an immigrant - as is the case in the food service industry at most places today, they will be augmented or replaced by automation, which is also happening or in some cases where it's applicable, they may see a raise. That's how the system should work too.

 

I am the working man, just like you, just like most of us. I am not on the side of management. If you worry about people gaming a system, then mgmt should invent a better game. People are going to rise to the level of their ambition, you can't stop that.

 

I am in management and we welcome people rising up and even surpassing their own goals. Key is we look for and hire people and pay them accordingly. It's not easy finding that ambition anymore.

 

Even if the economy goes in the toilet? He's a stable genius, he told us so,what could possibly go wrong? :dumb:

 

The market is bound to go down and then up then down, etc. Has little to do with one man.

[zeitgeist57]

I was actually going to respond to Kerry's post from earlier this morning, but the walls-o-text...i just can't do it guys.

[TTQ B4U]

Industries suppressing research and knowledge don't have a good track record of doing it for altruistic reasons. The tobacco industry did it with cancer, the sugar industry did it with sugar's connection to heart disease, so what is it that the political arm of the gun industry is hiding by suppressing knowledge?

 

We see your point Kerry, but the above examples were pretty easy to spot. People have known all along that smokes cause cancer and a load of other issues and the same with sugar. It's no different with guns and that's a point we can agree on. Unless you plan to remove guns from the equation, there will always be death by guns. They key difference however is far far far less people are being murdered by guns even today than by smoking and all the related health issues of poor eating even after all the studies show what's played out by using these things.

 

Guns themselves aren't an issue that is plaguing our society with troubles. The facts and numbers we have today prove that. It's a political bullshit argument that is there because the motives of the left are to remove them and that's the end game they've been going for little by little for decades.

 

You guys want to point to broken homes because it's easy and convinent, but honestly you can't really prove it, and that's my point. There are many people that come from broken homes and become functioning members of society, and there are some that become criminals but not murders. If it was really "the cause" those people should be the outliers but they aren't.

 

We don't need a study around broken homes to prove that whatever it's causing that a single parent household isn't as healthy for anyone including the parent, child or society as the one with two functioning within a healthy relationship. The studies and BS just aren't needed. What is needed is for people start making better choices and treat their partners with respect and learn the basics of how to make a family unit actually fucking work. You won't get that from a study or research, you get that from instilling it in people in school and by example.

[TTQ B4U]

I was actually going to respond to Kerry's post from earlier this morning, but the walls-o-text...i just can't do it guys.

 

It's exhausting for sure and I am one of the guys putting up these walls of text. It's only because if I sit down to have a conversation with him over coffee, I'd caffinate myself to death and Brandon would likely show up and kill us both

[zeitgeist57]

It's exhausting for sure and I am one of the guys putting up these walls of text. It's only because if I sit down to have a conversation with him over coffee, I'd caffinate myself to death and Brandon would likely show up and kill us both

 

YOU can do it...i still don't know how Kerry fills in pages of text on company time during the week.

 

It's a skill, I'll give him that, but one that's either a waste being used to argue politics on CR or a waste altogether.

[BStowers023]

It's exhausting for sure and I am one of the guys putting up these walls of text. It's only because if I sit down to have a conversation with him over coffee, I'd caffinate myself to death and Brandon would likely show up and kill us both

 

I'm a lover not a killer

[greg1647545532]

I'm a lover not a killer

 

This explains why you wanted Kerry's address then.

[BStowers023]

This explains why you wanted Kerry's address then.

 

I didn't warrant it, he offered

[zeitgeist57]

My favorite contributor to this thread is greg. Thank you for your work, sir.

 

To quote JT and Chris Stapleton: "Sometimes the greatest way to say something, is to say nothing at all."*

 

 

 

 

*given this is an online, text-focused forum, I'll go with typing the least to get your point across.

[ODoyle]

This explains why you wanted Kerry's address then.

 

Surprise butt sex. Its a Gift; not rape.

[zeitgeist57]

[TTQ B4U]

I'm a lover not a killer

 

I fear that more than you and a gun That gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "cover your ass"

[Geeesammy]

Or maybe they are just unqualified for that job? If you went to school for a BA in linguistics, and your entire experience working on cars is to change a battery once in an autozone parking lot, you probably shouldn't be under a car doing oil changes.

 

Yeah, there are lazy people in this world that don't want to work, but the number of those people is small. What you are seeing are people who want to work in a job they are qualified for and eventually they will get jobs in their field or enter the labor market another way when they don't. And as they come in, others will leave.

 

It sucks being unemployed and wanting to work, but just because they aren't willing to take any job that comes along that they aren't really qualified for doesn't mean they are lazy. They are your friends (I presume) and they probably bitch and moan about their situation to you, and it probably sucks to have a job and feel awkward around your friend who doesn't. But try to be a little understanding too, this world isn't easy for anybody and making them feel shitty by calling them lazy doesn't help. although I probably wouldn't lend them any money.

 

Thats an extreme example, but 90% of places will say "hey we will hire you, give you paid training and we have basic tools you need to get you started and here is a small sign on bonus to help with tools"

 

As far as the not qualified to take any job thing, it doesn't take any qualifications typically to work retail other than being willing to help people as much as you can and don't be a dick.

[Geeto67]

Industries suppressing research is alarming, and very real. Its rampant right now in the food industry as well, beyond sugar.

 

Great, we can agree industries suppressing information is a bad thing. Can we stop giving a pass to the Gun industry and the NRA for the same thing?

 

How are broken homes families easy and convenient? It is a very abstract idea in relation to solving or understanding the puzzle of people whom will or would commit crime, violence, murder and so on. And again we CAN prove it, and it is being proven. It is no more or no less "provable" then climate change frankly. Are you a climate change denier?

 

Once you remove facts and data analysis from the conversation, all you are left with are feelings and subjective morality. There are people who are looking for literally any other factor than firearms to pin the blame on: Mental illness makes a good scapegoat, but Americans don't generally have a good understanding of mental illness. However, Americans are weirdly judgemental about single parents, esp in a morality context. It's an easy target for people who don't want change to pin the blame on, and because people have strong feelings about it already they are more receptive to that message. It isn't easy as a solution, esp since the "solution" is going to be complex and involve a coordinated approach to addressing a variety of factors, not just one - but it's accessible for people who don't want to hear that maybe we need to look at firearms as part of the problem.

 

If we had 1/8th the amount of research and data on this issue that we do on climate change, we would all be having a very different conversation. Currently we can't even fully study the factors that contribute to suicide because the dickey amendment restricts using data where the suicide was committed with a firearm. You are saying you can prove it now, but really you can't because whatever is going on now will always be suspect because of the restrictions of the dickey amendment.

 

 

I think I can agree with you that we as a country should envelope more then a one size fits all approach to solving this problem, with out striping the second amendment. The NRA can do their thing, no different then any other lobbying arm, either allow them or ban them all, they cant be any more or less evil then some pharma, energy sector guys and gals. The scary thing about the NRA is they just are the face of "guns" evil fucking guns! wah.

 

Gun control does not strip the 2nd amendment. That is a settled fact. No enumerated right in the constitution is absolute, although the government has to take extra special care in any laws they draft. The NRA's position is that the 2nd amendment is absolute, and their long game is to manipulate the political sphere to try and establish 2A as an exception where that is true. What makes them scary is how effective they are for a relatively small organization, not that they are the face of guns.

 

Evil, is a morally subjective concept, esp comparative morality, so I don't really want to get into this thing where so and so is less evil than this or more evil than that. I don't think the NRA is "evil", I do think that they are manipulative of our political process to advance the agenda of a small number of people, are manipulative of the public by working hard to suppress information, manipulative of their members in that they run an aggressive campaign of fear-mongering that is exploitative to keep people paying dues.

 

However they are wrong about common sense reforms with in reason. Banning assault rifles will not have any real affect to the problem in my eyes, its just and easy low hangin fruit with our the facts to back it up. Syncing federal agencies, improving the NICs system, improved mental health screening, 48-72 processing windows, and a slew of other small measure would do wonders. Nichloas Cruz should have never even had the opportunity to commit this crime frankly, 30 times the "system" failed to stop him in one form or another; not the gun laws.

 

Gun owners who believe in reasonable common sense reforms are the battle ground that the NRA is fighting with progressive politicians. By suppressing information, those drafting gun control bills are left to take their best guess as to what measure will work, and honestly - they really just draft to maximum visibility because you can trust politicians to try to play to their base in the absence of anything to back up their measures. I agree, banning assault rifles won't solve this problem, but remember we don't really know what the root of the problem is and what will have an effect, because instead of having data and research we have trial and error. So long as GC proposals seem "unreasonable" the NRA has a hold on the votes and public support of gun owners who think some control is reasonable, if they lose that group their base becomes much smaller and they lose some political power - so it's in their best interest to keep the public ill informed so that someone doesn't come up with an actual reasonable approach.

 

MY old friend and business partner wrote what I think is a very good article on the subject:

 

https://www.outsideonline.com/2284476/five-reasons-why-nra-anti-american

 

I think you would actually enjoy it.

[ShowHBK]

26 pages, who's winning? Can I get a TL;DR?

[TTQ B4U]

26 pages, who's winning? Can I get a TL;DR?

 

Economy is going great and the overall impact of guns in America in terms of true valuable assets being killed per year is so minor it's measured in decimals. Long live capitalism and the 2A.

 

Looks like we're all winning.

[greg1647545532]

Within the last week Trump said he thinks the gov't should take away people's guns without due process and suggested that he wants to get rid of term limits like China, and nobody's flinched. I think that means we're all losing.

[CRed05]

he wants to get rid of term limits like China, and nobody's flinched.

 

Yeah, that's really bothersome. He probably said it jokingly, maybe not, but it's not something the POTUS should be joking about. He's single handedly wiping this country's name through his oddly shaped buttcrack.

[greg1647545532]

He also proposed these metal tariffs, upending the Republican platform on protectionism (I guess free trade is a Democratic plank now). This is reportedly going to raise the price on new cars by several hundred dollars, presumably in order to protect the profits of steel and aluminum magnates in the US? Fuck you, people who buy cars.

 

In classic Trump fashion he announced this in a completely ramshackle way, catching everyone in his own administration off-guard, not consulting with any of the agencies that will actually be tasked with implementing this tariff in order to get their advice and consent, and generally throwing everyone not in the room with him at the time under the bus. And, according to Slate's reporting, it's possibly not even legal, since the president can (apparently) only unilaterally impose tariffs for national security reasons. Steel and aluminum would certainly fit the bill, accept he went out blabbing about how he'd consider changing his mind if our trading partners gave us better trade deals. Uh oh, that doesn't sound like a national security reason.

 

But whatever, executive overreach only matters if Democrats do it. 10 internet points, please. Conservative hypocrisy is off the fucking charts this week.

[greg1647545532]

I see that at least some Republicans are moving to block the tariffs. Good. -5 internet points for me for not checking the news today.

[Geeto67]

26 pages, who's winning? Can I get a TL;DR?

 

The point of these conversations is not competitive. It's important in society to freely share ideas and viewpoints so as to better understand all angles of any issue. In other words: start reading, pussy.

 

Greg,

 

Trump keeps making statements about how the world is ripping us off for $800 Billion in trade agreements. That's an oddly specific number to not have some fact check reference attached to it. Do you know where that comes from?

 

The only thing I think it might be is that the US purchased $866 Billion more in goods than the ROW purchased from US, but even that's not an accurate number because there is on offset of $244 Billion for services and transportation that we sold to the ROW above what they sold to us. So that's a trade deficit of $566 billion. Even still, the numbers all balance out in the end because in order for us to purchase that much there must be an equal amount of capital investment from abroad. So a tariff doesn't affect that at all. If he shrinks the deficit, then he shrinks the capital investment as well - which we really don't want.

 

I'm seriously baffled by this. The other stuff about going around due process and eliminating term limits is stupid, no member of congress will back him on that and it just makes it clear how inexperienced and uninformed he is. Although I genuinely expected a bigger conservative backlash from people when he literally said he wanted to take guns without due process.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Geeto67