• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed

White Conservative gun owners are the most persecuted group in history!

Nah...just the target when the gutless ****heads are afraid to speak the truth about who is commiting the vast majority of violent crimes in this country. But I know YOU don't have a problem with that....

Sorry...I crack myself up... :lamo

Like he says, he feels white conservatives are unjustly overly targeted because political correctness and other liberal attitudes prevent the real focus from being on blacks who statistically commit the most crimes in this country.

Personally I believe viewing crime through a prism of race to be about useful as viewing anything else through race, completely pointless.
 
Like he says, he feels white conservatives are unjustly overly targeted because political correctness and other liberal attitudes prevent the real focus from being on blacks who statistically commit the most crimes in this country.

Personally I believe viewing crime through a prism of race to be about useful as viewing anything else through race, completely pointless.

Good to see you following the thread.

Look...I don't give a damn about people's comments about "whites". I'm pretty comfortable in this world, work my ass off, and the last thing I care about is the color of ones skin (seriously...who has the time?). I don't read the LA Times and didnt see this story til it became a "debate" topic (that IS what this site is about). When it was made a debate topic I pointed out how idiot it is to speculate how "dangerous" evil white gun owners might someday have the potential to be by comparison to terrorists, when we had some pretty dramatic real world examples of who is killing who today and who presents real and present threats.

I don't think ANYONE has anything to fear from the vast majority of gun owners (regardless of race...notice how the paper and...lets just say "others" presume only white people are concerned about preservation of the constitution) unless, as pointed out by the paper, they be faced with a tyrannical government. SHOULD that day come when we are faced with a tyrannical government ( and I don't think we are there) then the implication is that only white conservative gun owners would stand against tyranny.

Is that true? Would YOU? Or would you bow to a tyrannical government that abandoned the Constitution? That is the only situation where his might become an issue.
 
The gun nuts should have little room to complain about this. How many threats have come from them about watering the tree of liberty, or something much more direct? Then there is their statements that the second amendment deters unjust laws and the removal of freedoms through the overt threat that the people have guns and will shed blood. The whole idea of carrying a weapon is an overt threat. It is supposed to say criminals don't screw with me because i will shoot your ass.

of course, when people bring that up thn comes the bumbling and idiocy as they realize they just made a huge case for them being violent and scary. After that it is either insults, or really bad excuses like they just want a gun to butter their toast and would never shoot someone with it.

I didn't get "violent" or "scary" from the first paragraph...

It's common sense, people have guns if bad people know that they have guns then those bad people are less likely to bother them. Maybe those bad people are a corrupt government maybe they're a violent criminal but guns being used as a deterrent is not a new concept and while I do think there are people out there who are paranoid about the government, who are dangerous and are worth keeping an eye on most gun owners who express similar sentiments are harmless law abiding citizens.
 
Looks like this OP touched a nerve with the usual suspects of gun culture denizens and conservative flamebots who love to dish it out, but can't take it



Naw, the OP shows the white racists at the LA Times is freaking out because they are losing the issue.
 
Like he says, he feels white conservatives are unjustly overly targeted because political correctness and other liberal attitudes prevent the real focus from being on blacks who statistically commit the most crimes in this country.

Personally I believe viewing crime through a prism of race to be about useful as viewing anything else through race, completely pointless.


Then why do liberals want to disarm more African-Americans and put more African-Americans in prison for up to 25 years for new gun law violations by virtue of their being black and poor?
 
Then why do liberals want to disarm more African-Americans and put more African-Americans in prison for up to 25 years for new gun law violations by virtue of their being black and poor?

Ok Mr. Hyperbole
 
Ok Mr. Hyperbole

You already used that attempted diversion.

African-American civil rights leaders agree with what I posted. Who are you?
 
You already used that attempted diversion.

African-American civil rights leaders agree with what I posted. Who are you?

I don't care who agrees with you, its still hyperbole.
 
I don't care who agrees with you, its still hyperbole.


Then you don't know what "hyperbole" means. If millions of people and national leaders, officials, spokespersons and officeholders from different and even otherwise opposed viewpoints agree on the importance and revelancy of an issue, it is not "hyperbole" by definition.

You aren't going to get hooked up on a it-never-works constant usage of a word hoping to divert - for you "hyperbole," for HeadOfJoaquin it is "mere" and for Liberal Avenger it is "strawman" are you?

Just wasted messages other than I suppose some people want to increase their post count.
 
I didn't get "violent" or "scary" from the first paragraph...

It's common sense, people have guns if bad people know that they have guns then those bad people are less likely to bother them.

Why would that be? perhaps it is because they want their guns to make them look scary? oh no wait, that couldn't be it. They want their guns because it makes them look cute and adorable. Do you even listen to the absurd logic. the reason for them to carry the guns is supposedly to scare off the bad guy. That is because there is a threat of violence when you are carrying around a tool which only has the purpose to kill.

Again, you illustrate the problem of talking to gun people. they do not want an honest conversation. you claim to have seen nothing about violence or scary things, but then you completely contradict that in the next sentence where you claim guns scare away criminals. That is dishonest. that is pretending guns are not scary or violent while claiming they are scary and violent. Pick a side.
Maybe those bad people are a corrupt government maybe they're a violent criminal but guns being used as a deterrent is not a new concept and while I do think there are people out there who are paranoid about the government, who are dangerous and are worth keeping an eye on most gun owners who express similar sentiments are harmless law abiding citizens.

Without a mind reading device how is anyone supposed to know which is which? Sorry, but i don't expect the government to overlook people like ted nugent who make threats against them. That is just stupid.
 
Then you don't know what "hyperbole" means. If millions of people and national leaders, officials, spokespersons and officeholders from different and even otherwise opposed viewpoints agree on the importance and revelancy of an issue, it is not "hyperbole" by definition.

You aren't going to get hooked up on a it-never-works constant usage of a word hoping to divert - for you "hyperbole," for HeadOfJoaquin it is "mere" and for Liberal Avenger it is "strawman" are you?

Just wasted messages other than I suppose some people want to increase their post count.

What definition is that? Surely you don't mention the direction definition do you?

And what again does any of this have to do with what I said? Assuming everything you said is correct it has nothing to do with my own opinion about race in the context given in post #51. Am I responsible for what liberals and African American leaders think? No. Am I responsible for what you think liberals and African Americans think? No. So why are you bringing it up?

In my opinion I think viewing problems through a lense of race is entirely unproductive in most contexts, and I really don't care with whatever you say other people believe in regards to that. Firstly because I know you have a tendency to exaggerate, secondly because you've got no source and are stating opinions as if they were fact, and lastly because you like to generalize and stereotype.

And finally, comparing our respective post counts I think its clear who has a greater interest in it.
 
Then you don't know what "hyperbole" means. If millions of people and national leaders, officials, spokespersons and officeholders from different and even otherwise opposed viewpoints agree on the importance and revelancy of an issue, it is not "hyperbole" by definition.

You aren't going to get hooked up on a it-never-works constant usage of a word hoping to divert - for you "hyperbole," for HeadOfJoaquin it is "mere" and for Liberal Avenger it is "strawman" are you?

Just wasted messages other than I suppose some people want to increase their post count.

Lets not worry about those "other" guys...he only has eyes for you. (Well...anyone that is a pro gun type). Cuz...you know...the "hatred".
 
Lets not worry about those "other" guys...he only has eyes for you. (Well...anyone that is a pro gun type). Cuz...you know...the "hatred".

Am I wrong, about his comment about liberals or whoever wanting black people in prison? Is it not an exaggeration is it not an hyperbole, is it not vague, undefined, and lacking a source?

Instead of complaining that I don't focus enough on other people, why don't you actually look at the content of my post and judge it on that basis alone.
 
Am I wrong, about his comment about liberals or whoever wanting black people in prison? Is it not an exaggeration is it not an hyperbole, is it not vague, undefined, and lacking a source?

Instead of complaining that I don't focus enough on other people, why don't you actually look at the content of my post and judge it on that basis alone.
I'm commenting on WHO you tend to respond to...but...are you right? You called it hype...he stated that his position was consistent with black leaders and a whole lot of other folks. 'Hyperbole" sometimes tend to be in the eye of the beholder...and we have a running history of what your eyes 'see'.
 
I'm commenting on WHO you tend to respond to...but...are you right? You called it hype...he stated that his position was consistent with black leaders and a whole lot of other folks. 'Hyperbole" sometimes tend to be in the eye of the beholder...and we have a running history of what your eyes 'see'.

No I called what he said hyperbole, and then when he said "black leaders agree with me," again with no source or backing or any idea of specifically which black leaders he's referring to, I said I don't care its still hyperbole. My intent was to call only what he originally said as hyperbole, nothing else.

And again is it not exaggeration to say liberals want black people to be jailed?
 
Why would that be? perhaps it is because they want their guns to make them look scary? oh no wait, that couldn't be it. They want their guns because it makes them look cute and adorable. Do you even listen to the absurd logic. the reason for them to carry the guns is supposedly to scare off the bad guy. That is because there is a threat of violence when you are carrying around a tool which only has the purpose to kill.

Again, you illustrate the problem of talking to gun people. they do not want an honest conversation. you claim to have seen nothing about violence or scary things, but then you completely contradict that in the next sentence where you claim guns scare away criminals. That is dishonest. that is pretending guns are not scary or violent while claiming they are scary and violent. Pick a side.


Without a mind reading device how is anyone supposed to know which is which? Sorry, but i don't expect the government to overlook people like ted nugent who make threats against them. That is just stupid.

There's nothing dishonest about what I said. I just don't equate self defense with "scary" and "violent", while I admitted that there are some people out there who take things too far not everyone who wants a gun for self-defense is a nut job.
 
No I called what he said hyperbole, and then when he said "black leaders agree with me," again with no source or backing or any idea of specifically which black leaders he's referring to, I said I don't care its still hyperbole. My intent was to call only what he originally said as hyperbole, nothing else.

And again is it not exaggeration to say liberals want black people to be jailed?
Not 'all' liberals (some are actually staunch supporters of gun owners rights)...just antigun zealots. SOME liberals are just 'opposed' to bans...but you know...kinda go along...cuz really...rights change...and...well...what could it hurt to allow for a little 'reasonable' gun control...

I don't know who all he was citing but the head of the Frederick Douglass Foundation seems to agree with him.
Contagious Transformation | Breaking the Chains | Page 2
 
Looks like this OP touched a nerve with the usual suspects of gun culture denizens and conservative flamebots who love to dish it out, but can't take it

Looks like it's racist, progressive malcontents who can't take it. They're afraid that white men will be able to blow away themselves and their criminal associates.
 
Then why do liberals want to disarm more African-Americans and put more African-Americans in prison for up to 25 years for new gun law violations by virtue of their being black and poor?

So the problem is inner city violence among blacks, and the solution is to give them all guns? They already have guns. There's thousands of problems involved here and "not enough guns" isn't one of them.

As I said when you tried to post a whole thread about this, if Liberals tried to say what you're saying, they'd be accused of "class warfare" and being soft on crime. I guess that class warfare isn't a problem when it's about guns.
 
Nah...just the target when the gutless ****heads are afraid to speak the truth about who is commiting the vast majority of violent crimes in this country. But I know YOU don't have a problem with that....

Sorry...I crack myself up... :lamo

I was going to say that the article was ridiculous, but then your paranoia was even more ridiculous. Apparently, YOU don't have a problem with class warfare if it's about guns. The only problem in your mind, is liberals and the evil MSM out to persecute you.
 
I was going to say that the article was ridiculous, but then your paranoia was even more ridiculous. Apparently, YOU don't have a problem with class warfare if it's about guns. The only problem in your mind, is liberals and the evil MSM out to persecute you.
Its not paranoia...I am merely pointing out the SAME THING which you obviously feel about the article. Apparently you disapprove of the WAY in which I point it out. Its not about 'persecution', its about their blatant stupidity and PC nature. Not the first time the LA Times has gone this route. Not a few weeks ago they did a similar article insisting that gun ownership was a poor counter to tyranny. Its what they call a 'trend'. A 'ridiculous' trend, but a trend nonetheless. We both think it ridiculous...yet you persists with the same TYPE of ridiculous rhetoric. Color me...shocked.
 
It's VERY relevant. I get the joke...now lets talk real world. How many thousands are killed every year by blacks and Hispanics? Would you say it is a safe bet to say more murders are committed by blacks and Hispanics than whites( or terrorists)? Would you say it's a fair bet that there would be an uproar if the LA Times made that comparison? Would you say it's a fair bet that he people gleefully supporting he attack on conservative white men would **** themselves in attacking the times of they made the comparison to black men and Hispanic men?

Actually reading the LA times editorial reveals that they are discussing the militia members, not every white conservative who owns a gun.
 
No s***!





LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

According to an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times, conservative white men who support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are worse than international terrorists and need to be monitored by the federal government, Infowars reported Wednesday.
The op-ed, written after the Southern Poverty Law Center demanded the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security "crack down on Americans expressing opposition to an increasingly tyrannical federal government," claims there are "cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government."
"They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal," the Times wrote.
Kurt Nimmo accused the paper of racism for singling out white men as the culprit that needs to be dealt with by the federal government.
"They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists," the Times said.


I like this part from the Times:



I really thought better of you than this. I guess I was wrong.
 
Water the tree of liberty is pretty much lets go on a jihad. it is all the same thing when certain people have no clue what liberty actually is.

Wow, what a perfect display of contradiction. First of all, you need to learn the definition of "jihad," because as you're you're using it, its pretty apparent that you have no idea what the term means. But, I'm feeling generous and will help you out. Jihad is the violent maintenance of theological tyranny. Watering the tree of liberty is a fight against tyranny by the oppressed. In most cases throughout history, this involves violence using the weapons of the era.

Pretty simple concept but not surprising someone so blinded by their ideology would come up with what you've posted.
 
i guess that would be one vote for dangerous, unstable, and needs to be monitored. Anyone else?

You dont have enough people to monitor everyone that fits the bill in my state. That would be a least a good third. I live in Califonia. Good luck.
One other thing. What makes you think YOUR not being watched by your own government?
 
Back
Top Bottom