• 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

Whipsnade said:
How would you know that a Times reporter would do something like that?This is a debate site...gotta come up with something besides strawmen.Common, you can do it.I have faith inya.
Click to expand...

I didn't create a strawman :lamo It was an analogy :roll:
 
ChezC3 said:
:yawn:

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Click to expand...


What makes Wolfgang an authority on enslavement?
 
Whipsnade said:
Blacks and/or Hispanics are not the cause of the shortage of weapons/ammo are they?




Whose scared of them?




Very true but gang bangers and thugs are not the causes of weapons/ammo flying off the shelves either are they?
Click to expand...

Probably not...which should testify as to how stupid people are concerning themselves with the "phantom menace" while the real threat is making a whole lot of people dead.
 
VanceMack said:
There are a few million gang bangers across the country just ITCHING for you to go take their guns. Hell...you dont even have to worry about waiting for them to commit a violent felony because...box checked. Round em up and handle it.
Click to expand...

Then we'll just have to differ as to whether we as a society should allow people with a history of violence to have guns. Of course, if you have a history of driving drunk, they'll take your driver's license, but guns are sacrosanct.
 
Whipsnade said:
WHAT!!Did he give a speech in fronta the turkey head shredder too?:shock:
Click to expand...

Not sure what a "turkey head shredder" is, but I suppose the LA Times is similar.

Anyway, my comparison has more to do with someone blathering some over-the-top hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Then we'll just have to differ as to whether we as a society should allow people with a history of violence to have guns. Of course, if you have a history of driving drunk, they'll take your driver's license, but guns are sacrosanct.
Click to expand...

Really? Where have you ever heard me say people with a "history of violence should have guns"? In fact where have you heard me NOT say people that commit violent criminal acts shouldn't get locked away long time? For that matter when was the last time YOU suggested we should go after gang bangers and thugs?
 
Mycroft said:
Not sure what a "turkey head shredder" is, but I suppose the LA Times is similar.

Anyway, my comparison has more to do with someone blathering some over-the-top hyperbole.
Click to expand...



Here ya go.Check the goober out in the background that has the turkey by the legs.:(
 
Whipsnade said:
Here ya go.Check the goober out in the background that has the turkey by the legs.:(
Click to expand...

Well, unless you can show me that the turkey she pardoned was slaughtered, your joke is dumb.

Anyway, if you actually listened to what she said, she makes more sense than that idiot from LA Times.
 
Mycroft said:
Anyway, if you actually listened to what she said, she makes more sense than that idiot from LA Times.
Click to expand...


OH, I listened to what the half term gov had to say. For instance she was saying, while goober was stuffing the turkeys head in the shrewder, that the state was in good fiscal shape.

Facts tell a different story though. Alaska’s half term gov, left the state with debts equal to 70 Percent of GDP. No wonder sister sarah told her told top aide, Frank Bailey, that her reason for quitting after a half term was “I hate this damn job”.

Whats quite telling is that you seem to agree with what she says, while slamming a reporter for presenting facts. quite telling.:peace
 
Whipsnade said:
OH, I listened to what the half term gov had to say. For instance she was saying, while goober was stuffing the turkeys head in the shrewder, that the state was in good fiscal shape.

Facts tell a different story though. Alaska’s half term gov, left the state with debts equal to 70 Percent of GDP. No wonder sister sarah told her told top aide, Frank Bailey, that her reason for quitting after a half term was “I hate this damn job”.

Whats quite telling is that you seem to agree with what she says, while slamming a reporter for presenting facts. quite telling.:peace
Click to expand...

Fact!!??

That "reporter" (he really isn't a reporter, but a badly talking head) didn't present any facts...only twisted, spun, biased rhetoric that had no relation to reality.
 
Mycroft said:
Fact!!??

That "reporter" (he really isn't a reporter, but a badly talking head) didn't present any facts...only twisted, spun, biased rhetoric that had no relation to reality.
Click to expand...

PATRIOT-MILITIA-GRAPH.jpg

Are you saying that this graph,that the author of the opinion piece based his article on is not right?By the way who wrote that article?I didn't see who the author was. :2wave:
 
Whipsnade said:
View attachment 67144414

Are you saying that this graph,that the author of the opinion piece based his article on is not right?By the way who wrote that article?I didn't see who the author was. :2wave:
Click to expand...

The author of the Times article was someone on the editorial board and it is widely known that they are rabid leftists. Their article, with took info from the SPLC report...which was biased in itself...and upped the rhetoric. They both are making too much ado about not much at all. Even to the point that the Times says these groups are more dangerous than international terrorists. I wonder what the comparison between numbers killed by these two types of people would show...hmmm?

Can we say hyperbole?

Yes, we can.
 
What did Wiseone mean by “watermelon”?

Lutherf said:
Wiseone said:
Well statistically speaking you are more likely to be killed by an angry white conservative than a terrorism. Of course you're probably more likely to be killed by a watermelon than a terrorist as well.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "watermelon"? Is that some kind of code?:lamo
Click to expand...

The watermelon stereotype | Abagond

1890sc_engraving-pickaninnies_with_watermelon.jpg
watermelon_edited_op_769x275_op_750x268.jpg
watermelon.gif
 
tererun said:
Yes, we know violence is your answer when you have an opinion.
Click to expand...

Ikari said:
Yes, we know that government tyranny is your answer when someone else expresses an opinion.
Click to expand...

If we take both these statements as true, then something leaps out at me from the juxtaposition.

What it gets down to, of course, is claims by each side that the other side wishes to use violence to suppress dissent against its own opinions.

But there's a big difference.

One side is shown as being willing to fight for itself, while the other is shown as demanding that government fight on its behalf.

The former is brave, and willing to take responsibility, while the other is cowardly and wants to foist its responsibility off on to government.

Really, this gets down to a very good illustration of a root distinction between the far right and the far wrong.
 
rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The liberal version of not being “soft on crime” has always consisted of policies to reduce freedoms for everyone, while doing nothing whatsoever to actually reduce crime.
 
rocket88 said:
I was responding to the idea that disarming gang bangers was a bad thing.


We could solve that problem by having welfare offices hand out AKs. Is that what people want?
Click to expand...

Why of course, that's what the pro-gun lobby is all about. :roll:
 
American said:
Why of course, that's what the pro-gun lobby is all about. :roll:
Click to expand...

But you're all up in arms over "disarming the poor" who obviously shouldn't be spending their money on guns. I mean, since our concern is because of the cost of weapons princing them out...
 
QUOTE Mycroft

The author of the Times article was someone on the editorial board and it is widely known that they are rabid leftists.
Click to expand...

If there that widely known then you should have no problem coming up with a name for me then. Surely from a list of 10 weekly Op-Ed columnists that are now in place at the TIMES you should be able to come up with proof that at least one outa ten is a “rabid leftists “. Right?:2wave:
Their article, with took info from the SPLC report...which was biased in itself...and upped the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Yep. Can’t be a civil rights organization and have the below quote as your motto and not have a bias.:roll:


“The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society.”
Click to expand...
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The liberal version of not being “soft on crime” has always consisted of policies to reduce freedoms for everyone, while doing nothing whatsoever to actually reduce crime.
Click to expand...

Reducing poverty seems like a pretty good place to start when it comes to reducing crime. Let's cut funding to welfare?
 
Whipsnade said:
Yep. Can’t be a civil rights organization and have the below quote as your motto and not have a bias.:roll:

“The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society.”​
Click to expand...

Going on their web site, and searching for the term “abortion” seem to bring up ample evidence that any claim that they may have to care about “the most vulnerable members of society” is a flat-out lie. They appear to be solidly on the side of those who wish to continue murdering these most vulnerable members of society.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Reducing poverty seems like a pretty good place to start when it comes to reducing crime. Let's cut funding to welfare?
Click to expand...

As a matter of semantics, perhaps, but not as a matter of any meaningful reality.

If poor people don't have to steal, then this reduces crime, you could argue. But when the way that this is accomplished consists of using the force of government to steal, on behalf of the poor, so that they don't have to do their own stealing, is this really any improvement? Crime is only “reduced” in the sense that because it is government that is doing the stealing, and government gets to define was is a “crime”, and government gets to define its own theft as not being a crime, hence there is less “crime”. But these semantic games change nothing about what is truly happening.
 
This thread is obviously a troll thread, designed to lure all manner of God-fearing, gun packing, Conservative Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom