Printable View
Is anyone really surprised at this? You can't keep talking about killing people for their politics and not think this is going to happen.
Looks like it's a guy from the alt left that did the shooting. Piece of shit, hope he lives so he can rot in jail.
Heard he died.
Notice it always seemed the Bernie supporters were the violent ones, first against Hillary, then against Trump.
Pretty fucked up.
Who was saying people should die for their politics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
He did on his social media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Wait.. have you not heard about the play about the Trump Assassination? Or how Kathy Griffin held up a cut off Trump head?
False. Hillary supporters are the violent ones, not the Bernie supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
It's OK bro, we know you are trying to self-justify your continued support for these losers. Don't worry we will be there for you when you wake up to reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Are you talking about the 'Trump must be destroyed' comment or something else? I don't think you can tie this to Sanders based on the perpetrator's social media comments. Sanders has always been against violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
And you agreed with my assessment on the Kathy Griffin thing.
I imagine they're referencing that white supremacist in Portland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Not familiar with that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen
The guy who stabbed those people on the train.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Yeah...there's no such thing as the alt left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
But I think it's fascinating that you've decided the problem here is liberalism, not, say, guns.
LOL guns saved the day, you idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
:thinking:Quote:
The guy who stabbed those people on the train.
What do you prefer calling them, radical lefties? Extremists? terrorists?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Blames the problem on guns. Disregards the fact that a security detail with guns is why no one was killed.
Rioting and looting in multiple cities, Madonna "Blow up the White House" speech, Kathy Griffin going ISIS, Reality Winner leaking classified info who also wanted to join ISIS and burn down the White House......Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Come on bro you know it's the guns doing this.
There is. You just don't see it because you are a die hard member. You think those crazy fucks are normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I'm not surprised at all that the first thing the Alt Lefties do is blame guns instead of their rhetoric.Quote:
But I think it's fascinating that you've decided the problem here is liberalism, not, say, guns.
At all.
Crazy people are a problem, regardless of ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Crazy people having unrestricted access to firearms is also a problem. If you can't see that, you're part of that first problem.
You can't control other's access to weapons. I know you wish you could, but you can't. If you can't see that, then you're part of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donquix
Clearly the 2nd amendment saved the day.
It's sad how fractured this country is.
Look how ready PB is to use this situation to prove some sort of political point. The guy is a crazy old white dude, this is not part of some vast 'alt-left' liberal conspiracy. These types of people can unfortunately come from all walks of life, political ideologies or religious backgrounds. Pointing fingers only serves to break the divide even wider, let's talk about how we treat people with opposing views like human beings again.
lol you lost get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
I lost what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
a. Yes, there's an alt-left.
b. Violence is extremely bad. Also, political violence is much more prevalent in America amongst first world democracies, historically.
c. "Trump Assassination" play is Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Obama was used in Caesar's place in prior staging in 2012. Also, the point of the play is that assassinations are bad - the populace turns against the assassins later on.
d. Shooter was a Sanders supporter, and hated Clinton, the GOP, and Trump. (checked his FB page myself)
I agree guns are the problem though; we should be allowed to bear arms as afforded to us by the 2nd amendment but for city dwellers by law all guns should be kept at your local Police station, who on demand 24/7 will give you access to your guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
This sounds like a great ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by hello
I'd say it's both ways. The perpetrator having a gun ruined the day, the capital police being present with guns saved the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
I don't disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donquix
Who gets to determine who is crazy is the problem.Quote:
Crazy people having unrestricted access to firearms is also a problem.
Yes, yes.. if you don't agree with MY opinion, YOU are the problem.Quote:
If you can't see that, you're part of that first problem.
Great.
Creates a nasty catch-22. It's a mental health problem, not a gun problem, but we don't want to limit access to arms for fear of government overreach. So in the end, fingers are pointed and nothing is done on either end of the spectrum.
Nobody has unrestricted access to firearms. Of course you would know this if you have ever purchased a firearm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donquix
How do you figure? It's legal to do a personal sale of property to another person, firearms included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Yes, Government approved arms dealers do not offer unrestricted access, but that's not the only way of getting a gun.
Except you know, it's illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to someone if they are purchasing it for illegal intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Yeah, there's absolutely no way around that rule ever. And everyone engaging in a firearm transaction always discusses intent of the use, and everyone always tells the truth, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Sooo... more laws are going to make people follow the laws we already have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Kind of like how it's impossible to find a bag of weed because it's illegal.
Pretty defeatist attitude. Why outlaw murder if people are going to just do it anyway, even if it's illegal, right? Last I checked, Motor Vehicles tend to have decent oversight on them when it comes to sales and transfers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
But you're right. Weed is much more dangerous than a gun, that's why it's illegal, right? We should absolutely ensure that anyone with weed is jailed.
................................Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
That isn't really the point. We just don't need additional laws to declare that murder is illegal. Why is a murder more murderous if it's a hate crime, for example? If someone kills me because I'm white they should get the same penalty as if they killed me because they hate gays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
I don't really know what to think of gun control. I don't own a gun, and don't expect that I ever will, but I don't see any reason why law abiding citizens shouldn't own them. On the other hand, I don't think that anyone who has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness (not just depression) should have the same unfettered access as someone who has shown themselves to be a fine upstanding member of society. And I don't think you should be able to sell guns at flea markets to avoid background checks.
To further those thoughts that I agree with... despite this shooter's political leanings he had a record of abusive behavior that should have prevented him from arming himself to the teeth. I doubt you'll hear anyone say to abolish guns completely just put more restrictions on ownership. It's just responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by everan
Hmm, interestingly he was doing fairly well for himself, owned his own business and had no serious run in with the law. I just think there are crazies on both sides of the spectrum.
Like PB said, who gets to determine who is crazy? How can someone get diagnosed as crazy if they never see a doctor? Do we solve this by forcing people to get mental checkups? Laughable..
I believe the hate crime enhancement is to ensure that it gets treated as a first degree murder, even if it wasn't premeditated. I don't know that for sure, but believe that's the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by everan
Choice isn't binary. Can enhance databases, reporting mechanisms, and screening methods without making it mandatory for everyone to get mental health checkups. Won't get everyone, obviously, but will cut down on gun access for those not mentally stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Has there been a indication on how he got his gun yet? Wasn't clear if recent purchase or if it had been owned for a long time.
Plus, dude could buy the gun and turn crazy over several years. How do you stop that? Annual mandatory psych exams for gun owners?
I see the excuses are already flying in this thread.
There's no such thing as the alt-left!
He was just crazy!
The problem is guns!
Don't use this tragedy to further your agenda!
Democrats have been a violent bunch of thugs since November 8th. SOME Democrats. I forget how easily offended some people are.
They have been calling for open violence against people they disagree with. They make plays, music videos, and "art" depicting murdering our president.
But do we blame any of this violent rhetoric for this shit? Of course not. The problem is guns.
Remember when Palin was supposedly to blame for Gabby Giffords because she used crosshairs to indicate which seats Republicans needed to win? Even though the shooter really was "crazy" and hated Giffords long before Plain entered the national spotlight, much less her crosshairs map, of which of course there is no evidence suggesting the shooter was even aware of the crosshairs image.
But facts are for suckers! Let's get back to taking away our second amendment rights!
Scalise is critical. I don't want to turn things political during this hour, but the situation changes drastically if he dies. Since 1789 only 14 Congressmen have died to someone trying to intentionally do harm. Number is 0 during modern times short of a plane being shot down (which wasn't directly intended to kill the congressman, just coincidence).
The real issue is violent games! Ban Gemstone!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Politifact and Snopes said so!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Your conservitard fanboy shit is getting real old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
How is the number zero in modern times when one was murdered prior to Jonestown
Someone sounds jealous.Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
You should ban him from Dreavenings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Also stop being such a racist and slavery advocate!
either put me on ignore or stop bitching like a little bitchQuote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
And the jealousy continues.Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
The term alt right was popularized by those to whom it applies, and additionally does not mean radical rightist, violent rightist, or "crazy" rightist. Like calling then President Bush a fascist, the misuse of this terminology only serves to make you look uninformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Because we want to deter people from committing those crimes even more than we do other murders, because the bigotry that inspires them has corrosive effects on society even when it does not result in murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by everan
Racial hate crimes (including white) are more covered than sexuality hate crimes at the state level. At the federal level they're all covered equally, of course. Thanks a lot, Obama!Quote:
If someone kills me because I'm white they should get the same penalty as if they killed me because they hate gays.
People laughed at the whole concept of mental health a hundred years ago. Things change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Tgo is well qualified to analyze this shooter.Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
My official determination; not literally batshit crazy, but batshit crazy. He was a liberal so that kind of goes without saying.
Why does who came up with the term have any bearing? There very clearly is a portion of the Democratic party that holds ideals that are different from the mainstream Democratic ideals, much like the alt-right does for conservatives. Who coined the term has zero bearing and is just a distraction tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
That being said, I'm sorry it happened and hope everyone can make a full recovery. Blaming the gun for the murder is like blaming the spoon for you getting fat. We have very serious mental health concerns in the US and it doesn't seem like either side actually wants to solve it. It is as Fallen said a catch 22 with regards to limited gun sales. Neither side seems willing to budge, so nothing gets done.
Off the top of my head the best idea I have is something akin to vehicle safety inspections, where once a year (and before purchasing a gun) you have to visit a trained mental health specialist to undergo a screening. This would have to be a protected database like the census and can only be accessed by certain individuals with heavy penalties for unauthorized information releases.
He didn't shoot these people because he was white.Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
He didn't shoot these people because he is old.
He shot these people because his side lost the last election.
Crazy? Yes. Anyone who would do this is automatically crazy. Add on his alt leftist ideals and it's no wonder this happened.
What if he just really really hated baseball?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
He specifically asked if it was Republicans or Democrats practicing though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
A few things to say about this, since I see a lot of leftists retweeting this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
A) Are you saying this shooting was justified?
B) Are you saying our government has become "tyrannical"?
C) Are you blaming this on Rand Paul?
Something tells me when Rand Paul said that he had something like Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Russia in mind. He didn't mean a bunch of Congresspeople getting ready to play a baseball game to raise money for charity. But facts! Let's not let those get in the way!
I know, and which party likes baseball more than the other? derpQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Because if a person asks you to call them alt-right (or any other label), we can be reasonably certain you aren't inventing an erroneous label for them. If President Bush asked to be called a fascist, no one could complain when people called him a fascist. But he didn't. So I did, just like I'm complaining now. Words have meanings. To wit:Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
That is not now and has never been what the term alt-right means. This is why who coined the term and what they explicitly said it means has complete bearing on the subject.Quote:
There very clearly is a portion of the Democratic party that holds ideals that are different from the mainstream Democratic ideals, much like the alt-right does for conservatives. Who coined the term has zero bearing and is just a distraction tactic.
Republicans are the more American party, I agree. These dirty leftists will probably poison apple pies next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
They have already deemed the national anthem racist and I've seen a smattering of whining about the pledge, I'm sure that's next to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Next up will be our national motto.
In Allah we trust!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
hmm.......Quote:
Democrats have been a violent bunch of thugs since November 8th. SOME Democrats. I forget how easily offended some people are.
They have been calling for open violence against people they disagree with. They make plays, music videos, and "art" depicting murdering our president.
But do we blame any of this violent rhetoric for this shit? Of course not.
they're coming for your beer nextQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Not my Yeungling!Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Who do you think coined the term alt-right? What do you think alt-right means? Do you think it started as this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
........................................
So you agree that the extreme fanatic Left is indeed an accurate representative of Liberal positions?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
God I hope not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Whether any of you want to believe it or not, there are pro 2nd amendment, Anti-SJW/PC'ness liberals still out there.
Never been convicted of a felony.. so I'm not sure how he would have been flagged for not being able to get a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
He was clearly distraught and upset over the past election.. not sure that should be a mental state indicator.. but maybe it should.
I still am distraught about it. I mean Trump or Hillary? What kind of choice is that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
The people who popularized the term alt-right did so because it's a heck of a lot easier to sell than neo-Nazi or white supremacist. That's why the label has such negative connotations, and that's why people on the right are trying so hard to invent the term alt-left, because there can be no criticism in American politics without the criticized side saying "but what about YOUR side???" Again, look at the source of the term. Alt-right people ask to be (and often insist on being) called that. Alt-left is a label attributed to people, not by people.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
Democrats use violent rhetoric. Violence occurs in the form described by said rhetoric. Terrence Gunderson Olivier angrily criticizes those who do not hold said rhetoricians accountable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Republicans use violent rhetoric. Violence occurs in the form described by said rhetoric. Terrence Gunderson Olivier angrily criticizes those who do hold said rhetoricians accountable.
Your false equivalences should be considered crimes against humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
You answered none of my questions, why reply at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Literally, the most intelligent Post you ever made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Ever.
Come on Whirlin I expected a better argument from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
1. You are confusing a criminal act (murder) with owning a gun. No crime has been committed by simply owning a gun.
2. We have no protected right to driving a vehicle.
3. I love weed. How is it possible for me to get it when it's illegal? (i'm not arguing if it's retarded that it's illegal)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHM73eJCa7k
Sad that I can recognize by gunshot all the weapons that were fired in this vid.
That was a very nice humble brag.Quote:
Originally Posted by hello
He doesn't know. I bet he doesn't even know the rifle used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
I've noticed that the news has changed how they report on these things. I had to Google search to find out about what weapons were used and only found that its some civilian version of an M4. I googled it because the msm I view all keep referring to it only as a rifle.
Anyone else notice that too?
Gelston doing "pull ups"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
http://static.damnlol.com/pics/455/2...fd5495c493.gif
I have it on fairly decent authority it is a weapon model from the '40s. They said M4 like officially, that is basically just saying it has rifle with a detachable magazine.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Jesus.. how many shells did he fire? Did it have one of those shoulder things that goes up? Was it black?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
A lot less than the survivors are saying. They also said the shooting lasted 10 minutes, but they are people freaking out, it lasted about 3 minutes. They are saying "50-100" rounds were heard...Perhaps 50 or slightly less, but again, that counts the rounds fired by the Capitol Police back at him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I found this but it is difficult to get a straight answer from the news about the weapons. Usually they love possible AR sightings.
Quote:
Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said he saw what appeared to be a AR-15 lying in the grass after the shooting. The assailant's other gun looked like a 9mm pistol, he said.
Because they don't actually know what the fuck it is. It is an older model of weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You really surprised me. I thought you were more mature than to jump straight to finger-pointing, divisive, us vs. them politics over this tragedy. Your initial reaction is certainly very emotionally charged and based on fear. It's a gut reaction to a perceived fear like how people jump out of bed so the boogey-man hiding underneath it does not grab their ankle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
What is becoming more evident about this "mass shooting" behavior is that it is tied to domestic violence. If we can pinpoint that as being a strong indicator of that kind of behavior then we can start to limit these types of people's access to guns in hopes of preventing these incidents from happening.
We already do check for that. You can't purchase a firearm if you have a past record of domestic violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Wouldn't work, I know gunsmiths that can build m249 LMG's with STANAG clips if the price is right. This country will never run out of guns; this is where the stork delivers all the baby guns.
Well obviously we did not do a good enough job if this guy was able to legally own a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Hell you can make a gun out of a radio antenna and a rubber band.Quote:
Originally Posted by hello
So more laws did nothing to stop it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I think if it saves lives we need to think about how to prevent it. Whatever it takes. Thats just me though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
And this guy was a domestic terrorist. Just like any other shooter anywhere in the world. Violence is not a political party it is the language of terror.
Oh he was a terrorist all right, one that espoused the very same talking points the media has been spewing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Or was he inspired by what everyone espouses about the Second Amendment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
One thing is certain: he was sick individual acting on his own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxjinfEPLo&t=105sQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
@1:45
Know how I know you're a non shooting ass motherfucker?Quote:
Originally Posted by hello
One serious comment, PB decried this so called alt-left attacker, he damned well better decry every alt-right white supremacist racist bigot action from now on, because theres a damned hell of a lot of them he sure never mentions.
How are you gonna focus on that and not how the 249 has always accepted 30 round magazines?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I just figured he was being redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
And the FBI has released the caliber of the rifle, 7.62.
It was an SKS.
If it was...Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
My sweet source was right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
And fitting, using a commie rifle.
Great, now they're gonna take all our Acks and Escay Esses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Well, the thing with SKS is that they don't have detachable magazines. All those mag laws in California? Yeah, they wouldn't have done shit here. It loads from a stripper clip directly into the rifle like a M1 Garande.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Interesting. He's a cheap terrorist. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
A solid assault weapons ban would have done something, even where magazine laws fail. Just pointing that out...not advocating.
The SKS isn't an assault rifle and wasn't, and wouldn't have been covered. It is a rifle that hold 10 rounds and can only fire semi-auto.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Banning this would be the same as banning just about any hunting rifle that exists.
This is an SKS, the Soviets used them in WW2.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._AM.045810.jpg
Sure its an assault rifle. Unless you're Hmong, then its a deer/hunter hunting rifle.
Keep in mind, "assault rifle" can be defined anyway enough legislators agree to define it.
This isn't defined under any of their definitions. Pistol grip, detachable magazine? This has neither of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Isn't there some language about bayonets? It was created for the Soviet military and replaced by the AK47. It is definitely not a rifle made for sportsmen. Its made for shooting humans.
It has a bayonet lug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
"Assault rifle" and "assault-style rifle" are becoming conflated in the public consciousness though.
Most rifles are made for shooting humans or based on rifles made for shooting humans. Kentucky rifles did this to great effect in the Revolutionary war. It still isn't an assault rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
And this is neither of those. Bayonet lug is one of several things. As the Government likes to say "assault weapons"... This isn't one of those. It never fell under any bans. Pistol grip, high capacity detachable magazine, and select fire are generally named.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Hell, this gun isn't even black!
Ya, you're right about the definitions. I'm kind of looking at the spirit of the laws or wannabe laws.
By your idea of the "spirit of the law" there wouldn't be any rifles left.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I know it's not an "assault rifle", but "assault-style" is a new(er) term that's becoming more and more popular and has a legal definition. As stupid as the term is, that SKS is considered to be "assault-style".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Bayonet lugs were specifically named as being illegal under the 1994 ban. Hell, the one pictured even has the bayonet still on it!
Sweet, then black powder rifles from the 1700s are assault style too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
I see Assault Weapons, but no assault style definitions. Yes, it mentions a bayonet lug in it, but it isn't considered one just due to a bayonet lug. A pistol grip + bayonet lug would be one, or a High Capacity Mag + Lug would be, but not none of those and just a lug.
Apparently the UPS shooter was armed with an assault pistol though, so whatever.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Ah yeah it needs 2 doesn't it? But that's not the actual weapon used in the senate shooting, is it?
Hahaha. It wasn't a duck pistol?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Uh, I know exactly what I'm talking about. it generally requires a High Capacity detachable mag and 1 or 2 other characteristics. But please, instead of being a one comment retard like you always are, expand on what I am saying wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
No, that was just a stock picture of a Soviet WW2 SKS. He actually had a Type 56, Chinese version. It didn't have the bayonet built in as far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
There are tacticool variants too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/w...rn_sks-tfb.jpg
Yeah, you can mod them into that, and that one could be called an assault rifle without much protest... I'd imagine if it was like that one though, the media would be happily calling it a modified SKS with high capacity mag and what not though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Wrong. Clearly you've never served.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Alright hello.Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
Damned well better? Or what? Bitch, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardwen
When was the last alt right attacker that took shots at a Congressman BECAUSE he was a Liberal?
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Nah they just murder innocent people instead. I'd make a list but I don't have the years it would take.
Implying the congresspeople who were shot were not innocent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardwen
Odds of any politician of any party being totally innocent are next to nil. The two security folks however are likely mostly innocent. Of course the lobbyist is likely even more guilty then the congressman.
So you can't come up with an alt right person attempting to kill a liberal politician because they were a liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardwen
Shocker.
It's funny.. reading some of the shit on this guys social media and wondering why people didn't report him for being completely unstable... there's probably 6-7 people here who sound just as unstable.
Count yourself amongst them, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
So your saying shooting civilians doesn't matter just politicians?
Hilarious coming from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
I see your faux outrage only extends to pieces of shit being called a rapist. Republicans being gunned down because they are Republicans and liberals downplaying the shit out of it? Let's attack Republicans!Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
What the fuck are you talking about? I do not support anyone attacking anyone. R or D, doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That clear enough for you?
Calm down, snowflake.Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
:'(
Got to admit, you walked right into that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Do they have to be liberal politicians or just liberals in general?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
He's still butthurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
I think a lot of the confusion comes from people thinkg AR-15 stands for assault rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
You're*Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardwen
Now it makes sense why his aim was so shitty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
You have a rifle, you have ammo. When the person in front of you dies, you pick up his rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
He was what, 50 yards or so away from his targets? Oh my god, are we sure this wasn't the DragonLord from the mystical forest?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardwen
Yea, you nailed it. The history of my posts here clearly show how much I adore politicians above all other people..............
We are discussing someone killing people BECAUSE of the political party they belong to. Care to join us?
He received his marksmanship training from storm troopers. Liberals fail at everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Are Conservatives Dumber Than Liberals?
It depends on how you define "conservative." The research shows classical liberals/libertarians are smartest of all.
Ronald Bailey | June 13, 2014
Conservatives exhibit less cognitive ability than liberals do. Or that's what it says in the social science literature, anyway. A 2010 study using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, for example, found that the IQs of young adults who described themselves as "very liberal" averaged 106.42, whereas the mean of those who identified as "very conservative" was 94.82. Similarly, when a 2009 study correlated cognitive capacity with political beliefs among 1,254 community college students and 1,600 foreign students seeking entry to U.S. universities, it found that conservatism is "related to low performance on cognitive ability tests." In 2012, a paper reported that people endorse more conservative views when drunk or under cognitive pressure; it concluded that "political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought."
So have social scientists really proved that conservatives are dumber than liberals? It depends crucially on how you define "conservative."
For an inkling of what some social scientists think conservatives believe, parse a 2008 study by the University of Nevada at Reno sociologist Markus Kemmelmeier. To probe the political and social beliefs of nearly 7,000 undergraduates at an elite university, Kemmelmeier devised a set of six questions asking whether abortion, same-sex marriage, and gay sex should be legal, whether handguns and racist/sexist speech on campus should be banned, and whether higher taxes should be imposed on the wealthy. The first three were supposed to measure the students' views of "conservative gender roles," and the second set was supposed to gauge their "anti-regulation" beliefs. Kemmelmeier clearly thought that "liberals" would tend to be OK with legal abortion, same-sex marriage, and gay sex, and would opt to ban handguns and offensive speech and to tax the rich. Conservatives would supposedly hold the opposite views.
Savvy readers may recognize a problem with using these questions to sort people into just two ideological categories. And sure enough, Kemmelmeier got some results that puzzled him. He found that students who held more traditional views on gender and sex roles averaged lower on their verbal SAT and Achievement Test scores. "Surprisingly," he continued, this was not true of students with anti-regulation attitudes. With them, "all else being equal, more conservative respondents scored higher than more liberal respondents." Kemmelmeier ruefully notes that "this result was not anticipated" and "diametrically contradicts" the hypothesis that conservatism is linked to lower cognitive ability. Kemmelmeier is so evidently lost in the intellectual fog of contemporary progressivism that he does not realize that his questionnaire is impeccably designed to identify classical liberals, a.k.a. libertarians, who endorse liberty in both the social and economic realms.
So how smart are libertarians compared to liberals and conservatives? In a May 2014 study in the journal Intelligence, the Oxford sociologist Noah Carl attempts to answer to that question. Because research has "consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs," Carl suggests that in the American political context, social scientists would expect Republicans to be less intelligent than Democrats. Instead, Republicans have slightly higher verbal intelligence scores (2–5 IQ points) than Democrats. How could that be?
Carl begins by pointing out that there is data suggesting that a segment of the American population holding classical liberal beliefs tends to vote Republican. Classical liberals, Carl notes, believe that an individual should be free to make his own lifestyle choices and to enjoy the profits derived from voluntary transactions with others. He proposes that intelligence actually correlates with classically liberal beliefs.
To test this hypothesis, Carl uses data on political attitudes and intelligence derived from the General Social Survey, which has been administered to representative samples of American adults every couple of years since 1972. Using GSS data, respondents are classified on a continuum ranging from strong Republican through independent to strong Democrat. Carl then creates a measure of socially liberal beliefs based on respondents' attitudes toward homosexuality, marijuana consumption, abortion, and free speech for communists, racists, and advocates for military dictatorship. He similarly probes liberal economic views, with an assessment of attitudes toward government provision of jobs, industry subsidies, income redistribution, price controls, labor unions, and military spending. Verbal Intelligence is evaluated using the GSS WORDSUM test results.
Comparing strong Republicans with strong Democrats, Carl finds that Republicans have a 5.48 IQ point advantage over Democrats. Broadening party affiliation to include moderate to merely leaning respondents still results in a Republican advantage of 3.47 IQ points and 2.47 IQ points respectively. Carl reconciles his findings with the social science literature that reports that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives by proposing that Americans with classically liberal beliefs are even smarter. Carl further reports that those who endorse both social conservatism and economic statism also have lower verbal IQ scores.
"Overall, my findings suggest that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans," concludes Carl. If the dumb, I mean socially conservative, Republicans keep disrespecting us classical liberals, we'll take our IQ points and go home.
As gratifying as Carl's research findings are, it is still a deep puzzle to me why it apparently takes high intelligence to understand that the government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom.
As gratifying as Carl's research findings are, it is still a deep puzzle to me why it apparently takes high intelligence to understand that the government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom.
Probably because both are seemingly easy and obvious fixes
I'm glad you've learned a new term. This is a nice changeup from your other transparently obvious defense mechanisms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I explicitly answered your last two questions. I said popularized instead of coined which is definitely a gloss but then again what I said first was popularized, and you framed me as saying who came up with, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
https://youtu.be/KMjYNKED0U0Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I fucking LOVE snowflakes! You can build snowmen... make a slushy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Watch out where the sled dogs go and don't you eat that yeller snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
Still waiting for that list Ardwen. All those alt-righties going around and killing Democrats because they are Democrats.
So many.. should be so easy for you.
Ardwen doesn't take guff from swine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You truly are the stupidest, most delusional, and most full of shit person to ever be on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Hey I'm fine with that. It isn't the alt left. It is the regular left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
So he is partially saying it doesn't exist because of how old the term is? Alt-right was once a new term too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archigeek
Let's start with a single event and move on from there:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...-yiannopoulos/
The main thing I got from the article was that he's saying the term is largely a product of the right who don't want to be associated with the term alt-right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Attachment 8659Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I'm fine with either term. I prefer it to just saying "the left". There are different ideologies and methods in the spectrum known as "the left". I don't know why anyone is offended by the term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archigeek
It's people using it incorrectly thats an issue. People on the right who wanted to describe themselves as more extreme right came up with the term alt-right. We know these people as white supremacists. Now, in a rabid desire to demonize their perceived opponents, regular right people are trying to create an image of an extreme left, and call it alt-left. But there is no such thing. It is a fantasy boogeyman for people on the right to be afraid of and give them a reason to attack your average middle of the road person.
I think the author explains why he feels the right is using the term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Okay, so the shooter is just a regular leftist and leftists as a whole are unstable folks who want to kill Republican lawmakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I'm aware. I was posting my thoughts on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archigeek
Do you believe that the 2 incidents are equal in scope?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
What should we call the people on the extreme left then? I will henceforth allow you to name them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Precisely this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I added the "alt" on it because they get so upset by it.
Incorrect. The shooter was insane. I mean really mentally unstable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Of course he was, he supported Bernie Sanders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Hey man that's not his saying. Nobody has a monopoly on any saying. Except Mr. T.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardwen
Exactly this. Most of this stuff isn't alt anything, it's just plain mental health issues. It isn't guns; it isn't alt; it isn't religion; it's mental health. Do all of those other things exacerbate the problem? Absolutely, but misuse of an item by someone who isn't stable isn't a reason to throw out the baby with the bath water (whatever that means exactly I'm not sure)Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
While this is funny, I would have voted for Bernie if he was the Dem candidate, although I would have expected very little of his agenda to be implemented. He was a pretty innocuous alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You asked for examples of 'alt-rights killing democrats', but if you wanna move the goalposts I guess I can't stop you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It would be like burning down your house to get rid of the spider you saw in the kitchen.Quote:
Originally Posted by everan
Unless it's this spider. Then it's perfectly acceptable.
http://i.imgur.com/C06rmwp.jpg?1
I'd teach it to fetch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
http://spectator.imgix.net/content/u...op&w=620&h=413Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
No one died.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
But I actually said this:
Doesn't look like those two idiots went there specifically to kill Democrats. They went there to cause trouble, I'll give you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Not even in the same... ballpark.... of the alt-leftie though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27..._the_bathwaterQuote:
Originally Posted by everan
The extreme left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit