Any of you liberals give a shlt?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

The study states very clearly on the first page that there is NO statistical difference between Democratic  run cities and Republican run cities. What @TBayXXXVII did was cherry pick a stat dealing with the 100 largest cities- but we all know that the biggest urban centers in this country are going to be run primarily by Democrats so that statistic is irrelevant. 
 

If Chicago had a Republican mayor there would be just as much violence, perhaps even more. Chicago’s violence is related to its history and cultural and economic situation. Democratic policies have nothing to do with it. 

How did NYC have such a dramatic reduction in crime? 

[The Real timschochet 2,934]

Red states have a higher murder rate in recent years: 

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/16/democrats-for--but-new-data-shows-higher-rates-in-red-states/

[The Real timschochet 2,934]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

How did NYC have such a dramatic reduction in crime? 

I’m not sure. What’s your theory? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I’m not sure. What’s your theory? 

You’re kidding, right?  There were 2k plus murders a year before republican control.  What’s yours? 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Red states have a higher murder rate in recent years: 

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/16/democrats-for--but-new-data-shows-higher-rates-in-red-states/

Salon?  LOL

[The Real timschochet 2,934]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You’re kidding, right?  There were 2k plus murders a year before republican control.  What’s yours? 

NYC hasn’t been run by a Republican in 22 years. (I suppose you could call Bloomberg a Republican but not really.) 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

NYC hasn’t been run by a Republican in 22 years. (I suppose you could call Bloomberg a Republican but not really.) 

So explain it then. 

[The Real timschochet 2,934]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So explain it then. 

You’re the one that brought it up. 
 

How about this: tell me what policies you believe would reduce violent crime in Chicago. What would you do if you were in charge? 

[Fnord 1,141]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

No intelligent human being would continue giving up more and more of a right without a defined ending point. 

Agreed. Are you consistent in this appraisal when the Republican Party wants to take away abortion rights? Trans health care rights? Remove books from public libraries? Reduce the amount of polling places in Democratic regions? 

[Fnord 1,141]

23 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You’re kidding, right?  There were 2k plus murders a year before republican control.  What’s yours? 

Oh you mean the unconstitutional "stop and frisk" policies, among others? Cool, it reduced murders. So would banning assault rifles, but that's a bridge too far, right?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

You’re the one that brought it up. 
 

How about this: tell me what policies you believe would reduce violent crime in Chicago. What would you do if you were in charge? 

Enforce the law? Prosecute criminals? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Oh you mean the unconstitutional "stop and frisk" policies, among others? Cool, it reduced murders. So would banning assault rifles, but that's a bridge too far, right?

Stop and frisk isn’t unconstitutional.  Terry vs Ohio. Pipe down kid.  

[seafoam1 1,879]

8 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Agreed. Are you consistent in this appraisal when the Republican Party wants to take away abortion rights? Trans health care rights? Remove books from public libraries? Reduce the amount of polling places in Democratic regions? 

Rights to murder kids, huh? That's what you are running with?

You are pro kill kids, pro mental illness, pro pornography for children, and pro "black people are so stupid that they can't figure out how to vote".

Focking retard.

[Fnord 1,141]

11 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Stop and frisk isn’t unconstitutional.  Terry vs Ohio. Pipe down kid.  

While I appreciate you educating me on Supreme Court rulings from 1968, you failed to mention (as you often do, I suspect out of ignorance, but I'm not ruling out malice as the root cause) that the way the police carried it out WAS unconstitutional. In 2013. Here's a link, even though you never provide them

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

Yeah, but as I stated above, after we enact your "ideas" the first time there's a mall or school shooting you'll just be back with more ideas.  Rinse and repeat until the 2nd amendment is useless.  And THAT is why we need a goal. 

I've already said I support the second amendment, so don't tell me I don't.

This is exactly why nothing will change, because there is a segment of the population like you that constantly throws out hypotheticals and roadblocks to progress.

[Horseman 1,514]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

No, no it didn't.  I encourage any who might have believed Tim's assertion to read the Results of this student study.  

Tim never reads the chit he posts. Hes a moron of the lowest caliber. 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

40 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

You’re the one that brought it up. 
 

How about this: tell me what policies you believe would reduce violent crime in Chicago. What would you do if you were in charge? 

He'd probably just post here all day, or try and pick slapfights with his mayoral staff.

 

[Patented Phil 823]

5 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

You guys are funny.

 

Alright I'll bite, just because I'm sick of seeing this dumb argument.  It's a false equivalency. I'm not a liberal but I'll give you an honest answer from a non political hack.

 

Yes I care about the deaths in Chicago, just like a care about the deaths in Texas.  Don't want to see either of them happen.

 

But let's be honest for a minute here.  99% of people know they will never be shot in Chicago.  Don't go outside in certain blocks at night, don't engage in gang activity, etc, you won't be shot. At a certain point, communities need to take responsibility, right? This is conservatism, this is what you guys believe in. It's difficult to continue to be upset for people that refuse to take care of themselves. I feel terrible for the good people stuck in Chicago, but there are also lots of gang bangers that perpetuate this violence.

 

I can't say the same for the rest of America. The family that went to the mall in Texas and got killed except for one kid, what did they do wrong? That could have been any one of us. The school shootings, that could be the school that your kids go to, easy. Going to a bank or a supermarket is something we all do. It's supposed to be safe. So when you're shot being a good person engaging in safe activity, that's going to raise the level of concern.

 

I don't personally know any gang bangers in Chicago. I do know people that have been killed in mass shootings. The vegas shooting, I knew someone that died in that concert. It makes it personal. As the days go on, more and more of us will have a connection with someone who is a victim of random mass shootings.

That's the difference.

Rubbish.  Like most Liberals, you are influenced by emotion rather than facts.  The number of people killed in random mass shootings (supermarket, mall, school, etc) is minuscule.  

[seafoam1 1,879]

2 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

Rubbish.  Like most Liberals, you are influenced by emotion rather than facts.  The number of people killed in random mass shootings (supermarket, mall, school, etc) is minuscule.  

Meh. it's not his family. Why should he care?

[Rosie O'Donnell 20]

Liberals are narcissists.  They only care about themselves and taking away the freedom of others.

[Strike 3,975]

38 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I've already said I support the second amendment, so don't tell me I don't.

This is exactly why nothing will change, because there is a segment of the population like you that constantly throws out hypotheticals and roadblocks to progress.

Bullsh#t.  Then you should be able to define a goal but you just want to keep adding restriction after restriction and then when there's another incident addd even more.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

Bullsh#t.  Then you should be able to define a goal but you just want to keep adding restriction after restriction and then when there's another incident addd even more.

The goal is to reduce the number of mass shootings, to reduce the number of dead kids murdered in school.  It's a goal we should all be able to agree to, but there are pieces of sh1t like yourself that aren't interested in any of this, for whatever sick reason.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

While I appreciate you educating me on Supreme Court rulings from 1968, you failed to mention (as you often do, I suspect out of ignorance, but I'm not ruling out malice as the root cause) that the way the police carried it out WAS unconstitutional. In 2013. Here's a link, even though you never provide them

Yes it was Carrie out in an unconstitutional manner. That doesn’t mean SQF is unconstitutional. You should stop saying that. It would be like doing a search without a warrant. Searching isn’t unconstitutional.  Not following the procedure is.  HTH. I wasn't aware that court rulings no matter how old are no longer relevant until overruled. Notice no one is trying to legally end SQF? It’s settled.  You’re welcome. 

[seafoam1 1,879]

Damn. The liberals are getting their asses kicked again. Sucks to be them. But then again, it sucks that they exist and the normals have to deal with them. 

[Strike 3,975]

14 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

The goal is to reduce the number of mass shootings, to reduce the number of dead kids murdered in school.  It's a goal we should all be able to agree to, but there are pieces of sh1t like yourself that aren't interested in any of this, for whatever sick reason.

I've already said we should do as much as we can to reduce such incidents.  You're purposely ignoring that I come from that perspective.  However, I also balance the rights and needs of the other side.  So, we should be able to decide where the proper balance is between those two competing priorities.  That starts with defining that point, which I've asked you to do.  You refuse to do it.  I'm  not the one avoiding this discussion.  You are with the typical leftist platitudes.  Policy should not be built on platitudes and emotion. 

[Engorgeous George 1,170]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

You’re cherry picking. Why don’t you quote the line that says there’s no causation? 

It does not say that.  Again you are wrong.  It says that correlation does not prove causation.  That is entirely different than that there is no causation.

[Engorgeous George 1,170]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

The study states very clearly on the first page that there is NO statistical difference between Democratic  run cities and Republican run cities. What @TBayXXXVII did was cherry pick a stat dealing with the 100 largest cities- but we all know that the biggest urban centers in this country are going to be run primarily by Democrats so that statistic is irrelevant. 
 

If Chicago had a Republican mayor there would be just as much violence, perhaps even more. Chicago’s violence is related to its history and cultural and economic situation. Democratic policies have nothing to do with it. 

Wait, so history, culture, and economic climate has nothing to do with monolithic political leadership?  Nothing?  Legislative policies have no effect on culture?  Wow!

[GutterBoy 2,281]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

I've already said we should do as much as we can to reduce such incidents.  You're purposely ignoring that I come from that perspective.  However, I also balance the rights and needs of the other side.  So, we should be able to decide where the proper balance is between those two competing priorities.  That starts with defining that point, which I've asked you to do.  You refuse to do it.  I'm  not the one avoiding this discussion.  You are with the typical leftist platitudes.  Policy should not be built on platitudes and emotion. 

You're speaking out of both sides of your ass.  You say we should do as much as we can while balancing the rights and needs of the other side.  I'm saying the same thing, but then you're saying that you need a quantitative goal set before proceeding.  It's just an excuse for you to avoid any meaningful conversation.  It's childish.

The goal here is to save lives, and to do everything we can while balancing the constitutional rights of everyone.  This is not a leftist ideal.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

Crime is bad.  And a lot of it can be prevented. Liberals claim it’s like the weather. Can’t control it. Thats because they cause it. 

[Strike 3,975]

9 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

You're speaking out of both sides of your ass.  You say we should do as much as we can while balancing the rights and needs of the other side.  I'm saying the same thing, but then you're saying that you need a quantitative goal set before proceeding.  It's just an excuse for you to avoid any meaningful conversation.  It's childish.

The goal here is to save lives, and to do everything we can while balancing the constitutional rights of everyone.  This is not a leftist ideal.

Nope.  This is your stance:

Quote

I support an assault weapons ban, a background check on private sales and gun shows, raising the age, ammo tax, among other tougher gun control policies

Besides the regressive nature of some of your "ideas", they wouldn't have stopped ANY mass shooting that I know of.  They MIGHT have reduced the severity of SOME shootings but that's debatable because people who can't get one type of weapon usually compensate in one way or another.  And, of course, there's the little FACT that you can't define what an "Assault Rifle" is.  How can you ban something you can't define?   And when none of the above helps as much as you'd like, you'll just want more draconian restrictions. 

[The Real timschochet 2,934]

18 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Wait, so history, culture, and economic climate has nothing to do with monolithic political leadership?  Nothing?  Legislative policies have no effect on culture?  Wow!

You need to be more specific. What “liberal” policies do you believe have increased violent crime? 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

15 minutes ago, Strike said:

Nope.  This is your stance:

Besides the regressive nature of some of your "ideas", they wouldn't have stopped ANY mass shooting that I know of.  They MIGHT have reduced the severity of SOME shootings but that's debatable because people who can't get one type of weapon usually compensate in one way or another.  And, of course, there's the little FACT that you can't define what an "Assault Rifle" is.  How can you ban something you can't define?   And when none of the above helps as much as you'd like, you'll just want more draconian restrictions. 

And this is why we will keep having more and deadlier mass shootings.

[Strike 3,975]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

And this is why we will keep having more and deadlier mass shootings.

Yup.  Because you won't define an end goal.  Glad we agree on that 

[Horseman 1,514]

[Engorgeous George 1,170]

20 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

You need to be more specific. What “liberal” policies do you believe have increased violent crime? 

I don't need to be more specific.  I am not the one trying to pass off some undergraduate's homework as a study instead of a rudimentary literature review and then completely misstating what was written therein as some sort of authoritative treatise and then trying to get out from under having that pointed out by making the claim that history and culture is not in any way affected by the politics of that very culture or region.  

 

You spewed nonsense, were called on it, and are now trying to avoid the fact that you are laid bare. 

 

You can defend your indefensible stance or not, but I am not going to participate in your deflection.  I will not take your bait.

 

Also, I never maintained the position you are now trying to put me on.  i simply pointed out that your original non sequitur was not only not supported by your referenced, implied authoritative study, but that "study" actually supported the exact opposite conclusion from what you touted.

 

Other than the foregoing you are doing just fine.

[League Champion 1,593]

2 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

And this is why we will keep having more and deadlier mass shootings.

The trigger doesn't squeeze itself Son. 

Stop making excuses for the radical immigrant tranny deathsquads that Biden is letting flood into this country. 

[League Champion 1,593]

 

[League Champion 1,593]

 

[Patented Phil 823]

On 5/10/2023 at 11:58 AM, The Real timschochet said:

The study states very clearly on the first page that there is NO statistical difference between Democratic  run cities and Republican run cities. What @TBayXXXVII did was cherry pick a stat dealing with the 100 largest cities- but we all know that the biggest urban centers in this country are going to be run primarily by Democrats so that statistic is irrelevant. 
 

If Chicago had a Republican mayor there would be just as much violence, perhaps even more. Chicago’s violence is related to its history and cultural and economic situation. Democratic policies have nothing to do with it. 

How about when New York City had a Republican Mayor?  No change?

[League Champion 1,593]

Liberal won't make that mistake again