San Francisco declares the NRA a domestic terrorist entity

Just like Trump gets a lots less condemnation for his actions from the right? Like Fox - his supposedly favorite tv channel , for example? You should know by now that the media is biased one way or the other, mostly.
Go do your research before posting. Even assuming your premise is true, the avalanche of negative press on Trump make Fox look like a drop in the ocean.

ETA I see you evidenced, in the sophomoric fashion to which we are accustomed, a "Disagree" to my post. To repeat, if you did your research you would see my post is factually correct so your opinion is, as you continue to demonstrate, most often emotion-based.
 
Last edited:

Nomad1382

Old-Salt
OK.

Hypothetically you’re the boss of Twitter. You don’t like racists, so you threaten the KKK official account with suspension/deletion unless they stop posting racist things.

That would be an example of a perfectly-legal threat, that doesn’t violate the first amendment.
So many things to comment on, but I'll start here. Twitter is a private company and as such can not violate the First Amendment, they are a company and can choose what they want to publish or not. A Civil Rights Violations (say, violating the First Amendment) is when the Government limits or violates the right.

Redshift: First, your use of the term "Native Red Indian" (my emphasis) is extremely racist. I have a number of friends who are NA and none of them are red in the least. I'm very white, no hint of Native blood and I find your use of the term offensive. But I also find that such actions are typical of "Liberals" who claim to not be racist or, better yet, "I'm not prejudice" .

Redshift again: No hordes? You've obviously never lived or worked in the border area.

As for OTM's (Other Than Mexicans) moving through Mexico en route to the US, the Mexican government won't keep them and has, for years encouraged their poor to go to America so they don't have to deal with them. During the NAFTA negotiations, the Mexican Government demanded to be included or they said they would flood the US with illegal immigrants. This, from the Mexican papers at the time. Yes, I was down on the border during all this.
 

Mattb

LE
So as usual in this era, "figurative" only applies in one direction. It is quite clear to a very large number of Americans that this is so and I can assure you they do not see what Trump said as being any different or more "real" than the many other "figurative" allusions to violence used by his predecessor that curiously drew no virtually no comment, much less condemnation from those left of center and the media.

The best evidence of this is the absence so far as I am aware of any bodyslamming of anyone in the fake news media because of anything Trump has said. I am quite confident that if anything close to that had ever occurred, it would be front page news. A bit similar to the reality of how few gun deaths there are in a country of over 60 million Trump supporters and even over 4 times as many guns if evil racist, bigoted, cretinous etc. etc. conservatives and "right wingers" were as violent and easily aroused to violence as we are caricatured as being. Indeed, as shown by the facts over the last quarter century, the vast majority of violent incidents for ideological or political reasons have been by those other than on the right of center.
Clearly not keeping up with current events then. There you go, it's even from Fox News so you can hardly say it was made-up to discredit the Republican Party.


You can reasonably argue that all sorts of things that Trump has said (such as the infamous "grab them by the pussy" comment) were figurative, but that was very clearly referencing a specific act of violence that had already happened.
 
@mechanicalhorsetrough : Look up the facts. Idiot.
@redshift go fucck yourself, you Walt, it wasn’t a direct comparison between California and Scotland, humour is something that probably escapes you so I’m not going to explain myself anymore than that. But don’t call me an idiot when you clearly haven’t grasped the basics of not feeding on the bottom of the pond, served any country let alone your own, or have any stature on here except in your own head. Now skip off Florence, your mums calling you!
 

Mattb

LE
I am suggesting that selective statistics can be used to 'prove' anything you wish.

*Some facts about your statistics...

The US counts every homicide when reporting. The UK count and report crimes based on the outcome of the investigation and trial. Are you aware that only 9% of crimes in the UK end up with a charge, even less a trial and conviction to be counted in the statistics? But the UK also says that only counting the 9% with a conviction only cuts their real statistics by about 14%.
They're correct - because the 9% figure very clearly doesn't apply to murders. The police will obviously treat more significant crimes with a greater level of seriousness - in the case of murders 81% result in a charge (and 5% in a suicide, although the figures don't make it clear what percentage of these are pre- and post-charge). So 14% would be correct.

You've already proven your poor understanding of math with your explanation of Greenland's statistical situation, but even you should be able to understand that not counting 91% of your crimes does not mean that you only had 14% more crime that you didn't report.
My understanding of maths is perfectly fine, thank you.

But in case you were unclear, my point about Greenland is as follows:

Greenland has a population of circa 50,000.
Murder rates are measured per 100,000 population.
Murder rates in developed countries are generally in single figures (eg US 5.3, UK 1.2)
Assuming that Greenland should have a rate similar to its parent country Denmark (also 1.2), then it should in fact only have a murder in 3 out of every five years.

A single murder in Greenland will move its murder rate by two full points. If for example someone kills his family (say three murders in one) then the rate will jump to 6 from a single incident - whereas in many years it should be 0.

In short, the size of Greenland and relative rarity of murder makes gathering yearly data for murders rather wobbly and my understanding of maths is fine.
 
They're correct - because the 9% figure very clearly doesn't apply to murders. The police will obviously treat more significant crimes with a greater level of seriousness - in the case of murders 81% result in a charge (and 5% in a suicide, although the figures don't make it clear what percentage of these are pre- and post-charge). So 14% would be correct.
Actually, the figures make it clear that in the case of homicides, that remain labelled as homicides, 85.81% result in charges. Something that the Home Office and the BBC apparently decided not to disperse further when talking about all the other dismal figures. But, then again, they do note that their statistics aren't really statistics... and the "real" statistics will be modified further down anyway.

Source: Home Office – Police recorded crime
Notes:

  1. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics.
    1. Data on homicide offences given in these police recorded crime data will differ from data from the Home Office Homicide Index, which are published annually by the Office for National Statistics, last released as part of Homicide in England and Wales: year ending March 2018. Police recorded crime data on homicide represent the recording decision of the police based on the available information at the time the offence comes to their attention. Homicide Index data take account of the charging decision and court outcome in cases that have gone to trial. It is not uncommon for offences initially recorded as murder by the police to be charged or convicted as manslaughter at court.
  2. Some forces have revised their data and police recorded crime totals may not agree with those previously published.
This means that the 14.19% of cases that never have a charge levelled against a suspect will not be a part of the Homicide Index data. Nor will the cases against the 3.2% of those that took the easy way out after being charged. . They won't be listed for their own as well. Nor will the cases of the suspects that died of other causes (the rest of that 5% would be 1.8%) before the trial. Nor will the victims be counted in the Homicide Index in the cases where the suspect(s) were acquitted. There will also be no accounting for the victims where there were no proceedings taken on advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Of course, that "100% total" we eventually got to by tallying everything they admit they leave out still won't account for 100% of actuality, as they are also neglecting to mention the increasing numbers of violent deaths that are left out of the homicide statistics by the increasingly more common practice of the coroners moving toward "improving" characterization of incidents to anything other than homicide.

My understanding of maths is perfectly fine, thank you.

But in case you were unclear, my point about Greenland is as follows:

Greenland has a population of circa 50,000.
Murder rates are measured per 100,000 population.
Murder rates in developed countries are generally in single figures (eg US 5.3, UK 1.2)
Assuming that Greenland should have a rate similar to its parent country Denmark (also 1.2), then it should in fact only have a murder in 3 out of every five years.

A single murder in Greenland will move its murder rate by two full points. If for example someone kills his family (say three murders in one) then the rate will jump to 6 from a single incident - whereas in many years it should be 0.

In short, the size of Greenland and relative rarity of murder makes gathering yearly data for murders rather wobbly and my understanding of maths is fine.
Any anomalous spike would be smoothed by the moving average of those years you were talking about.

Your assumption would also mean that the V.I. should have a rate similar to the UK... either you've not got a true grasp, or you've just entered the racist zone.
 
Clearly not keeping up with current events then. There you go, it's even from Fox News so you can hardly say it was made-up to discredit the Republican Party.


You can reasonably argue that all sorts of things that Trump has said (such as the infamous "grab them by the pussy" comment) were figurative, but that was very clearly referencing a specific act of violence that had already happened.
That still does not change the glaringly different treatment for any similar language between the evil conservatives and those left of center. It also does not change the nature of Trump's comments from those made by his predecessor from being rhetoric. When you can point me to your previous outrage at Barack Hussein Obama's and other left of center politicians I will start taking you seriously.
 
That still does not change the glaringly different treatment for any similar language between the evil conservatives and those left of center. It also does not change the nature of Trump's comments from those made by his predecessor from being rhetoric. When you can point me to your previous outrage at Barack Hussein Obama's and other left of center politicians I will start taking you seriously.
But he won’t. They will ride for the brand just like our side will.
 
That still does not change the glaringly different treatment for any similar language between the evil conservatives and those left of center. It also does not change the nature of Trump's comments from those made by his predecessor from being rhetoric. When you can point me to your previous outrage at Barack Hussein Obama's and other left of center politicians I will start taking you seriously.
But he won’t. They will ride for the brand just like our side will.
The only reason their amateurish abuse of the Hegelian Dialectic seems to work is that reasonable people tend to discount the lunatics.

Of course Kant would know they are cnuts.
 
The only reason their amateurish abuse of the Hegelian Dialectic seems to work is that reasonable people tend to discount the lunatics.
Which is a trend that has to stop. The other side is planning a long term cultural shift, and picking off voters bit by bit till we have our own Brexit scenario.
 

Mattb

LE
That still does not change the glaringly different treatment for any similar language between the evil conservatives and those left of center. It also does not change the nature of Trump's comments from those made by his predecessor from being rhetoric. When you can point me to your previous outrage at Barack Hussein Obama's and other left of center politicians I will start taking you seriously.
When you can point out a time that he celebrated an attack on a journalist (or indeed, any incidence of unprovoked violence) then I will.
 
When you can point out a time that he celebrated an attack on a journalist (or indeed, any incidence of unprovoked violence) then I will.
So violence is different according to victims? If so we will have to agree to disagree and move on. Good day.
 

Mattb

LE
Actually, the figures make it clear that in the case of homicides, that remain labelled as homicides, 85.81% result in charges. Something that the Home Office and the BBC apparently decided not to disperse further when talking about all the other dismal figures.
Indeed, although I've rather lost what your point was since you're now arguing that the UK murder rate is in fact slightly lower than I previously suggested.

Either way, the US rate is still vastly higher. A quick adjustment to the figures (say the UK figure is 1/6 lower than it should be) means that the figure of 1.2 should be 1.44... which any primary-school child can tell you is less than the US rate of 5.3.
Any anomalous spike would be smoothed by the moving average of those years you were talking about.
Yes it would, if the figure I found originally used a moving average rather than data from a single year, which it didn't.
 
Where did I say that?
My dear fellow that is effectively what you said in your last post in trying to deflect from my request that you show us your outrage and commentary regarding similar rhetoric by left of center politicians, especially Barack Hussein Obama that you expressed before turning your concern and outrage toward the ever-evil Trump.
 

Mattb

LE
My dear fellow that is effectively what you said in your last post in trying to deflect from my request that you show us your outrage and commentary regarding similar rhetoric by left of center politicians, especially Barack Hussein Obama that you expressed before turning your concern and outrage toward the ever-evil Trump.
So completely ignoring the bit where I wrote "or indeed, any incidence of unprovoked violence " then?
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Redshift: First, your use of the term "Native Red Indian" (my emphasis) is extremely racist. I have a number of friends who are NA and none of them are red in the least. I'm very white, no hint of Native blood and I find your use of the term offensive. But I also find that such actions are typical of "Liberals" who claim to not be racist or, better yet, "I'm not prejudice" .

Redshift again: No hordes? You've obviously never lived or worked in the border area.
You should remember that the Red Shit person is only intent on causing trouble in threads, commonly known as a troll but otherwise known as an arse-hole.
 

Mattb

LE
You continue to deflect.
No, you're refusing to provide any examples.

You want me to condemn Obama's celebrations of acts of unprovoked violence, whilst failing to provide any evidence of such.
 
No, you're refusing to provide any examples.

You want me to condemn Obama's celebrations of acts of unprovoked violence, whilst failing to provide any evidence of such.
No my dear man. You have tried to deflect the point I was making about left of center suppression of speech by shifting to the favorite target of the left, the ever evil Trump. I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to steer you back on course by pointing out that Trump is hardly the first politician or even president to use the kind of rhetoric that you and the left choose to regard differently than the many examples by leftist politicians who have used exactly the same rhetorical technique, if not the identical words but, and again I will try to bring you back to the actual point, without any condemnation like that heaped on Trump. That is simply yet more evidence of the way speech is unfairly treated, and effectivly controlled since so much of the media have abandoned all principles of journalism by aiding and abetting their comrades on the left.
 

Latest Threads

Top