San Francisco declares the NRA a domestic terrorist entity

The difference being though is that the random person on the online forum has more than likely done some research on the subject rather than being gullible and believing whatever an organisation such as the CDC puts out.

Try doing a little research sometimes before you post. You may find that a lot of what you believe to be facts or true is actually agenda driven bull$h!t
Laughable...but go ahead.
 
Laughable...but go ahead.
The only people doing the laughing around here old son are the ones laughing at you because you are the epitome of gullible.
 
Our president himself doesn't seem to trust any intelligence agencies, why should I? I do but, but look at the both sides of the coin.
Why should he when it is clear they spied on him illegally? As to the coin, what do you consider the opposing sides to be?
 
Why should he when it is clear they spied on him illegally? As to the coin, what do you consider the opposing sides to be?
You are contradicting yourself - one moment you say I should trust the UCR and the next when I present facts that the prez himself doesn't trust the agencies, you say why?

Anyways, forget it - we can go on and on...
 




 

Nomad1382

Old-Salt
Nah, I believe a bunch of "boffins" at the CDC more than a random person on an online forum.
Make up your mind, one moment you say say you need proof then you will believe the CDC merely because they are "Boffins", which is it? Random I may be but I didn't just throw numbers out, I've provided links and if not links I told everyone where to find the information, which tables in the UCR to find the numbers I quote. You and several others have just thrown numbers out and had to be repeatedly asked for the source. In your case, you tossed out the CDC numbers even after I and others said their data was flawed, inaccurate and agenda ridden.
 

LJONESY

On ROPS
On ROPs
Make up your mind, one moment you say say you need proof then you will believe the CDC merely because they are "Boffins", which is it? Random I may be but I didn't just throw numbers out, I've provided links and if not links I told everyone where to find the information, which tables in the UCR to find the numbers I quote. You and several others have just thrown numbers out and had to be repeatedly asked for the source. In your case, you tossed out the CDC numbers even after I and others said their data was flawed, inaccurate and agenda ridden.
Would you please stop confusing her!
 
You are contradicting yourself - one moment you say I should trust the UCR and the next when I present facts that the prez himself doesn't trust the agencies, you say why?

Anyways, forget it - we can go on and on...
I have not contradicted myself as you apparently have my post confused with someone else's. I simply asked what you consider to be the opposing sides of the "coin" to which you alluded.
 

Nomad1382

Old-Salt
Can't be me, I don't take stock in Trump quotes. I'm no fan of the FBI (Famous But Incompetent), the areas that do data collection and crime statistics and analysis are excellent at what they do. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't been found fudging data or been accused of having an agenda. I could be wrong though.
 
Can't be me, I don't take stock in Trump quotes. I'm no fan of the FBI (Famous But Incompetent), the areas that do data collection and crime statistics and analysis are excellent at what they do. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't been found fudging data or been accused of having an agenda. I could be wrong though.
From what I have learned, it was the political echelons of the FBI and other 3 letter agencies that were involved in the bloodless coup.
 

Nomad1382

Old-Salt
The agents on the ground that I've worked with are all good people, dedicated. It's when you get to the political appointees on down to some of the SAC's that you run into the problems.
 
The agents on the ground that I've worked with are all good people, dedicated. It's when you get to the political appointees on down to some of the SAC's that you run into the problems.
I have the same experience.
 
Like I said before, I would any day trust the fellas at CDC before I trust your "analysis."
What "analysis" would that be? I haven't put forward any kind of analysis. What I have put forward is checkable facts.

So far everything you have stated about the CDC has been shown to be bull$h!t, but hey you carry right on believing the guff they feed you old son, and we'll keep right on laughing at your posts.
 
If you're a scientist with proof, I will believe you better than CDC - till then ,no.

My schools include AICS, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins.
Code:
//-->Redshift - wait through other posts to not have to acknowledge the painfully obvious<--//
And yet you quoted their gun death statistics with checking into their accuracy.
Nah, I believe a bunch of "boffins" at the CDC more than a random person on an online forum.
That would be THE (apparently irrelevant to your topic of public health) Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and The (even less relevant) Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, by the way...
 

Latest Threads

Top