Republicans keep piling it on

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 22
Topic's author
#1
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
First they were the party of stupid, under George Bush and Sarah Palin

The party of assault weapons, Bush let the assault weapons ban expire 

Then they were the party of rape - remember? women can shut down and not get pregnant when being raped

The anti-science party, climate change and global warming are a hoax. So are vaccines.

The party of hypocrisy - too many examples to name but the sex scandals are front and center here. From child molester Denny Hastert to Lauren Boebert, who got pregnant in high school and grabbed some dick in a theater.

Now, they are the party of killing dogs thanks to the bimbo Kristi Noem 

Republicans are a disgrace
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,711
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Republicans are antagonists of the story.

We are protagonists, and the story is focused on us.

However, Trump is slowly becoming a protagonist, so we need some extremely fun candidate to counter him, because no one cares about good guys if bad guys are more cool and fun.
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
First they were the party of stupid, under George Bush and Sarah Palin
How?

The party of assault weapons, Bush let the assault weapons ban expire
You are correct, but how is that wrong?  The vast majority of AR 15 owners are like the vast majority of Muslims; not a threat to anyone and they want their liberty in peace.  People that murder should be killed, but people who have a trait in common with a murderer (whether religion or AR 15 ownership) that are not murderers shouldn't be treated like a murderer.

Then they were the party of rape - remember? women can shut down and not get pregnant when being raped
The guy that initially said that lost re election.  I think Kennedy V Louisiana (which argued the death penalty for child diddling was against the 8th amendment) was mainly opposed by conservative judges.  Meaning the conservative judges want a state to be allowed to execute child diddlers while the left wing judges thought it was cruel and unusual and should be outlawed nationwide.

 The anti-science party, climate change and global warming are a hoax. So are vaccines.
I would say the GOP certainly has the, "climate change is a hoax" and, "the vaccienes cause cancer" types.  A lot of GOP people just aren't worried about a 2 degree Celsius increase in temperature over 75 years and got the COVID vacciene but don't want to force people to get it.

Denny Hastert
Dude; he got prosecuted years ago.  This is more of a strawman than me saying in 2024, "Liberals are the party of mask mandates".

 Lauren Boebert, who got pregnant in high school and grabbed some dick in a theater.
This is more unfortunate than it is criminal if the dick grabbing was consensual.

Now, they are the party of killing dogs thanks to the bimbo Kristi Noem 
If you are against killing dogs for entertainment but are fine with killing pigs for food (which at this point, since you don't need bacon to survive, it's entertainment), then it's hypocrisy.
Topic's author
#4
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
You are correct, but how is that wrong?  The vast majority of AR 15 owners are like the vast majority of Muslims; not a threat to anyone and they want their liberty in peace.  People that murder should be killed, but people who have a trait in common with a murderer (whether religion or AR 15 ownership) that are not murderers shouldn't be treated like a murderer.
Why do we have so many mass shootings in the United States? Choose the best answer

1. People in America are more violent than the rest of the world.

2. There are more crazy people in America than the rest of the world.

3. We have incompetent police compared to the rest of the world.

4. We have more assault weapons in circulation compared to the rest of the world.

#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
1. People in America are more violent than the rest of the world.
true: as the mecca of diverse warring cultures, violence is the norm in America the more diverse culturally a place is.

2. There are more crazy people in America than the rest of the world.
true: America ranks dead last in dealing with crazy people. Many leaders treat crazy people with free food and shelter, free needles, and sometimes genital mutilation and call it a day.

3. We have incompetent police compared to the rest of the world.
true: Many cities actually defunded the police and can't reverse the mistake.

4. We have more assault weapons in circulation compared to the rest of the world.
true: citizens are the last line and in most cases, the only line of defense in many violent cities full of crazy people with no cops.

Answer: all of the above.

Topic's author
#6
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
as the mecca of diverse warring cultures, violence is the norm in America the more diverse culturally a place is.
Lie. The U.S. is by far less diverse than many countries with little to no mass shootings. Canada for example.

America ranks dead last in dealing with crazy people.
Lie. Strawman answer. The question was does the U.S. have more crazy people than other countries 

Many cities actually defunded the police and can't reverse the mistake.
Lie. Name 5 US cities that have defunded the police and show a correlation on how that led to more mass shootings.
Strawman answer. The question was are police in the United States incompetent 

The MAGA MORON MARCHES ON!




#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Quick, hide the body.
Topic's author
#8
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Strawberries! I found the thief!
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
You murdered his gaffe!
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Why do we have so many mass shootings in the United States? Choose the best answer

1. People in America are more violent than the rest of the world.

2. There are more crazy people in America than the rest of the world.

3. We have incompetent police compared to the rest of the world.

4. We have more assault weapons in circulation compared to the rest of the world.
Probably #2 because we don't have universal healthcare (although I don't like making the, "mental health" argument.  If Adam Lanza from Sandy Hook was black, then nobody would be making the mental health argument).

I don't care if the mass shooter is black or white; they are both criminal thugs that should face the electric chair.
Topic's author
#11
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
The point is Adam Lanza never would have had access to an assault weapon in any other modern country, because they aren’t allowed.

There are Adam Lanzas in every country in the world but only in America can they get their hands on an AR-15
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
True, but mass shootings are a tiny part of homicides and I care more about the homicide rate than the mass shooting rate.

We had a nationwide AR 15 ban for 10 years.  Did the ban reduce the homicide rate?  No.  It got repealed.

Several states have AR 15 bans.  It didn't significantly reduce their homicide rate.

Want to end school shootings?  Install airport style security around every school.

People seem to think that, "If it saves just one life, then any amount of government control is justified".  This is an authoritarian belief, and one that isn't thought through.

If innocent human life must be saved no matter the cost, then it means the state can force you to adopt as many starving children as you can afford (it is saves just one life).

The belief that human life is priceless is how authoritarianism gets justified; the goal of governments that want more control is always to, "save the children".
Topic's author
#13
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
True, but mass shootings are a tiny part of homicides and I care more about the homicide rate than the mass shooting rate.
My view is if we can’t even stop mass shootings with assault weapons we have zero chance at reducing the homicide rate.

We had a nationwide AR 15 ban for 10 years.  Did the ban reduce the homicide rate?  No.
That is false and misleading. First, the number off mass shootings did go down after the ban and rose dramatically after the ban expired.

Second, it wasn’t a true ban. People could still buy, sell, and own assault weapons. The ban simply prohibited adding new assault weapons to the country.

Want to end school shootings?  Install airport style security around every school.
That’s dumb. That sounds a lot like “Door Reform”

People seem to think that, "If it saves just one life, then any amount of government control is justified". 
Assault weapons owned by ordinary citizens offers ZERO benefits to society, but the drawbacks are huge. For example over 500 casualties at the concert in Las Vegas.
To imply that banning assault weapons would save only one life or a handful of lives is just ridiculous. By the way, if that one life was yours or your children, I bet you would have a different opinion.
Topic's author
#14
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
If innocent human life must be saved no matter the cost, then it means the state can force you to adopt as many starving children as you can afford (it is saves just one life).
That is a silly argument to make. Are you a serious adult? Could you see yourself being in charge of anything, or is it better you remain a casual observer of the things around you?

The belief that human life is priceless is how authoritarianism gets justified
Another ridiculous statement. Is that what led to Hitler and Mussolini becoming tyrants? Of course not. You are obviously consuming media designed to cause fear by warning you of nonsensical conspiracy theories.

the goal of governments that want more control is always to, "save the children".
Always? Give me three examples from history 

#15
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
My view is if we can’t even stop mass shootings with assault weapons we have zero chance at reducing the homicide rate.
This view is false.  A counterexample: 

Mass shooting deaths didn't get eliminated in 2018 but the homicide rate went down compared to 2017: U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate 1960-2024 | MacroTrends

 First, the number of mass shootings did go down after the ban and rose dramatically after the ban expired.
Mass shooting victims in the United States by fatalities and injuries 1982-2023 | Statista states that the mass shooting deaths didn't eclipse 50 for a year until 2007, implying that whatever caused mass shooting deaths to become more common happened in 2006, not 2004.

Second, it wasn’t a true ban. People could still buy, sell, and own assault weapons. The ban simply prohibited adding new assault weapons to the country.
So would you do an AR 15 confiscation?

Want to end school shootings?  Install airport style security around every school.
That’s dumb. That sounds a lot like “Door Reform”
You believe all right wing arguments are dumb, so I'll ignore the insult.

What is, "Door Reform"?

Assault weapons owned by ordinary citizens offers ZERO benefits to society, but the drawbacks are huge. 
P1: Society is made up of individual citizens.
C1: Anything that benefits Citizens also benefits society.
P2: People only buy things that benefit them.
P3: People buy AR 15s.
C2: Therefore AR 15s benefit individual Citizens.
C3: Therefore, AR 15s benefit society.

The drawbacks are small (less than .0001% of the US population dies in a mass shooting/year).

By the way, if that one life was yours or your children, I bet you would have a different opinion.
That is true, but I also am rational enough to understand that the odds of me being the victim of that crime are small enough to where I'm genuinely not worried.  Life has risks; otherwise going to work would be banned and people would be forced to do remote work to prevent the spread of COVID when applicable (even in the year 2024).  Life has risks that must be accepted and the only alternative is consistent, persistent, melodramatic, and unsatiable fear.  Fear of mass shootings is a melodramatic fear due to it's rarity.

That is a silly argument to make. 
How is this argument more silly than any other conservative argument (all of which you believe are silly)?

 Is that what led to Hitler and Mussolini becoming tyrants?
Hitler's argument for killing the Jews was, "By killing the Jews, I am only doing the Lord's work", which was:

P1: I believe Jews have the wrong religion.
P2: Jews have kids.
P3: Anyone with the wrong religion goes to hell.
C1: Jewish kids are going to hell through no fault of their own, but merely the fault of their parents.

Given that hell is an eternity of torment and execution is a small punishment by comparison, it is how Hitler was able to justify the Holocaust, "Save the children" (from a worse eternity in hell, or at least a more torturous version of hell because by killing them now, we prevent them from sinning more and inievitbly getting a worse punishment in hell).

You are obviously consuming media designed to cause fear by warning you of nonsensical conspiracy theories.
Who is more afraid of the .00001% chance or so that they will die from a mass shooting?  You or me?  I'll wait.

Always? Give me three examples from history 
I can think of 2 broad examples:

  1. Extreme right wing religious authoritarianism (save the children from hell because we believe their parent's religion will send them to hell, so genocide the parents and kids before they sin any more so their punishment in hell will be less).
  2. Extreme left wing secular authoritarianism (save the children from even the slightest risk that they will die or be in pain so install fear into them about those with power (whether the rich, the NRA, etc) so they are more easily manipulated and even if we do more damage to them in the long run, but it's all for the common good).

I believe in the LUSHOOK ethos and individualism and I don't think my mind can realistically be changed on that.
Topic's author
#16
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Mass shooting deaths didn't get eliminated in 2018 but the homicide rate went down compared to 2017: 
You mean the homicide rate doesn’t increase every year? Gee, what a remarkable discovery. Next you’ll be saying the stock market doesn’t only go up.

Statista states that the mass shooting deaths didn't eclipse 50 for a year until 2007, implying that whatever caused mass shooting deaths to become more common happened in 2006, not 2004
That’s not how statistics work . That’s not how common sense works. There are many factors that affect mass murder rates. You have to look at trends over a longer time period. You have to look at a baseline. You have to look at what is happening in other countries.

#17
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This was the quote I responded too:

My view is if we can’t even stop mass shootings with assault weapons we have zero chance at reducing the homicide rate.

Topic's author
#18
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
This was the quote I responded too:
The quote was saying

If we as a nation can’t even control, reduce, respond to the problem of mass shootings, then there is little chance we will be able to lower (gun) homicides.

Of course most homicides with guns, including suicide, happen with handguns. They are cheaper, easier to use, and more availably than assault weapons. But if we can’t do something about assault weapons in this country, which are less than 10% of all the guns in private ownership, then we will never be able to reduce the overall trends on gun homicides.


What is, "Door Reform"?
This shows you are not well versed on this subject. Door reform was a term that came into use after the Texas Uvaldi school massacre.

Society is made up of individual citizens.
C1: Anything that benefits Citizens also benefits society.
P2: People only buy things that benefit them.
P3: People buy AR 15s.
C2: Therefore AR 15s benefit individual Citizens.
C3: Therefore, AR 15s benefit society.
This is more faulty logic. “People only buy things that benefit them”? lol 

Topic's author
#19
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
people would be forced to do remote work to prevent the spread of COVID when applicable 
Um, that did happen. And it was appropriate and it helped.

Fear of mass shootings is a melodramatic fear due to its rarity.
Another ridiculous statement. Bridge collapse is rare but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take steps to prevent it in the interest of public safety.

Hitler's argument for killing the Jews was, "By killing the Jews, I am only doing the Lord's work",
I have never heard that. I seriously doubt it’s true.

Who is more afraid of the .00001% chance or so that they will die from a mass shooting?  You or me?  I'll wait.
Another stupid argument. Just because people are trying to stop mass shootings by assault rifle (or bridges from collapsing) it doesn’t mean they personally fear being killed in this way. It means they are prudent to prevent preventable disasters.
Topic's author
#20
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
  1. Extreme right wing religious authoritarianism (save the children from hell because we believe their parent's religion will send them to hell, so genocide the parents and kids before they sin any more so their punishment in hell will be less).
  2. Extreme left wing secular authoritarianism (save the children from even the slightest risk that they will die or be in pain so install fear into them about those with power (whether the rich, the NRA, etc) so they are more easily manipulated and even if we do more damage to them in the long run, but it's all for the common good).
These are not examples from history and they are not about any particular country or government.

Your statement -  “the goal of governments that want more control is always to, "save the children" is not supported by your two broad examples.

Do you know what you’re talking about?
#21
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Um, that did happen. And it was appropriate and it helped.
It would still be going on in 2024 if the only thing that mattered was saving lives.

Bridge collapse is rare but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take steps to prevent it in the interest of public safety.
You should prevent bridge collapses, but it's not like every time I drive on a bridge I'm worried about it collapsing.  And it's not like we ban people with kids in the car from driving on bridges because if they have kids in the car, then those kids might die from the bridge collapsing.  Risk is in our lives.

I have never heard that. I seriously doubt it’s true.
"by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"(Extracts From Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler (yadvashem.org))

Just because people are trying to stop mass shootings by assault rifle (or bridges from collapsing) it doesn’t mean they personally fear being killed in this way. It means they are prudent to prevent preventable disasters.
Certain things you can do to prevent mass shootings (airport style security around public schools).  But collectivism (taking away the most popular rifle in the country from a 99.9999% harmless population) is not the answer in this context.

These are not examples from history and they are not about any particular country or government.
Situation 1 is Medieval Europe and the Nazis.  Situation 2 is the communists in Russia (whom you hate).
Topic's author
#22
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
It would still be going on in 2024 if the only thing that mattered was saving lives.
No, because we are not in a pandemic anymore 

You should prevent bridge collapses
Exactly, just like you should prevent mass shootings with assault weapons 

by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"
That phrase was a lot more vague than the one you used before. The words and meaning changed.

But collectivism (taking away the most popular rifle in the country
What if cocaine was popular? Should we let the people have it?
What if driving 100 mph was popular? Should we let the people do it?

Situation 1 is Medieval Europe and the Nazis.  Situation 2 is the communists in Russia.
No. No it’s not. You are delusional