MLD Woody Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 You guys keep missing the point. Actually, fuck it, I've said the reason why so many times. Hell I even wrote code about it. If you still don't follow by now I think it's pretty obvious who is pushing their agenda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 You guys keep missing the point. Actually, fuck it, I've said the reason why so many times. Hell I even wrote code about it. If you still don't follow by now I think it's pretty obvious who is pushing their agenda Uh...OK. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Nope you are not my research assistant. But you said you explain the differences before, and I don't think you did. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and we'll say that you were just confused You said it was too much work to type it again so I offered you to just go back and cut and paste. I don't think you know the difference any more than i do and that you were caught in an empty boast. Please. Stop swinging at air. The difference is in the legal standard to prove self defense. You can go back and read what I wrote. I didn't go into it much, but that's the difference - they changed the duty of someone to retreat first. They changed the legal standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Furthermore when one does search for black on white crime and fbi or department of justice you get many hits. As far as I could tell they are all reprints or paraphrases. So here's what I think. You know those statistics are accurate but want to pretend otherwise with some misdirection about white supremacy. You also brag that you have the sites that show all those statistics and I'm just giving you the opportunity to post the link. you either don't have it or you're refusing to post it because it proves my point. You saw fit to post on what you consider hate crimes. So link me up with the entire site and prove me wrong. The reason you don't is pretty transparent. I'm sure it's 1 of your precious propaganda techniques. WSS What statistics do I know are accurate? Are you still talking about the stuff presented in the white power video? As for the DOJ and FBI stats, I already posted them. This happened over a week ago, maybe two. You know what would be nice? If you stopped imagining that I'm wowed by your arguments, and that you've cornered me, and I just can't take it, or whatever it is you think. It's all good for a morning laugh, but other than that, it just makes me lose respect for you. Honestly, and I mean this: I really - really - don't need to scheme to beat you in an argument. I don't need to be dishonest. I don't need to go back and erase my posts and write something totally different and pretend that never happened. I don't do that. The only thing I ever do is add thoughts or correct spelling or grammar so that my points are, unlike yours, clear to those who read them. The problem we've encountered is that you posted a link to a video from a white power organization. Normally, you'd expect someone to say, "Holy shit! I'm sorry! I had no idea what that was when I posted it. I'm so embarrassed." That's how normal people with values would react. But you? You keep trying to get me to weigh the evidence posted in a white power video as facts that I can't ignore. As if white power organizations are judicious weighers of evidence, and meticulous fact gatherers, and we should sit down and consider their arguments carefully. Are you fucking serious? I keep asking you for some sort of acknowledgement that you're not a crazy racist who watched white power videos, to distance yourself from it in some way. Because I don't want to think that about you. You keep asking me to sit down and watch it and face the truth presented in a white power video. Buddy, I watched 10 seconds of it and said, "Holy shit! This is a white power video!" And then I clicked it off. And then I started hoping it was a mistake on your part, and not a place on the web you frequent. I even tried to steer you toward actual stats from actual organizations that keep these stats, like the DOJ and the FBI. I even posted some of them. Then I asked you to look at them and post them so we could continue discussing the issue. And here you are, accusing me of not wanting to face the facts in a white power video, and accusing me of not posting the stats from the DOJ and the FBI because I'm afraid I might lose an argument to you. Brother, I am on my last leg with your ignorant, petty bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Please. Stop swinging at air. The difference is in the legal standard to prove self defense. You can go back and read what I wrote. I didn't go into it much, but that's the difference - they changed the duty of someone to retreat first. They changed the legal standard. So in the time it took you to spin that horse shit you could have cut and pasted your lesson. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 So in the time it took you to spin that horse shit you could have cut and pasted your bro your lesson. WSS Maybe it's because, post-white power video, it's sort of important to see if me and Vapor and Woody are the only ones in here who know how to find the basic information to have these arguments in the first place. It's more and more obvious that the answer is that yes, we are the only ones who know how to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." That's Florida's version. Now, you can tell me what that changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Most Americans back gun lobby, right to use deadly force By Deborah Charles WASHINGTON | Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:03pm EDT (Reuters) - Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves - even in public places - and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the main gun-lobby group, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed. However, there was also strong support from respondents for background checks as well as limiting the sale of automatic weapons and keeping guns out of churches, stores and workplaces. The online survey showed that 68 percent, or two out of three respondents, had a favorable opinion of the NRA, which starts its annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri, on Friday. Eighty-two percent of Republicans saw the gun lobbying group in a positive light as well as 55 percent of Democrats, findings that run counter to the perception of Democrats as anti-NRA. Most of the 1,922 people surveyed nationwide from April Monday through Thursday said they supported laws that allow Americans to use deadly force to protect themselves from danger in their own home or in a public place. "Americans do hold to this idea that people should be allowed to defend themselves and using deadly force is fine, in those circumstances," said pollster Chris Jackson. "In the theoretical ... there's a certain tolerance of vigilantism." The poll was conducted amid a nationwide debate over gun rights and race after the Florida shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood crime watch volunteer who is white and Hispanic. The poll results were welcomed by the NRA, which is one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country and regularly clashes with anti-gun groups and often with Democrats as it seeks to protect and expand gun rights across the United States. "Regardless of how others try to distort our position, the general public knows where we stand," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "It shows the failure of the continuing efforts of many to try and discredit the National Rifle Association." The NRA hosts Republican presidential candidate and likely nominee Mitt Romney as a speaker at its convention on Friday. Eighty-seven percent of respondents - with high numbers among both Republicans and Democrats - supported the use of deadly force to protect themselves from danger in their home. Two-thirds said they backed laws permitting the use of deadly force to protect themselves in public. (Link to poll: here) GUN RESTRICTIONS NEEDED According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, nearly 100,000 people are shot every year in the United States in murders, suicides, accidents or police intervention. Government statistics show 31,347 people died in the United States in 2009 from gunshots, including 11,493 in homicides. Ninety-one percent of those who responded to the survey agreed on the need for background checks before a firearm can be sold. Only 6 percent said they thought gun ownership should require no, or very few restrictions. Nearly three-quarters of respondents said they supported limiting the sale of automatic weapons, and 62 percent oppose bringing firearms into churches, workplaces or stores. "A fairly large number of Americans support strong regulation, or at least moderate regulation of gun ownership," said Jackson. "Which is sort of counter to the narrative you often hear that legislators can't touch our guns or you'll have to pay." Nearly half of those surveyed felt crime rates were rising where they lived - even though FBI statistics show that violent crime has declined for the past 4 1/2 years. "People's perception of crime always over-represents reality," said Jackson. "I think that indicates the mind frame that the American public is in - there's always a constant low-level worrying about street crime." As a result, 85 percent of those polled said they did not believe police could stop all crime and 77 percent felt regular people had to "step up" to help prevent crime from happening. The survey included 650 Republicans, 752 Democrats and 520 independents. The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online poll is measured using a credibility interval and this poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points for all respondents. (Editing by David Brunnstrom and Doina Chiacu) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 I'm glad you're not his attorney because yes, he's going to have to produce physical evidence that he was attacked. Otherwise known as "proving." If he doesn't have any marks of a confrontation on him, then he's going to have a much harder time making the case that he feared his life was in danger, or that he feared great bodily harm. And that's what he's got to show in order to be covered under the Stand Your Ground law. No, he doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of evidence falls on the state. The state will need to prove, in court, that his story is not correct. Remember the Casey Anthony case? It seemed as though the prosecution has a shit ton of evidence--but they couldn't disprove the defense's story. The defense didn't have to prove anything. We know how that ended up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 No, he doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of evidence falls on the state. The state will need to prove, in court, that his story is not correct. Remember the Casey Anthony case? It seemed as though the prosecution has a shit ton of evidence--but they couldn't disprove the defense's story. The defense didn't have to prove anything. We know how that ended up. That seems correct to me. This state has to prove that he was not attacked. I doubt the injuries have to be severe either. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 By the way, stand your ground is something of a gray area but it is based on the idea that you have no responsibility to retreat when threatened. Once you have been attacked it is no longer a stand your ground issue. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." That's Florida's version. Now, you can tell me what that changed. Sounds about right. Thursday and friday on 2 separate occasions I was in the company of attorneys, just socially. It's good you did some research and dropped the pretense. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 blah heck bs blah. He goes and finds out a bunch of stuff that suits his narrative. Then he acted like he knew it all along. Then, when he's losing his dumbass, narrow focused argument, he changes the subject, twists it around, and acts like THAT is what he was arguing about all along. Then he goes on a series of personal insults. Then he tries the leftist radical stuff. Like trying to intimidate someone by isolating them from others. Then trying to ridicule any argument that's made against his dimwitted garbage. THEN, he gets pouty, and sluffs off the board for a little while, til he can come back with some cherry picked issue, and start all over again. Heck is the most stupid "debater" on the board, unless you value dishonest manipulative sheet in most of his posts. He does this stuff for a living? Or he kisses his leftwing employer's backside for a paycheck? I can't remember him ever engaging in an honest, to the point discussion for an entire discussion. Maybe he smokes weed, but I figure he doesn't, .... he's just stupid with an excellent ability to hide it for several posts at a time. How does a leftie figure he wins an argument, by bringing in other board members' names, and dissing them? Really? Is that sick, or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 15, 2012 Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 he had a gash/cut on the back of his head. so he shot the attacker and stole his skittles. well the second part is what was told to us by the liberal news media. then obama started his campaign of race baiting and went on vacation with his family where they had to take 2 seperate airforce one jets because moochelle obama wanted to go early before all the stores closed. I was gonna say something here, but honestly I think I'm better off ignoring you. You are a stupid, delusional man that refuses any information that is new or strange to him. Really, I think I'm done responding to you. It'll be hard because your stupidity is just so great, but I'll try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 Sounds about right. Thursday and friday on 2 separate occasions I was in the company of attorneys, just socially. It's good you did some research and dropped the pretense. WSS Can I borrow those pictures of the exasperated Star Trek crew for this thread? Jesus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 15, 2012 Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 woodpecker - is there any low you won't stoop to ... to try to have some comeback ? That's low, and uncalled for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 15, 2012 Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 woodpecker - is there any low you won't stoop to ... to try to have some comeback ? That's low, and uncalled for. Cal, you might actually be right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 Maybe it's because, post-white power video, it's sort of important to see if me and Vapor and Woody are the only ones in here who know how to find the basic information to have these arguments in the first place. It's more and more obvious that the answer is that yes, we are the only ones who know how to do this. So posting figures that show 1 demographic has a higher tendency toward violent crime means it must be a hate site. That means if someone posted that pitbulls rottweilers and chows are more dangerous than other dogs then it must be a cat supremacist site. But we all know what happened here. You said you had posted the difference between stand your ground and simple self defense. Lets be generous and just say that you misspoke. So why do you think stand your ground might not be the key factor here? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 No Steve, it would be a lab supremacist site. Geez, keep up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 No Steve, it would be a lab supremacist site. Geez, keep up LOL WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 So posting figures that show 1 demographic has a higher tendency toward violent crime means it must be a hate site. That means if someone posted that pitbulls rottweilers and chows are more dangerous than other dogs then it must be a cat supremacist site. But we all know what happened here. You said you had posted the difference between stand your ground and simple self defense. Lets be generous and just say that you misspoke. WSS Good God. I really want to believe you're not an idiot. This doesn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 Good God. I really want to believe you're not an idiot. This doesn't help. That's it? Wow! Okay I'll try... Nuh uh you are the idiot. I gotta start reading the memos concerning the grade level for the day. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 Idiotic is a perfectly legitimate way to describe your dog and cat analogy. In Steveland, apparently white power sites aren't white power sites if they cite statistics. Yes, weeks later, you're still defending your use of of a white power site. Yes, this is idiotic. To the Nth degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 Steve, I keep trying to give you outs, or to get you to disown posting white power videos. You've yet to do that, and would still really, really like me to consider their argument. (And also get flagged by the FBI for watching white power videos online. You'll excuse me if I don't oblige for that reason as well.) I have zero - absolutely zero - interest in continuing to speak with you until you explain yourself. If you can't disown it because it's a white nationalist group, we're in trouble. If you can't understand that no one would ever, ever get their stats from a white power group, or consider that source material, we're in trouble. The fact that you found it, didn't recognize it for what it was (took me all of 7 seconds), defended it, and want to use it for your argument, and continue to want to use it, may say all about you that I need to know. It means that having an adult conversation with you, based on evidence and good faith, is impossible. Perhaps I already know this, but this would really make it clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 I agree. Steve, I deeply want to believe you are the most intelligent, reasonable conservative on here, but you aren't doing me any favors. Then again, you're still leaps and bounds ahead of your "competition" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 It also would suggest that you really are a fucking racist, one who is sympathetic to - and promotes - the claims of white power groups. Let's not forget that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 It also would suggest that you really are a fucking racist, one who is sympathetic to - and promotes - the claims of white power groups. Let's not forget that. All I ask is for you or woody or vt is post the real figures. Just show me the tables that prove that violent crime rates are the same across the board. Seriously if you think something is so completely wrong it should be easy to prove that. Why wouldn't you want to do that? ( I mean I realize it makes you sound tough) Wouldn't that be simpler then just name calling and rage? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 Who are you performing for with this? Just give me the link with the real stats and we can all move on. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 I agree. Steve, I deeply want to believe you are the most intelligent, reasonable conservative on here, but you aren't doing me any favors. Then again, you're still leaps and bounds ahead of your "competition" Well woody, I guess I don't really consider myself a conservative. I suppose some of the things I think are far right but some of course are far left. But, for example, I don't claim that everything rachel maddow says is a lie just because she is a socialist. nor glenn beck, ed schultz, sean hannity, keith olbermann or michael savage. If those numbers our lies I'll be happy to see the proof. Isn't that what you'd expect from cal bunker or t? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 Who are you performing for with this? Just give me the link with the real stats and we can all move on. WSS He's performing for his cadre of course. Hecks idea of winning an arguement is just to beat you over the head with the same line over and over and over, varying the wording slightly from instance to instance until you just shrug your shoulders and move on to the next thread. Then woody can tell him how awesome he is and that he wins teh internetz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.