NCclimber

Yep, just what we need, more justices that think that things are Constitutional when they deprive only a small "fraction" of people of their Constitutional rights. The right to keep government out of the Dr/patient relationship, torture, spying....it's all ok if we only screw up a few people's lives. What is the argument for justifying partial birth abortions, considering first trimester abortions are completely legal and readily available?

Anna Nicole Smith? Cynthia McKinney? PeeWee Herman? Generalissimo Francisco Franco? Slutty Spice? Am I close? Or are you talking about the Day the Music Died?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJ2HV82&show_article=1

Well, as I said I was going to leave that till I'm bored to tears at work. Give it two hours and I'll start looking. Has it been two hours, yet?

We live in a culture that seems to thrive on being fed things to be afraid of. I've heard it called the fear industrial complex. Also, the whole victimology mindset seems to have gone mainstream.

There is free press to the extent there are independent journals, papers and magazines which roughly only 10-15% of the population use as a news source. Big business is not the free press and that is where over half the population get their only news information from, so no I would argue the U.S have no free press so far as the majority is concerned. Could you give some examples of major international news that should be reported in the US, but is being ignored by the mainstream media?

How about is we just prohibit poor people from having guns???

Oh Okay. Well, it seems that you are saying that blacks have some kind of genetic pre-disposition to be criminals. Is that what you are saying? Because if it is, I'd like you to show me THAT study. I'm just saying the numbers show the incidence of gun injuries by blacks to be significantly higher than that of whites. I don't think I've even hinted that it's about some kind of genetic pre-disposition. I would challenge any such claim. On a side note, previously I asked you for studies pertaining to income. After you replied, I posted "Where do any of these studies show "it is not an issue of race"?". In other words, I screwed up. Despite what some around here may think, I try to keep debates on track and not resort to cheap ploys. Sorry about that.

Oh Okay.

Could you give some actual examples of this??? OK, you wanted an answer.... I don't have the time to cite studies for every argument that I make that you happen to disagree with. In this case, the actual example is me being an observant, thinking human. I saw it, and now I am calling it like I saw it, and I am not going to do a damn study and submit it to peer review just so I can win this argument. If you want, you can look up historical gas prices and correlate them with news stories of impending hurricane doom and you will see what I am talking about. Screw it... it took me 3 seconds to find it - http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html LOL Providing a link of historical gas prices does nothing to prove your little conspiracy theory. Nice try, champ.

That's half of what you said. The other being it's not about race. Like I said, it's taboo. The incidence of gun related fatalities for blacks is nearly three times higher than for whites. The incidence of gun related non-fatalities for blacks is nine times higher than for whites. Granted this is a complex issue and not as black and white as some try to make it. However, claims that race is irrelevant are not supported by the facts.

Where do any of these studies show "it is not an issue of race"? How 'bout it, be-otch? And I noticed you didn't reply to my last post in your Big Oil/high gas prices conspiracy theory thread. Hmm.

Yeah. That would go along with the multitude of posts I've made, singing the praises of other polemic, rightwing idealogues. Nothing gets past you.

Got anything to back this up? I ask because I looked. I found gun crimes and homicide broken down by race, age, marital status, urban vs. rural - but nothing about income. How 'bout it?

And the * stands for? Regardless, your numbers are incorrect. How so? You claim you gave an example of someone being afraid to leave the house without being able to shoot someone. Where? You gave one example of a single poster asking what the best bullet for killing people is - sort of. And you gave one example ( * - which could easily be read as an exaggeration) of someone saying it would have been much better if the OP had shot everyone instead of just scaring them off. I can see how some would think this forum is overrun with halfcocked, gun-crazy maniacs. It's obviously rampant.

In the context of America's generally appalling firearms homicide rate isn't this thread still extremely relevant? And let's break it down by race. Or is that taboo?

OK, how did it happen? (In the spirit of ncclimber...) Rushmc: "Bush was sitting home one day in his white house when the UN (all of them) called him and begged him to PLEASE invade Iraq immediately! Bush tried to calm them down and encouraged patience and world peace, but they were insistant. Recognizing that Clinton ceded the US's sovereignty to the UN, he was obliged by law to obey their whims. Bush agreed reluctantly. France and Germany stabbed him in the back somehow." "Bush was right and everyone else was wrong." Wow. You seem to have become creepily obsessed with me. Quite the little fantasy world you have there, lad. Maybe you should talk to someone about it.

Well, I have demonstrated the third point, I've shown one example of the first (was planning on saving digging up another 9 until I'm bored to tears later on at work this evening). As for the second, well this thread should serve for a start. Note the discussions of which round will cause the largest wound. Really? You gave one example of the third. It seemed a bit over the top, but that's just me. One example of the second. And I missed any examples of the first. Perhaps you could tell with post that was in. Getting back to your initial post, it seemed that your point was those situations your provided were fairly commonplace. Providing rare examples doesn't really prove that point. From what you've shown the answers are: 1) 0 2) 1 3) 1*

You're wasting your time, jakee. You won't get ncclimber to admit that he intentionally mishandles, misinterprets, and misrepresents everyone's words to muddy the conversation. It's intentional. He's enjoying himself. And nobody else needs to be convinced. They already know it. The only people who respond are those like you (and occasionally me) who forget and think they can engage him in actual discussion. Speaker's Corner is just performance art to ncclimber. There's no "there" there. Asseting something and showing it to be true are two completely different things. You seem to be big on making assertions about me, without ever proving them. And yet, Jakee has shown very little to back up the following. Hmm.

Uninformed? Nuances and subtelties? Lets take a look. Bigun, June 8 2006, 7:18AM. Nb. In the scenario Bigun was replying to the perps did not 'come at' the OP. Just how much creative assumption do you think I am making on this point? Interestingly enough, Micro's response to Bigun (hehe, Micro and Bigun, hehe) provides the first example of my other point, and also clearly demonstrates that I was not jumping to conclusions in thinking Bigun was advocating lying to the police. Micro, June 8 2006, 7.33AM. To Craddock: How much of the above do you think I made up? You left out - Jakee: "Although on second thoughts, why not shoot them.... Scumbags obviously don't deserve to live" Sometimes that sarcasm is so hard to pick up on.

Happily making up statements, attributing them to people and then backtracking with "Oh it was just hyperbole" while simultaneously calling anyone and everyone on even the slightest level of exaggeration or emotional language in their posts. It does seem just a little bit low. What are you talking about? The Pelosi thread? That thread went on for five days and over 220 posts before anyone questioned the truthfulness of the thread title. You two keep trying to make it into some grand deception even though everyone (almost everyone) got the joke. Now you're digging up a nonissue from two months ago, to distract from my questioning your claims. Nice.

Ann Coulter is a voice in the wilderness. She is a courageous soul, willing to say "the emperor has no clothes"... to tell all the PC speech nazis to piss off... to call a spade a spade and lambaste the nonsense that so many on the left cream on themselves over. She is a beacon of truth.

I think the word you're looking for is hyperbole. It's a fairly common term. I didn't think that was Jakee's intent. Perhaps he can post up "that he was just kidding". Nah, I'd rather not stoop to your level of argument.

Shall we say 10? I've got a bit of time on my hands today - do you think I can find 10 people who have posted to the effect that they would or do feel vulnerable if they were not able to carry a gun? Bonus points if I can find them all on JohnRich's UK threads. Sure. Let's see 10 posters claiming they are "afraid to leave the house" without a loaded gun. Can't have been paying much attention then. Let's see some posts, sport. No backpedal. I honestly can't tell if some of them are joking or not. I'd also argue that it still speaks to the mindset I'm talking about that people would find that kind of joke amusing. Of course, you could just ask. But then again, you could assume they're being serious, then make uninformed assertions about posters advocating the shooting of people and lying to the cops. How convenient. Generally speaking, you seem pretty quick on picking up on the nuances or subtletites(sp?) of discussions. Funny how you missed the boat on the above topic. Uhh, like you would have a problem with that? What are you talking about?

Is this a Red Herring? A strawman?