Butters
-
Content
4,759 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by Butters
-
Our special ops have snuck across other borders, why can't other special ops sneak across our borders? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
... and what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
I thought the Conservative Democrats became Neo-Conservative Republicans because they believed that the Democratic Party was too weak to support their Conservative beliefs (which were and are very different from Conservative Republican beliefs) not because the Democratic Party was becoming integrated. Am I wrong? PS: Would I be right to assume this is when you switched from being a Republican to a Democrat? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Yes, because it reminds me of the Speakers Corner. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
New Iraqi Law Requires Waiting Period For Suicide Vest Purchases "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
I Love You "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Easy recon. For anyone wanting to commit such a thing, it would be best to operate in a familiar environment. No need to case the place - you've spent years knowing every nook and cranny. Thus, you know the ins and outs. Your surveillance for the best target is already well within your knowledge. Second. A lecture hall is a great place to unload on a large group of confined people. A movie theater is awesome - except it's dark. Ah! But a lecture hall is like a movie theater with good lighting. Third - defenseless victims. Schools are great for that. The best you'll find are CSO's who don't know anything, and won't be in class. It'll be 5 minutes before anyone shows. By then I'll be dead. Okay. Hit classrooms. The question was for those that believe that deranged individuals choose their target based largely (if not solely) on whether the target is "hard" or "soft". "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Not true. There are plenty of "soft" targets. Why do they choose the school they are attending or have attended? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
When a homeless guy goes at the police with a knife and is shot down, the press talks about it for one day, maybe two, and only locally. When a kid shoots up an undefended school, it's talked about for months, the school get ESPN Game Day, and the punk is immortalized (or known for at least a decade, like the Columbine kids). If instead nothing was said after week 1, yeah, they'd find other ways. The rare people who commit suicide by cop just want to die. The kid at Virginia Tech produced a video manifesto. He expected and got it aired. The attention paid, and the ease of killing enough people to get the publicity is a significant factor. What is your point in regards to how the "hardness" or "softness" of a target plays into the equation? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
I'm sure that plays into the equation as well. I'm sure it plays into the equation more than whether a target is "hard" or "soft" (which do not play or play very little into the equation). Really? Then you should easily be able to find an equal number of multiple victim shootings at police stations and gun shops, then. I look forward to your proof. The number does not have to be equal, it has to be greater than zero (which it is). If you were right than these individuals would be attacking schools, malls, etc... that provide the "softest" target instead of schools, malls, etc... that they are attending or have attended. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
I'm sure that plays into the equation as well. I'm sure it plays into the equation more than whether a target is "hard" or "soft" (which do not play or play very little into the equation). "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
I think deranged individuals are more likely to choose targets based on familiarity and the presence of individuals that they believe are the cause of their problems than whether the targets are "hard" or "soft". "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Keeping guns away from nutjobs would be even better. Arming and training people who are not "nutjobs" while preventing people who are "nutjobs" from being armed would be even better. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
let's talk about going low, breakoff etc...
Butters replied to airdvr's topic in Safety and Training
This isssue is usually discussed during the dive plan at my DZ ... this prevents people from assumming what other people will do. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch -
What is a while? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
No fair, the entities in the first video are bird-men (men trying to be birds) where the entity in your video is a man-bird (bird trying to be a man) ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
How did you're first Hop & Pop go?
Butters replied to Sletzer's topic in General Skydiving Discussions
I liked it and have gone on to do plenty more. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch -
What I don't understand is ... if the people in positions of power actually believe that people (especially minors) not involved in activities turn to crime or drugs then why do they attempt to stop people (especially minors) from participating in activities such as skateboarding? Is skateboarding as bad as or worse than crime or drugs? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
People in positions of power are supposed to protect and serve the people but power corrupts ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
So true ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
I can't remember how many times I've watched Zoolander ... and yes, it is a great f**king documentary. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Why high voter turnout isn't necessarily a good thing...
Butters replied to lawrocket's topic in Speakers Corner
I don't know or care what we're voting for because I'm an optimist and optimists always vote yes ... -
Ok. The point I was trying to make (to Kallend) was that subsidized education is not the same as subsidized health care and thus someone (Kallend) can not justify subsidizing health care by stating that we subsidize education. I don't. I was making a point which is that we cannot treat the issue of health care on the basis of whether or not "you" can afford it. It is a debate that can have societal ramifications. Agreed. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Ok, goodness is covered and badness is not covered (I'm assumming that discouraged implies not covered.) but what about neutralness? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
-
Who is they and why do you assume that use implies need and need implies where and why the line is drawn? If you believe that the only justification needed to not have public education (or other program) is your ability to pay for private education (or other program) ... then this discussion is over. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch