New Improved DC Tom Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 48 minutes ago, westside2 said: You come across as a far left version of Archie Bunker. "... Didn't know who you were then, Men were girls and girls were men, Mister we could use a man Like Bader-Ginsburg again. ..." 1
BullBuchanan Posted September 23, 2020 Author Posted September 23, 2020 35 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Yet in 2019 police killed 9 black "unarmed" people. This does not take into account that those unarmed people may still have been trying to harm the officers. So, at least 991 of those dead people were armed and presumably threatening the officers. That's what got them shot, not their skin color or how low their pants were hanging. I don't know that I've responded to you before but I've read a lot of your horseshit posts. You make wild accusations without links and then try to argue your points with circular logic and do so ad nauseum. You don't come here to learn anything or discuss, but come here to wear people down with your volume of bs. I post things without links? where? I post a link on everything I ever post from a reputable source, unless I'm summarizing something that I've already cited in the past. 38 minutes ago, westside2 said: Well, that goes for you as well. You spew hate. That's all you do. Ok then. It seems your brain shuts off after one line. Provide credibly sourced information of people committing violence = "spew hate" If that's the case, I'm extremely proud of it. I consider it my patriotic duty.
3rdnlng Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 9 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: I post things without links? where? I post a link on everything I ever post from a reputable source, unless I'm summarizing something that I've already cited in the past. I put your bs in bold in the post I quoted of yours.
BullBuchanan Posted September 23, 2020 Author Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Yet in 2019 police killed 9 black "unarmed" people. This does not take into account that those unarmed people may still have been trying to harm the officers. So, at least 991 of those dead people were armed and presumably threatening the officers. That's what got them shot, not their skin color or how low their pants were hanging. I don't know that I've responded to you before but I've read a lot of your horseshit posts. You make wild accusations without links and then try to argue your points with circular logic and do so ad nauseum. You don't come here to learn anything or discuss, but come here to wear people down with your volume of bs. Antifa Zero Murders: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-329-since-1994-antifa-killed-none-2020-7 "Seth Jones, a counter-terrorism expert, who helped create the dataset, told The Guardian: "Left-wing violence has not been a major terrorism threat." He said currently: "The most significant domestic terrorism threat comes from white supremacists, anti-government militias and a handful of individuals associated with the 'boogaloo' movement that are attempting to create a civil war in the United States." It wasn't just CSIS either. Researchers at the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, and at the Anti-Defamation League, told The Guardian they did not know of any murders linked to antifa in the US in the last 25 years." Total Terrorist Deaths: https://start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Nov2017.pdf Various sources of +1000 deaths at the hands of police and an investigation into the FBI's incorrect reporting of police deaths that they acknowledged and then made changes to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/11/police-killings-counted-harvard-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-data-say-about-police-shootings/ https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ Edited September 23, 2020 by BullBuchanan 1
BullBuchanan Posted September 23, 2020 Author Posted September 23, 2020 48 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I put your bs in bold in the post I quoted of yours. Let's be real though, not a single piece of data I've ever presented to you has ever caused you to question what you believe. You aren't trying to verify what I'm telling you, you're looking to test me and find new openings for attacks.
Chef Jim Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 2 hours ago, BullBuchanan said: If they aren't defined by violence and political motivation, what then? Now you're defining them by violence and political motivation? It was number of deaths before. Keep your arguments straight ok. So if we're going with political motivation now that's cool. What is the political motivation that qualifies US Law Enforcement to be deemed a terrorist organization.
3rdnlng Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 16 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: Antifa Zero Murders: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-329-since-1994-antifa-killed-none-2020-7 "Seth Jones, a counter-terrorism expert, who helped create the dataset, told The Guardian: "Left-wing violence has not been a major terrorism threat." He said currently: "The most significant domestic terrorism threat comes from white supremacists, anti-government militias and a handful of individuals associated with the 'boogaloo' movement that are attempting to create a civil war in the United States." It wasn't just CSIS either. Researchers at the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, and at the Anti-Defamation League, told The Guardian they did not know of any murders linked to antifa in the US in the last 25 years." Total Terrorist Deaths: https://start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Nov2017.pdf Various sources of +1000 deaths at the hands of police and an investigation into the FBI's incorrect reporting of police deaths that they acknowledged and then made changes to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/11/police-killings-counted-harvard-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-data-say-about-police-shootings/ https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ You are a parser of words, presenting articles that mix up terms to try to get over on the reader and "prove" their false premise.
BullBuchanan Posted September 23, 2020 Author Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, Chef Jim said: Now you're defining them by violence and political motivation? It was number of deaths before. Keep your arguments straight ok. So if we're going with political motivation now that's cool. What is the political motivation that qualifies US Law Enforcement to be deemed a terrorist organization. No it's always been about violence. The police don't keep records of their own brutality however, so as I said it's extremely difficult to give you an exact number. Deaths are one metric of violence. Settlements following civil cases of police misconduct are another metric of violence What's their political motivation? Their open desire to be perceived as a force of good fighting evil. Their open desire to not be held accountable by the elected officials of their districts. They want power and control and a total lack of accountability. They want to be a paramilitary organization that operates within the US. Just now, 3rdnlng said: You are a parser of words, presenting articles that mix up terms to try to get over on the reader and "prove" their false premise. So now my sources are innacurate? Based on what? What terms are mixed up? The sources I posted don't even require you to read them - you just have to compare the numbers. over 21 years: Antifa: 0 Terrorists: 3393 Police: > 1000+ per year ~21000
Chef Jim Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: What's their political motivation?Their open desire to be perceived as a force of good fighting evil. Their open desire to not be held accountable by the elected officials of their districts. They want power and control and a total lack of accountability. They want to be a paramilitary organization that operates within the US. Regarding the highlighted parts. How are They?
BullBuchanan Posted September 23, 2020 Author Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, Chef Jim said: Regarding the highlighted parts. How are They? can you clarify your question?
Tiberius Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 9 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: can you clarify your question? Good luck with that! He’ll just ask and ask and ask moronic questions
BullBuchanan Posted September 23, 2020 Author Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, Tiberius said: Good luck with that! He’ll just ask and ask and ask moronic questions extremely likely, but I want to prove that I'm more than willing to back up everything I claim with evidence.
3rdnlng Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, Tiberius said: He’ll just ask and ask and ask moronic questions So, you're going to now complain that he tries to bring the level of conversation down to your level so that you can understand it? 1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said: extremely likely, but I want to prove that I'm more than willing to back up everything I claim with evidence. Your "evidence" seems to be something you said before and have repeated or some opinion piece by a whacko.
BullBuchanan Posted September 23, 2020 Author Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, you're going to now complain that he tries to bring the level of conversation down to your level so that you can understand it? "You don't hear me lambasting, engaging in personal attacks, getting nasty. I don't think that belongs in politics." Ted Cruz 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, you're going to now complain that he tries to bring the level of conversation down to your level so that you can understand it? Your "evidence" seems to be something you said before and have repeated or some opinion piece by a whacko. Please explain to me how a chart from Homeland Security is an "opinion piece"? "The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) is supported in part by the Science and Technology Directorate of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security" You're really running on empty now. Edited September 23, 2020 by BullBuchanan
3rdnlng Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, BullBuchanan said: You don't hear me lambasting, engaging in personal attacks, getting nasty. I don't think that belongs in politics. Ted Cruz Since this forum is visual rather than audio I won't hear you at all. My comments were directed to someone else most recently known as Tiberius. As a newbie you wouldn't understand the mountains of reasons that he gets put down here.
BullBuchanan Posted September 23, 2020 Author Posted September 23, 2020 10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Your "evidence" seems to be something you said before and have repeated or some opinion piece by a whacko. 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Since this forum is visual rather than audio I won't hear you at all. My comments were directed to someone else most recently known as Tiberius. As a newbie you wouldn't understand the mountains of reasons that he gets put down here. So, is my evidence valid or not? Are you suggesting that the numbers are so drastically wrong that they disprove my point or weaken my argument?
3rdnlng Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: So, is my evidence valid or not? Are you suggesting that the numbers are so drastically wrong that they disprove my point or weaken my argument? Yes to both.
BullBuchanan Posted September 23, 2020 Author Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Yes to both. So if my evidence is valid, what's the problem? Edited September 23, 2020 by BullBuchanan
Chef Jim Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 56 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said: can you clarify your question? Pretty clear the first time. Who are the they you are referring to that I highlighted? 47 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Good luck with that! He’ll just ask and ask and ask moronic questions Clarifying what someone is saying by asking questions is moronic? Asking questions to get people to engage in a debate is moronic? Asking questions to get people to think critically about what they have said is moronic? No, what's moronic are the insinuations that people spout here with nothing to back it up. That's moronic.
BullBuchanan Posted September 23, 2020 Author Posted September 23, 2020 4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Pretty clear the first time. Who are the they you are referring to that I highlighted? I have absolutely no idea what you mean. All you did was bold "their" a bunch of times and say "How are they?" How are they what? How are they accomplishing their objectives? Through committing the offences I already sourced and making statements designed to get subsections of society sympathetic to their cause.
Recommended Posts