A quickie with regard to energy production and the Baron's BS. (Nationwide.)
A few days ago, Baron Von Porta Potty responded to my truthful claim that domestic energy production was up under Obama with another claim that the EPA was killing the coal industry. Immediately after, another entry was posted in support of Baron Von Porta Potty. A reference was made to recent lay-offs. As usual, the Baron of the Bowel and his alias have ignored reality and common sense.
Domestic energy production is in fact up under Obama. It has been up consistently for several years now. This is due in large part to the growth of the natural gas industry. An industry that has been allowed to grow under Obama. It is true that Alpha, a West Virginia based coal mining company, has just very recently announced plans to lay off 1100 workers. However, it is also true that coal and natural gas are direct competitors. This has been well known for as long as I can remember. Finally, in spite of fierce and growing competition from the natural gas industry AND in spite of the EPA, the US coal industry remains healthy and profitable. It continues to supply over 40% of our electricity. Our supply of energy remains plentiful and stable even after 5 1/2 years of Obama. Therefore, it is absurd to blame the EPA for those lay-offs but as usual, it was utterly predictable that die-hard conservatives would do so.
The Baron of the Bowel has also responded to my complaints of improper flagging with claims that his own entries have been flagged by other users and subsequently removed. This is false or greatly exaggerated. The difference is that ten of my entries have been flagged by other users (my critics) and removed from this forum just within the last three weeks but only after they had become searchable. They were allowed to post and allowed to remain searchable for several hours before being removed. Two more were flagged by Craigslist before they were allowed to update.
If the Baron of Bodily Functions would have been paying attention to detail, he would have known that I informed my critics several weeks ago that posting limits were inherent with this site. I do not know if the Baron of Bile has ever been flagged by his critics here. I have yet to see any of his entries disappear prematurely. Not a single one. But I do know that he has been paying compliments to himself while posing as other users. He does so on a regular basis. I also know that he has been searching the web for my entries and responding to them with long winded rants while posing as other users. He has given himself away by using signature marks and styles and by making the timing obvious. For this reason, I strongly suspect that Baron Von Porta Potty often exceeds the posting limits inherent with this site. Those entries posted in excess, like mine, would show as 'flagged' on his account page.
By the way, I have no problem admitting that I incorrectly referred to '2010' as the year in which the Great Recession was officially ended under Obama. It was in fact, 2009. I've referred to the correct year many times all over the web over a period of several years but on that day last week, I confused the year in which it was ended with the year in which the confirmation was widely reported by Mainstream media. Still, the point I made stands. The Great Recession, like the Great Depression was caused by an obscene concentration of wealth. It happened on the watch of the most conservative president in American history. It was in fact, ended under Obama. The economy has been stabilized (for now), GDP and the stock markets are at all-time highs, unemployment is down, and housing sales are up in the midst of more liberal economic policies. In particular, because of ongoing government stimulus drawn out in a way totally contrary to that which Baron Von Porta Potty swears by from his polyethylene throne.
In other words Obama, although corrupt like every other politician has been proven right on the economy. Conservative theories have once again, been proven wrong.
Unfortunately, current economic policies are not liberal enough. Not even close. For the COW remains. It will cause another Great depression by 2020. It will come sooner and more severe if we end up with more conservative economic policies. Say that reminds me.
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of domestic wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid '07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I'll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years.
Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won't. Not by a long shot. Jobs don't necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the most part, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The 'free market' just doesn't cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of '08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, foreclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of '08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation's wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don't. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent of Americans already own over 40% of all US wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. The lower 90 percent of Americans own less than 25% percent of all US wealth. Still, the rich want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeopardy.
Greed kills. It will be our downfall.
(It's my own work. I'll paste it if I damn well please.)
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Thursday, July 31, 2014
My critics in Chicago are PATHETIC COWARDS. Deleted entry #9.
Again, the truth is hard to take. This one was deleted 4 hours after it was posted.
Steve Jobs was not a true visionary. He was a tunnel visionary. Otherwise, he would have acknowledged the downside of his own work. Not only the ongoing concentration of wealth and government influence and all of the related socioeconomic issues, but also the growing obsession of Western Society with miniature screens that light up, the health consequences of prolonged use, the scores of traffic accidents caused by multitasking drivers and pedestrians, the growing need for and to date, the utter failure of legislative efforts to prevent those traffic accidents caused by multitasking drivers and pedestrians, the work related accidents, the reduced productivity of gadget junkies, the frequent interruptions and interferences in public places, the growing difficulties of an entire generation to relate with others or even function in society without their electronic gadgets, and the profound inability on the part of millions to be literate.
By the way, your own electronic gadget evidently 'auto in-corrected' the word 'ideologue' in the line following the third paragraph of your last entry. It was not a typo. It was a failed 'auto correction'. Unless of course, you can explain what sense it makes to refer to people as 'ideologies'.
As I have just demonstrated, I don't see only wealth when I think of Apple or any other big business. But the concentration of wealth I do see is very relevant. For example, the publicly traded market is owned primarily by the richest 1% (just over 50%), by the next 4 percentiles (over 30%), and by foreign investors (over 10%). The scraps leftover (well under 10%) are owned by the lower 95% of Americans. From the top down of course.
Like I said, the masses should be supporting small business more and big business less as a very important part of a strategy to redistribute a significant portion of privately held US wealth. Damn right I stand by every word. Not because I am an 'ideology' as you stated with your 'auto in-correcting' gadget but because I am a free thinker.
I'll quote another once again:
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949
It was true in 1949. It's even more true today. The issue is of growing relevance. You see, corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs. Again, over 1/2 of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue drawn from a number of sources. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of household income growth across quintiles proves it.
The income of the highest percentile has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied primarily to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth. As a direct result, more government aid has become necessary.
See that Baron? It's a legitimate issue. Your repeated attempts to divert attention and discount the growing downside of big business will not work on me.
It's been well known for many years that small business in general, creates more jobs 'dollar for dollar' and shares a larger portion of it's revenue with it's workforce while big business in general, does the exact opposite.
Again, the masses should be supporting small business more and big business less as a very important part of a strategy to redistribute a significant portion of privately held US wealth. Damn right I stand by every word. Not because I am an 'ideology' as you stated with your 'auto in-correcting' gadget but because I am a free thinker.
By the way, your claim that endangered species "disappear these days at a rate of 25 a day, regardless of our behavior", is another colossal load of steaming die-hard partisan crap. Some disappear regardless but many disappear as a direct result of our behavior. Often because of, GREED.
Next.
Update: I see another pathetic attempt has been made to discredit me by alleging that I resort to complaining about common spelling errors. No. Like I said over a week ago, I don't care about that. If the author of the 'Spellcheck Nazi' entry would read the first paragraph again, it would notice that I referred to the profound inability on the part of millions to be literate, a growing issue resulting from the widespread use of abbreviations created for the purposes of 'instant messaging' and 'texting'. The 'auto in-correction' that I referred to does not indicate such inability on the part of Baron to be literate. I have little doubt that he simply mistyped the word 'ideologue' and failed to notice the 'auto in-correction'. But the default setting of 'auto correction' has been set standard by the industry in order to compensate for the growing inability on the part of millions to be literate. A serious issue which Steve Jobs failed to anticipate early on in his career or even address after it had become serious.
That was the point. Not any concern over a typo.
Next.
Update for Blogspot.com: No Baron, I didn't misread your George Carlin quote. You failed to add the ending quotation mark until after I replied. By failing to add the ending quotation mark, especially after those dotted pauses, you failed to make the distinction between Carlin's idiot remark and your own opinion of it. When you realized that you forgot the ending quotation mark, you added it hoping to place the blame on me for attributing the '25 species per day' line to you. When in fact, it was you who failed to make the distinction to begin with. This will remain true even after you pose as yet another user claiming to have noticed the second quotation mark. Like I've said (typed) several times now. Your tricks will never work on me.
Next.
Steve Jobs was not a true visionary. He was a tunnel visionary. Otherwise, he would have acknowledged the downside of his own work. Not only the ongoing concentration of wealth and government influence and all of the related socioeconomic issues, but also the growing obsession of Western Society with miniature screens that light up, the health consequences of prolonged use, the scores of traffic accidents caused by multitasking drivers and pedestrians, the growing need for and to date, the utter failure of legislative efforts to prevent those traffic accidents caused by multitasking drivers and pedestrians, the work related accidents, the reduced productivity of gadget junkies, the frequent interruptions and interferences in public places, the growing difficulties of an entire generation to relate with others or even function in society without their electronic gadgets, and the profound inability on the part of millions to be literate.
By the way, your own electronic gadget evidently 'auto in-corrected' the word 'ideologue' in the line following the third paragraph of your last entry. It was not a typo. It was a failed 'auto correction'. Unless of course, you can explain what sense it makes to refer to people as 'ideologies'.
As I have just demonstrated, I don't see only wealth when I think of Apple or any other big business. But the concentration of wealth I do see is very relevant. For example, the publicly traded market is owned primarily by the richest 1% (just over 50%), by the next 4 percentiles (over 30%), and by foreign investors (over 10%). The scraps leftover (well under 10%) are owned by the lower 95% of Americans. From the top down of course.
Like I said, the masses should be supporting small business more and big business less as a very important part of a strategy to redistribute a significant portion of privately held US wealth. Damn right I stand by every word. Not because I am an 'ideology' as you stated with your 'auto in-correcting' gadget but because I am a free thinker.
I'll quote another once again:
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949
It was true in 1949. It's even more true today. The issue is of growing relevance. You see, corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs. Again, over 1/2 of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue drawn from a number of sources. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of household income growth across quintiles proves it.
The income of the highest percentile has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied primarily to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth. As a direct result, more government aid has become necessary.
See that Baron? It's a legitimate issue. Your repeated attempts to divert attention and discount the growing downside of big business will not work on me.
It's been well known for many years that small business in general, creates more jobs 'dollar for dollar' and shares a larger portion of it's revenue with it's workforce while big business in general, does the exact opposite.
Again, the masses should be supporting small business more and big business less as a very important part of a strategy to redistribute a significant portion of privately held US wealth. Damn right I stand by every word. Not because I am an 'ideology' as you stated with your 'auto in-correcting' gadget but because I am a free thinker.
By the way, your claim that endangered species "disappear these days at a rate of 25 a day, regardless of our behavior", is another colossal load of steaming die-hard partisan crap. Some disappear regardless but many disappear as a direct result of our behavior. Often because of, GREED.
Next.
Update: I see another pathetic attempt has been made to discredit me by alleging that I resort to complaining about common spelling errors. No. Like I said over a week ago, I don't care about that. If the author of the 'Spellcheck Nazi' entry would read the first paragraph again, it would notice that I referred to the profound inability on the part of millions to be literate, a growing issue resulting from the widespread use of abbreviations created for the purposes of 'instant messaging' and 'texting'. The 'auto in-correction' that I referred to does not indicate such inability on the part of Baron to be literate. I have little doubt that he simply mistyped the word 'ideologue' and failed to notice the 'auto in-correction'. But the default setting of 'auto correction' has been set standard by the industry in order to compensate for the growing inability on the part of millions to be literate. A serious issue which Steve Jobs failed to anticipate early on in his career or even address after it had become serious.
That was the point. Not any concern over a typo.
Next.
Update for Blogspot.com: No Baron, I didn't misread your George Carlin quote. You failed to add the ending quotation mark until after I replied. By failing to add the ending quotation mark, especially after those dotted pauses, you failed to make the distinction between Carlin's idiot remark and your own opinion of it. When you realized that you forgot the ending quotation mark, you added it hoping to place the blame on me for attributing the '25 species per day' line to you. When in fact, it was you who failed to make the distinction to begin with. This will remain true even after you pose as yet another user claiming to have noticed the second quotation mark. Like I've said (typed) several times now. Your tricks will never work on me.
Next.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
My critics in Chicago are pathetic cowards. Deleted entry #8.
Not one critic responded to my challenge regarding the LPR. (Nationwide.)
As expected, not one of my critics had the courage to respond to my challenge regarding the 'labor participation rate'. I predicted this in advance. It was easy. After all, my critics are morons. Baron Von Porta Potty is a well spoken moron but still a moron. Just another partisan puppet. He had absolutely no idea what factors contribute to the 'labor participation rate' because his partisan puppet masters haven't told him. They simply blame Obama as they do on every issue.
The following is what the partisan puppet masters like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Andy Dean, Mark Levin, and Monica Crowley don't want their idiot fans to know about the LPR.
In 1976, the richest 1% reaped about 9% of all private income in the United States. This was less than 1/2 of their previous high in 1929, the first year of the Great Depression. in 1976, the richest 1% held less than 20% of all private wealth in the United States. This also was less than 1/2 of their previous high in 1929, the first year of the Great Depression.
In 1976, the strength of the middle class was much greater than it is today. In fact, the majority of middle class households in 1976 were able to keep their home equity high and their total debt low with the income of a single provider. Very high and very low by comparison with today's middle class. Because so many households were able to make ends meet with a single provider, the 'labor participation rate' was relatively low.
The 'labor participation rate' grew along with the cost of living under the Reagan Administration. At the same time, the home equity of the middle class shrank and total consumer debt began to skyrocket. In other words, middle class Americans were working more hours but had less to show for it.
Aside from a fluctuation here and there, this would become the new normal for the American middle class. The trend would continue until the Great Recession of 2008 when unemployment rates rose significantly. As a direct result, the 'labor participation rate' declined. But this time, unlike in 1976, the middle class had far less home equity than they did 30 years prior and far more debt. Bankruptcy and foreclosure rates also rose significantly. Over the same period of time, the richest 1% had increased their share of private US income to 24% and their share of privately held US wealth to over 40%.
It is a direct correlation. The 'labor participation rate' remains low to this day. But the circumstances today are entirely different than they were in 1976.
De-industrialization, incarceration, automation, and a growing but aging population also contribute to the relatively low rates of 'labor participation' in America today. But make no mistake, if the American middle class hope to regain their strength of days gone by, they better wise up and stop giving so much of their money to the rich. They should also campaign for higher taxes on the rich in order to slow down the relentless concentration of income and bottom line wealth. Otherwise, they will never recover regardless of their levels of 'participation'. They will continue to spin their wheels and have even less to show for it.
There you go. Like I said, it's not that complicated. Still, it was quite easy, as usual, to prove how dumb the Hannity freaks and ditto-heads really are. Not one of them had the courage to respond. Not even my latest critic, Baron Von Porta Potty himself.
As expected, not one of my critics had the courage to respond to my challenge regarding the 'labor participation rate'. I predicted this in advance. It was easy. After all, my critics are morons. Baron Von Porta Potty is a well spoken moron but still a moron. Just another partisan puppet. He had absolutely no idea what factors contribute to the 'labor participation rate' because his partisan puppet masters haven't told him. They simply blame Obama as they do on every issue.
The following is what the partisan puppet masters like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Andy Dean, Mark Levin, and Monica Crowley don't want their idiot fans to know about the LPR.
In 1976, the richest 1% reaped about 9% of all private income in the United States. This was less than 1/2 of their previous high in 1929, the first year of the Great Depression. in 1976, the richest 1% held less than 20% of all private wealth in the United States. This also was less than 1/2 of their previous high in 1929, the first year of the Great Depression.
In 1976, the strength of the middle class was much greater than it is today. In fact, the majority of middle class households in 1976 were able to keep their home equity high and their total debt low with the income of a single provider. Very high and very low by comparison with today's middle class. Because so many households were able to make ends meet with a single provider, the 'labor participation rate' was relatively low.
The 'labor participation rate' grew along with the cost of living under the Reagan Administration. At the same time, the home equity of the middle class shrank and total consumer debt began to skyrocket. In other words, middle class Americans were working more hours but had less to show for it.
Aside from a fluctuation here and there, this would become the new normal for the American middle class. The trend would continue until the Great Recession of 2008 when unemployment rates rose significantly. As a direct result, the 'labor participation rate' declined. But this time, unlike in 1976, the middle class had far less home equity than they did 30 years prior and far more debt. Bankruptcy and foreclosure rates also rose significantly. Over the same period of time, the richest 1% had increased their share of private US income to 24% and their share of privately held US wealth to over 40%.
It is a direct correlation. The 'labor participation rate' remains low to this day. But the circumstances today are entirely different than they were in 1976.
De-industrialization, incarceration, automation, and a growing but aging population also contribute to the relatively low rates of 'labor participation' in America today. But make no mistake, if the American middle class hope to regain their strength of days gone by, they better wise up and stop giving so much of their money to the rich. They should also campaign for higher taxes on the rich in order to slow down the relentless concentration of income and bottom line wealth. Otherwise, they will never recover regardless of their levels of 'participation'. They will continue to spin their wheels and have even less to show for it.
There you go. Like I said, it's not that complicated. Still, it was quite easy, as usual, to prove how dumb the Hannity freaks and ditto-heads really are. Not one of them had the courage to respond. Not even my latest critic, Baron Von Porta Potty himself.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
The 'Baron' of Chicago Craigslist is a pathetic coward. Deleted entry #7.
This one was flagged repeatedly overnight by 'The Baron' of Chicago Craigslist in a desperate attempt to have it removed by dawn. A few days ago, I caught him paying compliments to himself posing as another user. I strongly suspect that he does so on a regular basis. I've been kicking his ass on every issue. I've caught him in several mistakes already. He is obviously just another die-hard conservative puppet with no ability whatsoever to think outside of his partisan playpen.
Proven dead wrong AGAIN. I've done the research going back 100 years. (Nationwide.)
You presumptuous idiot. This isn't Broadway. It's a forum for debate of political issues. You can't win a debate on presentation alone. You have to make a compelling argument. You've been resorting more and more to theatrics and I suspect, to flagging my entries. Six or more of which have been deleted within the last 36 hours. That makes you a coward.
https://MyCriticsInChicagoAreCowards.Blogspot.com
This is how it's done.
Below is a complete list of Federal politicians, judges, and staff members convicted of 'on the job' corruption going back over 100 years. As you can see, the vast majority have been inspired directly by a desire to get or stay rich. Of the examples that remain, a desire to get or stay in paid office is indicated more often than not. Lies have been told (often in relation to financial matters), evidence has been withheld (often in relation to financial matters), and a few motives remain unclear (some of which certainly relate to financial matters) but none of the criminal acts listed below were inspired by anything remotely resembling a desire to 'control the masses'. Unless of course, you consider sexual harassment of two employees such an attempt.
The pattern of financially motivated corruption has applied to both major political parties going back over 100 fxxxxxx years.
Like I said, corrupt politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, are inspired almost exclusively by a desire to get rich. Not by a desire to 'control the masses'. Again your theory to the contrary is utterly absurd.
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty on February 20, 2013 to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 of campaign funds.
Rick Renzi (R-AZ) on June 12, 2013 was found guilty of 17 of the 32 counts against him, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators.
Samuel B. Kent (R) The Federal District Judge of Galveston, Texas was sentenced on May 11, 2009, to 33 months in prison for having lied about sexually harassing two female employees.
Thomas Porteous (D) The Federal Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana was impeached, convicted and removed from office on December 8, 2010 on charges of bribery and lying to Congress.
William J. Jefferson (D-LA) in August 2005 the FBI seized $90,000 in cash from Jefferson's home freezer. He was convicted of 11 counts of bribery in 2009. Jefferson's Chief of Staff Brett Pfeffer, was also convicted of bribery.
Jack Abramoff CNMI scandal involves the efforts of Abramoff to influence Congressional action concerning U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws. Bob Ney (R-OH) pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements as a result of his receiving trips from Jack Abramoff in exchange for legislative favors.
Duke Cunningham (R-CA) pleaded guilty on November 28, 2005 to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion in what came to be called the Cunningham scandal.
Frank Ballance (D-NC) admitted to federal charges of money laundering and mail fraud in October 2005.
Jim Traficant (D-OH) found guilty on 10 felony counts of financial corruption.
Mel Reynolds (D-IL) was convicted in 1999 of 12 counts of bank fraud.
Walter R. Tucker III (D-CA) was convicted of extortion and tax evasion.
Wes Cooley (R-OR), Cooley was convicted of having lied on the 1994 voter information pamphlet about his service in the Army.
Austin Murphy (D-PA) convicted of one count of voter fraud for filling out absentee ballots for members of a nursing home.
House banking scandal: The House of Representatives Bank found that 450 members had overdrawn their checking accounts, but not been penalized. Six were convicted of charges, most only tangentially related to the House Bank itself. Twenty two more of the most prolific over-drafters were singled out by the House Ethics Committee.
Buz Lukens (R-Ohio) convicted of bribery and conspiracy.
Carl C. Perkins (D-Kentucky) pleaded guilty to a check kiting scheme involving several financial institutions (including the House Bank).
Carroll Hubbard (D-Kentucky) convicted of illegally funneling money to his wife's 1992 campaign to succeed him in congress.
Mary Rose Oakar (D-Ohio) pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor campaign finance charge not related to the House Bank.
Walter Fauntroy (D-District of Columbia) convicted of filing false disclosure forms in order to hide unauthorized income.
Congressional Post Office scandal (1991--1995), A conspiracy to embezzle House Post Office money through stamps and postal vouchers to congressmen: Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) Rostenkowski was convicted.
Joe Kolter (D-Pennsylvania) Convicted of one count of conspiracy.
Jay Kim (R-CA) accepted $250,000 in illegal 1992 campaign contributions.
Catalina Vasquez Villalpando, (R) Treasurer of the United States. Convicted of obstruction of justice and tax evasion.
Nicholas Mavroules (D-Massachusetts) convicted of extortion, accepting illegal gifts and failing to report them on congressional disclosure and income tax forms.
Albert Bustamante (D-Texas) convicted of accepting bribes.
David Durenberger Senator (R-Minnesota) denounced by Senate for unethical financial transactions and then disbarred. Convicted of misuse of public funds.
Robert Frederick Collins (D) Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Convicted of Bribery.
Walter Nixon (D) US Judge (Mississippi) (appointed by Lyndon Johnson in 1968) Was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for perjury.
Housing and Urban Development Scandal A controversy concerning bribery by selected contractors for low income housing projects.
James G. Watt (R) United States Secretary of the Interior, 1981--1983, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Deborah Gore Dean, (R) Executive Assistant to (Samuel Pierce, Secretary of HUD 1981--1987, and not charged). Dean was convicted of 12 counts of perjury, conspiracy, bribery.
Phillip D. Winn (R) Assistant Secretary of HUD, 1981--1982, pleaded guilty to bribery in 1994.
Thomas Demery, (R) Assistant Secretary of HUD, convicted of bribery and obstruction.
Joseph A. Strauss, (R) Special Assistant to the Secretary of HUD, convicted for accepting payments to favor Puerto Rican land developers in receiving HUD funding.
Wedtech scandal Wedtech Corporation convicted of bribery for Defense Department contracts.
Mario Biaggi (D-New York), convicted of accepting bribes.
Robert Garcia (D-New York), convicted of accepting bribes.
Iran-Contra Affair (1985--1986); A secret sale of arms to Iran, to secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, in violation of the Boland Amendment.
Caspar Weinberger (R) United States Secretary of Defense, was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on June 16, 1992.
Robert C. McFarlane (R) National Security Adviser, convicted of withholding evidence.
John Poindexter (R) National Security Advisor, was convicted on April 7, 1990 for his role in the Iran-Contra Affair.
Oliver North (R) Member of the National Security Council, was fired by President Reagan on the same day Poindexter resigned. North was found guilty of perjury and conspiracy.
Elliott Abrams (R) Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, convicted of withholding evidence.
Michael Deaver (R) White House Deputy Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan 1981--85, convicted of perjury related to lobbying activities.
Sewergate A scandal in which funds from the EPA were selectively used for projects which would aid politicians friendly to the Reagan administration.
Rita Lavelle (R), assistant EPA Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency misused 'superfund' monies and was convicted of perjury.
Donald E. "Buz" Lukens (R-Ohio), Convicted of two counts of bribery and conspiracy.
Abscam FBI sting involving fake 'Arabs' trying to bribe 31 congressmen. The following Congressmen were convicted:
Harrison A. Williams Senator (D-New Jersey), Convicted on 9 counts of bribery and conspiracy.
John Jenrette Representative (D-South Carolina) Convicted of bribery and conspiracy.
Richard Kelly (R-Florida) Accepted $25K and then claimed he was conducting his own investigation into corruption. Convicted.
Raymond Lederer (D-Pennsylvania), "I can give you me" he said after accepting $50K. Convicted.
Michael Myers (D-Pennsylvania) Accepted $50K saying, "...money talks and bullshit walks." Convicted.
Frank Thompson (D-New Jersey), convicted of bribery.
John M. Murphy (D-New York), convicted of bribery.
Mario Biaggi (D-New York), Convicted of obstruction of justice and accepting illegal gratuities for his role in the Wedtech scandal, Just before expulsion from the House, he resigned. The next year he was convicted of another 15 counts of obstruction and bribery.
Pat Swindall (R-Georgia) convicted of 6 counts of perjury.
George V. Hansen (R-Idaho) censured for failing to file out disclosure forms.
Frederick W. Richmond (D-New York),Convicted of tax evasion.
Dan Flood (D-Pennsylvania) censured for bribery. Convicted.
Joshua Eilberg (D-Pennsylvania), convicted of conflict-of-interest charges.
Alcee Hastings (D-Florida), Federal District court judge impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate of soliciting a bribe.
Harry Claiborne (D-Nebraska), Federal District court Judge impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate on two counts of tax evasion.
Fred Richmond (D-New York) -- Convicted of tax fraud.
Charles Diggs (D-Michigan), convicted on 29 charges of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms which formed a kickback scheme with his staff.
Frank M. Clark (D-Pennsylvania), convicted of mail fraud and tax evasion on June 12, 1979.
Koreagate scandal involving alleged bribery of more than 30 members of Congress by the South Korean government represented by Tongsun Park.
Richard Tonry (D-Louisiana), convicted of receiving illegal campaign contributions.
James F. Hastings (R-New York), convicted of kickbacks and mail fraud, he also took money from his employees for personal use.
John V. Dowdy (D-Texas), Allegedly tried to stop a federal investigation of a construction firm. Convicted of perjury.
Bertram Podell (D-New York), convicted of conspiracy and conflict of interest.
Frank Brasco (D-New York) Sentenced to three months in jail and fined $10,000 for conspiracy to accept bribes from a reputed Mafia figure who sought truck leasing contracts from the Post Office and loans to buy trucks.
Richard T. Hanna (D-CA), convicted in an influence-buying scandal in 1974.
Watergate (1972--1973) Republican 'bugging' of the Democratic Party National Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel led to a burglary which was discovered. The cover up of the affair by President Richard Nixon (R) and his staff resulted in 69 government officials being charged and 48 pleading guilty, including 7 for actual burglary. Eventually, Nixon resigned his position.
John N. Mitchell (R) former Attorney General, convicted of perjury.
Frederick C. LaRue (R) Advisor to John Mitchell, convicted of obstruction of justice.
Richard Kleindienst (R) Attorney General, found guilty of "refusing to answer questions".
H. R. Haldeman (R) Chief of Staff for Nixon, convicted of perjury.
John Ehrlichman (R) Counsel to Nixon, convicted of perjury.
Egil Krogh (R) Aide to John Ehrlichman, convicted of perjury.
John W. Dean III (R) Counsel to Nixon, convicted of obstruction of justice.
Dwight L. Chapin (R) Deputy Assistant to Nixon, convicted of perjury.
Charles W. Colson (R) Special Consul to Nixon, convicted of obstruction of justice.
Cornelius Gallagher (D-New Jersey) convicted of tax evasion.
J. Irving Whalley (R-Pennsylvania), convicted in 1973 for using mails to deposit staff salary kickbacks and threatening an employee to prevent her from giving information to the FBI.
Martin B. McKneally (R-New York), convicted in 1971 for failing to file income tax return.
New York US Representative James Fred Hastings (R-NY) was a delegate to the 1968 Republican National Convention and the 1972 Republican National Convention. He was elected to Congress in 1968 and served from January 3, 1969, until he resigned on January 20, 1976 after being convicted of kickbacks and mail fraud.
Daniel Brewster (D-Maryland) Senator convicted of accepting " an unlawful gratuity without corrupt intent ".
Frank W. Boykin Congressman (D-AL) was convicted of conspiracy and conflict of interest in July 1963.
Thomas F. Johnson (D-Maryland) was convicted of conspiracy and conflict of interest regarding the receipt of illegal gratuities.
Frank Boykin (D-Alabama) was convicted in a case involving a conflict of interest and conspiracy to defraud the government.
Thomas J. Lane (D-Massachusetts) convicted for evading taxes on his congressional income.
Ernest K. Bramblett (R-California), convicted of making false statements in connection with payroll padding and kickbacks from congressional employees.
Walter E. Brehm (R-Ohio) convicted of accepting contributions illegally from one of his employees.
J. Parnell Thomas (R-New Jersey): a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), was convicted of salary fraud.
Andrew J. May (D-Kentucky) Convicted of accepting bribes in 1947 from a war munitions manufacturer.
James M. Curley (D-Massachusetts), convicted of fraud.
John H. Hoeppel (D-CA) convicted in 1936 of selling an appointment to the West Point Military Academy.
Harry E. Rowbottom, (R-IN) was convicted in Federal court of accepting bribes from persons who sought post office appointments.
George English (D) U.S. District Judge of Illinois, impeached for taking an interest-free loan from a bank of which he was director.
The Harding administration was marred by scandals stemming from his appointment of men in his administration whom he had known in Ohio. They came to be known as the Ohio Gang. They include;
Albert Fall (R) Secretary of the Interior who was bribed by Harry F. Sinclair for control of the Teapot Dome federal oil reserves in Wyoming.
Charles R. Forbes (R) appointed by Harding as the first director of the new Bureau of Veterans Affairs. After constructing and modernizing VA hospitals, he was convicted of bribery and corruption.
Thomas W. Miller (R), Head of the Office of Alien Property: convicted of fraud by selling valuable German patents seized after World War I for far below market price as well as bribery.
There you go. Over 100 years worth of convictions. The vast majority of which support my assertion that corrupt politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, are inspired almost exclusively by a desire to get rich. Rarely by anything but. Almost never by anything remotely resembling a desire to 'control the masses'. Once again, your theory to the contrary regarding Democrats is utterly absurd.
The same goes for your attempt to refute my assertion or my logic in determining that "easily 99%" of Muslims living within Western Society are peaceful and moderate. I don't see how you can interpret the circumstantial evidence to indicate anything but. So type up if you suspect otherwise. Of the 52,000,000 you refer to (as if you did the 'addition', it's well documented you fxxxxxx liar), most of whom live in Russia and Europe, how many have committed terrorist acts? By any chance would it be under 1%?
That's what I thought.
Next.
Proven dead wrong AGAIN. I've done the research going back 100 years. (Nationwide.)
You presumptuous idiot. This isn't Broadway. It's a forum for debate of political issues. You can't win a debate on presentation alone. You have to make a compelling argument. You've been resorting more and more to theatrics and I suspect, to flagging my entries. Six or more of which have been deleted within the last 36 hours. That makes you a coward.
https://MyCriticsInChicagoAreCowards.Blogspot.com
This is how it's done.
Below is a complete list of Federal politicians, judges, and staff members convicted of 'on the job' corruption going back over 100 years. As you can see, the vast majority have been inspired directly by a desire to get or stay rich. Of the examples that remain, a desire to get or stay in paid office is indicated more often than not. Lies have been told (often in relation to financial matters), evidence has been withheld (often in relation to financial matters), and a few motives remain unclear (some of which certainly relate to financial matters) but none of the criminal acts listed below were inspired by anything remotely resembling a desire to 'control the masses'. Unless of course, you consider sexual harassment of two employees such an attempt.
The pattern of financially motivated corruption has applied to both major political parties going back over 100 fxxxxxx years.
Like I said, corrupt politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, are inspired almost exclusively by a desire to get rich. Not by a desire to 'control the masses'. Again your theory to the contrary is utterly absurd.
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty on February 20, 2013 to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 of campaign funds.
Rick Renzi (R-AZ) on June 12, 2013 was found guilty of 17 of the 32 counts against him, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators.
Samuel B. Kent (R) The Federal District Judge of Galveston, Texas was sentenced on May 11, 2009, to 33 months in prison for having lied about sexually harassing two female employees.
Thomas Porteous (D) The Federal Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana was impeached, convicted and removed from office on December 8, 2010 on charges of bribery and lying to Congress.
William J. Jefferson (D-LA) in August 2005 the FBI seized $90,000 in cash from Jefferson's home freezer. He was convicted of 11 counts of bribery in 2009. Jefferson's Chief of Staff Brett Pfeffer, was also convicted of bribery.
Jack Abramoff CNMI scandal involves the efforts of Abramoff to influence Congressional action concerning U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws. Bob Ney (R-OH) pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements as a result of his receiving trips from Jack Abramoff in exchange for legislative favors.
Duke Cunningham (R-CA) pleaded guilty on November 28, 2005 to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion in what came to be called the Cunningham scandal.
Frank Ballance (D-NC) admitted to federal charges of money laundering and mail fraud in October 2005.
Jim Traficant (D-OH) found guilty on 10 felony counts of financial corruption.
Mel Reynolds (D-IL) was convicted in 1999 of 12 counts of bank fraud.
Walter R. Tucker III (D-CA) was convicted of extortion and tax evasion.
Wes Cooley (R-OR), Cooley was convicted of having lied on the 1994 voter information pamphlet about his service in the Army.
Austin Murphy (D-PA) convicted of one count of voter fraud for filling out absentee ballots for members of a nursing home.
House banking scandal: The House of Representatives Bank found that 450 members had overdrawn their checking accounts, but not been penalized. Six were convicted of charges, most only tangentially related to the House Bank itself. Twenty two more of the most prolific over-drafters were singled out by the House Ethics Committee.
Buz Lukens (R-Ohio) convicted of bribery and conspiracy.
Carl C. Perkins (D-Kentucky) pleaded guilty to a check kiting scheme involving several financial institutions (including the House Bank).
Carroll Hubbard (D-Kentucky) convicted of illegally funneling money to his wife's 1992 campaign to succeed him in congress.
Mary Rose Oakar (D-Ohio) pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor campaign finance charge not related to the House Bank.
Walter Fauntroy (D-District of Columbia) convicted of filing false disclosure forms in order to hide unauthorized income.
Congressional Post Office scandal (1991--1995), A conspiracy to embezzle House Post Office money through stamps and postal vouchers to congressmen: Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) Rostenkowski was convicted.
Joe Kolter (D-Pennsylvania) Convicted of one count of conspiracy.
Jay Kim (R-CA) accepted $250,000 in illegal 1992 campaign contributions.
Catalina Vasquez Villalpando, (R) Treasurer of the United States. Convicted of obstruction of justice and tax evasion.
Nicholas Mavroules (D-Massachusetts) convicted of extortion, accepting illegal gifts and failing to report them on congressional disclosure and income tax forms.
Albert Bustamante (D-Texas) convicted of accepting bribes.
David Durenberger Senator (R-Minnesota) denounced by Senate for unethical financial transactions and then disbarred. Convicted of misuse of public funds.
Robert Frederick Collins (D) Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Convicted of Bribery.
Walter Nixon (D) US Judge (Mississippi) (appointed by Lyndon Johnson in 1968) Was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for perjury.
Housing and Urban Development Scandal A controversy concerning bribery by selected contractors for low income housing projects.
James G. Watt (R) United States Secretary of the Interior, 1981--1983, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Deborah Gore Dean, (R) Executive Assistant to (Samuel Pierce, Secretary of HUD 1981--1987, and not charged). Dean was convicted of 12 counts of perjury, conspiracy, bribery.
Phillip D. Winn (R) Assistant Secretary of HUD, 1981--1982, pleaded guilty to bribery in 1994.
Thomas Demery, (R) Assistant Secretary of HUD, convicted of bribery and obstruction.
Joseph A. Strauss, (R) Special Assistant to the Secretary of HUD, convicted for accepting payments to favor Puerto Rican land developers in receiving HUD funding.
Wedtech scandal Wedtech Corporation convicted of bribery for Defense Department contracts.
Mario Biaggi (D-New York), convicted of accepting bribes.
Robert Garcia (D-New York), convicted of accepting bribes.
Iran-Contra Affair (1985--1986); A secret sale of arms to Iran, to secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, in violation of the Boland Amendment.
Caspar Weinberger (R) United States Secretary of Defense, was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on June 16, 1992.
Robert C. McFarlane (R) National Security Adviser, convicted of withholding evidence.
John Poindexter (R) National Security Advisor, was convicted on April 7, 1990 for his role in the Iran-Contra Affair.
Oliver North (R) Member of the National Security Council, was fired by President Reagan on the same day Poindexter resigned. North was found guilty of perjury and conspiracy.
Elliott Abrams (R) Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, convicted of withholding evidence.
Michael Deaver (R) White House Deputy Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan 1981--85, convicted of perjury related to lobbying activities.
Sewergate A scandal in which funds from the EPA were selectively used for projects which would aid politicians friendly to the Reagan administration.
Rita Lavelle (R), assistant EPA Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency misused 'superfund' monies and was convicted of perjury.
Donald E. "Buz" Lukens (R-Ohio), Convicted of two counts of bribery and conspiracy.
Abscam FBI sting involving fake 'Arabs' trying to bribe 31 congressmen. The following Congressmen were convicted:
Harrison A. Williams Senator (D-New Jersey), Convicted on 9 counts of bribery and conspiracy.
John Jenrette Representative (D-South Carolina) Convicted of bribery and conspiracy.
Richard Kelly (R-Florida) Accepted $25K and then claimed he was conducting his own investigation into corruption. Convicted.
Raymond Lederer (D-Pennsylvania), "I can give you me" he said after accepting $50K. Convicted.
Michael Myers (D-Pennsylvania) Accepted $50K saying, "...money talks and bullshit walks." Convicted.
Frank Thompson (D-New Jersey), convicted of bribery.
John M. Murphy (D-New York), convicted of bribery.
Mario Biaggi (D-New York), Convicted of obstruction of justice and accepting illegal gratuities for his role in the Wedtech scandal, Just before expulsion from the House, he resigned. The next year he was convicted of another 15 counts of obstruction and bribery.
Pat Swindall (R-Georgia) convicted of 6 counts of perjury.
George V. Hansen (R-Idaho) censured for failing to file out disclosure forms.
Frederick W. Richmond (D-New York),Convicted of tax evasion.
Dan Flood (D-Pennsylvania) censured for bribery. Convicted.
Joshua Eilberg (D-Pennsylvania), convicted of conflict-of-interest charges.
Alcee Hastings (D-Florida), Federal District court judge impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate of soliciting a bribe.
Harry Claiborne (D-Nebraska), Federal District court Judge impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate on two counts of tax evasion.
Fred Richmond (D-New York) -- Convicted of tax fraud.
Charles Diggs (D-Michigan), convicted on 29 charges of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms which formed a kickback scheme with his staff.
Frank M. Clark (D-Pennsylvania), convicted of mail fraud and tax evasion on June 12, 1979.
Koreagate scandal involving alleged bribery of more than 30 members of Congress by the South Korean government represented by Tongsun Park.
Richard Tonry (D-Louisiana), convicted of receiving illegal campaign contributions.
James F. Hastings (R-New York), convicted of kickbacks and mail fraud, he also took money from his employees for personal use.
John V. Dowdy (D-Texas), Allegedly tried to stop a federal investigation of a construction firm. Convicted of perjury.
Bertram Podell (D-New York), convicted of conspiracy and conflict of interest.
Frank Brasco (D-New York) Sentenced to three months in jail and fined $10,000 for conspiracy to accept bribes from a reputed Mafia figure who sought truck leasing contracts from the Post Office and loans to buy trucks.
Richard T. Hanna (D-CA), convicted in an influence-buying scandal in 1974.
Watergate (1972--1973) Republican 'bugging' of the Democratic Party National Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel led to a burglary which was discovered. The cover up of the affair by President Richard Nixon (R) and his staff resulted in 69 government officials being charged and 48 pleading guilty, including 7 for actual burglary. Eventually, Nixon resigned his position.
John N. Mitchell (R) former Attorney General, convicted of perjury.
Frederick C. LaRue (R) Advisor to John Mitchell, convicted of obstruction of justice.
Richard Kleindienst (R) Attorney General, found guilty of "refusing to answer questions".
H. R. Haldeman (R) Chief of Staff for Nixon, convicted of perjury.
John Ehrlichman (R) Counsel to Nixon, convicted of perjury.
Egil Krogh (R) Aide to John Ehrlichman, convicted of perjury.
John W. Dean III (R) Counsel to Nixon, convicted of obstruction of justice.
Dwight L. Chapin (R) Deputy Assistant to Nixon, convicted of perjury.
Charles W. Colson (R) Special Consul to Nixon, convicted of obstruction of justice.
Cornelius Gallagher (D-New Jersey) convicted of tax evasion.
J. Irving Whalley (R-Pennsylvania), convicted in 1973 for using mails to deposit staff salary kickbacks and threatening an employee to prevent her from giving information to the FBI.
Martin B. McKneally (R-New York), convicted in 1971 for failing to file income tax return.
New York US Representative James Fred Hastings (R-NY) was a delegate to the 1968 Republican National Convention and the 1972 Republican National Convention. He was elected to Congress in 1968 and served from January 3, 1969, until he resigned on January 20, 1976 after being convicted of kickbacks and mail fraud.
Daniel Brewster (D-Maryland) Senator convicted of accepting " an unlawful gratuity without corrupt intent ".
Frank W. Boykin Congressman (D-AL) was convicted of conspiracy and conflict of interest in July 1963.
Thomas F. Johnson (D-Maryland) was convicted of conspiracy and conflict of interest regarding the receipt of illegal gratuities.
Frank Boykin (D-Alabama) was convicted in a case involving a conflict of interest and conspiracy to defraud the government.
Thomas J. Lane (D-Massachusetts) convicted for evading taxes on his congressional income.
Ernest K. Bramblett (R-California), convicted of making false statements in connection with payroll padding and kickbacks from congressional employees.
Walter E. Brehm (R-Ohio) convicted of accepting contributions illegally from one of his employees.
J. Parnell Thomas (R-New Jersey): a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), was convicted of salary fraud.
Andrew J. May (D-Kentucky) Convicted of accepting bribes in 1947 from a war munitions manufacturer.
James M. Curley (D-Massachusetts), convicted of fraud.
John H. Hoeppel (D-CA) convicted in 1936 of selling an appointment to the West Point Military Academy.
Harry E. Rowbottom, (R-IN) was convicted in Federal court of accepting bribes from persons who sought post office appointments.
George English (D) U.S. District Judge of Illinois, impeached for taking an interest-free loan from a bank of which he was director.
The Harding administration was marred by scandals stemming from his appointment of men in his administration whom he had known in Ohio. They came to be known as the Ohio Gang. They include;
Albert Fall (R) Secretary of the Interior who was bribed by Harry F. Sinclair for control of the Teapot Dome federal oil reserves in Wyoming.
Charles R. Forbes (R) appointed by Harding as the first director of the new Bureau of Veterans Affairs. After constructing and modernizing VA hospitals, he was convicted of bribery and corruption.
Thomas W. Miller (R), Head of the Office of Alien Property: convicted of fraud by selling valuable German patents seized after World War I for far below market price as well as bribery.
There you go. Over 100 years worth of convictions. The vast majority of which support my assertion that corrupt politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, are inspired almost exclusively by a desire to get rich. Rarely by anything but. Almost never by anything remotely resembling a desire to 'control the masses'. Once again, your theory to the contrary regarding Democrats is utterly absurd.
The same goes for your attempt to refute my assertion or my logic in determining that "easily 99%" of Muslims living within Western Society are peaceful and moderate. I don't see how you can interpret the circumstantial evidence to indicate anything but. So type up if you suspect otherwise. Of the 52,000,000 you refer to (as if you did the 'addition', it's well documented you fxxxxxx liar), most of whom live in Russia and Europe, how many have committed terrorist acts? By any chance would it be under 1%?
That's what I thought.
Next.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
My critics in Chicago are pathetic cowards. Deleted entry #5.
Re: re2 flatfoot author (Nationwide.)
"You just announced that you are not passionate about global warming and gun control."
I didn't announce that. I only acknowledged the hypocrite/profiteer/pigness of Al Gore and the difficult position our leaders at the Federal level are put in regarding the issue of gun control.
"Yet, when you invited anyone to debate you, you requested that it be on a subject you were passionate about, "economics, global warming, and gun control"."
Close enough. I am very passionate about those three issues. In particular, the COW.
I will be out of town for the next 48 hours with no access to anything but a relatives tablet. I do expect another long reply today or tomorrow but I won't be able to post much in return until Monday night. Just a quick entry or two.
In the meantime, I will say this: Virtually nothing will be done in America to slow down Anthropogenic Global Warming because those in power within business and government are far too greedy, self-centered, and corrupt to consider any legislation or voluntary act whatsoever which may impact their bottom line or their energy squandering lifestyles.
In other words, no CEO will compromise a profit. No rich pig will park a toy or close off a wing of their mansion. No administration will take any real action on the issue unless they do so for show offsetting that action with another benefiting the rich. Any action they do take will apply to us. Not them or the rich pigs they truly represent.
The American masses, for the most part, are not willing to compromise anything either. Sure 'green' sells but simple sacrifice does not.
There will be no solution to Anthropogenic Global Warming until the remaining fossil fuels are burned right into depletion or damn close. That won't be until much later this century or next. By then, the climate will be significantly hotter on average and far less stable. It will take a long time to recover.
Don't worry about the National debt your great grandchildren will live under. Worry about the effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming they will be forced to live with. Gore is a sell-out hypocrite pig but the issue is real.
"You just announced that you are not passionate about global warming and gun control."
I didn't announce that. I only acknowledged the hypocrite/profiteer/pigness of Al Gore and the difficult position our leaders at the Federal level are put in regarding the issue of gun control.
"Yet, when you invited anyone to debate you, you requested that it be on a subject you were passionate about, "economics, global warming, and gun control"."
Close enough. I am very passionate about those three issues. In particular, the COW.
I will be out of town for the next 48 hours with no access to anything but a relatives tablet. I do expect another long reply today or tomorrow but I won't be able to post much in return until Monday night. Just a quick entry or two.
In the meantime, I will say this: Virtually nothing will be done in America to slow down Anthropogenic Global Warming because those in power within business and government are far too greedy, self-centered, and corrupt to consider any legislation or voluntary act whatsoever which may impact their bottom line or their energy squandering lifestyles.
In other words, no CEO will compromise a profit. No rich pig will park a toy or close off a wing of their mansion. No administration will take any real action on the issue unless they do so for show offsetting that action with another benefiting the rich. Any action they do take will apply to us. Not them or the rich pigs they truly represent.
The American masses, for the most part, are not willing to compromise anything either. Sure 'green' sells but simple sacrifice does not.
There will be no solution to Anthropogenic Global Warming until the remaining fossil fuels are burned right into depletion or damn close. That won't be until much later this century or next. By then, the climate will be significantly hotter on average and far less stable. It will take a long time to recover.
Don't worry about the National debt your great grandchildren will live under. Worry about the effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming they will be forced to live with. Gore is a sell-out hypocrite pig but the issue is real.
My critics in Chicago are pathetic cowards. Deleted entry #6.
Dish of baby food. My response to your stupid questions. (Nationwide.)
You said "Looking back at what you wrote I accept responsibility for misreading and understanding your statement while making a unsourced remark but Nati, take a chill pill because nobody likes some who purposely acts like an arse and whether you want to be liked or not you turn people off from reading what your think is right which is the point of your post or do you just like typing?"
No. I don't like typing. In fact, I'm laying on my couch next to a fan supporting my ten year old laptop with my left hand (save it everyone, don't be so predictable) and typing with my right. It's not comfortable or enjoyable by any stretch of the imagination. Still, it must be done.
You said "After virtually each xxxx xxxxxxxx Obama, Pelosi and Reid to name just a few noteworthy liberals make statements about xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx, Obama even tried to get legislation passed but failed. Please explain how you missed their statements which were reported by every news media outlet or the ones on tho board demanding the same?"
I didn't miss anything. In fact, I was hard at work all over the web and talk radio trying to prevent the die-hard partisan xxx freak morons of America from misinterpreting all of it, running wild with their outrageous 'fear the government, 'comming to xxx xxx xxxx', 'xxxxxx America' CRAP, and inspiring more politically motivated xxxxxxxxx in the process. Your assumption that I missed any of it is the result of your failure to comprehend plain English. This, because of your refusal to remove those red tinted reading glasses.
You said "Moving right along and I'm not outright disagreeing with you only asking where you get your statistical evidence since you assert yourself to be the "die-hard free thinker" about " the vast overwhelming majority, easily 99% of those who live in the developed world are peaceful and moderate. They have no belief whatsoever in that 'dozen virgins' crap and no desire to kill the rest of us for our own beliefs" as it pertains to Muslims? Did you yourself go to them taking a survey, do you know of one where I can read the evidence supporting your conclusion?"
It's simple math and common sense. There are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. Most of whom live in the Third World. Their violent acts, planned in accordance with religion or otherwise, like those of people in general, have been inspired primarily by real world events and circumstances. For example, living in desert poverty and being left with no choice but to retrieve the blown up remains of their loved ones because of dumb wars fought primarily over oil.
There are several million Muslims living in America. Their Korans, like the Bibles read by Christians did not evaporate as they were carried into Western Society. Still, you are hundreds or thousands of times more likely to be assaulted by a fellow shopper over a parking space at Wal-Mart than you are to be harmed by a Muslim living in America. A similar rule applies in Europe though to a lesser degree.
I've known around a dozen Muslims personally. They have been about as friendly, peaceful, and respectful as anyone I've ever known. I'm not aware of any formal study. However, it is crystal clear to me that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims living in America have no desire to kill in the name of Allah. The percentage is an educated guess based on their growing numbers and the fact that very few of them have been reported to commit any acts of violence.
You said "It's a great way to eliminate the Middle Class by taking more of what they have to support the needy and the Middle Class has been the ones historically who have the most compassion for the poor so it's a masterful plan to gain their acquiescence while shrinking their numbers down don't you think?"
No. It's an absurd theory. Politicians are corrupted almost exclusively by a desire to get rich. Not by a desire to control the masses. The same rule applies to both major political parties. It's done primarily by using their political influence to enact legislation designed to raise profits and stock values. In other words, by helping others to concentrate more wealth. Not by distributing wealth more evenly. After all, no 'Socialist' ever took a bribe from a Wall Street CEO in exchange for a vote to outlaw the very concept of private property. Like I said, it's an absurd theory.
It doesn't surprise me that you chose two of the least consequential political issues to go neutral on hoping to masquerade as a free thinker. In fact, I almost predicted that you would come out in support of gay marriage yesterday. But in order to convince me, it will be necessary to cite one entry made in which you agreed more with Democrats and less with Republicans BEFORE I issued the challenge.
Can you?
By the way, I was on OccupyWallSt.org two weeks ago defending Republicans against the allegations made by Democrats that they, in general, are racist. My comments defending Republicans on that issue were responded to by another user who disagreed. I stood my ground with no regard whatsoever for popularity. This proves your allegation regarding Democrat/Liberal loyalty on my part to be false.
https://occupywallst.org/forum/cant-just-the-republican-party-is-not-qualified-to/
My entries are 3/4 of the way down.
Can you cite a similar example proving non-partisanship?
You said "Looking back at what you wrote I accept responsibility for misreading and understanding your statement while making a unsourced remark but Nati, take a chill pill because nobody likes some who purposely acts like an arse and whether you want to be liked or not you turn people off from reading what your think is right which is the point of your post or do you just like typing?"
No. I don't like typing. In fact, I'm laying on my couch next to a fan supporting my ten year old laptop with my left hand (save it everyone, don't be so predictable) and typing with my right. It's not comfortable or enjoyable by any stretch of the imagination. Still, it must be done.
You said "After virtually each xxxx xxxxxxxx Obama, Pelosi and Reid to name just a few noteworthy liberals make statements about xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx, Obama even tried to get legislation passed but failed. Please explain how you missed their statements which were reported by every news media outlet or the ones on tho board demanding the same?"
I didn't miss anything. In fact, I was hard at work all over the web and talk radio trying to prevent the die-hard partisan xxx freak morons of America from misinterpreting all of it, running wild with their outrageous 'fear the government, 'comming to xxx xxx xxxx', 'xxxxxx America' CRAP, and inspiring more politically motivated xxxxxxxxx in the process. Your assumption that I missed any of it is the result of your failure to comprehend plain English. This, because of your refusal to remove those red tinted reading glasses.
You said "Moving right along and I'm not outright disagreeing with you only asking where you get your statistical evidence since you assert yourself to be the "die-hard free thinker" about " the vast overwhelming majority, easily 99% of those who live in the developed world are peaceful and moderate. They have no belief whatsoever in that 'dozen virgins' crap and no desire to kill the rest of us for our own beliefs" as it pertains to Muslims? Did you yourself go to them taking a survey, do you know of one where I can read the evidence supporting your conclusion?"
It's simple math and common sense. There are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. Most of whom live in the Third World. Their violent acts, planned in accordance with religion or otherwise, like those of people in general, have been inspired primarily by real world events and circumstances. For example, living in desert poverty and being left with no choice but to retrieve the blown up remains of their loved ones because of dumb wars fought primarily over oil.
There are several million Muslims living in America. Their Korans, like the Bibles read by Christians did not evaporate as they were carried into Western Society. Still, you are hundreds or thousands of times more likely to be assaulted by a fellow shopper over a parking space at Wal-Mart than you are to be harmed by a Muslim living in America. A similar rule applies in Europe though to a lesser degree.
I've known around a dozen Muslims personally. They have been about as friendly, peaceful, and respectful as anyone I've ever known. I'm not aware of any formal study. However, it is crystal clear to me that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims living in America have no desire to kill in the name of Allah. The percentage is an educated guess based on their growing numbers and the fact that very few of them have been reported to commit any acts of violence.
You said "It's a great way to eliminate the Middle Class by taking more of what they have to support the needy and the Middle Class has been the ones historically who have the most compassion for the poor so it's a masterful plan to gain their acquiescence while shrinking their numbers down don't you think?"
No. It's an absurd theory. Politicians are corrupted almost exclusively by a desire to get rich. Not by a desire to control the masses. The same rule applies to both major political parties. It's done primarily by using their political influence to enact legislation designed to raise profits and stock values. In other words, by helping others to concentrate more wealth. Not by distributing wealth more evenly. After all, no 'Socialist' ever took a bribe from a Wall Street CEO in exchange for a vote to outlaw the very concept of private property. Like I said, it's an absurd theory.
It doesn't surprise me that you chose two of the least consequential political issues to go neutral on hoping to masquerade as a free thinker. In fact, I almost predicted that you would come out in support of gay marriage yesterday. But in order to convince me, it will be necessary to cite one entry made in which you agreed more with Democrats and less with Republicans BEFORE I issued the challenge.
Can you?
By the way, I was on OccupyWallSt.org two weeks ago defending Republicans against the allegations made by Democrats that they, in general, are racist. My comments defending Republicans on that issue were responded to by another user who disagreed. I stood my ground with no regard whatsoever for popularity. This proves your allegation regarding Democrat/Liberal loyalty on my part to be false.
https://occupywallst.org/forum/cant-just-the-republican-party-is-not-qualified-to/
My entries are 3/4 of the way down.
Can you cite a similar example proving non-partisanship?
My critics in Chicago are pathetic cowards. Deleted entry #4.
Newsflash. I wrote the 'flat-foot' and 'psychological trick' entries. (Nationwide.)
I'm well within my rights to copy and paste my own work. I will do so at will. Not that I'm afraid of a real-time debate with you or any other critic. I'm not. In fact, if you're a die-hard partisan or even sharply partisan, then it will be a walk in the park for me. I've debated people like you many times without breaking a sweat. Often drawing exclusively from that which I've memorized. For you people have become utterly predictable. You continue to make the same dumb mistakes over and over and over and over.
For example, you refer to US casualties in Afghanistan under Obama, blaming him for those casualties without even considering the fact that the trend of higher US casualties in Afghanistan began three years before Obama took office, that it grew annually, and that the trend was finally reversed under Obama. It's a profound oversight on your part.
Another example of profound ignorance was just submitted this afternoon by the partisan puppet moron who presumes me to be a loyal leftist with faith and trust in the Democratic party. I'm far from it. I'm an unaffiliated die-hard free thinker who agrees more with the right on some issues, more with the left on others, and with NO ONE that I know of on several. Not that I trust ANY high level politician to put the issues before their own desire to benefit or profit from them. I don't. I am by far, the most skeptical person I've ever known. The difference between me and the majority of political skeptics is that I have enough sense to realize that both major political parties are horribly corrupt. Not primarily one or the other. The same goes for their sold-out pundits on TV, the web, and talk radio.
So it's a given that my latest critic couldn't psychoanalyze his way out of a wet paper bag. I on the other hand, can easy psychoanalyze virtually all of my critics. I've done it many times. The majority are die-hard partisans. In particular, die-hard conservatives. They are the type most likely to respond to my entries. They are the type most likely to hate me. They have been and remain the type utterly predictable on virtually every issue.
The mistake made by this particular die-hard conservative partisan puppet this afternoon, in addition to that referred to above, is that Obama in particular, is responsible for the obscene concentration of wealth the majority now suffer from. If he had removed his red tinted glasses before doing his partisan puppet research, he would have known that the concentration of wealth the majority of Americans now suffer from began to concentrate in 1976. Probably, the 3rd of 4th quarter of 1976. Also that it accelerated under Reagan, slowed under Clinton, and accelerated again under Bush Jr.
It's not that I blame politicians in particular for that concentration of wealth or the misery, hardship, and economic instability resulting from it. You see, I'm not a moron and I refuse to act like a moron just to get along with the majority. That being said, those politicians are in large part to blame but so are the idiot masses. The consumers of America. They have literally encouraged all of the corrupt methods used to concentrate that wealth with their celebrity worshiping, drug and doctor, 'gotta have it', consumer junkie moron spending habits over the last 35+ years. Otherwise, the wealth never would have become anywhere near so concentrated.
The de-industrialization, the outsourcing, the downsizing, the commercial re-development of farmland, the practice of testing, diagnosing, and drugging men, women, and children FAR more often than necessary, the sub-prime lending, the tax avoiding and evading, the corporate influence, the backroom deals, ect. The idiot consumers of America are at the very least 1/2 responsible for all of it.
Now, with all of the above submitted to smash through the latest but still utterly predictable characterization of me like a runaway train through a picket fence, I invite the both of you (possibly one in the same) to a serious debate on ANY of the issues that I'm passionate about. In particular, economics, global warming, and gun control. I'm not terribly passionate on the issues of foreign policy, immigration, gay marriage, abortion, religion, or voter registration but I can hold my own with no regard whatsoever for party loyalty. For I have none.
So if you're willing and courageous enough to flush that dum-fuk assumption that I'm just another liberal down the toilet right now, let me know and we'll debate the issues right here. In fact, because of the delays and posting limits inherent with this site, I'm willing to create a special Blogspot debate page allowing comments to be posted immediately and anonymously with no restrictions whatsoever. The link will be posted here as well.
Tell you what. You can respond to my 'flat-foot' entry regarding the half-wit partisan puppet criticism of Obama's foreign policy or the following if you prefer. It's an oldie but a goody and simple enough to be understood by even the most partisan of puppets:
Have you ever played a game of Monopoly? Tell me. What happens when one player owns 3/4 of the board? What happens when that 'money supply' becomes concentrated?
The lower ranking players drop off like flies. That's what. The economic activity slows down, growth is reversed, and the game stops.
Whats that you say? Its not that simple?
True, but it's close enough for the purpose of this discussion. Check this out:
"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself." -Allen Greenspan testifying before congress in spring of '05'.
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949
"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions." -Albert Einstein 1949
"The United States economy is like a poker game where the chips have become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and where the other fellows can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out the game will stop." -Mariner Eccles Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR
Robert Reich and a dozen more prominent economists have gone on record with similar views.
You're probably wondering. If these guys were/are right and the wealth was heavily concentrated just prior to the Great Depression, how did we recover?
That's easy and very simple but not well known.
There was a partial but very significant redistribution of wealth which took place from the mid '30's to the mid '70's.
So why are we in this mess all over again?
Again, very simple but not well known. The wealth has become concentrated all over again. We have allowed the rich to become too rich. Now, we are paying for it.
There you go partisan puppets. Another short piece written by me for you to respond to. Just do yourself a favor. Don't make yet another dum-fuk assumption and assume that by 'wealth', I'm referring to a single pie of predetermined size. I'm not and I never have. I'm referring to the very concept of wealth and it's distribution under a wide variety of circumstances.
Once again, you're welcome to respond with your best argument.
Ready, set, GO!
Update: There you go again. Assuming that I'm just another liberal all for illegal immigration. I'm not. What I am for is securing the entire southern border with as much force necessary except for a single doorway allowing legal immigration under certain conditions. One of which being the ability to read, write, and speak basic English.
Please critics, do yourselves a favor. Stop being so utterly predictable. You're only proving my point regarding die-hard partisanship. OK. Let's try this one more time.
I'm well within my rights to copy and paste my own work. I will do so at will. Not that I'm afraid of a real-time debate with you or any other critic. I'm not. In fact, if you're a die-hard partisan or even sharply partisan, then it will be a walk in the park for me. I've debated people like you many times without breaking a sweat. Often drawing exclusively from that which I've memorized. For you people have become utterly predictable. You continue to make the same dumb mistakes over and over and over and over.
For example, you refer to US casualties in Afghanistan under Obama, blaming him for those casualties without even considering the fact that the trend of higher US casualties in Afghanistan began three years before Obama took office, that it grew annually, and that the trend was finally reversed under Obama. It's a profound oversight on your part.
Another example of profound ignorance was just submitted this afternoon by the partisan puppet moron who presumes me to be a loyal leftist with faith and trust in the Democratic party. I'm far from it. I'm an unaffiliated die-hard free thinker who agrees more with the right on some issues, more with the left on others, and with NO ONE that I know of on several. Not that I trust ANY high level politician to put the issues before their own desire to benefit or profit from them. I don't. I am by far, the most skeptical person I've ever known. The difference between me and the majority of political skeptics is that I have enough sense to realize that both major political parties are horribly corrupt. Not primarily one or the other. The same goes for their sold-out pundits on TV, the web, and talk radio.
So it's a given that my latest critic couldn't psychoanalyze his way out of a wet paper bag. I on the other hand, can easy psychoanalyze virtually all of my critics. I've done it many times. The majority are die-hard partisans. In particular, die-hard conservatives. They are the type most likely to respond to my entries. They are the type most likely to hate me. They have been and remain the type utterly predictable on virtually every issue.
The mistake made by this particular die-hard conservative partisan puppet this afternoon, in addition to that referred to above, is that Obama in particular, is responsible for the obscene concentration of wealth the majority now suffer from. If he had removed his red tinted glasses before doing his partisan puppet research, he would have known that the concentration of wealth the majority of Americans now suffer from began to concentrate in 1976. Probably, the 3rd of 4th quarter of 1976. Also that it accelerated under Reagan, slowed under Clinton, and accelerated again under Bush Jr.
It's not that I blame politicians in particular for that concentration of wealth or the misery, hardship, and economic instability resulting from it. You see, I'm not a moron and I refuse to act like a moron just to get along with the majority. That being said, those politicians are in large part to blame but so are the idiot masses. The consumers of America. They have literally encouraged all of the corrupt methods used to concentrate that wealth with their celebrity worshiping, drug and doctor, 'gotta have it', consumer junkie moron spending habits over the last 35+ years. Otherwise, the wealth never would have become anywhere near so concentrated.
The de-industrialization, the outsourcing, the downsizing, the commercial re-development of farmland, the practice of testing, diagnosing, and drugging men, women, and children FAR more often than necessary, the sub-prime lending, the tax avoiding and evading, the corporate influence, the backroom deals, ect. The idiot consumers of America are at the very least 1/2 responsible for all of it.
Now, with all of the above submitted to smash through the latest but still utterly predictable characterization of me like a runaway train through a picket fence, I invite the both of you (possibly one in the same) to a serious debate on ANY of the issues that I'm passionate about. In particular, economics, global warming, and gun control. I'm not terribly passionate on the issues of foreign policy, immigration, gay marriage, abortion, religion, or voter registration but I can hold my own with no regard whatsoever for party loyalty. For I have none.
So if you're willing and courageous enough to flush that dum-fuk assumption that I'm just another liberal down the toilet right now, let me know and we'll debate the issues right here. In fact, because of the delays and posting limits inherent with this site, I'm willing to create a special Blogspot debate page allowing comments to be posted immediately and anonymously with no restrictions whatsoever. The link will be posted here as well.
Tell you what. You can respond to my 'flat-foot' entry regarding the half-wit partisan puppet criticism of Obama's foreign policy or the following if you prefer. It's an oldie but a goody and simple enough to be understood by even the most partisan of puppets:
Have you ever played a game of Monopoly? Tell me. What happens when one player owns 3/4 of the board? What happens when that 'money supply' becomes concentrated?
The lower ranking players drop off like flies. That's what. The economic activity slows down, growth is reversed, and the game stops.
Whats that you say? Its not that simple?
True, but it's close enough for the purpose of this discussion. Check this out:
"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself." -Allen Greenspan testifying before congress in spring of '05'.
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949
"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions." -Albert Einstein 1949
"The United States economy is like a poker game where the chips have become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and where the other fellows can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out the game will stop." -Mariner Eccles Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR
Robert Reich and a dozen more prominent economists have gone on record with similar views.
You're probably wondering. If these guys were/are right and the wealth was heavily concentrated just prior to the Great Depression, how did we recover?
That's easy and very simple but not well known.
There was a partial but very significant redistribution of wealth which took place from the mid '30's to the mid '70's.
So why are we in this mess all over again?
Again, very simple but not well known. The wealth has become concentrated all over again. We have allowed the rich to become too rich. Now, we are paying for it.
There you go partisan puppets. Another short piece written by me for you to respond to. Just do yourself a favor. Don't make yet another dum-fuk assumption and assume that by 'wealth', I'm referring to a single pie of predetermined size. I'm not and I never have. I'm referring to the very concept of wealth and it's distribution under a wide variety of circumstances.
Once again, you're welcome to respond with your best argument.
Ready, set, GO!
Update: There you go again. Assuming that I'm just another liberal all for illegal immigration. I'm not. What I am for is securing the entire southern border with as much force necessary except for a single doorway allowing legal immigration under certain conditions. One of which being the ability to read, write, and speak basic English.
Please critics, do yourselves a favor. Stop being so utterly predictable. You're only proving my point regarding die-hard partisanship. OK. Let's try this one more time.
My critics in Chicago are cowards. Deleted entry #1.
Well written but still poorly researched DIE-HARD PARTISAN CRAP. (Nationwide.)
Nicely written but still poorly researched, poorly thought, and dead wrong on most counts. For starters, your 'storming the beach' assessment regarding troop losses in Afghanistan is fatally flawed. In fact, your second line states an absolute indisputable mathematical falsehood.
You said "For someone who considers himself a student of history and facts I find you lack insight, let's begin with troops loses in Afghanistan under Bush vs Obama. Bush began the conflict, soldiers under him were the first responders so to speak and charged the beachheads figuratively speaking so of course his ratio of soldiers deaths were higher than under Obama".
I lack insight huh? Such a claim is laughable coming from someone who made such a dum-fuk assumption with regard to those troop losses and actually had the nerve to state it so authoritatively without checking the numbers first. Especially given the fact that I mentioned the years of 2006, 2007, and 2008 in particular when first making reference to the trend of higher troop losses in Afghanistan (initial flat-foot entry, read it again).
No you partisan whack-ass, it's not that troop losses in Afghanistan were higher under Bush. THEY WERE LOWER YOU HALF-WIT. But the trend of higher troop losses in Afghanistan which many a partisan puppet blame Obama for exclusively, began in 2006. OVER FOUR YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL INVASION and three years before Obama took office. The trend continued to grow in 2007 and 2008 and for another two or three years under Obama resulting in higher overall troop losses in Afghanistan under his administration. It was then reversed. Like I said, the initial effort in Afghanistan did produce results (which as an unaffiliated free thinker, I have no problem giving the Bush administration some credit for) but it was crystal clear by 2006 that some of the progress made was being lost. So your 'storming the beach' assessment doesn't work.
Damn right I have disdain for die-hard partisans. They are among the most active all over the web and talk radio. Die-hard conservatives in particular. In general, they are less informed than centrists, leftists, and oddball free thinkers like myself but they have made their ignorant voices heard and their absurd statements read millions of times resulting in a dumber America. That, I have a HUGE problem with. It is true that many a die-hard liberal have made absurd comments as well but in general, liberals are more rational than conservatives. After all, I'm not aware of a single liberal who fears that assault rifles and grenades will end up in vending machines across America. But I shouldn't have to remind you or anyone else just how many die-hard conservative wackos have been screaming this 'coming to get our guns' CRAP at the top of their lungs and typing their fingers to the bone with this 'disarm America' CRAP. IT IS FXXXXXX ABSURD WACKO PARANOIA. NOTHING BUT DIE-HARD PARTISAN FEAR MONGERING CRAP. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S VERY EFFECTIVE FEAR MONGERING CRAP. INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN HAVE BEEN SHOT DEAD BECAUSE OF IT.
So yeah, damn right I have disdain for die-hard partisans. Not necessarily those who lean in one direction or another but certainly those who lean sharply or entirely. In particular, die-hard conservatives. For they are the type most likely to make dum-fuk assumptions, most likely to spread their idiotic CRAP, and most likely to inspire politically motivated killings. If you have the nerve to challenge me on this claim, I will post a long list for you to consider.
By the way, before you make another dum-fuk assumption, of course I acknowledge the issue of religiously motivated killings. 9/11 in particular. Also, those which take place in Iraq as we type. Religious extremism is even more illogical than political extremism. But the vast overwhelming majority of religiously motivated killings are inspired almost exclusively by religion with very little regard for liberal or conservative political ideology. The killings of abortion doctors are notable exceptions but I do acknowledge the real world moral dilemma those killers struggle with.
Although I find the very concept of a god illogical, I won't lump those who kill abortion doctors in with wackos who kill hoping to score with a dozen virgins courtesy of Ala. Not that I have anything against Muslims in general. I don't. For the vast overwhelming majority, easily 99% of those who live in the developed world are peaceful and moderate. They have no belief whatsoever in that 'dozen virgins' crap and no desire to kill the rest of us for our own beliefs. That's a fact. Otherwise, we would all be in deep sxxx. After all, Muslims do represent roughly 1/6 of the world population.
I submitted the above hoping to prevent another dum-fuk assumption on your part. Of course, I acknowledge the issue of religiously motivated killings. I've been accused of having no regard for them several times already by die-hard conservatives who take offense when I make reference to the innocent men, women, and children who have been killed because of their outrageous and illogical 'disarm America' 'coming to get our guns' CRAP.
Crap which many of you die-hard conservatives and your sold-out pundits continue to spew all over the web and talk radio. This puts our leaders at the Federal level in a very difficult position. For they are unable to take ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER ON THE ISSUE OF GUN CONTROL without driving even more die-hard conservative wacko gun freaks right over the edge resulting in more politically motivated killings.
Did I mention my disdain for die-hard partisans? Die-hard conservatives in particular? Damn right.
Obama isn't doing anything whatsoever to address the issue of immoral and illogical wealth concentration. Not when it's all said and done. For every time he takes action to support the low end of the American populous, he turns right around and does a favor for the rich to make damn sure they star far, far, FAR AHEAD. The favors for Wal-Mart and the banking industry come to mind immediately. Not to mention those done for filthy disgusting rich PIG individuals like Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, Tiger Woods, Beyonce, and Brad Pitt. He has done favors for all of the above who continue to concentrate wealth with no regard whatsoever for the distribution. When it's all said and done, the overall concentration is ongoing but not accelerating under Obama. It certainly would be if it weren't for those actions taken to support the low end.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue is that Democrats are better at pretending as if they care about the poor. They act in the interests of the lower majority more often than Republicans because they are pressured to do so by their voters.
Again, your response on the issue of wealth distribution, like those of virtually all of my die-hard partisan critics was utterly predictable. In fact, I addressed your latest dum-fuk assumption regarding the issue even before you stated it yourself. That's right puppet. I specifically addressed your dum-fuk assumption regarding static wealth (the pie of predetermined size) in my previous entry. AGAIN, I have never implied that wealth is necessarily static. I've debated the issue of distribution many times and I've never implied that even once. Not even with the multiple references to the game of Monopoly. For anyone familiar with the game should know that wealth is 'created' with every improvement to properties held. Also, that more and more currency comes into play with each round.
However, anyone familiar with the game should also know that as more and more wealth is concentrated, the system begins to stall resulting in slower growth, less 'creation', reversed growth, and finally a dead stop.
Fortunately, the world's wealth will never be held entirely by one player or the richest 1%. Otherwise, it would result in the violent collapse of society itself. Blood would be spilled on a scale never seen before. However, because of greed, corruption, and the very concept of extreme personal wealth, most Americans and certainly most people worldwide are living as if they are the losing players in a game of Monopoly struggling to survive as the final few rounds are played.
You see, the 'creation' of net wealth isn't anywhere near as simple as the masses are led to believe by virtually every public figure. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as de-industrialization or the resulting red tape, neglected infrastructure, gang activity, ect. The ugly fact is that when new wealth is 'created' there is usually a lagging downside. A newly developed community here. A neglected community there. A new shopping center here. An abandoned shopping center there. A new mansion here. A dozen boarded up houses there. It's all related.
When it's all said and done, distribution matters. For you can not stabilize any economy of any size and concentrate it's wealth at the same time. It is mathematically impossible. For this reason, the majority of stimulus and 'welfare spending' dollars that so many of you die-hard partisans throw a bloody fit over are absolutely necessary. Otherwise, we would be in the midst of a severe depression already. One which would remain severe until significant measures were taken by government, the masses, or both to redistribute a portion of existing wealth and/or create 'net' wealth (again very tricky) to benefit the lower majority EXCLUSIVELY.
There is no other way to recover from an economic depression. There never has been and there never will be. Unless of course, a double digit portion of the lower majority is simply put to death. Even that would be a temporary measure. For the existing wealth would continue to concentrate.
Damn right I'm angry with my fellow citizens. The 'everyday people' you refer to. I care about the vast overwhelming majority but if it were within my power, I would wring their miserable necks for voluntarily giving so much of their money to the rich. If they hadn't done so, then we would not be in this mess. Our sold-out representatives and their lying pig pundits never would have become so corrupt. Our entire society would be much more stable and peaceful. Instead, those very few of us who truly understand socioeconomics have no choice but to watch society degrade as our efforts to inform the masses are met with colossal counter-efforts to make them even dumber than they already are.
Steve Jobs was not part of the solution. He was part of the problem. It didn't have to be that way. His field at one time, had the potential to work wonders. It had the potential to do far more good than harm. Instead, in large part because of him, we have a society truly obsessed not with the good that could have been achieved through technology, but with the gadgets themselves. It's gone way too far. If you don't see the problem I'm referring to, then like many others, you are blind.
I'm aware of the criticism of Greenspan. I'm also aware that he has been made a scapegoat by people like you. For the interest rates you refer to didn't cause the problem. Not even early on when Greenspan worked for your favorite President. Those rates have always been adjusted in response to carefully calculated trends and projections. Always with 'growth' in mind. The problem is that economic 'growth' doesn't necessarily benefit the masses. For the most part, it hasn't in nearly 40 years. In fact, the middle and lower classes were much better off when we had a much smaller but also more just economy. I do however, give Greenspan credit for finally addressing the issue of distribution in the spring of '05'.
The era following WWII is a different story entirely. There was unprecedented 'growth'. But again, the masses benefited from a significant redistribution of wealth. I can not emphasize this enough.
Still, you people seem hell-bent on dumbing America down even further with your repeated calls for 'growth'. Newsflash: We already have, BY FAR, the largest economy in the world. It is the largest by every relevant measure including per capita. So tell me, how much more must it 'grow' before the lower majority finally benefit?
That's a serious question. Answer it.
There you go again. Assuming that I'm a fan of Al Gore. Of course, I believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but not because of Al Gore. Because of the science involved. In particular because of two facts. The two which I find the most compelling as a free thinker. My guess is that you can't guess either one of them. Go ahead and try. Make two more dum-fuk assumptions. I'll be happy to call them out or give you an ounce of credit in the unlikely event that you guess either one of them. I'll even drop two clues which I will follow up on with my next reply:
#1. Rate.
#2. Altitude.
Those clues are damn near dead giveaways. Again, they represent the two facts regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming which I find the most compelling. I have yet to hear or read a decent attempt to refute them.
Damn right Al Gore is a hypocrite. Damn right he is a profiteer. Damn right he is a pig. If you were anything but a partisan puppet, you would have expected me to acknowledge this. Instead, you made yet another dum-fuk assumption.
Unfortunately, the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming is real.
I'm aware of the Einstein quote regarding insanity. It's been thrown in my face many times. I'm also aware that it doesn't apply to me. For I'm not posting all over the web hoping to resolve a single issue effecting the masses. I'm posting all over the web fully expecting to help offset the relentless efforts of others to dumb down my fellow citizens with more DIE-HARD PARTISAN CRAP. That, I've done well. That, I will continue to do until the day I die.
If any of you partisan pigs hope to break my will, then you will have to break my neck first. You sure as hell can't intimidate me, confuse me, or overwhelm me. Not a chance.
That doesn't make me a narcissist. My focus is on the issues. My contempt for people like you and the arrogant tone I often use with people like you have nothing to do with a desire to feel important. They have everything to do with a desire to expose you people for what you truly are. PARTISAN PUPPETS. This, to help offset your relentless efforts to dumb down my fellow citizens.
You want me to consider the possibility that you are anything but an utterly predictable partisan puppet? Fine. Name one significant campaign issue on which you agree more with Democrats and less with Republicans. Then explain why. Make it sincere. No tricks or word games. Just name the issue and then explain why you agree more with Democrats and less with Republicans on that particular issue. Do that, and I will gladly acknowledge the possibility that you have the capability of free thought.
By the way, I agree with Republicans almost entirely on the issues of abortion, illegal immigration, voter registration, and the mandates of Obamacare.
I've already proven myself to be an unaffiliated free thinker. I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence to indicate anything but die-hard partisanship on your part.
You should have known better than to expect I would give a damn about spelling errors. I didn't check, I didn't notice, and I almost never make reference to them.
Next.
Nicely written but still poorly researched, poorly thought, and dead wrong on most counts. For starters, your 'storming the beach' assessment regarding troop losses in Afghanistan is fatally flawed. In fact, your second line states an absolute indisputable mathematical falsehood.
You said "For someone who considers himself a student of history and facts I find you lack insight, let's begin with troops loses in Afghanistan under Bush vs Obama. Bush began the conflict, soldiers under him were the first responders so to speak and charged the beachheads figuratively speaking so of course his ratio of soldiers deaths were higher than under Obama".
I lack insight huh? Such a claim is laughable coming from someone who made such a dum-fuk assumption with regard to those troop losses and actually had the nerve to state it so authoritatively without checking the numbers first. Especially given the fact that I mentioned the years of 2006, 2007, and 2008 in particular when first making reference to the trend of higher troop losses in Afghanistan (initial flat-foot entry, read it again).
No you partisan whack-ass, it's not that troop losses in Afghanistan were higher under Bush. THEY WERE LOWER YOU HALF-WIT. But the trend of higher troop losses in Afghanistan which many a partisan puppet blame Obama for exclusively, began in 2006. OVER FOUR YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL INVASION and three years before Obama took office. The trend continued to grow in 2007 and 2008 and for another two or three years under Obama resulting in higher overall troop losses in Afghanistan under his administration. It was then reversed. Like I said, the initial effort in Afghanistan did produce results (which as an unaffiliated free thinker, I have no problem giving the Bush administration some credit for) but it was crystal clear by 2006 that some of the progress made was being lost. So your 'storming the beach' assessment doesn't work.
Damn right I have disdain for die-hard partisans. They are among the most active all over the web and talk radio. Die-hard conservatives in particular. In general, they are less informed than centrists, leftists, and oddball free thinkers like myself but they have made their ignorant voices heard and their absurd statements read millions of times resulting in a dumber America. That, I have a HUGE problem with. It is true that many a die-hard liberal have made absurd comments as well but in general, liberals are more rational than conservatives. After all, I'm not aware of a single liberal who fears that assault rifles and grenades will end up in vending machines across America. But I shouldn't have to remind you or anyone else just how many die-hard conservative wackos have been screaming this 'coming to get our guns' CRAP at the top of their lungs and typing their fingers to the bone with this 'disarm America' CRAP. IT IS FXXXXXX ABSURD WACKO PARANOIA. NOTHING BUT DIE-HARD PARTISAN FEAR MONGERING CRAP. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S VERY EFFECTIVE FEAR MONGERING CRAP. INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN HAVE BEEN SHOT DEAD BECAUSE OF IT.
So yeah, damn right I have disdain for die-hard partisans. Not necessarily those who lean in one direction or another but certainly those who lean sharply or entirely. In particular, die-hard conservatives. For they are the type most likely to make dum-fuk assumptions, most likely to spread their idiotic CRAP, and most likely to inspire politically motivated killings. If you have the nerve to challenge me on this claim, I will post a long list for you to consider.
By the way, before you make another dum-fuk assumption, of course I acknowledge the issue of religiously motivated killings. 9/11 in particular. Also, those which take place in Iraq as we type. Religious extremism is even more illogical than political extremism. But the vast overwhelming majority of religiously motivated killings are inspired almost exclusively by religion with very little regard for liberal or conservative political ideology. The killings of abortion doctors are notable exceptions but I do acknowledge the real world moral dilemma those killers struggle with.
Although I find the very concept of a god illogical, I won't lump those who kill abortion doctors in with wackos who kill hoping to score with a dozen virgins courtesy of Ala. Not that I have anything against Muslims in general. I don't. For the vast overwhelming majority, easily 99% of those who live in the developed world are peaceful and moderate. They have no belief whatsoever in that 'dozen virgins' crap and no desire to kill the rest of us for our own beliefs. That's a fact. Otherwise, we would all be in deep sxxx. After all, Muslims do represent roughly 1/6 of the world population.
I submitted the above hoping to prevent another dum-fuk assumption on your part. Of course, I acknowledge the issue of religiously motivated killings. I've been accused of having no regard for them several times already by die-hard conservatives who take offense when I make reference to the innocent men, women, and children who have been killed because of their outrageous and illogical 'disarm America' 'coming to get our guns' CRAP.
Crap which many of you die-hard conservatives and your sold-out pundits continue to spew all over the web and talk radio. This puts our leaders at the Federal level in a very difficult position. For they are unable to take ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER ON THE ISSUE OF GUN CONTROL without driving even more die-hard conservative wacko gun freaks right over the edge resulting in more politically motivated killings.
Did I mention my disdain for die-hard partisans? Die-hard conservatives in particular? Damn right.
Obama isn't doing anything whatsoever to address the issue of immoral and illogical wealth concentration. Not when it's all said and done. For every time he takes action to support the low end of the American populous, he turns right around and does a favor for the rich to make damn sure they star far, far, FAR AHEAD. The favors for Wal-Mart and the banking industry come to mind immediately. Not to mention those done for filthy disgusting rich PIG individuals like Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, Tiger Woods, Beyonce, and Brad Pitt. He has done favors for all of the above who continue to concentrate wealth with no regard whatsoever for the distribution. When it's all said and done, the overall concentration is ongoing but not accelerating under Obama. It certainly would be if it weren't for those actions taken to support the low end.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue is that Democrats are better at pretending as if they care about the poor. They act in the interests of the lower majority more often than Republicans because they are pressured to do so by their voters.
Again, your response on the issue of wealth distribution, like those of virtually all of my die-hard partisan critics was utterly predictable. In fact, I addressed your latest dum-fuk assumption regarding the issue even before you stated it yourself. That's right puppet. I specifically addressed your dum-fuk assumption regarding static wealth (the pie of predetermined size) in my previous entry. AGAIN, I have never implied that wealth is necessarily static. I've debated the issue of distribution many times and I've never implied that even once. Not even with the multiple references to the game of Monopoly. For anyone familiar with the game should know that wealth is 'created' with every improvement to properties held. Also, that more and more currency comes into play with each round.
However, anyone familiar with the game should also know that as more and more wealth is concentrated, the system begins to stall resulting in slower growth, less 'creation', reversed growth, and finally a dead stop.
Fortunately, the world's wealth will never be held entirely by one player or the richest 1%. Otherwise, it would result in the violent collapse of society itself. Blood would be spilled on a scale never seen before. However, because of greed, corruption, and the very concept of extreme personal wealth, most Americans and certainly most people worldwide are living as if they are the losing players in a game of Monopoly struggling to survive as the final few rounds are played.
You see, the 'creation' of net wealth isn't anywhere near as simple as the masses are led to believe by virtually every public figure. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as de-industrialization or the resulting red tape, neglected infrastructure, gang activity, ect. The ugly fact is that when new wealth is 'created' there is usually a lagging downside. A newly developed community here. A neglected community there. A new shopping center here. An abandoned shopping center there. A new mansion here. A dozen boarded up houses there. It's all related.
When it's all said and done, distribution matters. For you can not stabilize any economy of any size and concentrate it's wealth at the same time. It is mathematically impossible. For this reason, the majority of stimulus and 'welfare spending' dollars that so many of you die-hard partisans throw a bloody fit over are absolutely necessary. Otherwise, we would be in the midst of a severe depression already. One which would remain severe until significant measures were taken by government, the masses, or both to redistribute a portion of existing wealth and/or create 'net' wealth (again very tricky) to benefit the lower majority EXCLUSIVELY.
There is no other way to recover from an economic depression. There never has been and there never will be. Unless of course, a double digit portion of the lower majority is simply put to death. Even that would be a temporary measure. For the existing wealth would continue to concentrate.
Damn right I'm angry with my fellow citizens. The 'everyday people' you refer to. I care about the vast overwhelming majority but if it were within my power, I would wring their miserable necks for voluntarily giving so much of their money to the rich. If they hadn't done so, then we would not be in this mess. Our sold-out representatives and their lying pig pundits never would have become so corrupt. Our entire society would be much more stable and peaceful. Instead, those very few of us who truly understand socioeconomics have no choice but to watch society degrade as our efforts to inform the masses are met with colossal counter-efforts to make them even dumber than they already are.
Steve Jobs was not part of the solution. He was part of the problem. It didn't have to be that way. His field at one time, had the potential to work wonders. It had the potential to do far more good than harm. Instead, in large part because of him, we have a society truly obsessed not with the good that could have been achieved through technology, but with the gadgets themselves. It's gone way too far. If you don't see the problem I'm referring to, then like many others, you are blind.
I'm aware of the criticism of Greenspan. I'm also aware that he has been made a scapegoat by people like you. For the interest rates you refer to didn't cause the problem. Not even early on when Greenspan worked for your favorite President. Those rates have always been adjusted in response to carefully calculated trends and projections. Always with 'growth' in mind. The problem is that economic 'growth' doesn't necessarily benefit the masses. For the most part, it hasn't in nearly 40 years. In fact, the middle and lower classes were much better off when we had a much smaller but also more just economy. I do however, give Greenspan credit for finally addressing the issue of distribution in the spring of '05'.
The era following WWII is a different story entirely. There was unprecedented 'growth'. But again, the masses benefited from a significant redistribution of wealth. I can not emphasize this enough.
Still, you people seem hell-bent on dumbing America down even further with your repeated calls for 'growth'. Newsflash: We already have, BY FAR, the largest economy in the world. It is the largest by every relevant measure including per capita. So tell me, how much more must it 'grow' before the lower majority finally benefit?
That's a serious question. Answer it.
There you go again. Assuming that I'm a fan of Al Gore. Of course, I believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but not because of Al Gore. Because of the science involved. In particular because of two facts. The two which I find the most compelling as a free thinker. My guess is that you can't guess either one of them. Go ahead and try. Make two more dum-fuk assumptions. I'll be happy to call them out or give you an ounce of credit in the unlikely event that you guess either one of them. I'll even drop two clues which I will follow up on with my next reply:
#1. Rate.
#2. Altitude.
Those clues are damn near dead giveaways. Again, they represent the two facts regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming which I find the most compelling. I have yet to hear or read a decent attempt to refute them.
Damn right Al Gore is a hypocrite. Damn right he is a profiteer. Damn right he is a pig. If you were anything but a partisan puppet, you would have expected me to acknowledge this. Instead, you made yet another dum-fuk assumption.
Unfortunately, the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming is real.
I'm aware of the Einstein quote regarding insanity. It's been thrown in my face many times. I'm also aware that it doesn't apply to me. For I'm not posting all over the web hoping to resolve a single issue effecting the masses. I'm posting all over the web fully expecting to help offset the relentless efforts of others to dumb down my fellow citizens with more DIE-HARD PARTISAN CRAP. That, I've done well. That, I will continue to do until the day I die.
If any of you partisan pigs hope to break my will, then you will have to break my neck first. You sure as hell can't intimidate me, confuse me, or overwhelm me. Not a chance.
That doesn't make me a narcissist. My focus is on the issues. My contempt for people like you and the arrogant tone I often use with people like you have nothing to do with a desire to feel important. They have everything to do with a desire to expose you people for what you truly are. PARTISAN PUPPETS. This, to help offset your relentless efforts to dumb down my fellow citizens.
You want me to consider the possibility that you are anything but an utterly predictable partisan puppet? Fine. Name one significant campaign issue on which you agree more with Democrats and less with Republicans. Then explain why. Make it sincere. No tricks or word games. Just name the issue and then explain why you agree more with Democrats and less with Republicans on that particular issue. Do that, and I will gladly acknowledge the possibility that you have the capability of free thought.
By the way, I agree with Republicans almost entirely on the issues of abortion, illegal immigration, voter registration, and the mandates of Obamacare.
I've already proven myself to be an unaffiliated free thinker. I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence to indicate anything but die-hard partisanship on your part.
You should have known better than to expect I would give a damn about spelling errors. I didn't check, I didn't notice, and I almost never make reference to them.
Next.
My critics in Chicago are pathetic cowards. This includes any who may own or work at Craigslist. Deleted entry #3.
More cops die because of high capacity magazines. Read up critics. (Nationwide.)
GUN FREAKS: Soon, I will write a new essay which will address every single argument you gun freaks have come up with against gun control so far. I intend to destroy every single one of them. From your 'capacity doesn't matter' bit to your 'regulations don't work' bit to your 'big bad tyrannical government wants to oppress and/or kill us' bit and everything in between. Every single one of them will be destroyed with common sense and actual statistics. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I'll get to it next week. In the meantime, read the following article. It's not mine but that really doesn't matter. It's damn good:
Sorry, there are no cute little kiddy signs. This one was posted by a grown up.
"On New Year's Eve, ShotSpotter, the technology that the Oakland Police Department uses to detect gunshots, recorded nearly two hundred incidents of shots fired in the city from 10 p.m. until 2 a.m. At 10:30 that night, ShotSpotter detected a crackle of heavy-caliber gunfire near 84th Avenue and Dowling Street in East Oakland. After a brief car chase, OPD officers cornered and arrested Steven Stevenson, a 31-year-old Oakland resident, on 77th Avenue near Hillside Street. While searching Stevenson's car, officers discovered a Colt DPMS assault rifle and a drum magazine that holds up to 100 rounds of ammunition.
The high-capacity magazine attached to Stevenson's assault rifle is similar to the 100-round drum used in the movie theater massacre last July in Aurora, Colorado -- an incident that left 12 people dead and 58 wounded. Oakland police say extended clips that carry up to thirty bullets for assault rifles and pistols are not uncommon on city streets and are easily obtained in neighboring states -- such as Nevada and Arizona -- that do not share California's law banning the sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
Officer David Wong, a former Marine who runs OPD's armory, verifies the make, model number, and capacity of weapons seized in Oakland by city police. He told me that the 100-round drum magazine seized on New Year's Eve is one of three such drums that he recalls were taken off the streets by OPD since 2011 -- the other two being ones for AK-47 assault rifles. While these super-large magazines are not exceedingly common in Oakland, Wong said he has seen significant numbers of high-capacity magazines that hold more than ten bullets for rifles and handguns. On a recent afternoon, Wong displayed two 7.62-caliber clips for AK-47 and SKS-model assault rifles seized by OPD in late 2010, along with two rifles. According to Wong, 7.62-caliber rounds are capable of piercing body armor. "I've seen them go through the outer walls of a structure, as well as two inner walls," Wong said.
Weapons with such modified ammunition devices are also capable of rapid rates of fire, even if they aren't fully automatic. A 30-round AK-47 clip can be emptied in less than 25 seconds, while a 9 mm Glock pistol equipped with a drum magazine can fire all 50 rounds in the loader in 14 seconds. "If you have a person who is even minimally trained with a particular assault weapon, an AK-47 with a 30-round clip can be murderous enough to keep police officers at bay for quite a while," said Wong, whose forearm bears a tattoo with the date 3/21/09 under an OPD badge partially covered with a black band, in reference to the four officers killed by parolee Lovelle Mixon. SWAT team sergeants Daniel Sakai and Ervin Romans were cut down by 7.62 mm bullets from an AK-47 when they stormed the East Oakland apartment in which Mixon was holed up not long after he had killed Sergeant Mark Dunakin and Officer John Hege during a car stop.
According to the 2011 management report for OPD's Criminal Investigations Division, the department's gang unit took eighteen rifles off the street that year, and eight arrests by OPD resulted in assault weapons charges filed by the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. OPD does not keep statistics on the number of drum magazines or extended-capacity clips it recovers, however.
Extended 30- and 28-round clips for handguns, particularly 9 mm Glocks and Berettas, have become popular in recent years among Oakland's violent street gangs, police say. Wong noted that from the middle of 2011 through the first quarter of 2012, roughly 10 percent of all handguns seized by OPD officers had high capacity clips. One criminal enterprise that favored such munitions is the Burn Out Family, an East Oakland street gang heavily involved in the heroin and cocaine trade in the area of 82nd Avenue and Birch Street, 72nd Avenue and Hawley Street, and 88th Avenue and A street. A federal racketeering indictment made public last July resulted in charges against forty people who allegedly formed the core of the Burn Out Family.
Captain Ersie Joyner, who started the Burn Out Family investigation in 2007, said the gang's profitability was due in no small part to the propensity for violence by its members. "They were involved in more than ten murders from 2007 onwards, as well as over fifty shootings," Joyner told me. Burn Out Family's members also did not limit themselves to their East Oakland turf, Joyner said. They operated in "West Oakland, North Oakland, even up in Antioch," he added. Although gang members were documented using rifles that took heavy-caliber 7.62 mm and .223 mm ammunition, OPD said they were notorious for their use of 30-round extended clips for semi-automatic pistols.
Wong said he and agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms became particularly interested in the magazines used by Burn Out Family members because they were in such good condition. "They were pretty nice, they hadn't been used previously, so that got our attention," said Wong.
Law enforcement officials say another major problem with extended-capacity magazines is that they are all but impossible to trace back to their point of origin. Steven Stevenson's Colt DPMS rifle, for example, would have been traceable back to the seller had its serial number not been obliterated. The drum magazine found on the rifle had no serial number. Wong said that is because ammunition magazines for public sale are not serialized. The only exceptions, he said, are for prototype munitions tested by the military.
Oakland's seriously understaffed police department (612 officers, down from more than 800 in late 200 is struggling to tamp down violence in 2013 after more than 130 people were killed in the city last year, the highest death toll since 145 people were slain in 2006. For example, New Year's Eve was the first time that OPD had officers on the street to respond to ShotSpotter alerts since July 4. "If you have the technology and we don't have anyone to respond correctly, we're not going to catch the guys," Joyner told ABC 7's Mark Matthews earlier this month.
As of January 13, six people had already been slain in Oakland, and last weekend, eleven people suffered non-fatal gunshot wounds in the city, police said. And the caliber and types of weapons available on city streets, particularly the high-capacity magazines and drums, increases the likelihood for carnage.
The four homicides that took place last Friday were no exception. An AK-47, an SKS rifle, and a modified Tommy Gun were among the eleven firearms recovered by OPD in response to the retaliatory violence between two feuding groups of young men. Eddiebo Rodriguez, 20, was slain with an assault rifle on 34th and West streets and police arrested a man in connection with his shooting on Friday evening.
Weapons traffickers also can make a handsome profit selling military-grade ammo magazines in Oakland. Luis Cardenas-Morfin, a West Oakland Norteño gang member currently serving time in federal prison for weapons trafficking, sold an AR-15 equipped with a 90-round drum magazine to undercover OPD Officer Eric Milina in 2010 for $2,500 (see "Getting Away with Murder," 11/16/12). An agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms traced the weapon back to a gun shop in Columbus, Georgia.
Nationally, the massacre of 27 people, including 20 children, in Newtown, Connecticut in December has reignited the national debate over gun control and high-capacity magazines, which were illegal under the federal assault weapons ban that ran from 1994 through 2004. Following the ban's expiration, many municipalities and states passed strict laws mirroring the lapsed federal ban. And since the Aurora shooting, US Senator Dianne Feinstein of California has been pressing for a renewal of the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. "Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?" Feinstein wrote in a July 29 opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle following the Aurora shooting. Under the ban, the manufacture and sale of extended-capacity magazines would be illegal, as it was for a decade.
However, there are no laws requiring criminal background checks for people purchasing ammunition. That could change for California residents if a bill introduced last week by East Bay Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner is approved by the legislature. AB 48 also would ban kits used to convert ammunition clips into high-capacity magazines, would require identification for ammunition purchases, and would create a licensing system for ammunition vendors and a statewide database of ammunition sales similar to that used for pseudoephedrine sales. "It is easier to buy ammo than to buy cold medicine, alcohol or tobacco," Skinner said in a statement last week. "It's time for buying deadly bullets to fall under the same controls as guns and Sudafed."
But even if Skinner's bill passes, the four-hour drive to Reno -- and Nevada's free-for-all gun laws -- will still be a draw for those seeking assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to use on the streets of Oakland."
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/high-capacity-magazines-flood-oakland/Content?oid=3436991
GUN FREAKS: Soon, I will write a new essay which will address every single argument you gun freaks have come up with against gun control so far. I intend to destroy every single one of them. From your 'capacity doesn't matter' bit to your 'regulations don't work' bit to your 'big bad tyrannical government wants to oppress and/or kill us' bit and everything in between. Every single one of them will be destroyed with common sense and actual statistics. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I'll get to it next week. In the meantime, read the following article. It's not mine but that really doesn't matter. It's damn good:
Sorry, there are no cute little kiddy signs. This one was posted by a grown up.
"On New Year's Eve, ShotSpotter, the technology that the Oakland Police Department uses to detect gunshots, recorded nearly two hundred incidents of shots fired in the city from 10 p.m. until 2 a.m. At 10:30 that night, ShotSpotter detected a crackle of heavy-caliber gunfire near 84th Avenue and Dowling Street in East Oakland. After a brief car chase, OPD officers cornered and arrested Steven Stevenson, a 31-year-old Oakland resident, on 77th Avenue near Hillside Street. While searching Stevenson's car, officers discovered a Colt DPMS assault rifle and a drum magazine that holds up to 100 rounds of ammunition.
The high-capacity magazine attached to Stevenson's assault rifle is similar to the 100-round drum used in the movie theater massacre last July in Aurora, Colorado -- an incident that left 12 people dead and 58 wounded. Oakland police say extended clips that carry up to thirty bullets for assault rifles and pistols are not uncommon on city streets and are easily obtained in neighboring states -- such as Nevada and Arizona -- that do not share California's law banning the sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
Officer David Wong, a former Marine who runs OPD's armory, verifies the make, model number, and capacity of weapons seized in Oakland by city police. He told me that the 100-round drum magazine seized on New Year's Eve is one of three such drums that he recalls were taken off the streets by OPD since 2011 -- the other two being ones for AK-47 assault rifles. While these super-large magazines are not exceedingly common in Oakland, Wong said he has seen significant numbers of high-capacity magazines that hold more than ten bullets for rifles and handguns. On a recent afternoon, Wong displayed two 7.62-caliber clips for AK-47 and SKS-model assault rifles seized by OPD in late 2010, along with two rifles. According to Wong, 7.62-caliber rounds are capable of piercing body armor. "I've seen them go through the outer walls of a structure, as well as two inner walls," Wong said.
Weapons with such modified ammunition devices are also capable of rapid rates of fire, even if they aren't fully automatic. A 30-round AK-47 clip can be emptied in less than 25 seconds, while a 9 mm Glock pistol equipped with a drum magazine can fire all 50 rounds in the loader in 14 seconds. "If you have a person who is even minimally trained with a particular assault weapon, an AK-47 with a 30-round clip can be murderous enough to keep police officers at bay for quite a while," said Wong, whose forearm bears a tattoo with the date 3/21/09 under an OPD badge partially covered with a black band, in reference to the four officers killed by parolee Lovelle Mixon. SWAT team sergeants Daniel Sakai and Ervin Romans were cut down by 7.62 mm bullets from an AK-47 when they stormed the East Oakland apartment in which Mixon was holed up not long after he had killed Sergeant Mark Dunakin and Officer John Hege during a car stop.
According to the 2011 management report for OPD's Criminal Investigations Division, the department's gang unit took eighteen rifles off the street that year, and eight arrests by OPD resulted in assault weapons charges filed by the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. OPD does not keep statistics on the number of drum magazines or extended-capacity clips it recovers, however.
Extended 30- and 28-round clips for handguns, particularly 9 mm Glocks and Berettas, have become popular in recent years among Oakland's violent street gangs, police say. Wong noted that from the middle of 2011 through the first quarter of 2012, roughly 10 percent of all handguns seized by OPD officers had high capacity clips. One criminal enterprise that favored such munitions is the Burn Out Family, an East Oakland street gang heavily involved in the heroin and cocaine trade in the area of 82nd Avenue and Birch Street, 72nd Avenue and Hawley Street, and 88th Avenue and A street. A federal racketeering indictment made public last July resulted in charges against forty people who allegedly formed the core of the Burn Out Family.
Captain Ersie Joyner, who started the Burn Out Family investigation in 2007, said the gang's profitability was due in no small part to the propensity for violence by its members. "They were involved in more than ten murders from 2007 onwards, as well as over fifty shootings," Joyner told me. Burn Out Family's members also did not limit themselves to their East Oakland turf, Joyner said. They operated in "West Oakland, North Oakland, even up in Antioch," he added. Although gang members were documented using rifles that took heavy-caliber 7.62 mm and .223 mm ammunition, OPD said they were notorious for their use of 30-round extended clips for semi-automatic pistols.
Wong said he and agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms became particularly interested in the magazines used by Burn Out Family members because they were in such good condition. "They were pretty nice, they hadn't been used previously, so that got our attention," said Wong.
Law enforcement officials say another major problem with extended-capacity magazines is that they are all but impossible to trace back to their point of origin. Steven Stevenson's Colt DPMS rifle, for example, would have been traceable back to the seller had its serial number not been obliterated. The drum magazine found on the rifle had no serial number. Wong said that is because ammunition magazines for public sale are not serialized. The only exceptions, he said, are for prototype munitions tested by the military.
Oakland's seriously understaffed police department (612 officers, down from more than 800 in late 200 is struggling to tamp down violence in 2013 after more than 130 people were killed in the city last year, the highest death toll since 145 people were slain in 2006. For example, New Year's Eve was the first time that OPD had officers on the street to respond to ShotSpotter alerts since July 4. "If you have the technology and we don't have anyone to respond correctly, we're not going to catch the guys," Joyner told ABC 7's Mark Matthews earlier this month.
As of January 13, six people had already been slain in Oakland, and last weekend, eleven people suffered non-fatal gunshot wounds in the city, police said. And the caliber and types of weapons available on city streets, particularly the high-capacity magazines and drums, increases the likelihood for carnage.
The four homicides that took place last Friday were no exception. An AK-47, an SKS rifle, and a modified Tommy Gun were among the eleven firearms recovered by OPD in response to the retaliatory violence between two feuding groups of young men. Eddiebo Rodriguez, 20, was slain with an assault rifle on 34th and West streets and police arrested a man in connection with his shooting on Friday evening.
Weapons traffickers also can make a handsome profit selling military-grade ammo magazines in Oakland. Luis Cardenas-Morfin, a West Oakland Norteño gang member currently serving time in federal prison for weapons trafficking, sold an AR-15 equipped with a 90-round drum magazine to undercover OPD Officer Eric Milina in 2010 for $2,500 (see "Getting Away with Murder," 11/16/12). An agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms traced the weapon back to a gun shop in Columbus, Georgia.
Nationally, the massacre of 27 people, including 20 children, in Newtown, Connecticut in December has reignited the national debate over gun control and high-capacity magazines, which were illegal under the federal assault weapons ban that ran from 1994 through 2004. Following the ban's expiration, many municipalities and states passed strict laws mirroring the lapsed federal ban. And since the Aurora shooting, US Senator Dianne Feinstein of California has been pressing for a renewal of the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. "Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?" Feinstein wrote in a July 29 opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle following the Aurora shooting. Under the ban, the manufacture and sale of extended-capacity magazines would be illegal, as it was for a decade.
However, there are no laws requiring criminal background checks for people purchasing ammunition. That could change for California residents if a bill introduced last week by East Bay Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner is approved by the legislature. AB 48 also would ban kits used to convert ammunition clips into high-capacity magazines, would require identification for ammunition purchases, and would create a licensing system for ammunition vendors and a statewide database of ammunition sales similar to that used for pseudoephedrine sales. "It is easier to buy ammo than to buy cold medicine, alcohol or tobacco," Skinner said in a statement last week. "It's time for buying deadly bullets to fall under the same controls as guns and Sudafed."
But even if Skinner's bill passes, the four-hour drive to Reno -- and Nevada's free-for-all gun laws -- will still be a draw for those seeking assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to use on the streets of Oakland."
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/high-capacity-magazines-flood-oakland/Content?oid=3436991
My critics in Chicago are pathetic cowards. This includes any who may own or work at Craigslist. Deleted entry #2.
The correlations between gun laws and gun crimes in America. (Nationwide.)
Again, you die-hard conservatives begin by redefining the base of the issue and diverting as much attention as possible from details which are vital to understanding. You do so on every major issue. Below are some of the relevant factors with regard to gun crime which you chose to ignore.
The reported statistics do indicate that gun crime rates in America, in general, have been falling since 1993. That's no secret. It's been reported hundreds or thousands of times on television and radio. It's been acknowledged and discussed in dozens of debates that I've taken part in. Surely, thousands across America. It's no secret. It's also been reported thousands of times that there are far more guns in America now than there were 40 years ago. All of the above is common knowledge. However, those statistics and apparent correlations are nowhere near as simple as you die-hard conservatives believe. In fact, much of what you believe is the exact opposite of reality.
Over the last 20 years or so, more and more states have been adopting more strict gun laws. Some even have their own bans on assault weapons (defined by law). These more strict gun laws do not place limits on the number of guns that citizens are allowed to own. They do not involve black vans showing up in the drive ways of gun owners in order to confiscate their arsenals. They simply add logical steps and verification to the process of acquisition, possession, use, and transport in order to prevent criminals, those under the influence, those unqualified, and the mentally ill from acquiring them so easily and using them so irresponsibly. The only outright 'bans' involve the sales and transfers of very specific types and models. Types and models which far exceed the level of firepower necessary for hunting or self defense.
In general, these states have lower rates of gun homicide per capita. There are anomalies but in general, that's the rule. Once the more strict gun laws are given time to have their desired effect in a given state, they do. It's well documented. These states are considered with all others when National gun crime rates are calculated.
For many years now, there have been extraordinary efforts on the part of law enforcement to reduce the numbers of guns on the street. Hundreds of thousands have been confiscated from criminals or bought back through well publicized events. Tens of thousands have been melted down. Tens of thousands more have been sold to gun shops who then re-sell them to law abiding citizens. Either way, the overall effect is positive. These efforts do effect national gun crime rates.
These efforts have been necessary to counter the constant flow of guns into America and onto the streets. Overall, the efforts of law enforcement are positive but it's a constant battle. One problem is that gun owners often sell them out of their garage or to a friend. They do so with no back round check. Others are stolen from irresponsible gun owners who fail to store or secure them properly. Because of these factors, street gangs and drug dealers are far more heavily armed now then they were 40 years ago. This is well documented.
In order to be prepared for what they often encounter, law enforcement agencies across America have had no choice but to drastically increase their own arsenals and levels of firepower. This helps to compensate for the sheer volume of guns on the streets of most major cities. Also for the wide-spread possession of assault weapons by ordinary citizens.
Another factor regarding those statistics is that street gang members and other criminals are far less likely to report gun crimes. Otherwise, the overall gun crime statistics would be slightly higher.
Regarding the Assault Weapon Ban in effect from 1994-2004. It's been reported to have a slight effect on overall gun crime rates but for the most part, it was designed specifically to effect the trend of mass shootings. In particular, those with higher body counts. This, it did very well. By reducing overall access to assault weapons and higher capacity magazines, psychos were made less likely to acquire them by any means. As a result, the trend of higher body count mass shootings was reversed almost immediately. In fact, that ten year time frame is the only ten year span within the last several decades in which no shooter, acting alone, was able to make the current 'Top Ten' list. Not a single one from 1994-2004.
Unfortunately, that federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines expired in 2004. Since then, we have seen the sharpest rise ever in higher body count mass shootings.
Now for a look at the dates of the top ten most deadly mass shootings in US history, the weapons used, the body counts, and the relevance of the now expired AWB.
#10. 1949. (Camden NJ, One handgun.)13 dead. Pre-ban.
#5. 1966. (University of Texas, Multiple firearms.) 16 dead. Pre-ban.
#4. 1984. (San Ysidro McDonald's, One UZI ASSAULT RIFLE with HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES, one handgun with HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE, and one shotgun.) 21 dead. Pre-ban.
#6. 1986. (Edmond PO, Three handguns. One of which (the Ruger) may have been of high capacity. No confirmation.) 14 dead. Pre-ban.
#3. 1991. (Luby's Cafeteria, Two handguns. One or both with HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES.) 23 dead. Pre-ban.
Notice that a growing trend was evident as of 1991. Assault weapons and/or high capacity magazines were being used more often to achieve higher body counts.
#7. 1999. (Columbine, Two attackers. Multiple firearms and use of explosives.) 13 dead. Mid-ban.
The assault on Columbine High School was the only 'mass shooting' to make the current top ten list mid-ban. Unlike the others, that incident involved two attackers working together with explosives and extensive preparation. The firearms used were not effected by the AWB.
The ban on 'assault weapons' and high capacity magazines expired in 2004.
#8. 2009. (Immigration Services, Two hand guns with PREVIOUSLY BANNED HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES.) 13 dead. Post-ban.
#9. 2009. (Fort Hood, Two handguns. One or both with PREVIOUSLY BANNED HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES.) 13 dead. Post-ban.
#1. 2007. (Virginia Tech, Two separate attacks spaced roughly two hours apart. Two hand guns, 19 magazines, some of which were of PREVIOUSLY BANNED HIGH CAPACITY.) 32 dead. Post-ban.
#2. 2012. (Sandy Hook, ONE PREVIOUSLY BANNED AR-15 ASSAULT RIFLE with PREVIOUSLY BANNED HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES plus two handguns. EVERY SINGLE VICTIM WAS SHOT AT LEAST ONCE WITH THE PREVIOUSLY BANNED AR-15 ASSAULT RIFLE EQUIPPED WITH PREVIOUSLY BANNED '30 ROUND' MAGAZINES. EVERY SINGLE VICTIM.) 26 dead. Post-ban.
Again, 6 or 7 of the top 10 most deadly 'mass shootings' in US history have been carried out primarily, or in part with 'assault rifles' and/or high capacity magazines. This includes #1, #2, #3, #4, #8, #9, and possibly #6. Plus #11 and another 'mass shooting' which took place a few months ago in New Mexico. All four of the most recent top ten most deadly 'mass shootings' were carried out using previously banned 'assault weapons' and/or previously banned high capacity magazines. Record-high body counts were achieved as a direct result. The statistics above do not account for the deaths of the shooters.
The now expired ban saved lives not only by banning the sale of specific models of 'assault rifle' but also by banning the sale of high capacity magazines to private citizens. This effectively reduced access. Again, five of the top ten most deadly mass shootings in US history took place before the enactment of that ban. Two or three of which were carried out primarily, or in part, with specific models and/or magazines that would have been covered by that ban. Another four of the top ten most deadly mass shootings in US history have taken place since the expiration of that ban. Those four were all carried out primarily, or in part, using previously banned models and/or previously banned high capacity magazines. When high capacity magazines are used, they give the shooter the ability to carry more rounds, fire more shots, reload less often, and achieve a higher body count with greater ease. Confidence is almost certainly a factor as well.
The very presence of these 'assault weapons' in our society appears to have a negative influence on some. Adam Lanza and Nehemiah Greigo were both raised by gun fanatics. Both had access to a parent's AR-15 and high capacity magazines which they used to commit mass murder.
With all of these factors and details to consider, it is safe to say that 'more guns equals less crime' is a belief held by the terribly misinformed. The low information voter.
Just for the record: I am not a democrat. I am not anti-gun. I am a free thinking non-partisan owner of multiple firearms who believes in strong regulation. Regulation which no law abiding citizen has any reason to fear.
Again, you die-hard conservatives begin by redefining the base of the issue and diverting as much attention as possible from details which are vital to understanding. You do so on every major issue. Below are some of the relevant factors with regard to gun crime which you chose to ignore.
The reported statistics do indicate that gun crime rates in America, in general, have been falling since 1993. That's no secret. It's been reported hundreds or thousands of times on television and radio. It's been acknowledged and discussed in dozens of debates that I've taken part in. Surely, thousands across America. It's no secret. It's also been reported thousands of times that there are far more guns in America now than there were 40 years ago. All of the above is common knowledge. However, those statistics and apparent correlations are nowhere near as simple as you die-hard conservatives believe. In fact, much of what you believe is the exact opposite of reality.
Over the last 20 years or so, more and more states have been adopting more strict gun laws. Some even have their own bans on assault weapons (defined by law). These more strict gun laws do not place limits on the number of guns that citizens are allowed to own. They do not involve black vans showing up in the drive ways of gun owners in order to confiscate their arsenals. They simply add logical steps and verification to the process of acquisition, possession, use, and transport in order to prevent criminals, those under the influence, those unqualified, and the mentally ill from acquiring them so easily and using them so irresponsibly. The only outright 'bans' involve the sales and transfers of very specific types and models. Types and models which far exceed the level of firepower necessary for hunting or self defense.
In general, these states have lower rates of gun homicide per capita. There are anomalies but in general, that's the rule. Once the more strict gun laws are given time to have their desired effect in a given state, they do. It's well documented. These states are considered with all others when National gun crime rates are calculated.
For many years now, there have been extraordinary efforts on the part of law enforcement to reduce the numbers of guns on the street. Hundreds of thousands have been confiscated from criminals or bought back through well publicized events. Tens of thousands have been melted down. Tens of thousands more have been sold to gun shops who then re-sell them to law abiding citizens. Either way, the overall effect is positive. These efforts do effect national gun crime rates.
These efforts have been necessary to counter the constant flow of guns into America and onto the streets. Overall, the efforts of law enforcement are positive but it's a constant battle. One problem is that gun owners often sell them out of their garage or to a friend. They do so with no back round check. Others are stolen from irresponsible gun owners who fail to store or secure them properly. Because of these factors, street gangs and drug dealers are far more heavily armed now then they were 40 years ago. This is well documented.
In order to be prepared for what they often encounter, law enforcement agencies across America have had no choice but to drastically increase their own arsenals and levels of firepower. This helps to compensate for the sheer volume of guns on the streets of most major cities. Also for the wide-spread possession of assault weapons by ordinary citizens.
Another factor regarding those statistics is that street gang members and other criminals are far less likely to report gun crimes. Otherwise, the overall gun crime statistics would be slightly higher.
Regarding the Assault Weapon Ban in effect from 1994-2004. It's been reported to have a slight effect on overall gun crime rates but for the most part, it was designed specifically to effect the trend of mass shootings. In particular, those with higher body counts. This, it did very well. By reducing overall access to assault weapons and higher capacity magazines, psychos were made less likely to acquire them by any means. As a result, the trend of higher body count mass shootings was reversed almost immediately. In fact, that ten year time frame is the only ten year span within the last several decades in which no shooter, acting alone, was able to make the current 'Top Ten' list. Not a single one from 1994-2004.
Unfortunately, that federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines expired in 2004. Since then, we have seen the sharpest rise ever in higher body count mass shootings.
Now for a look at the dates of the top ten most deadly mass shootings in US history, the weapons used, the body counts, and the relevance of the now expired AWB.
#10. 1949. (Camden NJ, One handgun.)13 dead. Pre-ban.
#5. 1966. (University of Texas, Multiple firearms.) 16 dead. Pre-ban.
#4. 1984. (San Ysidro McDonald's, One UZI ASSAULT RIFLE with HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES, one handgun with HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE, and one shotgun.) 21 dead. Pre-ban.
#6. 1986. (Edmond PO, Three handguns. One of which (the Ruger) may have been of high capacity. No confirmation.) 14 dead. Pre-ban.
#3. 1991. (Luby's Cafeteria, Two handguns. One or both with HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES.) 23 dead. Pre-ban.
Notice that a growing trend was evident as of 1991. Assault weapons and/or high capacity magazines were being used more often to achieve higher body counts.
#7. 1999. (Columbine, Two attackers. Multiple firearms and use of explosives.) 13 dead. Mid-ban.
The assault on Columbine High School was the only 'mass shooting' to make the current top ten list mid-ban. Unlike the others, that incident involved two attackers working together with explosives and extensive preparation. The firearms used were not effected by the AWB.
The ban on 'assault weapons' and high capacity magazines expired in 2004.
#8. 2009. (Immigration Services, Two hand guns with PREVIOUSLY BANNED HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES.) 13 dead. Post-ban.
#9. 2009. (Fort Hood, Two handguns. One or both with PREVIOUSLY BANNED HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES.) 13 dead. Post-ban.
#1. 2007. (Virginia Tech, Two separate attacks spaced roughly two hours apart. Two hand guns, 19 magazines, some of which were of PREVIOUSLY BANNED HIGH CAPACITY.) 32 dead. Post-ban.
#2. 2012. (Sandy Hook, ONE PREVIOUSLY BANNED AR-15 ASSAULT RIFLE with PREVIOUSLY BANNED HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES plus two handguns. EVERY SINGLE VICTIM WAS SHOT AT LEAST ONCE WITH THE PREVIOUSLY BANNED AR-15 ASSAULT RIFLE EQUIPPED WITH PREVIOUSLY BANNED '30 ROUND' MAGAZINES. EVERY SINGLE VICTIM.) 26 dead. Post-ban.
Again, 6 or 7 of the top 10 most deadly 'mass shootings' in US history have been carried out primarily, or in part with 'assault rifles' and/or high capacity magazines. This includes #1, #2, #3, #4, #8, #9, and possibly #6. Plus #11 and another 'mass shooting' which took place a few months ago in New Mexico. All four of the most recent top ten most deadly 'mass shootings' were carried out using previously banned 'assault weapons' and/or previously banned high capacity magazines. Record-high body counts were achieved as a direct result. The statistics above do not account for the deaths of the shooters.
The now expired ban saved lives not only by banning the sale of specific models of 'assault rifle' but also by banning the sale of high capacity magazines to private citizens. This effectively reduced access. Again, five of the top ten most deadly mass shootings in US history took place before the enactment of that ban. Two or three of which were carried out primarily, or in part, with specific models and/or magazines that would have been covered by that ban. Another four of the top ten most deadly mass shootings in US history have taken place since the expiration of that ban. Those four were all carried out primarily, or in part, using previously banned models and/or previously banned high capacity magazines. When high capacity magazines are used, they give the shooter the ability to carry more rounds, fire more shots, reload less often, and achieve a higher body count with greater ease. Confidence is almost certainly a factor as well.
The very presence of these 'assault weapons' in our society appears to have a negative influence on some. Adam Lanza and Nehemiah Greigo were both raised by gun fanatics. Both had access to a parent's AR-15 and high capacity magazines which they used to commit mass murder.
With all of these factors and details to consider, it is safe to say that 'more guns equals less crime' is a belief held by the terribly misinformed. The low information voter.
Just for the record: I am not a democrat. I am not anti-gun. I am a free thinking non-partisan owner of multiple firearms who believes in strong regulation. Regulation which no law abiding citizen has any reason to fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)