More masking - time to fire up the (D) cheat machine

brassplyer said:
According to Dan Rosenberg whose son Drew was killed by an illegal alien driver around 3000 people are killed annually by just this one category of illegal alien crime. Apparently his website where they talked about it among other issues related to illegal aliens is no longer active. They went through a long saga of crap with the California court system that clearly is unmotivated to do much of anything when it comes to this category of crime.
Click to expand...

(Not to take away from the tragedy, but I can’t find sources for the 3000 number other than Rosenberg’s own estimate, which said “unlicensed” not “undocumented”, meaning this could possibly include citizens on a suspended license).

Regardless, do you suppose this 3000 number would be higher or lower if we stopped requiring cars to be titled and registered?
 
Not sure how this thread morphed into guns and control issues but whatever. I've made my thoughts on a potential solution clear elsewhere but for further pondering I'll add this, and it is for people on both sides to think about. We must be pragmatic here. What has a chance to pass muster - to be encoded in law - that both sides could handle? It may be an incremental process - a work of generations - but that doesn't make it less worth doing. I think there are two basic premises held by the opposing sides: Too many people die by gun violence. Gun ownership is a fundamental right of a free people. How do we reconcile the two? Is it possible for the gun nuts to admit the first or the anti gun folk the second? It starts there. I agree with both. It shouldn't be that hard.
 
leddy said:
They’re still like 30 or 40%. What about the other 60 or 70%? Men make up 90% of violent (gun crime) criminals. What should be done about that? Why do you focus on one particular demographic? Are you also accusing me of “complicity on the part of those who support policies and notions that facilitate and rationalize societal dysfunctionality within” men?
Click to expand...

Just scanning through and a couple of things caught my eye....

It seems to me in recent times there has been quite a bit of finger pointing....self reflection as a society, if you will...towards certain demographics. White privilege ring a bell? How about white fragility? White folks are too fragile to have an honest discussion about race. How 'bout white supremacy? Unlike say defunding the police which you say you don't support and is a more locality thing not part of the current admin platform, therefore your hands are clean of the matter. That wouldn't be the case, now would it. White supremacy is the biggest threat to this country, we hear slo Joe repeat, ad nauseum. I guess it largely depends on where one is standing, I highly doubt there are a lot of white supremacists shooting up the streets in bullet riddled Chicago. Looting, shoplifting, smash & grab robberies, it's a problem. A growing problem such that businesses are moving out to mitigate loss, resulting in "food deserts" which we are told is a really bad thing caused by racism, and the drug store closes and little old ladies can't get their medication. Point is, white fragility aside, are we going to have an honest discussion about race, or are we not? Self inflicted wounds can/should only be covered for so long, they need open air to assess and heal.
 
Sky Blue Lou said:
Not sure how this thread morphed into guns and control issues but whatever. I've made my thoughts on a potential solution clear elsewhere but for further pondering I'll add this, and it is for people on both sides to think about. We must be pragmatic here. What has a chance to pass muster - to be encoded in law - that both sides could handle? It may be an incremental process - a work of generations - but that doesn't make it less worth doing. I think there are two basic premises held by the opposing sides: Too many people die by gun violence. Gun ownership is a fundamental right of a free people. How do we reconcile the two? Is it possible for the gun nuts to admit the first or the anti gun folk the second? It starts there. I agree with both. It shouldn't be that hard.
Click to expand...
I'm a gun owner and an advocate for private gun ownership. Simultaneously- I'm an advocate for strong firearm regulation. I'm living breathing proof that you can be both - one and the same.
 
brassplyer said:
Those like leddy are never interested in being honest about anything that doesn't support their pet narrative.
Click to expand...
If you’re willing to drop the insulting tone and have something more productive, it would be less of a waste of time here.
 
leddy said:
Kick it off then.
Click to expand...

No can do, my friend. Feeling a bit fragile at the moment. harhar

I'm sitting on the porch, after being forecast repeatedly with a resultant no-show, we're finally getting some much needed rain. Maybe some other time. Right now just looking to listen to the rain, relax, and lack the patience or energy for a lot of back and forth. Just tossing some thoughts out there you can take or leave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
Mick Doobie said:
Unlike say defunding the police which you say you don't support and is a more locality thing not part of the current admin platform, therefore your hands are clean of the matter. That wouldn't be the case, now would it. White supremacy is the biggest threat to this country, we hear slo Joe repeat, ad nauseum. I guess it largely depends on where one is standing, I highly doubt there are a lot of white supremacists shooting up the streets in bullet riddled Chicago. Looting, shoplifting, smash & grab robberies, it's a problem.
Click to expand...
Let me give you an example of something that demonstrates where my thinking lies -

During the George Floyd protests, Trump had an opportunity to start a dialogue. He could have said “look, we hear you. We are going to look at what we can do to improve police training and avoid George Floyd situations”. Even if you think the police can do no wrong, there’s a diplomatic way of communicating that doesn’t throw gas on the fire. Instead, he said “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”. If you’re a black person who has had many instances of being profiled or mistreated, what is that saying to you?

It was a tone deaf response. So is burning down a police station. A leader has to start by finding some common ground. This is one of the reasons I saw a democrat as a better choice in 2016 anyway because I see this a lot.

I am very against going soft on crime. Lack of prosecution is killing cities. That is a liberal policy I despise. Full stop. I voted for some republicans in my local elections as this is a local issue.

I’m sure we all agree there are socioeconomic differences between whites and blacks. What caused it, and what do we do about it? I’ve already stated my position in other threads. We are dealing with multi-generational effects from lack of access to education and jobs, and subsequent pass-down of resources. I’ve advocated assistance for education and home buying. It was pretty clear the right wingers here were against any sort of race-based assistance. My position is the cause was race-based, so the solution could be as well. If it needs to be needs-based regardless of race, fine, it just makes it that much more expensive though.

Obviously I support a national gun registry and measures that will reduce gun violence both in inner cities as well as anywhere else.

That’s where I stand anyway. Not really looking to argue anymore. If you have better ideas go for it. How else can the problem be fixed?
 
Last edited:
leddy said:
(Not to take away from the tragedy, but I can’t find sources for the 3000 number other than Rosenberg’s own estimate, which said “unlicensed” not “undocumented”, meaning this could possibly include citizens on a suspended license).
Click to expand...
His son was killed by an illegal, he did research - he wins.

leddy said:
Regardless, do you suppose this 3000 number would be higher or lower if we stopped requiring cars to be titled and registered?
Click to expand...
.smh

It would have no impact whatsoever. They buy, borrow or steal a car. Even if the car isn't stolen likely as not they don't sweat having a title, registration, license or insurance. Show up at Greasy's Used Cars with cash in hand, they're not going to ask questions and they don't ask about immigration status or criminal history. People buy cars without a title all the time. You can't legally drive a car like that but they don't sweat the legalities. The guy that killed Drew Rosenberg tried to leave the scene which is typical.
 
brassplyer said:
It would have no impact whatsoever. They buy, borrow or steal a car. Even if the car isn't stolen likely as not they don't sweat having a title, registration, license or insurance. Show up at Greasy's Used Cars with cash in hand, they're not going to ask questions and they don't ask about immigration status or criminal history. People buy cars without a title all the time. You can't legally drive a car like that but they don't sweat the legalities.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The more there are, the more opportunities to borrow or steal. Without any traceable owner, the less risk of using it in a crime.

Depending on your state, if you lend your car to someone and they are liable for anything, you as the owner are liable as well. You going to lend your car to someone you don’t trust and put your ass on the line? How about if you know they are up to no good?
 
Last edited:
leddy said:
Incorrect. The more there are, the more opportunities to borrow or steal. Without any traceable owner, the less risk of using it in a crime.

Depending on your state, if you lend your car to someone and they are liable for anything, you as the owner are liable as well. You going to lend your car to someone you don’t trust and put your ass on the line? How about if you know they are up to no good?
Click to expand...
Sure your narrative outweighs reality.

brassplyer said:
His son was killed by an illegal, he did research - he wins.
Click to expand...
leddy said:
So you are selectively ok with appeals to emotion. Got it.
Click to expand...
Not at all - post your research that contradicts his.
 
mjbphotos said:
'Pretty active' - not as much as some of you anti-mask/anti-gun control/anti-vaxxers. I was not aware that moderators need to remain neutral (it certainly wasn't in the requirements laid out at the time), perhaps you can point me to the links that state that, but instead you'll reply that "I can look it up myself' again? :ROFLMAO: 'belittle, mock, 'generally combative' - really? Thin skin much? I';d ask you to point out specific examples, but... you know... :whistle:
Click to expand...
Haha you’re belittling right now.
 
mjbphotos said:
'Pretty active' - not as much as some of you anti-mask/anti-gun control/anti-vaxxers. I was not aware that moderators need to remain neutral (it certainly wasn't in the requirements laid out at the time), perhaps you can point me to the links that state that, but instead you'll reply that "I can look it up myself' again? :ROFLMAO: 'belittle, mock, 'generally combative' - really? Thin skin much? I';d ask you to point out specific examples, but... you know... :whistle:
Click to expand...
From gecko zed’ post when he was taking apps for mods

“ do not fight fire with fire. That only makes more fire. Be as neutral as possible.
* do not be afraid to admit you were wrong: "Sorry, I assumed too much", "sorry, I made a mistake", or "sorry, I shouldn't have said that", are okay things to say. We won't always get things right.

As a mod, you lose the freedom that members have. Your conduct must be beyond reproach. If you engage in behaviour that, were you not a mod, you could be called to account on, it will inevitably come back at you, and you will damage your credibility. Once that's happened, it is a long slow climb to restore it.

Mods should be like referees at a sporting match; for the most part they should be invisible, letting the game flow around them, only intervening when absolutely necessary. And like referees, mods should be resilient. They can expect to be abused, and they should be able to take it. "Giving as good as one gets" is not appropriate behaviour for a mod.

Cast yourself in the role of a statesman, a diplomat, rather than an avenging angel. Treat people as if they were being honourable.and take them at their word. If they then aren't 'good', then they destroy their credibility, not yours.”


And yes, he brings up. being neutral. You are anything but neutral. You are very actively pushing your left leaning agenda.

Also that as a mod you lose the freedoms that members have.

Your constantly throwing in your hysterically laughing emojis. We all know that unless someone is telling a joke that it’s a covert way of ridiculing someone or their post.

And then there’s constant use of the leftist slurs like anti-vaxxer, anti science denier this , denier that,

I could go on and on but I won’t

Quite frankly I don’t think you’re living up to the ideals of a moderator.

Gecko on the other hand is a great moderator. He lives up to the ideals.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top