POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
hell, you can shoot me with an elephant tranquilizer anytime. i hear that stuff is dope
Yeah, that might not be a good idea after all. Surely, there is something that we can do to get people to submission without capping them full of bullets. Something stronger than a taser, but 100% non-lethal.
Let me try to put this in a way you can understand, no.
Ainglish is hard.
They may have thought he was going to blow up car. I was talking about other cases.
They're
Good lord. Can't even have a fricking argument these days. A bunch of idiots don't even know how to use simple contractions and can't spell. What is the world coming to? People are so dumb that people don't know the difference between there, their, and they're. **
Did i capture the essence of one of the biggest (insert putdown here) on this board?
**i may have made grammatical errors above. The difference is i dont spend half*** my life being a blowhard putting others down and acting like the queen of modern debates.
***i realize half was a sever underestimation. Dont fret, we all know it is probably closer to 95%.
If you have a,wepon and you are not listening to cops well your going yo get shot! IDGAF who you are or what color your are. The riots are idiots acting like subhuman and animals! Its a bad look started by lies! Dude had a gun. I was in Law enforcement academy inh the USAF. When there is "Intent, Capability, oppurtunity" deadly force is authorized PERIOD. take away 1 of thosee 3 and deadly force is not authorized. Before people want to get out and act like animals. Wait til after investigation,find out if officer had Intent, capability, oppurtunity. If those 3 are there the issue is done and police had just cause! Period! Educate yourself of regulations if you do not understand the Law of Deadly force before you want to Riot!! This kind of shit is what is going to turn our country into a globalist nation with UN TROOPS on our streets.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
No. For one thing I started posting here (Politics thread) just a few months ago.
Or attacked a depot where it was stored.
I don't know how you think that would clarify things.
UN Troops would be scared to death to walk our streets knowing at least half the households are armed and don't want them here. They aren't used to a full blown militia in every neighborhood.
I think Moe jumped the shark today. Or maybe they just decided to cut him loose after Hillary's putrid 3% polling.
No worries, we'll see another name surface in a few days to take his place.
No worries, we'll see another name surface in a few days to take his place.
I still can't understand why twice as many whites are killed by police than blacks. Is that not racist?
In fact, more Hispanics were killed by police last year than blacks. Why are whites and Hispanics not burning down their own neighborhoods?
And blacks commit significantly more violent crime than any other race. Black males committed 54% if all murders last year despite making up only 6% of the population. Is it not reasonable they will not have more police encounters? And as someone else mentioned, when the facts eventually come out, how many of these police shootings actually involve a black man doing nothing wrong and doing exactly what the police tell them to do? Obviously there are examples (in fact the worst one I've seen involved a white teenager in Fresno-I challenge anyone to top it) but by and large it's unbelievable how few shootings there are given the complete disrespect and unwillingness to cooperate these criminals show.
The reality is there is a complete breakdown in the family structure. Absolutely indisputable. Education, family structure, criminal behavior, and income are all directly related. In fact, these problems are more correlated to poor people than to a race.
In fact, more Hispanics were killed by police last year than blacks. Why are whites and Hispanics not burning down their own neighborhoods?
And blacks commit significantly more violent crime than any other race. Black males committed 54% if all murders last year despite making up only 6% of the population. Is it not reasonable they will not have more police encounters? And as someone else mentioned, when the facts eventually come out, how many of these police shootings actually involve a black man doing nothing wrong and doing exactly what the police tell them to do? Obviously there are examples (in fact the worst one I've seen involved a white teenager in Fresno-I challenge anyone to top it) but by and large it's unbelievable how few shootings there are given the complete disrespect and unwillingness to cooperate these criminals show.
The reality is there is a complete breakdown in the family structure. Absolutely indisputable. Education, family structure, criminal behavior, and income are all directly related. In fact, these problems are more correlated to poor people than to a race.
It's not only people from a conservative state. I gave the Donald a vote from a supposed swing state (though he's actually going to have her for lunch in Ohio).
Do you mean the WMDs that went to Syria from Iraq as a means to hide them?
The ones ISIS have probably do not exist either.
After hearing about this chemical weapons attack on American troops in Iraq, Obama furiously broke out his red crayons and drew lines in Iraq.
You're confused because you have the IQ equivalency of a potato.
It's not one example. That's what is frustrating. You don't understand the point I'm making and you are missing. There is this basic level of understanding you don't have.
See, logic is a branch of study that deals with truth in statements. We derive truth from premises and arguments give us conclusions. The study of logic then breaks them down.
For example, we use deductive reasoning to get the following conclusion.
P1: all men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man
Therefor?
What can you logically conclude? In your head, you think it proves he has brown shoes. It doesn't.
The answer is that Socrates is mortal.
This is what we call truth. The opposite would be a fallacy.
There are various types of fallacies. When you use a single event to describe an entire whole, that's a fallacy. This type of generalization is what your arguments are based on.
So when I say it's frustrating to engage, yes, this is engaging, besides the normal grammar errors(not misspellings, you don't know the correct use of you're/your or there/their/they're) you lack a basic semblance or understanding that a majority of the population possesses. When you make arguments, it literally hurts one's head, because your conclusions are like the brown shoed Socrates.
So when you say you're confused, it's expected.
No, I'm against it all around. Especially getting rid of police unions. Where else can you shoot someone and be put on "paid leave". I also believe the government is at fault for laws and regulations it's put in place so that's why many of these ppl are being stopped.. to collect money for the govt.
I'm sorry, where was your thought? You just quoted someone else at length, and acted as if you said something deep or profound. You didn't. You repeated something someone you deem smart said and then deemed it relevant to the conversation.
What? I wrote that. Thanks for proving my point though. I am arguing with dumb apes. Perhaps I should reply, "oooh ahh ahhh?" Better?
I'm trying to teach you, you dumb little monkeys. I have faith that you can do more than buy bread and be scared of the slightest noises. You born with intelligence, yet you squandered it. You can be more than a primate.
Getting there unfortunately. Looting and destruction does no good, in fact, it tends to make things worse.
Just for people who do not understand the law of deadly force. There are 3 things you must have to have probable cause to use deadly force.
1-Intent
2-opportunity
3-capability
If a law enforcement officer has those 3 things it is authorized to use force or deadly force. If just 1 is missing deadly force is not authorized. That is what the admin leave is for and when a shooting takes place that is the goal. The main thing is to findout if officer had those 3 things going for him.1 did the person have "intent" to kill or harm, 2 Did the person have "capability" to do same, 3 Did the person have "oppurtunity". If 1 is missing you cannot use deadly force. Last night during riots the police have were handcuffed . During Riot footage i watched over and over again officers could of used more force maybe not deadly but force. . These situations are going to keep get more out of control due to the lack of knowledge by certain people. If your going to Riot wait til after investigation to see if those 3 things were or were not there to justify or not justify use of force or deadly force. I know use of force was justified during Riots due to the fact I seen they Had opportunity, capability, intent, plus multiple officers were injured. Educate yourself!!!
1-Intent
2-opportunity
3-capability
If a law enforcement officer has those 3 things it is authorized to use force or deadly force. If just 1 is missing deadly force is not authorized. That is what the admin leave is for and when a shooting takes place that is the goal. The main thing is to findout if officer had those 3 things going for him.1 did the person have "intent" to kill or harm, 2 Did the person have "capability" to do same, 3 Did the person have "oppurtunity". If 1 is missing you cannot use deadly force. Last night during riots the police have were handcuffed . During Riot footage i watched over and over again officers could of used more force maybe not deadly but force. . These situations are going to keep get more out of control due to the lack of knowledge by certain people. If your going to Riot wait til after investigation to see if those 3 things were or were not there to justify or not justify use of force or deadly force. I know use of force was justified during Riots due to the fact I seen they Had opportunity, capability, intent, plus multiple officers were injured. Educate yourself!!!
Last edited:
Who would love to see a debate where both candidates were given sodium pentathol?
We could give Johnson sodium chloride.
We could give Johnson sodium chloride.
I guess you are for people looting and attacking innocent people when cops shoot when they should not have. Is that pretty close? In other cases when it was warranted, they still should have let the thugs take and do what they want. Is that pretty close?
Nope, actually gave me a nice little chuckle about how easy you make it. Keep on keepin on though.
You make me feel a lot better about myself everytime i see you post.
Some of that is due in part to catching criminals and then some bleeding heart judge or jury with people like you on it who think you should be able to do whatever without consequences let them go. Your hate for the police and white people makes you dangerous to any community.
[aQUOTE="-LEK-, post: 5203535, member: 8444"]You're confused because you have the IQ equivalency of a potato.
It's not one example. That's what is frustrating. You don't understand the point I'm making and you are missing. There is this basic level of understanding you don't have.
See, logic is a branch of study that deals with truth in statements. We derive truth from premises and arguments give us conclusions. The study of logic then breaks them down.
For example, we use deductive reasoning to get the following conclusion.
P1: all men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man
Therefor?
What can you logically conclude? In your head, you think it proves he has brown shoes. It doesn't.
The answer is that Socrates is mortal.
This is what we call truth. The opposite would be a fallacy.
There are various types of fallacies. When you use a single event to describe an entire whole, that's a fallacy. This type of generalization is what your arguments are based on.
So when I say it's frustrating to engage, yes, this is engaging, besides the normal grammar errors(not misspellings, you don't know the correct use of you're/your or there/their/they're) you lack a basic semblance or understanding that a majority of the population possesses. When you make arguments, it literally hurts one's head, because your conclusions are like the brown shoed Socrates.
So when you say you're confused, it's expected.[/QUOTE]
You are not making a point for your argument that can't be used against the same idiots you defend.
That is my point you are not getting. It was clear and I even pointed it out with sarcastic retort.
I'm not confused at all, but I think you are a liberal jackass not capable of using logic for when to riot and when not to.
*Sorry if my use of words is wrong, my phone auto corrects dum stuff and I really don't care enough to proof read
It's not one example. That's what is frustrating. You don't understand the point I'm making and you are missing. There is this basic level of understanding you don't have.
See, logic is a branch of study that deals with truth in statements. We derive truth from premises and arguments give us conclusions. The study of logic then breaks them down.
For example, we use deductive reasoning to get the following conclusion.
P1: all men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man
Therefor?
What can you logically conclude? In your head, you think it proves he has brown shoes. It doesn't.
The answer is that Socrates is mortal.
This is what we call truth. The opposite would be a fallacy.
There are various types of fallacies. When you use a single event to describe an entire whole, that's a fallacy. This type of generalization is what your arguments are based on.
So when I say it's frustrating to engage, yes, this is engaging, besides the normal grammar errors(not misspellings, you don't know the correct use of you're/your or there/their/they're) you lack a basic semblance or understanding that a majority of the population possesses. When you make arguments, it literally hurts one's head, because your conclusions are like the brown shoed Socrates.
So when you say you're confused, it's expected.[/QUOTE]
You are not making a point for your argument that can't be used against the same idiots you defend.
That is my point you are not getting. It was clear and I even pointed it out with sarcastic retort.
I'm not confused at all, but I think you are a liberal jackass not capable of using logic for when to riot and when not to.
*Sorry if my use of words is wrong, my phone auto corrects dum stuff and I really don't care enough to proof read
Similar threads
