Jump to content
Sniper

Joe Biden: Time to Sue Gun Manufacturers

Recommended Posts

@Mrs. Peel:

I realize that I probably should have also included the word "young" in my description of the profile of the typical mass-shooter in the U.S. over the past 20 years, so it reads" "young angry white male"

You may recall that two years ago I wrote a post here on NJGF that started with this sentence:
Jack Weinberg, a former New Left activist in the Free Speech Movement at UofC-Berkeley in 1964, is credited in an interview with coining the saying “Don’t trust anyone over 30”.  I wonder if today we should reconsider that claim and reverse it to say “Don’t trust anyone under 30”..

What is it with the youth in our country, as well as in other countries today, when it comes to gun violence and mass shootings?  Specifically, white men under the age of 30.

When looking at 15 of the deadliest mass shootings committed in the U.S. over the past 50 years, I find it very interesting that eleven (11) of the shooters were under the age of 30 and two (2) were under that age of 40.  Statistically, approximately one half of mass shooters are age 30 or younger.  Yet, I also find it interesting that the shooter who killed the most people is over the age of 60....(an anomaly?). What is the motivating cause of these young men to commit such horrendous acts of violence?

It is probably almost impossible to predict who will become a mass shooter. From what I have read, mass shooters tend to have common psychological and behavioral characteristics, including depression, resentment, anger, social isolation, as well as the tendency to externalize blame, rather than internalize it.  They may suffer from various mental illnesses such as neuro-developmental disorders, including Asperger’s syndrome and/or autism spectrum disorder. 

Is it possible to also blame the motivation of some of these mass killers on the increasingly polarized source of news and facts on the internet?  Aside from our mass media, there are a plethora of web sites that purport to provide the honest truth about all topics and issues.  Someone can easily find multiple web sources to affirm their beliefs and then consciously choose not to even read or listen to, let alone consider, alternative or contrary assertions, claims, statements, etc.  Some studies have also detected a link between graphically violent entertainment of movies and video games and the shooters.  Could it be that some of these individuals have such a warped idea about certain things from this self-consciously chosen narrow mindedness, that they are divorced from reality?

I hope that in coming years, sooner rather than later, our society is able to reach a much better understanding of the potential triggers, psychological traits and antecedents which contribute to motivating young men to commit such extreme violence. Ideally, to be able to identify individuals who are more at risk of engaging in mass killings or are on the pathway to intended violence in order that appropriate preventative strategies can be considered and implemented in order to reduce their occurrence.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, two years ago, I posted the following here on NJGF, that is relevant and backs up the point I made in my last post:
I checked out the U.S. mass shootings data compiled by the reader-supported, non-profit news organization called Mother Jones from their web site
(Here is the link:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

The facts are sobering and eye-opening, with some obvious and others not so obvious:

  • Since 1982, 54% of mass shootings, (in which 3 or more fatalities were reported), were committed by white men.
  • More than half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 20, respectively)
  • The other 30 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, and religious and government buildings
  • 44 of the killers were white males and only two were women.
  • The average age of the killers was 35
  • A majority were mentally troubled, with many having displayed signs of mental health problems before their killing spree.
  • White people make up 63% of the U.S. population.
  • Men are more likely to commit violent crimes.
  • 98% of mass shootings and 90% of all murders are committed by men.

I am curious to hear the thoughts of others here on all of this....

AVB-AMG

FYI - Here is a list of 15, (which are some, but certainly not all), of the deadliest mass shootings in the United States listed chronologically, from today, going back to 1966, where the gunman/gunmen are known:

                                                                                              Killed /                                                
Date                Location                                                       Injured        Shooter’s Name / Age

11/05/2017      1st Baptist Church – Sutherland Springs, TX    28/30          Devin P. Kelley / 26

10/13/2017      Private Residence – Pedro, OH                        4                 Aaron Lawson / 23

10/01/2017      Route 91 Music Festival – Las Vegas, NV       59/489      Stephen Paddock / 64

6/12/2016        Nightclub Shooting - Orlando, FL.                    49/53         Omar Mateen / 29

12/02/2015      Inland Reg. Ctr. – San Bernardino, CA             14               Syed Farook / 28
                                                                                                                     Tashfeen Malik / 27

9/16/2013        Washington Navy Yard – Washington D.C.      12               Aaron Alexis / 34

12/14/2012      Sandy Hook – Newtown, CT                             26               Adam Lanza / 20

7/20/2012        Aurora Theater – Aurora, CO                            12/70         James Holmes / 24

11/05/2009      Fort Hood – Killeen, TX                                     13/30          Nidal M. Hasan / 39

4/03/2009        American Civic Assoc. – Binghamton, NY        13               Jiverly Wong / 42

4/16/2007        Virginia Tech – Blacksburg VA                          32/17          Seung-Hui Cho / 23

4/20/1999        Columbine H.S. – Littleton, CO                         13/24          Eric Harris / 18
                                                                                                                     Dylan Klebold / 18

8/20/1986        USPS – Edmond, OK                                        14/6           Patrick Sherrill / 45

7/18/1984        McDonald’s – San Ysidro CA                            21/19         James Huberty / 41

8/01/1966        U. of Texas – Austin, TX                                   14/31         Charles Whitman / 25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

FYI – it is NOT a common myth that over the past approximately 20 years in the United States, that the typical profile of mass shooter is an “angry white male”….. My assertion is correct.  It is factual information confirmed by in-depth studies conducted by respected institutions and not my opinion.

You're smarter than that! Your chart shows the same as mine. My point is... the media has been trying oh-so-hard to infer that "mass shooters" are disproportionately white... and further linking with "structural racism", "white supremacy" - building a myth that mass shootings are a white guy's crime. 

Why do you even say "angry white male", for instance? "Angry" and "male" may be relevant factors - youth is definitely a factor - but race is statistically irrelevant. It's put in there to shape a narrative that isn't true. Labels matter. Language matters. Facts matter. White males are no more liable or prone to commit a mass shooting than a Hispanic male, a Black male or an Asian male. And your own statistics prove that. THAT is my point! 

Edit: our responses crossed. We agree that youth is another big factor. Race, though, is not. You're an architect - you have an analytical mind. You know my point is correct! In today's hyper-sensitive racial times, it's unfair to stick "white" into your label - you're just playing into the hands of this new breed of activist who want to turn people against each other over skin color. Our society is taking a HUGE step backwards in that regard. Martin Luther King Jr must be rolling over in his grave to see all this focus on skin color rather than character!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Thank you for this! I didn't realize this was just published. Nice to see that the rate is trending down again - the direct opposite of the "epidemic" some people call it. (If a disease was at near 30+ year lows, would anyone in their right mind call it an "epidemic"? Of course not! That's the most obvious spin!)

Also note, in that same time period,  MORE guns have been purchased and in possession, and the Millennial generation (the angry, white, young, male generation) is the biggest in the country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

I checked out the U.S. mass shootings data compiled by the reader-supported, non-profit news organization called Mother Jones from their web site

First off, when I see a Anti-2A Liberal using Mother Jones as their "Fact Checking Site" (knowing that Mother Jones is farther radical Left than CNN, MSNBC and NYT), I immediately discard any point of reference, due to their history of bias.

That said, they did get one IMPORTANT point correct, and one that I mentioned earlier in the thread:

52 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

A majority were mentally troubled, with many having displayed signs of mental health problems before their killing spree.

THIS is the common denominator to these shootings (besides the gun), but the Liberal media always totally ignores this MAIN issue. @AVB-AMG, why does your media always ignore the mental illness FACT, while always blaming the gun?

AVB, there are at least 35 MILLION angry, male, young people in the country (half are WHITE), how many are mass shooters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

You're smarter than that! Your chart shows the same as mine. My point is... the media has been trying oh-so-hard to infer that "mass shooters" are disproportionately white... and further linking with "structural racism", "white supremacy" - building a myth that mass shootings are a white guy's crime. 

Why do you even say "angry white male", for instance? "Angry" and "male" may be relevant factors - youth is definitely a factor - but race is statistically irrelevant. It's put in there to shape a narrative that isn't true. Labels matter. Language matters. Facts matter. White males are no more liable or prone to commit a mass shooting than a Hispanic male, a Black male or an Asian male. And your own statistics prove that. THAT is my point! 

Edit: our responses crossed. We agree that youth is another big factor. Race, though, is not. You're an architect - you have an analytical mind. You know my point is correct! In today's hyper-sensitive racial times, it's unfair to stick "white" into your label - you're just playing into the hands of this new breed of activist who want to turn people against each other over skin color. Our society is taking a HUGE step backwards in that regard. Martin Luther King Jr must be rolling over in his grave to see all this focus on skin color rather than character!

@Mrs. Peel

I disagree with your assertion regarding race.  Race is statistically relevant in mass shootings over the past twenty years in the U.S. for us to understand specifically who has committed these horrific violent crimes.

I think we both agree on the results of the factual studies we each have read.  My earlier assertion that most of the mass shooters happen to be white is also correct and is based on factual information.  As proof, you and others may refer to a very detailed database chart compiled by Mother Jones, titled “U.S. Mass Shootings, 1982-2019: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation.  Here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b9o6uDO18sLxBqPwl_Gh9bnhW-ev_dABH83M5Vb5L8o/edit#gid=0

In that chart, you will see that of the 116 events documented, that 64 of the shooters were white and 40 of the shooters were Latino.  For my argument, from 1999 to the present day, (the last twenty (20) years), 47 white men committed mass-shootings out of the 90 mass-shootings recorded over that period.  So, the historical facts show, almost 48% of the mass-shooters in the U.S. over the past 20 years were white.  The chart of the study that you included in your post from Statista.com shows an even higher percentage (65%), perpetrated mass shootings over the studied time period.

My point is that t
herefore, we can all see that most of the mass shooters have been historically perpetrated by white men over that period.  Is it "disproportionately" so?  Maybe not, but IMHO, it really makes no difference in the big picture that whites make up the majority of the U.S. population, to recognize and accept the factual reality that they have been the ones committing the most mass-shootings over the past 20 years, more so than those of other races.

Now, as to your assertion that “white males are no more liable or prone to commit a mass shooting than a Hispanic male, a Black male or an Asian male”.  You may be correct in the overall picture, asserting that white men may not be statistically more “prone” to commit a mass-shootings.  But the facts clearly show that white men have in the past committed a greater number of the mass-shootings.  Therefore, it could be argued that white men may continue to perpetrate mass-shootings, more so than other races.  I understand and admit that is conjecture, based on historical precedence and may or may not continue....

Also, I am not saying that there is a link between these “young, angry white male” mass-shooters and “structural racism or “white supremacy”.  While some of the mass shooters may have been influenced by some of those beliefs, I do not think we can accurately characterize most, let alone claim that all of them having been so. 

 AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

So, the historical facts show, almost 48% of the mass-shooters in the U.S. over the past 20 years were white.

 

5 minutes ago, Sniper said:

AVB, there are at least 35 MILLION angry, male, young people in the country (half are WHITE), how many are mass shooters?

So AVB, statistically, your numbers are exactly in line with the way the population is split.. angry, WHITE, young mails AREN'T the epidemic in these shootings, like Liberal media spins it..

@Mrs. Peel is correct.

....." Plainly, the millennial generation is ushering in the nation’s broader racial diversity. Overall, millennials are 55.8 percent white and nearly 30 percent “new minorities” (Hispanics, Asians and those identifying as two or more races).

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/06/28/diversity-defines-the-millennial-generation/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sniper said:

@AVB-AMG, why does your media always ignore the mental illness FACT, while always blaming the gun?

@Sniper:

So now you are asking me why the main stream news media chooses what facts to present and highlight in their stories?
Since when am I responsible for making those decisions...?
Should I ask you the same silly question about why does Fox News choose to omit or be silent on important news stories or continuously spin their political bias?  Come on now, we both know that almost all of the news media has their biases and each of us needs to do our best to recognize and call it what it is and ultimately be able to understand and digest what is truly the honest truth based on factual information.

AVB-AMG

5 hours ago, Sniper said:

 

So AVB, statistically, your numbers are exactly in line with the way the population is split.. angry, WHITE, young mails AREN'T the epidemic in these shootings, like Liberal media spins it..

@Mrs. Peel is correct.

....." Plainly, the millennial generation is ushering in the nation’s broader racial diversity. Overall, millennials are 55.8 percent white and nearly 30 percent “new minorities” (Hispanics, Asians and those identifying as two or more races).

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/06/28/diversity-defines-the-millennial-generation/

@Sniper:

You left out this very important point that I made in my post:

My point is that therefore, we can all see that most of the mass shooters have been historically perpetrated by white men over that period.  Is it "disproportionately" so?  Maybe not, but IMHO, it really makes no difference in the big picture that whites make up the majority of the U.S. population, to recognize and accept the factual reality that they have been the ones committing the most mass-shootings over the past 20 years....

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

Race is statistically relevant in mass shootings over the past twenty years in the U.S.

I'm astounded. Truly!  I know you understand math and proportionality.

The facts show that race is STATISTICALLY IRRELEVANT as a factor in mass murders - IAW, race makes NO DIFFERENCE. People have committed these rare, horrific crimes IN PROPORTION to their percentage of the population. That means it's a statistically INSIGNIFICANT factor.  OMG! I need a drink... and it's only 10:30 a.m! Why are you not getting this? :facepalm: 

9 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

the facts show that white men have in the past committed a greater percentage of the mass-shootings.  Therefore, it could be argued that white men may continue to perpetrate mass-shootings, more so than other races. 

They  have committed mass shootings IN PROPORTION to their population... so NOT "more so than other races" - exactly "the SAME as other races." 

Where's my merlot?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

Come on now, we both know that almost all of the news media has their biases and we need to do our best to cut through it to learn the honest truth based on factual information.

Yes, "We" know that, but YOU choose to use biased, left wing, radical, lefty, Anti-2A sites as your point of reference for gun facts and data. Why do you do that, if you know, going in, there are extreme biases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

The facts show that race is STATISTICALLY IRRELEVANT as a factor in mass murders - IAW, race makes NO DIFFERENCE. People are committed these rare, horrific crimes IN PROPORTION to their percentage of the population. That means it's a statistically INSIGNIFICANT factor.  They  have committed mass shootings IN PROPORTION to their population... so NOT "more so than other races" - exactly "the SAME as other races." 

@Mrs. Peel:

Did you not read this part of my post?:

"Now, as to your assertion that “white males are no more liable or prone to commit a mass shooting than a Hispanic male, a Black male or an Asian male”.  You may be correct in the overall picture, asserting that white men may not be statistically more “prone” to commit a mass-shootings, but the facts show that white men have in the past committed a greater number of the mass-shootings.  Therefore, it could be argued that white men may continue to perpetrate mass-shootings, more so than other races.  That is conjecture based on historical precedence and may or may not continue...."

AVB-AMG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, now you're just "gaslighting" me. I already responded to that. White men do not commit that crime "more so than other races" - they commit it at the same rate as other races.

Where is that damn bottle?? I'm signing off before my head explodes. I hate when a bright person such as yourself is either unwilling or unable to understand what - to me anyway - is an obvious point. It makes me bonkers! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

You may be correct in the overall picture, asserting that white men may not be statistically more “prone” to commit a mass-shootings, but the facts show that white men have in the past committed a greater percentage of the mass-shootings.  Therefore, it could be argued that white men may continue to perpetrate mass-shootings, more so than other races. 

Wrong, YOUR "news" sources want you to believe that (see, their re-programming really works), but the FACTS show:

12 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I already responded to that. White men do not commit that crime "more so than other races" - they commit it at the same rate as other races.

It's the SAME rate as their ratio to the overall population (your post above PROVES that). It's just CNN, NYT and MSNBC can't sensationalize a mass killing, and push their narrative, when it's a angry, young Hispanic male, like they can with a WHITE male.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:icon_rolleyes:

 

A statistical sampling of 15? 

There are approximately 330 Million people in the US..... I am no statistician, but I know statistical insignificance when I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, W2MC said:

:icon_rolleyes:

 

A statistical sampling of 15? 

There are approximately 330 Million people in the US..... I am no statistician, but I know statistical insignificance when I see it.

That's a very fair point! One I should have considered myself. That said, the data - over a number of years - does still show that these horrible crimes are not at all unique to "whitey". I'm beginning to think @AVB-AMG has "bought lock, stock and barrel" into garment-rending guilt over his white privilege... so much so that he's seeing data patterns where they don't even exist! ;)

He needs to have a nice glass of port.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I'm astounded. Truly!  I know you understand math and proportionality.

The facts show that race is STATISTICALLY IRRELEVANT as a factor in mass murders - IAW, race makes NO DIFFERENCE. People have committed these rare, horrific crimes IN PROPORTION to their percentage of the population. That means it's a statistically INSIGNIFICANT factor. 

They  have committed mass shootings IN PROPORTION to their population... so NOT "more so than other races" - exactly "the SAME as other races." 

@Mrs. Peel:

I know that I am beating a dead horse here, but let me try to simplify and clarify this point one last time....:deadhorse:

We agree that if you want to use just proportionality to support your argument, then you are correct in your assertion.
If one just looks at the numbers alone of which race the "angry young men" mass-shooters are members of, then it is clear that whites/Caucasians have committed more mass shootings in the U.S. in the past 20 years than angry young men of other races.  That was part of my point.  I never said or even implied that the the mass-shootings in the U.S. over this time period are "unique to whitey".

I will reiterate the final point that I was making: 
Therefore, it could be argued that "white" men may continue to perpetrate mass-shootings, more so or at a higher number than "angry young men" of other races.  I admit that this is conjecture based on historical precedence and may or may not continue to be the case....

Finally, I would be the last person to ever suffer from the silly so-called affliction of either consciously or subconsciously subscribing to the concept of "white privilege", or as some have defined as an invisible package of unearned assets.
FYI - I have always recognized, appreciate and have been grateful for, (and plan to continue to be), as well as enjoying my station in life, from my God-given attributes and benefited from good parenting, combined with those self-attained attributes attained through extensive education, much hard work and mostly good choices along the way....

BTW, now that it is getting chillier outside in the evenings, your suggestion of opening and savoring a nice glass of Port sounds like an excellent idea..... Cheers :drinks:

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

We agree that if you want to use just proportionality to support your argument, then you are correct in your assertion.

Thank you for partly agreeing with me... now I just need to push you the rest of the way --- proportionality is the ONLY rational way to view this! When you say "angry white men" are committing these mass murders, you are purposefully - or unwittingly - creating a "profile" based on incorrect analysis and feeding a false narrative. In other words, you're disseminating "fake news" that also happens to be racist. Don't do that! :nono:

 

1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

Mrs Peel, I am impressed with your tenacity debating this for so long.

Eh, or am I just behaving like a typical woman... refusing to let the man get the last word in...? Discuss amongst yourselves! :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Thank you for partly agreeing with me... now I just need to push you the rest of the way --- proportionality is the ONLY rational way to view this! When you say "angry white men" are committing these mass murders, you are purposefully - or unwittingly - creating a "profile" based on incorrect analysis and feeding a false narrative. In other words, you're disseminating "fake news" that also happens to be racist. Don't do that! :nono:

 

Eh, or am I just behaving like a typical woman... refusing to let the man get the last word in...? Discuss amongst yourselves! :rofl:

Last word!

  • Agree 1
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

Therefore, it could be argued that "white" men may continue to perpetrate mass-shootings, more so or at a higher number than "angry young men" of other races. 

It could be argued, but it would be incorrect. Here's just another example of your WaPo/NYT narrative being "corrected".

An alleged robber with an “assault rifle” was killed Tuesday by a good guy with a gun in an Apple store in Dallas, Texas.

The suspect was described as being armed with an “assault rifle” and wearing body armor. He was shot and fatally wounded after unsuccessfully attempting to disarm the store’s security guard.

The suspect, described as an adult Black male, attempted to disarm the security officer but was unsuccessful. The security officer was able to pull his weapon and fired multiple times striking the suspect.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/09/alleged-robber-with-assault-rifle-killed-by-good-guy-with-a-gun/

Oops....

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest problem with all of this debate is the data being used is flawed.. or at least biased to how certain groups want to perceive it.   the BS of mass shootings defined as 3 or more fatalities... or this data set over here is defined as 4 or more not including the shooter... blah blah. BS

If the study doesn't include non fatalities, only considers public spaces... and doesn't include drug or gang related violence, which none of them seem to do.... then the data is tainted when being used to talk about shootings and gun violence in America.  Take away private property shootings, where most gang related and drug shootings occur, take away gang drive-by and turf wars and only counting the ones with higher fatalities, or fatalities at all, paints a completely different picture.  Include it all and your "Since 1982, 54% of mass shootings, (in which 3 or more fatalities were reported), were committed by white men" data point would go up in smoke, big time.   It would probably be closer to 95% of all shooters are black if you considered all of the data points.   Even the Stanford definition, which I think does a better job than mother jones, includes shootings even if they are non necessarily fatal, yet they still exclude anything gang, drug or organized crime related shootings.

"The definition of mass shooting used for the Stanford database is 3 or more shooting victims (not necessarily fatalities), not including the shooter. The shooting must not be identifiably gang, drug, or organized crime related."

Why do they do this ... because most folks are desensitized to black drug/gang related violence, especially when the info or data comes from places like Chicago.  It doesn't help their narrative so therefore is not included.  Throw in non-fatal, drug/gang related firearm shootings/statistics... and the % for scary black "assault rifles" being used in shootings, wouldn't even be enough to register on the pie charts.   But that wouldn't help the so called "assault weapon" case now would it.

Every time I see a newscast or read an article that starts talking about mass shooting statistics from one source or another it makes me want to vomit, because I know whats to follow is going to be a load of horse shit.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sniper said:

It could be argued, but it would be incorrect. Here's just another example of your WaPo/NYT narrative being "corrected".

An alleged robber with an “assault rifle” was killed Tuesday by a good guy with a gun in an Apple store in Dallas, Texas.

The suspect was described as being armed with an “assault rifle” and wearing body armor. He was shot and fatally wounded after unsuccessfully attempting to disarm the store’s security guard.

The suspect, described as an adult Black male, attempted to disarm the security officer but was unsuccessful. The security officer was able to pull his weapon and fired multiple times striking the suspect.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/09/alleged-robber-with-assault-rifle-killed-by-good-guy-with-a-gun/

Oops....

@Sniper:

That example was not a mass-shooting...  therefore not relevant to my earlier point about mass-shootings.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2019 at 10:21 AM, AVB-AMG said:

@JohnnyB:

Actually, I do not believe that strict Socialism is a viable form of government and have never said so or advocated that.
I do believe that from what history has shown us that IMHO, the ideal form of government is essentially what we currently have in the U.S. - a constitutional republic that strives, while not always succeeding, in being a democracy.  Ideally, I believe that this should be a combination of democratic social concepts, (i.e. Social Security, Medicare & ultimately Universal Healthcare), that deal with our broad social issues, along with an fairly regulated, (i.e. Glass-Steagall Act), capitalist economic approach for business and commerce.  We saw and experienced the meltdown in the financial services industry back in 2008, when a few greedy banks and financial services institutions almost collapsed our entire financial system.

Yet, unfortunately, I also recognize that in reality our country is currently and has been for awhile, struggling to deal with conflicting forces of control that include oligarchy, kleptocracy, fascism and populism.

AVB-AMG

Maybe so but the people you seem to support (Democrats) are really NWO, Marxist, Statists and there is NOTHING compatible with them and a Democratic Republic and/or a free society.  They are calling for MORE control than even "strict" socialism.   Concentrated power in any form is dangerous.  Just about all of the incumbants in Washington ... those same said "Socialist" Democrats (see above) and the Republicans (Democrats) are not working toward self-government and limited-government with checks and balances like the Constituitonalists (Middle-of-the-Road) are doing.  The trajectory and agenda in Washington is to "fundamentally" change the relationship of the individual to his or her government.  In many ways there needs to be a few safe guards, however, they should largely be out of the realm of the federal government for sure.  

By the way, that melt-down in 2008 was caused by inbred government and private institutions.  It was brought on purposefully by Government interference in private industry that started in Clinton era, or maybe in Bush Senior's Administration.   Private businesses were strong-armed into providing loans to those that were not capable of paying them to receive votes and appease a base.  However, at the very top the whole thing, just like the easy credit card debt and school loans, those have been targeted as well to cause financial harm.  There was NO coincidence that the collapse happened right before the election.  

The incompetent and corrupt incumbants in Washington do not represent the people and have no moral compass and in general, they have too much, and should not be given more power.  

In closing, the dishonest media is pushing the country further Left.  It is time the pendulum swings back, AVB.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@Sniper:

That example was not a mass-shooting...  therefore not relevant to my point.

AVB-AMG

It very well could have been a mass shooting, if a good guy with a gun wasn't there to stop him.

Stop being so obtuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Underdog said:

Maybe so but the people you seem to support (Democrats) are really NWO, Marxist, Statists and there is NOTHING compatible with them and a Democratic Republic and/or a free society.  They are calling for MORE control than even "strict" socialism.   Concentrated power in any form is dangerous.  Just about all of the incumbants in Washington ... those same said "Socialist" Democrats (see above) and the Republicans (Democrats) are not working toward self-government and limited-government with checks and balances like the Constituitonalists (Middle-of-the-Road) are doing.  The trajectory and agenda in Washington is to "fundamentally" change the relationship of the individual to his or her government.  In many ways there needs to be a few safe guards, however, they should largely be out of the realm of the federal government for sure.  

By the way, that melt-down in 2008 was caused by inbred government and private institutions.  It was brought on purposefully by Government interference in private industry that started in Clinton era, or maybe in Bush Senior's Administration.   Private businesses were strong-armed into providing loans to those that were not capable of paying them to receive votes and appease a base.  However, at the very top the whole thing, just like the easy credit card debt and school loans, those have been targeted as well to cause financial harm.  There was NO coincidence that the collapse happened right before the election.  

The incompetent and corrupt incumbants in Washington do not represent the people and have no moral compass and in general, they have too much, and should not be given more power.  

In closing, the dishonest media is pushing the country further Left.  It is time the pendulum swings back, AVB.  

@Underdog:

Ok....  from the first paragraph in your posted quoted above, what exactly are you proposing as the solution to get from where we are today to where you think we should be as a country?  Also, other than Donald Trump, who do you think would be an effective leader to accomplish those goals?

Regarding your second paragraph, we are in agreement.  We know now, with 20/20 hindsight, that going as far back as the first Bush administration, the Clinton's and continuing through the second Bush administration, that it was the stated policy of each administration to promote home ownership as one of the primary goals for ALL adult Americans.  We learned the hard way with the financial institution collapse and crisis in 2008 that not everyone can or should be homeowners and that they should just rent and not overextend or expose themselves financially to unrealistic promises by financial institutions, along with their sub-prime lending.
Secondly, as you say, the "inbred" fact between the federal government and the financial institutions in the private sector, epitomized by the revolving door for staff between the private financial institution Goldman Sachs that the federal Dept. of Treasury, specifically Hank Paulson.  He was the key person responsible for advocating spending billions of U.S. taxpayers money to bail out the financial institutions, along with cutting a deal so none of the truly guilty parties ever had any charges brought against them or went on trial for what were real crimes.  It was these senior executives of the financial institutions who headed up and allowed the nefarious mortgage trading shenanigans to grow and continue, despite key warnings and whom were responsible for that mess.  They were not really "strong armed", they continued their practices because it was immensely profitable for them to do so, naively assuming that the bubble would not burst anytime soon. Then, even more galling is the fact that they kept their jobs AND collected outrageous financial bonuses to boot.  What ever happened to the concept of "no profit - then no bonus"?.  

We are also in agreement that there is a very good chance that this financial melt-down will most likely happen again sooner than most people think.  It may be predicated by the ridiculous growth student loan debt that is derailing many younger people from being able to afford to start families and build their homes as they struggle to pay off this debt.  As far as credit card debt, I have no sympathy for folks who have succumbed to our national phenomenon of immediate gratification and have been had the gullibility to be seduced by the effective overt and subliminal marketing strategies of retailers, promoting ideas such as "you deserve it", or "why wait", or "you really need this" or "buy on credit..."

I think that the main stream media with Fox News on one side and MSNBC and some of the other networks on the other, are indeed pushing their either far right or far left agendas, and are both being dishonest at times, further dividing and polarizing our nation's citizens.  I am not sure that the so-called pendulum will swing back in a direction that either of us will be comfortable with.

You know what I think... and I agree with your statement: "The incompetent and corrupt incumbents in Washington do not represent the people and have no moral compass and in general, they have too much, and should not be given more power."  I just believe that Donald Trump and his administration currently epitomizes this reality and need to be replaced as a result of the 2020 election.   
Now, the question is by whom....?

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...