Community > Posts By > mightymoe

 
mightymoe's photo
Thu 08/09/18 12:46 PM

only until the next democrat is in office, and all the same stuff will be written about republicans and 'the right' regarding how they handle it.

just like under OBama, just like regarding Hilary, the 'derangement' is really an AMerican thing on both sides of the aisle.
huh...I don't remember any Republicans looting stores and starting fires, beating people up...what side was doing that in the last election? I think it was Democrats....Obama wins 2 elections, where was the rioting? Did anyone block any highways? Only against Trump...

mightymoe's photo
Thu 08/09/18 12:33 PM
2003, the late and celebrated writer Charles Krauthammer coined the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome," which he described as: "The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay - the very existence of George W. Bush."

Prior to becoming one of the most respected political analysts of his time, Charles Krauthammer was Dr. Krauthammer, a psychiatrist, who treated people for various forms of mental illness. In this regard, he was a uniquely qualified observer of American politics.

Krauthammer was not a Trump supporter, but the behavior of the left after the 2016 election gave him an obvious reason to offer his diagnosis of a new disorder called "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

How else could you describe the mental state of people who organized groups to scream at the sky on the one year anniversary of Trump's 2016 victory?

Democrats and their allies in media, as well as the left's army of professional activists, have tried everything they can think of to reverse or invalidate the 2016 election, most notably through the seemingly never-ending Mueller investigation.

Liberals tune in to CNN and MSNBC on a nightly basis, waiting for that one shred of proof of Russian collusion that Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff of California keeps telling them is just around every corner.

The Russia investigation gets so much airtime on progressive cable news channels that you may have forgotten one of the more absurd anti-Trump campaigns of this year.

In January of 2018, Democrats in Congress were briefed by an assistant professor of forensic psychiatry from Yale named Bandy Lee. She suggested to them that Trump was mentally unfit for office, and that he should be evaluated "by force" if necessary.

The liberal site "VOX" which is run by Ezra Klein, formerly of the Washington Post, took Lee's diagnosis quite seriously and noted that her opinion was shared by other mental health professionals, despite the fact that none of them had observed President Trump personally.

The always cool-headed Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner, reacted to the VOX report on Twitter, saying

"Yale psychiatrist who briefed Dems wants to physically restrain President Trump, force him to submit to evaluation, declare him unfit for office. But she worries: 'This will really look like a coup.' You think?"

This was all based on the left's sudden new respect for the United States Constitution, specifically the 25th Amendment, which addresses the removal of a president. The effort fizzled and was quickly forgotten.

Now, nearly eight months later, a new mental disorder is rising. According to The Hill, therapists are seeing an increase in what they're calling "Trump Anxiety Disorder" which is simply a nicer way of describing "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

Writer Avery Anapol reports that the founder of a counseling and psychotherapy center in Washington, DC described the condition as "a fear of the world ending."

Unemployment is at a record low, America's GDP just reached 4.1 percent and ISIS is well on its way to becoming a footnote in history, yet many on the left live in a state of constant dread.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who viewed any of the viral videos depicting Hillary supporters melting down on election night 2016 when it became apparent that Trump had won.

In all fairness, it was a traumatic experience for many on the left. Nearly every pundit and expert in the country had assured them for months that there was absolutely no way Trump would ever be elected president. Most of them even insisted Hillary Clinton would not only win, but carry the election in a landslide.

Many of the same people are still on the air today, covering the Trump administration and some of them obviously suffer from "Trump Anxiety Disorder." They act as if they will eventually prove Trump's presidency is somehow illegitimate. America's late night "comedy" shows perpetuate the same narrative on a near nightly basis. Is it any wonder why people on the left, who are most likely to watch these programs, are suffering from anxiety?

Perhaps Democrats should recall professor Bandy Lee of Yale for an evaluation of their party. Trump's mental health seems fine. Few could say the same for the left.

Liberals, heal thyselves.

mightymoe's photo
Thu 08/09/18 12:27 PM
Watching hunterxhunter right now...waiting for the new bleach to start....

mightymoe's photo
Wed 08/08/18 10:18 AM


Immigration
The laws we follow now
Were signed into law by Bill Clinton.
The one who really was impeached.


we have been having immigration laws before and since Clinton

but every election immigration is a poster child of urgency to garner votes
its given way more priority and urgency than is really called for IMHO

and the laws are not the problem, there are plenty of laws in the immigration process, I have been through them.



I think her point was they are not following those laws, hence illegals....

mightymoe's photo
Wed 08/08/18 10:15 AM

It's always interesting when we have a new discovery.
especially from space, imo...

mightymoe's photo
Wed 08/08/18 07:42 AM


When we start seeing pale faces crossing the borders by the thousands and lining up at the welfare office or sitting at the ER for free medical, then we will have a problem with them. :thinking:


yesterday,you made a post complaining about CHINESE people in this country,and wanting to kick THEM [AND ALSO ALL OF THE 'BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS'!!] out of the country..

but,let me guess...
you are going to try to claim that the color of those Chinese people didn't have ANYTHING to do with your post,and you are worried that thery are 'lining up at the welfare office in thousands',even though most of the Chinese people who immigrate to this country are well educated,and fairly well off?

but,gee...
if they aren't lining up at the welfare office in thousands,i wonder what your problem with THEM could possibly be??

[no,i don't!!!!]
no I didn't.. try rereadiing it...

mightymoe's photo
Wed 08/08/18 06:34 AM

funny how trump/trump supporters/the republicans ONLY seem to be worrying about IMMIGRANTS OF COLOR!!!

ESPECIALLY ones from SOUTH of the border!!

they seem to have absolutely NO PROBLEM with people from CANADA who immigrate to this country!!

OR,like Donald trump said....people from places like NORWAY are perfectly welcome to come here!!

so,lets just be honest,and start calling it like it actually IS...

it is NOT a war against IMMIGRANTS....

it is a war against IMMIGRANTS OF COLOR!!!

and an attempt to set the progress that this country has made back DECADES,and make racism socially acceptable in this country again,and bring us back to the 'good ole days' where 'jim crow' laws were the norm!
are the Democrats paying you to come up with this slop? Are you a Russian spy? Still trying to get division by posting these obvious lies?

mightymoe's photo
Wed 08/08/18 06:27 AM

https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/18734-new-alien-mineral-discovered-inside-russian-uakit-meteorite

A new mineral has been discovered in a meteorite in Eastern Russia, and scientists are sure that it is never been found on our planet before.

Named "uakitite" after the Uakit region of Siberia where the meteorite was discovered by gold hunters two years ago, the mineral was found by a group that mistook the yellow rock for a rare metal. According to researchers, 98 percent of the Uakit meteorite is an iron alloy called kamacite, which so far has only been found in other meteorites. The other two percent is comprised of minerals that form in space. When the scientists looked at the rock under a microscope, they found tiny uakitite grains 25 times smaller than a grain of rice.

"Unfortunately, we failed to obtain all physical and optical properties of uakitite because of the very small sizes of the grains," wrote lead researcher and geologist at the Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Victor Sharygin, in an article [PDF] presented during the Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society in Moscow.

Some news outlets published stories that erroneously called uakitite stronger than diamond, but Sharygin says that the hardness of the mineral was not directly measured. It was instead estimated using vanadium nitride (VN), a synthetically produced mineral that closely resembles uakitite. Vanadium nitride has a hardness between 9 and 10 on the Mohs hardness scale, while diamond is at 10. So while uakitite is probably very hard, it has not stolen the crown. If it bears any resemblance to VN's "light gray colour with a pinky tint in reflected light," it's unlikely that it will be appearing in jewelry stores anywhere near you, rarity not withstanding.

The discovery of uakitite is cool, but there just isn't enough of it yet to really get excited about. Scientists will have to find new ways to obtain data from the tiny sample, or someone will have to find a lot more of it.

mightymoe's photo
Wed 08/08/18 06:11 AM

The Trump administration is expected to issue a proposal in coming weeks that would make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens or get green cards if they have ever used a range of popular public welfare programs, including Obamacare, four sources with knowledge of the plan told NBC News.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said: "The administration is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer by ensuring that foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the U.S are self-sufficient. Any proposed changes would ensure that the government takes the responsibility of being good stewards of taxpayer funds seriously and adjudicates immigration benefit requests in accordance with the law."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/now-trump-administration-wants-limit-citizenship-legal-immigrants-n897931

sounds more and more like the country for the 'haves' to dominate the 'have nots' and place obstacles to them ever becoming haves themselves ...

But that being said. Considering the argument posed. There is logic to the perception that we want to 'protect taxpayer funds'. I wonder why the same administration does not see have that same type of prioritizing between illegal immigrants who have cause danger (crimes) to 'taxpayers' and those who merely grew up here peacefully? Why treat all illegal immigrants the same, but divide legal immigrants into categories based on finances?



Illegal means Illegal...no need to break it down to categories...

mightymoe's photo
Wed 08/08/18 06:08 AM


Not sure of the meaning of this, but Alex Jones was kicked off all the social media platforms yesterday, all except twitter closed all his accounts and removed his pages ..


he was kicked off for violating site policies,just like THIS site would kick you off of it if you started spouting hate filled,homophobic,anti semetic,antisocial crap on here.

I actually applaud those sites for not wanting to be associated with the type of stuff alex jones is known for,and refusing to allow him to continue to use their site as a platform to spread it from!

I just think that they should have put a stop to it A LONG TIME AGO!!!

was it censorship??

yes,it was,but it is not GOVERNMENT censorship!!
THAT is just one of the privileges of owning your own website..

YOU get to decide what you want to allow on it,and if somebody puts something you don't like on YOUR website,then you have the right to remove it,and keep it from happening again!



but,if alex jones wants to start HIS OWN website,as long as what he puts on it doesn't violate any laws,then he is free to post whatever type of crap he wants to on it,no matter hHOW OFFENSIVE some people might find it!

I think that the KKK even has its own website,and the government allows it to stay up,so...

[BUT,try to start a website with child pornography on it,and see how fast it gets shut down,and the people who allowed it to be posted gets put in jail.]

the concept is not exactly rocket science!!
I agree, a lot of people don't understand that every website is privately owned, which has nothing to do with free speech laws...

mightymoe's photo
Tue 08/07/18 05:55 PM

That's Angela Merkel's issue now. Germany is getting overrun with muslims, and have created a whole new set of problems. Liberalism is a cancer that's very hard to get rid of.
I think the liberals are being controlled by the aliens....

mightymoe's photo
Tue 08/07/18 05:51 PM













The only issue I see with the proposals is that Chicago is singled out. though in raw numbers the violence is high, it is not close to the highest when accounting for the population in Chicago.

there are many cities with even more 'epidemic' rates per capita of violent crime. And if we put national guard in all those cities, its a pandora's box that could lead to an enforcement trend nationwide, which I would not want to see.


I think there have been other times that violence has spiked and somehow came back down and other places where violence has been curbed by measures beyond military efforts. Perhaps we can take some cues from what has already worked before to bring the numbers down, before resorting to military state, or cities.
no there's not...the only other city is new Orleans, the city that was made into the "chocolate city" after hurricane Rita hit.... And they don't have the ridiculous gun laws like Chicago...


yes there is, Chicago has a PER CAPITA rate of that is not close to the highest

A non-profit news outlet that focuses on gun coverage called The Trace, found that in gun violence per capita, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 — or the top 15.

Miami, Washington, D.C. and other metro areas are worse.

And here are the absolute worst: New Orleans is on top, followed by Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and Oakland.

You have to go all the way down to number 18 to find Chicago, right behind Pittsburgh.


https://wgntv.com/2017/06/20/chicago-not-most-dangerous-u-s-city-in-new-study/


in other words, looking at raw numbers, a city having 100 murders seems worse than one that has 50

UNLESS

the former has a population of 10,000 and the latter only a population of 60... so the proportion to the population (per capita)matters when measuring severity from city to city.
oh phttt... Always a spin...new Orleans is number 1, Chicago is number 2... No per capita crap


no crap, just logic


a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ...


dead is dead either way...30 - 40 people being shot every weekend doesn't mean we should cancel it out because they have a huge population...the per capita crap is just a liberal spin to keep their gun control fantasy alive a little longer, that's why they news media refuses to shed any light on how gun control doesn't work...40 people shot in one weekend vrs 5 from a smaller town... At the end of a year, over 2000 shot in Chicago vrs 260 in the smaller town...can you see where your logic is messed up?


yes, dead IS dead. and Chicago IS NOT the most violent city we have. No one said anything about canceling anything. per capita is not liberal 'spin' it is math and relevance.

gun control is another topic. there is no evidence provided in this thread on the topic anyway, just alot of opinions of what does or does not 'work'

my logic is just fine. 260 in a town of 2000 is fAR WORSE Than 2000 in a town of 2 million. (13 vs .01 percent)



no, I think you misread...2000 is the number of people who were shot in Chicago at the end of the year, 260 is the number shot in a small town after a year... You seem to be saying that the 260 number is worse than the 2000 number... There's your liberal spin, even tho you can't see it...



POP QUIZ:

which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000)

now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer.

end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact.



No spin. just basic math.

15 is the greater number...we are talking about people's lives, not how many boxes if cereal didn't have toys in them ...



lol.

no kidding.

WE were talking about Chicago. I only stated that it is not even the most violent city we have, and I provided an explanation for that conclusion. IM not sure why there is such resistance and opposition to a simple statement of fact.

Chicago has a violence problem. Chicago does not have the WORST violence problem in the country. it does not make it any less a problem, nor am I meaning to imply that it is. I am bringing it up to reflect that there is no approach that is ONLY needed in Chicago but would be needed for other cities as well, and the overall impact of such a wide reaching approach to ALL of those cities.
yes, Chicago has a violence problem...and a gun problem, which is the topic...and as a side note, Chicago has one of the strictest gun polices...odd how one of the biggest gun problem is in a city with one of the strictest anti gun control...




dead is dead, whether gun or otherwise though. right?

the topic was Violence in Chicago. I posted Chicago is not the most violent of cities and it still holds true.

ITs not proven that chicago has 'the biggest gun problem' so it may or may not be funny that they have anti gun control nor is such gun control shown to be the culprit of the gun violence or that lenient laws result in less violence.



maybe try rereadiing the topic...

mightymoe's photo
Tue 08/07/18 03:51 PM


That's just shootings, with all violence added in,the numbers would be higher


yes. and still would take 20000 to even be one percent of their population ...

which is much lower than many other cities ... and why, although it IS violent, it is still not the MOST violent city in the US ...






actual numbers mean more then your liberal fantasy numbers... thanks

mightymoe's photo
Tue 08/07/18 03:15 PM

Do you have 4 arms?
looks like only three...

mightymoe's photo
Tue 08/07/18 03:12 PM
That's just shootings, with all violence added in,the numbers would be higher

mightymoe's photo
Tue 08/07/18 02:52 PM











The only issue I see with the proposals is that Chicago is singled out. though in raw numbers the violence is high, it is not close to the highest when accounting for the population in Chicago.

there are many cities with even more 'epidemic' rates per capita of violent crime. And if we put national guard in all those cities, its a pandora's box that could lead to an enforcement trend nationwide, which I would not want to see.


I think there have been other times that violence has spiked and somehow came back down and other places where violence has been curbed by measures beyond military efforts. Perhaps we can take some cues from what has already worked before to bring the numbers down, before resorting to military state, or cities.
no there's not...the only other city is new Orleans, the city that was made into the "chocolate city" after hurricane Rita hit.... And they don't have the ridiculous gun laws like Chicago...


yes there is, Chicago has a PER CAPITA rate of that is not close to the highest

A non-profit news outlet that focuses on gun coverage called The Trace, found that in gun violence per capita, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 — or the top 15.

Miami, Washington, D.C. and other metro areas are worse.

And here are the absolute worst: New Orleans is on top, followed by Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and Oakland.

You have to go all the way down to number 18 to find Chicago, right behind Pittsburgh.


https://wgntv.com/2017/06/20/chicago-not-most-dangerous-u-s-city-in-new-study/


in other words, looking at raw numbers, a city having 100 murders seems worse than one that has 50

UNLESS

the former has a population of 10,000 and the latter only a population of 60... so the proportion to the population (per capita)matters when measuring severity from city to city.
oh phttt... Always a spin...new Orleans is number 1, Chicago is number 2... No per capita crap


no crap, just logic


a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ...


dead is dead either way...30 - 40 people being shot every weekend doesn't mean we should cancel it out because they have a huge population...the per capita crap is just a liberal spin to keep their gun control fantasy alive a little longer, that's why they news media refuses to shed any light on how gun control doesn't work...40 people shot in one weekend vrs 5 from a smaller town... At the end of a year, over 2000 shot in Chicago vrs 260 in the smaller town...can you see where your logic is messed up?


yes, dead IS dead. and Chicago IS NOT the most violent city we have. No one said anything about canceling anything. per capita is not liberal 'spin' it is math and relevance.

gun control is another topic. there is no evidence provided in this thread on the topic anyway, just alot of opinions of what does or does not 'work'

my logic is just fine. 260 in a town of 2000 is fAR WORSE Than 2000 in a town of 2 million. (13 vs .01 percent)



no, I think you misread...2000 is the number of people who were shot in Chicago at the end of the year, 260 is the number shot in a small town after a year... You seem to be saying that the 260 number is worse than the 2000 number... There's your liberal spin, even tho you can't see it...



POP QUIZ:

which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000)

now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer.

end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact.



No spin. just basic math.



No.. the number 2000 and the number 260 were people murdered.. not town size.. town size was never mentioned.

You transposed it to read 260 dead n a town of 2,000.. you made up the fake scenario to go with your below quote.
_____________________________________________________________________

a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ...
____________________________________________________________________
so YOU created these numbers to fit your argument.

unless of course if you can pop up a town of 2,000 where 260 were murdered or a town where 50% are dying..



small town was mentioned. 2000 was AN EXAMPLE of a small town.

would you say a town of 2000 is an example of a small town, or do we need to go on with a futile and silly debate?


40×52= (40 being the number shot per weekend in Chicago, 52 weeks in a year) 2080

mightymoe's photo
Tue 08/07/18 02:48 PM
Edited by mightymoe on Tue 08/07/18 02:55 PM











The only issue I see with the proposals is that Chicago is singled out. though in raw numbers the violence is high, it is not close to the highest when accounting for the population in Chicago.

there are many cities with even more 'epidemic' rates per capita of violent crime. And if we put national guard in all those cities, its a pandora's box that could lead to an enforcement trend nationwide, which I would not want to see.


I think there have been other times that violence has spiked and somehow came back down and other places where violence has been curbed by measures beyond military efforts. Perhaps we can take some cues from what has already worked before to bring the numbers down, before resorting to military state, or cities.
no there's not...the only other city is new Orleans, the city that was made into the "chocolate city" after hurricane Rita hit.... And they don't have the ridiculous gun laws like Chicago...


yes there is, Chicago has a PER CAPITA rate of that is not close to the highest

A non-profit news outlet that focuses on gun coverage called The Trace, found that in gun violence per capita, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 — or the top 15.

Miami, Washington, D.C. and other metro areas are worse.

And here are the absolute worst: New Orleans is on top, followed by Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and Oakland.

You have to go all the way down to number 18 to find Chicago, right behind Pittsburgh.


https://wgntv.com/2017/06/20/chicago-not-most-dangerous-u-s-city-in-new-study/


in other words, looking at raw numbers, a city having 100 murders seems worse than one that has 50

UNLESS

the former has a population of 10,000 and the latter only a population of 60... so the proportion to the population (per capita)matters when measuring severity from city to city.
oh phttt... Always a spin...new Orleans is number 1, Chicago is number 2... No per capita crap


no crap, just logic


a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ...


dead is dead either way...30 - 40 people being shot every weekend doesn't mean we should cancel it out because they have a huge population...the per capita crap is just a liberal spin to keep their gun control fantasy alive a little longer, that's why they news media refuses to shed any light on how gun control doesn't work...40 people shot in one weekend vrs 5 from a smaller town... At the end of a year, over 2000 shot in Chicago vrs 260 in the smaller town...can you see where your logic is messed up?


yes, dead IS dead. and Chicago IS NOT the most violent city we have. No one said anything about canceling anything. per capita is not liberal 'spin' it is math and relevance.

gun control is another topic. there is no evidence provided in this thread on the topic anyway, just alot of opinions of what does or does not 'work'

my logic is just fine. 260 in a town of 2000 is fAR WORSE Than 2000 in a town of 2 million. (13 vs .01 percent)



no, I think you misread...2000 is the number of people who were shot in Chicago at the end of the year, 260 is the number shot in a small town after a year... You seem to be saying that the 260 number is worse than the 2000 number... There's your liberal spin, even tho you can't see it...



POP QUIZ:

which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000)

now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer.

end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact.



No spin. just basic math.

15 is the greater number...we are talking about people's lives, not how many boxes if cereal didn't have toys in them ...



lol.

no kidding.

WE were talking about Chicago. I only stated that it is not even the most violent city we have, and I provided an explanation for that conclusion. IM not sure why there is such resistance and opposition to a simple statement of fact.

Chicago has a violence problem. Chicago does not have the WORST violence problem in the country. it does not make it any less a problem, nor am I meaning to imply that it is. I am bringing it up to reflect that there is no approach that is ONLY needed in Chicago but would be needed for other cities as well, and the overall impact of such a wide reaching approach to ALL of those cities.
yes, Chicago has a violence problem...and a gun problem, which is the topic...and as a side note, Chicago has one of the strictest gun polices...odd how one of the biggest gun problem is in a city with one of the strictest anti gun control...

mightymoe's photo
Tue 08/07/18 02:03 PM

politics 101: If data and/or fact cannot be refuted, just result to name calling and personal insults ...


same stuff, different day.
what personal insults and name calling?

mightymoe's photo
Tue 08/07/18 02:02 PM









The only issue I see with the proposals is that Chicago is singled out. though in raw numbers the violence is high, it is not close to the highest when accounting for the population in Chicago.

there are many cities with even more 'epidemic' rates per capita of violent crime. And if we put national guard in all those cities, its a pandora's box that could lead to an enforcement trend nationwide, which I would not want to see.


I think there have been other times that violence has spiked and somehow came back down and other places where violence has been curbed by measures beyond military efforts. Perhaps we can take some cues from what has already worked before to bring the numbers down, before resorting to military state, or cities.
no there's not...the only other city is new Orleans, the city that was made into the "chocolate city" after hurricane Rita hit.... And they don't have the ridiculous gun laws like Chicago...


yes there is, Chicago has a PER CAPITA rate of that is not close to the highest

A non-profit news outlet that focuses on gun coverage called The Trace, found that in gun violence per capita, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 — or the top 15.

Miami, Washington, D.C. and other metro areas are worse.

And here are the absolute worst: New Orleans is on top, followed by Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and Oakland.

You have to go all the way down to number 18 to find Chicago, right behind Pittsburgh.


https://wgntv.com/2017/06/20/chicago-not-most-dangerous-u-s-city-in-new-study/


in other words, looking at raw numbers, a city having 100 murders seems worse than one that has 50

UNLESS

the former has a population of 10,000 and the latter only a population of 60... so the proportion to the population (per capita)matters when measuring severity from city to city.
oh phttt... Always a spin...new Orleans is number 1, Chicago is number 2... No per capita crap


no crap, just logic


a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ...


dead is dead either way...30 - 40 people being shot every weekend doesn't mean we should cancel it out because they have a huge population...the per capita crap is just a liberal spin to keep their gun control fantasy alive a little longer, that's why they news media refuses to shed any light on how gun control doesn't work...40 people shot in one weekend vrs 5 from a smaller town... At the end of a year, over 2000 shot in Chicago vrs 260 in the smaller town...can you see where your logic is messed up?


yes, dead IS dead. and Chicago IS NOT the most violent city we have. No one said anything about canceling anything. per capita is not liberal 'spin' it is math and relevance.

gun control is another topic. there is no evidence provided in this thread on the topic anyway, just alot of opinions of what does or does not 'work'

my logic is just fine. 260 in a town of 2000 is fAR WORSE Than 2000 in a town of 2 million. (13 vs .01 percent)



no, I think you misread...2000 is the number of people who were shot in Chicago at the end of the year, 260 is the number shot in a small town after a year... You seem to be saying that the 260 number is worse than the 2000 number... There's your liberal spin, even tho you can't see it...



POP QUIZ:

which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000)

now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer.

end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact.



No spin. just basic math.

15 is the greater number...we are talking about people's lives, not how many boxes if cereal didn't have toys in them ...

mightymoe's photo
Tue 08/07/18 01:58 PM


this page, posted by Mighty Moe

"dead is dead either way...30 - 40 people being shot every weekend doesn't mean we should cancel it out because they have a huge population...the per capita crap is just a liberal spin to keep their gun control fantasy alive a little longer, that's why they news media refuses to shed any light on how gun control doesn't work...40 people shot in one weekend vrs 5 from a smaller town... At the end of a year, over 2000 shot in Chicago vrs 260 in the smaller town...can you see where your logic is messed up?"


I read that MS, but the poster did not say 260 people out of a town of 2,000. Nobody did. It would appear you got your numbers mixed up and came up with some other scenario which made your point look more valid, but it was totally false.

But trying to answer all the posts for the left is a daunting task, you really need a assistant. Is there any other far lefties that can maybe help out?.. ease the burden?
isn't now about the lefties nap time in their safe place?

1 2 12 13 14 16 18 19 20 24 25