...I'd like a source and context for this.
Not doubting some people are this stupid, but politicians aren't actually this stupid. They listen to their donars and this seems like something they wouldn't want her to say.
this is the problem with American politics, instead of someone being informed and doing a little research. they just want to be spoon feed information and don't care if true or not,,I had to actually pull out a computer and prove to 10 family members this quote was bullshit, all republicans all heard it from friends or Facebook so they took it as fact
Ok she didn't say it. I try not to pay attention to those people. But she and other Democrats have said ridiculous things on video, so it's plausible.
And let's be honest here; this is exactly their policy on handling Islamic terrorism. "If we show them we don't hate them maybe they'll be nicer to us."
"Yea, she didn't say it, but she could have said, because [random other bullshit]." - where did you learn to argue like that, the Trump Academy of Rhetoric?
I don't think that's what I said at all. Let me scroll up and check. Nope didn't say that at all. That is a liberal argument. I said that I have seen video and heard her, and other idiots in the Democrat party say things of a very similar stupid nature.
I do not subscribe to the notion of "she may not have said it but I know that's what she thinks." Again that is what Democrats say about Republicans. If I see video of someone saying something, they damn well said it. Otherwise I take it with a grain of salt until I find more evidence.
As far as my comment about our terrorist policy: many many Democrats and some liberal Republicans HAVE INDEED SAID SUCH THINGS.
Let's not forget that these are the people who think banning guns will stop violence. They think that if guns are illegal the criminals will give them up. Perhaps you can prove me wrong, but I thought criminals were criminals because they do not obey laws?
"Let's not forget that these are the people who think banning guns will stop violence. They think that if guns are illegal the criminals will give them up. " - Nobody thinks that and nobody ever said anything remotely like that. What is wrong with you?
What is wrong with you? Have you never watched state run news or listened to any of these idiots?
Okay then, if they do not think banning guns will stop violence WHY DO THEY WANT TO DO IT?
Nobody I know says a ban on guns (whatever that may practically be) would end violence. People say a (much better) regulated approach to guns would most likely dramatically lower the number of victims. And how would anybody ever say criminals would give up guns once they're illegal? That doesn't make any sense at all. So no matter if you really don't get this or just pretend, in order to back your "argument", please get a vasectomy. Don't worry about the costs: simply make it a crowdfunding project. The money should roll right in.
Ok so once again you got yourself sidetracked trying to insult me and missed the boat. If, as you claim, no one thinks banning or restricting guns, or otherwise infringing on my constitutional rights as a law-abiding citizen will stop violence then WHY DO THEY WANT TO DO IT?
Of course the answer is obvious, but come on, you want to argue so let's try to at least have a civilized debate.
The Democrats are constantly harping on gun regulations and bans as an answer to violence, but if you say they don't say what they say, what do you think they say and why do they say it?
Why talk about guns at all if they aren't a factor?
Nobody proposes to entirely ban guns in the usa, but people are discussing various ways of restricting access. Restricting exactly who can or cannot buy what guns exactly. Advocating restrictions (= stricter rules) is not the same as trying to take away all your guns. Also - again - nobody believes restrictions on guns would "end violence". But I guess I already lost you here, this is getting too complicated for you so you're starting again with arguing things nobody ever said. I cannot have a civilized or any other type of debate with you as you're a total dolt. Now cry me a river again of how I can only get personal and blah blah blah...
.
I'll gladly continue this or any conversation once you've proven you got basic text interpretation skills and at least the attention span of an elementary school kid. Til then think about this vasectomy project. You'll have collected the money in minutes, I guarantee it.
No I don't got it Lt Dan. You said no one thinks it would stop crime, but I'm having difficulty understanding your leap from not stopping crime to being able to reduce it. If we can reduce it, why can't we keep going and stop it?
But that's neither here nor there. You also said no one thinks that criminals will give up their guns. OK, so if the criminals still have them how in hell will "casualties" be reduced? The only people that would surrender their guns or not buy them if they're restricted are the law-abiding, right? Criminals seem to like easy targets, and with the victims unarmed... Thus, if the criminals still have guns and the law-abiding citizens do not, how in hell are your "casualties" going to be reduced?
They've also got 1/3 to 1/9 our population. They also never had a high homicide rate. They also are not the United States of America.
What kind of gun laws do Iraq and Syria have compared to the violence? What about Somalia? This is an apples/oranges comparison. restricting freedoms for people who've never had them doesn't mean very much. For better or worse (I happen to think it's for the better but this is not apropos) we are different people with a different culture. Actually cultures. We are not the same as the rest of the world, not do we want to be; what may work in Belarus is not likely to work in Boston.
As a British politician said recently (I'm pretty sure it was Daniel Hannan MEP in a recent book) the chief difference between America and the rest of the world is that they assume everything is illegal until told otherwise. We assume we can do it until told otherwise.
And yes this is a good thing.
"They've also got 1/3 to 1/9 our population." - and you're out. Try to get a grasp on the concept of percentage, will you? You seem to know a little about numbers, now go and try ratios,will you? Also I actually compared the US to comparable societies for a reason. Cause of the apples/oranges thingy, you know. You see, also there I kind of was ahead of you. The rest is the same void bullshit as usually coming from you. But hey, the upside is: you have it your way anyway.
Dude you're thick aren't you?
You cannot compare countries because we are not the same. The people are not the same. The culture is not the same. The history is not the same. The closest you can come is if you look at gun ownership vs homicide rates per 100,000 citizens, or some such sample. This type of honest comparison has always shown that our higher rate of gun ownership does not translate to a higher rate of homicides. I'm not in the mood to dig up the research and you won't believe anything you don't already believe.
"The closest you can come is if you look at gun ownership vs homicide rates per 100,000 citizens, or some such sample. " - sigh... which - funny enough - is exact-fuckin-ly what I did. When it comes to interpreting this relation, you come to this: the world minus usa has one opinion, the world minus (the world minus usa) has another. Dig up whatever you want, if it's not paid for by the NRA, it will prove my point.
TOTAL FUCKING PITIFUL NRA BS. REPUBLICANS' TERRORIST-ARMING LIES. Here's the REAL story:
ORIGIN:In February 2013, web site Palookaville Post published an article ("Feinstein and Boxer Ask Californians to Lay Down Their Weapons During Statewide Manhunt") containing an extraordinary claim about a statement purportedly made by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. According to author "Jimmy Olsentwins," Sen. Feinstein commented on the then-current standoff involving former police officer Christopher Dorner by urging Californians to turn in their guns en masse.
Suffice it to say the Palookaville Post was a satirical site that published fake news, one example of which was the made-up story about Senators Feinstein and Boxer referenced above. Other examples of its work included articles claiming President Obama had granted himself a $100,000 pay raise and an Oklahoma teacher had been fired for praying when a tornado hit her school.
Not doubting some people are this stupid, but politicians aren't actually this stupid. They listen to their donars and this seems like something they wouldn't want her to say.
I didn't read it, but I think it debunked this post.
And let's be honest here; this is exactly their policy on handling Islamic terrorism. "If we show them we don't hate them maybe they'll be nicer to us."
I do not subscribe to the notion of "she may not have said it but I know that's what she thinks." Again that is what Democrats say about Republicans. If I see video of someone saying something, they damn well said it. Otherwise I take it with a grain of salt until I find more evidence.
As far as my comment about our terrorist policy: many many Democrats and some liberal Republicans HAVE INDEED SAID SUCH THINGS.
Let's not forget that these are the people who think banning guns will stop violence. They think that if guns are illegal the criminals will give them up. Perhaps you can prove me wrong, but I thought criminals were criminals because they do not obey laws?
Okay then, if they do not think banning guns will stop violence WHY DO THEY WANT TO DO IT?
Of course the answer is obvious, but come on, you want to argue so let's try to at least have a civilized debate.
The Democrats are constantly harping on gun regulations and bans as an answer to violence, but if you say they don't say what they say, what do you think they say and why do they say it?
Why talk about guns at all if they aren't a factor?
.
I'll gladly continue this or any conversation once you've proven you got basic text interpretation skills and at least the attention span of an elementary school kid. Til then think about this vasectomy project. You'll have collected the money in minutes, I guarantee it.
No? http://en.lmgtfy.com/?q=crowdfunding+platforms
But that's neither here nor there. You also said no one thinks that criminals will give up their guns. OK, so if the criminals still have them how in hell will "casualties" be reduced? The only people that would surrender their guns or not buy them if they're restricted are the law-abiding, right? Criminals seem to like easy targets, and with the victims unarmed... Thus, if the criminals still have guns and the law-abiding citizens do not, how in hell are your "casualties" going to be reduced?
What kind of gun laws do Iraq and Syria have compared to the violence? What about Somalia? This is an apples/oranges comparison. restricting freedoms for people who've never had them doesn't mean very much. For better or worse (I happen to think it's for the better but this is not apropos) we are different people with a different culture. Actually cultures. We are not the same as the rest of the world, not do we want to be; what may work in Belarus is not likely to work in Boston.
As a British politician said recently (I'm pretty sure it was Daniel Hannan MEP in a recent book) the chief difference between America and the rest of the world is that they assume everything is illegal until told otherwise. We assume we can do it until told otherwise.
And yes this is a good thing.
You cannot compare countries because we are not the same. The people are not the same. The culture is not the same. The history is not the same. The closest you can come is if you look at gun ownership vs homicide rates per 100,000 citizens, or some such sample. This type of honest comparison has always shown that our higher rate of gun ownership does not translate to a higher rate of homicides. I'm not in the mood to dig up the research and you won't believe anything you don't already believe.
ORIGIN:In February 2013, web site Palookaville Post published an article ("Feinstein and Boxer Ask Californians to Lay Down Their Weapons During Statewide Manhunt") containing an extraordinary claim about a statement purportedly made by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. According to author "Jimmy Olsentwins," Sen. Feinstein commented on the then-current standoff involving former police officer Christopher Dorner by urging Californians to turn in their guns en masse.
Suffice it to say the Palookaville Post was a satirical site that published fake news, one example of which was the made-up story about Senators Feinstein and Boxer referenced above. Other examples of its work included articles claiming President Obama had granted himself a $100,000 pay raise and an Oklahoma teacher had been fired for praying when a tornado hit her school.