361–370 of 459 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Love it how basic and down to earth his ad is.
But he uses the same tricks as everyone else. I only heard a few statements, one that immediately caught in my filter: "seven out of every ten moves are leaving the state" -- which is a meaningless metric if left by itself like in the video, unless you know what is normal, and also how many are moving in?
It’s hilarious the GOP walked right into Murphy’s trap. Murphy wanted Sweeney out, and this guy had the story and was in the right place at the right time to do it. The best part is Duff or Fudd or whatever the guys name is going to get destroyed by the educated political elite of NJ’s legislature. It’s like a toddler playing sports with adults. Next cycle that seat will have a D in it.
It’s hilarious the GOP walked right into Murphy’s trap. Murphy wanted Sweeney out, and this guy had the story and was in the right place at the right time to do it. The best part is Duff or Fudd or whatever the guys name is going to get destroyed by the educated political elite of NJ’s legislature. It’s like a toddler playing sports with adults. Next cycle that seat will have a D in it.
What exactly do you mean by "destroyed?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's the case, it's still completely dumb. If you shoot someone in self defense with ball ammo it's definitely going to over penetrate and keep going possibly hitting anyone or anything behind the threat. And what happens if you are driving from the range and experience a flat tire, have to use the restroom, an emergency where you need to go somewhere else. Bad laws.
Hollow points are more destructive and dangerous to the person who was shot. They cause so much internal damage that the person will not survive a wound that may have been survivable otherwise. They are banned by the Geneva convention.
I get the arguments for and against them, but I generally favor leaving those decisions up to the people involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hollow points are more destructive and dangerous to the person who was shot. They cause so much internal damage that the person will not survive a wound that may have been survivable otherwise. They are banned by the Geneva convention.
I'd like a source on that final sentence if you have it. I get the arguments for and against them, but I generally favor leaving those decisions up to the people involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It wasn't Republicans who thought it a good idea to constantly tell white schoolboys that they are "oppressors". Show me who's constantly telling white schoolboys they are oppressors and not that they are protected[1] by every institution we have[2]? It's an entirely invented self-victimization. 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/stanford-ra... 2. https://www.wymt.com/2020/08/28/nick-sandmann-joins…
You don't know what's going on in schools? Or have you just internalized this oppression narrative so much that you don't think there is any reason to oppose it? "Teachers who had light skin were placed into a “white caucus” group and asked to “remember” that we are “White” and “to take responsibility for [our] power and privilege.” D-E’s racial segregation of educators, aimed at leading us to rethink of ourselves as…
As for the Moms For Liberty, just look at the books they're trying to ban:
"'Martin Luther King Jr. and the March on Washington' and 'The Story of Ruby Bridges,' about the Black 6-year-old who integrated a Louisiana public school in 1960."[1]
What is threatening about Ruby Bridges and MLK?
Your DailyMail link doesn't even provide a concrete example of what the school is doing. Just cites a bunch of right-wing grifters and context-free snippets from a pamphlet.
As for your YouTube links, it's unsurprising that people are posting exactly the content that the algorithm prioritizes[2]. Make sure to Like and Subscribe!
1. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/critical-race-theory-roils-...
2. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a-study-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am originally from India.
Hmm. Doesn't India have severe gun laws? Why aren't women safer in India yet?
However, many areas include Delhi - the rate of violence against women is just unbelievable!
If such a city had gun laws like Texas, you might see the crime rate come down drastically.
In India, the rich can afford guns. That is the sad truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don't need statistics to understand covering the faces of young children for extended periods is going to harm their social development. Do you disagree that social cues are important, and come from facial expressions? Do you need a study for this? I sure don't. I guess we'll have to see which children have stronger development going forward.. masked or unmasked schools. It's a risk I certainly wouldn't take wi…
>I don't need statistics to understand covering the faces of young children for extended periods is going to harm their social development. You're literally saying you don't require evidence for your views and trying to frame this as a virtue?
What possible study could give you definitive information to decide here? Social "sciences" are rife with replication errors, the whole industry is suspicious.
But so what? This is such a modern hyper rational mode of thinking. It's a weak mentality to be unable to use experience and judgement to act and decide but to defer to dubious "experts" to tell you how to live and raise your own children in the context of something so obvious as "kids need to see faces and be seen to develop socially" given masks don't stop the spread of covid and they're not at risk anyways; they should have normal social interaction and not live in a bubble for 2 years.
We already know the risk from covid for kids is virtually non-existent. You're willing to risk their social development because no one told you to do otherwise yet? How did your ancestors navigate such perilous environments and situations without a bunch of studies to tell them what the "facts" are for every decision? They had to think for themselves quite often, using their wisdom and intuition
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also 100% on the Quinones on Econtalk. Another interesting one for an alternative view to the war-on-drugs/decriminalization dichotomy is CSPI: What's Wrong with the West Coast? with Michael Shellenberger Michael Shellenberger is an activist and author. He joins the podcast to talk about his book San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. He discusses debates around homelessness in San Francisco, the ideology drivi…
Thanks for the recommendation! Already learned interesting new things like that building of shelters is being blocked "because we need to build real housing".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't Republicans who thought it a good idea to constantly tell white schoolboys that they are "oppressors". If a political party can't take such virulent institutionalized hate and make political hay out of it, then it's not a political party worth keeping.
> It wasn't Republicans who thought it a good idea to constantly tell white schoolboys that they are "oppressors". Show me who's constantly telling white schoolboys they are oppressors and not that they are protected[1] by every institution we have[2]? It's an entirely invented self-victimization. 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/stanford-ra... 2. https://www.wymt.com/2020/08/28/nick-sandmann-joins…
You can pretend that all of this is justified because of so called privilege, but ultimately you are also discriminating against white boys who are potentially underprivileged for a multitude of other reasons. It is tacitly racist to effectively presume that all white boys are trust fund babies from loving homes who deserve a handicap for the color of their skin. No more valid than assuming that all black men are violent and/or ignorant because of crime statistics and deserve unequal treatment before the law.
To poor white families, all of these initiatives are in fact oppression. There is very little so called privilege in appalachia, for example. Hardly a self-invented victimization - and continuing to insist otherwise is evidently costing the democratic party votes. Rightly so in my humble opinion.