Coreece

Nope. You don't have to do any work that you don't want to do. You are free to just complain. My focus and interest are more centered around possible solutions related to those complaints. As you may or may not know, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was passed last year and there's a lot to unpack. Some issues it addresses: -Additional requirements for background checks. -Additional provisions for school violence prevention. -Provisions for mental health services. -$800,000,000 for Health Surveillance Programs? -BILLIONS for a community violence intervention and prevention initiatives! -Provisions for additional policing? -Provisions for suicide prevention. -Provisions for extreme risk protection order programs (red flag laws) Obviously the violence prevention programs are good news, so I guess I can stop bitching about that for now. Just trying to figure out the specifics on how/where they going to be implemented here in Michigan. Little concerned about the additional policing and the country's historical woes of "unintended consequences" under Biden's Violent Crime Act of 1994 as there doesn't seem to be much info on specific guidelines or national standards, so hopefully this isn't history repeating itself. Trying to understand the Health Surveillance Programs and how that data is gathered/handled by various organizations and how it relates to red flag laws and additional requirements for Background checks. Also, your comment about AR-15's makes me question if you're arguing in good faith. Even if you are, it seems any results would be inconclusive given the problems with your sample that I mentioned. I mean, if we don't have enough information, it's ok to say that we just don't know. Unless of course you're just looking for a reason to entertain your selective bias and beat conservatives over the head with it, which you do pretty much on a daily basis. Yep, supporting a cause should come from the heart, not a political playbook. Unity is not uniformity, so why waste it by following the herd mentality of those who prioritize division and political gain over genuine progress? Groove to your own rhythm, and let the positive impact of your actions speak louder than any political rhetoric.

Well that's one of the foremost issues I've advocated against in these threads over the years so that's unfortunate and certainly a step backward. Well that's kinda funny given that you're the one that made the claim and now asking others to do the work since it's too difficult for you to figure out if criminals are more of a threat to the general public than law abiding citizens.

It's hard these days to know what a person means when they say 'defund the police' as I certainly support effective law enforcement, but I think Weber's use of law enforcement being "defanged" is a pretty helpful illustration.

Nope. Woke has always been defined as being alert to social injustice, especially with regards to racism. Right. It was a term in the African American Vernacular referring to social injustice against blacks that's been around since the 1920s or 30s. Modern leftist co-opted and imposed it's own political ideology on the term that now includes things like awareness of climate change, gun control, abortion, Avatar, vegan catering, saving whales and editing out 10-minutes of gun violence from feature films. I think much of the criticism from both the left and right wrt "wokeism" is in addressing underlying issues like identity politics and cancel culture which in a sense is a modern extension of being woke. And then of course there are those solely on the right that use it to criticize practically everything liberal just for the sake of it. Here are some excerpts form a rather interesting article I found on Vox that explains the history, if it helps: A history of “wokeness” Stay woke: How a Black activist watchword got co-opted in the culture war. Before 2014, the call to “stay woke” was, for many people, unheard of. The idea behind it was common within Black communities at that point — the notion that staying “woke” and alert to the deceptions of other people was a basic survival tactic. “woke” has evolved into a single-word summation of leftist political ideology, centered on social justice politics and critical race theory. This framing of “woke” is bipartisan: It’s used as a shorthand for political progressiveness by the left, and as a denigration of leftist culture by the right. On the right, “woke” — like its cousin “canceled” — bespeaks “political correctness” gone awry, and the term itself is usually used sarcastically. But as use of the word spreads, what people actually mean by “woke” seems less clear than ever. After all, none of these recent political concepts has anything to do with the idea of demanding that people “stay woke” against police brutality. Despite renewed activism against police brutality in 2020, the way that terms like “woke” and “wokeness” are used outside of the Black Lives Matter community seems to bear little connection to their original context, on either the right and the left. Shifting a Black Lives Matter slogan away from its original meaning is arguably the least woke thing ever — yet that seems to be just what happened with, of all things, “woke” itself. The earliest known examples of wokeness as a concept revolve around the idea of Black consciousness “waking up” to a new reality or activist framework and dates back to the early 20th century. In 1923, a collection of aphorisms and ideas by the Jamaican philosopher and social activist Marcus Garvey included the summons “Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!” as a call to global Black citizens to become more socially and politically conscious. To be woke is to have a native relationship to Black language, culture, and knowledge of social issues that arise in our lived experiences” because Black Americans know their language is constantly being appropriated, the language itself is constantly changing. “By the time these terms get into the mainstream,” he observed, “new ones have already appeared. [...] A few Negroes guard the idiom so fervently they will consciously invent a new term as soon as they hear the existing one coming from a white’s lips.” By 2018, the cultural reception of “woke” had turned chilly: An NPR commentator begged leftists to retire the term, and the connotation of “woke” as a phony show of progressive activism had taken hold on the right. “woke” seems to represent a consciously progressive mindset — but that concept is loaded with irony and cynicism. Even on the left, the idea of being “woke” can be a double-edged sword, often used to suggest an aggressive, performative take on progressive politics that only makes things worse. “discourse” can be about a zillion different things, but attaching “woke” to it usually denotes a perception of embittered exhaustion at progressive semantics and arguments. What’s telling is that the exhaustion seems to come from moderates and leftists themselves as often as from conservatives — as if there’s a shared agreement that embodying wokeness is a kind of trap, no matter what side of the aisle you’re on. https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-history-origin-evolution-controversy

He didn't offer a solution nor list any laws that he might be referring to. This is strictly about whether or not the general public is more at risk of being shot by a criminal or law abiding citizen that suddenly snaps. If we click on the comprehensive list on the linked wiki page, we see that 762 people were killed during mass shooting in 2022. Are we to simply believe that the general public wasn't at risk during the other 18,000+ homicides? That they were just gang vs gang, drug dealer vs drug dealer? Call me woke, but even if that was the case, it sorely ignores the fundamental problem of why inner-city youth are prone to gangs and drugs in the first place and undermines the argument/need for violence prevention programs that have a history of being underfunded and outright ignored by both democrats and republicans despite years of research and positive results, hence 50+ years of the same SSDD. But by all means lets just keep ignoring all that and focus incessantly on those scary conservative AR-15's that were responsible for about 54 of those 762 mass shooting deaths. I mean WTF is going on here? Anyway, to limit his sample strictly to mass shootings is probably one of the most blatant cases of selection bias I've seen in awhile, if not ever. The sample of the general public in this case should also encompass all the innocent that have been murdered, including kids caught in the crossfire at playgrounds where gangs conduct business. They should include those killed in various kinds of robberies, crimes of passion, public brawls, road rage, etc. I mean why stop only at instances where 3-4+ people were killed or injured?

Ya I saw that too, but film was the brainchild of Laurie David and the director/producers documented and created the screen adaptation for public speeches he had already given, much like AOC's film documented her own speaking engagements/interviews.

Ok, so the disconnect is with how the definition/usage of some words evolve overtime. Since the 1930s, 'woke' was primarily referred to as an awakening wrt to racial prejudice and discrimination strictly impacting African Americans. After BLM, the left decided to steal the term and apply it as a blanketed summation of leftist political ideology, which was then criticized for cultural appropriation. So that's fine, keep your bastardized definition. I never used the term anyway, that I can remember. If somebody is being radically aware and socially paranoid, I'll just call it radical and paranoid. Same thing if they're engaging in identity politics, cancel culture, mindless performative activism and/or self righteous moral superiority simply for the sake of division for a political edge. No sense at this point in lumping it all together under yet another adulterated definition. Stop being so damn disingenuous already, lol. It's not just the right. Plenty of left-leaning writers, comedians, and political figures have voiced their concern about a politically radical far-left 'alt-woke' ideology. Even Obama spoke out against it: "Obama has in the past criticized what he in 2019 called “woke” culture that leaves little room for forgiveness for misdeeds of people in public life." “This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly,” “A lot of the dangers of cancel culture and ‘we’re just going to be condemning people all the time,’ at least among my daughters, they’ll acknowledge that among their peer group or in college campuses, you’ll see people going overboard,” “The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws.” "calling others out on social media is “not activism.” Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because ‘man, you see how woke I was, I called you out’ ”

Haha, it's not that uncommon for people to refer to movies by the actor/character's name. "Hey are you excited about Michael J Fox's new movie!?!?" And ya I know, you might say "haha, AOC isn't an actor or charcater - got you again!" But I'd just have to disagree. Anyway, It's likely many people here don't even remember the name of her documentary and would have to do a google search for "AOC's movie" to find out, like I had to. Besides, if I didn't use her name, many wouldn't even know what I was referring to, nor care why it did so poorly. Funny tho that we didn't see this type of nit picking with "An inconvenient Truth" being called "Al Gore's Movie." Billvon even posted an AP article about it: Commentary from real scientists: ------------------------------------Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracyBy SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer48 minutes agoWASHINGTON - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City. . . .

Ok, so your wiki links accounts for 337 deaths in 2022, what about the 1000s of other deaths? Are those killers law abiding gun owners without criminal records as well? Do you not consider them part of the general public? And just because a person doesn't have a criminal record doesn't mean they don't have a history of engaging in criminal behavior.

.

Yes, he was a capitalistic earthling, likely from Australia. Cameron said "When you see the movie you’ll see that it’s all about saving whales, avatar treating them with empathy as equals. It’s the pivotal message of the film" And in case you haven't heard, when PETA and animal rights activists condemned Live Avtar shows featuring captive dolphins, they didn't invite Cameron & crew on a re-education trip to Australia to see evil capitalistic white men, they invited them on a trip to Japan to witness the cruel nature of their Whaling industry. The (other) villain was also a former white man that was ordered by his female woman superior to kill the other former white man for his betrayal. Your fixation on sex and race is a bit awkward, exaggerated and displaced. I'd say it's more a battle against a monopolistic form of unfettered capitalism in the worst sense. The antagonist in the film is a female general for the RDA which is a quasi-governmental corporation (more powerful than any government on Earth) that has a monopoly on the sale of all goods from interplanetary exploits. A concept Cameron wrote back in the early 80s. A movie that quickly comes to mind as a comparison is "Blood Diamond." But I don't think people would consider that a woke movie in any pejorative sense of the definition. That was more of the plot for the first film which was basically a retelling of North and South American story of colonization. A story that has be retold many times. Many accused Cameron of ripping off Pocahontas/Fern Gully and was subject to multiple lawsuits. This movie on the other hand was simply about saving whales and one man's revenge against another. . .and of course, glorifying violence despite cutting out a measly 10 minutes of what seemed to be 2 hours of non-stop animated gun- fire, lmao. And somehow you considered that woke? Whatever you say chief, but In case you haven't heard, verdicts in: movie critics, community activists, and university professors blasted Avatar as a racist "White Savior film riddled with cultural appropriation" and "an amalgamation of the histories of various Indigenous cultures for a film that features a largely white cast." Natives even called for a boycott. . . Those quotes were from some satarist bloke in the UK and are just as exaggerated and innaccurate as those calling it a racist white savior film. Add to that a bit of youthful performative activism hopped up on some piss and vinegar with a dose of self righteous moral superiority and you have the modern pejorative definition of woke as used by many on both the left and the right. Of course these Avatards are going to have something negative to say, it's good for exposure, but the film wasn't marketed for the sake of wokeness, nor was it marketed in the way you've described it. These are not the reasons people went to see the film, nor was it the general impression of the audience, and certainly not the takeaway for kids. I think it's hilarious how you're trying to revenge troll Brent for poking fun at AOC's climate change movie that made less than a mediocre youtube channel.

Good for them, it was a long time in the making given it was written over 10 years ago and took 5+ years to film, but apparently, not woke enough. The moment the dolphins jumped out at an Avatar-themed spectacle, animal activists were ready to jump ship. Enraged at Cameron's betrayal, they posted a open letter and invited him on a trip to Japan re-educating him on slaughtering dolphins: "Now I’m wondering if I’ve wasted the last fifty-two years of my life doing this? After all, if we can’t even get through to this select group of well-educated filmmakers, maybe we’re wasting our time trying to educate ordinary people. . .At 83, I don’t want to spend my time wasting my time. I have been forced to rethink everything. . . I’d like to personally show them where the dolphins that entertained them so well most likely came from. . . and that trainers who purport to care for dolphins work alongside those who brutally slaughter dolphins." Cameron, who claims to have been as surprised as the audience, tried to calm the waters with an apology email: “So, if people really want to save the dolphins, they should put down the damn tuna melt … in fact, stop eating fish altogether and stick to plant-based proteins, as I have for the last 10 years. I wanted you to know this was a faux pas outside my ability to foresee or prevent, and that I’m sorry about it.” Then movie critics, community activists, and university professors alike blasted it for cultural appropriation: “Avatar: The Way of Water” amounts to little more than a White Savior film riddled with cultural appropriation." "Join Natives & other Indigenous groups around the world in boycotting this horrible & racist film." "At some point we gotta talk about the cultural appropriation of Avatar and white actors are cos playing as poc. It’s just a mess and so not necessary & no amount of visual effects/CGI is gonna erase that." "the new Avatar film is being accused of using an amalgamation of the histories of various Indigenous cultures for a film that features a largely white cast." “Why watch a ridiculous movie about blue aliens when you could just support actual Indigenous people and our struggle for clean water here on Earth? Yes, we do exist.” And then Cameron, forcing people to go vegan? And calling testosterone a toxin that needs to be purged from the body? . . .what a bunch of nut-holes.

All I'm saying is that the pandemic created a need for deficit spending that increased debt at a rate that deviated from the 10 year upward trend, just as it did after 9/11 and again during the 2009 recession - and I felt the graph I posted illustrated that quite clearly. So without the additional debt from the pandemic, it would've been more inline with that 10 year trend. (not that that would've been a good thing either, as it still falls way short of what Trump said he was going to do) I honestly didn't mean for this to become a Rep vs Dem pissing contest nor was I arguing in favor of Trump's tax cuts or how he handled the crisis. I've made it quite clear that I'm opposed to both parties, albeit for very different reasons.

Sure, what I don't understand is why you guys have such a problem with me pointing out that 2020 was an outlier due to the pandemic. I mean people on both sides keep cherry picking stats from that period as if it never happened.

John was specifically talking about the national debt, not the deficit.

Another hasty generalization. You guys are just full of fallacy today, aren't you? I try not to view the world with such a lop-sided perspective.

Well that's not what we were talking about and now you're just mad that I won't entertain your troll-ish junk cognition. My world doesn't revolve around Trump, and there are plenty of other threads where this has been discussed ad-nauseum. I might even recommend "Trump, The Forgotten Person" thread that's been going on for 2 years so far. Good luck with that.

They're next!

Let's look at the facts! Debt to GDP ratio, last four year of Obama: 2012 6.6% 2013 4.0% 2014 2.8% 2015 2.4% 2016 3.1% Cool! Obama had our debt ratio going down. Let's see how Trump did before the pandemic: 2017 3.4% 2018 3.8% 2019 4.6% Rising fast! Understandable, since he increased spending and cut taxes, which is the formula for huge deficits. Ok, so on average 3.78% for Obama and 3.93% for Trump. I'm basically going by the graph below. The rate from 1990 was relatively steady until 2001-02 after 9/11, then it maintains that rate until the recession in 2008-09, and then that rate maintains relatively steady until the pandemic. Not sure where Joe's taking us, but we're running out of room. So to sum it up, it looks like about every 10 years we get screwed by something. . .

It's getting blamed because that's what it was. The increase of debt for those first three years maintained the same rate since it got jacked back in 2008-2009.

Nonsense, you forget that this was about the cognitive parallels between you and a special subset of conservatives with their hasty generalizations based on a variety of outliers.

The one he declared in March 2020 when the national debt suddenly spiked.

No, we were in a pandemic. Your thought process sounds similar to conservatives I heard praising Trump the other day for getting gas prices under $2 dollars during his administration.

Lippy is a mod now? Why wasn't I told? Is it really that hard for you guys to figure out that he's not talking about Lippy?

It’s not uncommon for people to be ignorant and gullible. What’s your point? What's your point, that Brent's link is more of a "joke site" than Phil's? Brent simply did a search for "Hunter Biden's net worth" and picked the first link that came up, Phil did a general search for "net worth" and picked the second link (which was the first relevant link for his purpose) Brent's link portrays Hunter in a more positive light, listing his assets and various sources of income without including any debts that may offset those assets. Phil's link focuses more on his debts and how his money was lost in shady business deals, drugs and loose women. Neither seem to offer any commentary/spin on the current questions surrounding Hunter's residence at Biden's home and his access to confidential documents at a time when he was apparently more vulnerable and unstable than any other point in his life.