So again, that’s a “no”. You are not man enough to admit statements that are true. No surprise.

Instead you would prefer to make up some alternative facts that make you feel good.

Violent settlers (often Americans) forcing Palestinians off their land at gun point or just outright murdering them to steal their land increased exponentially during Trump’s tenure, as did IDF attacks on innocent civilians (often in support of the settlers, not counted in official IDF killings), they also increased the slow genocide of medical embargoes, intentional starvation, cutting off water and electricity, violent random attacks on mosques, all under Trump. They don’t count those as “IDF killings” either, but they are.

The IDF has been committing a slow boil genocide for decades, under both parties, a genocide they accelerated under Trump’s regime in many ways, and again under Biden when they used their (intentional?) abject intelligence failure in Oct. as an excuse for escalating farther to such an extent its looking likely they allowed the attack for that very reason, an excuse for escalating the genocide. It’s become clear they caused many of the casualties on Oct 7 and made false rape claims that have been debunked, also to excuse their escalation.

Netanyahu is a far right wing “leader” Trump still today lovingly calls Bibi who would have been out of office without Trump’s help and quite recently Don has voiced his FULL support for any lengths Netanyahu wants to go including taking the entire Gaza Strip and expelling the residents (into the sea because no country will take them, knowing if they do Israel will use them having a country to take refuge in as a pretext to take the West Bank too)…and you want to pretend Biden who has called him a war criminal is MORE complicit than Trump who backed his every genocidal move. 😂

At least you are consistent in your fantasy world…you never leave. Too bad it cost you your balls, spine, mind, and soul. I hope you like it in there up your rectum. 😂

Source?

I know these are bullshit statistics Bob, because there have been 212 already this year with over 250 deaths in 5 months. Nice try, another easily debunked lie.

Edit: There we’re another 9 killed (and 63 more injured) in 14 mass shootings just this weekend, including 6 kids under 15 in just one.

the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number of citizens who prevent crimes by using guns much lower than 2.5 million the NRA often claims -- about 67,740 times a year….and in the vast majority of those they never shoot those guns.
Edit: The CDC report you cited said maybe 108,000 times per year guns were used in defense, not 750000- 1.5 million….but noted the statistics they used were incomplete and unreliable….and also noted that accidents and suicides alone vastly outweigh any positive statistic.

the Violence Policy Center statistics showed that in 2012, there were 259 justifiable self-defense homicides in which victims turned the tables, not 2 million.
They also show the theft of about 232,000 guns each year -- about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put into the hands of criminals. Is that what you call “successful policy”?

By the end of 2019, there were 417 mass shootings in the U.S., according to data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive (GVA), which tracks every mass shooting in the country. Thirty-one of those shootings were mass murders. What is your definition of “mass shooting” because it’s clearly not any time 3 or more are shot by one person.

Abortions account for 0% of deaths each year….but it was targeted with outrageously regressive misogynistic laws that make women incubators without any rights including no rights to contraception. A bit more draconian than having to get a background check to buy guns, don’t you think?

On average, more than 360 people in the USA are shot every day and survive – at least long enough to get to a hospital.
In 2017, some 39,773 died from gunshot injuries, an average of nearly 109 people each day. Per capita, this is significantly higher than in other industrialized countries. The rates of gun homicide are much higher in states with higher gun ownership. More guns equate to higher crime and murder rates, not lower. That is consistent over time.

No, bob….that’s according to the NRA, not the CDC….unless you count any crime stopped or caught by police because they all have guns, but that’s not what you claimed.

900 mass shooting fatalities in what timeframe bob?

Where do you get these insane statistics bob? Your behind?

Bob, no country slaughters more of its citizens than the US thanks to guns.

It’s almost 3 times as likely someone in your home will be shot if you have a gun.

In 2020, 54% of gun homicides are suicides. (Pew)

Again, cite your sources. I know you can’t because it would be too embarrassing for you to admit they came from THE NRA, Glen Beck, or some other nut job liar….or straight from your own ass.

Constant unAmerican, anti democratic, Russian propaganda.
Do you know how many flags have flown over the US in that time? To name just a few….French, British, Spanish, Mexican, Every state (before their statehood), dozens of different US flags (changed every time a state was added), hundreds of indigenous nations, even Canada. Remember 6 flags over Texas? Does that make Texas less part of America? I guess Mexico should take it back. No need to defend it I suppose.
What idiocy. Jesus, bob.

I recall how happy you were when we assassinated an Iranian general in an unprovoked act of war against a Russian backed country, so why was starting a war fine with you but keeping our clear obligations agreed on by an international nuclear disarmament treaty is bad? *crickets*

I’m not saying you are definitely a Russian America hating troll, I’m just saying there wouldn’t be a single letter changed in anything you post if you are, and there’s not one shred of evidence that you aren’t one.

Love the way you want to walk away from our treaty too….so no country will ever negotiate based on a promise by America to defend them. Ukraine would still have nukes if we hadn’t agreed to permanently secure their borders, and Putin would never have invaded a nuclear nation.

At every opportunity you are anti democracy, Bob. You’re so blind you don’t see how that makes you look. I thought you hated socialism and communism….so why do you support it being forced on others?

🤦‍♂️

Edit: have you been listening to super racist failed diplomatic appointee and Fox “invasion expert” Douglas MacGregor, a Trump appointed Russia Propagandist on Fox who’s suggesting Russia should be more aggressive, borders should just be redrawn (without Ukraine), Zelinski is a terrorist, and claims people in the west and Europe and China all support Russian expansion? Sure sounds like it.

Crap. I wanted to like this video.
Unfortunately this starts with bad information and gets worse...claiming Yellowstone is the largest super volcano....but Yellowstone's biggest eruption was 2,800 km3 almost 9000000 years ago.... Toba in Sumatra erupted 13,200 km3 only 75000 years ago. The most recent Yellowstone eruption was around 640000 years ago and only 1000km3.
Even Taupo ejected 1170km3 in that last super eruption, far more than Yellowstone's most recent.

Where did they get the idea that an ash cloud would spread in every direction evenly?! It's just wrong. The ash cloud would be blown East by upper atmospheric winds...eventually circling the globe but not expanding to the West very far....just like previous eruptions did.

They mention America going abroad to get food in such an event, then go on to mention global dimming, temperature drops, and sulfur contamination damaging crops...but don't put the two together. In such an event, no country on earth could feed it's own population, much less have a surplus to sell to the worst hit area, America. In 1815, the year without a summer caused world wide famine, epidemics, and a halt to shipping because winter ice packs remained through the summer in many places, and crop failures and epidemics continued for years afterwards. That eruption was only 160–213km3 and there were under 1 billion people to feed on the planet.
A large Yellowstone eruption would be 4-10 times that size, with effects being worse and lasting longer, and there are around 8 times as many mouths to feed.
The largest eruption we know of was nearly 100 times the size of Tambora in 1815....and wasn't Yellowstone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

Edit: let's not forget the disruption to airlines for possibly years and interference with satellite signals like we've never experienced....and what does that sulphur do to an already acidic ocean?

I want to know his sources, because they don't jibe with historical records.

Your video, No Country for Sound Guy | Kevin James, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Oops.
Ok @bobknight33, time for you to gloat. I was totally wrong about it costing us $50 billion per year....

....but I was dead on with the $87.5 billion per year figure according to the federal reserve's report....not including the tens of billions of taxpayer's money handed out to factory farms in Trump's enormous (bigger than Obama's) socialist handout program (but not to smaller privately owned farms who lost more). It also doesn't count the thousands of good jobs, factories, and farms permanently lost.
For all that money we still have no trade agreements and are in a worse position to negotiate one than when he started. No country trusts Trump's administration to fulfill it's obligations, so most negotiations are grinding to a halt.
All told, it's costing the U.S. well over $100 billion per year for just this one facet of Trump's total failures at negotiation and his utter ignorance of international trade and finance.

Winning!?! Only if you're Russia or Iran.

I've said before in other comments that earth is home to many worlds. Each of us creates our own world with what we know or don't know. Some know they are artists. Others don't know or don't believe it.

Since the bible has been the biggest stumbling block on earth ever created, religions have been created that separate us. Don't get me wrong. I have been an atheist. I was raised as a Catholic and had to go to church every Sunday. I hated going because it was so damn boring and confusing.

Love on the other hand was something different. Something I could relate to just by some of the hot babes that were in my classes in school! I could feel the love there. But my love was limited. I hated being kissed on the cheek by Aunt Mary because she always got lipstick on my cheek and her breath stunk. Pretty shallow, I know.

Stick with me here.

It's been said or at least I've heard, God is love. That was simple. Brief. But it was also puzzling. Is it God or is it love. Which is it?

The only way it made sense to me was, God is the character name of the person reading the book. I don't need to believe in God. I just need to believe in myself. That helps me believe in others.

I learned that by losing someone I love.

Since then people tell me I should stop smoking cigarettes. I tell them that if I quit smoking today and then die in a car accident next week I'm going to be PISSED!

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today... Aha-ah...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one -John Lennon


All alone, or in two's
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall
Some hand in hand
And some gathered together in bands
The bleeding hearts and the artists
Make their stand
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall

Isn't this where

-Songwriters: Roger Waters

The simple point is that as soon as we realized the capability of the Zero we easily and quickly designed a plane(s) capable of combating it.

The Yak-3 didn't enter the war until 1944, at which point the war had massively turned in Western Theatre. For the bulk of the conflict, they were using the Yak-1.

The Mig 25 and Mig 31 are both interceptors, they are designed to fire from distance and evade. The Su 35 is designed for Air Superiority. We have held the edge in our capabilities for years compared to them.

Every expert I know of is skeptical of China's claimed Railgun weapon. As to why they would bother mounting it and making claims, why not? It is brinkmanship, making us think they have more capabilities than they do.

The laser rifle is a crowd deterrent weapon. It would serve almost no purpose in infantry combat because it cannot kill. Yes, it can burn things and cause pain, but that is all. Again, this was claimed to be far more effective than experts think during our diplomatic arguments over China's use of blinding lasers on aircraft. We have no hard evidence of it's capability.

Yes, Russia could sell such a missile to our enemies versus using it directly against us. The problem is that as soon as they do so, the genie is out of the bottle. It will be reverse engineered quickly and could be USED AGAINST THEM. No country gives or sells away it's absolute top level weaponry except to it's most trusted allies. Allies which, for all intents and purposes, know that using such a weapon against another nation state risks full out retaliation against not only them but the country that sold it to them.

Our carriers are excellent mobile platforms, but they are not our only way of mounting air strikes. If we were somehow in a conventional war situation, we could easily fly over and base our aircraft in allied countries for combat. Most of our nuclear capable aircraft are not carrier launched anyway. Even if somehow all of our carriers were taken out and somehow our SAC bombers were destroyed as well, we would still have more than enough land launched and submarine launched nuclear warheads to easily blanket our enemies.

My points remain:

1. It is in the greatest interest of our enemies to boast about weapon capabilities even if they are not effective yet.

2. Most well regarded experts consider many of these weapons to either be still in the research stage, early production stage (IE not available for years), or they are wildly over hyped.

3. There is no logical reason for our enemies to use these weapons or proliferate them to their closest allies unless the weapons can prevent a nuclear response. Merely mentioning a weapon that would have such a capability creates a situation that could lead to nuclear war, like SDI did. I don't know if you recall, but I do clearly, how massively freaked out the Soviets got over our SDI claims. For two years they started threatening nuclear war as being inevitable if we continued on the path we were, all the while aggressively trying to destabilize our relations with our allies. 1983 to 1985 was pretty fucking tense, not Cuban missile crisis level maybe, but damn scary. Putin has acted similarly over our attempts to set up a missile barrier in former satellite states of Russia, although we still haven't got to the SHTF level of the early 80's.

To be fair, correlation of gun ownership to gun violence isn't exactly clear cut either. No country has quite as many guns per capita as America, but there are countries with relatively high gun ownership that don't have the same problem with gun violence. Clearly it's a complex issue...

but maybe media is to blame somewhat. The news media. I wonder if the reporting was minimised - i.e. no images of the killer, no details about the killer, just reporting of the incident, the victims etc and then, as callous as this perhaps sounds, on to the next story. The families of the victims aren't helped by the frenzy or speculation and I really think it only encourages the next would-be murderer. It gives an opportunity to have a discussion about gun control (except it comes across as opportunistic...) but America's gun violence problem is larger than mass shootings. To me, it's as much about the stickups that go wrong, the fact every police officer can make a poor decision and end up killing somebody, its about lil timmy accidentally shooting his best friend, its about suicides... not just about tragedies that dominate the news. Oh, and games have fuck all to do with any of it

I don't think anyone suggests that civilian disarmament encourages tyranny, merely that civilian armament discourages tyranny.



In any case, there are a variety of applications that aren't "fighting hitler".

No country goes on forever without some domestic strife. Could be domestic war, could be economic collapse, could be the government scapegoating "your kind", could be a weather disaster, could be whatever.
In such an unlikely event, if you happen to be around at the time, you may wish to guard your family, food, fuel, etc.

Note that these events affect a LOT of people when they do happen (as in millions at a time).
Even though they are less frequent than a random shooting, the sheer quantity of people makes them significant.

Eg. The last Houston destruction by hurricane was in 1979 (38 years ago). That's not so infrequent, in a city of 2.3 million people (ish).
That's an upper bound of 60'000 people affected per year on average.
Either way, it's a lot of people that need to guard their homes from looters, etc.
Granted not everyone is on a destroyed street - but you see what I mean.

There have been plenty of disasters and riots in the last few decades where you wouldn't want to be caught helpless - just in case.

That's also a commentary on society. During the Fukushima disaster, nobody was looting or robbing, or whatever. Japan has a better behaved society.

-scheherazade

Of course, no country/people is ever free. But I think we, as a nation, is doing comparatively well though.

It is sad that the progressives just loves bickering amongst themselves...

Touching.

However, and I know I am going to catch absolute hell over this but it needs to be said, there is a legal method in place for immigration. You might not agree with it, you might think it needs to be relaxed to allow more people in, you might think it is restrictive because it costs money and time, but the fact remains that there is a process for it in place.

Of course it is terribly sad that people who want to be in this country to improve their standard of living can't simply walk across a border to get here. I wish it could be that way, but it can't. People need to be checked into to see that there is no hidden issues that will arise once they are here. They need to be relatively able to find a job so that they are not a drain on others. This is a worldwide truth, as there is no country that does not have some method to process immigrants, many far more restrictive than ours. For instance, Australia will slap your ass on a desolate fucking island if you try to immigrate illegally and they can't find a place to return you to in a cost effective manner.

My own opinion on the matter is that we need to have a concerted discussion on how we are going to handle immigration requests and then have a nationwide vote upon it. At the very minimum it should be a statewide vote in states that border another country, as they are generally the ones most affected by costs related to illegal immigration. But until that time, I have to look at this video as a mother who is willing to commit a felony to make sure her daughter has a better life.

Which is laudible, definitely, but we punish other people who break the law to try to improve their or their children's lives. If I had children and I committed a felony crime to improve their lives, I would go to jail. How is someone who came here illegally better than me and therefore immune to the same laws I am held to?

So, no answer to Greece, eh? They kind of blow your stance out of the water, don't they? No country has seen more refugees pass through, and not a single attack. Hmmmm.

It couldn't be that they are attacking countries that have recently attacked their countries, could it?

"He could have legally killed that woman."

Fun fact: Did you know that there's no country in the world other than America where anybody would think to make that observation?

There are systems other than democracy which have the kind of cheques and a balances you are referring to.

Just that not all of them place that power indiscriminately in the hands of the demos. e.g. a Meritocratic system expects its voters to earn their votes by demonstrating competence in a given field (those qualified in healthcare can vote to choose administrators of health etc.)

Democracy as we know it is a deeply unsophisticated way of attending to the problems you describe. There are alternatives that may well prove better, were we to actually try them.

It's pretty clear actual unlimited democracy doesn't work as no country in the modern world uses it. So it appears it's only the recourse to peaceful regime change that's important here, not necessarily the means by which it is achieved.

But even then, that blow off valve is usually defined in pretty narrow parameters and the political landscape carefully maintained by societies elites. Were it not, the aforementioned repeal of the death penalty and such would likely have doomed the ruling regime to be replaced by something more representative of the demos's backwards attitudes.

Hell I could even conceive of ways to just apply enough of that same veneer of democratic accountability to Sophocracy, technocracy and Noocracy, without resorting to a full blown meritocracy or oligarchy. One need only define the parameters that limit the demos in a way which demands leadership candidates have requisite qualities/qualifications.

It really could be very similar to what we have now, but with the parameters shifted to define a different sort of viable candidate.

It's already a hybrid of elite and demos, just redefine the elite and let the demos keep the blow off valve within the new parameters.

And then one day in the future perhaps, leaders will not always have to be emotionally flawed humans?