Slashdot Mirror

Because raising taxes always works.

https://freebeacon.com/politic...

"God forbid the rich leave" - Cuomo.

whoops.

Worked fine all the way up to Reagan...where they then sold the voodoo economics of the trickle down theory...which is fully demonstrated by states like Kansas, where they are finding their revenues are falling way short of the needs of the state.

Contrast to other states which are not so Republican...like CA, CO..whose economies are doing pretty good despite more "liberal" political leadership than you typically see in the Republican party.

You mean like the 1950s?

It is much easier for capital to move around than in the 1950's. Even the SPLC moved millions to offshore tax havens. Money moves faster (hello bitcoin). Faster than a government can tax. Even if a government taxes more doesn't mean increase revenue. It's a great talking point to hear about when we had a higher tax rate but many things have changed since then but many things are still the same (raising taxes doesn't mean raising revenue).

Now when talking about taxes, what percentage should the 1% represent in government revenue? From that FreeBeacon link, "New York has the second highest combined state and local tax rate for high-income earners, and nearly half of the state's income tax revenue comes from the top 1 percent.". I think the same is true for federal taxes. The rich, right now, represent roughly half of all revenue for government. Why is that not enough? Taxing more doesn't solve problems like a magic bullet. The 1% do not face usually low tax burden by historical standards.

Also, the average tax paid for the top 1 percent in the 1950's was 42% not 90.

Because raising taxes always works.

https://freebeacon.com/politic...

"God forbid the rich leave" - Cuomo.

whoops.

Yes, Democrats would be great for regulating Big Tech and enforcing free speech. /s

With a photo: "Google’s Eric Schmidt Wore ‘Staff’ Badge at Hillary Clinton Election Night Party":

https://freebeacon.com/politic...

Donald Trump is just one guy not all of Washington. The EPA is not "Donald Trumps Administration", it is the EPA.

It is the standard convention that you refer to departments of the government as "President's agency" or even the "President agency ." If you find this to be difficult to grasp, perhaps political debate is not for you.

...to paraphrase the presidential candidate for whom Google's Eric Schmidt apparently worked, as evidenced by the photo of Schmidt on election night in the Javitz center wearing a "STAFF" badge, probably convinced there was no reason to hide too much because she was going to win for sure: https://freebeacon.com/politic...

That said I still trust Google for code searches, for now.

Trump showing up doing 3 a day events in the rust belt saying "we will never forget you again" while Hillary didn't show up at all is what won him MI, PA and WI.

What the mainstream heard from media was, "Trump won the rust belt because he's a racist bigot and they agree".

Pew found Democrats have moved substantially left on a variety of issues while Republicans' views remain relatively constant. That was true across social and economic issues; Pew claimed that the split between Republicans and Democrats is more pronounced than any divides by race, gender, or socioeconomic status.

"This poll and some other recent ones show that Democrats are pulling more strongly to the left and Republicans are not pulling quite as strongly to the right as a general matter," said Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who specializes in American public opinion. http://freebeacon.com/politics/new-study-finds-democrats-moving-left-driving-growing-partisan-gap/

In spite of all the wailing from so many people, the last election should have been thought of as a stirring win. It is the sort of win that, were we in Biblical times, would be remembered centuries later as a David-versus-Goliath type of win. After all, the winners were people with no voice and no power, except through voting. They are despised by the national media, by the educational establishment, by Hollywood, by everyone in one of the two major parties and apparently by a lot in the other major party, too, and even by the sports establishment (though that wasn't so clear back then). Yet, they won anyway. I have not heard anything from our chattering classes that reflects this take on the election. Their take is how horrible and deeply distressing it is that these people won because they are so racist and otherwise disgusting. Such a take is quite at odds with their often-stated claim that they are champions of the little guy.

Face it, your extreme political views don't represent America. And instead of thinking that maybe people that don't support you aren't stupid and evil, you're doubling down on dumb and calling us Americans bad and even worse. How about supporting us when we say we're hurting bad, and taking action to help?

Antifa has a long history of using violence to achieve their goals.

The controversy involves a plan to move all of the Defense Department's data -- classified and unclassified -- on to the cloud.

That is an excellent idea! It should be rolled out as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

China.

Here ya go. Close enough?

http://freebeacon.com/politics...

Note that nowhere did I actually complain about society's move towards increased liberalism, I'm just observing that it has, compared to the '40s, '50s, '60s, '70's, '80s..

DNC Votes to Require Dem 2020 Primary Candidates Be Registered Party Members

Oh, and there's this call to bomb the new US embassy in Jerusalem with a $100,000 prize to the first one to bomb it...

statistically speaking

Statistically speaking, this woman had a RESTRAINING ORDER against somebody who had threatened her, which kind of skews the numbers. Shouldn't it have been up to her to make that choice about the relative risks, instead of having the government make her safe while allowing her murder?

http://freebeacon.com/issues/n...

Alternative source for those whose subscription package happens not to include Washington Post: "Study: Obama Had Worst Record in Supreme Court in Modern History" by Elizabeth Harrington

Steele was paid $160,000 by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to write that dossier.

Incorrect.
The dossier was started by the request of The Washington Free Beacon while Trump was a Republican Primary candidate. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

After Trump was likely going to win, Free Beacon stopped paying Fusion GPS for this research. The DNC then contracted Fusion GPS to continue doing the research.

Fusion GPS then hired Steele, and did not tell him who the client was.

That is a far cry from what you just said happened, and what that memo claims happened.

If you think that was bad, think about what's going to happen now that Trump and his henchmen are in charge of the NSA.

Its great! These changes to the NSA's core values are another example of Trump draining the swamp and making the NSA great again!

All that beta soyboy politically correct stuff was holding them back. Now they are freed up to be much more vicious!

MUHHGUHH!!!!

Back in 1996 Bill Nye was saying, correctly, that sex is determined by chromosomes

http://thefederalist.com/2017/...

By 2017 he was teaming up with Rachel Bloom for this masterpiece about gender fluidity

https://genius.com/Rachel-bloo...

The 1996 chromosomes was removed from the version of the show on Netflix, who claim it was delivered that way by Buena Vista. Basically it wasn't politically incorrect to say that sex is determined by chromosomes then, but it is now.

http://freebeacon.com/culture/...

A segment saying that chromosomes determine one's gender on an episode of the educational children's show "Bill Nye the Science guy," is cut out on the Netflix version.

Netflix did not edit Bill Nye The Science Guy. The series was delivered that way by Buena Vista TV, according to a Netflix spokesperson.

In the original episode, titled "Probability," a young woman told viewers, "I'm a girl. Could have just as easily been a boy, though, because the probability of becoming a girl is always 1 in 2."

"See, inside each of our cells are these things called chromosomes, and they control whether we become a boy or a girl, " the young woman continued. "See, there are only two possibilities: XX, a girl, or XY, a boy."

But in the version of the episode uploaded to Netflix, the segment has been cut entirely. While noncontroversial at the time, the 1996 segment appears to contradict Netflix's new series "Bill Nye Saves the World."

The new show endorses a socially liberal understanding of gender, under which gender is defined by self-identification rather than genetics and there are more than just the two traditional genders.

Other science that liberals want removed from TV and the Internet includes race differences in mean IQ or indeed anything, or anything that casts doubt on the catastrophist view of global warming.

A search for "CNN changes headline" produces nearly half a million results, mostly about that story. But since that's apparently beyond you:

CNN Changes Headline After Antifa Complains

CNN Changes Headline After Claiming Antifa Uses Violence

Seriously? CNN Changes Headline On Story About Antifa Because They Didn't Like Being Called Violent

UNBELIEVABLE: CNN CHANGES HEADLINE AFTER ANTIFA DEMANDS IT

CNN Changes Its Headline That Antifa Desires ‘Peace Through Violence’ After Antifa Objects

CNN Changes Headline after Antifa Complains

CNN Changes “Peace Through Violence” Headline After Antifa Objects

CNN article calls Antifa violent, but CHANGES headline when they WHINE about it

Read more: http://therightscoop.com/cnn-a...

This wasn't exactly an obscure story.

North Korea shoots off new USA hitting Missle

The USA test anti-missile weapon July 30 http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/30/...

China test out anti-satellite weapon Aug 2 http://freebeacon.com/national...

Now this...

I guess Canada hasn't anything like this to take.

Espionage.

Despite your seemingly "reasonable" tone and content your post is a load of rubbish. Lets look in detail.

You mistakenly presume that there is any sort of government censorship of Republicans by "left-wing thugs" to begin with. This claim does not stand up to even the most basic form of scrutiny....

That is a straw man. He didn't write that it was government censorship, but rather "left-wing thugs" shutting down speech. That is true. Here are just two of many recent examples:

College Protestors Send Professor to the ER
Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn Reynolds

...not to mention the judicial which now leans conservative;

Really? The judiciary "leans conservative" so soon after 8 years of Obama appointments? Of the last 24 years Democrats have had 16 years of making appointments and 8 years of obstructing Republican appointments as best they could. Trump has made 1 (one) judicial appointment that was seated only a few weeks ago. If the judiciary "now leans conservative" how are Trump's travel ban executive orders being challenged in such unprecedented ways and on what are essentially frivolous grounds? You don't know what you are talking about.

so if we are to talk realistically about what you perceive to be an infringement of your right to call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," your own post is clear proof to the contrary.

This is more nonsense. He isn't complaining about being unable to "call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," he is complaining about the left-wing thugs (previously cited) who are using violence to shut down speakers invited by or speaking from a conservative or Republicans viewpoint.

But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someone who disagrees with the kind of ill-informed, uneducated, right-wing vitriol that you spew, and someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out in this "marketplace of ideas" that you vaguely refer to.

You appear to be misinformed. Mobs wielding baseball bats and fire bombs are not "someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out." As to the question of who is "spewing" vitriol, I suggest a comparison of your response and the post you relied to. You have things backwards.

As your political class has never historically had their actual constitutional freedoms curtailed by law, perhaps a more charitable observer would forgive you for such a spectacularly persistent inability to recognize whether the government is actually oppressing you.

Oh absolutely! Who could possibly notice the infringement of rights .. which never happen?
Police Can Seize And Sell Assets Even When The Owner Broke No Law
Top Ten Worst Abuses of Eminent Domain Spotlighted in New Report
Wichita State University: Student Government Denies Recognition to Libertarian Group Because It Defends Free Speech
Part of D.C. Gun Carry Law Struck Down in Federal Court

But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someo

Let's be honest: the next time a Democrat is president they will probably either join the Paris accords, or adopt policies that align with the accords anyway.

Right. Meanwhile, here's what Democrats actually DO:

http://freebeacon.com/politics...

Here's the entire email exchange between Hillary and Huma Abedin when going to former First Lady Betty Ford's funeral:

"Looks like plane won't be an issue," Abedin wrote. "Also, looks like Michelle Obama also going."

"Is it ok [sic] that we and Mrs. O take two separate planes?" Clinton asked.

"I think it's ok [sic]. But let me see what kind of plane she's taking," Abedin responded.

"I would rather have our own of course," Clinton added.

So, yeah, Clinton wants *you* to do something about climate change. But she'd rather take an entire separate airplane than ride on one with Michelle Obama.

Do you see why many of us don't think the Democrats really care about this stuff as much as they claim to?

Hence the terms "Champagne Socialist" and "Limousine Liberal".

Let's be honest: the next time a Democrat is president they will probably either join the Paris accords, or adopt policies that align with the accords anyway.

Right. Meanwhile, here's what Democrats actually DO:

http://freebeacon.com/politics...

Here's the entire email exchange between Hillary and Huma Abedin when going to former First Lady Betty Ford's funeral:

"Looks like plane won't be an issue," Abedin wrote. "Also, looks like Michelle Obama also going."

"Is it ok [sic] that we and Mrs. O take two separate planes?" Clinton asked.

"I think it's ok [sic]. But let me see what kind of plane she's taking," Abedin responded.

"I would rather have our own of course," Clinton added.

So, yeah, Clinton wants *you* to do something about climate change. But she'd rather take an entire separate airplane than ride on one with Michelle Obama.

Do you see why many of us don't think the Democrats really care about this stuff as much as they claim to?

"Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet... We disagree."

Sounds like something, fans of "Net Neutrality" would say...

At least, UK may create a new "government controlled Internet" (or so the write-up says). America's Progressives wish to take over the existing network, impose "Title II" on the ISPs, ban the sites they don't like and otherwise sensor "haters".

Whether Google really is violating the law, the prosecution itself is a convenient means of suppressing opposition. Google was "with her" all the way. Could this be a payback from the Trump's Administration?

Or, the other way around, has the previous Administration sat on it because Google was all for the Democratics? Worse, maybe, Google's unprecedented cooperation was due to the subtle blackmail in the first place?

Whatever the answers to these questions, I'd rather they not be asked at all — there should be no thoughtcrimes for the government to prosecute. At all.

Discrimination may be stupid and unethical, but it should not be illegal.

Top DOE Scientist fired by Obama administration

Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.

A top DoE scientist (Dr. Noelle Metting) who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

The Friends of Putin Club

The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.

Here is, what real friendship looks like

• The idiotic "Reset" of 2009.
• The 2010 abolition of all sanctions imposed on Russia for Putin's invasion of Georgia — in the (wane) hope of gaining cooperation on Iran — thus, as predicted, inviting Putin to repeat the same scenario in Ukraine and Syria.
• In 2012 ridiculing Mitt Romney's suggestion, Russia may be hostile to the US. Hillary Clinton was particularly scathing.
• Routing billions of dollars of investment into Russian high-tech industry, some of it, obviously, with military connections.
• Getting richly rewarded by Russian companies (all of them on Kremlin's tight leash).

Trump? Oh, yes, he wouldn't reveal his tax-returns, so he must be on Putin's payroll. Right...

Google results are skewed by bloggers linking to articles they agree with. Libs have been using that for years to bias Google Search and Google News.

Google could fix it if they wanted, but their CEO is a Clinton staffer so that won't happen

Space-based weapons are illegal. Even the Chinese anti-satellite weapons are surface-based. See here , although there are some problems with enforcement.

if you think you have computer security but you buy your hardware from the Communist Chinese army...

It's probably just a recall to install updated spyware

Americans/Brits/Aussies/Japanese etc who buy from "companies" like Lenovo are just stupidly giving the Chinese government backdoor access into everything. There's no such thing as a non-government "business" in communist China - it's all run by The Party, or people well-connected to The Party, or tolerated by The party as long as it does anything (like injecting malware, building-in backdoors, etc) tells it to do. Unlike a western democracy, in China The Party and the people's army are one, inseparable....one political party running the nation, it's economy, its military, its "businesses", its people's lives...

I seriously hope you're not considering voting for the candidate whose campaign manager worked for Yanukovitch, whose foreign policy advisor actively works for Gazprom

I'd rather Trump wins, than Clinton, who:

1. ran State, when the Administration ended all "Georgian" sanctions against Russia, thus inviting Putin into Ukraine as predicted
2. received, along with her husband, countless bribes (that is, "speech fees") from Putin-controlled entities — and gave amply in return
3. routed billions-worth of investment into Russia's high-tech and -technology firms, some of them, obviously, with military connections
4. was part of the Administration, that still would not give Ukraine lethal weapons (such as anti-tank missiles they desperately need) to counter the threat of Russia's armor
5. Continues to employ John Podesta, who received millions from Putin too — and, unlike Manafort, Podesta is not simply a cold professional campaigner one day in Peru, tomorrow in Israel, and so on, he is sincerely behind Clinton and Democrats.

Unlike USSR before him, Putin courts all sides. I'll take my chances with Trump, who has no prior record of helping the asshole and is less likely to be blackmailed by him.

Hillary consigliere and wikileaks victim John Podesta is a lobbyist and registered foreign agent for Putin's banker.

More here and elsewhere of course, for the interested.

The idea that Trump is in bed with Putin merely by virtue of having done some Business with Russians (like many thousands of others including Boeing have done) is an absurdity when Hillary's people are actually directly tied to Putin's oligarchs and lobbying for them before congress and agencies of the executive branch of our government. Then there was that whole Hillary/Clinton Foundation/Putin Crony/American Uranium mining thing... (google if you are unaware, or read the wikileaks where internally they admit this Hillary activity WAS a threat to US national security...)

Just FYI, my posts are the ones that say "Orgasmatron" at the top. Lemme quote myself a bit here, everything I've had to say about the evidence:

Which crime lab destroyed the evidence? Her crime lab destroyed the evidence. The state crime lab had a match already and handed the intact evidence over to the defense, which promptly destroyed it. Then, in a move that only a lawyer could love, the defense asked that the key evidence be thrown out because after destroying it, they were unable to verify the state lab's conclusion.

The lawyer is not to participate in the destruction of evidence.

In some versions of the story, the state crime lab only cut out half of the blood spot, leaving enough for a retest. The defense then cut a sample from an unknown location, didn't find anything, then lost the remainder of the article so it was impossible to tell if the defense had actually tested the same spot or not.

Hmm. No one confused here but you. Speaking of confusion:

Post 53075403 links to an article then says "The evidence was never under her control. She didn't cause it to be lost."

And yet, in the linked article, I found "Clinton said she got permission from the court to take the underwear to a renowned forensics expert in New York City to see if he could confirm that the evidence had been invalidated.".

Hmm. What is the next step after getting permission to transport the evidence to NYC? Really only two things can happen next. Either she took possession of the evidence and took it to the NYC lab, or she didn't bother getting it tested at all.

Let me tell you now that the second option doesn't make her look any better than the first. She says that the expert looked at it, so if she actually take it to NYC, she needs to explain why she pretended that she had.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? My old quake handle and slashdot nickname has never been more relevant than this election year. Here is what Hillary thinks of you, her enabler:

I twist the truth, I rule the world, my crown is called deceit
I am the emperor of lies, you grovel at my feet
I rob you and I slaughter you, your downfall is my gain
And still you play the sycophant, and revel in your pain
And all my promises are lies, all my love is hate
I am the politician, and I decide your fate

Which crime lab destroyed the evidence? Her crime lab destroyed the evidence. The state crime lab had a match already and handed the intact evidence over to the defense

Where is your evidence for that claim? Because that directly contradicts Clinton's own words:

But you know what was sad about it was that the prosecutors had evidence, among which was his underwear... His underwear, which was bloody. Sent it down to the crime lab... [unintelligible]. The crime lab took the pair of underpants, neatly cut out the part that they were going to test... tested it... Came back with the result of what kind of blood it was, what was mixed in with it, then sent the pants back with a hole in it as evidence.

So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn't want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence before it was presented. So they presented the underpants with a hole in it.

http://freebeacon.com/politics...

The evidence was never under her control. She didn't cause it to be lost.

Total load of bullshit

Somewhere, in a dark smokey room, Democrats are laughing their asses off that you keep buying their spin. Both parties are corrupt as hell, but Comcast in particular is in bed with Democrats. Your own link says this. But let's add this:

How Comcast Bought the Democratic Party
Lots of good reading

Forget the paltry $50k or $100k donated directly, let's examine the *millions* raised by Comcast for Obama and the DNC, and the "Comcast Foundataion" (sound familiar?) that channels donations to the needy as long as they support Comcast's initiatives.They are a dirty dirty dirty company (and not in a good way). A lone notable exception: Al Franken, who despite taking $15k from Comcast lobbyists still spoke out against them.

Lied? I think you mean, at best, was mistaken.

Thanks to the links I offered above, you too know, she spoke an untruth.

Maybe, you are too young to have paid attention, when these facts broke out, but Hillary Clinton was already very active in politics — she can not possibly not have heard about it. Therefore, she knew. Deliberately telling an untruth is the very definition of lying.

I am reluctant to accept something from a KGB archive as fact.

Well, what would you accept as fact? There are folks, who still question Moon-landing, for example, and they too can explain in detail, why everything known about it was not "fact". In the early 1990-ies, when the archives were (briefly) made accessible, the KGB was in disarray...

KGB might have still borne some grudges against the Kennedy family.

American Left have always been good to the USSR and Russia... It was because of them, the US was humiliated in Vietnam, defeated not by military might, but by discontent back at home. Later, when the USSR collapsed, it was Bill Clinton, who didn't push for Nurneberg-style of the Communists, allowing their prosecution to fizzle — that during the time, when Moscow was barely avoiding famine thanks to America's help. Later, it were Barack and Hillary, who offered Putin a "Reset" — and poured billions of dollars into Russian scientific research — not selflessly, of course. The duo also completely forgave Putin his invasion of Georgia by ending all sanctions in 2010 (thus encouraging him to invade Ukraine, as predicted).

Why would Putin seek to undermine such an asset as Hillary — whom he could've instead controlled with a combination of continuing bribery and blackmail over the bribes already taken?

Sure enough, Democrats would like Trump to look like Putin's favorite, but history points rather strongly at them...

Lied? I think you mean, at best, was mistaken.

Thanks to the links I offered above, you too know, she spoke an untruth.

Maybe, you are too young to have paid attention, when these facts broke out, but Hillary Clinton was already very active in politics — she can not possibly not have heard about it. Therefore, she knew. Deliberately telling an untruth is the very definition of lying.

I am reluctant to accept something from a KGB archive as fact.

Well, what would you accept as fact? There are folks, who still question Moon-landing, for example, and they too can explain in detail, why everything known about it was not "fact". In the early 1990-ies, when the archives were (briefly) made accessible, the KGB was in disarray...

KGB might have still borne some grudges against the Kennedy family.

American Left have always been good to the USSR and Russia... It was because of them, the US was humiliated in Vietnam, defeated not by military might, but by discontent back at home. Later, when the USSR collapsed, it was Bill Clinton, who didn't push for Nurneberg-style of the Communists, allowing their prosecution to fizzle — that during the time, when Moscow was barely avoiding famine thanks to America's help. Later, it were Barack and Hillary, who offered Putin a "Reset" — and poured billions of dollars into Russian scientific research — not selflessly, of course. The duo also completely forgave Putin his invasion of Georgia by ending all sanctions in 2010 (thus encouraging him to invade Ukraine, as predicted).

Why would Putin seek to undermine such an asset as Hillary — whom he could've instead controlled with a combination of continuing bribery and blackmail over the bribes already taken?

Sure enough, Democrats would like Trump to look like Putin's favorite, but history points rather strongly at them...

Regardless of how I answer you will no doubt find fault with it.

If yes your position makes no sense, if no your position flies in the face of actual evidence. So of course you are avoiding the obvious.

Instead I have some questions for you. Would you rather that these "gun death" suicides were from people jumping out of windows?

Except we already know that is not the case

So you are zero from two. Is it sinking in yet?

Since they did not make that distinction I am inclined to believe they included justified homicide numbers in their statistics to pump up the numbers.

Of course you are because that's how religion works. Any gap is a place for your god to exist.

Are you pleased that New Jersey gun laws protected this man from a potential "gun death"?

Citation: http://freebeacon.com/issues/n...

The laws also protected other from him or others just like him from having a gun and killing more people, which is equally likely. There is no way of knowing the exact outcome, maybe she has a gun and he takes it from her and still kills her? In any case assuming that you do know is disingenuous.

Regardless of how I answer you will no doubt find fault with it.

Instead I have some questions for you. Would you rather that these "gun death" suicides were from people jumping out of windows? Would you rather a woman shot her attacker and killed him or that she was stabbed to death by him?

I noticed that the VPC gathered statistics on "gun homicides" but did not specify if those deaths were only murders or included justified shootings in self defense. Since they did not make that distinction I am inclined to believe they included justified homicide numbers in their statistics to pump up the numbers.

There was a case in New Jersey of a woman applying for a permit to acquire a handgun because she feared an attack from her ex. Her permit was held up beyond the time legally allowed by the police. She was stabbed to death in her own driveway while getting into her car by this man. VPC should be proud, no? It is quite possible she'd have killed this man with that gun but since the man used a knife in the woman's murder they can feel proud that they, through their lobbying for strict gun control laws, a "gun death" was prevented.

So, no answers from me, only more questions. Are you pleased that New Jersey gun laws protected this man from a potential "gun death"?

Citation:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/n...

Wow, once again, you COMPLETELY FAIL TO GET THE POINT. I don't know if you are TRYING to be obtuse or if it just comes naturally.

I don't recall ever stating that the police should be disbanded.

When I say "safe for murderers and rapists," are you REALLY so dumb that you don't realize? Police generally come when (if) called, and they take time to get there. We have police, and over 11,000 homicides in 2014. Police CANNOT prevent homicide. They show up AFTER the murder and try to catch the criminal. If somebody tries to kill you, and you happen to have a cell phone on you, do you think that you could stay alive the 5 to 10 minutes for the police to arrive? Maybe, maybe not. Try your luck!

Criminals can run from the police. However, criminals ARE afraid of armed victims.

I'd also like to find out your source for determining that shoot-outs are somehow safer for a woman

Where is your proof that it isn't? Seriously, running away and calling the cops is always your FIRST option, but it should never be your ONLY option. What if you can't run away? What if the woman is at home on the 2nd story and can't get past the bad guy on the stairs? The woman is MUCH better off locking the door and aiming the gun at the door. Try to tell me otherwise and make yourself look like a fool.

If a woman goes up against a man in a purely physical confrontation, the woman is at a disadvantage. The average woman will be smaller and weaker. The average man will be larger, stronger, and quite possibly have a background in sports and other physical activity. There are corner cases (God help the man that tries to attack Ronda Rousey), but, in general, what I have said is true. However, if the woman is armed, she stands a MUCH BETTER chance against those that would try to hurt her. It only takes about four to six pounds of pressure to pull a trigger, and, statistically speaking, woman actually make better shots than guys. Women are among the best sharp-shooters out there.

Like I said, about two miles from my house was a case where a good GIRL with a gun stopped a would-be mass murderer.

Here is a case where a woman had a restraining order against her ex. She had applied for a gun permit, but was still waiting. However, her ex killed her while she was still waiting... Gun control killed her. Here chances would have been MUCH better if she was armed...

http://freebeacon.com/issues/n...

Studies have shows ... MILLION TIMES A YEAR
Well for starters, some sources would be good.

OK. Granted. Given the quality of your thinking so far, I am not surprised that you can't use Google. Let me help you. Here is one great link. Yes, it is Wikipedia, but they have links to the various studies, so you can read them for yourself. This is from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... :

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach of 4.7 million incidents per year. Discussion over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[2][3]

So, yeah, like I said, lots of these studies are biased one way or another. Throw out the lowest and highest scores and average the rest. However, even the ones AGAINST guns still have "estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year." Get rid of guns, and get rid of those tens of thousands of cases of using them defensively. "Using" can be just

Clinton's Success stories:
Movie : Clinton Cash Movie:Free
Movie Fact Sheet: Fact Sheet
Clinton Death Count: Death list Dont forget Julian assanges head attorney hit by a train, the father of the doc that did hillary's checkup who released some info.
Bill Clinton's Rape Sheet: Victim list Not sure if the 19 year old when he was in the CIA in oxford is on that one at 19 or his supposed best friend at 16 either.
Hillary getting a rapist off, while accusing a 12 year old virgin of being hot for older men: Article with sources here is the interview with her last month: Interview with victim 2016 Because you know a 12 year old wants stitches in her vagina.

I dont have to link hopefully what Comey said about all the lies, treason, and death she caused with her pay for play clinton foundation or the fun mails that keep coming out with FOIA. All though this one should give you an idea of the kind of treason we are talking about: Treason so high this guy can't even get access to the pages


Those of you that say I'm voting for Hillary because Trump is a meanie or a scoundrel, take a look at what this woman has caused already. If she is elected you will have done the world the biggest proof is in the pudding injustice ever.

Hillary! has explicitly stated the USSC is wrong about the 2nd Amendment. Would that be the DC v Heller decision that says the 2A guarantees a person the right to defend themselves? Or the Chicago v. Miller that says the right is incorporated to the people? Either way, her own words say she believes the 2A should be dramatically scaled back (never mind the most restrictive places tend to have the highest gun murder rates).

Point blank first hand knowledge that she's a liar. I went to see her office in NY when I was forced to train my h1B replacement. Their attitude was "too bad, this is part of a larger, more important process of globalization." That is nearly a direct quote from her staffers to me personally when I asked why Americans should yield their jobs to people here on visas. This is when she was a new Senator for NY and before the H1B shit hit had the fan the way it has now and only Norm Matloff and a few other people were talking about h1b fraud. I am sure they felt comfortable sneering at me since they were in their office, their turf and cell phone cameras weren't a thing yet.

Here she is cutting the ribbon on a H1b body shop in ever-depresssed downtown Buffalo NY :

http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/hil...

Here's her 11th hour conversion reviewed:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/hil...

Here's what the Clinton Foundation thinks of Americans and their jobs:

http://freebeacon.com/politics...

Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Bernie Quotes: “I don’t think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street. I don’t think you are qualified if you voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think she is qualified,” Sanders said in April. During the primary, Sanders described Clinton’s policy positions and rhetoric variously as “nonsense,” “horrific,” “unfair,” “nasty,” “disastrous,” and “obscene.” “Secretary Clinton owes us an apology,” Sanders told a Wisconsin crowd in April. http://freebeacon.com/politics... So now he's going to endorse someone who he knows is an unqualified liar? What does that say about Bernie? It says that he's the same as every other politician and you fell for it. Vote for our liar because they're better than the other liar.

http://mediatrackers.org/wisco...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news...
http://www.campusreform.org/?I...
http://www.mediaite.com/online...
http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax...
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
http://freebeacon.com/issues/s...
http://overlawyered.com/2015/0...
http://legalinsurrection.com/2...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...

"Doctors in Cuba’s public health system are pressured to induce abortions for potentially problematic pregnancies in order to artificially lower the infant mortality rate. Stusser estimated that if the deaths of living fetuses older than 21 weeks had been reported, Cuba’s infant mortality rate would be at least 50 percent higher."

And the conditions in Cuban hospitals are horrible.

One of the promises made to the USSR when the whole wall came down and Soviet Union dissolved and all that was that the NATO would not expand to the borders of Russia

Yes, yes — a tale oft-repeated by Russian scum. Please, cite the treaty, where that promise was made. Oops...

If Russia would expand - peacefully, through alliances - to include Canada and Mexiko, how do you think the USA would react?

You are trying to equate unequatable. Russian "expansion" brings not the prosperity of freedom and Capitalism, but disasters of Socialism. Witness Cuba, where we tried to fight it decades ago, and Venezuela, where we did not. Russia keeps trying, though — and we haven't attacked anyone.

I can't believe someone at Slashdot is using Vox as a legitimate source for anything involving Hillary. Vox is practically a spokesperson for the Democratic party. O course they won't be able to see the search manipulation that is right before their eyes. Here are more examples of how Google skewed the search results involving Clinton. Don't trust sources. Trust factual information that you can test yourself. http://freebeacon.com/politics...

What? Google and Bing have different algorithms? Omigod!
So, other than alerting all True Conservatives to use Bing so as to have their partially typed search terms regarding evil Hillary autocomplete correctly and save themselves a few characters of typing per search, did you have anything else in mind? A constitutional amendment regarding separation of search and state?

I can't believe someone at Slashdot is using Vox as a legitimate source for anything involving Hillary. Vox is practically a spokesperson for the Democratic party. O course they won't be able to see the search manipulation that is right before their eyes.

Here are more examples of how Google skewed the search results involving Clinton. Don't trust sources. Trust factual information that you can test yourself. http://freebeacon.com/politics...

Just after Google is apparently skewing search results for Clinton, they suddenly come out in support of a position that she's strongly in favor for. Just coincidence right? The number of coincidences going on with tech companies these days is just pretty amazing. There of course is another story on this with google saying it's true gov' we're not skewing anything. It's almost like when twitter started suspending non-feminists for objecting to the use of #killallmen, but feminists still use it to this day without any problems.