It’s been 36 years since Top Gun. The house where Tom Cruise seduced his flight instructor, Kelly McGillis, is now a pie shop on the grounds of Hyatt’s Mission Pacific hotel.
Now it’s been rebooted and aviation geeks may find it “two thumbs up, five stars, and a must-see.” It’s close-up aviation scenes and cinematography. That’s also all it is [very few spoilers].
Top Gun is classic Tom Cruise. Days of Thunder, the Color of Money, The Firm and A Few Good Men were all about a young phenom – in three of those cases, whose defining feature was an ego and lackadaisical style. And in the original Top Gun, Maverick’s ego was writing checks his body couldn’t cash.
In many ways it’s a remake of the original, transporting you back in time and stripped of its 1980s patriotic politics.
Though the cast is more diverse than the original the movie “is not so much anti-Woke as pre-Woke, with cliched ethnic characters and adoring women waiting for the heroic men to come back from mission.” It is meant to be inoffensive yet may offend progressives at the same time.
The movie never even tells you who the enemy is. There’s a new threat. Young pilots need the tutelage of an ace veteran. They have to stop an ‘unauthorized’ weapoins facility in the mountains of somewhere. The Soviets were the enemy in 1986. You might expect it now to be China, the Taliban, or Russia (again). The movie isn’t even screening in China, which only accepts a limited number of U.S. films and presumably wouldn’t want to highlight a gung ho picture about the U.S. armed forces. For Taiwanese audiences Tom Cruise wears the flag of Taiwan on his jacket though we don’t get to see that.
It’s a generic film that will offend almost no one (just the Chinese government, a little bit) featuring a major star with a presence matched perhaps only by George Clooney, so unsurprisingly turnout was “unusually strong” in “Tennessee, Oklahoma, Utah, Oregon and northern Florida.”
In some ways it’s the ‘feel good’ summer film we all want after two years of not going to the movies. But it’s not going to be any kind of classic like the original, cult or otherwise. It does, however, contain enough nods to the original to keep fans entertained for 2 hours and 11 minutes. I’m jus grateful it was a sequel and not a Point Break or Red Dawn remake.
Aside from the awesome aviation shots, this movie just isn’t very good. The plotting is way too predictable. There’s no originality. The love interest is forced on us and it doesn’t stick the landing at all. I actually liked that they spent time on the minor characters to a degree…just not enough to make their motivations clear enough to effectively service the plot.
And the Behind Enemy Lines rip-off plot twist near the end was as predictable as it was unwelcome.
I had a feeling it would be this bad (excepting the aviation scenes which are really the only reason to see this movie in a theater…preferably IMAX) because, honestly, the first one was nearly that bad (albeit more coherent than this one). So I get his point when Gary called it a “remake”. Because it kind of is exactly that…a remake of the first movie in that it basically checks off all the beats from the first one in terms of scenes while also being a sequel to its story.
@Douglas Swalen — “Aside from the awesome aviation shots, this movie just isn’t very good.”
But but but … I thought the *only* reason most people go to such flicks *is* to experience those awesome shots … especially in an iMAX theater? Does anyone actually expect there to be a deep “coherent” plot? If there were, wouldn’t that just be the proverbial icing on the cake? 😛
Did we really need another “bruh” style Tom Cruise movie that is just a bunch of loud sounds is completely predictable? Is Hollywood that desperate?
Wife and I saw it last night theatre was packed. Very enjoyable and realistic. Suggest you see it in IMAX. Great action sequences
Once again our pathetic Troll friend “GU Wonder” has to input the Trump reference. I truly wonder if there is anything you could post about that would not get a Trump comment.
Classic post, Gary. Not sure what’s more entertaining – the movie or the comments. Need popcorn for both!
The comments on this article
show perfectly why democrats and republicans are destroying this country equally. Both sides full of hate and vitriol, thinking that only the other side is hateful and that their side is the good guys. Deluded fools all. And the reason why we’re all screwed.
Also I thought Maverick was awesome, but the author is welcome to have a different opinion than me, without either of us having to resort to calling each other Hitler or Stalin over it.
@ Usvet1
Per my earlier post, you are ranting at the wrong poster, evidently so emotionally incensed to have lost your reason and too eager to fire off yet another misdirected volley of nonsense.
“So is this an immigration issue now? I am a naturalized citizen that migrated from a third world country…..so yes, I can LEGALLY vote.”
No, it’s not an immigration issue. You appear too dumb to follow the logic. I was firstly confirming that you have the right to vote, before calling you out for not exercising such right. FWIW you may not be the only immigrant commenting on this blog (for example, I was a migrant, and so was my grandmother, my wife, my wife’s brother and her sister).
“I just did not like Trump nor Hillary. So is it illegal to NOT vote?”
The USA (unlike some other countries) does not have compulsory voting. I assume you know that. No mention was made of it being illegal not to vote.
I’m calling you out as a hypocrite for unloading a series of deranged and politically hysterical rants on a travel blog, but then admitting you didn’t vote. Priceless!
You do realise that there were other presidential candidates in the tRump / Clinton election and the any political party and /or candidate are likely suboptimal in any given citizen’s perception?
“As a person who actually who grew up in a country that ACTUALLY suppresses voting by threatening your family if you vote for the other party, you have no idea what a real voter suppression means”.
So, you moved from a country without voting freedoms to one that had them and then celebrate that freedom by not voting? Like I said, priceless!
You have no idea of my knowledge or background, but proceed to argue against your presumption, further exposing your stupidity.
“There is nothing wrong if you vote “none of the above” But for you, I will vote in 2024 just to get rid of this current demented president.”
We know it’s legal in the USA not to vote. That’s your choice. It’s just blatantly hypocritical that you get so riled up about politics that you spew such hysterical political bile on a travel blog in response to an article about an unpretentious action movie, but it turns out that you didn’t vote. Priceless.
And no, you don’t need to vote to satisfy the challenge of a complete stranger on a travel blog.
Arguably, you should do so if you have clear purpose. If you grasp that declining political participation is a cancer for democracy. If you understand that not voting does NOT send the message of “none of the above”, rather it sends the message of personal irrelevance and disconnection.
“Maybe see it twice so you can appreciate the very blanket of freedom that you enjoy our military personnel provide to you everyday”.
Please spare me the sanctimonious drivel. Certain members of my family and friends made sacrifices (just like so many others) to protect freedoms that so many now take for granted, ironically, people like you, who have the right to vote and then don’t vote. FWIW we continue to support the vets in our local community.
Your last president shitted on America’s traditional allies from a great height and then had to step back his inane decisions. Talk about a demented president. We now live with the foreign policy failures of his administration, including being too cosy with Russia and North Korea, and not handling China effectively.
No matter – we can send in Tom Cruise in a fancy fighter plane, right? Pass me the sick bucket.
“PS. You seem to have a short term memory issue. First person to comment:”
No, mate, you have the problem, since it is you who is addressing entirely the wrong person.
“Me? Manic rumblings? HAHAHAHAHAHA…. and here you are pretending that you only wanna talk about Top Gun movie .
So pretentious.”
Yes, you, you’ve lost the plot. You are addressing the wrong person.
My wife and I were deciding whether to go to see the movie. We wouldn’t want to support it in the event it was intended or even co-opted as a battle cry for the dumb and uncivilised right-wing element in US society, which you and some others on this blog champion.
Thankfully, some other commentators have managed to bypass their political prejudices and have made useful contributions to aid our choice.
@ Cmorgan
Arguably, what’s pathetic is how easily the *loony right brigade* can be triggered into their *sadly* predictable responses and bang their *dumb-brained heads* ceaseless against a *wall* over and over again. *Mental*.
PS The “*’s are intended as a comedic reference to one of the aforementioned loons.
@platy — “The *’s are intended as a comedic reference to one of the aforementioned loons.”
Perhaps you can suggest some alternative methods to provide emphasis to words/phrases, instead of criticizing currently limited options to express “styles”?
@ StrictlyFacts
*Everyone* else seems to manage to communicate *without* using *such* emphasis.
For clarity, I’m not criticising the stylistic device, rather poking fun at the impression of a deranged mind created by such usage. That the *content* of the posts is also mental, adds to the enjoyment of the sport.
It is especially amusing that some right wing loons herein continue to worship t*Rump, a person so unfortunate that he lobbied for more guns just a couple days after some nut job shot up some 8 to year 10-year old kids and their heroic teachers in a school.
The clinching touch is the name chosen by the author. It adds a layer of ironic self delusion, since Strictly Facts*less*, or simply *Clueless* would be the more accurate moniker.
Thanks for the laughs, buddy.
@ strictlyfacts
“@platy — “The *’s are intended as a comedic reference to one of the aforementioned loons.”
Perhaps you can suggest some alternative methods to provide emphasis to words/phrases, instead of criticizing currently limited options to express “styles”?”
Because Platy is a perfectionist humorless, beta male.
When he runs out of facts to counter an argument, he resorts to this type of critiquing. You know, similar to the guy that trolls the internet for missing apostrophes, commas and periods.
The guy grew up cutting and pasting meme’s and gifs from the internet and probably couldn’t post them here. He thinks the gif/memes are the only way to emphasize a point.
@platy — “*Everyone* else seems to manage to communicate *without* using *such* emphasis.
For clarity, I’m not criticising the stylistic device, rather poking fun at the impression of a deranged mind created by such usage.”
You seem rather contradictory to me — some people might actually DESIRE to use some stylistic emphasis that you deride, yet claim that you are not acting in derision (eg, your claim that “everyone else” manages to communicate without, which is a derision by itself, yet you then claim that you’re NOT criticizing the stylistic device, which you just criticized, prior). So which way is it? Can’t make up your mind about this, so you’re straddling the fence?
————————————————————-
“It is especially amusing that some right wing loons herein continue to worship t*Rump, a person so unfortunate that he lobbied for more guns just a couple days after some nut job shot up some 8 to year 10-year old kids and their heroic teachers in a school.”
Apparently you have NOT tried to understand the REAL issues behind those gun shootings — just look at the shooting frequencies and death rates in a city like Chicago, which probably has THE most strict gun control laws and enforcement anywhere in the US. Clearly those criminal shooters there will ALWAYS get their guns, while the law-abiding citizens are then reduced to NOT being able to defend themselves! It turns out that, where open (and even better, unlicensed) gun carrying is actually allowed, you will actually find LOWER overall rates of shootings and deaths! Of course, ALL deaths from mentally deranged shooters are absolutely tragic, but reductions of such derangement-induced gun violence have NEVER been successful with even more gun restrictions (and even gun confiscations)! Do you realize how many lives have, on the contrary, been SAVED by citizens who carry (open or otherwise)? But our biased left-wing mass media will NEVER reveal this FACT and merely spew their MORONIC view that ever more gun restrictions (and confiscations) can resolve such crises! The FACTS just do NOT support such a MORONIC view — just look at the gun crime statistics from those US cities that have the most restrictive gun control laws and enforcement!
To top it all off, recall what that deranged shooter in Buffalo, NY wrote in his so-called “manifesto” about WHY he chose the targets that he did (paraphrasing here) — go after an area with the strictest gun controls because that’s where the law-abiding citizens will NOT be able to defend themselves and, therefore, become “perfect” targets to shoot and kill … at will!
————————————————————-
“The clinching touch is the name chosen by the author. It adds a layer of ironic self delusion, since Strictly Facts*less*, or simply *Clueless* would be the more accurate moniker.”
ROFLMAO! Just because YOU don’t agree with the contents of my posts (you being from a polar opposite side of the political spectrum), does NOT, therefore, mean that YOUR views are SOLELY CORRECT and those of others are, thereby, “FACTLESS” or “CLUELESS”! In fact, by resorting to such attacks, you’ve already CONCEDED yourself to have LOST the argument — right then and there! This is a very common tactic among those DESPERATE Progressives who have NO SUBSTANCE and so can ONLY resort to such a pathetic practice!
I know that YOU can do better than that … or at least TRY!
@Usvet1 — “When he runs out of facts to counter an argument, he resorts to this type of critiquing.”
I think you might have just “nailed it,” with your observation! 🙂
It’s worth recognizing what is going on in the comments section here: the worshippers of their Lord Trump whining about a kind of behavior that was part and parcel of Trump’s appeal to these very worshippers and fellow travelers of their Lord Trump. “Hypocrite much”? “Make America Great Again” by cheering on an insurrection against the constitutional order of the US? Nothing patriotic about Trump and the other opponents of the constitutional order on January 6th 2021.
If this movie was released on January 6th, 2021, instead of more recently in 2022, then the movie wouldn’t have sold as well as quickly as it has. They held back the movie release until they thought the time was right for making it a financial success. They also deliberately seemed to have left “the enemy” as sort of vague, probably because they had earlier wanted to also have it positioned to maximize sales in Russia and in China.
@ StrictlyFacts
Your use of “*”s made you look dumb. Get over it. It’s good for a laugh.
The content of your posts prove the analysis – you are deranged.
Your excuses for mass shootings and arguments against gun control are stark raving mental. To be clear, it’s not that I disagree with your position, it’s that your position is counter to logic, evidence and basic common sense. You are thereby evidently deranged. What you have written is absolutely bonkers.
We have gun control. We have stopped in the mass shootings. It isn’t a matter of “left” and right”. The gun control legislation was introduced by a ring wing-leaning national government, not a left leaning one. Folk on the left applauded as well as those on the right.
Dead children. Dead teachers. Dead doctors. And all because of the *brain-dead idiots* who defend such. Gun manufacturer ads with toddlers with semi automatic weapons. Sick stuff. Only mental people accept your excuses.
@Usvet1
Mate, your credibility has just been shredded through systematic logical deconstruction. Remarkably, you then choose to further expose your stupidity by inventing stuff about me to attack. Utterly pathetic.
@GUWonder — ““Hypocrite much”? “Make America Great Again” by cheering on an insurrection against the constitutional order of the US? Nothing patriotic about Trump and the other opponents of the constitutional order on January 6th 2021.”
ROFLMAO! Engage in that typical Progressive behavior of Personal Projection much? It’s pretty obvious that your interpretation of “insurrection” has been totally tainted by Progressive Lies and Propaganda surrounding that NON-event! IFF you were to look at REAL FACTS, you will find that the actual “insurrectionists” consisted of AntiFA and FBI infiltrators who were trying to “set up” and entrap those Trump supporters, in order to perpetrate a False Flag event upon them! But all of those nationwide BLM/AntiFA riots, lootings, arsons, and even occasional killings, during the summer of 2020 did NOT amount to an sort of “insurrection,” right? Because Progressives deemed those to NOT be any sort of “insurrection,” right? “Hypocrisy much” to yourself! LOL!
As for “opponents of the constitution order,” just who are the ones who constantly and actively seek to SUBVERT and CORRUPT the Constitution at every opportunity — Repeal the 1st Amendment in order to CENSOR every Conservative … Repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate everyone’s guns … Allow ILLEGALS to vote in elections when they’re NOT even eligible … Stack SCOTUS with lots of INCOMPETENT left-wing justices solely to tilt its “balance” of purported political representations … etc etc etc!
—————————————————————————————————
“They held back the movie release until they thought the time was right for making it a financial success.”
Have you read up on WHY they actually delayed the movie release multiple times? Does COVID-19 pandemic ring a bell with you? Or have you already forgotten about that still-ongoing “crisis,” even as it continues to rampantly spread today?
@platy — “Your use of “*”s made you look dumb. Get over it. It’s good for a laugh.” –>
ROFLMAO! You ARE amusing with your comment about this! What happened to your Progressive doctrine of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (D.I.E.)? Just WHO is to “judge” about “looking dumb” if it’s MY choice to use those? You really need to get over your Hypocrisy about your obviously and totally meaningless D.I.E. doctrine that you do NOT practice, for yourself!
——————————————————————————-
“The content of your posts prove the analysis – you are deranged.
Your excuses for mass shootings and arguments against gun control are stark raving mental. To be clear, it’s not that I disagree with your position, it’s that your position is counter to logic, evidence and basic common sense. …
We have gun control. We have stopped in the mass shootings.” –>
So let’s look at some FACTS rather than relying on your tired old UN-substantiated personal opinions that are DEVOID of FACTS as relevant to USA … here’s a quote from a criminology researcher (as extracted from investors[_dot_]com) —
“Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that Americans use guns for defensive purposes 1.2 million times each year — and that 1 in 6 Americans who have used guns defensively believe someone would have died but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms.”
This means that around 200,000 incidents occur annually, where someone would have died without armed defensive intervention from responsible citizens. Now … how many reported deaths occur each year due to actual gun shootings by criminals? USA’s CDC reports that, in 2020, there were 45,222 firearm-related deaths, including suicides.
So we’re comparing potentially saving AT LEAST 200,000 lives through defensive gun usages vs. 45,222 total deaths attributed to firearms (including suicides). You do the arithmetic on these numbers — it’s at least a 4.4X to 1X ratio in potential savings of lives through defensive uses of firearms by citizens vs . criminal (and fatal) shootings committed by criminals!
Now … what’s so deranged about saving at least 4.4 other lives for every one that is sadly lost to a deranged criminal shooter?
——————————————————————————-
“Only mental people accept your excuses.” –>
As I stated above, just because you FANTASIZE that your perspective on gun control is relevant and applicable to USA, that does NOT, therefore, mean that your FANTASY is actually applicable for USA! See what happens when you do NOT have data from the OTHER perspective available? Your one-sided FANTASY about “common sense” yields only BAD information instead of FACTS! And that’s just the REALITY of Life in USA as compared to other countries that do NOT even have a 2nd Amendment embedded into their respective constitutions!
Platy,
Inappropriately-named “StrictlyFacts” is exhibiting clear signs of being deranged/delusional as you characterized, a psychopath or both. He’s peddling a manufactured lie that the insurrectionist mob on the Capitol grounds opposed to the US constitutional order on the 6th of January 2021 was an FBI and “Antifa”-led operation to discredit the Lord Trump worshippers. It was the Lord Trump worshippers and fellow travelers that were cheering on the disruption of the US constitutional order on that day. The FBI wasn’t leading the charge to subvert the constitutional order at the Capitol that day. Left-wing “Antifa” wasn’t leading the charge to keep Trump in power on that day or any day at the Capitol. But yet see what that commenter has been posting about that.
That character reminds me of some wing-nut Trump supporter on my most recent AA flight whose Trump-supporting wife won’t fly because she’s afraid that vaccinated American pilots will suddenly die at unprecedented levels while flying commercial passenger flights and crash them because of being vaccinated against Covid. That’s indicative of the kind of lunacy we have in the country and that has come out of the wood works during and after the Trump Presidency.
I used to think it was the left of center in the US that was the more whacky element and “smoking the funny stuff” in the country and more politically nuts. But nowadays, the lunacy is far more concentrated on the right-wing side since the Guns-Over-People party was selected as the vehicle of choice for the narcissistic psychopath that is Trump and got dominated by Trump and his fellow travelers, lunatics and otherwise.
@GUwonder
@platys
You guys are the ones who exposed yourselves. Whenever your argument gets countered by facts (gun control, covid etc.) you always resort to “……reminds me of this Trump supporter”,
“……then you are an insurrectionist” ,”….you don’t agree with Lord Fauci? Then you don’t believe in science!”
Spoken by a true keyboard warrior! It would be nice to get out of your Mom’s basement and get some fresh air.
Do both of you realize these are classic symptoms of TDS? You guys are probably pacing right now waiting for my response. Easy on those Redbull and stop getting your stats/info from CNN/MSNBC/Snopes/Vox/Jeff Toobin…especially from Jeff Toobin! You might end up getting a “splash of truth” on your face. I can’t wait to see you guys cry on national television AGAIN, as your “heroes” get kicked out of the office this midterms and in 2024.
The keyboard warrior is not I. Perhaps Usvet1, behind his screen and on the keyboard, is cheering for Putin nowadays as a consequence of going deep down the rabbit hole that seems the natural domain of the Trump Trolls?
@GUWonder — “He’s peddling a manufactured lie that the insurrectionist mob on the Capitol grounds opposed to the US constitutional order on the 6th of January 2021 was an FBI and “Antifa”-led operation to discredit the Lord Trump worshippers.” –>
ROFLMAO! Where did I write about that NON-event as an “FBI- and AntiFA-led operation”? I think that YOU need to EDUCATE yourself about what REALLY happened, instead of wallowing in your long DEBUNKED Lies and Propaganda from the Establishment about that NON-event!
Do you even realize what the FBI, itself (irony!), reported about your claims on that so-called “insurrectionist” mob? Reuters reporters Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch reported back on August 20, 2021 that —
“… the FBI has so far found no evidence that he [Trump] or people directly around him were involved in organizing the violence.”
Did you notice the finding of “… NO EVIDENCE …” regarding your beloved claims against Trump and his followers? Furthermore —
” … after approximately 600 arrests, the FBI is finding out that there was no ‘there, there.’ ”
With respect to the involvements of FBI and AntiFA, you need to EDUCATE yourself about what REALITY is! From a February 26, 2021 report by TheGatewayPundit —
“… the FBI had intelligence about Antifa’s plans to infiltrate the crowds of Trump supporters and incite violence. But the FBI also was manipulating some of the very groups labeled as ‘white supremacists’, e.g. the Proud Boys.
While the FBI leadership is doing everything in their power to paint honest, law-abiding Trump supporters as nascent terrorists eager to impose Ku Klux Klan rule across the nation, the frontline agents who are doing the interviews of ‘persons’ of interest are coming up with nothing from the Trump folks. No evidence of planning, coordinating or executing violence.”
And some more from the same report —
“There is more and more evidence that Antifa-related groups and individuals were planning the violence on January 6th and now they are even bragging about it online.”
So AntiFA was BRAGGING online about their involvements on January 6 violence? Such hubris!
Did you somehow MISS OUT on all of these reports from back then? Shame on you for sleeping through your current events classes!
———————————————————————————–
“The FBI wasn’t leading the charge to subvert the constitutional order at the Capitol that day. Left-wing “Antifa” wasn’t leading the charge to keep Trump in power on that day or any day at the Capitol.” –>
Where did I write that the FBI/AntiFA was “leading the charge”? Go back and read what I ACTUALLY WROTE, instead of merely spewing your own mental projections about that!
———————————————————————————–
“… she’s afraid that vaccinated American pilots will suddenly die at unprecedented levels while flying commercial passenger flights and crash them because of being vaccinated against Covid.” –>
It’s obvious that Ignorance is Bliss for you, and that you do NOT follow the latest REAL medical research news about the hidden DANGERS of those mRNA and AdV jabs — do you know what a metric called Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is? Are you aware about what’s been trending with that VE indicator recently, and what the implications of that trend are? WHY are there now demands from NIH/CDC/FDA to administer endless rounds of so-called “boosters”? WHY is that even necessary if their so-called “vaccines” have been truly Safe and Effective?
Have you watched the interview with a REAL (ie, active) American Airlines pilot, Bob Snow, who suffered a cardiac arrest in the cockpit (purportedly due to his “vaccination”) right after he (fortunately) had just landed his plane at DFW airport? There are other pilots who have also suffered related adverse events while on duty, so he is NOT alone in experiencing those!
You need to seriously EDUCATE yourself about such matters before disparaging others, including some who actually do know MUCH MORE about such matters than you do!
———————————————————————————–
“But nowadays, the lunacy is far more concentrated on the right-wing side since the Guns-Over-People party was selected as the vehicle of choice for the narcissistic psychopath that is Trump …” –>
Let’s look some REAL FACTS surrounding your claim … again from that August 20, 2021 Reuters report —
“(the) FBI at this point believes the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups, Trump, or prominent supporters, but has found ‘scant evidence’ it was an ‘organized plot’ ”
Notice the FBI finding about that NON-event —
“… the January 6 riot … was NOT centrally coordinated by far-right groups, Trump, or prominent supporters …”?
Yet you continue to wallow in your own DESPERATE State of Denial from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) about the REALITY behind that NON-event … I’m totally NOT at all impressed!
@ChadMC “Is Hollywood that desperate?”
You have to ask? 😀
@ StrictlyFacts
“Just WHO is to “judge” about “looking dumb”
The readers of your posts judge you. They form an opinion based on various perceptions. This can draw upon content, use of language, structure, flow, use of logic, reasoned argument, and so forth.
“You really need to get over your Hypocrisy about your obviously and totally meaningless D.I.E. doctrine that you do NOT practice, for yourself!”
Such statements expose your lack of reason. Why? You are creating (more likely idiotically repeating) some imagined constructs (for example, “progressives”, “D.I.E. doctrines”) and then assumptively assigning them to my good self, before criticising me for not following them.
That enables me to make a judgment about you. You are so stupid that you unthinkingly buy into some external narrative based on your belief system, and then with delicious contradiction, attempt to use those constructs to rant against people you assume to ascribe to them on the one hand, but also rant against people who then don’t follow those constructs when you want them to so you can criticise them for following them.
Your comments “progressive” and “D.I.E” are only relevant in your mind because of the state of your mind and have no bearing on forming my own position.
Any rational person inevitably draws the conclusion that you are utterly confused. Basically, mental.
“So let’s look at some FACTS rather than relying on your tired old UN-substantiated personal opinions”
Unfortunately, you struggle with the term “fact”. But more of that in a minute.
I’m not offering you opinion, I’m simply reporting to you, and any other readers with an enquiring mind, that other countries have successfully learned how to control and live with guns without engaging in mass murder or suffering homicide rates many times more than those of other comparable nations. The reality of such is undeniable. That is not opinion.
Since you evidently regard gun control as a political issue (likely reflecting the sad state of US political division), I’m also reporting that in the case of Australia it was a right-wing and not a left-wing government who achieved the breakthrough legislation. The message, since it needs to be spelled out for some, is that gun control does not have to be subject to political divide.
Your comments “about UN substantiated” are (again) only relevant in your mind because of the state of your mind and have no bearing on forming my own position.
“that are DEVOID of FACTS as relevant to USA … here’s a quote from a criminology researcher (as extracted from investors[_dot_]com) —”
If you really want to understand the research, then try reading the original research itself rather than cherry picking a quote from a third-party publication which may or may not accurately summarise the original. The devil is in the detail.
You can easily track down the source material. You an also track down articles presenting the counter arguments. That’s what the smart people do. They dive deep into the detail and argument rather than stupidly attach to sound bites and simple superficial constructs fed to them by greedy corporations and sociopathic self-interested politicians.
“…“Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that Americans use guns for defensive purposes 1.2 million times each year — and that 1 in 6 Americans who have used guns defensively believe someone would have died but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms…”
Yes, but no, my friend. If you read more widely, even including the work of Gary Kleck himself, you’ll find that estimates for the incidences of DGUs (defensive gun uses) vary greatly, at least by a factor of 6 or more times.
Again, if you read Gary Kleck himself, you’ll find that he admits that phone surveys record very differing results depending upon factors such as how the questions are worded, how DGUs are defined, whether the respondent will admit to an incident or not because they weren’t compliant with gun rules when the incident occurred, whether they held a gun licence when the incident occurred and whether or not they were somebody who cared anyway about being complaint or holding a gun licence in the first place.
There are other issues with the methodology, for instance, sample size (enough people surveyed for the survey to be meaningfully applied to a population, which would need to be a huge number for a rare event – not 5,000 surveyed, but many times that), randomisation of sample (who gets picked to do the survey so that it is representative of the population), the challenges of trying to sample rare events (it gets harder to characterise patterns statistically the rarer the event – in this case an event potentially only occurring to about one in 200 people), and bias in response based on what respondents think that they are supposed to say.
There is also a “loony” factor. In one telephone survey 10% of respondent believed that they had seen a spaceship from another planet and 6% believed that they had been in contact with aliens.
On that basis you might be tempted to conclude that 33 million Americans believe they have seen an alien spaceship and 2 million Americans have had contact with an alien.
The results of that phone survey does not make it so! In other words you cannot lap from belief to fact in an argument.
“This means that around 200,000 incidents occur annually, where someone would have died without armed defensive intervention from responsible citizens.”
Sorry, mate, but this is where you absolutely expose your lack of logical process. Firstly, you need to onboard the comments above on the phone study.
Then you need to be very careful about how you interpret the data. If you take the summary quote of Kleck’s work to be a fair representation of his actual original article, then the big clue for you is in the following extract:
“…believe someone would have died…”
No rational person would attempt to extrapolate from that statement to the claim that 200,000 incidents involving death have been prevented.
In very simplistic terms, you are confusing statements of belief with facts. This in itself reveals that you have no idea what a “fact” actually is, or how a “fact” can be used to derive an interpretation or hypothesis for further testing.
Note that this is not about “left or “right, or “progressive” or “non progressive”, it’s about objective application of logic, reason, critical thought.
You simply are not applying objective reason to your position.
“So we’re comparing potentially saving AT LEAST 200,000 lives through defensive gun usages”
No, you cannot make that claim, for the reasons outlined above. Your poster boy, Kleck himself has been chasing down an accurate method to make an estimate for actual GDUs for many years. Estimates of GDUs remain highly elusive.
That’s before you make your illogical attempt to extrapolate from GDU estimates to an estimate of deaths which may or may not have occurred in the event of a GDU based on respondents beliefs.
“Now … what’s so deranged about saving at least 4.4 other lives for every one that is sadly lost to a deranged criminal shooter?”
You are utterly deranged to believe such. You don’t understand the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used to collect GDU data, you likely have no idea about sample sizes and relevant statistical analyses, you don’t seem to be aware of the wide variation in GDU estimates, and you make extrapolations from GDU data to presumed death rates based on the “beliefs” of respondents, not actual facts.
That you can imagine that your position is based upon “facts” is utterly mental.
“FANTASIZE that your perspective on gun control is relevant and applicable to USA, that does NOT, therefore, mean that your FANTASY is actually applicable for USA!”
Oh dear, fella, you present an utterly fallacious and fantastical argument about supposed lives saved by gun ownership and then psychological transfer your very own failing onto a substantially unknown other person! Another symptom of derangement.
“See what happens when you do NOT have data from the OTHER perspective available?”
Yes, absolutely I do, you get loonies like you on travel blogs with poorly formed grasp of the application of a logical process, who conflate facts and believes, who cannot assess the validity of datasets and make unsubstantiated extrapolations from compromised datasets to wild claims in support for their belief systems.
“Your one-sided FANTASY about “common sense” yields only BAD information instead of FACTS!”
Grow up, lad. You’re not arguing from a factual basis. You are repeatedly revealing your lack of common sense. And I’m using the information you provided above to demonstrate such.
“And that’s just the REALITY of Life in USA as compared to other countries that do NOT even have a 2nd Amendment embedded into their respective constitutions!”
Here’s another problem for your sadly very limited belief set. Notwithstanding the limitations of the data (outlined for you above) and the irrational conclusions you clutch onto to try to bolster your belief system, the collection of the data also depends upon context.
For example, people’s beliefs about the outcomes of an event will depend upon the situation. If they live in a society where there are more guns than people, they will perceive their situation differently than if they live in a society where there has been proven and effective gun control.
So, another fundamental failing in your understanding is that you are attempting a position based on the current American context, rather than the desired outcomes of making some change to the system.
Of course, that you choose to believe that the lessons learned in other countries cannot apply to America is another failing.To protect your irrational beliefs o have to refuse to be open to the data and lessons available to expand your analysis.
As to the constitution, it may be a timely reminder that interpretations on the application of the second amendment differ.
Also, the constitution is an evolving document, not a sacred test which can never be changed. The have been 27 amendments adopted out of 33 proposed by Congress. There have been roughly 12,000 proposed amendments in the last 233 years.
@ Usvet1
You are ranting at me for a whole load of stuff I never wrote or do. You are making an hysterical attack completely devoid of reality. Once again you are so dumb you either can’t tell posters apart and / or completely invent what has been written by them.
Here’s the proof:
“It would be nice to get out of your Mom’s basement and get some fresh air.
You guys are probably pacing right now waiting for my response. Easy on those Redbull and stop getting your stats/info from CNN/MSNBC/Snopes/Vox/Jeff Toobin…especially from Jeff Toobin! You might end up getting a “splash of truth” on your face. I can’t wait to see you guys cry on national television AGAIN, as your “heroes” get kicked out of the office this midterms and in 2024”
– I don’t live with my mother (she lives on the other side of the planet).
– Neither my mother’s nor my house has a basement (I’m enjoying gorgeous tropical sunny weather).
I don’t give a coprobogey about you or your opinions – I am provoking you because you are my lab rat and I’m curious to learn more about how right wing sociopathy can be handled in a democratic system.
– I never drink Redbull.
– I never watch CNN/MSNBC/Snopes/Vox/Jeff Tobin.
– I get my stats/data from the original sources (peer-reviewed research) not second or third hand (and never from social media).
– I don’t vote either the American Republicans or Democrats (I don’t vote in the US).
– I do vote in a country which just had a national election in which the right-wing national government was substantially obliterated
Furthermore:
“\ Whenever your argument gets countered by facts (gun control, covid etc.) you always resort to “……reminds me of this Trump supporter”,
Reality check, fella, you are not peddling facts. See my extensive reply to @StrictlyFacts for a exposition of that poster’s confusion over research method, conflation of fact and belief, and manic personal accusations.
“……then you are an insurrectionist” ,”….you don’t agree with Lord Fauci? Then you don’t believe in science!”
I never mentioned anything about insurrection, Fauci, science at all in this thread. Certainly, I’ve demolished right wing idiots who thought they knew something about COVID, scientific method and effective control of COVID in past threads. In the event, that you do fall into that cohort, then go back to historical posts and be happily trashed for your stupidity all over again. If you don’t, then why mention it?
@ GUWonder
“… “StrictlyFacts” is…peddling a manufactured lie that the insurrectionist mob on the Capitol grounds opposed to the US constitutional order on the 6th of January 2021 was an FBI and “Antifa”-led operation to discredit the Lord Trump worshippers…”
Yes, indeed, it would appear to be the case. It is curious how the need to idolise a sociopath (in this case t*RUMP) can lead to ever more irrational claims, beliefs, denials, manufactured constructs and wild accusations about others. Partly to do with confusing psychopathy with strength.
Most disturbing is the disassociation from whatever innate reason that such individuals might otherwise possess.
The more these people are challenged, the more irrational they are forced to become.
“…on my most recent AA flight whose Trump-supporting wife won’t fly because she’s afraid that vaccinated American pilots will suddenly die at unprecedented levels while flying commercial passenger flights and crash them because of being vaccinated against Covid…”
Thanks, mate, that made me laugh out loud!
Everybody just shut the f**k up. Can’t believe people reading this blog have so much time on their hands to waste several days yapping about a movie on a blog that is devoted to frequent flyer and hotel travel. I liked the movie, BUT ENOUGH ALREADY!!!
Get back to the basic purpose of View From The Wing!!!
@ StriclyFacts
You asked:
June 3, 2022 at 10:53 am
“ Where did I write about that NON-event as an “FBI- and AntiFA-led operation”?”
Try this:
June 2, 2022 at 10:19 pm
“IFF you were to look at REAL FACTS, you will find that the actual “insurrectionists” consisted of AntiFA and FBI infiltrators”
Oops.
And:
“do you know what a metric called Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is?”
Yep. I sure do. Do you? You appear to be confusing efficacy with effectiveness.
@ Daryl Higgins
Hmmm…the third comment on this thread included the following statement:
“…Who cares what the secular progressives think. Most Americans are sick and tired of crappy WOKE HOLLYWOOD LEFTIST VIRTUE SIGNALING BORING AND DULL MOVIES. Americans have spoken and Top Gun Maverick is already a HUGE box office commercial success. God bless the USA…”
Wouldn’t you agree that sort of drivel up front sets the tone for the rest of a thread? Maybe not since that was your contribution.
Consider:
1) The most successful Hollywood movie of all time (Avatar) presents a message on environmental degradation
2) Yes, according to Box Office Mojo “Maverick” is doing well, although the second weekend stats will be telling
3) MAGBA – Make America Great Britain Again
4) You original post totally put me off going to see the movie, by framing it in such blatantly political terms.
Basically, shut the f**k up yourself.
@platy — “The readers of your posts judge you. They form an opinion based on various perceptions. This can draw upon content, use of language, structure, flow, use of logic, reasoned argument, and so forth.” –>
ROFLMAO! So YOU are the de facto designated pompous Judge on behalf of ALL readers? WHY are YOU the ONLY one who makes such INANE comments about this issue?
——————————————————————
“Such statements expose your lack of reason. Why? You are creating (more likely idiotically repeating) some imagined constructs (for example, “progressives”, “D.I.E. doctrines”) and then assumptively assigning them to my good self, before criticising me for not following them.” –>
What universe do you live in, anyway? Are you DISAVOWING the existence of Progressives and D.I.E. doctrines? Know anything about what’s going on in USA? Or are you irrelevantly projecting, once again, from afar? You definitely need to EDUCATE yourself about REALITY in USA today!
——————————————————————
“You are so stupid that you unthinkingly buy into some external narrative based on your belief system, and then with delicious contradiction, attempt to use those constructs to rant against people you assume to ascribe to them on the one hand, but also rant against people who then don’t follow those constructs when you want them to so you can criticise them for following them.” –>
ROFLMAO! So YOU are THE expert who can discern other people’s “unthinking” attitudes with contradictions? Are you going to next claim that you are the world’s MOST discerning Psychic that is actually just another run-of-the-mill Psycho? I bet you do NOT even understand WHY I ascribed those claims against you, right? Just launch yet more of your INANE rants based on a pseudo-psychological perspective! You’re much too amusing!
——————————————————————
“Your comments “progressive” and “D.I.E” are only relevant in your mind because of the state of your mind and have no bearing on forming my own position.” –>
So … you’re claiming that you do NOT subscribe to Progressive and D.I.E. doctrines? That will actually be a GOOD THING if it’s truly reflective of your mind, rather than just making a foil out of this issue! But, then, perhaps your cohorts refer to those concepts using different vocabularies than we do, in USA, so I won’t pursue this one … but understand that your prior points DO make you fit into the Progressive mold, as per how we categorize attitudes from here in USA! After all, you guys call “right-of-center” politicians to be Liberals, which is the opposite of what we would do over here!
——————————————————————
“Any rational person inevitably draws the conclusion that you are utterly confused. Basically, mental.” –>
That’s YOUR preferred interpretation! Once again, just because YOU fantasize about something being the case, does NOT, therefore, make it true!
——————————————————————
“I’m not offering you opinion, I’m simply reporting to you, and any other readers with an enquiring mind, that other countries have successfully learned how to control and live with guns without engaging in mass murder or suffering homicide rates many times more than those of other comparable nations. The reality of such is undeniable. That is not opinion.” — AND —
“Since you evidently regard gun control as a political issue … The message, since it needs to be spelled out for some, is that gun control does not have to be subject to political divide.” –>
I’ve been through this type of MIS-guided thinking, before, with others that believe totally NAIVELY, just like you do, about this topic! Where’s your ERROR on this? You obviously do NOT understand the REALITIES of how things are, here in USA! Just look at the statistics that immediately DEBUNK your beliefs — we are about 11X larger in population than your country. We have a 2nd Amendment embedded within our Constitution and, to wit, there are around 400 MILLION legal firearms within USA, whereas you confiscated only around 650,000 after your Port Arthur mass shooting. Now … just HOW do you propose to confiscate 400 MILLION firearms vs. your 650,000 within a country that has 11X larger population than yours?
IFF gun controls could actually work in USA, don’t you think that all of those Progressive cities with the most strict gun control laws would be SAFEST? But the REALITY is that those Progressive cities are THE MOST DANGEROUS for gun shootings by criminal elements! Do you understand human nature, for criminals to intentionally target those areas that are gun-free, to be their easiest areas to inflict the maximum carnage because citizens within those areas have NO means to legally defend themselves? Furthermore, banning so-called “assault weapons” was already tried before, under the Clinton administration in 1994, and ended up being totally lacking in being effective and was, therefore, allowed to expire!
So you see? You do NOT understand CONTEXT and so you automatically engage in that TOTALLY FLAWED and DERANGED Progressive mantra of One-Size-Fits-All mentality towards societal issues!
And you just contradicted your claim above about your NOT being a Progressive … what happened? Had a memory lapse, or something?
——————————————————————
“If you read more widely, even including the work of Gary Kleck himself, you’ll find that estimates for the incidences of DGUs (defensive gun uses) vary greatly, at least by a factor of 6 or more times.” –AND–
“… he admits that phone surveys record very differing results depending upon factors such as how the questions are worded, how DGUs are defined, whether the respondent will admit to an incident or not because they weren’t compliant with gun rules when the incident occurred, whether they held a gun licence when the incident occurred and whether or not they were somebody who cared anyway about being complaint or holding a gun licence in the first place.
There are other issues with the methodology, for instance, sample size (enough people surveyed for the survey to be meaningfully applied to a population, which would need to be a huge number for a rare event – not 5,000 surveyed, but many times that), randomisation of sample (who gets picked to do the survey so that it is representative of the population), the challenges of trying to sample rare events (it gets harder to characterise patterns statistically the rarer the event – in this case an event potentially only occurring to about one in 200 people), and bias in response based on what respondents think that they are supposed to say.” –>
Certainly true of ALL surveys and ESPECIALLY political surveys! And one might make a case that (rhetorically) 99% of all surveys done have their inherent FLAWS with methodologies and post data analyses, anyway, but what YOU are missing, with all of this DIVERSION away from the overarching message, is that responsible gun ownership DOES end up saving lives! That is an ESTABLISHED FACT in USA, that privately owned guns can result in the saving of significant numbers of lives! All you’re doing is to criticize an undertaking that is inherently FLAWED in (rhetorically) 99% of all such undertakings, anyway!
For example, you also point out those “loonies” that showed up in the sampling … but also decry the lack of sufficient sample size. As you know, the MORE you sample, the MORE of such “loonies” will manifest within the sample space, so HOW is that concerning? Isn’t that just indicative of a broad-based sampling process? Just because some people believe in something that is NOT mainstream on CERTAIN matters, does that, therefore, automatically DIS-qualify them from having bona fide opinions on OTHER matters? Do you have a certified metric with which to judge such situations? If you think that you do, then you are more delusional than previously thought!
——————————————————————
“In very simplistic terms, you are confusing statements of belief with facts. This in itself reveals that you have no idea what a “fact” actually is, or how a “fact” can be used to derive an interpretation or hypothesis for further testing.” –>
ROFLMAO! You are extrapolating beyond what I had put forth, based on Kleck’s undertaking, where he “… estimates that Americans use guns for defensive purposes 1.2 million times each year — and that 1 in 6 Americans who have used guns defensively believe someone would have died but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms.”
Despite his “weaknesses” in methodology, as you claimed, there are specific TRENDS and FACTS that can NOT be denied! Did you carefully note that those BELIEFS of saving lives by use of privately owned firearms are from those who had actually successfully used their guns defensively? So, ONCE AGAIN, you are claiming to be able to DENY the DIRECT EXPERIENCES of those who were involved, first hand, with using their guns to actually save lives and, instead, insist on injecting YOUR own FLAWED beliefs otherwise? As I asked earlier, are you claiming to be the most discerning psychic in the universe, or just the most psychotic, with such an attitude?
——————————————————————
“Your poster boy, Kleck himself has been chasing down an accurate method to make an estimate for actual GDUs for many years. Estimates of GDUs remain highly elusive.
That’s before you make your illogical attempt to extrapolate from GDU estimates to an estimate of deaths which may or may not have occurred in the event of a GDU based on respondents beliefs.” –>
But, absent any better methodology at the current time, that is probably the BEST that you’re going to get, so make what you can from that … you have NO OTHER CHOICE, because, based on YOUR own DELUSIONAL and DEMENTED beliefs about gun controls and confiscations being able to prevent even MORE deaths in USA than before, you support imposing gun control and confiscation edicts that are TOTALLY FLAWED and HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO NOT WORK … over and over again … in USA! You need to just accept the REALITY that CONTEXT matters and that YOUR OWN NAIVE beliefs about gun controls and confiscations will NEVER WORK in USA!
——————————————————————
“Oh dear, fella, you present an utterly fallacious and fantastical argument about supposed lives saved by gun ownership and then psychological transfer your very own failing onto a substantially unknown other person! Another symptom of derangement.” –>
So let me get this straight — YOU are claiming that guns have NOT saved lives before, when used defensively against criminals that would shoot their victims dead? ARE YOU MENTALLY DERANGED BEYOND ALL HOPE? So I must suppose, therefore, that you are NOT literate enough to read up on all of those REAL cases in USA, where countless lives were saved when citizens with legally owned guns have managed to disable criminals (whether by incapacitation or death) who were on a shooting rampage against other innocent citizens? Are you that NAIVE enough to believe that depending on police will be SAFER, when said police can no longer provide timely responses to shooting incidents because BLM has demanded that cities DEFUND their police departments? Do you know ANYTHING about what goes on, in USA, today? What universe do YOU live in, anyway?
——————————————————————
“Grow up, lad. You’re not arguing from a factual basis. You are repeatedly revealing your lack of common sense. And I’m using the information you provided above to demonstrate such.” –>
Au contrare! All that you’ve done is to perhaps expose some weaknesses in a survey that was undertaken, albeit under non-ideal circumstances, but you have NOT demonstrated that my original premise of guns being able to save lives, is flawed in any way, shape, or form! To the contrary, your own MENTALLY DERANGED DENIAL OF FACTS about this issue is TOTALLY PATHETIC and merely indicates YOUR OWN INCOMPREHENSIBLE DENIAL OF REAL FACTS within USA! Again, CONTEXT matters, so what might work in your own country does NOT and will NEVER work in USA!
——————————————————————
“For example, people’s beliefs about the outcomes of an event will depend upon the situation. If they live in a society where there are more guns than people, they will perceive their situation differently than if they live in a society where there has been proven and effective gun control.” –>
ROFLMAO! No kidding! What have I been saying all along, about your TOTALLY NAIVE and FLAWED belief about whether gun controls and confiscations can ever work in USA? Welcome to FINALLY realizing what I had been saying all along … you might want to review what I had already written about this very issue about CONTEXT! You’re a bit on the SLOW side on this aspect, but perhaps you might have some hope, after all?
——————————————————————
“So, another fundamental failing in your understanding is that you are attempting a position based on the current American context, rather than the desired outcomes of making some change to the system. … Also, the constitution is an evolving document, not a sacred test which can never be changed.” –>
ROFLMAO! There you go! “Desired outcomes”? Based on WHOSE DESIRES? As for amendments to the USA Constitution, do you understand that there is a WELL-DEFINED PROCESS through which to effect such changes? NOT easy to successfully accomplish, so Progressives merely IGNORE what the Constitution says about certain issues of dispute, in their endless chases to attain their “desired outcomes”!
So … you’ve just CONFIRMED your HYPOCRISY above, when you claimed that Progressivism had NO bearing upon your beliefs! You have just exposed your affliction with two of the primary SYMPTOMS of being a Progressive!
This totally explains WHY you have the attitudes that you do, and the manners in which you TRY (but FAIL) to be convincing with your points — you merely nit-pick details that YOU deem to be relevant, while missing the BIG PICTURE of what is at issue! You twist what FACTS can represent, to YOUR preferences, yet do NOT understand how YOUR interpretations are NOT relevant within certain CONTEXTS! So what use is your expositions about FACTS, when you do NOT understand that your expositions end up being TOTALLY IRRELEVANT because you have STILL NOT debunked the original contention! You’ve merely engaged in a HUGE DIVERSION into nit-picking details that were just being used for illustrative purposes, anyway!
But I guess I shouldn’t beat you up further about this issue, since YOU MOST OBVIOUSLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND what USA stands for, aside from your Progressive DELUSIONS and DERANGEMENT SYNDROME surrounding such issues!
Despite your intended (but FAILED) attempts to be condescending and intimidating with your nit-picking of details, while totally missing the over-arching FACTS behind my original contention about private guns having already helped save significant numbers of lives in USA (which is a HISTORICAL FACT that can NOT be denied), you’ve been pretty entertaining!
@platy to @Usvet1 — “Certainly, I’ve demolished right wing idiots who thought they knew something about COVID, scientific method and effective control of COVID in past threads. In the event, that you do fall into that cohort, then go back to historical posts and be happily trashed for your stupidity all over again.”
ROFLMAO! You’re referring to our exchanges that were left UNFINISHED back in March? Do NOT go and engage in your NARCISSISTIC DERANGEMENT SYNDROME about that! You in NO WAY demolished ANYONE, but engaged in “perceived” expertise that has NEVER been certified! In fact, YOU were the one to advocate for a cease fire on that thread, anyway! You DO exhibit such hubris!
@platy — “You asked:
June 3, 2022 at 10:53 am
“ Where did I write about that NON-event as an “FBI- and AntiFA-led operation”?”
Try this:
June 2, 2022 at 10:19 pm
“IFF you were to look at REAL FACTS, you will find that the actual “insurrectionists” consisted of AntiFA and FBI infiltrators”
Oops.” –>
ROFLMAO! Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Are you NOT literate with English, even though you hail from another dialect? Let’s look at what I had written —
“ Where did I write about that NON-event as an “FBI- and AntiFA-led operation”?”
— versus —
“IFF you were to look at REAL FACTS, you will find that the actual “insurrectionists” consisted of AntiFA and FBI infiltrators”
Now … every carefully inspect the words I used (details matter) — are you equating “-led” to be the same as “consisted of”?
For someone who purports to be an “expert” in everything, how can you make such an IDIOTIC mistake in reading comprehension?
@platy — ” “do you know what a metric called Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is?”
Yep. I sure do. Do you? You appear to be confusing efficacy with effectiveness.” –>
NOPE! I’m referring to Efficacy as in the metric VE … so what recent disturbing trends have you noticed to be manifesting with VE after some months since getting those mRNA jabs? This is something that is VERY concerning but NO ONE seems to want to pay attention …
@platy to @Usvet1 —
@Usvet1 might not know that you’re from Australia, hence his references to USA show programs and other such, which you don’t relate to …
@StrictlyFacts
“ So YOU are the de facto designated pompous Judge on behalf of ALL readers?”
Readers will judge you (all of us) based on how they perceive your (anybody’s) posts. I’ve no doubt they’ll make their own mind up. If others align with my counter-arguments they may well find your positions on various topics less compelling. If they find your right-wing unsubstantiated rants attractive, perhaps the reverse will hold.
That’s just human nature.
“What universe do you live in, anyway? Are you DISAVOWING the existence of Progressives and D.I.E. doctrines?”
I’m neither denying them nor celebrating them. I’m saying that your constructs of such are irrelevant to my personal position. For clarity, I don’t sit here saying to myself, “oh I’m a progressive, what am I supposed think about this or that topic!”. I’m not arguing the case for a cohort of people who you choose to label “progressive”. I’m arguing from a personal position.
“You definitely need to EDUCATE yourself about REALITY in USA today!”
Well, that’s clearly your opinion, although you have idea about the extent of my connection to the USA or otherwise.
You appear to have discounted the lessons of gun control from other countries. That limits your dataset, analysis and perspective.
“So YOU are THE expert who can discern other people’s “unthinking” attitudes with contradictions? Are you going to next claim that you are the world’s MOST discerning Psychic that is actually just another run-of-the-mill Psycho?”
I don’t need to be an expert or a psychic. The evidence is exquisitely presented in the content of your post. As explained to you, you create mental constructs (a label if you like) and then stick that label onto the person with whom you disagree. You end up arguing against your own projection. You’ve been doing that and so has @Usvet1.
“I bet you do NOT even understand WHY I ascribed those claims against you, right? Just launch yet more of your INANE rants based on a pseudo-psychological perspective! You’re much too amusing!”
I’m directly addressing the content in your posts. I’m pointing out that your argument is misdirected when you label an opponent and then rant against whatever nasties you personally believe that label stereotypically represents, rather than the actual opponent’s viewpoint (or the opponent).
The key point is that you become distracted and fail to address the issues in debate, and risk coming across as just another obsessive ideologue.
What is true is that I don’t know exactly what your constructs (labels) fully represent in your warped right-wing mind. But I do that it’s derogatory given the context of its usage.
“you’re claiming that you do NOT subscribe to Progressive and D.I.E. doctrines? That will actually be a GOOD THING if it’s truly reflective of your mind, rather than just making a foil out of this issue!”
You are the person who uses labels to dodge the argument. You do it a lot, and not just in posts to my good self. It’s one symptom of a lack of independent thought – you trot out the pathetic phrases about NON event, establishment, progressives, etc., etc., and then confuse doing that with presenting facts, argued positions and informed opinions. So, fella, “NON event” is not a fact. It’s a construct crafted for political effect.
The facts destroy such labels very easily. An armed mob storming a country’s parliament resulting in a number of deaths and 100 plus injured law officers is hardly a “NON event”, except when you bend the facts to your belief set.
I attempt to make up my own opinion, based on evidence and reason wherever possible. Sometimes policies from right leaning politicians make sense to me, and sometimes left leaning ones similarly. There are aspects of what you would call “woke” that I find compelling and others laughable.
The use of the construct / label avoids constructive debate, no?
“After all, you guys call “right-of-center” politicians to be Liberals, which is the opposite of what we would do over here!”
Yes – finally we agree! Thank goodness! Suffice to say that’s the name they chose, we don’t think of them as liberals.
“ You obviously do NOT understand the REALITIES of how things are, here in USA! Just look at the statistics that immediately DEBUNK your beliefs”
We are very much aware that the USA has a very unfortunate set of statistics which arise from gun ownership – mass shootings and high murder rates. Myself (and people I speak to here) are absolutely appalled. In this regard, you are bunch of uncivilised barbarians.
The hardest to comprehend is that you keep making up excuses. Fix up your mess, mate. Find a solution. If you don’t think the Australian solution is correct, go find another one.
But don’t sit here pretending that doing nothing is right.
“ we are about 11X larger in population than your country. We have a 2nd Amendment embedded within our Constitution and, to wit, there are around 400 MILLION legal firearms within USA”
Excuses!
“whereas you confiscated only around 650,000 after your Port Arthur mass shooting.”
There you go again, making dumb (factually incorrect), perhaps even wantonly misleading statements.
Confiscated? In reality, prohibited and unregistered weapons were “bought back” by the government in an agreement with the national government and all states.
Since you have demonstrated your ignorance of this program, it’s no surprise that you discount the lessons learned.
“You do NOT understand CONTEXT”
It worked in Australia because there was a national commitment. Of course, winning such will be hard in the USA. The Australian government had to stare down the gun lobby, get the agreement for all states and territories, and “sell” the program to the people.
The people of America have choice. They can sit there and do nothing. Or they can seek change. So long as folk like yourself make excuses for inaction, there won’t be any change.
“ TOTALLY FLAWED and DERANGED Progressive mantra of One-Size-Fits-All mentality towards societal issues!”
Not at all. I recognise that America has a big f–king problem. One it apparently finds too hard to fix. Kids, teachers, doctors, ordinary innocent people will continue to get shot up.
“And you just contradicted your claim above about your NOT being a Progressive … what happened? Had a memory lapse, or something?”
Again, this obsessive need to label. IF you define progressive as seeking and / or instituting laws to tackle mass murder, then you are liberty to call such progressive. I just don’t give a rat’s buttocks whether you find comfort in labelling stuff or not. As explained above, that’s no substitute for rational argument.
“Certainly true of ALL surveys and ESPECIALLY political surveys! And one might make a case that (rhetorically) 99% of all surveys done have their inherent FLAWS”
Well, if you accept such surveys are flawed, you cannot also claim to derive a factual and evidence position, can you?! The substance of your former post is utterly destroyed. You are not arguing from a factual basis.
“ with all of this DIVERSION”
No, not a diversion, rather a proof that you confuse belief with fact and have poor grasp of how to mount a reasoned argument.
“ That is an ESTABLISHED FACT in USA, that privately owned guns can result in the saving of significant numbers of lives”
You haven’t provided the evidence to back up that statement.
“For example, you also point out those “loonies” that showed up in the sampling … but also decry the lack of sufficient sample size. As you know, the MORE you sample, the MORE of such “loonies” will manifest within the sample space, so HOW is that concerning? Isn’t that just indicative of a broad-based sampling process?”
Er – no. You have no clear understanding of how researchers go about sampling stuff, do you?
The point of the “aliens” example was to illustrate that just because somebody believes something to be true doesn’t mean you can extrapolate facts from their beliefs. You can’t make aliens exist if they don’t. You failed to understand the logic.
In competent sampling, the proportions in the sample population are a reasonable estimate of the proportions in the total population being sampled. We can decide when we have a big enough sample by using basic statistics (in short, increasing the sample size doesn’t alter those proportions).
Sorry to say it, mate, but you have a very poor understanding on research process, sampling, statistics and the like.
“Just because some people believe in something that is NOT mainstream on CERTAIN matters, does that, therefore, automatically DIS-qualify them from having bona fide opinions on OTHER matters?”
Absolutely not! Everyone is entitled to their opinion and especially where free speech is enshrined as a desirable cornerstone of society.
The issue is rather whether such opinion is evidenced, logically reasoned. Cue rational debate.
“Do you have a certified metric with which to judge such situations? If you think that you do, then you are more delusional than previously thought!”
You are not being denied your opinions, nor right to express them. You are being called out for lack of facts, evidence, logical process, understanding research methodology, sampling, statistics, etc.
Crucially, you want to claim facts against a survey of people’s beliefs. That doesn’t cut it in rational debate.
“Despite his “weaknesses” in methodology, as you claimed, there are specific TRENDS and FACTS that can NOT be denied!”
Well, that’s your claim, but you haven’t substantiated that factually.
“Did you carefully note that those BELIEFS of saving lives by use of privately owned firearms are from those who had actually successfully used their guns defensively?”
Well, mate, you can’t make such a claim from the survey data. The data depend upon the interpretation of the GDU event and belief about the presumed outcome of the respondents.
Basic lesson in research – you have to be very careful how you interpret the data.
“So, ONCE AGAIN, you are claiming to be able to DENY the DIRECT EXPERIENCES of those who were involved, first hand, with using their guns to actually save lives”
No at all. I’m pointing out that those experiences are reported and not measured.
Crucially, I’m explaining to you that your insistent claim that “guns actually save lives” in such events has not been measured – rather that is your chosen interpretation.
“and, instead, insist on injecting YOUR own FLAWED beliefs otherwise?”
No, mate, I’m not injecting my own beliefs in the interpretation of such data, I’m trying to explain to you that there is a logical process to follow that will allow you to separate a rational and repeatable conclusion from one based on trying to link a flawed survey based on the perceptions and beliefs of the respondents with their own maniacal call to arms.
“As I asked earlier, are you claiming to be the most discerning psychic in the universe, or just the most psychotic, with such an attitude?”
No. I’m calling you out because you believe that you are basing your position on facts and logic, when you most certainly are not.
“But, absent any better methodology at the current time, that is probably the BEST that you’re going to get, so make what you can from that …”
Exactly. But you still need to work within the bounds of logical process and then limit your conclusions and interpretation in line with the limitations of the method and the data.
You don’t get to leapfrog the process and then claim an evidenced position.
“you have NO OTHER CHOICE, because, based on YOUR own DELUSIONAL and DEMENTED beliefs about gun controls”
I dunno, buddy. In reality, I’m proving to you that your position is not factually robust.
“and confiscations”
You clearly have a poor understanding of how this was handled in Australia.
“ YOU are claiming that guns have NOT saved lives before, when used defensively against criminals that would shoot their victims dead?”
I’m saying that you have failed to provide the evidence to support your claims. I’m saying that your posts are prone to hysteria, which make you look like a nutjob.
“I must suppose, therefore, that you are NOT literate enough to read up on all of those REAL cases in USA”
So, what’s the argument now? Guns are OK because you think that I’m illiterate?
“where countless lives were saved when citizens with legally owned guns have managed to disable criminals (whether by incapacitation or death) who were on a shooting rampage against other innocent citizens?”
Provide the evidence. It would be interesting to see.
“Are you that NAIVE enough to believe that depending on police will be SAFER, when said police can no longer provide timely responses to shooting incidents because BLM has demanded that cities DEFUND their police departments?”
So, what’s the argument now? A call for justice and fair treatment for African Americans is responsible for mass murder? Yes, you are utterly stark raving bonkers.
“but you have NOT demonstrated that my original premise of guns being able to save lives, is flawed in any way, shape, or form!”
I’ve achieved my goal of demolishing your fantasy of offering a factual and evidenced position on such in your former post.
I’ve also thereby discredited your capacity for reasoned analysis.
“To the contrary, your own MENTALLY DERANGED DENIAL OF FACTS about this issue is TOTALLY PATHETIC and merely indicates YOUR OWN INCOMPREHENSIBLE DENIAL OF REAL FACTS within USA! Again, CONTEXT matters, so what might work in your own country does NOT and will NEVER work in USA!”
Relax, mate, before you collapse into a psychotic episode. Those issues dealt with above.
“Desired outcomes”? Based on WHOSE DESIRES?”
That’s for the people for the USA to determine. Thus far there has been overall acceptance that current gun ownership laws come at the price of a mass murder than occurs every few days. Sad.
“As for amendments to the USA Constitution, do you understand that there is a WELL-DEFINED PROCESS through which to effect such changes?”
Of course. Which is why I find your earlier rant about the constitution being threat and mentioned to you that in Australia it took consensus between national state and territory governments.
“So … you’ve just CONFIRMED your HYPOCRISY above, when you claimed that Progressivism had NO bearing upon your beliefs! You have just exposed your affliction with two of the primary SYMPTOMS of being a Progressive!”
Cool off, mate, you’ve fallen back into your mental comfort zone of constructs and labels.
“This totally explains WHY you have the attitudes that you do, and the manners in which you TRY (but FAIL) to be convincing with your points”
Believe what you will. Just don’t pretend that you are presenting facts and reason. Try shifting your focus onto how to fix the problem at hand, which is defining your society as murderous and uncivilised.
“— you merely nit-pick details that YOU deem to be relevant”
You chose your evidence. I demolished your position by showing you that your evidence was not what you thought.
“a HUGE DIVERSION into nit-picking details that were just being used for illustrative purposes, anyway!”
Actually, no, you made your case by choosing the evidence and logical framework of your choice. You claim to be factually based. You failed on all three counts – insubstantial evidence, lack of logic and bereft of fact.
“ YOU MOST OBVIOUSLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND what USA stands for, aside from your Progressive DELUSIONS and DERANGEMENT SYNDROME surrounding such issues!”
Back to putting labels on stuff and people. Common, make some effort to think for yourself.
Your labels are utterly meaningless to me.
“Despite your intended (but FAILED) attempts to be condescending and intimidating”
It’s sad that you find a challenge to present fact, reasoned position, independent thought, desire to search out relevant information, etc, as intimidating.
It’s probably true there is an element of condescension, my patience gets tested by wilful ignorance.
“my original contention about private guns having already helped save significant numbers of lives in USA (which is a HISTORICAL FACT that can NOT be denied), you’ve been pretty entertaining!”
Actually, your contention was a certain number of lives had been saved and that proportion greatly outweighed the lives lost and we knew these things for a fact. Su h contention has been found wanting.
Now hopefully we’ll have a laugh and a few cold beers sometime – we’d probably find out we have more in common than either of us care to admit!
I gotta go – a certain airline has just released a tidy batch of first class award seats, so it’s time to refocus on matters frequent flyer!
Be well, be brilliant, bro!
@ StrictlyFacts
“@Usvet1 might not know that you’re from Australia, hence his references to USA show programs and other such, which you don’t relate to …”
Yeah, mate, a good point well made!
@ StrictlyFacts
“NOPE! I’m referring to Efficacy as in the metric VE … so what recent disturbing trends have you noticed to be manifesting with VE after some months since getting those mRNA jabs? This is something that is VERY concerning but NO ONE seems to want to pay attention …”
Aside from how long before a booster jab deemed necessary?
Are the VE data being upheld or challenged by the real life effectiveness data?
@platy — “Aside from how long before a booster jab deemed necessary?
Are the VE data being upheld or challenged by the real life effectiveness data?” –>
I’ve just discovered that there have been some inconsistencies regarding the use of VE as referring to “Vaccine Efficacy” or “Vaccine Effectiveness,” even in some popular medical journals. I think that they more likely mean “Vaccine Effectiveness” rather than “Vaccine Efficacy” so I’ll now adopt that going forward.
That said, there are now multiple reports indicating that the VE (Effectiveness) for mRNA jabs can go NEGATIVE after an elapsed period of time (eg, 3 months) — not good news, as apparently those jabs can then end up damaging the body’s natural immunity system, thus making those mRNA jab recipients even more vulnerable to re-infections as well as new infections of other types, including increased incidences of cancer and “vaccine”-induced AIDS, so I’m thinking that health agencies need to take note of this disturbing trend …
For example, see the embedded Figure in this report, with reference to the graphs for Omicron —
www[_dot_]medrxiv[_dot_]org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v2.full[_dot_]pdf
With its attempt to explain away the negative VE that appears in the embedded Figure …
“The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals.”
… the authors offer NO evidence or data to support their perspective beyond their own BELIEFS (“arguably suggest”). However, when considered in conjunction with other such studies, this issue appears to be more serious than what has been “arguably suggested” …
Your take on this?
@ StrictlyFacts
“ I think that they more likely mean “Vaccine Effectiveness” rather than “Vaccine Efficacy”.”
Yes – the (yet to be formally published) research paper you cite below is citing effectiveness. i.e. real world data rather than the controlled studies, which address efficacy.
“That said, there are now multiple reports indicating that the VE (Effectiveness) for mRNA jabs can go NEGATIVE after an elapsed period of time (eg, 3 months)”
Yes. There are several of these papers.
“ as apparently those jabs can then end up damaging the body’s natural immunity system”
Yes, that may appear to be the obvious explanation, BUT the data in those papers does not prove that explanation. There are other hypotheses we would need to need test as good scientists, before jumping to any conclusions (either way).
To be clear, I’m not discounting an impact on the immune system, I’m saying we can’t tell from the data at hand in the paper which you cite.
“ thus making those mRNA jab recipients even more vulnerable to re-infections as well as new infections of other types, including increased incidences of cancer and “vaccine”-induced AIDS, so I’m thinking that health agencies need to take note of this disturbing trend …”
Let’s get past step one first before we are tempted to get ahead of ourselves, yes? As good scientists we need to follow a robust logical process.
“For example, see the embedded Figure in this report, with reference to the graphs for Omicron -www[_dot_]medrxiv[_dot_]org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v2.full[_dot_]pdf”
Yes, I can see the data points which have aroused your curiosity.
“With its attempt to explain away the negative VE that appears in the embedded Figure …(redacted)… the authors offer NO evidence or data to support their perspective beyond their own BELIEFS (“arguably suggest”)”
I agree that the data do not prove the authors’ explanation. But there again, nor do the data prove another potential alternative hypothesis, namely, a “damaged” immune system.
Note that the authors are not making a statement of belief. They are simply offering an explanation as part of the discussion of their results. This is normal in the discussion section of scientific research papers. Such explanation still requires further investigation to prove either way. Te comments are a cue for further work.
“However, when considered in conjunction with other such studies, this issue appears to be more serious than what has been “arguably suggested”
The research community are and will look at a set of possible explanations to further test such findings. We cannot jump to the conclusions, which you propose on the basis of the data at hand.
“Your take on this?’
Good job, mate, at picking up on that reference.
For perspective, that paper is yet to be formally published. It still needs to be peer reviewed to make sure that it’s up to the standards of any robust scientific paper. I have compared the three versions already uploaded as “preprint” editions. I can see some basic errors in the text have already been identified and corrected between the three versions. This is the sort of nit-picking that goes on behind the scenes in the interests of an acceptable professional scientific standard before the work is officially published.
That said, I would love to see the authors add a lot more to this paper, so we can fully understand how they collected and analysed their data. They could also clarify the context more fully – the data were collected when Omicron was the new kid on the block and taking over from Delta as the dominant variant – they should also clarify the ambient control measures in place when these data were taken (for example, whether unvaccinated were restricted in where they could go).
If you look at the table of results, some of the sample sizes are very small. They say that they have adjusted the data (hazard ratio estimate) for age cohort, but do not detail sample sizes of differing age cohorts, etc.
I’m saying that in my personal opinion as a (former) research scientist, the authors would do themselves a lot of favors by making substantial revisions before this thing gets published. The reviewers who have the say whether this work gets published may or may not agree with me.
We are still left with the basic question of how to explain a negative vaccine effectiveness. Before we jump to any conclusions, we need consider alternative explanations.
But first a couple of things to note about the study you cited. Firstly, it is not based on a controlled experiment – rather it relies on collecting available data. This means that there isn’t an experimental design to limit the number of variables in play. That makes it hard to link any pattern we find in the data with a practical explanation. Consider that the study is comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated people and they differ in many other ways, not just their age.
Secondly, the study is looking at transmission of the virus. It is not comparing the relative incidence of serious illness, or hospitalisations, or ICU admissions or mortality, between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
Now here is another possible explanation for negative vaccine effectiveness titled
Higher contact among vaccinated can be a mechanism for negative vaccine effectiveness:
Web [DOT]medrxiv[DOT]org/content/10[DOT]1101/2022[DOT]04[DOT]25[DOT]22274266v1
The ideas in this paper are a little complex. Try to think about how the relative numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated change over time as more people are vaccinated. The vaccination appears to become less effective as we encounter an increasing number of vaccinated people.
The data from your original paper cannot determine whether “damanged” immune system or other factors such as those outlined in the paper just cited are the true explanation for negative vaccine effectiveness.
However, please consider that the overwhelming data now collected in the 6 months since the paper you cited was first uploaded are not consistent with the explanation of a “damaged” immune system from vaccinations. There are any number of research papers attesting to vaccinations providing protection against severe disease, hospitalisation, ICU admissions and mortality, and to a lesser extent transmission of the COVID virus. It is therefore very unlikely that such a “damaging” effect is in play.
We do know that the protection afforded by COVID vaccines wanes over time, which is why we need a booster. That in itself does not indicate that the immune system has been “damaged” rather that it needs to be re-triggered (being an evolving system).
Let’s see how this plays out as more is published…;)
A violent storming of the US Capitol is a “non-event”? Only in the head of the failed traitors and their fellow travelers. ” Misleadingly-named “StrictlyFacts’” man Putin will be laughing all the way to his grave that Trump and Trump’s other useful idiots had made America into an ugly clown show that was on clear display to audiences around the world on January 6, 2021.
@GUWonder — “A violent storming of the US Capitol is a ‘non-event’?” –>
Do you truly understand what the word “Insurrection” actually means, since it’s been so over-used and abused by Progressives to TOTALLY MISREPRESENT what had REALLY happened on that day? You claim that there was a “violent storming” of the US Capitol, so let’s see —
#1. NONE of the Trump supporters in that crowd were armed with anything, UN-like some OTHER nefarious operators, so HOW are those supporters being “violent”?
#2. WHO were the ONLY ONES who actually GOT KILLED that day? More than one woman, who were Trump supporters, were victims, so WHO committed REAL VIOLENCE on that day against them? And NO! that policeman who unfortunately died was NOT killed by any Trump supporters with a fire extinguisher, as he already had some underlying health conditions that most likely led to his death (as per reports from medical sources)!
#3. A TRUE insurrection will most likely incur some sort of “occupation” situation (whether of buildings or land or whatever), yet those Trump supporters who unwittingly went into the Capitol also left totally quietly and peacefully!
#4. WHO were DERELICT in NEGLECTING to provide necessary police presence that day for normal and customary crowd control, DESPITE requests from Trump (and others) to Washington, DC and Capitol Police officials? WHY?
And I could go on and on and on …
So now … when I say that it was a NON-event, I was referring to using the word “insurrection” to label that day … there was CLEARLY NO INSURRECTION going on, by Trump supporters on that, or any other, day! If what happened that day amounts to “insurrection,” then what does an actual “revolution” look like? Having a loud afternoon shouting match over coffee and/or tea?
Furthermore … who participates in an “insurrection” against the government with NO ONE being armed, and with a majority of attendees carrying USA flags and/or wearing patriotically themed clothing, anyway? And also with many of the maligned Trump supporters even helping to PREVENT much of the attempted vandalism actions upon the Capitol building by OTHER nefarious types?
So sure … some really bad things occurred on that day … but NOT to the level of an INSURRECTION EVENT!
———————————————————————————-
@platy — I’ll try to reply to your latest posts later … gotta first complete a work project milestone!
@GUWonder —
BTW — you don’t need to take my word on this issue of insurrection on that date … just read what the FBI says —
www[DOT]washingtonexaminer[DOT]com/opinion/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-january-6
So … we should now be good on this issue, right?
@StrictlyFacts
“@platy — I’ll try to reply to your latest posts later … gotta first complete a work project milestone”
Now worries, mate, whenever, no rush, no obligation…;)
The delusional and the pathological psychopathic Trump supporters will remain just that. And whether their responses are long-winded or not, they are always short on facts and long on ill-substantiated opinion. They write checks that their bodies can’t cash.
@GUWonder — “And whether their responses are long-winded or not, they are always short on facts and long on ill-substantiated opinion.” –>
ROFLMAO! So says someone whose side is the one that is TOTALLY DEVOID of FACTS and hence can ONLY rely upon EMOTIONAL FANTASIES … and all while continuing to suffer interminably from Trump Derangement Syndrome! Good grief!
The Trump-worshipping January 6th 2021 seditious conspiracists and their fellow traveler insurrectionists made sure that January 6th was an infamous event that will be a recurring reminder that there is something wacky in the proverbial water being pumped and drunk by Trump’s most ardent fans, and that they all have trouble acknowledging facts as facts and lies as lies.
The delusional and the pathological psychopathic Trump supporters will remain just that. And whether their responses are long-winded or not, they are always short on facts and long on ill-substantiated opinion. They write checks that their bodies can’t cash. Even as the federal
criminal indictments keep on moving forward slowly but surely in recognizing facts as facts despite the wishes of the pathological psychopaths writing Trump-supporting checks their bodies can’t cash except at the Bank of the Gullible.
@GUWonder — “And whether their responses are long-winded or not, they are always short on facts and long on ill-substantiated opinion.” –>
Just give it up, already … you’re now acting kinda DESPERATE, when even the FBI does NOT agree with your claims, so you don’t have anything there, on that! We should just “move on along” to other more important matters in life, as many other fellow Americans have already done, as shown in this recent NBC survey (see Question 13 on Page 15) —
www[DOT]documentcloud[DOT]org/documents/22053192-220222-nbc-news-may-poll-with-jan-6-questions
Note the drop in those who think Trump was responsible back during January, 2021 vs. most recently during May, 2022, and the increase in those who think Trump was NOT really responsible —
………………………………………………………………..5/22**……………1/21
Solely responsible …………………………………….17………………….28…..[-11 points]
Mainly responsible …………………………………..28…………………..24…..[.+4 points]
Only somewhat responsible……………………..20………………….18……[.+2 points]
Not really responsible ………………………………35………………….29……[.+6 points]
Not sure …………………………………………………….-……………………..1…….[..-1 point]
@GUWonder — “Even as the federal criminal indictments keep on moving forward slowly …” –>
Forgot about this claim that you also made (above) — WHAT criminal indictments? Coerced “Confessions” under Duress for “Trespassing” into the Capitol Building? Any REAL indictments for those purported “insurrections” that you keep claiming? And WHY is Due Process and the Right to a Speedy Trial moving so slowly for those who were illegitimately arrested and STILL being detained?
@ GUWonder
It’s fun time!
I had it look it up – ROFLMAO! Found a cute 2007 song (World of Warcraft Machinima by Oxhorn). Don’t listen to it – it’s catchy and fries your brain.
Let’s consider a label. If you are not a PROGRESSIVE, you must be a REGRESSIVE, right?
Then it all makes a lot of sense, this slavish devotion to the sociopathic t*RUMP. You want guns because (as the Australian comedian, Jim Jefferies, absolutely nailed it) you love your guns, the rest is just excuses. Protecting innocent school kids is PROGRESSIVE and that label says it must be a bad thing, so f–k the kids, let them die, I deserve to love my gun.
In fact let’s have more guns! I love guns, so more guns is more love, right? Guns protect people from people with guns, so we need more guns to protect ourselves from the more guns we have just encouraged more people to purchase. More love, more guns, more protection, more guns, more protection. Regressive logic. Just the sort of logic recessives need and want in order to justify loving their guns, when all they need to do is to admit that they simply love guns.
REGRESSIVES are also want to treat the constitution as an inviolable and sacred text. BUT we need to be regressive. Surely, that means stripping back the amendments to get back to the purest and most original text? Bye bye 27th, now the government can grant itself a pay rise. Bye bye 26th, now we can raise the voting age to silence the idealistically leftie youngsters. Bye bye 25th, now we can have more confusion over who becomes president if the president is removed from office because they are stark raving bonkers and prone to encourage national division, incite violent attacks on the parliament and refuse to cede to the electorate.
Small problem. To be regressive, regressives will eventually have to peel back the 2nd and remove the right to bear arms within a well organised militia. Guns gone, that wasn’t progressive after all, it was regressive. And regressives will eventually have to remove the protections afforded to free speech, assembly and religion under the first. Perfect, the government can now denigrate a religious group (which it did anyway, but hey, who gives a shit, they are foreigners and we only need their oil), but we can’t talk about whether we think that’s a good or bad thing, but that doesn’t matter because the government can now discriminate and denigrate and thereby do exactly what regressives want and let the regressive mob spend their time picking on some other perceived progressive problem. Like, working out how to keep the “grandfather clause” whilst repealing the 1965 Voting Rights Act to make sure only certain folk can vote because the BLM cause needs to be blamed for bad policing and thereby mass shootings and people who are different to regressives don’t deserve equality or respect in a regressive society.
Now true REGRESSIVES never rest. There is an environment to trash, after all. Leave the fall out to a future generation, the aim is to move backwards, not forwards. Let’s step back and destroy the ozone layer all over again. Let’s get back to some gold old fashioned acid rain and toxic pollutants. None of that ever mattered or hurt anyone, right? Climate change is progressive because it involves change in a forward timeline and we are against change in a forward timeline. Therefore climate change cannot exist. It s against our regressive philosophy. We are regressive and proud. When something challenges our regressive constructs we can simply, deny their existence.
And thank goodness for COVID. A perfect demonstration of the unscientific progressive mantra. A complete fraud. A conspiracy between the WHO and big Pharma. Regressives hate science because it is progressive. Therefore scientists bad, untrustworthy and complicit in conspiracy. Regressives also hate science because it offers a logical pathway to expose the rancid core of the regressive constructs themselves. No problem to a true regressive. Regressives can confuse their beliefs with facts whilst declaring inconvenient evidential facts as fake beliefs and thereby delusional. If that fails, shit on he scientists and discredit them. Go for the person and not the idea. Shoot the messenger and you never have to read the message.
Regressives also love labels. With a label you can denigrate whatever and whoever you want devoid of reason or evidence. You can embrace the ultimate power of sociopathy. MAGBA – make America Great Britain Again!!! Because being regressive eventually leads you back to the mother nation and the original of America as a British penal colony.