One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
It begs the question
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Aug 13, 2019 00:16:21   #
lpnmajor (a regular here)
 
I was listening to a local reporter interviewing our Governor, when the question of mass shootings was brought up. The Governor spent a great deal of time evading answering questions, using the ever popular "hearing a different question" ploy, you know, answering questions that weren't actually asked.

That was all humdrum, standard BS, and I was only listening with half an ear ( yes, it's an actual thing ) until I heard the Governor make this statement in regards to the sheer volume of mass shootings - "we certainly see more than we'd like.............."

That begs the question ( which the idiot reporter failed to do ).....................how many mass shootings DOES he like? What is an acceptable number of massacres? Are they graded on frequency, location, or body count?

I can only hope the Governor didn't really intend to indicate that he had an acceptable number of mass murders in mind when he made that statement, but that, in his zeal to avoid answering questions with practical solutions, simply misspoke. IMHO, if a politician ( or anybody else for that matter ) either doesn't know anything substantive, or is unwilling to provide real answers......they should just shut the *#$% up.

| Reply
Aug 13, 2019 01:19:09   #
PeterS (a regular here)
 
lpnmajor wrote:
I was listening to a local reporter interviewing our Governor, when the question of mass shootings was brought up. The Governor spent a great deal of time evading answering questions, using the ever popular "hearing a different question" ploy, you know, answering questions that weren't actually asked.

That was all humdrum, standard BS, and I was only listening with half an ear ( yes, it's an actual thing ) until I heard the Governor make this statement in regards to the sheer volume of mass shootings - "we certainly see more than we'd like.............."

That begs the question ( which the idiot reporter failed to do ).....................how many mass shootings DOES he like? What is an acceptable number of massacres? Are they graded on frequency, location, or body count?

I can only hope the Governor didn't really intend to indicate that he had an acceptable number of mass murders in mind when he made that statement, but that, in his zeal to avoid answering questions with practical solutions, simply misspoke. IMHO, if a politician ( or anybody else for that matter ) either doesn't know anything substantive, or is unwilling to provide real answers......they should just shut the *#$% up.
I was listening to a local reporter interviewing o... (show quote)

Was he a democrat or a republican? If a republican the more shootings there are the more upward pressure to remove guns so for a republican the appropriate amount would be just enough to keep upwards pressure to remove guns to a minimum. If they were a democrat they probably were misspoken...

| Reply
Aug 13, 2019 01:55:48   #
billman6
 
PeterS wrote:
Was he a democrat or a republican? If a republican the more shootings there are the more upward pressure to remove guns so for a republican the appropriate amount would be just enough to keep upwards pressure to remove guns to a minimum. If they were a democrat they probably were misspoken...


And there's your bias idiot

| Reply
Aug 13, 2019 02:15:00   #
ImLogicallyRight (a regular here)
 
PeterS wrote:
Was he a democrat or a republican? If a republican the more shootings there are the more upward pressure to remove guns so for a republican the appropriate amount would be just enough to keep upwards pressure to remove guns to a minimum. If they were a democrat they probably were misspoken...


And if he is intelligent, he won't try to limit guns or our access to them. That right is in the constitution for a reason. To defend ourselves and ask as a deterrent to that damn government that wants to control us and take away our guns.

| Reply
Aug 13, 2019 05:10:02   #
Tug484 (a regular here)
 
ImLogicallyRight wrote:
And if he is intelligent, he won't try to limit guns or our access to them. That right is in the constitution for a reason. To defend ourselves and ask as a deterrent to that damn government that wants to control us and take away our guns.


Amen

| Reply
Aug 13, 2019 07:00:46   #
bylm1-Bernie (a regular here)
 
lpnmajor wrote:
I was listening to a local reporter interviewing our Governor, when the question of mass shootings was brought up. The Governor spent a great deal of time evading answering questions, using the ever popular "hearing a different question" ploy, you know, answering questions that weren't actually asked.

That was all humdrum, standard BS, and I was only listening with half an ear ( yes, it's an actual thing ) until I heard the Governor make this statement in regards to the sheer volume of mass shootings - "we certainly see more than we'd like.............."

That begs the question ( which the idiot reporter failed to do ).....................how many mass shootings DOES he like? What is an acceptable number of massacres? Are they graded on frequency, location, or body count?

I can only hope the Governor didn't really intend to indicate that he had an acceptable number of mass murders in mind when he made that statement, but that, in his zeal to avoid answering questions with practical solutions, simply misspoke. IMHO, if a politician ( or anybody else for that matter ) either doesn't know anything substantive, or is unwilling to provide real answers......they should just shut the *#$% up.
I was listening to a local reporter interviewing o... (show quote)




I don't know anything about your governor but I suspect that the answer he gave wasn't worded exactly like it should have been. I would think that he clearly meant that the number of shootings is shocking, not implying that there is a certain number that would be acceptable. If there have been, say twenty, this year then nineteen would have been better and one would have been much better. That, then, begs another question: Would one shooting be a cause for rejoicing? Of course not, but it would be a vast improvement over twenty. I have listened to endless reporters asking stupid questions so I'm not surprised when an interviewee gives a less than direct answer to a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

Evil is a difficult thing to put a handle on and that's what we are dealing with. Maybe it's time we started asking why is so much evil emerging in this world. I think I know the answer but I'm afraid it has been ruled out of the discussion in our public schools or most public domains. Anyone have a clue?

| Reply
Aug 13, 2019 07:59:31   #
Barracuda2020 (a regular here)
 
ImLogicallyRight wrote:
And if he is intelligent, he won't try to limit guns or our access to them. That right is in the constitution for a reason. To defend ourselves and ask as a deterrent to that damn government that wants to control us and take away our guns.


There's nothing on any bill to take away guns, period. Keeping that in mind, what is the limit of weaponry. Is there any? How many is enough? Is it limitless?

We have the technology, to choose other devices.

| Reply
Aug 13, 2019 09:04:03   #
billman6
 
bylm1-Bernie wrote:
I don't know anything about your governor but I suspect that the answer he gave wasn't worded exactly like it should have been. I would think that he clearly meant that the number of shootings is shocking, not implying that there is a certain number that would be acceptable. If there have been, say twenty, this year then nineteen would have been better and one would have been much better. That, then, begs another question: Would one shooting be a cause for rejoicing? Of course not, but it would be a vast improvement over twenty. I have listened to endless reporters asking stupid questions so I'm not surprised when an interviewee gives a less than direct answer to a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

Evil is a difficult thing to put a handle on and that's what we are dealing with. Maybe it's time we started asking why is so much evil emerging in this world. I think I know the answer but I'm afraid it has been ruled out of the discussion in our public schools or most public domains. Anyone have a clue?
I don't know anything about your governor but I su... (show quote)


That would be God and the Holy Bible.

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 06:54:35   #
Big dog (a regular here)
 
lpnmajor wrote:
I was listening to a local reporter interviewing our Governor, when the question of mass shootings was brought up. The Governor spent a great deal of time evading answering questions, using the ever popular "hearing a different question" ploy, you know, answering questions that weren't actually asked.

That was all humdrum, standard BS, and I was only listening with half an ear ( yes, it's an actual thing ) until I heard the Governor make this statement in regards to the sheer volume of mass shootings - "we certainly see more than we'd like.............."

That begs the question ( which the idiot reporter failed to do ).....................how many mass shootings DOES he like? What is an acceptable number of massacres? Are they graded on frequency, location, or body count?

I can only hope the Governor didn't really intend to indicate that he had an acceptable number of mass murders in mind when he made that statement, but that, in his zeal to avoid answering questions with practical solutions, simply misspoke. IMHO, if a politician ( or anybody else for that matter ) either doesn't know anything substantive, or is unwilling to provide real answers......they should just shut the *#$% up.
I was listening to a local reporter interviewing o... (show quote)


Typical politician, just spewing words without thinking.

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 14:07:39   #
Louie27 (a regular here)
 
PeterS wrote:
Was he a democrat or a republican? If a republican the more shootings there are the more upward pressure to remove guns so for a republican the appropriate amount would be just enough to keep upwards pressure to remove guns to a minimum. If they were a democrat they probably were misspoken...


After that post, it appears that you only believe what you want to believe not what is actually said.

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 16:43:53   #
Lt. Rob Polans ret. (a regular here)
 
ImLogicallyRight wrote:
And if he is intelligent, he won't try to limit guns or our access to them. That right is in the constitution for a reason. To defend ourselves and ask as a deterrent to that damn government that wants to control us and take away our guns.


As they will find out id the left ever does come into power. A bit of bright news militias are forming in every state adding to the ones that are already there. Some fly, others are on the ground. These are younger guys seeking guidance from veterans. Of course, they have their own too.

| Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.