Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
EltonJohnson

Want to see a liberal shut up and run away?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

 

FTFA:

 

" the school district has so far refused to discuss the specifics of killer Nikolas Cruz's education and disciplinary record"

 

" [Suprintndnt] Runcie won't discuss the specifics of Cruz's education and disciplinary record, which makes it difficult to evaluate what role, if any, district policies might have had in the many missed warning signs before his rampage."

 

"Runcie says he does not know whether school administrators reported Cruz to law enforcement. The district is reviewing how it handled the teen's case, and until that effort is complete, the superintendent says, it would be premature to comment on whether anything should have been done differently."

 

 

 

BOOM    The article is full of garbage outside of ADMITTING they  don't know anything about Cruz.

 

Pure  garbage.

 

 

The guy would have been prevented  form  buying a gun had he been reported .   Plain and simple.

 

But your lie was in blaming it on Obama.  And that was a WHOPPER!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

 

FTFA:

 

" the school district has so far refused to discuss the specifics of killer Nikolas Cruz's education and disciplinary record"

 

" [Suprintndnt] Runcie won't discuss the specifics of Cruz's education and disciplinary record, which makes it difficult to evaluate what role, if any, district policies might have had in the many missed warning signs before his rampage."

 

"Runcie says he does not know whether school administrators reported Cruz to law enforcement. The district is reviewing how it handled the teen's case, and until that effort is complete, the superintendent says, it would be premature to comment on whether anything should have been done differently."

 

 

 

BOOM    The article is full of garbage outside of ADMITTING they  don't know anything about Cruz.

 

Pure  garbage.

 

 

The guy would have been prevented  form  buying a gun had he been reported .   Plain and simple.

FALSE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Scout said:

 

But your lie was in blaming it on Obama.  And that was a WHOPPER!

 

 

Its not a lie.  Federal policy was involved.  

 

Also,  I proved your  article to be worthless 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here'are two questions for both sides to answer, which, I hope, gets at the bottom of this debate:

 

1. Should young men who make threats of lethal violence, or who commit non-felonious crimes, or who threaten or assault other students in school, or who threaten their teachers  ... should they receive punishment, or counselling, or what? 

 

Let's agree that there are degrees of all of these, that whether it's a first-time offense vs a repeated one, that other aspects of the situation have to be taken into account [did his mother just die? did his teacher tell him he was incorrigibly stupid and ugly? did the fellow he punched steal his girlfriend the day before?] ... but having agreed that, what should happen to someone who falls outside the first-time, mitigating circumstances, etc area? Is the school obligated to keep him on? Should the police overlook it when he's caught with a knife? 

 

To put it concretely: does there come a point when the person involved has to face serious unpleasant consequences for his behavior?

 

2. Whatever regimen you propose in answer to (1), should it apply equally to everyone, regardless of their race?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

To put it concretely: does there come a point when the person involved has to face serious unpleasant consequences for his behavior?

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

 

Fix what?   All of Obama's messes?    

he sort of promised to do just that.  

 

starting with the repeal and replacement of Obamacare on day one.  remember that?

 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Doug1943 said:

And what do you think about Question 2?

Race shouldn't be a factor. Bad behavior and mental illness are color blind.

 

What must be determined is whether the behavior is caused by mental illness, or just lack of character (i.e. upbringing, influences, etc.) 

 

Character can often be adjusted through changing the environment, mental illness most times requires treatment.

 

Neither are easily addressed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I suspect there is a serious overlap between 'mental illness' and 'upbringing, influences, etc', i.e. 'the environment'.

 

I wouldn't argue with the proposition that 'character can often be adjusted through changing the environment'. In fact, I'd leave out the qualifying 'often'.

 

And we have to be careful about that term 'mental illness', by which I take it you mean 'internal' biological factors that are not the fault of the individual.

I'm sure these are real, but we are at present so deeply ignorant of how the brain/nervous system works, that we can mainly just speculate.  [In 1965, a mass shooter

went up into the University of Texas tower and killed 13 people, including a casual acquaintance of mine, firing over open sights (and NOT using a scary-looking assault rifle). (He was a former Marine and knew his business, and would no doubt have passed any conceivable background check.) An autopsy revealed a small brain tumor, but no one has been able to show that this was the cause of his behavior, which, as I recall, remains unexplained.

 

In any case,  we could no doubt eliminate a lot of criminal and sub-criminal behavior, if we could provide the right environment: two loving parents who apply the right mixture

of unconditional love plus discipline, no serious financial worries for them, ie. stable employment at a decent wage, no surrounding bad examples to model on  [read Judith Rich Harris's The Nurture Assumption for an eye-opening review of how important the peer group is in shaping behavior], a school that doesn't tolerate bad behavior and teaches real knowledge [for those interested, have a look at a unique educational experiment going on in the UK, among children mainly from deprived backgrounds:  http://mcsbrent.co.uk/ ]

 

I recently read a paper supposedly demonstrating that 'impulsiveness' has a genetic link, but that impulsive behavior can be overcome if you're raised in the right environment.

 

So the question is, how to provide the 'right environment'?  We know that the effects of the admirably-motivated 'Head Start' program fade out after a few years, unless the program is continued. If you are the child of a single mother who is a drug addict, living in a neighborhood surrounded by similar people ... what program can we imagine that can overcome that? Children raised in such a toxic environment are going to have a massive cultural deficit, and it's ridiculous to blame schools for not overcoming it.

 

And this is just the 'easy' cases:  I think that most of the mass shooters came from rather more complex backgrounds.  So, yes, not easily addressed.  (Just like the problem of dealing with, if you wanted to, all the literally several hundred million firearms in the US.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, EltonJohnson said:

Just ask a liberal about   Obama's  PROMISE  Program  and how it kept Nikolas Cruz able  to  buy his gun.

 

Without this  program,  Cruz would have been prohibited   under CURRENT gun laws.

 

 

yes libs...  Obama policy allowed for this

 

 Go ahead defend it...

 

 

 

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/28/obama_administration_school_discipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html

This was an effort to standardize responses to kids with discipline problems.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

In any case,  we could no doubt eliminate a lot of criminal and sub-criminal behavior, if we could provide the right environment: two loving parents who apply the right mixture

of unconditional love plus discipline, no serious financial worries for them, ie. stable employment at a decent wage, no surrounding bad examples to model on  [read Judith Rich Harris's The Nurture Assumption for an eye-opening review of how important the peer group is in shaping behavior], a school that doesn't tolerate bad behavior and teaches real knowledge [for those interested, have a look at a unique educational experiment going on in the UK, among children mainly from deprived backgrounds:  http://mcsbrent.co.uk/ ]

 

 

This is the main reason I say that what we see today is a societal problem.

 

The family unit is almost discouraged in today's society, and we are seeing the fallout of that mindset.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

 

Its not a lie.  Federal policy was involved.  

 

Also,  I proved your  article to be worthless 

UTTERLY FALSE as the link I cited shows.  You got caught lying.  Repent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rippy38 said:

 

This is the main reason I say that what we see today is a societal problem.

 

The family unit is almost discouraged in today's society, and we are seeing the fallout of that mindset.

 

 

 

Let's say that the 'traditional' nuclear family (which supplanted the really traditional extended family) is found the least, where it is needed the most: among lower-class Blacks. (And I don't think feminist indoctrination had much to do with it These changes, which are occurring very widely, are in response to something happening much deeper and more fundamental than scolding by academic ideologues -- the latter are more an effect of these deep changes than they are a cause, although there is no doubt a dialectical relationship.)  We're not going to change that, and we're probably not going to change the drift of young people towards not getting married.  In the middle-on-up layers, this is not so terrible ... going the other way, it is.

 

So we are either going to have to live with it, or try to come up with ways of replacing the functions of the traditional family.  I have no idea how to do that. If the US had infinite money, I would experiment with making the local school more of a total Community Centre, with free 24 hour a day quality childcare, well-stocked libraries, computer rooms (censored), etc. But I know we need to spend our money on more aircraft carriers, airplanes than can fly backwards, not to mention little expenditures like the few million dollars a year it takes to pay the salaries of the 200 soldiers in Germany working for 'Africa Command'. [I mean, imagine what a mess Africa would be in if the US military didn't have an 'Africa Command'. Absolutely vital, I'm sure.]

 

So ... we live with it. This means trying to help everyone possible to attain the living style of the intelligent young people taking up their well-paid jobs with Google and similar big corporations. Don't pay any attention to their scolding lectures about how the rest of us are all racists, homophobes,  etc ... just watch how and where they actually live, and try to emulate that. You can be sure they live as far away from urban ghettoes as they can, and in 'gated communities' or the equivalent, if possible. Their workplaces and probably their private schools will be protected by armed men. They're much more intelligent than their white racist Republican-voting social inferiors, and we would all do well to pay them the compliment of imitation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note also: the traditional family is fading away among whites, especially in the lower classes. This phenomenon has been the subject of several books, in particular Hillbilly Elegy,  by the conservative writer J.D. Vance. It's a book well worth reading, if you want to get an idea of what's happening to the family and some hints as to why it's happening.  For the symmetrical Black phenomenon, which occurred a generation earlier, look at When Work Disappears, By William Julius Williams.

 

I do not say that the loss of good blue-collar jobs is the only determinant here. No doubt the 'sexual revolution' of the 60s played its role, by eliminating social disapproval of sex and childbearing outside wedlock.  [And how we young men of that time appreciated this change!!!]  (The academic theorizing of lunatic ultra-feminists was more an effect than a cause of this ... just as young men became unconnected to steady, financially-rewarding work, so a major part of the academy became unconnected from reality.)

 

The only question of interest, as usual, is 'What Is To Be Done?'. 

 

Conservatives, of which I am one, need to look again at the role of the state here.  Reflex responses to the idea of 'government-provided jobs' -- i.e. that they are always a dreadful interference with the free market -- may not be the right one, in this situation. 

 

It's always dangerous to go directly from general abstract principles, to immediate tactical decisions.  The United States has had, since the end of WWII, a Keynsian permanent government-stimulus to its economy, in the form of massive defense spending.  Might it be in our interests now, to undertake something similar, but in the civilian sector?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

Note also: the traditional family is fading away among whites, especially in the lower classes. This phenomenon has been the subject of several books, in particular Hillbilly Elegy,  by the conservative writer J.D. Vance. It's a book well worth reading, if you want to get an idea of what's happening to the family and some hints as to why it's happening.  For the symmetrical Black phenomenon, which occurred a generation earlier, look at When Work Disappears, By William Julius Williams.

 

I do not say that the loss of good blue-collar jobs is the only determinant here. No doubt the 'sexual revolution' of the 60s played its role, by eliminating social disapproval of sex and childbearing outside wedlock.  [And how we young men of that time appreciated this change!!!]  (The academic theorizing of lunatic ultra-feminists was more an effect than a cause of this ... just as young men became unconnected to steady, financially-rewarding work, so a major part of the academy became unconnected from reality.)

 

The only question of interest, as usual, is 'What Is To Be Done?'. 

 

Conservatives, of which I am one, need to look again at the role of the state here.  Reflex responses to the idea of 'government-provided jobs' -- i.e. that they are always a dreadful interference with the free market -- may not be the right one, in this situation. 

 

It's always dangerous to go directly from general abstract principles, to immediate tactical decisions.  The United States has had, since the end of WWII, a Keynsian permanent government-stimulus to its economy, in the form of massive defense spending.  Might it be in our interests now, to undertake something similar, but in the civilian sector?

 

 

Obama wanted to try that. But you cons said we were broke. We were broke till trump king of debt came to town. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good point. We are broke. That's why we have to borrow money to finance everything we spend it on.  If it turns out that Mr Obama was right, then hats off to him. It's part of being a truly intelligent person to be able to change your views, learn from others, etc.

 

So, a discussion/debate about the advisability, or otherwise, of yet more government spending, has to include a more-encompassing debate about what we're spending it on now, and how it might be financed without bankrupting our grandchildren. 

 

For instance, it might turn out that spending money on a real jobs program for the unskilled layers of society, actually saves us money in the future, because we will not have to spend money on welfare, drug rehabilitation, prison, etc. Or it might not -- there is always the possibility that such a program could just turn into a jobs-for-the-boys boondoggle.  But I'd like to see some debate about it.

 

It might turn out that we can save money elsewhere: do we really need to pay literally trillions of dollars to 'stabilize' the whole world -- spending two or three times as much, per capita, as all the other advanced countries?  Do we really need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an 'Africa Command' (based in Germany, of course, not in Africa, where our soldiers help sustain the German economy every time they buy some wiener schnitzel.)

 

As for Mr Trump. He will eventually be gone, one way or the other, just as Mr Eisenhower, Mr Kennedy, Mr Johnson, Mr Nixon, Mr Ford, Mr Carter, Mr Reagan, the first Mr Bush, Mr Clinton, the second Mr Bush, Mr Obama, were here, agitated or delighted people for a few years, and then were gone.

 

But society and the state remain, and, unless we fix them, the problems we face remain.

 

I have no interest in exchanging insults with people with whom I don't agree. If I wanted to make conservatives feel unhappy, I have more than enough ammunition. If I wanted to make liberals angry, that's no problem. But what's the point?  Doing that is sort of like playing a shoot-em-up video game but without sound or images.  Perhaps fun for a few days, but eventually it becomes boring, and you never 'win' because there is an endless supply of conservatives and liberals, and, being human, they will commit follies to be laughed at.

 

In the meantime, the US is set to become, for the first time in many generations, the world's SECOND-largest economy, the world's FIRST largest being a Communist dictatorship, which is quite comfortable with government intervention in its economy (and others).  In the meantime, those young men, white and Black, who fifty years ago would have gotten jobs as steel workers, rubber workers, auto workers, etc etc are now told they need to learn PHP and CSS ... which they cannot do. Maybe they can become long-distance truck drivers or delivery van drivers, or taxi drivers, but ... oops, a robot will soon be doing those jobs.  So maybe they can join the 'service sector' as nursing-home care assistants and waitresses.  

 

As this happens, expect more disruptive, violent behavior from this layer of society, of which mass killings Nicholas Cruz-style are only the most dramatic manifestation.

 

Anyway, I think this is a problem worth discussing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×