DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Waffle House shooting leaves 4 dead, several wounded in Tennessee

Show me your taxes and I'll show you mine. I'll be waiting?

You two should find a place where somebody cares about this tax debate that has lingered for weeks and talk about it... Either get it resolved (privately) or let it freaking go...

and Perfect, I know you're not the one who keeps bringing it up.

Figured, well I smell pants smoking from being fire.

Why? You've had about a month to explain how your taxes more than doubled!

Before you expect others to answer YOUR questions, why don't you answer questions from a month ago?

Oh, because you can't.

I'll take a page out of pde's schtick:

Perfect: My taxes more than doubled under the tax cut.
Us......how?
perfect: I don't have to explain it.
Us....why?
perfect: I make more than 3 times as much as the guy I reponded to.
Us. How do you know you do?
perfect: I don't have to answer that. But YOU must answer my question.





Credibility: 0

I'm the one that keeps bringing it up. Let's be clear on that.

You know why I said that, don't you?

On a more personal note amid all of the usual squabbling....... This happened about 20 minutes from where I live. It's a very sad event for the community. Innocent life was lost.

A law is only as good as it's followed. The law prevented him from having a firearm. The father didn't follow the law.

So is murder a weak law just because some people don't follow it?

"Find some new material, it's stale"? (wink)

hes not brining it up because he is refusing to answer to his lies when questioned about it.

He has consistently called on posters and called them liars and bigots, then tried to demean me by saying he makes 3x the amount I do, and that I live in my parents basement - yet when questioned on his logic and math, nothing.

Sorry bro, he is the one that brought this on himself by providing false statements after false statements. then he has tried to act superior than to myself simply because of his "supposed" income.

Kind of like for how 3 months you've refused to answer how it wasn't racist when Trump posted a graphic made by a white supremacist that falsely claimed that 81% of whites are killed by blacks?



Why wasn't that racist?

Surely, you're not refusing to answer to your lies when questioned on them, as you have just pointed out how much you disdain that.

It was answered in that thread, you just choose not to like the answer. that's on you.

You absolutely did not answer it in that thread. You ran away from the question with your tail between your legs and have refused to answer it ever since.

But in case I missed the answer - what was it?

Why wasn't it racist when Trump tweeted out a laughably false racist meme created by a well-known white supremacist who goes by the name "WhiteGenocide"?

I refer you to the thread.

multiple times was pointed out what the man did for the AA community, you refuse to accept the facts of his actions, or the awards from minority organizations that have been presented to him.

now, again, you will refuse the answer because it doesn't fit with your agenda. Which is exactly why half the posters on this board think you are borderline lunacy, the others - just tolerate you because your on the same side of views.

Care to ask perfect to answer his question now? Oh, that's right, whats good for the goose - nice try at deflecting as well. but the topic at hand is perfect BTW and his lies.

This is a very long winded way of refusing to answer the question.

Trump posted a quite obviously racist graphic, claiming that 81% of whites were killed by blacks.

You've spent 3 months running and ducking from answering why that wasn't racist.

The most flimsy part of your argument is that you're trying to use the 7 articles you posted in that thread. 5 of them were about how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson once participated in charity scams with Trump (mind you, it was on the same day that both men called him racist for just finding out in late 2017 that white people were on welfare); one article was one of those Huffington Post "we'll publish any op-ed" with a picture of Lawrence Fishburne in "The Matrix" that said "what if i told you Trump wasn't racist?".

But, just in case you want to step up to the plate and not run away (or as you put it, "deflecting because you can't answer your lies") -

What is not racist about Trump posting an obviously racist meme made by a prominent white supremacist?



What isn't racist about that graphic? Surely, you're not going to run away and deflect. The answer shouldn't be too hard. The picture's right there.

Explain to us how that wasn't racist.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Lawrence Fishburne and charity scam awards have no bearing on why it was or wasn't racist when Trump tweeted an undeniably racist graphic.

And surely, you won't run from answering, because as you've pointed out several times, you disdain that

1. haven't spent anytime "ducking" anything. I answered the question in the thread, if you cannot read, I suggest you look up programs for that. You have been on ignore for 3 months on my end - and will be back on it after this post, as you have no character value or anything to add to any discussion.


2. Once again, trying to deflect, you are not even worth the time. The cavs can use you in the post with all the deflections you throw you up, Olajuan.

I even gave willetvachange an out once, offering "do you think maybe it wasn't racist, but just general stupidity that led Trump to tweeting that?"

He could've taken that, and been done with it, but none of the people who worship that racist creepy sex predator could ever bring themselves to admit that he's dumb.

still waiting for you and perfect to answer the math and false lies you have now tried to become apart of.

Any almost-intelligent human being could give a summation of their answer in three to four sentences.

If you're that lazy or busy, take your time and copy and paste the mythical answer you claimed you have already given



Why wasn't this racist?

PDF: You've spent the last 3 months actively ducking and hiding from the very specific question "why wasn't it racist when Trump posted an obviously racist meme?"

willitevachange: No, I have not. I answered the question.

PDF: And what was that answer, again?

willitevachange: I'm not telling you.

for those with lack of reading skills, or too sloshed to understand words as they appear



Two post later:

Refuses to accept answer as stated and makes up more PDF facts (lies)

I pitty you. I really do.

Peace out. The board can see you are nothing more than stalking troll at this point -

if you would like to answer on spiral behalf then ok, if not, your deflecting will not be permanently ignored.

This is the most transparent and embarrassing example of "watch me hang this guy with the rope of his insane arguments" I've seen in quite some time.

Pretty simple question, dude - why isn't this racist?



Surely, you - a man who in this very thread expressed disdain for people obviously dodging simple questions - wouldn't dodge a question such as "How is this very specific incident not racist"?

Honestly...this has been easier than mocking 40 and Diam for their ridiculous arguments, and they're the poster boys of wearing sandwich boards that read "PLEASE make fun of me!"

Step up to the plate.

Why isn't this racist?

If you want to revert to "I already answered this", feel free to copy and paste your previous answer.

After all, you don't dodge questions, and disdain those who do.

ARE THEY GONNA ARREST THE DAD? ... ooops .. sorry about the caps ...

Whats going on there Pit ... any clue? ...

Another pathetic "you, sir..." rant



(I actually agree with arch and W on this...but I love W being so obtuse he opens himself up for emabarrassment)

So you are just making things up are usual. Total BS on your part.

am i?

i doubt it.

again, i've seen police respond quicker to a guy selling cigarettes on the side of the street.

and are you saying i made up the fact that the police decided to wait outside while children were being murdered?

actually....im struggling to figure out what exactly the cops do beside write tickets and show up after the crime has already been committed.

i see them posted up at dunkin donuts all the time though. also, texting and driving.

but i guess theyre above the law.

I posted the best time lines I could find, from 911 call to police action, for both the starbucks and waffle house issues. Did you see it?

easy.

facts say a cop killed a guy selling cigarettes.

facts say cops JUST found the guy who shot up a waffle house.

its pretty clear which response was quicker than the other.

Yep total BS...

Ok I will do the math....in 2017 the 15% tax bracket was capped at $37950 for individuals or $75,900 for married couple (taxable income). So to play it safe I am going to assume you made the max as either a single or married as I dont know your status.

In 2018 the 25% (actually 24%) bracket kicks in at $82500 for singles and $165,000 for married couples....again taxable income

So by these numbers you got a huge raise in either case if in 2017 you paid at the 15% and in 2018 you are in the 24%.

This does not even address the fact that the tax code is progressive and you will actually pay less in taxes on the first $38,700 in 2018 (10/12%) then you paid in taxes on the first $37,950 in 2017 (10/15%).

This does not account for how many kids you have either...if you have a crap load then you will lose their exemptions which would effect your taxable income about $4,000 for each kid over I think 2. It also doesn't account for standard vs itemized deductions...

like willit has tried to point out....it appears as though you overplayed your hand crying about paying 12% and now going to 25% with out getting a huge raise.

Not to mention teedub, he was in the 12-15% tax rate for what, 24 years straight, then trump takes over and now he JUMPS up to the next bracket in 1 year?!

How awesome is that for him? Man, all it took was for Trump to be successful to double maybe even triple his income! Another MAGA voter in the making I think!

...jc...

Below,Fact Check checked this claim out...

Trump Retweets Bogus Crime Graphic
By Robert Farley

link

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump retweeted a bogus graphic purporting to show the percentage of whites killed by blacks and other homicide data delineated by race. Almost every figure in the graphic is wrong, some of them dramatically so.

Trump’s Twitter account retweeted the graphic on Nov. 22 without any explanation. The image shows a man hidden behind a bandanna pointing a gun under the heading “USA Crime Statistics — 2015” and next to statistics that purport to show homicides by race.



falsestatsWe’re not going to speculate about how originators of the graphic may have twisted data to come up with incorrect figures, or what intent may have been behind those errors — though others have.

We’ll just provide some correct figures according to the latest data available on all homicides from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports data, for 2014. The 2015 data won’t be released publicly until the fall of 2016.

In cases when the race of the perpetrator and victim were known, among the 3,021 white victims of murder in 2014, 2,488 of them were killed by white offenders, and 446 were killed by black offenders. Among the 2,451 black murder victims in 2014, 187 of them were killed by white offenders, and 2,205 were killed by black offenders. Here’s how the percentages work out:

Blacks killed by whites: 7.6 percent.

Whites killed by whites: 82.4 percent.

Whites killed by blacks: 14.8 percent.

Blacks killed by blacks: 90 percent.

As those figures show, the graphic’s claims about “whites killed by blacks” and “whites killed by whites” aren’t just a little off — they are grossly inaccurate. The data from 2013 is nearly identical, so none of the 2014 figures is a one-year anomaly.

The 2015 data won’t be released publicly until the fall of 2016, a spokesman for the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division told us.

As for the statistics “blacks killed by police — 1%” and “whites killed by police — 3%,” we’re not sure where those figures come from or what they are supposed to represent. According to our analysis of FBI data on justifiable homicide, there were 308 white felons killed by police officers in 2014, and 119 black felons. And again, the FBI does not have 2015 data available, as the graphic retweeted by Trump purports to show. (State and local law enforcement agencies voluntarily provide the FBI with crime data.)

The Guardian has been keeping a running tally in 2015 of people killed by police, through its “The Counted” project. According to the Guardian, 1,024 people have been killed by police in 2015 through Nov. 23. This is the racial breakdown: 509 white, 261 black, 164 Hispanic/Latino, 59 other/unknown, 18 Asian/Pacific Islander, 13 Native American.

Another site, KilledByPolice.net tracks people killed by U.S. law enforcement officers. According to its tally, 1,066 people in the U.S. were killed by police this year as of Nov. 23. The site does not list race for many of those people, but among the ones it does, the site counts 280 black people killed by police this year compared with 437 white people.

And finally, the Washington Post tracks people killed by police officers, a tally that stood at 878 this year as of the date of this posting. Of them, 417 were white and 224 were black. The site also tracks those who were black and unarmed — 30 so far this year.

Peter Moskos, an associate professor in the Department of Law, Police Science, and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, applied FBI homicide averages from 2010 to 2013 to the Washington Post data to estimate that 4 percent of all black homicide victims are killed by police, while 10 percent of all white homicide victims are killed by police. It is, he allowed, a rough estimate. Moskos said those figures are shocking, “but not quite right” because of the different ways that agencies report the Hispanic label.

We reached out to the Trump campaign for backup for the figures cited in the graphic. The source listed on the graphic itself is “Crime Statistics Bureau — San Francisco,” a nonexistent agency, as far as we can tell. (Moskos said there is no such thing.) We also asked for the origin of the graphic. If we hear back, we’ll update this piece.

Last month, a Trump retweet caused a bit of a stir after someone with access to his account retweeted a message to explain a dip in the polls that said of Iowans. “Too much Monsanto in the corn creates issues in the brain,” it said. Trump later tweeted that the intern who “accidentally” sent the message “apologizes.” No word yet on whether Trump — who boasts that he does a lot of the tweets personally — is responsible for retweeting the bogus crime graphic.

Update, Nov. 24: Trump was confronted about the tweet by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News on Nov. 23. Trump confirmed that he retweeted the graphic himself. He said that he did not check the statistics, but that the graphic came “from sources that are very credible.”

You can watch video of the exchange on Fox News (starting at the 4:10 mark). Here is a transcript of the relevant portion:

O’Reilly: When you tweet out a thing, and this bothered me, I gotta tell you. You tweeted out that whites killed by blacks, these were statistics you picked up from somewhere, at a rate of 81 percent. And that’s totally wrong. Whites killed by blacks is 15 percent, yet you tweeted it was 81 percent.

Trump: Bill, I didn’t tweet, I retweeted somebody that was supposedly an expert, and it was also a radio show.

O’Reilly: Why do you want to be in that zone?

Trump: Hey, Bill, Bill, am I gonna check every statistic? I get millions and millions of people, @RealDonaldTrump, by the way.

O’Reilly: You gotta, you’re a presidential contender, you gotta check ‘em.

Trump: I have millions of people … You know what? Fine. But this came out of radio shows and everything else.

O’Reilly: Oh, come on, radio shows?!

Trump: All it was is a retweet. And it wasn’t from me. It came out of a radio show, and other places.

O’Reilly: Look, you know I’m looking out for you, right? … Don’t do this. Don’t put your name on stuff like this, because it makes the other side, it gives them stuff to tell the ill-informed voter that you’re a racist. I mean, you just handed them a platter.

Trump: Well, this was a retweet. Bill, I’m sure you’re looking out for me, everybody is. This was a retweet. And it comes from sources that are very credible, what can I tell you.

O’Reilly: I told you, you shouldn’t retweet ever. You shouldn’t be tweeting. Give it up for Lent.

Trump: … Can I tell you what, I like it because I can get, also, my point of view out there. And my point of view is very important to a lot of people that are looking at me.

CategoriesThe Wire
TagsPresidential Election 2016
LocationNational
IssueCrime Murder Race
PeopleDonald Trump

It's kind of confusing based upon what's being reported. So far they are saying, "It could be a crime".

From what I've gathered when the guns were taken away he lived in Illinois. So it seems they're not really saying if it was the state of Illinois who took his guns or if it was the Feds.

If it was the state of Illinois who took them and told the dad not to give them back to the son, it could be that it would not apply in Tennessee.

In my mind there's no doubt the dad is partly responsible and the news has reported there's no doubt that he will be named in civil suits.

So unless and until they release more details, it's hard to know where this all stands.

He certainly broke the law by giving a known criminal his gun for him to kill others with.

Then Pit, we should just have highway laws that make it illegal to hit other vehicles and pedestrians.. we could do away with speed limits all together because right up until you crash into somebody you would not be in violation of any law...

But we don't, we have myriad of laws regarding speed, turn signals, lane changes, vehicle registration and inspections, driver training classes, drivers license renewals, we have all sorts of things.. why do we have those? Because breaking those lesser, non-fatal laws tends to create a condition which causes accidents that kill people..

See, we actually backed up a step from the horrific act of killing people on the highway through one persons negligence to create laws regarding things that commonly LEAD TO those accidents that kill people.

And traffic accidents have decreased tremendously..

So if your car has no tags on it, you can stopped and checked... if you have no license, they can take your car... if you are speeding you can get a ticket which deters people from speeding (not because speeding is bad but because the accident it causes are bad) and this increases insurance rates, costs a fine, etc.. but with guns, those rules don't apply.. own and walk around with whatever you want and the second you pull the trigger, we'll hope somebody is close by that's a better shot.

It's not that I don't understand how you feel. But you're not considering one very important point.

A drivers license and having the right to drive is a privilege. It's not a constitutional right that states plainly "can not be infringed upon".

That's why I believe it's silly for people who are strong gun advocates trying to compare guns to cars. The two are in no way connected imo

So then you are ok with removing any and all existing gun laws currently on the books? Except for the one that says you can't shoot other people who aren't trying to harm you?

Now see, I didn't say that. lol

I think there are logical reasons people shouldn't have guns, but not many.

A felony conviction for one because you've shown a propensity for criminal behavior. But all felonies? What if you were convicted for having a joint in the 70's when that was a felony? I don't think so. I think a violent felony makes more sense.

Mental illness. Now this one is a little bit tougher. People often have depression after the loss of a loved one or the loss of a child. Should something like that mean you should never be able to own a gun? That's a slippery slope.

Would it break my heart for someone to be required to pass a gun safety course before owning a firearm? No.

But at some point adding burdens on a constitutional right is crossing the line.

One is a privilege and one is a constitutional right. Surely you can see the difference.

One thing I think we can both agree with, the more laws that are in place, the higher the odds are that they can be misused to prevent people who should have the right to own a firearm from owning them. We both know how the slippery slope works.