Texas shooting: At least 26 worshippers killed after gunman opens fire at church in Sutherland Springs

First topic message reminder :



At least 26 worshippers were killed when a gunman opened fire inside a small church in a quiet Texas town on Sunday.

America's latest mass shooting happened during a Sunday service at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, a community of 400 people about 30 miles southeast of San Antonio.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott said 26 people died, with the victims ranging in age from 5 to 72 years old.

The gunman was dressed all in black tactical gear with a ballistic vest and had an assault rifle, Texas Department of Public Safety spokesman Freeman Martin said.

As he left the church a heroic local resident grabbed his gun and "engaged" him. The gunman got in his vehicle but it ran off the road and he was found dead.

A total of 23 victims were found dead in the church, two were found outside the church, and one person died in hospital. Mr Abbott said it as the worst mass shooting in modern Texas history.

The gunman was named by US media outlets as Devin Kelley, 26, who lived in San Antonio.

Kelley was dishonourably discharged from the Air Force after facing a court martial in 2014, CBS News reported.

Among the victims was the teenage daughter of the pastor at the small Texas church.

Pastor Frank Pomeroy said he and his wife Sherri were out of town when the attack happened at the First Baptist Church but their 14-year-old daughter Annabelle was among more than 20 killed.

Annabelle “was one very beautiful, special child,” Mr Pomeroy told ABC News.

His wife said “many friends” had died.

Fake President Trump, who is on a trip to Asia, wrote on Twitter: "May God be with the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas. The FBI and law enforcement are on the scene. I am monitoring the situation from Japan."

Theresa May, the Prime Minister, tweeted: "Tragic loss of life in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Thoughts and prayers with all those affected by this terrible shooting."

Sunday services at the small white church are usually attended by about 50 people, local residents said.

It was not immediately clear if the gunman was shot by officers or killed himself.

"There was no police chase," sheriff's spokesman Sergeant Robert Murphy in neighbouring Guadalupe County said, denying earlier media reports that the gunman was killed after a pursuit. "He was in his vehicle.”

Wilson County Commissioner Albert Gamez Jr said his "heart is broken".

"You never think this can happen but it can, it doesn't matter where you're at. Look at what can happen. It's a tragic day, massive."

He added: "The gunman took off. They were in a pursuit. They told me he's deceased, I don't know if he shot himself or not.

"It's a small community, small church, real nice community. Man, you never expect something like this. We don't know what would inspire a guy to start shooting like that.

"I got a call and they told me there was a big scene going on with a lot of shooting. The details are sketchy, we're trying to find out what's gone on."

One witness, a cashier at a petrol station over the road from the church, said she heard dozens of shots being fired in rapid succession while the church service was going on.

Carrie Matula said: "We heard semi-automatic gunfire. We're only about 50 yards away from this church. This is a very small community so everyone was very curious as to what was going on."

Dana Fletcher, a nearby shopkeeper, said: "It's a little church in a very small community, I don't know why it would be targeted. It's a very tight knit community. People all know each other."

She added: "People weren't sure whether there was more than one gunman."

The shooting came just over a month after a gunman in Las Vegas, firing down from a hotel room, killed 58 people and wounded hundreds attending an outdoor concert.

Two years agoa white supremacist, Dylann Roof, entered a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, and shot nine people to death.

A spokeswoman for Connally Memorial Medical Center in Floresville, near Sutherland Springs, said: "We have accepted a number of patients from the shooting".

Helicopters and emergency personnel converged on the scene along with agents form the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Greg Abbott, the Texas governor, said: "Our prayers are with all who were harmed by this evil act. Our thanks to law enforcement for their response."

Ted Cruz, the Texas Senator, said: "Keeping all harmed in Sutherland Springs in our prayers and grateful for our brave first responders on the scene."

A woman who lives about 10 minutes away from Sutherland Springs in Floresville and was monitoring the chaos on a police scanner and in Facebook community groups, said that everyone knows everyone in the sparsely populated county.

"This is horrific for our tiny little tight-knit town," said Alena Berlanga. "Everybody's going to be affected and everybody knows someone who's affected," she said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/05/multiple-casualties-texas-church-shooting/

smelly-bandit wrote:

Jules wrote:

Actually I don't say much to Quill and I've never given out any reward points to him (or to anyone else).
You're the one who has admirers following you around, agreeing with whatever you say and handing you reward points >

''I hate poor people and lefties and labour voters and love apartheid" .... I agree with you, SB, have a greenie,
"The sky is green, grass is blue, the sea is red, birds swim and fish fly" .. I agree with you, SB, have a greenie,
''Trump is the bestest, nicest, cleverest president ever'' .... I agree with you, SB, have a greenie



Now, Mr Bandit THAT'S ↑↑↑ that's my definition of a fking groupie.
So next time, look closer to home before you start flinging ironic accusations like that around.

a king has to have subjects

no point being the much loved ruler of your own lunchbox now is there??

Just saying!

Maddog wrote:Why the increase during the past 15 years or so, along with the decrease in the murder rate?

I haven't seen any statistics that say the murder rate is decreasing. But I doubt it is related to politics.

But I can offer an explanation for the increase in RW terrorism. First, the administration of GWB set the mark by normalizing lying, starting wars, raping, kidnapping, torture and maintaining concentration camps.

Second, just when the RW was comfortable with the direction in which things were going, the "people" elected a black man.

This zig, followed by a zag, resulted in a moral vacuum in the US. Trump was the result. Trump gave, and is still giving a license to RW'ers for violence...and he'll pay the defense costs.

The nation is disintegrating, my friend. Pick out an ice floe and jump on, cause the whole iceberg is no more.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Why the increase during the past 15 years or so, along with the decrease in the murder rate?

I haven't seen any statistics that say the murder rate is decreasing.  But I doubt it is related to politics.

But I can offer an explanation for the increase in RW terrorism.  First, the administration of GWB set the mark by normalizing lying, starting wars, raping, kidnapping, torture and maintaining concentration camps.  

Second, just when the RW was comfortable with the direction in which things were going, the "people" elected a black man.  

This zig, followed by a zag, resulted in a moral vacuum in the US.  Trump was the result.  Trump gave, and is still giving a license to RW'ers for violence...and he'll pay the defense costs.

The nation is disintegrating, my friend.  Pick out an ice floe and jump on, cause the whole iceberg is no more.

no such thing as "RW terrorism"

the term RW is rather broad

but then again you do so love to generalize

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I haven't seen any statistics that say the murder rate is decreasing.  But I doubt it is related to politics.

But I can offer an explanation for the increase in RW terrorism.  First, the administration of GWB set the mark by normalizing lying, starting wars, raping, kidnapping, torture and maintaining concentration camps.  

Second, just when the RW was comfortable with the direction in which things were going, the "people" elected a black man.  

This zig, followed by a zag, resulted in a moral vacuum in the US.  Trump was the result.  Trump gave, and is still giving a license to RW'ers for violence...and he'll pay the defense costs.

The nation is disintegrating, my friend.  Pick out an ice floe and jump on, cause the whole iceberg is no more.

no such thing as "RW terrorism"

the term RW is rather broad

but then again you do so love to generalize

Nonsense, RW terrorism is probably larger than any other kind of terrorism. Just ignored, that's all.

What do you think Charlottsville was?

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

no such thing as "RW terrorism"

the term RW is rather broad

but then again you do so love to generalize

Nonsense, RW terrorism is probably larger than any other kind of terrorism.  Just ignored, that's all.

What do you think Charlottsville was?

"any other kind of terrorism"??

could you be anymore vague??

Jules wrote:Actually I don't say much to Quill and I've never given out any reward points to him (or to anyone else).

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Why the increase during the past 15 years or so, along with the decrease in the murder rate?

I haven't seen any statistics that say the murder rate is decreasing.  But I doubt it is related to politics.

But I can offer an explanation for the increase in RW terrorism.  First, the administration of GWB set the mark by normalizing lying, starting wars, raping, kidnapping, torture and maintaining concentration camps.  

Second, just when the RW was comfortable with the direction in which things were going, the "people" elected a black man.  

This zig, followed by a zag, resulted in a moral vacuum in the US.  Trump was the result.  Trump gave, and is still giving a license to RW'ers for violence...and he'll pay the defense costs.

The nation is disintegrating, my friend.  Pick out an ice floe and jump on, cause the whole iceberg is no more.

What fucking country do you live in?

Unless you were born before '57, you are living in the least murderous period of our country. Its been almost 3 times higher under both Democrat and Republican presidents, during the past 60 years.

I understand if foreigners don't know this, but Americans should.

4.8 in 2015 in USA (per 100,000 population)
0.92 in 2014 in UK (per 100,000 population)

source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

you are still way in front maddog

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I haven't seen any statistics that say the murder rate is decreasing.  But I doubt it is related to politics.

But I can offer an explanation for the increase in RW terrorism.  First, the administration of GWB set the mark by normalizing lying, starting wars, raping, kidnapping, torture and maintaining concentration camps.  

Second, just when the RW was comfortable with the direction in which things were going, the "people" elected a black man.  

This zig, followed by a zag, resulted in a moral vacuum in the US.  Trump was the result.  Trump gave, and is still giving a license to RW'ers for violence...and he'll pay the defense costs.

The nation is disintegrating, my friend.  Pick out an ice floe and jump on, cause the whole iceberg is no more.

What fucking country do you live in?

Pan Pacific states of California

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I haven't seen any statistics that say the murder rate is decreasing.  But I doubt it is related to politics.

But I can offer an explanation for the increase in RW terrorism.  First, the administration of GWB set the mark by normalizing lying, starting wars, raping, kidnapping, torture and maintaining concentration camps.  

Second, just when the RW was comfortable with the direction in which things were going, the "people" elected a black man.  

This zig, followed by a zag, resulted in a moral vacuum in the US.  Trump was the result.  Trump gave, and is still giving a license to RW'ers for violence...and he'll pay the defense costs.

The nation is disintegrating, my friend.  Pick out an ice floe and jump on, cause the whole iceberg is no more.

What fucking country do you live in?

You don't remember GWB and Cheney? You don't remember Obama? You don't know of Trump?

I don't believe you. You're wasting my time.

Lord Foul wrote:4.8 in 2015 in USA (per 100,000 population)
0.92 in 2014 in UK (per 100,000 population)

source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

you are still way in front maddog

And we were well over twice that rate in the 90's, which is my point.

The US is safer now, than it has been in 60 years, yet to listen to some people, we have reached some new zenith in violence.

What's even odder is, that it's an opinion shared by Trump supporters, and many on the left. Strange bedfellows eh?

Maddog wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:4.8 in 2015 in USA (per 100,000 population)
0.92 in 2014 in UK (per 100,000 population)

source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

you are still way in front maddog

And we were well over twice that rate in the 90's, which is my point.

The US is safer now, than it has been in 60 years, yet to listen to some people, we have reached some new zenith in violence.

What's even odder is, that it's an opinion shared by Trump supporters, and many on the left. Strange bedfellows eh?

You're needlessly obsessed with numbers.  Happiness isn't just that you live...it's how you live.  If you want to live under a regime that champions Neo-Nazism and white supremacists like Charlottesville, take it.

For those of us in the west, we'll take California and go.  Bye...

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And we were well over twice that rate in the 90's, which is my point.

The US is safer now, than it has been in 60 years, yet to listen to some people, we have reached some new zenith in violence.

What's even odder is, that it's an opinion shared by Trump supporters, and many on the left. Strange bedfellows eh?

You're needlessly obsessed with numbers.  Happiness isn't just that you live...it's how you live.  If you want to live under a regime that champions Neo-Nazism and white supremacists like Charlottesville, take it.

For those of us in the west, we'll take California and go.  Bye...

I don't want to live under regimes at all. I like being left alone, and in exchange, I'll leave you alone to do as you like.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're needlessly obsessed with numbers.  Happiness isn't just that you live...it's how you live.  If you want to live under a regime that champions Neo-Nazism and white supremacists like Charlottesville, take it.

For those of us in the west, we'll take California and go.  Bye...

I don't want to live under regimes at all. I like being left alone, and in exchange, I'll leave you alone to do as you like.

Don't play games with words. I don't give a shit what you do, I ask only to discuss values. You like the US...and what it represents. I don't.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I don't want to live under regimes at all. I like being left alone, and in exchange, I'll leave you alone to do as you like.

Don't play games with words.  I don't give a shit what you do, I ask only to discuss values.  You like the US...and what it represents.  I don't.

I never play games with words. I have a great deal of problem with the US. I see two parties that are about useless, and don't care one bit about promoting freedom. It's all about promising things to people in exchange for votes and cash.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And we were well over twice that rate in the 90's, which is my point.

The US is safer now, than it has been in 60 years, yet to listen to some people, we have reached some new zenith in violence.

What's even odder is, that it's an opinion shared by Trump supporters, and many on the left. Strange bedfellows eh?

You're needlessly obsessed with numbers.  Happiness isn't just that you live...it's how you live.  If you want to live under a regime that champions Neo-Nazism and white supremacists like Charlottesville, take it.

For those of us in the west, we'll take California and go.  Bye...

You're such a child.

If that isn't the biggest example of teddies being thrown out, I don't know what is.

You're pathetic.

Grow up Quill, democracy means sometimes you get what you want and other times you don't, if YOU don't like living under a democratic regime YOU can go live under a dictatorship if you want

I hear the weather in north Korea is about to start heating up.

Whittle: The News Media Knows How To Stop These Massacres, But Refuses To Do It

In his latest video, conservative commentator Bill Whittle discusses the most effective way to end the surge of mass murders that America has suffered in the last twenty years — and it’s one that falls squarely at the feet of the national news media.

Citing forensic psychologist Park Dietz, who has studied mass murderers extensively, Whittle contends that we’ve seen a wave of mass shootings like Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs because the media insists on providing 24/7 coverage of the tragedies, turning suicide massacres into a chance for glory for the sociopaths carrying out the heinous acts.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23259/whittle-news-media-knows-how-stop-these-massacres-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Does anyone have any statistics?  Or, even any studies that give weight to his claims?  

Saying something is one thing.  Proving it is another.

Original Quill wrote:Does anyone have any statistics?  Or, even any studies that give weight to his claims?  

Saying something is one thing.  Proving it is another.

You mean the way you say all rednecks are racist gun toting murderers and killers??

Indeed Quill

smelly-bandit wrote:Whittle: The News Media Knows How To Stop These Massacres, But Refuses To Do It

In his latest video, conservative commentator Bill Whittle discusses the most effective way to end the surge of mass murders that America has suffered in the last twenty years — and it’s one that falls squarely at the feet of the national news media.

Citing forensic psychologist Park Dietz, who has studied mass murderers extensively, Whittle contends that we’ve seen a wave of mass shootings like Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs because the media insists on providing 24/7 coverage of the tragedies, turning suicide massacres into a chance for glory for the sociopaths carrying out the heinous acts.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23259/whittle-news-media-knows-how-stop-these-massacres-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

So in other words, conservatives don't have any real principles at all, is that what you're saying?

Isn't demanding that the news media cover mass shootings less the exact same thing as demanding that fast food places sell healthier food?

I've seen this before. Conservatives were all for "states' rights" until the state of California decided to pass more stringent air pollution laws, until states began to allow gay marriage, etc.

Conservatives just want to be in power and to use that power to force other people to live the way conservatives want, and they should really stop pretending to be about anything besides that.

The people that commit these atrocities are not doing it for fortune. They are doing it for fame. They are getting what they want from many news organizations. Al Jazeera and Vox have been devoting well over half of their stories on my feed to this. I imagine some crazy fucker is watching all of this thinking he may want to try to get in the lunatic hall of fame.

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:Whittle: The News Media Knows How To Stop These Massacres, But Refuses To Do It

In his latest video, conservative commentator Bill Whittle discusses the most effective way to end the surge of mass murders that America has suffered in the last twenty years — and it’s one that falls squarely at the feet of the national news media.

Citing forensic psychologist Park Dietz, who has studied mass murderers extensively, Whittle contends that we’ve seen a wave of mass shootings like Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs because the media insists on providing 24/7 coverage of the tragedies, turning suicide massacres into a chance for glory for the sociopaths carrying out the heinous acts.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23259/whittle-news-media-knows-how-stop-these-massacres-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

So in other words, conservatives don't have any real principles at all, is that what you're saying?

Isn't demanding that the news media cover mass shootings less the exact same thing as demanding that fast food places sell healthier food?

I've seen this before. Conservatives were all for "states' rights" until the state of California decided to pass more stringent air pollution laws, until states began to allow gay marriage, etc.

Conservatives just want to be in power and to use that power to force other people to live the way conservatives want, and they should really stop pretending to be about anything besides that.

That is true for both conservatives and liberals.

Maddog wrote:The people that commit these atrocities are not doing it for fortune. They are doing it for fame. They are getting what they want from many news organizations. Al Jazeera and Vox have been devoting well over half of their stories on my feed to this. I imagine some crazy fucker is watching all of this thinking he may want to try to get in the lunatic hall of fame.  

They're not doing it for fame, either. They're doing it because they have a great, big hole in them. You should be asking what caused that hole.

Maddog wrote:That is true for both conservatives and liberals.

No, it is not.  Conservatives and liberals are not just different brands, but different products.  The distinction is this: conservatives promote special interests, while liberals promote the common interest.

While liberals are problem solvers generally, conservatives are asking only, How can I take this from my neighbor?  The fundamental motive of conservatism is selfishness.

Liberals are not doing it for themselves.  Conservatives see that as weakness, and call them "snowflakes".  The conservative believes that all people should be selfish.  Hence, they misinterpret the motives of liberals, and assume they are just weaker versions of selfish profit-takers.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:That is true for both conservatives and liberals.

No, it is not.  Conservatives and liberals are not just different brands, but different products.  The distinction is this: conservatives promote special interests, while liberals promote the common interest.

While liberals are problem solvers generally, conservatives are asking only, How can I take this from my neighbor?  The fundamental motive of conservatism is selfishness.

Liberals are not doing it for themselves.  Conservatives see that as weakness, and call them "snowflakes".  The conservative believes that all people should be selfish.  Hence, they misinterpret the motives of liberals, and assume they are just weaker versions of selfish profit-takers.

What if I don't like what has been deemed the "common interest"?

Will liberals use their power to force me to live the way they want?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, it is not.  Conservatives and liberals are not just different brands, but different products.  The distinction is this: conservatives promote special interests, while liberals promote the common interest.

While liberals are problem solvers generally, conservatives are asking only, How can I take this from my neighbor?  The fundamental motive of conservatism is selfishness.

Liberals are not doing it for themselves.  Conservatives see that as weakness, and call them "snowflakes".  The conservative believes that all people should be selfish.  Hence, they misinterpret the motives of liberals, and assume they are just weaker versions of selfish profit-takers.

What if I don't like what has been deemed the "common interest"?

Will liberals use their power to force me to live the way they want?

If you don't like the common interest, you probably belong in prison. They don't like it, either.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What if I don't like what has been deemed the "common interest"?

Will liberals use their power to force me to live the way they want?

If you don't like the common interest, you probably belong in prison.  They don't like it, either.

I guess you answered my question. The only greater use of force would be the death penalty I guess.

Like I said, both sides like force to make people live the way they want.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you don't like the common interest, you probably belong in prison.  They don't like it, either.

I guess you answered my question. The only greater use of force would be the death penalty I guess.

Like I said, both sides like force to make people live the way they want.    

'
Seems to me, the people who don't like the 'common interest' are the people who don't want guns being the norm and they are getting screwed big time. You suggest that the murder has gone down. Maybe they are bad shots, because from this side of the pond, the shooting hasn't stopped.

Gun Death Rate Rose Again in 2016, C.D.C. Says (Publish 7 Nov 2017)

The rate of gun deaths in the United States rose to about 12 per 100,000 people, the second consecutive increase after a period of relative stability.

The rate of gun deaths in the United States rose in 2016 to about 12 per 100,000 people, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a report released on Friday. That was up from a rate of about 11 for every 100,000 people in 2015, and it reflected the second consecutive year that the mortality rate in that category rose in the United States.

The report, compiled by the C.D.C.’s National Center for Health Statistics, showed preliminary data that came after several years in which the rate was relatively flat.

“The fact that we are seeing increases in the firearm-related deaths after a long period where it has been stable is concerning,” Bob Anderson, chief of the mortality statistics branch at the health statistics center, said in a telephone interview on Friday. “It is a pretty sharp increase for one year.”

Mr. Anderson also said the rates for the first quarter of this year showed an upward trend, compared with the same three-month period of 2016.

“It clearly shows an increase,” he said, while emphasizing the data was preliminary. “With firearm-related deaths it is seasonal — the rates generally are a little higher in the middle of the year than they are at the end of the year,” he added. “Homicides are more common in the summer.”

More than 33,000 people die in firearm-related deaths in the United States every year, according to an annual average compiled from C.D.C. data.

The data released on Friday did single out other causes of death in the United States that were higher than the firearm-related rate. The drug overdose rate, for example, was almost 20 deaths per 100,000 last year, up from 16.3 in 2015.

The death rate for diabetes was about 25 per 100,000 people; cancer was 185 per l00,000, and heart disease about 196 deaths per 100,000 people.

But statistics about gun deaths, nearly two-thirds of which are suicides, have been ingrained in the national discourse in the United States, particularly after mass shootings, such as the one in Las Vegas last month in which 58 people were killed, and in debates over legislation related to guns.

In June 2016, the 49 fatalities in the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando represented one of the highest death tolls in a single mass shooting in recent United States history. But gun violence researchers note that although mass shooting fatalities account for no more than 2 percent of total deaths from firearm violence, they are having an outsize effect.

Garen J. Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, wrote in the Annals of Internal Medicine after the Las Vegas shooting that mass killings are “reshaping the character of American public life.”

“Whoever we are, they happen to people just like us; they happen in places just like our places,” he wrote. “We all sense that we are at risk.”

Dr. Wintemute said the latest C.D.C. report means the nation is approaching two decades since there has been any substantial improvement in the rate of gun deaths. The rate for the first three months of 2017 was about the same as the corresponding period in 2016. Hopefully, that is a sign it will level off again, Dr. Wintemute told The Associated Press.

Mr. Anderson said the data was not broken down by states, which each have different levels of comprehensiveness in their reporting to the federal agency. “As they get more and more timely we hope to include state-level information in these reports,” he said.

Suicides account for about 60 percent of firearm-related deaths, and homicides about 36 percent, Mr. Anderson said. Unintentional firearm deaths and those related to law enforcement officials account for about 1.3 percent each. The rest are undetermined.

The final data for 2016 will be released in the first week of December, Mr. Anderson said. “It could be this is a sort of blip, where it will stabilize again,” he said. “It is hard to predict.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/us/gun-death-rates.html

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you don't like the common interest, you probably belong in prison.  They don't like it, either.

I guess you answered my question. The only greater use of force would be the death penalty I guess.

Like I said, both sides like force to make people live the way they want.    

Including the third side. I understand your libertarian values...government uses force, and you think there is some utopia of free space somewhere, where no one coerces anyone. I'm here to tell you that's not only fictitious, but pollyannish.

Open freedom is a state of disequilibrium. Being unstable, it breaks down into, first, pockets of power and, second, the very injustices that you attribute to government. Most often, a libertarian is a capitalist that wants an open field to grab more for himself.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I guess you answered my question. The only greater use of force would be the death penalty I guess.

Like I said, both sides like force to make people live the way they want.    

Including the third side.  I understand your libertarian values...government uses force, and you think there is some utopia of free space somewhere, where no one coerces anyone.  I'm here to tell you that's not only fictitious, but pollyannish.

Open freedom is a state of disequilibrium.  Being unstable, it breaks down into, first, pockets of power and, second, the very injustices that you attribute to government.  Most often, a libertarian is a capitalist that wants an open field to grab more for himself.

We are in no risk of getting anywhere near anarchy. But we have plenty of room to back way off of people, and still have a substantial government that protects the weak from those that would oppress them.

Lets take Uber or non pasteurized milk. You have a car and a cow. I would like a ride and some non pasteurized milk. You want to give me that for money. There is no need for the government at that point. In the event your negligence leads to my harm, at that point we might, and you have to operate with the knowledge that you can be punished for negligence.

Maddog wrote:Lets take Uber or non pasteurized milk. You have a car and a cow. I would like a ride and some non pasteurized milk. You want to give me that for money. There is no need for the government at that point.

And that's what they had in the 17th-century.  

But then along comes the chap who gets the idea to buy up all the cows, then charge $100/glass of milk.  Same thing with the chap who buys up all the cars.  Monopoly destroys markets.  

All of freedom distills down to singularities if left unchecked: markets become monopolies; politics become despots.  We need people working for the "common good" in order to modulate the system.

The answer is vigilance.  Another word for 'regulations' is 'public protections'.  Try using that term the next time you want to convince the public to do away with them.

Hey, these public protections are killing us!  We need less public protection and more profits!  Doesn't sparkle in the bright light, does it?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Lets take Uber or non pasteurized milk. You have a car and a cow. I would like a ride and some non pasteurized milk. You want to give me that for money. There is no need for the government at that point.

And that's what they had in the 17th-century.  

But then along comes the chap who gets the idea to buy up all the cows, then charge $100/glass of milk.  Same thing with the chap who buys up all the cars.  Monopoly destroys markets.  

All of freedom distills down to singularities if left unchecked: markets become monopolies; politics become despots.  We need people working for the "common good" in order to modulate the system.

The answer is vigilance.  Another word for 'regulations' is 'public protections'.  Try using that term the next time you want to convince the public to do away with them.

Hey, these public protections are killing us!  We need less public protection and more profits!  Doesn't sparkle in the bright light, does it?

He can't charge $100/glass, if the market can't bear that. People will just drink water. There is always an option, that's what makes markets work so well, until the government steps in and starts picking the winners and losers. Then the little guy gets screwed.


And you're missing a point. I said you and I had agreed to the terms. Why do you and I need to be supervised? We are grown men, supposedly living in a free country?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:Whittle: The News Media Knows How To Stop These Massacres, But Refuses To Do It

In his latest video, conservative commentator Bill Whittle discusses the most effective way to end the surge of mass murders that America has suffered in the last twenty years — and it’s one that falls squarely at the feet of the national news media.

Citing forensic psychologist Park Dietz, who has studied mass murderers extensively, Whittle contends that we’ve seen a wave of mass shootings like Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs because the media insists on providing 24/7 coverage of the tragedies, turning suicide massacres into a chance for glory for the sociopaths carrying out the heinous acts.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23259/whittle-news-media-knows-how-stop-these-massacres-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

So in other words, conservatives don't have any real principles at all, is that what you're saying?

Isn't demanding that the news media cover mass shootings less the exact same thing as demanding that fast food places sell healthier food?

I've seen this before. Conservatives were all for "states' rights" until the state of California decided to pass more stringent air pollution laws, until states began to allow gay marriage, etc.

Conservatives just want to be in power and to use that power to force other people to live the way conservatives want, and they should really stop pretending to be about anything besides that.

That is true for both conservatives and liberals.  

Conservatives want to punish people for not being Christian for crying out loud, or at least for not following Christian morality. You can't find an equivalent to that from the left.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And that's what they had in the 17th-century.  

But then along comes the chap who gets the idea to buy up all the cows, then charge $100/glass of milk.  Same thing with the chap who buys up all the cars.  Monopoly destroys markets.  

All of freedom distills down to singularities if left unchecked: markets become monopolies; politics become despots.  We need people working for the "common good" in order to modulate the system.

The answer is vigilance.  Another word for 'regulations' is 'public protections'.  Try using that term the next time you want to convince the public to do away with them.

Hey, these public protections are killing us!  We need less public protection and more profits!  Doesn't sparkle in the bright light, does it?

He can't charge $100/glass, if the market can't bear that. People will just drink water. There is always an option, that's what makes markets work so well, until the government steps in and starts picking the winners and losers. Then the little guy gets screwed.

Cross-elasticity is always possible, but then the monopolist goes after the wider market.  The result is still the same.  His aim isn't the commodity, but the monopoly.

Maddog wrote:And you're missing a point. I said you and I had agreed to the terms.

I don't know what you are talking about.  What we assumed was libertarianism, which is effectively that there are no regulations...ipso facto that means no terms.

Maddog wrote: Why do you and I need to be supervised? We are grown men, supposedly living  in a free country?

We are also selfish men, unless we enter into a social contract dedicated to the 'common interest'.  (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan).  That's why we need to be supervised.  Hobbes aside, perhaps we are not innately selfish, but under a system of capitalism we are counseled to be selfish, which is the same thing in the end.

Liberals accept that common interest.  They do so realizing that otherwise the life of man will be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."  (Leviathan, XIII)  It's what is called Enlightened Self-Interest.  Conservatives, wanting to embrace their selfishness, think the Liberals are stupid and weak for not being selfish.  But conservatives are impetuous and self-destructive.  And now you know whence comes Mr. Trump.

Uber.... who pays for the roads? professional drivers pay a premium because they are using the roads more and making money off it. Plus vetted Taxi drivers are for public safety ensure a minimum standard

Non Pasteurized milk, cause then you have to Idiots dying of preventable dieses spread by non pasteurized milk.

the arguments against regulation are all pretty poor, it is obvious why those that support deregulated markets also hate universal education. who would be left to support their nonsense if everyone has a decent education

That's the theme of my book: Why Elephants Lie. With conservatives, being dedicated to special interests, the one thing they can't get are votes...there's only so many millionaires, after all. It's the reason why they legislate behind closed doors.

When they lie, they hide their special interests.

Also should add, the market very rarely punishes bad actors the way libertarians predict it will. Ford and Bridgestone are still around. Dow Chemical is still around. We know all about the horrible treatment of the workers who make our smartphones, but we don't stop using smartphones.

And the premise sucks, too. People shouldn't have to be killed, sickened or exploited before business owners do the right thing.

Ben Reilly wrote:Also should add, the market very rarely punishes bad actors the way libertarians predict it will. Ford and Bridgestone are still around. Dow Chemical is still around. We know all about the horrible treatment of the workers who make our smartphones, but we don't stop using smartphones.

And the premise sucks, too. People shouldn't have to be killed, sickened or exploited before business owners do the right thing.

Right...and with Volkswagen, it was intentional obstruction, fgs.

But there is a bigger problem, Ben, and as long as you raise it, I'll expand.  While many blacks and Hispanics rot in prisons for petty crimes, America doesn't prosecute the privileged, wealthy and well-connected.  Ask yourself, did Dick Cheney go to prison?  Scooter Libby was convicted for the same crime...oh, and he was pardoned.  And I'll bet anyone that neither Trump, nor any of his family or associates will wear a prison jumpsuit or see the inside of a prison...ever.

Again, because America is not the land of freedom and justice, nor even a democracy, we ought to be looking elsewhere...like, the Pacific States of America!

I agree Quill

The rich white wealthy and crooked Hillary is still running amok

Given the choice between 100 Mexican rapists and murderers and crooked Hillary going in the slammer??

I'd send crooked Hillary to the same prison as the 100 Mexican rapists and murderers.

But alas white America doesn't prosecute white criminals like Clinton, so I guess you are stuck with imprisoning ethnics

smelly-bandit wrote:I agree Quill

The rich white wealthy and crooked Hillary is still running amok

Given the choice between 100 Mexican rapists and murderers and crooked Hillary going in the slammer??

I'd send crooked Hillary to the same prison as the 100 Mexican rapists and murderers.

But alas white America doesn't prosecute white criminals like Clinton, so I guess you are stuck with imprisoning ethnics

Well, of course Hillary committed no crime, so that is an extraneous matter.  You can't go from turning loose the privileged, wealthy and well-connected, to imprisoning political opponents, and say you've done anything to fix the problem.  You just go from an oligarchy to a banana republic.

We are seeing a lot about America by going through this reality-stretching era.  We have learned that America is not a democracy.  We have learned that America doesn't believe in equality.  Indeed, we have learned that America doesn't believe in justice.  Our Constitution is a chimera, made to be circumvented, or perhaps simply ignored.  And although I predicted it in the Bush years, we now have clear evidence that the Republican Party is at best a foreign agency, and is supported by the same sentiments that motivated Germany in 1932.  In short, we have learned how thin is the skin of America, and how easily it is penetrated by principles once thought to be the very antithesis of its founding.

Never gets old

You're so paranoid and so easy to wind up Quill.

I might conduct an experiment using you as a test subject if you don't mind??

smelly-bandit wrote:Never gets old

You're so paranoid and so easy to wind up Quill.

I might conduct an experiment using you as a test subject if you don't mind??

I wind myself up. Every time a conservative posts, it's an opportunity to expose them...and reveal more about the liberal agenda. Corporations pay big money for air time; I get it for free.

I used to have only one person providing me the platform here; now I've got three or four of you. Keep winding me up. It's a gift.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:Never gets old

You're so paranoid and so easy to wind up Quill.

I might conduct an experiment using you as a test subject if you don't mind??

I wind myself up.  Every time a conservative posts, it's an opportunity to expose them...and reveal more about the liberal agenda.  Corporations pay big money for air time; I get it for free.

I used to have only one person providing me the platform here; now I've got three or four of you.    Keep winding me up.  It's a gift.

what in your opinion should crooked hillary should go to jail for??

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Also should add, the market very rarely punishes bad actors the way libertarians predict it will. Ford and Bridgestone are still around. Dow Chemical is still around. We know all about the horrible treatment of the workers who make our smartphones, but we don't stop using smartphones.

And the premise sucks, too. People shouldn't have to be killed, sickened or exploited before business owners do the right thing.

Right...and with Volkswagen, it was intentional obstruction, fgs.

But there is a bigger problem, Ben, and as long as you raise it, I'll expand.  While many blacks and Hispanics rot in prisons for petty crimes, America doesn't prosecute the privileged, wealthy and well-connected.  Ask yourself, did Dick Cheney go to prison?  Scooter Libby was convicted for the same crime...oh, and he was pardoned.  And I'll bet anyone that neither Trump, nor any of his family or associates will wear a prison jumpsuit or see the inside of a prison...ever.

Again, because America is not the land of freedom and justice, nor even a democracy, we ought to be looking elsewhere...like, the Pacific States of America!

Only if Texas gets to be part of it. And I doubt that would happen, because Texas secessionists have shut right up under Trump ... of course.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Lets take Uber or non pasteurized milk. You have a car and a cow. I would like a ride and some non pasteurized milk. You want to give me that for money. There is no need for the government at that point.

And that's what they had in the 17th-century.  

But then along comes the chap who gets the idea to buy up all the cows, then charge $100/glass of milk.  Same thing with the chap who buys up all the cars.  Monopoly destroys markets.  

All of freedom distills down to singularities if left unchecked: markets become monopolies; politics become despots.  We need people working for the "common good" in order to modulate the system.

The answer is vigilance.  Another word for 'regulations' is 'public protections'.  Try using that term the next time you want to convince the public to do away with them.

Hey, these public protections are killing us!  We need less public protection and more profits!  Doesn't sparkle in the bright light, does it?

Ya, like Veya said, someone has to build a road for the car to be driven on (and someone with sound veterinary knowledge has to supervise all the cattle to make sure they do not carry diseases that could destroy a whole herd or even humans.)

Conservatives just wants to conserve old values and traditions. There is no stimulus or motive to think up new ideas.
Liberals are the ones who think up new ideas, in order to bring change.
Libertarians want a free, unsupervised society where they can just do their own thing. Not feasible in the 21 century!

Maddog wrote: He can't charge $100/glass, if the market can't bear that. People will just drink water. There is always an option, that's what makes markets work so well, until the government steps in and starts picking the winners and losers. Then the little guy gets screwed.

And you're missing a point. I said you and I had agreed to the terms.

Why do you and I need to be supervised? We are grown men, supposedly living  in a free country?

Supervision and govt interferance and payment of taxes - all these things are essential in the 21st century.

A life without supervision or interfereance is what life was like on the lawless wild west  hundreds of years ago. There was no  govt to supervise or interfere or levy taxes when money or goods changed hands. A libertarian's paradise!   



But then civilisation happened!    Slowly but surely.
1. Community meeting places were built, for social interaction. Humans are social animals, we don't wander around alone all our lives, like lone bears in the forest. The community also needed somewhere to shelter en masse, during extreme weather.

2. Roads were built to  attract trade and attract new blood into isolated communities so that people didn't all end up marrying their first cousins.

3.Sherriff stations were built so that cops could arbitrate disputes, instead of citizens having to take the law into their own hands every time there was a dispute.

--------------->


All these trappings of civilisation cost money!! Paying the sheriffs cost money too. Hence the need for taxes !!

So that was my argument to illustrate that taxes and govt interference are not just quirky communist notions invented by us ''nasty lefties'' to annoy libertarians.

You cannot avoid tax - that would be impossible. The best you can hope for is to ensure that it's as low as possible - and used as efficiently as possible.

Jules wrote:So that was my argument to illustrate that taxes and govt interference are not just quirky communist notions invented by us ''nasty lefties'' to annoy libertarians.

You cannot avoid tax - that would be impossible. The best you can hope for is to ensure that it's as low as possible - and used as efficiently as possible.

Agree with your argument

Tax doesn't even have to be low it just has to be fairly distributed

in US at least, it is not because the Right keep voting in tax cuts for the rich because they are foolish enough to believe in trickle down economics one presumes

Nobody likes taxes! That's the thing that kills me about the right, how they convince themselves that there are people (liberals) who are in love with taxes. We should all keep as much as we can while maintaining a thriving civilization within our countries, and we should be voting for people who pledge and work to make our taxes well worth paying, considering what we get in return.