Posts by Jayson

You just took the fire out of 99.9% of the issues I held over all those [authority] topics. Like I said on that issue I wanted to be proven wrong & now I am. ("And that's a good thing")

I have already apologised for hurt feelings I may have caused, I am not apologising for my opinions which I hold to.

An apology is due those that I have called names. So, I am sorry to those who I have offended. Not for my opinion just as Simon put it, but for any bad feelings that I have caused here. I do regret that.

42

Finally! Some good news in my life!

by Aztec in

jw
friends

i've been having a rough go financially lately and my job is less than rewarding.

my hours have slowly been cut back over the last few months to the point where i've had to decide between food and bills.

however, my sister's friend brought me a job ad.

Jayson

Fantastic Az!

I hope you are truly happy in your new adventure.

9

I would really like to know

by Jayson in

since the antius/bush crowd is so sure of itself and it's sources what did saddam do with is wmd and where it was done?

i would really like to know.. i mean this is the same crowd that before the us invaded was crying for more time for the un to find the wmd that they now claim do not exist.

they also say that bush masterminded this huge lie.

Jayson

Az-

I'm glad that you are going to look at Jessie's personal experiences dealing with American political thuggery. I was so sad when he gave up. I understand why he did but I would have voted for him any chance I got. About your suggested reading "The Death Of Common Sense" by Philip K. Howard. I own it, I've read it, and I highly recommend it. You have a good choice in books imho.

Have you ever read Jerry Spense? His new book "Personal Freedom" is really good. It would touch the part of your soul that wants to break the chains that society places on all of us.

35

Voting Bush out

by Jayson in

what is the best campaign stratagy to win against him?

be serious this is to win the minds of american voters not to polerize them against you.

otherwise it's a plug for him.. i think that the one real weakness is unemployment in america.

Jayson

larc,

here are three links about the 100k policemen

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20010423.shtml

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/bc42/speeches/sud94wjc.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1071.cfm

I have not check the sources nor really read them I just did a metatag search. Townhall is a conservative website, then there is one of Bill's state of the union's, and the third is a research page maybe for or against but it seems to have stats for you. If you are interested in Clinton's 100k policement program I hope it helps to get you started in understanding. It's just strait up some info on my end.

I am not a econ major either. I used to have lunch with one (a university grad & my best friend) twice a week. He is probably off to Iraq now. They have a grasp on things. A year more or less ago he said Allen should be fired. He said Bush is irrelevent unless he cuts taxes and replaces Greenspan. (I'm just giving you his opinion.) I agree with porkchop & you that it seems Bush is unbeatable. But I have no problems asking if people have any ideas of campaign ideals that could compete with Bush for 2004. It seems maybe there isn't.

larc I hope you understand that I did not mean that you said anything wrong. I only meant that I am going to try to be more careful in whom I choose to talk to or debate with, and more important disagree with anymore on JWD. As it seems I have been doing a bit of the latter of late when you said "disagree" I tried to be careful with my next words.

35

Voting Bush out

by Jayson in

what is the best campaign stratagy to win against him?

be serious this is to win the minds of american voters not to polerize them against you.

otherwise it's a plug for him.. i think that the one real weakness is unemployment in america.

Jayson

I don't think the president has anyting whatsoever to do with unemployment. The world of business, supply and demand, technological innovation, and the natural cycle of the economy are the variables that effect the economy, not the president. The only person that effects the economy is Alan Greenspan.

So, Jayson, if you disagree with me, please tell me what Clinton did to lower unemployment and what Bush did to increase unemployment. I bet you can't do it. If you can, I would be glad to learn from you

Larc I am going to start being very careful who I publicly disagree with around JWD. I agree with you that Greenspan is the econonic factor in America. I also betcha a cyber cup of coffee that if Bush is elected in 2004 Mr. Greenspan will decide to retire. Clinton did the 100k government job programs that no one can pay for anymore....(does not mean I am blaming Bush for that.) But my point was more so what is a good campaign against President Bush. Even if just for devils advocate. Not to flame or start a fight, if that happens I will ask moderators to delete this thread. (If your listening Simon I am asking you to delete it if it gets nasty.) I meant it as an honest question.

117

Crime Rates: U.S. v. England

by StinkyPantz in

crime

total crime per 100,000

murder rate per 100,000

Jayson

Well,

the hair on my fingers singed on that one. I agree with you about guns being part of American culture Simon.

It was a question (now taken out of context): What was it about American culture that caused it to have such a high gun-related homicide rate?Did you mean it Simon? That Americans "blow each others brains out?" Even as a question about culture? Doesn't the last post also address guns and crime? Even if you consider it simplistic? There are also some links to more indepth articles. You told me to not post everything, shorten it, and just do links. And claiming there are more guns won't cut it because Canada has as many and England once did and neither had the same gun crime. One theroy is Canada is more rual. So, care to enlighten us about the answer to the question rather than getting all uppity about the question itself?Sociologically for people Simon the more dense the area the higher the crime rates. Accept Japan maybe. My question is why is crime, homicide as per your topic, decreasing in the US and the lack of guns in the UK not showing similar decreases. Why is crime increasing in the UK? Do you still need more stats on that? Did you know that all crime is an FBI gross in the US and not in the UK? To ask the question does not say that Americans are any better or worse ... hey, maybe all the people shot deserved to die?!No Simon, and I never said that.

BTW: The graph in the article you posted is simplistic beyond belief. Maybe I should do a similar one showing the budget deficit going off into infinity? The dotted line is not the trend, merely the most recent direction the line has taken extrapolated. The trend is up (or at least, not down). It could just as easily reverse it's current short term direction and reduction and shoot upwards.You say that the hostility you have shown is because of nonsubstance posts that do not directly talk about your points of homicide and the US/UK that they are to vauge. But here is what you ask for and you still dismiss it and say that in the future it [rates] might go back up? And I am the straw man? O.K.

Unfortunately, I think the figures will become more similar but not because the US rate will come down but because the UK rate is clearly rasing given our propensity for copying all things American, both good and bad.lol well if that's true then in a few years you will be as stupid as me and then I will by ya a pint. (On the way to the shooting range that is)

Really it covers that the US still has a higher homicide rate. That you are 150 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound in the US. That crime and homicide is decreasing in the US and increasing in the UK while the UK is still lower than the US. That guns still are an issue in the US but not the only issue. I thought it gave something for all sides Simon.

35

Voting Bush out

by Jayson in

what is the best campaign stratagy to win against him?

be serious this is to win the minds of american voters not to polerize them against you.

otherwise it's a plug for him.. i think that the one real weakness is unemployment in america.

Jayson

What is the best campaign stratagy to win against him? Be serious this is to win the minds of American voters not to polerize them against you. Otherwise it's a plug for him.

I think that the one real weakness is unemployment in America. For all the talk little result is what I see. If it is worse, or not at least improving in a provable manner, I'll not vote for him. As long as there is someone else to vote for. (Remember my "voting in Iraq" thread. YIKES)

If he wins at least there is still term limits.

117

Crime Rates: U.S. v. England

by StinkyPantz in

crime

total crime per 100,000

murder rate per 100,000

Jayson

Simon said

Tell me, can you explain the problem that America has with guns? Is it something wrong with American society that makes so many ~~want to~~ manage to blow each others brains out?

Jayson said

Lets see on the topic of guns you said Americans who own guns do so to "blow each others brains out."

So many what Simon? I said "Americans" and Ad thrashed me stating that I am using WT theocratic warfare. So many what? And with what Simon? I said guns. And with what did you mean is used? Please explain.

As for accusations that I am Anti American because I post on topics like this, does this mean then that people who post an equal number of posts (in fact more) on the same topics are being dogmatic (or whatever you want to call it) or anti-UK, anti-peace? Funny, but I don't see you complaining about the "dubla's, thichi's and jayson's"? Am I to assume that you have double standards and don't see anything wrong with these people's posts because you happen to agree with them and share the opinions they express? I am not allowed to post an opposing viewpoint? Or, can I start claiming that they are "war-mongers" for constantly expressing support for the war? (a rhetorical question for Jayson before he starts quoting it)

Simon I'm sure you have choice words for me that you refrain from. I love you too.

US Murder Rates

report concerning homicide trends in the US. Using the FBI Uniform Crime Reports it shows that the US murder rate has declined dramatically throughout the 1990s. The US homicide rate for 1997 dropped to 6.8/100,000 of the population, the equivalent figure for England and Wales continues to increase and now stands at 1.5/100,000 population. The US homicide rate is now at its lowest level since 1967 and recent reports indicate that the US and UK crime figures are converging. UK crime rates are increasing while the US crime rate drops, a trend indicated by the 3rd International Crime Survey and a Dept. of Justice report published in October of last year. The violent crime rate in England & Wales now exceeds that of the US.

Pat Mayhew in her evidence to the Dunblane enquiry[1] notes that the US homicide rate using handguns is over 150 times that of the UK. The Labour party[2] continued in a similar vein in its own submission to the enquiry. As is typical of many advocates of gun control a simple causal relationship is implied in both papers. However, in the period under study the overall US homicide rate remained approximately 8 times that of the UK. The continuing decline in the US crime rate means that the US homicide rate has now dropped to approximately 4 times that of the UK. Why then does a factor of 150 in the homicide rate using handguns not translate into a similar factor in the overall homicide rate?

In part at least the discrepancy can be explained by the "weapon substitution" theory, whereby an offender denied access to firearms would substitute another lethal weapon. The theory would suggest that the crime dictates the weapon rather than the weapon dictating the crime. Mayhew counters that most violent incidents are committed fairly spontaneously and that the presence of a lethal weapon produces a violent outcome. Such spontaneity is in fact myth, a myth generated more by wishful thinking than any basis in fact. Firstly consider domestic violence, many offenders do claim that a violent confrontation with a partner arose spontaneously and that their actions were not premeditated. Yet domestic violence is rarely an isolated outbreak of such violence but simply another episode in a long cycle of abuse. Secondly an armed robber does not discharge a firearm 'spontaneously' during a robbery. The robbery may not have been planned with the intent to discharge a weapon but by carrying a firearm criminals are clearly prepared to do so should the situation demand it.

The difference in the US and UK figures can also be explained by the manner in which they are compiled. The US figure is based upon the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the FBI. The FBI is solely responsible for classifying crimes and no matter what the subsequent criminal case becomes it is not changed. On the other hand homicide in the UK reflects only those crimes resulting in a criminal conviction for murder, manslaughter or infanticide. The US figure represents a gross estimate of homicide whilst the British estimate reflects a more conservative figure. The difference in methodology would tend to suggest that the difference between the US and the UK is not as pronounced as some gun control advocates would have us believe.

Finally, gun control advocates frequently attribute the UK's low rate of violent crime to its restrictive gun laws. They would do well to bear in mind that in 1919, the year before gun control legislation was introduced, the US homicide rate was almost twelve times that of the UK. After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four.

http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/US_murder.html