You have no idea what tax structure I would be comfortable with, so you might as well quit speculating. For my entire adult life, I have willingly chosen to live in one of the most heavily taxed areas of the United States. And never once in my life have I complained about it, either in this forum or privately.

I have never voted for a candidate in any election because I thought that candidate would ease my tax burden.

It is not intended to be of any offense.

It is literally my view with all my ignorance of other factors built it. We build views on incomplete information as humans. That is how it works.

It is the type of thing you can just hand wave away and I am obviously fine with you saying 'ya, you got me completely wrong', as i was not representing as anything other than my view based on the information I have received to date.

You haven't received any information to date to support your views that I am unwilling to pay any particular level of taxes. That's my point.

As an aside, "you are unwilling to pay enough taxes to help the homeless, and you care more about protecting your backyard than helping people" of course is an insult. No need to pretend otherwise. As you say, you are entitled to your views.

Is he? For some reason I always thought he's an academic of some sort. Maybe you're right and he hypnotised me to think that with his voodoo skillz.

Ohio? That doesn't even crack the top ten or probably even top 20. Go to a real pro-gun state, and you'll see them quite often.


The implication that a person who owns a gun will resort to using it because they have no control over their temper is ungrounded. Are you saying that you personally can't own a gun because you'd literally not trust yourself to not use it if you got angry? If so, I agree; you shouldn't own a gun and should probably bin your culinary knives, too.

As for myself, I can't ever recall screaming at another driver, and I've certainly never said, "I will kill you" to another driver. I understand there are people who do that, though, and I don't think they should own firearms.

Yeah, that’s why I think it’s virtually impossible to libel
Rittenhouse. He admits to shooting people and being unfair or not giving complete details is miles away from libel.

Haha

Whether you like it or not if you and another Lawyer go in to pitch a client in a 30 minute meeting as to why they should use you or not, those people draw ALL SORTS of initial impressions based on extrapolations and speculation in your interaction.


They may have no concrete information on whether you are trustworthy or not and yet may say "I yet may say and think I don't they are trustworthy. They may be smart and proficient but not our type of people'.

You Rococo may hate that humans do that but we all do. You do. And there is nothing wrong or incorrect in doing so.

However anyone doing so should certainly not consider it anything more than a thin information ignorant of facts opinion and they certainly should not represent as such.


IF you look at my graph from Extreme Left to the Right of left above every poster on this forum could engage in placing people where they THINK they fit on the spectrum. It would change from person to person as WE ALL form slightly different and maybe radically different views.

No one should be offended or overly sensitive to the FACT that others form views on limited information that are inconsistent with how one sees themselves.

You have now given me new information. That adds to my more informed view and it does impact where I would put you on that spectrum. That is how it works. The more ignorant we are of a persons reality the more we will plug in our perceptions.

I was very careful to pepper those few posts with it being MY OPINION only so no one would confuse it with me actually proclaiming anyone I pegged was in fact that. You simply cannot help the perception others draw and again, we all do it. You do it. I could ask you to plot everyone on my graph and you could. You might refuse but that does not mean you do not hold perceptions.

There was zero offense intended in that post and it should not be taboo to discuss it. In fact it should be interesting to see how others perceive you as opposed to who you are.

I grew up in the deep South and I don't recall ever seeing someone with a gun in a sports stadium, grocery store, restaurant, department store, drugstore, etc.. I am not including police, of course.

I thought it was a bit strange you put me to the left of Rococo. I suspect I'm slightly worse and he's slightly better than you imagine.

(Provocative language fully intended lol)

Nope! You guys can keep pretending this **** is normal, but even in USA it’s weird as **** to bring a gun into a grocery store. To say nothing of the rest of the developed world. No one looks at the USA and says “gee, I wish we had those.”

Maybe. I’ve gone through depression and anxiety in my life. I don’t think I would have used a gun on myself, but the temptation wouldn’t have been helpful. Most of us are only one or two personal tragedies from being in a very dark place. I think you’re kidding yourself if you think you have some Spock-like control over your emotions.

The science on gun possession and suicide and heat-of-the-moment killings isn’t really debatae at all.

I never suggested that the topic was taboo. I suggested that you were making a baseless guess. I'm sure that my views (and your views) on abortion offend lagtight. He probably thinks that our views on that topic are sinful and are going to land us in a place that is very hot. But I would never say that it is taboo for him to criticize our views on abortion.

It's mildly interesting to hear what people might guess my views are on Topic A based on my stated views on Topic B. But I'm not especially concerned that I have been giving people the wrong impression about my overall political views. I haven't been shy or equivocal.

I honestly am confused about where some people in this thread live. In every place I have ever been in this country (probably 3/4 of the 50 states), it would be very unusual to see someone with a gun in a random store.

He likes you more than me. Nothing wrong with that. You are an amusing fellow.

0:29 (but highly recommend watching from the beginning)

I am curious were you put me



Unusual but for the rest of the world Unbelievable.

We might need a logarithmic scale.

Looney Bin?
Discount rack?
White House Chief of Staff?

You mean algorithmic.

You are factually wrong on the above. You are doing what so many do which is to assume because you would not do something others also would not, when a whole section of society is far more volatile (type to fist fight over mask in Walmart).

It is fact that suicides and related party murders soar when you introduce guns into those homes despite knives being present prior. It is fact that between Suicides and Related party (Family, Friend or work associate) a person (that female Realtor) is at far more risk from a gun in her home than from a random person attacking and killing her while doing her job.

If you need me to dig up those Stats I can (edit ok I did for suicides as they are so easily accessible) but if you are unaware of them I would suggest you get better informed on the basics before opining further as this is one of the most known stats out there.

So that directly speaks to the FACT that when emotions are spiking (suicidal feelings or momentary desire to kill a family member or friend) having a gun present will see people act in a way they might not with just a bare few moments to cool down.


Canada has addressed this directly by REQUIRING gun owners to lock their guns in an approved Gun Safe in the home and to store their ammo in a separate location. This means a person who is heated in the moment, who would otherwise access a gun needs to take a few moments, often walk over to another room and take the time to secure the gun and the ammo buying the somber few minutes that can often preclude a rash reaction.

My impression was given the power you would absolutely implement many social changes that would benefit folks even if it cost you and corporations and others more taxes and shifted the balance more towards socialism.

My impression is OP may support them in theory but will always see the greater as anything that increases gov't involvement or size as well as forcing people in his cohort to pay more or carry the burden (again much like the LA Dems who indeed wish the Homeless could have more help but will vote against every measure that sees them impacted by it).

My impression of Rococo would be not as far right as OP but not as centre left as I see you.

Yet I believe in

• Universal Health Care
• $15 minimum wage $10.00 for restaurant
• Cheaper drugs
• Climate Change
• LGQBT rights
• Social Safety Net
• Vaccines
• Vaccine mandates for those that have not had Covid
• Reduced military spending

I could add more

I forgot the smilie face. (maybe justified?)

I would never argue otherwise that they are largely baseless. Based on the thinnest and often the most contrary of indicators, peoples forum posting histories.

I would expect the summations of who i am, from my posting histories alone to be almost 180 degree different from what the people who interact with me IRL would say as generally I am extremely reserved and near impossible to draw into arguments. My work nickname has always been Spock as much as that may make some laugh here.

A+

By the US standards as I have broken them out Centrist Dem but who holds a lot of rednecky sympathies and has bought a lot into the culture war stuff at a high level but does not let it impact your social views.


Very few Canadians fall to the Establishment Dem side as very few do not largely support the social infrastructure, more anti war or intervention stance, the more balances taxation stance and outside influences have a harder time in Canada buying the politicians to their will and side as the voters do maintain more independent thought.

I always point out that the Conservative Party of Canada is left of the Dem party in the US when it comes to most major planks one would define Left V Right by.