BillyBob66 wrote:Cherry picking? I don't know, SF and SJ seem more like the cherry picking, considering the long list of crime infested- and often poverty ridden- cities that are Dem run.
From your posts it seems that indeed you don't know and are determined to keep it that way. I guess that works for you; it gets you easily and reliably to the political and religious conclusions that you seem to prefer. Thankfully you aren't involved in the design or review of medical research. But then this is all just a joke, right?
I provide you with stats having to do with crime stats that seem to indicate that crime, and maybe also poverty, tend to be far worse in cities run by Dems, with the Dem run cities outnumbering the Rep run cities by maybe 10 or 20 to one. Including two very close neighbors of SF and SJ. This simply in response to your cherry picking of SF/SJ. And your response is that thankfully I am not involved in medical research? So I guess you must be denying the facts that I have provided? They are not true? Is that your claim?
I have noticed a trend of you taking things more and more personal, the old Ad Hominem approach. It has not been severe yet, but it is becoming noticeable. You have told me that I am not a very nice person, that I you think I m totally nuts, and this current one that I am being obtuse: I don't know and am determined to keep it that way. The real trouble with that is I am always tempted to respond in kind and get personal. But I really want to avoid that. If we are to continue to communicate ( should we? ), I request that you avoid it also.
For years I have been pointing out the irrational path debates tend to travel down when libs debate conservatives. It is something like this:
Conservative: " We need to reduce taxes due to X, Y and Z.".
Liberal: "You are mean". Or "mean spirited". Or "stupid".
This is also what we are observing in our nation right now. The accusations are that the mean, fascist Republicans and conservatives were not going to accept the results of the election, and are going to going to hurt many innocent people, maybe even with violence. But so far, based on realities that can be observed as we approach the inauguration, we are observing many examples of all of that coming virtually 99% from the other side. We simply have not observed much violence or threats of t coming from the conservative side, have we? We have not observed Trump voters dragging innocent Clinton voters from their cars and beating them for that, have we? Or torturing a disabled boy because he was a member of the group of assumed Trump voters? Or shutting down freeways and hindering emergency vehicles? Greg, in the real world, whose side does most of that nasty stuff usually come from? It comes from your side, even as your side is warning that we are going to act that way.
Much as, almost 100% of the time, the cities dominated by the folks who "care", aka Dems, or normally the most crime ridden and also very often the most impoverished. Now that may not prove with scientific certainty that Dem policies cause crime and impoverishment, but it is enough for me to consider that those policies may not work in the real world. I would be less likely to feel that way if there were a significant # of Rep run cities near the top of those lists of most crime ridden cities. But rather than providing some actual facts that show that Dems do not almost universally govern in these places, and that not uncommonly Republicans do, you choose to impugn my intelligence?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body