- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 22 |
| Registered on: | 9/14/2021 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Does abortion being legal explain the dramatic drop in violent crime?
Posted by NoRINO on 9/16/21 at 11:53 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
You keep saying 1980, but the peak was in the early 90s - right around when the first Roe babies would have been adults.
Sigh
Yeah. Correct.
And, compared to the pill.............abortion is a blip on the radar
0
quote:
Does abortion not have an impact on birth rate?
Of course
just an extremely tiny one compared to the pill and simply people choosing to have fewer children. I already said you probably could account for some fraction thru abortion. Just pales in comparison.
quote:
3 Strikes laws are the biggest factor in the decline in violent crime. More violent criminals are in prison, committing their violent crimes on other inmates
In all seriousness. How is it that none of you see how enormous a drive age demographics have been?
Everything else brought up is nothing but fractional effects on the edges.
re: Does abortion being legal explain the dramatic drop in violent crime?
Posted by NoRINO on 9/16/21 at 11:29 am to TigerSprings
quote:
It's still not as low as it was in the 40s. Ask yourself why did it increase, not why is it half way lower.
Easy.
Baby Boom.
The vast majority of crime is committed by men aged 18-35. Now, as for the 40s. Uh. Men in that age bracket were somewhat occupied and then, after the war, their population was somewhat reduced!
Then, we had a baby boom. Which led to a shite ton of 18-35 year olds for a good amount of time until the baby bust.
And again. Since crime is computed as a RATE...........even if the men age 18-35 never stop committing crime with the same frequency per person aged 18-35, your rate will be enormously affected by first, a huge increase in 18-35 year olds FOLLOWED by a huge cratering of 18-35 year olds just as that other huge group gets old.
quote:I already answered your OP.
Are you saying murder rates aren’t 50 percent of what they are in 1980? Lol look it up
Ya know. As long as you're looking up stats and all
quote:You MIGHT be able to attribute a tiny fraction of the overall drop to abortion.
Born to a parent that doesn’t want to even have them, statistically, yes, way more likely.
The REAL driver though was the birth control pill.
That cratered our birth rate such that today, there are far fewer 18-35 year old males per 100K population than there used to be.
Simple
quote:Honestly, as ridiculous as OP is, the stats he refers to are well known and should be common knowledge.
Where? Again post statistics. And when did abortion get legalized? Your threads are nothing more than you creating straw man arguments then getting whacked. Suffice it to say, you fail pretty hard here.
Alas, the reason for the drop can almost entirely be attributed to nothing more than age demographics.
Crime is calculated as a rate and, the vast majority of violent crime is committed by males between the ages of 18-35.
That age group has shrunk DRAMATICALLY over the last 40 years while the older age groups have grown.
Thus, basic math at that point.
quote:Well. It depends on what your start date is. But, if your start date is 1980, then yes, there's been a precipitous drop in violent crime.
Where do you live, that there has been a dramatic drop in crime?
But it ain't cause of abortion.
quote:
Does abortion being legal explain the dramatic drop in violent crime?
No
Although congrats. You've read Dubner and Levitt and brought it here about a decade late.
:lol:
re: Most of you are missing the point on Milley
Posted by NoRINO on 9/16/21 at 11:15 am to Auburn1968
quote:
Meanwhile, Trump brought peace to much of the Middle East and got North Korea to settle down by giving Kim some personal attention.
The globalist were not happy to see Trump bringing any production back to America.
That's the other ridiculous part.
Liberals are now running around using their 4 year delusion that Trump was going to get us into all these wars as justification for Milley. As if the fact they held on to the delusion for so long makes it real.
Someone on another site literally linked me to multiple columns from 2016-2020 describing how Trump was a loose cannon who was going to get us into war as PROOF she was correct. She actually said, "are you saying they were all wrong!!". Um.............yeah
I'm like..............um...............so, the fact that none of their predictions ended up actually happening isn't sort of a red flag to you?
:lol:
re: Most of you are missing the point on Milley
Posted by NoRINO on 9/16/21 at 10:56 am to baybeefeetz
quote:That's not the question because it's irrelevant if he thought it was reasonable. We have civilian control of the military for a reason. Cause the opposite is a bad fricking idea.
Unfounded here should mean there was no good reason to fear it. So what evidence did Milley cite for his fear? The question is whether his judgment on that was reasonable.
And besides. As the OP points out. By default, we know his fears were not reasonable. He did NOTHING on OUR end to prevent Trump from doing something crazy and, Trump still didn't do anything crazy. The facts speak for themselves.
re: Most of you are missing the point on Milley
Posted by NoRINO on 9/16/21 at 10:53 am to jamboybarry
quote:Also. If that were the case, you would merely need to call China and say "your concerns aren't justified, all is good".
Yeah that’s what’s so funny. The conspirators claim China had bad intel about a pending attack so they notified them this was false yet no one briefed the President on this?
Not, "your concerns aren't justified, all is good, and if it turns out I'm wrong, I'll tell where our troops are so you can defend yourself!!!"
I mean holy shite
quote:
We have to choose which is worse:
Sharing key security information with our geopolitical adversary.
or
Being so incompetent to believe that our President was actually going to put his country in that kind of danger.
3. Being so damned spineless that you're at a point in your career when you could simply resign and receive 100% of your base pay in retirement while landing some mid six-figure job at one of the nation's defense contractors.........you STILL couldn't bring yourself to just resign in disgust and go public with your concerns about Trump. Nope. You decided to literally put American troops in danger. Because what if Trump DID send planes into the area and Milley warned the Chinese. What did he think the Chinese would do? Offer the pilots tea?
Side note.
If liberals believe that the CJCOS can actively sabotage potential actions by the POTUS with no repercussions, how far down the chain does this believe go?
Can a 2 Star division commander do it?
A Colonel?
A LTC? Maybe a Sergeant Major?
Hell, how about a Sergeant in Intel?
How do they not see the obvious problem with Okaying this? The General had a perfectly legit course of action if he feared Trump. Resign and go public immediately with his concerns.
If liberals believe that the CJCOS can actively sabotage potential actions by the POTUS with no repercussions, how far down the chain does this believe go?
Can a 2 Star division commander do it?
A Colonel?
A LTC? Maybe a Sergeant Major?
Hell, how about a Sergeant in Intel?
How do they not see the obvious problem with Okaying this? The General had a perfectly legit course of action if he feared Trump. Resign and go public immediately with his concerns.
Most of you are missing the point on Milley
Posted by NoRINO on 9/16/21 at 10:36 am
The bottom line is, he called China because supposedly he believed Trump was rogue enough to actually attack unprovoked.
HOWEVER. According to the story which is clearly designed to make Trump look bad, even they acknowledge Trump never ended up doing anything or trying to.
You'll note that they don't say anywhere that Trump tried to and was prevented. They don't say anywhere that Milley told Trump, "hey, I called the Chinese so don't be stupid".
Nope. It just turned out to be a fear that didn't come to fruition which means it was an UNFOUNDED fear.
Milley's actions were treasonous regardless. But, they're exceptionally worthy of getting frog marched given the facts indicate that his supposed reasons for acting were all in his fricking head.
HOWEVER. According to the story which is clearly designed to make Trump look bad, even they acknowledge Trump never ended up doing anything or trying to.
You'll note that they don't say anywhere that Trump tried to and was prevented. They don't say anywhere that Milley told Trump, "hey, I called the Chinese so don't be stupid".
Nope. It just turned out to be a fear that didn't come to fruition which means it was an UNFOUNDED fear.
Milley's actions were treasonous regardless. But, they're exceptionally worthy of getting frog marched given the facts indicate that his supposed reasons for acting were all in his fricking head.
quote:And yet, you posted 3 paragraphs without articulating what you saw.
What I saw Saturday night 90% here didn't see.
Liberals understand virtually nothing about finance or economics.
It's truly fascinating.
It's truly fascinating.
re: Baws beware…a PSA Reminder
Posted by NoRINO on 9/15/21 at 10:57 pm to Toomer Deplorable
Well shite.
re: Baws beware…a PSA Reminder
Posted by NoRINO on 9/15/21 at 10:54 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
While I haven’t seem anyone here make incriminating posts, it’s still a good practice to pay attention to OP’s join dates and post counts before jumping in head first.
Dammit. Ya got me! :lol:
In all seriousness. It's not gonna take you long to figure out I'm a lot more likely to be and FBI target than one of them.
But, really, sadly. Your point is valid.
quote:
The USA will immediately invade with powerful military forces any new nation that forms here on this land that we call America - UNLESS - a powerful foreign ally of the new nation can cause the USA to back off.
I see this assumption all the time and I just don't buy it whatsoever. You'd have so many splits in the military it wouldn't even be funny. Hell, the military would end up fighting itself is some President tried this.
re: Dave Portnoy gets “fact checked” by Twitter for AOC post
Posted by NoRINO on 9/15/21 at 9:32 pm to RebelExpress38
"Independent" :lol:
Popular
25
