Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
ParticipantSo I was thinking, there’s an airport in Big Bear. Getting in and out of Big Bear is immensely faster and easier if you can fly. I used to live in Upland. It took maybe an hour and a half or more by car to get to Big Bear. A friend had a plane, and it took 20 minutes to fly there. I’m thinking Dorner probably can’t fly, but let’s check it out. I googled it, and apparently he can fly. Wouldn’t be that hard to get an airplane (not by walking up to the rental counter, obviously) and fly out of there. You’d be over Victorville before the fire on your truck was out.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
This is US 93, a mostly two-laner along the rim of the Hoover Dam, 35 mi SE of Las Vegas. A slow, comm’l truck-filled border crossing, this area is highly patrolled at ALL times. It would be only too easy to spot his vehicle there …[/quote]Maybe, if we knew what vehicle he was driving. But since his truck burned up, we don’t.
You gotta wonder if he might lay low for a while. Law enforcement can’t keep this level of presence up forever. Maybe he’ll wait until things settle down and then go after his primary target (whoever that is). Tough to lay low when you have such a distinctive appearance and everybody in the country is looking for you, I know. But maybe he’s had a plan for that all along.
I wonder if the whole truck thing was a ruse. If he planned this all weeks or months (or even years) in advance, he coulda had another car up there. So, bring your truck up there, the vehicle everybody is looking for. Break the axle, on purpose, by hitting a rock or something. (Who breaks an axle? That’s gotta be tough to do. He probably wouldn’t be driving like a maniac up there. It would only draw attention to himself. You gotta be stealthy in his situation.) You break the axle on purpose so that when they find your truck, they think you are in the immediate area. You have to be because you broke your axle and of course you didn’t bring an extra car.
Then he sets his truck on fire. Why set it on fire? To make sure it’s found. If he just left it there with a broken axle, it might taken a while for anybody to notice it and connect it to Dorner. If he sets it on fire, it gets noticed right away. Which is part of his plan.
Plus, why would he go to Big Bear (other than to perpetrate this ruse)?
So he gets everybody to think he’s in Big Bear, and then he scurries to god knows where to hide out. Or maybe there was another reason (a better one) for the ruse that I’m not thinking of.
He talked about using all his training, and the element of surprise. He said he would use unconventional and asymmetrical warfare. So, to me, him having such a plan doesn’t seem far-fetched.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]In today’s disgusting LAPD behavior, Chief Beck proceeding to proclaim it’ll take days to get the facts around the shooting of the two women.
He then proceeding to claim that the shooting occurred in two groups after the women accelerated towards the second group of officers.
Yea, that explains those 46 holes in the back.[/quote]
So they’re getting shot at, and they don’t know who is shooting at them. Of course they’re going to flee. And if there are cops in front of them, of course they’re going to be heading towards them. Doesn’t sound like any kind of excuse at all.
Over/under on what this incident will cost the LAPD? If somebody died, I’d put it at $10M. Since nobody did, I’m going to guess $5M.
Participant[quote=cvmom]C’mon squat–think of your impact on so many people, there are certainly many more lurkers than posters on this site. You are so often the voice of sincerity and reason, this site really needs you!![/quote]
Well put and so true. When you post here, you’re giving. Mention that to the wife. “I could quit, honey. But they need me.”
Participant[quote=desmond] Santorum now means the frothy mix of feces and lubricant produced during anal sex, [/quote]
Funny. But an insult to the frothy mix of feces and lubricant produced during anal sex.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Exactly what “sense” are you going to talk into the “tin-foil-hat crowd”? What explanation do you have for the massively increased surveillance of innocent civilian targets?[/quote]
I’m not going to talk any sense. It’s impossible. That’s my point. Do you want to buy one of those hoodies? I can get you one. For a small fee.
Participant[quote=desmond] I did not base my post on either kibu or paul.
[/quote]
OK. When you quoted Paul’s response to KIBU, and your first line was, “this is what I saw coming,” it seemed like “this” was Paul’s post and ones like it.
[quote=desmond]
Get over that and on to a general discussion or do you just want to prove your point? If you want a discussion than discuss what I posted. It will be very difficult to find a real solution, no I do not have an answer. It seems the gun control side, like you, just want to slam gun owners,think your above them and just do no like them or their lifestyle? [/quote]Not sure where you’re getting any of that.
I’ve suggested real options. You have suggested none. Yet you slam gun-control advocates for not offering real solutions. I’m not sure I see how that flies.
Participant[quote=desmond] ZK,
I never mention kibu, so I guess you glossed over all the name calling posts by the gun control side, there are many. Now on to the solutions, (btw, I have owned guns since being a kid) I have tried in previous posts, maybe on the other thread, to point out how hard it will be to find a solution for the mass killing episodes. Ban a certain gun another one will be used, try to cut down on the the clip size, smaller clips can be replaced in seconds to continue shooting. It probably will not be banning certain guns or any type of “registering” that will do anything to help (imo). I also fear that if the mental aspect gets more “crackdown” than the people that need help will avoid it. As the post deteriorates into name calling (by both sides) it becomes useless. Unless both sides are willing to work together a cramdown solution by either side will, pardon the pun, backfire.[/quote]You didn’t mention KIBU, but Paul’s response was to him. My point was that, if you’re basing your conclusion that Paul’s side will get tired of name calling, it isn’t supported by Paul’s post. Which was to KIBU. Who didn’t call anybody names. I could explain it more thoroughly, but my explanations of my logic seem to take 7 posts and still really don’t get across, so forget it. It’s all right there, and it really shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
Anyway, as for your solution, if your post includes one that you think will work, I’m missing it.
Participant[quote=desmond]
This is what I saw coming, the gun control crowd starts bashing the gun owners. Instead of real solutions they just show their hatred of the people that own guns. Finally after so much “LMC” inspired hogwash the gun owners just get sick of it and say no. Gun sales skyrocket the pushback will be harder and the gun control crowd will continue to name call. I was thinking some controls, even though they would not work, would be okay, no large clips, but not anymore, forget it.[/quote]I just read all of KIBU’s posts on this thread. I didn’t see him call anyone a name. And then we have this:
[quote=Paul0373]Hey KIBU, get out of my face with all of your Gun Control Garbage. You know what? I’ve never felt the need to own a personal firearm until you self-righteous, Constitution hating Communists decided to start going after yet another personal liberty. Listen to Feinstein, Cuomo, Emanuel, Obama… and yourself.. You all make me ill. If I want to own 50 ARs and a million rounds of ammunition, that’s my business bud. If you’re so naive to think that this government is disarming us for our good while they(feinstein) have concealed carry permits and armed guards(all of them), you are a naive fool. Please, crawl in a hole until you have enough votes to amend the Constitution and until then I’d be happy to buy you an NRA membership and take you to the range for some target practice.[/quote]
If Paul’s response is to KIBU, which it certainly appears to be, then Paul’s problem isn’t that he’s fed up with name calling.
There’s been plenty of reasonable discussion on this board for stronger gun control. But that all appears to have been ignored. If all Paul has no response to this except to say is that we’re “self-righteous, Constitution hating Communists” and “naive fool[s],” we “make [him] ill” and that we should “crawl in a hole,” then perhaps the problem isn’t our “LMC inspired hogwash.” Perhaps the problem is the Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage/NRA-inspired, foaming-at-the-mouth, reasonless ranting of angry people like Paul.
You (desmond) say that we’ve bashed gun owners and offered no real solutions. That’s only true if you automatically disagree with all the solutions we have to offer. Let me ask you this: What solutions might we offer that you would consider “real”? Or are there none? If, in your opinion, there are none, then your accusation that we’re offering no real solutions doesn’t really fly.
Did you see Paul offering any solutions to the thousands of gun deaths we have in this country every year? No? Then how come you’re accusing the gun-control side of not offering solutions, but not the anti-gun-control side?
I don’t see how you read Paul’s post and come away with the conclusion that the gun-control side is the one not offering solutions.
ParticipantI own a few rentals out of state. They’re in a low-income area. Actually, they’re some of the cheapest places in a middle class area, so, while my tenants are mostly fairly low-income, the surrounding area is not too bad.
In any case, the price/rent ratios and the eviction laws there are good enough that, even with a certain (probably relatively high) percentage of bad tenants, it’s still more profitable than in better areas. Certainly far more profitable than anything I’ve seen in Southern California. I have a management company do everything, so all I do is collect what’s left over after the management fees, eviction costs, clean up costs, repairs, etc. Really no hassle at all.
Of course, I’ve only had them since August 2012, so not totally sure yet how this will work out long term. And the appreciation potential is quite low on these particular properties.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Thanks for your further explanations and the kind words, zk. Thanks for the debate, as well. 🙂
Hope you have a happy and healthy 2013! :)[/quote]
Thank you, and a happy 2013 to you, too.
ParticipantI appreciate your passion in defending home schooling. Home schooling done well is far better than public schooling (or private schooling) imho. Home schooling done poorly is far worse (than most public/private schools). It’s certainly not for everybody, and doing it right takes a lot of time, energy, and commitment.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Parents whose children attend public schools are just as capable of “teaching their kids how to use IEDs” as parents who homeschool. [/quote]Yes, they are. But it wouldn’t really be called part of the “curriculum.” Hence my comment. Besides, any parent who is that paranoid of the government isn’t likely to send their kid to be watched over all day by an extension of the government (a public school).
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=zk]
I didn’t indict homeschooling when it comes to crime. I’m getting really tired of saying that. Show me where I did that.
[/quote][quote=zk][quote=squat300]It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn’t that in the curriculum?[/quote]
You snark. But I wouldn’t doubt that it is in some home-school curricula.[/quote]
Did you say this or not? Why did you specifically mention homeschoolers regarding this issue?[/quote]
“Mentioning” a small subgroup of homeschoolers is not “indicting homeschooling when it comes to crimes.” Especially if you don’t mention any crimes. It is not a crime to teach your kids to make ieds. As I said in a previous post:
I do think the home school group has a higher percentage of anti-government extremists than the public/private school group. If you’re an anti-government extremist, of course you don’t want to send your kid to be tended to by a public entity all day if you can avoid it. I’m sure it’s an insignificant percentage (far less than 1%). And it has nothing to do with the merits or drawbacks of home schooling.
That seems to be common sense. And it really does have nothing to do with the merits or drawbacks of home schooling. It has to do with anti-government extremists.
The other reason I mentioned home schoolers is that you obviously won’t find ied construction in public school curricula. (I forgot about private schools. It is remotely possible that a small, anti-government-extremist-run school could have this in their curriculum).
Lots of groups have subgroups that join for the wrong reason or misrepresent the group. Having such a subgroup is not an indictment of the whole group. Nor is mentioning that subgroup an indictment of the whole group.
-
AuthorPosts
