My son Eric and I were up early on our way to the fun gun show. We were running late, but stopped at McD for breakfast.  

In the drive through, nothing was happening. Well, sort of. The guy ahead of me was talking, and had a long order.  Then the guy in the other lane was talking, and talking, and talking, and talking...

He finally finishes and I get to give my order, as he slllooowly pulls forward and rolls right into the outer left edge of the first guy's bumper.

We should note that IotD's car already had dings. Plural.

He hops out of the car, and his pants are lower down his ass, actually his thighs, than on a black comedic stereotype. He's white and in his forties.

 width=

The Hispanic guy in the car ahead gets out, while IotD does an obvious, "That'll buff out," pantomime.

The Hispanic guy shrugs and says it's fine, and IotD demands a big, flamboyant hug.

I'm going to say he was stoned off his ass.  Slow reflexes, munchies, poor cognitive function.

The Hispanic guy grabs his food and goes.

IodT pulls in at an angle to the pay window, and apparently had already forgotten his order, so repeats an entirely new order to the cashier.

Everyone else is still waiting.

I finally pull around him, with a trailer, to the front window, and say, "Since stoner back there is still confused:  Mine was two steak bagels, $11.10. Can I just give you exact change and get out of here?"

Server: "Sure, here you go. Have a good day."

"And you."

Really, it's not seals we need to be clubbing.

You've all seen the meme of comparing unvetted immigrants to skittles. It's a poor metaphor, as many are, and this guy calls it out (my comments to follow):

  width=

Now, he's 100% correct that it's a poor metaphor. After that, every word he writes is incorrect, including "The," "and" and "of."

There will be brief pause while I drink enough Scotch to numb the agony my neurons suffer having to read this again as I refute.

Here we go:

1: You're not "Saving anyone from a war zone."  They did that themselves when they reached Turkey. They're displaced persons, but no one is going to shoot them dead there (or, at least not for the reasons claimed). We're not picking them up in Syria (the primary nation in question) or even in A-stan to speak of. And why can't they stay in nations where there are similar languages and cultures? If I was in their place, I'd prefer Canada or the UK to say, Mongolia.

2: Let's look at the metaphor and the reality both.  "I would GORGE myself on Skittles." Has he taken in any of the refugees who were here? No?  Then he's lying.  He intends to do nothing but be an internet virtue signaling loudmouth. If he took even one in, I'd respect him.  As far as gorging himself on Skittles, that would, in fact, be very bad for his health.

But that's where the metaphor breaks down, because he wants to force those Skittles to be dumped into my childrens' candy jar as well, and in the candy stores, and in the freebies at doctors' offices, so it's not just his life at stake. He arrogates to himself the right to expose everyone else to the poison.

And it's not just poison. Some of the Skittles/"refugees" are known to explode and take others with them, and butcher children's genitalia, and disfigure their own women, and attack local Western women for failing to meet their standards, and even molest children because of "Sexual emergency," as the defense in an Austrian case read.

3: And when he dies? Well, he expects others to die following his lead. (But again, he has yet to make any effort to actually do this, the internet hero). From his stupidity, in an attempt to prove he's not racist (we'll come back to that) (HINT: he's racist), we're supposed to learn that it's a good thing to embrace potentially hazardous unknowns.

He also conveniently glosses over the fact that these displaced persons will each need money and support. For each one we take in, one of our people is not getting that same help.  It either requires a lot of people to step up with money and housing (but not him, obviously), or it critically impacts our economy.

Oh, and they're going to need jobs, which last I heard were in short supply. So apparently, "liberals" do believe Trump can fix the economy. Or else they were too busy virtue-signaling to think.

4: He offers no explanation for how this makes the world a better place. The US already gives away literal megatons of food, sends ships with supplies, generators, water distillation equipment to most major disasters, and takes in 40,000-70,000 a year in legal refugees, AND STILL IS RIGHT NOW, other than from 7 of the countries 0bama had a tendency drone-strike with regularity. And now they're pissed at us. Go figure.

5: "Racist." The default bleat of a "liberal" cocksucker who has no logical argument to make.

A: "Muslim" is not a race.

B: Muslims were not named, only everyone from given nations, INCLUDING the Jewish, Christian and Atheist residents who are at more risk there than other Muslims.

C: In fact, per the USG, Arabs are "White." So are Persians.  They're also Asian, due to the "liberal" need to pigeonhole everyone, because Israelis, Koreans, Yupiks, Turks and Sri Lankans all look alike, I guess.  So, who's actually the racist here? And Afgans are Asian, but indistinguishable from Pakistanis...who are still allowed to enter the US.  So no, "Race," or what "liberals" like to claim is race, has nothing to do with it.  Grow up.

6: And is his life worth more than theirs?  Apparently so, because this racist cock still doesn't have a single fucking "Refugee" in his house.

And yes, I value my life, and my childrens' lives, over a random stranger's. Though unlike the shitbag, I actually did put mine on the line for 25 years in the US military, and went to that part of the world twice, and served on several humanitarian missions in the US.

So he can go fuck himself, because he's a fucking pussy.

 

Try this simple test:

Go pick up a random homeless person right now, and put them in your house.

No? Why not? 

Oh, you're afraid this random homeless person will steal your stuff or trash the place?

Well, what if a good friend could vouch for them, and brought them to you personally? 

That's more acceptable?

I agree.

We call that process, "Vetting."

Stop being a virtue-signaling hypocrite. Actually do something to help.

    
 
 
 
Literally every statement in this op ed is counterfactual. That level of "Error" is impossible without deliberate intellectual fraud and dishonesty. From this alone, any statement you'd make on any subject would lack credibility in any professional setting.
 
So what I'm hearing is SUNYC is a worthless diploma mill with "professors" who are unable to grasp facts or present them honestly. 
 
I see you are a Cornell "grad."  I had already concluded from previous incidents that Cornell no longer has any credibility as an institute of "learning."
 
Do not attempt to argue with me on this subject. I have 25 years military and a decade civilian experience in the field. You are an ignorant, hysterical fool.  It is a shame and disgrace to our nation that you are allowed to teach.
 
You are a disgrace to intellectual honesty, morally corrupt, a complete fraud.and an overpaid welfare case wasting our tax dollars.
 
 
Thanks
 
Mike
 
--
 
 
 
 
 

Robert Spitzer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

2:52 PM (41 minutes ago)
 
  
to me
 
 
 
 
 
 

Hello Mr. Williamson, thanks for your email. As you fail to cite any specific instance of ΓÇ£counterfactualΓÇ¥ information in my op-ed, there is little to say, other than that IΓÇÖm perfectly comfortable standing behind the information and arguments I present, and that I really did obtain my graduate degrees at Cornell University. And SUNY Cortland is a fine public undergraduate-oriented institution of higher education, although it does not need my stamp of approval to verify that.

Regards,

Bob Spitzer

 

Robert J. Spitzer, Ph.D.

Distinguished Service Professor

Department Chair

Political Science Department

SUNY Cortland

Box 2000

Cortland, NY  13045

607-753-4106 (office)

607-756-6756 (home)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

https://www2.cortland.edu/departments/political-science/faculty-staff-detail.dot?fsid=312710

https://sites.google.com/site/robertspitzercortland/

 

 

From: Mike Williamson ] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 2:08 PM
To: Deborah Dintino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: RE: Prof Spitzer article

 
 
 
 
 

Mike Williamson >

3:34 PM (0 minutes ago)
 
  
to Robert
 
 
 
 
 
 
Suppressors, at most, reduce noise signature about 38dB, meaning the firearm will still be at least as loud as a nailgun. Supersonic bullets still generate supersonic cracks. The weapons are still audible. They are simply less damaging.
 
Since you clearly have done zero research in this subject, even a rudimentary google search, I will remind you what you should have learned about 7th grade--decibels are a logarithmic scale, so reducing from 150-170 decibels to 120-130 is significant, but the latter is still quite loud. Not to worry, no one will make any "silent" assassinations like in that documentary "Mr And Mrs Smith."
 
Suppressors add bulk and expense to a weapon, something criminals are unlikely to do. They also get hot in use, meaning anyone sticking it down their pants (for example) will get burned.
 
Would you make a similar ridiculous claim that unmuffled cars provide "safety" to pedestrians? And help police locate them?
 
Had you done that rudimentary search, you'd find that reducing the noise on shooting ranges, frequently made of concrete, will reduce sound pressure levels to that which "merely" require plugs, not muffs, and won't cause physical pain, and in the case of defensive shootings inside the house, help prevent damage or deafness.
 
You clearly not only have zero professional training, you couldn't even be bothered to use google, then passed your hysterical, hoplophobic bias off as argument from authority because of your degrees in poli sci.
 
You are an ignorant fraud, a moral coward, and intellectually corrupt. You have nothing of value to teach anyone in any subject.
 
I stand by MY statement that any institution that would certify or employ someone of your "abilities" is not credible.  I've seen similar verbarrhea from other Cornell grads.  It seems they stopped actually caring about content and facts sometime in the mid 80s.
 
I'll bet your thesis is great comedy. Researched, no doubt, from fine sources such as Mother Jones and DU.
 

Robert Spitzer

4:07 PM (36 minutes ago)
 
  
to me
 
 
 
 
 
 

Hello Mr. Williamson, I did not have the space to go into relative degrees of sound generated by firearms, but as you know, there are thousands of types of firearms, from derringers to elephant guns, and they generate very different levels of noise. At the firing range in particular, there are many very good ear protective devices available to resolve the noise problem for shooters. When silencers were unregulated, they were indeed used by criminals, which is why they were regulated in the first place under the 1934 NFA, and there would be considerable incentives for at least some criminals to obtain them if they were more easily available and untraceable to the owners. As for automobiles, there is a new regulation requiring electric cars to make noise when operating at low speeds for the very reason of safety. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/quiet-hybrid-electric-cars-must-make-noise-new-u-s-safety-rule/

Regards,

Bob

 

Robert J. Spitzer, Ph.D.

Distinguished Service Professor

Department Chair

Political Science Department

SUNY Cortland

Box 2000

Cortland, NY  13045

607-753-4106 (office)

607-756-6756 (home)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

https://www2.cortland.edu/departments/political-science/faculty-staff-detail.dot?fsid=312710

https://sites.google.com/site/robertspitzercortland/

 

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 3:34 PM
To: Robert Spitzer
Subject: Re: FW: Prof Spitzer article

 
 
 
 
 

Mike Williamson

4:44 PM (0 minutes ago)
 
  
to Robert
 
 
 
 
 
 
This would move them from NFA to GCA. If you don't know what that means, I encourage you to do some research. They'd still be "regulated," and their purchase recorded.
 
They are unregulated in any number of civilized countries, including NZ. The UK only requires a valid firearm certificate to own them.
 
PhDs have been used in crime. Bleach has been used in crime. Carb cleaner has been used in crime. That argument is specious.
 
These same arguments were made about concealed carry, "assault weapons," "Saturday night specials," ad nauseum.  In every case, the hyperbole was proven ridiculous.
 
I'd be happy to educate you on the subject, but it was obvious from the beginning that your biases and phobias trump your rational brain.
 
I did not mention electic cars, and we're not discussing bows (which are much quieter than firearms). Would you argue that a gasoline or diesel powered car shouldn't be quieted at all, for "Safety"? BTW, the early suppressors were modeled off car mufflers.
 
Suppressors don't "silence" anything. The quietest setup I'm aware of is still about 115 decibels. That's a fairly bulky .22 rifle that no one has ever used in a murder I'm aware of.

As far as a "readily available" "unregulated" silencer, that's called a 2 liter soda bottle, or an oil flter, and some duct tape. Again, this is readily findable on google in 30 seconds, complete to Youtbue videos (though you should be aware that most of those cameras don't accurately record sound).  If any gangbanger wanted that, it would take less than a minute to fabricate, would make his weapon bulkier, and still wouldn't actually "silence" it.

Nor do laws prevent criminals from acquiring anything.
 
My statement stands. You are willfully ignorant and arguing from an authority you don't possess, with dishonest approach and intent.
 
If you decide you'd actually like to witness, or, horrors, use a suppresssed weapon on the range to understand exactly what they look, feel, sound and perform like, under professional supervision, I can arrange it.

I think it's just hilarious listening to Commiefornicators talk about how big, brave, California is going to quit Trumpistan and go elsewhere.

First, I'd like to address an issue that always comes up with this--the Democrat and "liberal" claim that California is a net producer revenue wise, and all us "lesser" states should be beholden to them.  Notice that first we should "All pay our share to help the less fortunate among us." But as soon as they can create a claim that they pay more than they get, suddenly those poor states are a drain on their mighty wealth.

IOW, they turn into what they claim Republicans are.

There Is No Such Thing As An Intellectually Honest Democrat. There Cannot Ever Be, Because The Root Philosophy Is Based On Dishonesty And Greed.

Now, back to Cumstainfornia:

Anyone thinking this just isn't actually thinking.

First of all, a large chunk of CA's income is from air and sea ports bringing in huge amounts of goods from Asia and the Pacific, for the US.  If they stop being part of America, there are three ways this plays out:

A: They continue to make the stuff available at a fair price, and simply become a de facto American protectorate.

2) If they refuse, Oregon and Washington thank them greatly for the YUGE increase in business, and CA withers and dies. The end.

c} If they get those states to go along with them, Florida, Texas, the Carolinas and Louisiana will thank them for the business and prices will go up slightly, but not a lot, because orders of scale matter, and CA withers and dies, taking OR and WA with them. The end.

Second, CA better make a good deal on that, or they can kiss the Southwestern power grid, fuel, and water from the Colorado River goodbye. We'll swap them even--one container of imported goods, one gallon of drinking water or megawatt hour of power.

Third, CA is taking 12% of the US debt, based on population. Failure to do so is grounds for the IRS to collect, with help from the US Army if needed, just like we did to those Confederate Democrats when they decided they were too good for civilized society.

Speaking of which:

Yeah, those federal installations.  Those belong to the US. I guess you can keep the infrastructure, at fair market value, and 12% of the Federally owned equipment and weapons, as long as you take that debt we discussed. And if you refuse? Remember that previous civil war we just discussed?  

Also, you can find your own damned troops, pilots and sailors for them, take over your own training, pay for your own goddamn defense of those sea lanes that are now your problem, not ours. You may not have actually priced what a destroyer, or even a frigate costs these days, nor an F16 in a current block, nor even a quarter million uniforms, rifles, backpacks and the relevant trucks.

So the entire proposal comes from smoking too much Medical Marijuana. If CA actually tries this, they'll be a third world country in short order.

The good news is they might actually get rid of all the illegal Mexicans. The bad news is, it will either be because their economy will be worse than Mexico's, or because they get absorbed by Mexico.

So in the end:

They'll scream like little bitches.

They'll throw some tantra and astroturf some riots.

They'll stay in the US, to their and our detriment.

 

Fucking pussies.