Youtube comments of Charles Eye (@TheCharleseye).
-
4100
-
2400
-
1800
-
1000
-
895
-
836
-
818
-
817
-
663
-
647
-
526
-
522
-
458
-
442
-
353
-
344
-
325
-
298
-
289
-
277
-
263
-
258
-
252
-
245
-
245
-
232
-
229
-
217
-
204
-
198
-
189
-
187
-
185
-
179
-
171
-
162
-
146
-
145
-
139
-
136
-
135
-
130
-
120
-
115
-
114
-
111
-
111
-
110
-
101
-
101
-
100
-
98
-
87
-
83
-
81
-
80
-
79
-
78
-
77
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
68
-
67
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
63
-
63
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
50
-
47
-
47
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
As a Handyman, I love this episode. It's true, too. Most people can't do sh*t anymore. I'm doing less work for more money than any time in the last 20 years. I'm turning away work left and right. It's crazy! It's a great time to be in any of the trades, really. People really are pretty helpless for the most part, nowadays. If you can build, wire, plumb, or fix things, people will throw money at you.
The only downside is that the mass uselessness has brought out a lot of scam artists, claiming to be handymen. Don't ever hand money to someone for materials, up front. Tell them they can go to the pro desk at Home Depot or Lowe's and you can pay over the phone. This is something I tell everyone. I don't want to handle your money until the job is done. Then it becomes my money.
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@marieh7861 Yeah, a buddy of mine filmed "his" son being born, too. Of course, a DNA test later confirmed that he wasn't the father. Anyone can film a birth. It doesn't prove genetics.
As for blockheads, they're not pure pitbulls, either. They're APBT/AmStaff crosses. Maybe you need to do some research. Not every square-headed dog is a true pit. You sound like an ignorant newscaster.
So, you've explained how mixing other breeds in can make "pitbulls" with blocky heads and completely avoided everything else I mentioned. That's strange! I thought you were so knowledgeable! Surely you can explain the mastiff jowls on this "pure pit," right? Or are you going to try to claim that's naturally occurring in pits, too?
Or hey, maybe you can explain with your vast knowledge how he took a breed that has a standard size of 35-70 pounds and managed to line breed it up over 200 pounds in just a few generations...without interbreeding. Considering the fact that no other breeder in human history has ever been able to do that, it seems pretty unlikely.
Get off it. Anyone with eyes and who isn't trying to fool themselves can see that this dog isn't a pure pit. I don't know why you're taking it so personally, though. It's not like he's your dog. Oh, no. You aren't one of the people who got duped into buying one of his "pure" puppies, are you? That would just be too funny.
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
This video currently has: 87,000 Views, 2,011 Likes, and 3,351 Dislikes.
"Facts" currently has: 11,477,020 views, 553,286 Likes, and 192,999 Dislikes
They are both 6 days old as of this post.
YouTube tries to block the dislike numbers to keep people from knowing how popular a video really is but that's what browser extensions are for.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@jeffsimpson1421 I remember a time when people didn't conflate "legal" and "normal." I haven't seen any 17-year-olds walking around with rifles and vests in my city. Most people haven't. In fact, you probably haven't. Nobody said it was normal. It is, however, legal in a lot of places.
In fact, it used to be legal in even more jurisdictions. You know, back in the day? In fact, it was even a lot more normal to see teens with rifles then, too. Yeah. Back then, there were actually quite a lot of teenagers who had rifles/shotguns with them wherever they went - they just had them in their vehicles. It was perfectly normal to have a long gun in your vehicle. Go to any suburban or rural high school and you'd find parking lots full of vehicles with long guns in them. It was weird to find that said vehicles were even locked, yet nobody was gunning down their classmates.
The guns have always been here and were once a much bigger part of our culture. Since that's true, maybe it's time to start focusing on the underlying causes of violence, rather than talking about the 'scary' 17-year-old with a gun - that he used to defend himself from said violence.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I'm confused. Mexicans are the only ones capable of working hard? Wait, no. You specifically said it was illegal immigrants. So you're saying that Mexican Americans are lazy sacks of crap, just like white Americans? But then, you also showed us that black Americans can't really cut it either. It's crazy how a birth certificate or a green card can just cripple a person like that. Does this magic apply to all illegal immigrants or just the ones from Mexico? Like, if we were to bring in some illegal immigrants from a wide cross section of Countries, would they work as hard as the Mexican illegals? And what about the American citizens who bust their asses every day? Are they secretly illegal immigrants, too? Are the South and Mid-West just giant sanctuaries for illegal Nordic and European immigrants? They must be, right? I mean, certain groups have gone a long way to destroy the work ethic in this Country. If it still exists, it means that you they have failed.
So, what is it that gives illegal immigrants their super powers? How do they work so much harder for less money? Oh, THAT'S right! We're EXPOLOITING them! They have no choice. Because if they complain, we'll have them DEPORTED! They're the new slave labor!
If you can't afford to pay more for shrimp and strawberries, I don't really care. Screw you and your false entitlement. Nobody owes you shrimp and strawberries. If you insist we continue to exploit a broken system and oppress people to help finance your dinner parties, you're no better than the people who turned a blind eye toward slavery because "This cotton is just so soft and affordable!"
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@bababooeyee I wasn't interpreting (or misinterpreting) the study at all. I was quoting the researcher responsible for said study, along with the writer of the article.
Meanwhile, I will again point out an inconsistency. You are busy trying to prove that gender is tied to the makeup of the brain. This runs completely counter to the current trending argument, that gender is a social construct. I appreciate your extensive knowledge on the subject of brain development but all you've really done is proven my point. The entire subject is riddled with inconsistencies.
- Most say gender is a social construct. You and some others say it's tied to brain chemistry/development.
- Most say that gender and sex are not linked. Meanwhile, they push to be able to change the sex (not gender) on their birth certificate and driver's license.
- Most are pushing for "trans rights" while many are actively trying to criminalize the act of "mis-gendering" people (even though the Trans community can't seem to agree on a basis for what gender even is).
Again, I honestly appreciate the time you've taken to point out a field of study in which I am less than well versed. I will be looking into it further, as it's quite fascinating stuff. However, it does nothing to disprove my point, that the whole discussion is full of inconsistencies.
Also, be very careful with whom you share this information. Feminists have spent decades putting down the idea that there is such a thing as "male" and "female" brains. Such claims were used for a long time to promote the idea that women were not well equipped for many things, due to said differences. You might want to start future statements by pointing out some way in which this proves feminine superiority, lest you be labeled a misogynist. Of course, you can only mention feminine superiority over cis men. If you don't preface that claim with a disclaimer that it doesn't imply superiority over Trans brains, you're likely to be labeled a TERF and shamed for that stance, too.
See, it's all very combative and tribal ...ahem..."team oriented" (disclaimer: I didn't mean to imply a connection with first nations people, African heritage, or popular tattoos of the 90's).
You probably think I'm being outlandish but not really. These are the real conversations I've had with people. This is my lived experience, to borrow a phrase. The entire thing is a hotbed of inconsistencies, outright fallacies, and vicious attacks for disagreement (even though there is no solid position with which to agree). It's just a minefield.
Anyway, I've taken enough of your time. Thanks again for the information and I will be looking into it further. Have a great life.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Wait.... You guys are upset that "innocent until proven guilty" is finally being enforced for people defending themselves from attackers?! And you clearly have never dealt with the legal system or you'd know that your hypothetical scenarios are ridiculous. Judges are not radical talking heads on YouTube. They're capable of using logic and reasoning.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that most self defense situations don't go to court. If it's a clear cut case, you don't get charged. The only time it goes to court is when the DA feels there is enough evidence to prosecute. If the DA has said evidence, it's not a problem. If not, you shouldn't have been charged in the first place (innocent until proven guilty). There's no statute of limitation on murder. They have plenty of time to build a case against you.
I don't agree with the $200,000 payout because frankly, if I am ever put in the position of having to take a life to defend myself and THEN have to defend myself in court for it, I'm seeking compensation from the family who had a hand in creating the type of person who would attack me with lethal force. Maybe if people were held accountable for the monsters they create, parents would start doing their job! I'm about sick of the sympathy for people who knew damn well their kid wasn't right and didn't do a damn thing to help them.
TO ALL THE PARENTS OUT THERE: If you suspect your kid has violent or criminal tendencies and you aren't actively doing something about it, their future life of crime is YOUR FAULT! I won't shed one single tear for you when someone has to put your kid down to save their life or the lives of others. YOU did this. If anyone tells you otherwise, they're lying to protect your feelings. If you want your kids to live long, happy lives, do something about it. People aren't laying down and taking it any more. Your kid WILL die in this world if you don't do something to prevent it.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@rexx9496 Nope, you're wrong. The majority of people leaving California are the ones who can afford to leave California. Those who are barely making their rent can't afford to spend $3500-$5000 on a moving van and fuel for said van, plus another $20,000 or more on a down payment and closing costs for a new home. They're definitely not the ones offering tens of thousands of dollars over asking price. And, given that they're the ones who are most likely to be working normal jobs, they're not the ones buying rural homes at top dollar, that are more than an hour from the nearest metro area.
When you sell a house in most of California, you have the kind of money to affect the housing prices in a neighborhood, pretty much anywhere else. When tens of thousands of you all sell your houses and move to Idaho, you gentrify Idaho.
Zoning arguments are crap. Californians aren't moving to other States, looking for apartments to rent. They're overpaying for homes and paying cash on the barrel head. Thanks for playing, though.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Just so you know, we now have 27 permit-less carry states to choose from. No need to ask permission to exercise your right to bear arms in the majority of the US (as it should be). Of course, they still offer carry permits in those states, in case you want the added benefits that go along with them (like greater reciprocity, no need to do background checks every time you buy a gun, etc). "jongallardo" is right, though. You want to avoid the armpit of the US. So, stay away from NYC, LA, SF, Chicago...pretty much every major city. They have much worse homelessness, gang violence, drug abuse, etc than anywhere else. Feel free to move South of the Mason-Dixon line, though. It's mostly real nice down here and you'll never experience anything like good, Southern cooking.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@findingmo7049 60% of the US is vaccinated. 80% of Omicron cases in the US are vaccinated. Omicron already accounts for more than 73% of cases in the US. So far, they won't tell us how many Omicron cases are people with boosters but I'm willing to bet it's high, if they're not shouting it from the rooftops.
Now, the SA and UK data can help us a lot. The US is a melting pot with a wide range of different people, climates, and geography. Taking data from different regions can only help us know what we're in for. So far, Omicron is taking over in every Country it hits, cases are increasing and, on a long enough timeline (that isn't very long at all), hospitalizations, severe cases, and deaths are decreasing.
Basically, we're all going to get Omicron, get it soon, survive it, and get that good immunity boost. This should push Delta out pretty quickly, since virtually all of us will be equipped to fight it off (not that it's a big threat to the general populous already, but free immunity is better than none). After this, we're likely to see COVID-19 turn into a seasonal cold within a year (though, I'd wager closer to six months). It will survive and even thrive by not killing us. We'll just take an extra day or two of sick leave every year.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@william breen Or, you know, soak your T-shirt in cold water once in awhile. Those who have ever actually done a hard day's work in the Summer know how to deal with it. Ice is a thing that exists. Cold water is a thing that exists. They both do a great job of keeping a person cool - even in the hottest, swampiest States in the South. People are talking like most folks are going to have major problems in these situations but if that were true, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc would all just be graveyards. Florida is where many of the elderly go to retire and in the Summer, it's so damned humid you feel like you're drinking the air. If they can handle it, I'm pretty sure most folks can.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. Have you read it lately? Maybe you should.
You want to abolish the electoral college but it's "too hard" because of the Constitution. So....you do something unconstitutional to try to get around it? Something that will be smacked down at best and start a war at worst. A war with the States that don't interfere with their citizens ability to be extremely well armed. Oh and also, the US military since, again, this is unconstitutional. So, a few gun hating Socialists vs...The greatest military in the world AND a militia so large that it dwarfs most Countries in the world. Yeah, okay.
Admit it, this sounded better in your head, didn't it? I mean, before somebody really laid out how completely idiotic and suicidal it is. You were like "Say, that sounds like a swell idea! We'll get a bunch of States to stand together against the US, for the sake of suppressing the minority! We'll even claim it's about States' Rights! Nobody has ever tried THAT before!"
Maybe some day there will be a controversial statue of you on the news, too! Won't that be great?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It would actually be relatively hard to find cartridges with vitamin E acetate in them. The few cases they looked into, were from Chinese knock-off cartridges, often in States where it is illegal to vape THC. In other words, they came from shady sources willing to deal on the black market. Also, the vast majority of vaping is nicotine based, not THC based, and there have been no reported cases of vitamin E acetate in nicotine cartridges, that I've found.
So, yeah. If you're a pot smoker living in a State where it's illegal, stay away from vaping. If you're just trying to find an effective method to quit smoking cigarettes, there's little concern. The Royal College of Physicians, the American Cancer Society, and the Food and Drug Administration have all admitted that vaping is much, much safer than smoking.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Isn't it funny how a random person can talk about an incident that happened to someone and it's dismissed as an anecdote but if a self proclaimed "news source" talks about it, it's magically transformed into concrete evidence to support an agenda?
Yes, bad things DO happen sometimes (OMG! I can't believe he said that! GASP!). Occasionally those bad things even support your agenda. What DOESN'T support your agenda is, well, your agenda. You claim that people are just being paranoid for wanting guns and that it's just unfounded fear mongering. Meanwhile, you claim that gun violence and specifically, mass shootings, are out of control. Which is it? Is the US a safe place where nobody needs to worry about defending themselves or is gun crime out of control and people need protection? Oh, that's right. It's that gun violence is high but nobody should try to defend themselves. After all, if you're killed by a criminal with a gun, TYT will celebrate you but if you take responsibility for your own survival, they'll crucify you. I think I'll stick with my current plan of staying alive and enjoying the fact that you hate me for it.
I know it's hard for you to comprehend that a person is capable of surviving for more than a day around guns but the fact is, your anecdotal evidence does nothing to disprove the fact that more than a hundred million people in this Country have guns and are living full lives. Besides, if your off-the-wall claims are true, all the gun owners will be dead within the next year or so anyway, right? I mean, if they're really that dangerous then there's no other viable conclusion. What really scares you is knowing that it's NOT true and we're going to be here for a long, long time. You know I'm right. Somehow we manage to keep living on, adding to our collections and eventually, passing them on to our children. How can that be? I mean by all accounts, there shouldn't be any citizens left in this Country, what with all the guns randomly exploding and taking out entire city blocks....or whatever it is you think they do when people aren't looking.
None of it really matters anyway. The fact is, of all the people who clamor for gun confiscation, I haven't seen a single one who is willing to step up and try taking the guns themselves. 330 million is a lot of guns. It's pretty naive to think that they could be taken against people's will, without a massive loss of life.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Thornbush434 California. The land with so much sense, that the people thought it was a good idea to let a mountain lion live in Los Angeles. Not only did that result in the death of quite a few pets but the lion itself was put down, due to extreme health issues, including injuries sustained from multiple encounters with vehicles.
Most Americans are long-since separated from nature. California is a perfect example of this. Of the forty million people in California, relatively few of them have any idea how to behave in a world with predators. If they did, they wouldn't cheer for legislation that helps disarm them around the worst predators in the world: humans. Californians, for the most part, are not aware and do not take precautions. There's plenty of reason to worry.
Then again, maybe that's good reason to reintroduce the State mascot back into California. I wonder how many of you would support legislation that would have grizzly bears roaming the streets and parks of LA? We could make them a protected species, too. After all, they were in California before people were. They deserve to wander wherever they want, and people should just understand and go on about their business, right?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Entry level workers control a very large percentage of the market in California. The cost of nearly everything has gone up every year that they've bumped up the minimum wage, on their way to $15. People stopped paying attention to that when Covid lockdowns spiked it even higher but it was still there. Now, you can argue that the minimum wage increase didn't cause the inflation, and that it was companies using it as an excuse to raise prices. Well, that's fine but they still had the excuse, which means the wage increase did cause the inflation.
In places like California, minimum wage will never be enough for long, no matter how high it gets. Cost of living has to go down in order for there to be a working class that can afford to live. That will never happen here, other than when there is disaster on a national scale. California real estate is worth gold. Realtors won't accept lower commissions, homeowners won't accept a market that doesn't increase dramatically every ten years, and those who have managed to carve out a piece for themselves don't want "the poors" moving into their neighborhoods. What's left is the overpriced rentals, that are such, partially due to (again) the high real estate values.
I bought my house nine years ago for $125,000. Next year I'll be selling it for what looks to be about $260,000 - probably to some Southern Californian (I'm in NorCal) looking to find some way to afford to hold on to living in California. They'll likely bring their higher (but not high enough for SoCal) paying job with them via remote work and try to tell themselves that 110+ degree Summers aren't that bad because "It's a dry heat." Tell me how a minimum wage increase is ever going to help someone keep up with a market like that. From the time they declared the increase to the time they'll reach it (next year) the cost of living has jumped enough to more than cover the difference. Blame whatever you want but it doesn't matter to the gas station attendant whose $15/hr isn't making ends meet any better than $7.25/hr is doing for the gas station attendants in Tennessee.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Mike
A) Almost nobody has fully automatic weapons in the US. Research, then comment
B) M855 are NOT classified as armor piercing rounds. They are no more effective at penetrating body armor than, say, a .308 round. Shall we get rid of every hunting rifle round? Research, then comment.
C) 99% of gun crime in the US is committed with handguns. Of the 1% that is committed with long guns, less than 1% are committed with semiautomatic rifles. There has not been a recorded crime committed with a fully automatic weapon in decades. Research, then comment.
By your way of reasoning, we should have a HUGE legislation battle to ban the weapons and ammunition that are responsible for the LEAST amount of gun crime. That makes no sense. While we're at it, let's ban Lamborghinis. I mean, they're rarely involved in crimes but they look really dangerous, so...
Research. Then comment.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So, I can take a booster to "protect" me from Omicron...or I can just get Omicron?
60% of people in the US are vaccinated. 80% of Omicron cases in the US are vaccinated. I have a hard time believing that more of the same vaccine is going to stop a variant that, by all accounts, the vaccine is actually creating susceptibility to.
Meanwhile, if I get Omicron, I can look forward to a runny nose, a scratchy throat, a mild cough, some fatigue, and possibly some body aches. In other words, exactly how I spend all Winter feeling, due to working outside all day. Plus, I'll get some nice, natural immunity boost from it.
I'm sorry, where is the up side to the booster? Oh, that's right. You need those quarterly earnings. That couldn't possibly be why you're pushing for people to get boosters every three months, could it? Nah, I'm sure that's a complete coincidence.
P.S. This video has 89 Likes and 468 DISLIKES as of this comment. Screw YouTube.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Aditya Kar The "smart gun" technology that was being proposed was A) unproven B) built directly into the firearm and C) was already being "required" by New Jersey once the first one sold, even though it was unproven and built into the firearm. This meant that a State was trying to set a legal precedent requiring all handguns (those things people buy for self defense) being sold after a certain point (that being the point at which the first "smart gun" was sold in New Jersey) to have an unproven locking system that could potentially keep the owner of the firearm from being able to use it effectively. Once a State sets a legal precedent, other States often follow with the ability to say "well, they did it so we can too" (that's what legal precedent is). The NRA, it's members (aka US citizens), the vast majority of gun owners in New Jersey and yes, firearms manufacturers, all rallied against this because it had the potential to A) put a lot of unreliable firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens B) greatly reduce the variety of handguns available and C) make even entry level handguns prohibitively expensive.
Now, the reason your comment is so outlandish is because there are already biometric gun safes and lock boxes on the market and the NRA doesn't have a problem with any of them. All this is, is a biometric trigger lock and so far, nobody is trying to mandate that everyone has to use an unproven, biometric trigger lock on their guns. You see, it's called choice. The NRA doesn't oppose new options, they oppose new legislation. It's really that simple.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ibchuckd "All the guys!" Yes, there have been sooo many cases of that happening each year, right? Oh, it's not that many? And you'll be in the same situation when your Tesla dies under trees, or in Winter? Oh, that's right! You won't get nearly as much sun in the Winter, so you'll be out there for at least two days and you're not going to get nearly as far on a charge when you have to drive through thick snow. More than enough time to freeze to death, too.
You really haven't thought this out, have you? That's okay. Most people who are looking at the Cybertruck haven't even driven in dirt, let alone a hard trail. It's just not in your wheelhouse, so you have no prior knowledge to pull from.
Meanwhile, you don't have to worry about me if I get stuck without a way out (anything's possible, I suppose). I grew up hunting, hiking, camping, and wheeling these woods. I can survive out here as long as I need to.
If I see you scraping Ice off your solar panels, I'll be sure to drop you off some rabbit. It's delicious, if you know how to cook it...and are capable of building a fire. Can you build a fire without charcoal and lighter fluid? Maybe I'll go ahead and cook it for you, just in case.
See you on the trails!
2
-
2
-
@anibalhyrulesantihero7021 California has a $200,000,000,000 (that's two hundred billion dollars) surplus that their governor loves to brag about. Meanwhile, kids in Arkansas, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, etc, are getting a better education on average. No excuses.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rd-lw4td Ha! Omicron is the equivalent to a cold. Runny nose, sore throat, mild cough, headache...it's kept at bay by Robitussin. Please, tell me the current death rate, or even severe case rate from Omicron. Go ahead. It should be a quick Google search away. I mean, they've been talking about how scary it is, so you know there are plenty of outlets giving the death and severe case rates, right?
Unless, of course, it's not actually that bad at all. In which case, all you'll find are COVID numbers in general, and nothing specifying any numbers for Omicron, other than cases. And don't bother with the one case the media jumped on in the UK. All of the news outlets were saying that person died from Omicron when, in fact, they died with Omicron. As soon as that was pointed out to them, they stopped talking about that case. However, even if they had died of Omicron, that would be one case in, what, hundreds of thousands at this point? Millions? Not exactly the "fucks you up" variant you seem to think it is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So, the defense against the poop in San Francisco "myth" is...that it's actually true, it's a big problem, but you feel that it's happening in every, single town in the US, too.
No, no it's not. We have homeless in my city. They're not dropping trou on sidewalks, stairs, streets, etc. Most tend to use wooded areas and restrooms at the various parks (where they often live). They still have a modicum of self respect and won't just cop a squat wherever they're standing. Even those without any self respect don't really want to be arrested for public indecency. See, the police in some cities actually do their jobs, unlike in SF.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@obcl8569 My kids are both honor students on the fast track to early graduation. They've picked their primary and backup colleges. They know what career paths they want and generally what it will take to get there. They're 14 and 16.
They both have small social circles with good kids. They have real friends, instead of "followers" and know what it means to actually be someone's friend.
My "poor kids" are happier and better adjusted than most people I've ever met. But I guess I should throw all of that away so they can have unfettered access to the Internet, right? No thanks. I think I'll keep doing what I'm doing.
Yes, I do use a social media platform while telling my kids they can't. I also watch R rated movies and have the occasional glass of my favorite bourbon. See there are differences between adults and children. Parents are supposed to restrict children's access to certain things, until such time as they are mature enough to responsibly handle those things. Or do you think it's hypocritical that I don't let my kids smoke, drink, and carry guns around town?
Am I being rude to you? Sure. If that's such a big deal to you, you should probably get off social media, yourself. There's a whole lot worse than mere rudeness on here, which is yet another reason why my kids aren't on social media. They don't need that kind of vitriol in their lives, yet.
You do you. I'll keep failing my "poor" kids in the manner I have been. If the worst thing they have to complain about when they're adults is that I wouldn't let them have Tik Tok, I'll just have to find a way to live with that. 😏
2
-
@obcl8569 You claim I made a threat and that I spewed vitriol at you. Okay, we'll go with that delusion. If you think that's bad, your parents are the ones who should have been concerned with making sure their kid was ready for the real world.
As for the rest, it's pretty much just you making strawman arguments, due to lack of ability to contradict what I've said. That's fine. I'm used to people like you. You say a lot and yet nothing at all, thinking filler will help hide the lack of substance in your comments. It doesn't.
Anyway, I'm glad you're done arguing, since you didn't have anything of substance to respond with in the first place. I just hope you're not also the type who insists on having the last word as a substitute for an actual win. However, if so, feel free. I'm done here, as well.
Have a nice life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@xena6343 And there it is. You berate me for my opinion about animal abusers. I respond in kind and then you try to play the victim. Sorry kid but you chose to engage someone on an open forum. Out here in the real world, if you swing first, you're not the victim.
A person with empathy does not abuse animals, just as a person with empathy does not abuse children. Making excuses for such behavior is reprehensible. If a given culture accepts such disgusting practices then the culture is wrong, along with those who perpetuate it. "They don't know any better" isn't a good excuse for slavery, pedophilia, animal abuse, or any of the other atrocities people commit. It's really that simple.
These people do not care that they are stabbing animals in the face to help them achieve financial success. They are no better than the people who stab bulls before a bullfight, or the ones who throw "bait dogs" to their pitbulls to train them to kill.
As for my comment's weight on the situation, I have no illusions that the people in this video will read it, nor that they would change their behavior if they did. The video's comment section exists so that people can (wait for it) post their comments about the video. Nothing more. I did exactly that: I relayed my opinion after seeing the video. You're the one who applied false motives to my statement. You know what happens when you assume, right?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisbeer5685
Issue 1: Ask any Democrat about gun control and the second amendment. They will tell you that a form not being available as soon as a law passes and having to meet with an authority figure they deem necessary, are not infringements on your rights. California has pulled the same and worse, yet those laws are considered perfectly valid by the majority. That pertains to an enumerated constitutional right. The general consensus seems to be that a right delayed is not a right denied. Mind you, that's not my position, it's the position of the Democrats (and apparenlty now, the Republicans). Take it up with them if you have a problem with that reasoning but the courts seem to back it.
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure you're telling me that before this law, a person didn't even need to see a doctor before starting to medically transition. That's pretty scary. I have to wait for the doctor if I need to be prescribed a painkiller. Why should it be easier to get on hormone blockers than to get prescription strength ibuprofen?
Issue 2: So, they're not preventing children from socially transitioning, just advising against it. Okay, and? States don't ban people from having unprotected sex but they advise against it. People want to do something and the government says they shouldn't. Welcome to the club! If this is the first time you've ever run into an issue where the government advised against you doing something you wanted to do, you've either lived a very blessed or a very short life.
This new idea that any pushback from government, whatsoever, is some kind of tyranny, is asinine. We live in a two party system. Absolutely everyone gets pushback from the government throughout their lives. It's never going to change, either.
Bottom line: No States are preventing adults from transitioning and no States are preventing kids from socially transitioning. Your receipts prove that you are overblowing the situation to make it seem more dire than it is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@coolcat6303 It's specifically because I'm a law abiding gun owner that this kind of nonsense does bother me. I've lived my life on the straight and narrow. I've committed no offense greater than traveling above the speed limit my entire life. What do I get for my responsible behavior? I get to jump through hoop after hoop, having to prove time and time again that I am an upstanding citizen.
Meanwhile, the only people these laws don't bother are those who don't want to own guns and, of course, criminals. See, neither you nor the guy who might shoot you one day is all that inconvenienced by these laws.
- He's going to steal or buy a stolen gun.
- You're going to continue to think the police will get there in time.
- He's going to show up, rob you, and shoot you.
- You're going to die.
- He's going to run away.
- The police are going to show up eventually and write up a report.
- They'll run the serial number (if your killer leaves the gun behind, which he probably won't) and come up with the name of some guy who had his gun stolen five years prior.
- Your case will go unsolved.
- Your family will go public, demanding politicians enact more useless laws.
- Your killer will laugh at the next anti-gun press conference ABC airs, while loading yet another stolen gun.
- I'm going to be standing in line, waiting for a psych evaluation, a physical, and an IQ test to prove, yet again, that I should be allowed to buy a gun (even though I already have guns and have never harmed anyone).
Thanks but I don't think I'll be subscribing to your brand of "logic" any time soon.
2
-
2
-
@spencereyes235 Because it doesn't matter how many gas cans you bring, when this thing runs out of juice in the woods, you're screwed. It's that simple.
Even the solar cover will only net about 5-10 miles (on road) worth of electricity per day. So, you get to spend all day (hopefully) sitting in a sunny spot, so you can maybe make it out of the woods...if you camp close to roads.
However, we're talking about comparing it to real 4x4s, not AWD crossovers with 6" of ground clearance. In which case, we're talking about doing long, difficult trails to get to your destination. Again, when a normal 4x4 runs low on gas, you grab a gas can and add fuel. Worst case scenario, you can borrow some from someone else on the trail. Nobody carries a spare Tesla charger or a 50 mile extension cord in their gear.
I suppose you could carry a generator and fuel and enjoy your 8-12 hour "charge break" wherever your truck dies. Personally, I'd rather just pour that fuel in my tank and hit the trail. I'm weird like that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@daonlyrainsolo You grew up around people who liked to fight their dogs and the dogs they had...fought? Gosh, you don't say! I grew up around people who just liked to fight. Guess what: they fought, too! I guess that means all Italians are violent, right? At least, that's what your "logic" dictates.
Face it, you're a bigot. You have an isolated experience with certain dogs and you let that dictate your outlook on their entire breed(s). You're really no better than the people who say all Mexicans are illegals or all Black people are lazy. It's the exact same thing, you just feel comfortable saying it because nobody calls you a bigot for being bigoted against dog breeds.
Meanwhile, I grew up with a father who volunteered for the Doberman Rescue Society and who had a love of both Dobermans and Rottweilers. We had Dobies that came from all manner of abusive homes. The vast majority were scared of their own shadows, not savage. The few that were made mean were easier to rehabilitate than the ones that were just made scared. More than a dozen Dobermans came to us to foster and every one of them left stable, loving, and good with kids, cats, etc. The Rotties we had were the most loyal and loving dogs I've ever seen.
...but I'm sure a pack of stupid drunks are better at drawing out the true character of a dog than a loving family, right? Bigot.
2
-
2
-
I have most of the Omicron symptoms all Winter long. Even if I get Covid at this point, I won't be asymptomatic until March, at the earliest.
P.S. Two shots and a booster to get to 75% protection? Those are terrible numbers. Are there any other vaccines out there that you take 3 times just to get to "probably safe?" Also, with the insane spread of Omicron, how effective is 75%, really? I mean, if we're going to be interacting with Omicron infected people every day, that means every, single one of those people has a 25% chance of giving you breakthrough Covid. Basically, if you interact with at least 4 infected people, you're virtually guaranteed to get Covid, statistically.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@athos1974 I don't know. I think the basic premise of what we started with would be good enough. States were always free to trade and work with each other, as they pleased, so things like what you're describing would happen naturally, anyway. Meanwhile, the Federal government had a lot less say over everything, so the States weren't forced to deal with each other so much. Not exactly like the EU but along that lines (and we did it first).
Obligatory: No, I'm nit talking about bringing back slavery, ending women's suffraging, or anything like that, for any morons reading this, who feel the need to jump to the dumbest conclusions possible.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A. The report didn't say anything about liquid fuel, which makes sense since this story isn't about liquid fuel. It's actually pretty weird that you're bringing it up. It's almost like you're personally offended, or something.
B. Most of the things we own that use Lithium batteries, don't have liquid fuel alternatives. I've never seen a gas-powered phone, laptop, tablet, compact drill, circular saw, impact driver, etc. Also, very few people actually own the current version of EVs - that have Lithium batteries in them - and most never will, so there's another non-issue. EV adoption really doesn't have a chance of picking up steam until they at least have stable, solid-state batteries, that have much better range and are a lot more affordable to replace.
C. I've seen authentic battery packs from nearly every major tool brand go up in flames. These are companies that use 18650 and 21700 cells made by Sony and Samsung (the two top brands for these kinds of cells). It's not about "cheap Asian knockoffs" (amusing, considering nearly all of these types of cells are made in Asia). It's about these batteries having a shelf life and a relatively narrow threshold for safe operating conditions. That combined with a much more volatile reaction to being pushed beyond said threshold is absolutely cause for concern to anyone with any sense.
Batteries are not a new thing. Household batteries that can spontaneously combust at thousands of degrees, release huge clouds of poisonous gas, and can barely be controlled by current fire suppression methods are a pretty new thing. That's why it's newsworthy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Osprey1994 The drug "laws" they are enforcing are Federal. The problem with that is that the US Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to regulate drugs on any level. It does, however, say that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution and not restricted from the States, belong to the States, and the people. That was so important for the structure of this Country, that the founders made it the tenth amendment of the bill of rights.
It's written in plain English... that politicians, judges, and lawyers choose to ignore, for their political agendas. Law enforcement officers are not required to violate the US Constitution by any code or law. Anyone who wants to enforce actual laws would learn what they are, first. If they did that, these "laws" would start disappearing, as the cases against them received more support from the right people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Neither one of them do, or they wouldn't be defending the government, or the corporations. Government overreach is bad for everyone, as it forces businesses to raise prices (hurts customers), reduce staff (hurts customers and employees), or go out of business (hurts customers and employees).
Meanwhile, profitable companies pretending that they have a fiduciary responsibility to overcharge customers and underpay workers, for the sake of increasing profits every quarter for their shareholders, is bad for customers and employees, too. The term "business ethics" has become an oxymoron. For some reason, there has been a major shift. There used to be long-term stocks and short-term stocks. Long-term stocks were the ones you bought as a plan to use for retirement. Short-term stocks were the ones you bought thinking they were about to have a big payoff. Nowadays, most stockholders and corporations seem to think that all of their long-term stocks should pay dividends like short-term stocks. All that does is help create unsustainable inflation.
Unfortunately, whenever corporations go too far in taking advantage of their employees and customers, it gives the government an excuse to step in and mess things up even more (as they always do). That's where we are right now.
2
-
@vie2210 That's where the car came to a stop. If you're a professional driver, you should know that cars don't just stop dead in their tracks when something hits their windshield. Plus, you can see from the damage to the front of the car that it went had bounced off of at least a couple of those concrete dividers. I think you're stuck on the idea that everyone has time to hit the brakes. That's not the case.
A car traveling at 65+ mph can coast a very long way, if something doesn't bring it to a stop (which going by the condition of the front of the car, something did). Furthermore, your anecdote about "there's fences" doesn't take into account those which are in disrepair (you know, that infrastructure issue you mentioned earlier) or those that simply haven't yet been fenced (yes, they do exist). Yes, this is speculation but then, that's all either of us has been doing.
Now look at 0:17 into the video. They're standing under an overpass, inspecting it. Why would they do that? Whether it was because someone threw the concrete off of it or it chunked off and fell by itself, the car would have had to have passed under it to get hit. Your latest reply actually goes against your original conspiracy theory. Now I have to ask: If the car was nowhere near an overpass, got hit by a piece of concrete and came to a dead stop (so hard that both front wheels were torn loose) where does your new theory say the concrete came from? Space? A special concrete airplane?
Or is it possible that someone chucked a piece of concrete off the overpass seen in the video, hit the windshield, killed the driver and the car kept moving forward (as they do) until it had wrecked its front end enough to come to a stop where it appears at around 0:40 in the video? I have an easier time believing that than whatever it is your new implications are pointing to.
2
-
@vie2210 First, that's not a newer vehicle. Second, the airbag sensors are in the front, rear and sides of a vehicle, near common impact zones. I could throw bowling balls through your windshield at you all day and it would never trigger the airbags or (on newer cars) the brake lockup feature.
As for the idea that a piece of debris - traveling in the same general direction as this car - could fall off a truck and through the windshield (without a bounce) with enough force to kill the driver runs pretty counterintuitive to the laws of physics. A body in motion stays in motion. If they were both travelling, say, West at relatively equal speeds, the impact would be at nearly 0 mph. He would have to have been hauling ass past the truck for it to have even made it all the way through the windshield (they're laminated).
As for your little snipe at the end, your reading comprehension is lacking. At no point did I even imply that "some drunk teenager did it, open and shut." I presented a plausible alternative to your paranoid ramblings. You pressed me on it and I backed it up - whereas you folded on your claims. Never once did I say "This is what happened." I have no idea what happened. I just know that there are much better odds of some scenarios than others. Your latest scenario is at least getting within the realm of possible, so I applaud you for the effort. However, that wasn't a real forensic hypothesis. It was spit-balling out of frustration of having your other theories dismantled (with your own help). At least we're off the "It's a vast conspiracy!" nonsense. Baby steps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The same reason it's legal to use a chainsaw. Yes, if you use it improperly, it will likely harm you. No, that doesn't mean I want the government to ban chainsaws. If you use teflon, you should use it within the safe temperature range. Since I don't care to be that careful, I use pretty much everything except teflon. I have cast iron, carbon steel, stainless steel, enameled, and copper cookware. There are plenty of viable alternatives available and some of them are even more affordable. Just buy good cookware.
If more people cared more about their health and less about being lazy, teflon wouldn't exist. The same can be said for fast food. In fact, if people were to stop eating fast food for a month or two, they could afford some fairly nice cookware and some meat and veggies to cook in it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jbarton1541 You poor, misguided soul. Let me help you.
A little history lesson for you: Back in the 80's school kids liked to make up meanings for different hand gestures. It's not surprising because their parents liked to make up nonsense about symbolism on things like Marlboro cigarettes. Anyway, kids started deciding that the "Okay" hand gesture kinda looked like a 'W' and a 'P.' Of course, it was declared that this meant "White Power." It spread around, as things like that do, and a good laugh was had by anyone who wasn't a moron. The best part was when you convinced some poor schmuck it was true and they would flash it to groups of Neo-NAZIs, thinking it was doing something to keep them safe (it wasn't). The looks on their faces were good for a laugh. In fact, more than a few people caught beatings from said NAZIs because they thought the person was hitting on them, or mocking them (that part wasn't funny).
Fast forward a few decades and we come to the era of Internet trolls. Some of the most prominent of which are the members of 4chan. One day, they decided to take the old trope and spread it around on the Internet, to see if they could get stupid people to believe it. Well, it worked. Stupid people in the corporate media ran with it and stupid people who believe everything corporate media says believed it. Those who knew the truth of the symbol's origin were happy to continue trolling the stupid people because, frankly, it was funny. Even Right and Far Right groups got in on the joke, which of course made the stupid people feel completely vindicated in their idiocy.
However, now the joke has gone too far. Stupid people are actually trying to persecute people over a hand gesture that has no actual ties to NAZIism. So, here we are, having this discussion. I know it hurts to learn this but you've been duped. You were guided by stupid people into believing a stupid thing. You were way too trusting and now you just look foolish to the millions upon millions of people who were in on the joke.
Please, feel free to spread the word amongst your fellow dupes. I know it's embarrassing to admit to falling for such an obvious joke but really, it's better than being willfully ignorant in the face of the truth. I wish you good fortunes and a fulfilling life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
hellasow b Um, you might want to rethink your "guns of their time" stance. At the time, the 2nd amendment was also protecting private citizens' right to own cannons. I really don't think you want to go there.
Anyway, your premise is false, regardless. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "The people" had the same firearms available to them as any modern (for the time) army. Do you really think the founders intended for the militia to continue using muskets when any invading force was upgrading their arms? They knew about things like the Puckle gun at the time the Constitution was penned. They didn't add any clauses that said "But if guns get, like, really powerful and stuff, the People totally shouldn't have those." Why? Because they were building a Country based on individual freedoms. They fought to get out from under the thumb of an overreaching government. The Second Amendment was put in pace so that no American would ever have to submit to one again.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure they'd have been cool with AKs and ARs. You really shouldn't try to argue for more Federal regulations by invoking the founding fathers. They'd have probably shot you for treason. Just sayin'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Inland, Northern California (I-5 corridor). The climate is going from dry and desert like to having four seasons and enough rain to provide plenty of water. If you're smart, you'll get in on it early, while the real estate is significantly cheaper than SoCal. Within the next few years, the market is going to go insane, as everyone scrambles to buy up property. Lakes, rivers, mountains, and lots of land. Within ten years, Redding will be a major California city. Anyone buying in Shasta or any of the surrounding counties right now, is basically printing money for tomorrow.
While fools are moving inland, away from the richest State in the union (and the only one taking climate change seriously) the smart money is just moving North.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's not a new shot. They wouldn't waste the R&D money on that. It's the exact, same as the first. They see an opportunity to get people onto a treatment plan that happens to align with their fiscal quarters. You see, they figured out a while ago that cures are not as profitable as treatments. So, they come up with a shot that is just good enough to sell to those who are scared and desperate. Then they resell them the same thing every three months, to keep their profit margins up.
It's a beautifully crafted system that the fearful will not question. Why? Because they're afraid that if they stop complying, they'll die. Nobody else is claiming to be able to "save" them and they can't fathom a world wherein they have to just protect themselves. Throw in some politicians who love getting kickbacks and news media that thrives on sensationalism and you've got a perfect storm.
Omicron is thus far non-lethal. It's really fast moving. It also appears to be completely resistant to the shots. We'll pretty much all get it and then we'll all have what we need to fight off future variants. This is the beginning of the end for big Pharma's record breaking profits and they're scared as hell. $40,000,000,000/year allows you to buy off a lot of doctors, politicians, and news pundits. The coverage will get worse as we all get better. Guaranteed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
They all know how to solve these problems. They just won't. Granted, some states don't have the resources to make the kinds of changes that are necessary, however states like California don't have that excuse. Their refusal to change things is all about keeping plenty of people voting for the politicians who keep them reliant on the state for their income. California's super-majority gets to pass all manner of terrible laws, and spend their way from a $200,000,000,000 surplus to a $65,000,000,000 deficit in just three years, because the majority aren't willing to vote against the people who provide them with government assistance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Can we please stop pretending that kids of any generation were largely capable of such? "Kids today" are kids. They are in development, just like all the rest of us were. The major difference between "kids today" and previous generations, is the sheer volume of outside influence today's kids have. My generation's influences were family, church (for those who went,) friends, school, radio, and about 50 - regulated - cable TV channels. This generation has all of that and an endless stream of random, unfiltered content. Of course they are harder to reach, but to imply that they are the first generation of kids who lack fully formed critical thinking skills, is disingenuous at best.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thewand3r3r45 The peak healthy weight for a 6' tall man is 196. That number is based on the person being more muscular than average. If you're 6', 200lbs, and aren't muscular, you're overweight/unhealthy.
At the bottom end of the spectrum, a 6' man can be as little as 160 and still be healthy. This would be the area someone should be if they have very little muscle (desk job, doesn't work out, etc).
So, an actual, average, healthy, 6' tall man should be around 178 - to account for average muscle mass.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Gabriel Cowley Whether it seems strange to you or not, it's how things work. We're talking about public perception, not what your responsibilities are. If you are okay with certain people representing a group you belong to, you let them speak for said group. If you are not okay with it, you speak up.
You use the example of whether you should speak out against Communists. That depends. Do you feel that Communists are publicly claiming that their brand of "Leftism" is the only true Leftism? Do you think that the public, in general, feels that anyone left of center is a Communist? If so, I would imagine you might have something to say about that. I assume that you don't though, given that you are using this example to try to disprove my statement.
Again, this is a perception issue. Feminists are perceived as "man-hating femi-nazis" because they are being represented as such. If it's not up to Feminists to deal with whether or not they're okay with being perceived this way, who do you propose is responsible for dealing with it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+DAK4Blizzard Yes, because historically, the bigger army always wins, right? I mean, that's why we're still a British colony after all. It's also why we so easily dispatched the Vietnamese and the North Koreans in those wars, right? Wait, no. We didn't.
So let's try to tidy this up because now you're just trying to spread it in every direction possible. Your claim is that the second amendment - which specifically lists militias as the primary reason for our Right to bear arms and outlines no other reason whatsoever - is not for the sake of being able to form militias. You claim that it has somehow transformed into meaning that we get to have guns for home defense and hunting and that it no longer applies to militias because you feel we don't need them any more. That's a pretty bold claim but I'll make it really easy for you. Just provide a link to the documents that changed the meaning of the second amendment to exclude militias and to include hunting (I've already seen the Heller transcripts, so I don't need you to show that they add self/home defense to the definition).
It's that easy. My claim is that the second amendment applies to militias and self/home defense. I've now cited my sources, which are the second amendment itself and the SCOTUS' Heller decision. Your "every day observations" don't trump written law. So, all you need is two sources. One for the addition of hunting to, and one for the exclusion of militias from the definition of the second amendment. It's really that simple.
Please don't respond without your sources. You don't actually have an argument without them. Your opinion as to whether militias are necessary is irrelevant. My opinion as to whether militias are necessary is irrelevant. We're talking about the legal definition of the second amendment to the Constitution. So, no more redirects. No more rhetoric. Just facts. PROVE that I'm wrong or walk away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PwnyGOD Actually, I wasn't referring to that and it's the first I'm seeing of it. That was about some interview. I'm talking about a speech I watched her give after one of the mass shootings. If I find it, I'll post a link but I assure you, I have no interest in the NRA or their shtick.
As for her policies, they're pretty clear. She wants the Heller decision reversed. She's made no bones about that. The Heller decision determined that the second amendment was not simply protecting a State's Right to a militia but also the individual Right to keep and bear arms for home/self defense. Now, if that decision is reversed, then suddenly, we no longer have a Right to defend ourselves with firearms. If that's the case, then we have no "need" for anything other than hunting rifles and shotguns (nobody hunts with a handgun). She has been sure to say on many occasions that she has no problem with guns...for hunting. So, even if I can't find the video of the speech, it's not exactly necessary. She doesn't want to reverse Heller because she thinks we should be able to have the types of guns people carry for self defense. Can you really justify her desire to take away our Right to defend ourselves with a firearm as "common sense" gun control? That goes way beyond background checks and registration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+manzilla48 I didn't say guns aren't easier, I said mass killing isn't hard without them. The reason we have more mass killings is because we have more twisted bastards with an inclination to kill lots of people. Not exactly the kind of folks I'm looking to disarm myself around. Now, if you really want to get into all of the talking points on why we have so many mass killings, we can but honestly, it mostly boils down to this: Our society is screwed up.
If it were the guns themselves, how then did my grandfather (and many others of his generation) go to school every day with a shotgun and/or rifle hanging in his back window, leave his truck unlocked (giving anyone who walked by access to it) and never once end up in the middle of a school shooting? The fact is that guns used to be everywhere in the US - more so than today. You could buy one over the counter in most stores. Any teenager could go in, buy as many guns as they could afford, buy the ammo to match and walk down the street with their purchases...yet school shootings were unheard of. Tell me how, exactly does that mesh with this new age "guns are bad and solely responsible for the uptick in shootings" philosophy that has become trendy? I've got news for you: Guns aren't bad. Violent criminals are bad. Family members and teachers who ignore obvious signs of mental instability in children are bad. Parents who allow untrained children access to weapons are bad.
I'm really glad the band-aid approach worked for the UK however, we're not ready to give up and allow our government to treat us all like potential criminals. As for Paris, I had no idea that fully automatic AK47s were legal there. They're not even legal here for most people and we're the "gun nuts." Or were you saying that they aren't legal and the terrorists still managed to easily get their hands on them (which kind of goes against your position that gun bans work to deter mass killings)?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jesus Christ Where did I admit my argument was flawed? I think you need to up your meds. Let's get back on topic, shall we? Can you show even one instance where the use of a pistol grip, adjustable stock or flash suppressor allowed someone to kill a group of people more effectively? Do you realize that Sandy Hook was carried out using two pistols and that the rifle was later discovered in the trunk of his car (ask CNN)? By your logic, he couldn't have done what he did effectively because he was just using pistols and not his "evil" AR. After all, there were no tactical modifications on his pistols. Do you really think he would have killed more people if his pistols had been equipped with folding stocks and flash suppressors? Are you even aware that the majority of gun crimes and fun deaths in the US are perpetrated using pistols, not rifles (even though rifles are easier to obtain through legal channels)?
You sound just like the politicians who pushed for this law: "DAT LUKZ SCAREY! IT WUZ ON DA NEWZ A CUPPLE TIMEZ! MAEK IT GO AWAY!!! GOST GUNZ SHUTE 30 MAGUHZEEN CLIP AROUND THINGIEZ PER SEKUND! ITZ CUZ IT LUKS SCAREYER DAN UTHER GUZ!!!
Seriously though, do some research. Look at the actual statistics. The stock, grip and muzzle aren't what makes a gun dangerous. The bullet, the firing pin and the person pulling the trigger are. But please, feel free to provide the source links that prove the grip, stock and/or flash suppressor make a gun more lethal. Just be sure they're LEGITIMATE sources (DOJ, FBI, independent NEUTRAL groups who show their source, etc are acceptable. Anti-gun sites need not apply). Otherwise you're just wasting keystrokes.
1
-
+Jesus Christ And again, what proof do you have that banning a folding/collapsible stock and pistol grip has any affect on the lethality of a firearm? Or that making a person choose between them and a quick change magazine makes any sense at all? Or whether anyone has ever been stopped from killing people because they had to change magazines? You do a lot of grandstanding, yet you fail to answer the simple questions that are presented to you.
My rifle no longer has your "evil features" on it. Because of this, it still has the stock mag release. If I want to carry as many bullets as I did before, I can. If I want to fire off rounds until my rifle burns up, I can. A mag change takes roughly 1.5 seconds. Not nearly enough time for someone to realize you stopped shooting due to reloading (rather than just pausing to look for targets), asses the shot, come out from behind cover and fire an accurate round.
By the way, since you seem to have a hard time with this, I'll explain. There is a big difference between just laws and unjust laws. Our country is built on just laws that are designed specifically for the protection of the people. UNjust laws are laws that take away the rights of the people without good cause. A law that says I can't make my rifle LOOK a certain way because people who have little to no experience with firearms think it makes my rifle scarier, even though such features have NOTHING to do with the lethality of the round, is an unjust law. NOBODY will EVER be saved from a gunshot due to the gun not having an adjustable stock. It's a fantasy created in the minds of the same people who genuinely think they can just say "Guns are illegal now" and they'll magically disappear from the hands of criminals.
Nice strawman arguments though. Let's see, so far you've said that unreasonable restrictions=anti-rape laws, extended magazines=baby rape, pistol grips and folding stocks=increased lethality and standing up for your rights=desiring anarchy. How can anyone think these are reasonable restrictions when they're championed by such unreasonable people?
Now, if you're not going to back up your claims, we should both just go ahead and move on. All you are doing is trying to spread your wild philosophies about "deadly" stocks and "killer" pistol grips without any factual information to back you up. Maybe it's time to visit your local gun range and become educated about firearms before you claim to know what's right for responsible, law abiding citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wait, let me word that properly for you: "The NRA is stopping the Federal Government from taking Rights away from thousands of people who the FBI has never even CHARGED with a crime, let alone got a conviction. Nobody currently on the terrorist watchlist has ever carried out an attack, yet a couple who wasn't on the list did."
So, let me see if I can understand. You folks want to ban a specific type of rifle that is responsible for less than 1% of all gun crime in the US. Ban magazines that, again, are used in less than 1% of gun crime. And take Rights away from American citizens without due process, because someone at the FBI decided to put their name on a list. Yeah, that's insane. Please stop with the emotional, knee-jerk reactions.
A quick question: Can anyone tell me what the process is for getting put on the watchlist? I'd love to know because the FBI sure is playing that one close to the vest. Do you have to be directly involved with terrorism? Do you have to be friends with someone who is involved with terrorism? Do you have to have spoken to someone who is involved with terrorism? What is the minimum requirement?
By the way, if you honestly feel that the 20,000 people on the list are a real threat, WHY AREN'T YOU MAD THAT THE FBI IS ALLOWING 20,000 DANGEROUS PEOPLE TO WALK THE STREETS?! If they're that bad, why do they have access to the public? Why can they buy everything they need to build explosives and also be allowed access to schools, malls etc? You're mad that they have access to guns? If they're really terrorists then I'M mad that they have free access to my children's school!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jesse and Jan And again, I already covered this. Artificial inflation happens every time we get a minimum wage hike. The best way to make things even more unattainable is to bump the minimum wage because big businesses take advantage of the fact that everyone already assumes that the costs will go up. You can't change that with an even BIGGER minimum wage bump - only make it worse.
The solution to the issue you're talking about isn't a higher wage, it's a return to a way of life that included ethical business practices. You want housing to stop increasing exponentially? Then the real estate agents need to stop telling people what they "could" get for their homes. Take it from someone who worked very closely with realtors for many years. Most of them are more crooked than a hillbilly smile. An industry as important as housing should not be controlled by commission based salespeople. Their entire world revolves around getting the cost of real estate to go up so that they can make more money per sale. Even buyer's agents don't try to get prices reduced during a negotiation any more. They try for "post sale rebates" so that the house will technically sell for more money and will keep the market looking like houses are worth more than they are. And trust me, as soon as everyone is making $15/hour nationally, you're going to see a MAJOR spike in real estate prices throughout the Country. Don't believe me? Just wait and see. I still talk to several of my old real estate contacts and they're chomping at the bit, waiting for the increase to go through. They can't wait to start kicking the prices up on houses. Will it really make you feel better when people in Ohio and Kentucky have to pay as much for a house as you do in Oregon or I do in California? That doesn't sound right to me at all. If anything, I think the artificial cost of living in the coastal States should go down. Instead, you folks are going to make the cost of living in the middle skyrocket. Great plan.
Even Governor Jerry Brown said that while he was going to allow the increase to happen in California, it didn't make fiscal sense to do so. That he was doing it only because he thought it might increase morale. He said it publicly, so you can feel free to look it up. It's a pretty rare thing for Governor Moonbeam and me to see eye-to-eye on anything, so I take it as a pretty clear sign when it does happen. When the Liberal Governor of one of the mist Liberal States is sounding Conservative to you, it means you've gone WAY too far to the Left.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ellaine Anderson You are aware that you can just go back and edit your comments, right? You don't actually have to leave me separate ones every time something "clever" decides to fall out of your head.
Now, let's cover your BS: You taught your son to work hard. He does so. Rather than being the person who got laid off, he's the one the company valued enough to keep. He's still making money while someone else is standing in an unemployment line....and your first thought is "Why aren't they paying him more money?!" You answered this yourself. If they're laying people off, it's not because they're experiencing a financial windfall. Sounds like your son works for a place that's struggling. They had to make some hard decisions. They recognized his strong work ethic and decided he was worth keeping. Gosh, such animals!
As for your assumptions about me, I had to laugh while reading. So stereotypical of you to think that someone telling people to "work hard and make something of themselves" didn't have to do so, himself. Sorry, dear but I'm no hypocrite. I scraped my way up to where I am (which isn't very high but I'm proud of what I've built). But then, my life bothers people like you because I'm proof that it can be done and that others can do it, too. Can everyone do it? No, of course not. But a lot of people can and don't, because they're constantly being told by people like you that "the game is rigged, so there's no point in trying." Who is the bigger asshole: The person telling people that they can make something of themselves or the one telling people that they can't?
One of the problems is that the genuinely downtrodden have had their programs bombarded by those who think they're entitled to an easy life. Nobody is entitled to anything they can't provide for themselves through work, trade or barter. That being said, as a society, we should always try to provide for those who can't do so. However, if it weren't for all those who won't do for themselves, there would be more available for those who can't do so.
There's no manual for life. If you see an opportunity, you go after it. If you don't see one, you try to make one. If you fail, you try again. You keep swinging until the fight is over.
...Or you can complain on the Internet about life not being fair, to a bunch of people who already know it isn't. It's your choice but the second one isn't going to do a damn thing for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
samiamrg7 First, don't bother citing mortality rates unless you're going to tell me that modern medicine has cured death. 40,000 people might die every year because of poor health coverage but the rest die in spite of it. If more people actually cared about their health, they wouldn't require so much healthcare. If you want me to keep paying for healthcare for the disenfranchised, maybe I should get a say in what they eat, what they smoke, how they exercise, etc. How about you run that compromise by them and see what they think?
Second, I agree that healthcare costs are a big deal. That doesn't mean that throwing out the baby with the bath water for the sake of "mild improvements" was the right thing to do.
Third, "Getting rid of it would hurt the American people" is way too general of a statement. Getting rid of it flat out would hurt a relatively small percentage of the American people and help a different percentage...but then, nobody is talking about getting rid of it outright without putting something else in place, are they? I'd say that taking a hard look at the flaws in the old system and how to fix them would be a good start. Competition breeds lower prices. Transparency forces honesty. Overreaching legislation just creates angry people looking to circumvent the system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+MaxadBarre Thank you for clarifying. Having sifted through a sea of commentary on the issue, I was getting a very different impression. A great many people claim that ISIS is following Mohammed's instructions in the Qur'an. Admittedly, I have not yet read the Qur'an, so I don't have an opinion in this area as of now.
As for discouraging other Muslims from thinking it's righteous to join ISIS, I couldn't agree more. Obviously we don't need more terrorists in the world. I do feel, however, that the labels are somewhat semantic in this regard. One who believes in peaceful coexistence is not easily swayed to violence. One who believes in violence is not kept peaceful for long. In an ideal world, the general public would always treat the sins of individuals as individual sins but that's not the planet upon which we reside.
While pleading with non-Muslims over labels may help some, it won't be enough to make a significant difference. Instead I would concentrate on reminding Muslims that this period in history is merely a test of their faith and resolve. That many people have faced unjustified bias and misdirected hate since the dawn of time and the truly righteous are those who do not succumb to anger and indignation in the face of misunderstanding. Furthermore, doing so publicly (such as this discussion) will do more to help sway the view of those who misunderstand Muslims than shouting at them about terminology. A man standing in a park reminding people to be peaceful brings far more peace than a man shouting at people to change. Remember, the only way to direct the narrative is to lead by example.
Be well, my friend.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+AeriosDFY2 What Country do you think this is? You say "let" as though people have to ask permission to own guns. It's a right, not a privilege. Not to mention that a system like that would require national gun confiscation, which would be the bloodiest thing to happen in this Country since the Civil War.
Okay, let's try again but we'll start with some facts:
- There a roughly 350 million privately owned guns in the US and more being bought every day.
- Roughly 1/3 of American citizens own guns.
- There are about 100 million more guns than cars in the US, yet, even though cars are MUCH more heavily regulated, cars kill more people every year.
- There were about 33,000 gun deaths in the US in 2014. Roughly 75% of gun deaths are suicides. The remaining 25% are divided up between justified police shootings, justified self defense shootings and actual homicides. Of the actual homicides, the majority are products of gang violence.
- Guns are used around 800,000 times/year to PREVENT crime in the US. This obviously includes a very large number of occurrences when the mere act of drawing a gun was enough to deter the attacker.
- Gun crime has been steadily reducing over the past twenty years.
Now, without starting a war and without denying American citizens their Constitutionally protected rights, what legal, sensible gun control laws can be put in place that would effectively reduce gun crime faster than it currently is. My personal thoughts are that we should make firearm safety classes mandatory for all Americans. However, the only way to do that Constitutionally is to include it in high school curriculums the way we did with sex ed and require a passing grade in order to graduate. I personally think this is completely reasonable since it is every American's right, whether they choose to exercise it or not. It's the only effective way to create more responsible gun owners. A nice byproduct is that those who don't like guns will at least know what they're talking about, so they won't grow up to be politicians who say things like, "This ghost gun can fire a 30 magazine round clip in half a second" or "Get a shotgun and if you hear someone outside, fire two blasts out your front door to scare them off." By the way, that last one was said by none other than our very own Vice President. Thanks, crazy Uncle Joe...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Aditya Kar The "smart gun" technology that was being proposed was A) unproven B) built directly into the firearm and C) was already being "required" by New Jersey once the first one sold, even though it was unproven and built into the firearm. This meant that a State was trying to set a legal precedent requiring all handguns (those things people buy for self defense) being sold after a certain point (that being the point at which the first "smart gun" was sold in New Jersey) to have an unproven locking system that could potentially keep the owner of the firearm from being able to use it effectively. Once a State sets a legal precedent, other States often follow with the ability to say "well, they did it so we can too" (that's what legal precedent is). The NRA, it's members (aka US citizens), the vast majority of gun owners in New Jersey and yes, firearms manufacturers, all rallied against this because it had the potential to A) put a lot of unreliable firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens B) greatly reduce the variety of handguns available and C) make even entry level handguns prohibitively expensive.
Now, the reason your comment is so outlandish is because there are already biometric gun safes and lock boxes on the market and the NRA doesn't have a problem with any of them. All this is, is a biometric trigger lock and so far, nobody is trying to mandate that everyone has to use an unproven, biometric trigger lock on their guns. You see, it's called choice. The NRA doesn't oppose new options, they oppose new legislation. It's really that simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow. When in doubt, virtue signal. "It's the white men! It's those evil, old white men comin' to get me! I'm SO persecuted!" Yeah, except that if Joe Blo off the street did this, he'd be sitting in a holding cell while the Secret Service figure out which bottomless pit to drop him in. You're a woman and a celebrity so you get to walk around free after displaying an ISIS-like photo of you decapitating the President. You should be brought up on charges for treason but no. You're a second rate actress/comedienne, so you got to go home after this interview with all of your freedoms intact. You're no victim.
And you know, I find it interesting that for all of the gun control clamor from the Left, I haven't heard of a single petition to ban Kathy Griffin from buying a gun now. This is exactly the type of thing that should have gun control advocates up in arms; Someone who has made violent threats to another person, lost their job (and possibly career) and is publicly blaming the person she made the threats to in the first place. Oh, it's because she's who she is and her intended victim is who he is. That's right, I forgot. We have a longstanding tradition of double-standards in this Country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Sascha Kramarenko Except that it happens quite a bit here. The majority of gun owners who are confronted with these situations survive them and stop their attackers. Apparently 1% is a bit conservative.
I really don't understand how people can claim that guns are such efficient killing machines that can lay waste to large groups of people and then, out of the other side of theirs mouths, claim that anyone who used a gun to successfully defend themselves was just lucky. Which is it? Are guns an efficient way of dispatching multiple targets or aren't they? I know the answer but then, I have a lot of hands on experience with various types of firearms. Mass shooters don't have special forces training that makes them better with their weapons than regular citizens. They have guns and time at the range, just like everyone else. To imply that guns are only capable of killing innocent people and that they have an ingrained inability to stop criminals is naive at best. I promise, a bullet doesn't do a background check before it hits you. A gun fired by a woman defending her children is no less effective than a gun fired by a police officer (Yes, I said it. The police have a TERRIBLE shot:hit ratio. Google it).
Speaking of which, I'd like to weigh in on your conversation with Joe. The great majority of Police officers in the US retire having never fired at a person while on duty. The majority of gun owners can make the same claim. Somehow, you feel that the Police who patrol my neighborhood need a gun more than I do, even though statistically they're not much more likely to need them than I am. Why do the Police get special privileges? Are their lives worth mire than mine? My wife's? My children's? I know for a fact that I have more range time in than most of them and that the majority aren't even required to have stress based training (a course that's readily available throughout the Country). Remember, when seconds matter, the Police are only minutes away. I'm not comforted by the fact that the guys who come to make a report after an incident, are armed. Especially since they're such lousy shots anyway.
I can tell you for certain that I can empty an entire magazine at intruders in my home without ever endangering my children (not that I would likely need all 30 rounds to get the job done but still). I can also tell you that the Police can't make that claim. I would MUCH rather handle the situation and let the cops do the paperwork than have a shootout in my house between the Police and the guys who broke in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Dann DaMann Just thought I'd add my two cents:
A) It's not so much a "gun issue" as it is a "horrible, amoral, impoverished, parentless, do what you want because society will make excuses for you, constantly surrounded by violence but that can't possibly be the problem...issue." Each generation is more lax on what is acceptable and because of it, worse and worse things are becoming the norm (who knew?).
B) As for what I'm doing about it, I've done it. I bought, train with and carry a gun. People have every right to raise their children to be criminals. Nothing will stop it because nobody wants to. However, the right to act like that ends where my rights begin.
The amazing thing to me is how many people inadvertently protect bad parenting, violent behavior and lifetimes of bad choices by focusing on HOW someone's hurting people rather than WHY. As always, the easy answer is more convenient than the right one. I guess people's right to be heartless beasts is more important than my right to defend myself from it.
1
-
+Dann DaMann I understand where you're coming from. I come from a family who is very split on these issues, so I was raised to understand both sides (and agree fully with neither).
One of the biggest hurdles really boils down to a cultural issue. Some people view guns as tools. Something that, if not handled responsibly, can cause harm (just as a chainsaw, nail gun, sledge hammer, etc must be handled properly). These people don't understand people being upset about openly carried firearms because to them, it's like someone being offended by a carpenter walking into a store wearing a tool belt.
On the other side are the people who see guns as a symbol of violence and crime. They don't feel there is any place for them in civilised society, so wearing one in the open is so offensive to them that it's almost taken personally.
This fundamental difference is what keeps any reasonable discussion from happening. The "OMG, it's a gun!" crowd and the "Relax, it's just a gun" crowd simply cannot see eye to eye. Neither side is wrong, per se. They just both take it to an emotional level that disallows any real compromise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Parneli Jones Okay. I feel like we're splitting hairs here but try this. The framers did not give us the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. They merely documented them. Our government, being a democratic republic, is merely a group of representatives that we, the people, have chosen to handle our paperwork for us (I know that's an oversimplification but bear with me). That being said, any rights "given" by our government and not directly challenged by the majority of the citizens are merely a further written clarification of the rights we are to be born with. Therefore, any documented rights pertaining to things such as voting, marriage, free speech, etc are all our rights, regardless of which piece of paper they are written on. They are not privileges because they are defined as such. Therefore, they can not be merely taken away like a privilege can. If you need evidence of this, try taking away something like the right to vote. The people will not allow it and will protect that right. By force if necessary.
The only thing that truly defines a right is whether or not the people will stand against its removal. That which is given up willingly is not a right in the minds of those who give it up - and that is the only place where a right truly exists. You either believe you are free or you don't. Those who don't, aren't. At the point when a right is challenged, it doesn't matter where you think that right came from. All that matters is whether you truly believe it's yours and whether you're willing to stand up for it. The rest is just semantics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomtom7955 Well, if you see a tadpole in a pond, you know that it is alive and that it will become a frog, if left to its natural progression. If you drop a big rock on said tadpole, you have killed it, right? Does it really matter whether it has grown legs? Does it matter whether it can hop up on land, yet?
The only "moral" conundrum is that frogs develop in ponds and people develop in other people. In order for the analogy to be perfect, the pond would have to be alive. Of course, even if the pond were alive; if it went on Tinder, picked up a frog and let him raw dog her...the tadpole would still be alive, wouldn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rd-lw4td Ha! Many will get the sniffles from Omicron. Almost nobody will be in the hospitals from it and I doubt anyone will die from it who isn't already on death's door. There's no crisis to cold symptoms, which is the vast majority of cases from Omicron. South Africa doesn't have nearly the medical infrastructure we do and they're doing fine. They also don't have near the vaccination rate we do and again, they're doing fine.
Omicron is only scary to the media, politicians, and pharmaceutical companies because it signals an end to all of this. We're all going to get it - vaccinated or not, we're all going to survive it, and we're all going to have that sweet, sweet immunity boost from it. All future variants are likely to be just as mild, if not more so and we'll all move on with our lives.
In a year's time, COVID-19 will likely be just another seasonal cold. No more record profits for the pharmaceutical companies. No more kickbacks to politicians. No more sensationalist headlines for the media. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be fine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@annamc3947 Are you really trying to pretend that prop 13 is incentive enough to keep living in a State that is decriminalizing theft, has the most insane homeless problem in American history, has high taxes and cost of living across the board, and is always looking for new ways to screw regular folks who are just trying to live their lives?
Sorry, no. It doesn't matter if prop 13 keeps your property tax low, when you can sell your house, buy a better one on a larger property, for less money, and be paying lower property tax somewhere else. Even people who are delusional enough to be okay with the rest of the nonsense, are still capable of doing that math.
Do some research about the housing cost patterns in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, etc. Tell me all about how your theory compares to reality. Your anecdotes about Uber drivers in your city notwithstanding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaybee9269 More of the same. "The forefathers would be stacking bodies!" Not for this guy, they wouldn't.
I know all about our forefathers and their beliefs. I agree with them. However, if you think a single one of them would support going to war because Donald Trump is in jail, you should lay off the fentanyl.
Trump doesn't believe in "We, the People." He believes in "I, the Donald." He's a self-serving Manhattanite who got elected because his sound bites and posts were good for memes and sh*tposting against the Left.
You want to have a call to arms to support a man who has proven that he will disarm you, if it helps him negotiate a deal? Just, wow. Anyone who is willing to kill their fellow Americans over this guy is not a patriot, nor a Constitutionalist. They're just pro-Trump.
America needs real candidates, like we used to have. I find it baffling that people can come on here and quote truly great men, while bickering about a choice between two men who aren't fit to polish those great men's boots. It's ridiculous. We're fighting over the scraps that we're given, rather than demanding the leaders we deserve. Stand for THAT and you'll find me shoulder to shoulder with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacques9307 What rights don't US minorities have that they had 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, etc years ago? In what way is the US more xenophobic now than it was in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s and how is that possible, given that the Overton Window has moved steadily to the Left throughout that entire time period?
Given the givens, either the Left is truly racist...or you're full of crap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regular Insomniac Wrong. Workplace shootings are full of adults who are responsible for their own place in this world. School shootings are full of children who rely on the rest of us to secure their place in this world until they're old enough to do so for themselves. Furthermore, trying to use vanity to discourage protecting children is despicable. "Is this Iraq?" Why? Do Iraqis take the safety of their children more seriously than we do? No but people like you are more concerned with public image than with doing what needs to be done.
While you're working to implement a system that creates kinder, gentler authority figures, there are people out there, right now, working themselves up to a boiling point. Why pretend it has to be one or the other? Implement guards now to protect all of the kids who will be vulnerable for the next several decades before your program proves out. That's the problem with most of these "solutions." They don't solve anything for tomorrow's victims or the ones after that. They only (maybe) help people years from now. We have a problem now, so we need a response now (or at least, as soon as possible).
Any answers dealing with vague notions of what it might solve in the future are irrelevant until the children are protected. The future is theirs, anyway. You can't promise a better future - filled with kind, gentle authority figures - to a single one of the kids that died today. It's too late for them. Of course, we could have protected them and given them lives to look forward to, but then someone might have compared us to Iraq. How unappealing...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah...that's a garbage excuse. If you don't know what weapon you're drawing, don't draw it. There's a reason they wear their taser on the opposite hip (which you can see clearly in the video). It's so that they don't accidentally grab one when reaching for the other. She reached her right hand down and grabbed her gun. It was a reaction born of bad weapons training and then bad follow-up practice. She clearly spent way more time practicing her gun draw than her taser draw, which is why her muscle memory caused this to happen. If you spend all of your time practicing to draw your lethal weapon, you won't do the right thing when you need your non-lethal and, as you say, the adrenaline is pumping.
Furthermore, people should not be in danger of being negligently killed by police. That is not their purpose. It was more important to violently restrain this person than it was to let him survive the encounter. That's all kinds of wrong. If he got away, so what? I mean that; so what? They had his plate number. They had the make and model of his car. They had his identity. They easily could have called it in and attempted to arrest him later, when it could be handled better. Unfortunately, ego and bad training become key factors. They aren't trained to deescalate and they don't want to go back to the precinct and be teased for letting someone get away. Awww, poor babies. How many people are dead because of pride and bad training? It's not worth it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, if you want to live in a better state than California, just move to any state that isn't Mississippi, Arkansas, or Louisiana. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Having lived in California for 27 years, it's incredibly sad to see just how bad it has gotten. There was so much promise there and it's pretty much all gone. Eventually, all that's going to be left is homeless, criminals, and victims. The rich will leave once there's no one left to serve them lattes and mow their golf courses.
Come to think of it, that's probably why they're so soft on immigration. They see the writing on the wall and they need a new labor force to replace the one that's leaving. Wait. A bunch of rich Democrats with a foreign, dark-skinned workforce, working for far less than standard wages. Maybe that's why most of the South ranks higher than California. While those states are progressing forward (albeit slowly) California is adopting the role of being the new Confederacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HerbalAssailant No, you're clearly the one who doesn't understand. You are trying to put the blame of your bad experience on these regulations, where that's clearly not the problem. If there was a problem with the food in your school, it was up to the parents and students to let the school know that it needed to change. Repealing a nationwide healthy foods program because some schools didn't bother to put effort into making the food taste good is utterly ridiculous. It is completely feasible for schools to make healthy foods that also taste good (even those with little to no extra money to spend).
Furthermore, if the lunches were that bad, why weren't you making your own and bringing it in? I know that the concept is lost on some parents but my kids have been able to make sandwiches since they were six years old. I expect anyone at a high school level to be able to figure out how to feed themselves. But I digress.
If your school didn't bother trying to make healthy food taste good then there's no reason to believe they're going to try to make food that tastes good even a little bit healthy. I guess it's better to promote terrible dietary practices, if the alternative is people actually having to get off their lazy butts and tell their local school district that they want good food to taste better, right? I mean, we wouldn't want anyone having to be an active participant in their own lives or the things that affect it. That might lead to people taking responsibility for themselves and making better choices. We don't want any of that in this glorious age of instant gratification and passing the buck. Nope, better to just roll back the healthy lunches and pass around the sugary, high cholesterol slop. Sure, it's killing you but at least it tastes good!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ryooken Irrelevant. We're talking about refuge seekers, not migration. When you're fleeing a threat, you're only doing so until you're safe from that threat. Once you are safe, you don't continue to flee. The minute they were received in another Country, they were no longer fleeing the threat. They had received... (wait for it)...REFUGE. Once you have received refuge, you are no longer seeking it. At that point, if you choose to change Countries, you're doing so as a migrant, not a refuge seeker (remember, you already have refuge). In which case, you follow all of the same, legal steps as anyone else who is migrating because you are in no more danger than anyone else any more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Omicron is the dominant variant in new case infections, not hospitalizations. The death tolls are from the people who are losing the fight with other variants after a week or more. This was predictable, as we get spikes after every holiday. After another two to three weeks, we'll start seeing if there is a significantly different lethality for Omicron in the US vs other Countries. However, given the numbers from those other Countries, the future is looking pretty bright, so far.
Omicron should infect enough people to push out the other variants, altogether. Given that it has shown to be so mild, that will give virtually everyone a fighting chance. If it's successful around the globe, all new variants should stem from Omicron, meaning that they'll be likely to be even more mild and even more contagious. What does that mean? That means, if all goes well, we'll have another cold to add to our cold and flu season, and life will move on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skoolboi9901 True Conservatism would have saved the planet. If it weren't for "Progressives," people would all be living like the Amish right now. Instead, "Progressives" kept pushing for the world to be easier to live in. It's all of the modern decadence that has caused the untenable amounts of pollution. "Progress" is what led to ships crossing oceans, which led to more wars, more colonizing and the intercontinental slave trade.
Conservatives of each generation largely want to be left alone, to work, raise a family, and mind their own business. Then the Progressives come around and stir things up. Whenever that happens, they throw the baby out with the bath water and make something unforeseen (by them) way worse, while trying to make something else better.
You're guilty of this, yourself. You talk about trying to do things the "best way." The best way was for people to live in small groups, minding their own business, living whatever life they could make for themselves. "Progress" has been the opposite of that, throughout history. Arrogant morons who think they know better than the next guy how that guy should live. It's asinine.
1
-
A relative handful of rich slave owners want to fight to keep their slaves. They don't have the numbers. They start a campaign, telling all of the poor people around them that the Federal government wants to come in and take away more of their freedom and independence. That they should form a new Country with more freedom. Poor people line up with whatever arms they can muster, to fight for the freedom they feel is threatened. Generations later, the descendants of the poor who fought that war defend their ancestors as having fought for independence.
The main thing that separates the Revolutionary War from the Civil War in the hearts and minds of the masses, is that keeping slavery wasn't a primary concern for the slave owners who started the Revolutionary War. The Southerners who defend the Confederacy tend not to be the descendants of rich slave owners. They're the descendants of poor people who got sold a bill of goods. Southerners are a proud people. They're not going to throw great-great-grandaddy under the bus just because some Northerners want to attribute the motives of a handful of greedy, rich, slave owners, to him. No, sir. That simply will not stand. To their mind, great-great-grandaddy was a good, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth, Southerner. He fought for Southern independence, and no amount of commentary from a bunch of rich Northerners is going to change their mind on the subject.
This is the core of why there is still animosity over this subject, today. It is only made worse by the glib remarks about Southerners just being a bunch of racists for not denouncing the Confederacy. Someone else mentioned that the South is an honor society. That's true. They're not going to denounce their family over the opinions of strangers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timogul A) My point is that relying on the idea that others will protect you is naive. That the ability for people to take up arms in defense of themselves and their home is fundamental to the very right to live.
B) I'm fully aware of the second amendment of the Constitution. The "well regulated" portion refers to the militia - not the gun ownership - and in the common definition of the time, meant properly functioning, not heavily restricted.
C) That Constitution you referred to was written by those who never wanted the government to have a standing army. The fact that the US military is the largest in the world goes against the founding principles of the Country. The people were only ever to be called to service during a time of war. Perhaps that's why the government has made sure to stick its nose in every conflict they could find; to keep people from thinking about that fact too hard. I mean, if the US is surrounded by enemies, it becomes unreasonable to tell the government to disband their military until the next war.
D) US civilian gun ownership is not the detriment. US socioeconomic strife is the number one cause of gun violence (drug/gang/poverty related crime). Depression is the next in line (suicide). Significantly reducing just those two factors would leave the US with roughly 600,000,000 civilian guns and a violent crime rate similar to Canada, the UK, Australia, etc.
Unfortunately, those in control of the most populous cities (those with the highest poverty, depression, drug abuse, and gang presence) seem to be bent on keeping things exactly the way they are. I guess it's easier to write more gun laws, than it is to better the lives of those who are suffering to the point of feeling the need to turn to violence...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm guessing you're young. Okay, here's a thought exercise. If you rent a mini storage and put a bunch of stuff in there, is it yours? Do you deserve to have it, even though you don't choose to use it right now? If you're still paying your monthly rental (the way these people are still paying their property taxes and mortgages) does someone have the right to go and take your stuff out of your storage unit? I mean, if you didn't want that stuff, one would think you would sell it or give it away. So, why is it okay for someone to think you shouldn't have it, just because you're saving it to use later in your life? Are you not allowed to save things for later? How about money? If you decide to open a savings account and put money away for a few years, can I have it? If not, why? You weren't doing anything with it for a long time. By your logic, that means I should be able to just empty your and everyone else's savings accounts, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If you're unvaccinated...a Winter of severe illness and death..."
Really? Are you sure? The top symptoms in the vast majority of both vaccinated and unvaccinated, basically read like the label on a bottle of Robitussin. Runny nose, cough (mild), scratchy throat, headache, fatigue, body aches...the basic cold/flu symptoms. They don't even seem to be losing their taste/smell at any measurable rate, like with the others variants.
Look, I get it. This is your last chance to scare people into getting their government-funded pharmaceuticals, before the cat is out of the bag. How many shares of Pfizer do you own at this point? Or is it simply that they've offered you a high paying job if you manage to keep this going for another X years? Either way, you're all done. People are seeing the numbers. Omicron spreads ridiculously fast and hits with all the force of a wet spaghetti noodle in the vast majority of cases.
This is our Winter of transformation. Virtually everyone is getting COVID this time around and virtually everyone is going to survive it. By this time next year, any variant that's left will be a seasonal cold. We're witnessing the beginning of the end, which is why you folks are all Hellfire and brimstone over it. Your control is slipping away before your eyes, along with your kickbacks. Too bad, so sad. You'll have to find some other way to scare people into giving you more power and money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nobody ever got popcorn lung from vaping. There is more diacetyl in Marlboro 100s than there was in even the most buttery flavored eliquid. Even so, the vaping community/industry did away with using diacetyl without a single case occuring and without even a hint of government oversight.
What you're talking about was Evali. Evali was caused by vitamin E acetate - that was in Chinese THC cartridges, not nicotine eliquid. There has never been even a moderate disease linked to nicotine vaping.
Also, this isn't about supporting the US vaping industry. It's about supporting the US tobacco companies' vape products. There are hundreds of small, American businesses making mods, tanks, and eliquid. They're all being trampled on by the FDA's regulations. Only the large companies can afford to get through the approval process. Most of those companies are foreign, while two or three are here and are owned (in some capacity) by big tobacco companies.
I respect your opinions, Styx. However, in this case, you sound like a MSNBC viewer. Please do some real research into vaping before speaking on the subject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now do the same poll but ask them if they even know what Roe v. Wade decided and what the prevailing law of the land on the subject of abortion is (hint: it's not Roe v. Wade). Most Americans who are asked that question think Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. It's not. It declares a woman's right to privacy over her medical records. That, of course, is a ridiculous premise, given that you can't legally have doctor assisted suicide in most of the US, even thought that, too, is a medical procedure. It's made more moot by the current trend of requiring people to prove vaccination status (medical information) to non-government and non-medical personnel.
A majority don't want Roe v. Wade overturned because they have been convinced by the media and the talking heads on the Left that doing so would make abortion illegal in the US. It wouldn't. It would simply return the right to make legislation about abortions to the individual States. Then, just like with anything States have authority over, they would create different laws for each State. The blue States would still have blue abortion laws, the red States would have red abortion laws and, as always, the purple States would have a lot of debate on the subject. Those who don't support their State laws would mostly move to other States, just like they do now. Life would go on.
P.S. The Supreme Court Justices are not Party affiliates. Not sure why you're talking about the GOP.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Plug-in hybrids are the right way to go but politics is involved, so it has become gas vs electric. If people could buy affordable vehicles that would drive them to work and back on batteries they charge at home, but still be able to stop at a gas station when they need to do longer runs, that would be huge.
People would use electricity almost exclusively. Most folks go to work, the store, and home on most days. That's it. A vehicle with a 40-50 mile range on its batteries is all that's needed for the majority of use. Then, the gas engine would get used for longer haul stuff, which happens much less frequently.
It's going to get worse before it gets better. They're going to screw up thr mwrket by forcing out gas vehicles too soon. The infrastructure for EVs isn't there and it isn't going to get there. We're going to be sitting in the dark, waiting for the rolling blackouts to stop, while our power companies tell us to plug our cars into our houses and use up the only fuel our cars have, to run our furnaces.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@douglaslangley9251 Congratulations, that was a terrible argument.
A. You do, in fact, have the right to free association. That means that in your personal life, you may associate (or not) with anyone you choose, for any reason. Whether or not you find that distasteful is irrelevant.
B. At no point did he refuse to associate with this reporter. He asked that she bring a male along with her on the 16 hour trip, so they would not be alone. In that case, neither one would have to worry about "he said, she said" if something happened. If a woman asked for a third party to be there to ensure nothing happened to her, that would be a completely acceptable request and nobody would bat an eye.
C. Arguing against a simple request to have a witness along is like arguing against police and citizens using cameras during their interactions, to protect them from false allegations or abuse. Would you be just as upset if he insisted on them having cameras record the entire trip?
D. Given how hard this reporter is pushing to turn this into a major issue, I'd say he was 100% correct in his desire to protect himself. She was given one, simple request in order to monopolize 16 hours of his time and rather than either agreeing or refusing, she wants to drag him over the coals on national TV for it. I can't even imagine what she would come up with after 16 hours alone with him.
Be mad if you want but it doesn't change anything. He had every right to ask for a witness and her behavior after the fact proves he was right to do so, in her case. She wasn't denied anything but when given the choice, she chose to play the part of the victim instead of playing the part of the journalist. You can thank people like her for creating the atmosphere in which more men feel like they need to protect themselves from mudslinging. Especially men with a lot to lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zombienibja You want him to get credit for not managing to chase out large corporations that pay gobs of money to his party? Sure, okay. It's so very important that those businesses happen to be in California, wince it has helped keep the state out of debt, the homeless off the streets, the crime low, and people from leaving in record numbers. Oh, wait...
For the record, "Our rich elites are richer than your rich elites" is not the flex you think it is. In case you hadn't noticed, everyone is starting to realize exactly how corrupt and unscrupulous the powers that be have become, to create such an incredible disparity in success between the top, the middle, and the bottom.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielfox3003 Nope, not into Shapiro either. There's strike three!
Again, you elude to how bad it is by saying that you'd rather live in Portland than any other big city. We've already covered the fact that big cities are, more or less, just horrible. The curve you're grading on is hilarious! You're just saying that Portland is the dumpster fire you prefer over the others. I've got news for you; there's a great, big Country out there. You don't actually have to choose to live in a dumpster fire.
Also, I wasn't quoting you, I was paraphrasing. You don't use quotation marks when paraphrasing. It is, however, perfectly acceptable to use the apostrophe in place of quotations when doing so. I shouldn't have to explain that but then, you're the kind of guy who uses "too" at the end of "You don't have too" (see, I quoted you there, so it was appropriate to use quotation marks). Given that fact, I can understand how alternative uses for common punctuation might be beyond you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nunyabusiness3082 Emphasis (bold) added by me. You're wrong. Any toy gun that looks like a real gun must be marked.
Section 4 of the Federal Energy Management Improvement Act of 1988 made it unlawful for any person to manufacture, enter into commerce, ship, transport, or receive any toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm unless the firearm contains, or has affixed to it, a marking approved by the Secretary of Commerce. 15 U.S.C. 5001. In 1989, the Department of Commerce promulgated regulations implementing this law at 15 CFR part 1150. 54 FR 19356 (May 5, 1989). In 2013, the Department of Commerce moved those regulations to 15 CFR part 272. 78 FR 4764 (January 23, 2013).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lucky leprechaun A) I'm sorry that you don't like analogies, or understand how they work.
B) Suicide should definitely be legal. People should have the right to take their own life. They should not have the right to take someone else's life.
C) Why do Feminists pretend to be intersectional and then, as soon as abortion comes up, completely disregard all of the men who can get pregnant? You're either a trans ally or you're not.
D) By your reasoning, "men" (by your definition of the word) should have no say in education, school shootings, child care, or anything else having to do with children. Perhaps we should use your own reasoning further. Since most "women" who have abortions have never had a child prior, your reasoning dictates that they shouldn't have a say in abortion (or anything else pertaining to children,) either. After all, they don't have any more firsthand knowledge of pregnancy or childbirth than the average "man," right? Oops.
E) You're wrong. Men are restricted by the same laws as women. The difference is that most men don't have a choice to have a child, with the exception of trans-men (though, that term is really just a way to differentiate men with a uterus from those without). You're claiming some kind of victim status when you're the one with options.
Even if this decision goes through and the laws get punted back to the States, you're still going to have the choice because most politicians know it's political suicide to ban abortions in 2022. Most men still won't have a choice. If they want kids, they have to hope to some day find someone with whom they can. Then, they have to hope that person doesn't abort their child and that they don't try to claim full custody. Meanwhile, all you have to do to have a kid is claim you're on the pill. All you have to do to avoid having a kid (or an abortion) is to actually be on said pill. We both know who has the real power in all of this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cool. Let's say we go ahead and ban all guns tomorrow. There are currently about 650 million guns in the US. Not on store shelves or in warehouses. That's 650 million guns in homes and on the streets. Let's go ahead an pretend that you can get people to turn in 150 million of those guns (and believe me, I'm being generous). That's 500 million guns circulating and now everyone who has one is a felon. Overnight, you've created the exact conditions to start a civil war...AND you didn't even make a dent in the number of guns out there.
Gun control in the US is a fantasy. The guns have been here since we were British colonies. Why, then, are mass shootings ramping up at this point in history? In the early 80s and prior, we had easy access to actual automatic weapons (not the pretender semi-autos we have now) and we didn't have this insane number of mass shootings. Weird, huh? It's almost as though the guns aren't the actual cause of the violence.
As soon as people stop pretending they can do anything about the guns, we can start the real work. Once we start looking at the things that have caused so many people to get comfortable with mass murder, then we can start addressing those things and turn the tide. Until that happens, it will just be more pain, followed by more clamoring for asinine "solutions" that won't change anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rocky Mountain Way Wow, okay. We'll do this. "Return YouTube Dislike" was the best of the three for the most part. "Dislikes for YouTube" was the one working best on the last day they functioned (yesterday) before YouTube made some background changes that broke all three. It was no surprise that they were going to stop working at some point yesterday, as they advertised as much in their descriptions, at one point or another. Don't worry, though. They're actively working on trying to get around the new coding, so that those who choose to can again see the dislike count.
As for your claims about them only restoring dislikes to older videos, that was only true for about five minutes (not literally, so don't be stupid) before the better two (named above) received updates. At that point, all videos showed current dislike counts, no matter how old.
Of course, you likely read a half-assed article on some crappy tech site about them - back when they first hit the Web Store - so I'm sure you know more about it than someone who was actually using them for the past week...
I do like how you tried to skew the argument by asking about which one is "currently" working...after the cutoff point when they stopped working. I'm sure I was supposed to know less about it than you and as such, panic when I "found out" they weren't working any more. Oops, sorry. I guess I spoiled that one.
The funny thing is, with as hostile as you are about this, I have to assume you've got skin in the game. Are you one of the useless idiots at YouTube who came up with the terrible idea of getting rid of dislikes? Or are you one of the terrible content creators who benefit from it? If the latter, you know it's not going to stop you from seeing your dislikes, right? You'll still know you suck.
EDIT: And just like that, "Dislikes For YouTube" is already back to working properly. Proper tallies for all videos, new and old. I just thought I'd share, since you're so concerned about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yuuzas_Ei I didn't say there were billions. I said there were nearly half a billion. Roughly 450 million by last count. Why are you embellishing an already high number?
But to answer your question, it's because guns are durable goods - not disposable, and Americans buy what other countries might considsr to be a lot of guns. It's actually not hard to get to this number.
If you're a multi-generational American, it's almost a certainty that you come from previous generations who had guns. When taken care of, guns last indefinitely. So, you get family heirloom guns that may have been your father's, grandfather's, great-grandfather's, etc. You grew up shooting those guns and you like them but you also want something smaller, like a handgun. Also, there's this new turkey shotgun you've been drooling over. Not to mention the deer rifle you've had since your dad first took you hunting. That's at least five guns right there, and you're not even an avid shooter. Then there's that carbine you've been wanting aince your buddy let you shoot his at the range last month. Then, of course there's your trusty .22, that has taken out many a varmint and is the cheapest way to spend time at the range. We're up to at least seven now, and you're still just a hobbyist.
There are over 130,000,000 lawful gun owners in the US. It's actually shocking that there are only 450,000,000 guns in circulation. Reduce everyone to just one gun and that's still 130,000,000 legally owned firearms. Those numbers don't include all the ones the criminals have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your implication seems to be that one must care about all life equally in order to be "Pro-Life." I would argue that is untrue. For instance, I feel that a person's life is valuable. I care about that life insofar as I feel they have a right to live their life. However, if said person does something directly opposed to maintaining their life, that does decrease its value in my eyes, as it clearly does not mean that much to them (and since one's own life should matter most to one's self, I have no reason to hold it in higher esteem).
Non-human lives hold varying degrees of value to me. Granted, all living things presumably care about their own existence. I just don't happen to hold them on the same plane as human life. I consider that fair, since most species on earth hold their own species' existence higher than that of other species. I have empathy for lesser lives, in that I don't believe in torture or inhumanity of lesser creatures, if it can reduced or avoided. Yes, I do eat meat and feel that it is necessary. Yes, I do prefer to eat meat I have harvested myself from wild game. Why? Because I feel that a good life followed by a quick death is better than a miserable life followed by any type of death. Furthermore, I have yet to have anyone explain to me how a well placed bullet is somehow a worse death than disease, starvation, or being torn apart by coyotes (which are the leading causes of death in most game animals).
Now, on to the issue at hand: Abortion. The way I see it, at some point between fertilization and birth, an egg becomes a person. We quibble back and forth about when that being becomes a being, mainly because there is not a definitive answer. Oh, people claim to know the answer but really, they're going with the opinion that best fits their position. There is no scientific consensus on the beginning of life. There really isn't even consensus on viability, since that is a moving target. As technology gets better, viability becomes possible earlier. There is no easy answer to when a person becomes a person. That leads to my philosophy on the subject (which is just one more voice in a sea of voices, all shouting out on the subject).
If a person's life is valuable (which, I feel it is) and we can't determine when that life begins, then we simply shouldn't...for now. Why risk making the mistake of ending human life when we don't have to? Why not allow them to become people, with their own will, who can then determine for themselves the value of their lives? Why not give them the choice? Their mother and father had choices? They had four of them: Abstinence, contraception, adoption, and parenthood. Are four choices not enough for the 99%+ who are having abortions after consensual sex with non-family members? Why do they get five and the other person involved doesn't get any? That seems incredibly imbalanced to me.
Now, if at some point down the road, they come up with the answer to when life begins, we could definitely revisit the subject. In fact, at that point, I would happily back legislation that allows abortions before the point of life. I believe that all rights belong to the people, except in the case that said rights interfere with those of others (the "Your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins" philosophy). The problem here is that with abortions, they're indiscriminately swinging their arms and not even concerning themselves with whether they're hitting someone else's face.
Sorry for the lengthy reply but I felt your comment deserved a thoughtful response.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I always find median income to be an interesting metric. It's an average of all income in the State. Most States in the Union would have their median income drastically shift, simply by having a few billionaires move there. I wonder what New York, California, etc's median incomes would look like if not for the super-elites who make so very much money every year. I'd be willing to bet the numbers would be shocking to most people. Likewise, if a handful of said elites were to decide to move to, say, Kentucky...I'd bet they'd move nearly off the list (if not off it completely).
Meanwhile, I'd rather my family and I be living off $30,000/year in Kentucky, Tennessee, etc, than trying to survive off the same amount in California. "Poverty" is a net that's cast pretty wide in these discussions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know, I've been hearing this argument since the 80s. "More Sex Ed and contraception means fewer teen pregnancies." Why, then hasn't that been true? Sex Ed has expanded beyond high school and into middle school. Contraception is available all over the place and is free at any women's clinic. Yet somehow, teens are still getting pregnant. In fact, it has been happening more and more. Most of the schools in the seven different districts I went to were installing or had installed day cares to keep teen moms in school. Now, they're talking about putting one in my son's old middle school. MIDDLE SCHOOL. Twelve and thirteen year olds having kids at a high enough rate to necessitate day cares specifically for them at schools. Meanwhile, abortions have been readily available and are being performed by bus load every day.
Somehow, it doesn't seem like Sex Ed is working. Maybe the idea of telling kids "We know you're going to have sex and lots of it, so go ahead and put on this rubber sensation stopper before you do!" is the wrong tact. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to do more than just pass out balloons and hope for the best. Perhaps even focus on responsibility, reality, and expected behavior, rather than pretending that every teen is going to be rebellious. Will it stop all teen pregnancies? Of course not. Can it possibly be any worse than what we're doing now? I highly doubt it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be fair, cars typically only go straight to exploding in the movies. Most cars that catch fire never explode, even when they burn completely. So, yeah, when a car goes flying towards an international border, flies through the air, and then explodes, people are going to think it's something more serious than a stuck accelerator. Well, people who don't believe everything they see on TV, anyway.
This was a truly rare event. Given what all has been going on in the world, yes, a terrorist attack would certainly be on the short list of plausible explanations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@allendean9807 Okay, I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. You're saying:
- A fetus is not a life, so doesn't have rights.
- A mother is a life, so does have rights.
- A mother has to carry the burden of either raising or putting a child up for adoption, so she is the only one whose opinion matters.
- It's not okay to limit a woman's "right" to an abortion for the sake of the fetus.
- We don't have the proper systems in place to care for unwanted children.
- People who are pro-life are unilaterally opposed to said systems (even though the last March for Life rally had a fair share of Liberals and Progressives in attendance on the pro-life side).
- If said systems were in place, it would then be okay to violate a woman's "right" to an abortion because the kids would have easier lives than under present circumstances.
I highlighted the two important bits. Abortion is either a right or it's not. Talking about accommodations as though they are the deciding factor as to what the government does and does not have the authority to control is a flawed argument. Either a woman always has the right to abort a child, or it's merely a medical treatment that can be regulated by the government. It simply cannot be both.
Personally, I tend to err on the side of caution. Let me explain:
- In more than 99% of cases, women seeking abortions have already had choices they made. Those choices lead to pregnancy because at the end of the day, there is only one natural act that can lead to that result. Cause and effect are pretty straightforward in this matter and Sex Ed starts in middle school for most people. It's an informed decision.
- A debate on when something is a fetus, a baby, a toddler, etc is unnecessary. It's a life from the time it starts developing and it's a human because humans don't sometimes create penguins or toaster ovens in their wombs. So, it's a human life.
- If someone knowingly chooses the one act that creates a human life and then said act is successful, nobody should be shocked or upset about that.
- If a human life matters at all, the circumstances of its upbringing are secondary to its fundamental right to life, itself. Yes, it's good to take care of those in need. Yes, we should definitely be doing better. No, that doesn't mean that anyone who is to be born into bad circumstances should have their life forfeited, "just in case" they might have a hard life. Plenty of people have started out at the bottom. The vast majority don't kill themselves. I take that to mean they'd rather be alive - regardless of how their mother may have felt about them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xXG2023 If you're going to claim there are things like bleach in eliquid, I'm going to need a source link. There's no way anyone should take your word for something so outlandish. Propylene glycol on the other hand, IS found in eliquid. It's also found in dozens of foods and in some hospital ventilation systems (to help protect you from airborne pathogens). It is considered inert.
My source for knowing that there's propylene glycol in eliquid is every, single vaping website, vaping YouTube channel, the FDA, the ACS, the RCP...and the label of every bottle of eliquid I ever bought. I'll be waiting for your source.
Furthermore, the American Cancer Society, the FDA and the Royal College of Physicians all say that the chemicals in eliquid are MUCH safer than those found in cigarettes. I could listen to experts with doctorates, who studied these chemicals in labs...or some random alarmist on the Internet. Who should I choose?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martyzielinski1442 Neither can most snakes. You talking about the relatively few deadly snakes - when discussing pets - would be like me bringing up tigers and lions. Just because some people keep them doesn't mean they have anything to do with a discussion about regular house pets. Furthermore, even those who do keep deadly snakes or big cats, are rarely killed by them. The chances are less than 1 in 1,000,000 for either.
Meanwhile, your chances of being killed by a Corn Snake, Ball Python, etc, are the same as that of being killed by a tabby cat...except, of course, for those with severe pet allergies. They technically can be killed by house cats, simply by coming in contact with their fur. Meanwhile, virtually nobody is allergic to reptile scales. Snakes are the superior pet. It's not even close.
There is enough ignorance and irrational fear on the Internet. Please don't openly spread more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A) The Supreme Court is at the top of a Constitutionally created (and protected) branch of the government, known as the Judicial branch. It has no more chance of ending than the Executive branch (President, VP, etc) or Legislative branch (Congress).
B) The people of this Country have freedom as outlined by the US Constitution. The Supreme Court is the branch that looks at laws and determines whether or not they conform to said Constitution. I think what you're calling freedom is actually Anarchy. You wouldn't like Anarchy. You'd be killed within a week.
C) Those "9 old people" are the only government power standing between us and total, Federal Authoritarianism. Without them, we'd have had to overthrow the government many times over by now. Why? Because politicians crave power and without anyone to stop them, they will just take it. The Supreme Court is flawed, so it hasn't stopped all Federal overreach but we're a whole lot better off than if it didn't exist at all.
D) Stay in school, study hard, and learn the principles upon which this Country was founded. If you think SCOTUS is the enemy for upholding the Constitution, you still have a lot to learn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1