What about balanced reporting? He is probably one of the most adept executives that taken cost out of operations. And that was the position Trump was talking about.
No it wouldn’t.
Great version of Dancing Queen
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
Right, and maybe that could have been the conversation if he didn’t act like a lunatic on X. The current criticism is deserved especially when we’re talking about him in politics where he is amplifying the most divisive rhetoric because the more controversial he is, the more traffic X gets.
Sorry, in a 20 second clip talking about Musk joking a Trump administration, controversial is an appropriate description.
You’re not getting it or don’t want to. It was all negative to make a point, not to be balanced.
Are you really going to sit there and not admit that the three major networks don’t lean left??
Vance was good. Walz was better than I thought but his explanation on being in China during the protest was “weird”
Pretty much the consensus - Vance was better - although the losers were Brennan and O’Donnel. Really pathetic on their follow-up questions.
Walz did reasonably well but he had no chance to keep up with Vance’s intellect. Even if you disagree with his policy there’s no denying that Vance was made for prime time.
How about Vance''s answer on school shooting . Stronger windows and better locks !!!!! Lol
You cherry picked part of his answer. It also included more resources and security for the schools. The windows and doors was an add on to more school security. Are you opposed to more resources in schools? Or is the only answer to get rid of all guns.
The best part for Walz’s answer on him being in China is he’s a knucklehead. Riding a bike in Nebraska as a kid, 400 people in his town and whatever else he said was weird. Tim just saying he lied might have been better.
Taught in Paterson for over 40 years so please do not lecture me on school security .Just thought that was a knucklehead add on to use your term . The debate did not change anyone's mind on their vote I believe . At least it was in the most part civil with no trump like name calling etc.
Nice deflection…lol.
Vance was better, you can admit that, or maybe you can’t.
Agree, though that VP debates mean nothing.
Never had to deflect bullets at work Lol .Vance was better by a hair because he followed the script he was told to do but that is not him . A polished politician I do not trust . Agree that the debate means nothing .
That’s because school shootings are accepts only rare. Like .2% of all gun deaths.
Polished politician? He has less than three woke years as a politician under his belt. Can’t stand to say that he’s articulate and a good debater I guess…
I think that is describing what it means to be a polished politician. Nothing wrong with that inherently. Being able to speak confidently in an intelligent manner is part of the game. He’s similar to Buttigieg in that’s regard. There was plenty he said last night that was misleading but he was able to articulate his position well so he was effective.
So because you taught in Paterson I can't have my opinion on school security. Does that mean you think all non gun owners should take their thoughts on guns and stick them where the sun doesn't shine? After all why should non gun owners lecture gun owners on what weapons they should and shouldn't have. That's your logic. Maybe teachers in Paterson should be who Congress goes to in order to learn about school security because they didn't teach in Paterson, or teach at all.
Off course you can have your opinion on anything . Since your so smart just explain the reason we should be allowed to purchase semi - automatic rifles. Paterson and in fact all teachers have enough to do Washington politician should go to the schools and ask administrators and teachers their opinions and may learn something .
It’s been discussed ad nauseum on this site. You just choose not to listen to them.
Last edited:
Since your so smart, I guess that proves you didn't teach English. Who the hell are you or I to tell anyone how to protect themselves? Maybe someone lives in an area where there are gangs and wants that protection. Are you telling them no you can't have that?
We have established that people have the right to bear arms, but obviously we have limits as a fully automatic machine gun is not legal to own. We've accepted as a society that a machine gun is too dangerous for people to own, so there is a line. Where that line should exist is certainly debatable.
Our opinions aside, the toothpaste is out of the tube. Tens of millions of semi-auto rifles are currently owned legally.
Confiscation would be impossible so not really worth debating in my opinion. I think any progress to be made will be by mitigating risks for the guns which are currently legal.
Thank you for some common sense there is no reason to win a type of semi-automatic rifle or machine gun . When they wrote the second amendment they did not forsee these types of arms . Anyway can not wait for this election to be over and the start of HALL BB to start . GO PIRATES !! BY the way SHhoopsfan I started as a 8th grade teacher and then a remedial math teacher and test coordinator . Also coached some BB back in the 80s . So there is basically my resume and also throw in bartending . So now leave me the F alone PLEASE do not respond back . WE are made up different so leave it at that . PEACE and again LETS GO PIRATES !!!!!!
This is actually categorically incorrect. The Founders believed the citizenry should be able to have the same weapons as the government. They would not have been happy with this recent construct of a line drawn.
Let's cut through the fluff and just get right to the point. I think the reason most own a gun is to protect themselves in the most dangerous of situations. If you think a handgun is all anyone needs you're nuts. Sorry when 3 guys break into you're home, you may be good with only a handgun while others want more and should be afforded the right to have more.
Similar threads
