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.
Technically I’d probably agree, though the purpose was because a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the free state. Citizens were expected to take up arms if necessary. That doesn’t really apply anymore so it’s hard to suggest that we could know how the founders would view weapons of war (or even any gun to be honest) in a time when no citizen would ever be called to fight using their own weapons.
The fantasy that 3 guys are breaking into your house and you’re going to defend yourself is absurd. As if they would announce they are coming from miles away and you’re sleeping with a loaded AR-15.
I prefer Jim Jeffries comment.
“**** off, I like guns”. A much more honest response.
You are suggesting one random event. Threats can come in many forms and if that lawful gun owner has it for their reasoning, that’s good for me. Imagine if an October 7th attack happened in your neighborhood…if you knew your neighbor had an AR15, my guess is that you’d be sprinting to his house. So I can play this game too.
People own AR15’s for legitimate reasons. It’s always the non-owners that want to eliminate the owners rights.
fantasy of 3 guys breaking in, that’s not my fantasy I promise.
There are many scenarios where people choose those weapons for self defense. Nobody complaining after a 2017 shooting at a church in Texas when an AR15 took out the gunman.
It’s theoretically possible that the existence of guns is in itself a deterrent. I’m not arguing for getting rid of them, I just don’t buy the whole “I need them to fight off the terrorists” fantasy.
I’m not against guns. I think most people should own them for self defense. Semi automatic rifles are used in self defense a handful of times per year. Handguns - millions of times per year. They’re just not as practice for carrying, or being able to access them if you’re storing them safely. If you want to prepare for the end of times and need to shoot all of the looters from a hundred yards out… then sure, buy a bunch of AR-15s.
Or just buy them because they are fun.
It’s a fantasy because it’s extremely unlikely to happen, and if it did happen, the likelihood that you would have the ability and time needed to access your AR-15 makes it seem less and less likely that you would ever use an AR-15 for self defense which is why they rarely are.
If you see something happening from 100 yards out and have time to prepare and shoot from a far, then sure.
Also, the other side of the debate for that shooting was that someone had a weapon who could kill 26 people in a matter of seconds. Asking why we need those weapons after events like that isn’t unreasonable.
My view is that we probably don’t really need them, and would be better off without them, but it’s too late to change so we’ll live with it.
I don't think it's much of a fantasy. Whether it's a good or a bad idea, there's people with safes with a lot of money in them in their home. So the possibility is more real than you think.
Essentially you're saying the bad guys have them, so should the good guys. what a novel concept.
I would disagree with this take as well as, in the main body of the Constitution, the federal government is given the power to raise an army (albeit for 2 years at a time) meaning the 2nd Amendment is about the people.
People own automatic weapons for self defense; some are gun collectors and enjoy owning them; some go to a gun range as a hobby and enjoy marksmanship and competition; some ranchers own them to clear their property of predator animals.
In terms of self protection, there are always bad people out there that will have their targets. Home invasions in an upscale house or in an urban neighborhood. The criminals could have any weapon; heck, even our own government sold automatic guns to criminals (Fast and Furious) and then lost track of the weapons.
We can say any scenario is far fetched but I’m not going to judge someone based on their wanting to prepare. Personally, I think the greatest risk (and justification), would occur in the event of our power grid being shut down for 2-3 weeks.
Let me get this straight. You don't trust polished politicians. Okay, valid opinion. Yet you're going to vote for the polished politician Kamala Harris over Donald Trump, who is anything but a polished politician. Too funny!
