Search results for query: *

that’s not really the takeaway I get from this thread. I’m sure everyone here is appalled by this behavior, which is probably more insidious than shootings. But, so much focus has been on shootings and so much defense of shootings by members here that those have dominated the conversation.

If they wanted that they would have applied to the fire department. Instead they wanted to walk around with a gun feeling superior to other folks.

You don't seem to understand that if an officer attempted to take time to contextualize the presence of a weapon in any given scenario they could subject themselves to potential harm.

It was the greatest generation's version of "Sure, Jan".

Indeed. They must also be looking at the police aggressively.

it’s not just “nice” things. It’s things that are over the top and show you are willing to compromise your personal and/or professional integrity to get on his good side. Look at Sean spicer. On his very first day he was told to go out there and tell a completely ridiculous lie about the...

Indeed they should.

Just as you don’t want me to associate you with one particular argument (as stated in your previous response) you should not associate Bilby’s comments with “my side”. I can understand his opinion and empathize with his arguments but, as someone who lives in America, I am more pragmatic about...

The counter will most likely be the slippery slope fallacy. “They’ve already banned machine guns so if we let them ban bump stocks it will be no time before little old ladies can’t defend themselves against home invaders looking to rape and kill them. Won’t anyone think of the little old...

I’m not for an all out ban but it seems pro-gun types are against even reasonable gun regulation. One can still have guns for self and home defense while implementing gun control policies that can make us all safer. It’s always presented as an all or nothing argument.

“Nice beaver.”

It’s not. But the President is in charge of the military. The Congress decides on the funding but the President is in command. I’m surprised that you wouldn’t know this because you understand American politics so well.

Yeah. He was only the commander in chief. Why would the responsibility lie with him? Just like every other bad thing that’s ever happened around him, it’s someone else’s fault. Bad lawyers, bad generals, bad contractors, lying women, bad accountants, etc.

But they must have gotten to the problem at an earlier stage. uSA is in terminal stage. No chemo will work for us anymore — the cancer has metastasized through the entire system — for us, just hospice.

Sorry. I misread. It seems you were actually clear in your statement.

you might want to restructure that sentence lest us believe you don’t think shootings are an actual problem. “Shootings rather than the actual problems” is a grammatical construct that indicates shootings aren’t actual problems.

Would be best to just have disposed of him.

One of them is a person. The other is a soulless demon. Good luck figuring out which is which, though.

Well, you actually are following my logic. In that, you are using your vote to voice your political opinion despite its lack of impact electorally. Did anything I wrote suggest you should vote for Biden even if you don’t want to? I’m sure many people in California will vote for Trump even...

Despite its impotence in the electoral college the popular vote result is often held up as a kind of metric for the popularity and mandate a President may have. So even in the case when one’s vote will not sway a given state’s result it doesn’t mean the vote isn’t meaningful in political discourse.