I’m ready to compromise

#178
#178
AM64 said:
It's what happens with appointments for life. They should have a mandatory retirement age just like airline pilots. Maybe it terminates some of the best, but it also limits senility in office.
Click to expand...

It would also need to apply to the presidency. We've had horrible luck with any president over 70.
 
#182
#182
luthervol said:
It would also need to apply to the presidency. We've had horrible luck with any president over 70.
Click to expand...

I'm more concerned about presidents that have cows and ugly chicks for wives and those that fool around with someone I wouldn't even think of messing with drunk.

We win that one hands down.
 
#183
#183
hog88 said:
Then you have no clue about the subject.
Click to expand...

How many people would you have had to kill to have a clue? Would you have had to kill people from varying distances to truly know? How many varying distances would be required to have a true clue? You would also have had to kill for various reasons; war, protection, sport. The impersonal / personal level would surly vary between those. I think this conversation revolved around people committing mass killings for "no" reason. Do you have experience in the impersonal / personal dynamic of that type of killing?
 
#184
#184
82_VOL_83 said:
And this one implies that I should be able to actually own an ASSAULT RIFLE!
Click to expand...

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”


The guys inside the Alamo would probably have disagreed.

By the way, I did read your earlier comment about missing your original intent. I had eye surgery last week, and for whatever reason haven't felt quite on the same page as everybody else since. I'll try to catch up. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#185
#185
luthervol said:
How many people would you have had to kill to have a clue? Would you have had to kill people from varying distances to truly know? How many varying distances would be required to have a true clue? You would also have had to kill for various reasons; war, protection, sport. The impersonal / personal level would surly vary between those. I think this conversation revolved around people committing mass killings for "no" reason. Do you have experience in the impersonal / personal dynamic of that type of killing?
Click to expand...

Please page me when someone on here says they’ve killed a human for sport.
 
#186
#186
luthervol said:
How many people would you have had to kill to have a clue? Would you have had to kill people from varying distances to truly know? How many varying distances would be required to have a true clue? You would also have had to kill for various reasons; war, protection, sport. The impersonal / personal level would surly vary between those. I think this conversation revolved around people committing mass killings for "no" reason. Do you have experience in the impersonal / personal dynamic of that type of killing?
Click to expand...

You truly are ignorant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#190
#190
DancingOutlaw said:
Please page me when someone on here says they’ve killed a human for sport.
Click to expand...

That would be the point. We can't pretend to know what goes on in the heads of these psychopaths. To say that I have no clue would also be insinuating that you do have a clue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#194
#194
luthervol said:
That would be the point. We can't pretend to know what goes on in the heads of these psychopaths. To say that I have no clue would also be insinuating that you do have a clue.
Click to expand...

None apparently fit in well, and there seemed to be little effort by contemporaries, parents, teachers, etc to change it.

There's probably as much "fault" in those who are different as in those who exploit difference in others. We may see things radically differently and not hesitate to say so here, but in the end I don't think anyone here is saying anything with the intent to harm another person, but then again we aren't immature school age kids.
 
#195
#195
luthervol said:
I think he is ranked around 10th in the latest ranking by presidential historians, and falling. Behind Obama by the way.
Click to expand...

If Obama is ranked anyplace other than class clown, it should tell you something about the objectivity and intent of those doing the ranking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#196
#196
AM64 said:
Reagan could at least act presidential. That in itself is far better than everybody after him - except perhaps Bush 1 (for at least acting with some sense of decorum).
Click to expand...

Bush 41 is a remarkable man with a long resume of public service. And was a rather “meh” president.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#197
#197
luthervol said:
I think he is ranked around 10th in the latest ranking by presidential historians, and falling. Behind Obama by the way.
Click to expand...

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I think we’ve found the issue. You’ve got some really really bad data. I looked it up. Reagan is consistently 2nd only behind JFK. And if he went two full terms I think history would have judged him differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#198
#198
NorthDallas40 said:
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I think we’ve found the issue. You’ve got some really really bad data. I looked it up. Reagan is consistently 2nd only behind JFK. And if he went two full terms I think history would have judged him differently.
Click to expand...

JFK might not have even won a second term.
 
#199
#199
AM64 said:
In the old west guns earned the term "equalizer" for a reason. It's easier for a kid who was bullied to fight back with a gun ... after all, there usually is a reason that some kids are bullies and some are the victims.

I'm guessing that if you could find a solution to what makes some school age kids asses and some their victims, it would go a long way to ending all violence in schools. With the advent of social media and the increasing importance place on social rather than educational values (by students) and general parental lack of care, the problem is more likely to increase. I'd also guess that a lot of what lies behind the flawed mentalities of school shooters stems back to what happened in schools and the school years in general. You get the distinct impression that most of the shooters have been made to feel small, so they intend to go out big.

In the end, however, it is the person - not the gun that initiates the violence, and there lies the solutions. It could have been a gun, a truck, a bomb, a knife, or a pencil; but as you say, guns and bombs tend to make a bolder statement and require less ability than a pencil.
Click to expand...

Great post. This is one point about school shootings that isn't being adequately addressed in my opinion. The problem of bullying has been amplified in the era of social media. Most of the kids who bring guns to school have been bullied and they see no recourse for themselves other than violence and since most of them can't defend themselves with their fists, they take up arms. In every school there needs to be an avenue to report bullying where it will be dealt with seriously with no threat of retribution against those who report it. Most kids think it will only make their situation worse if they report their abuse to a teacher or school administrator. This must change.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#200
#200
luthervol said:
I think he is ranked around 10th in the latest ranking by presidential historians, and falling. Behind Obama by the way.
Click to expand...

Those presidential rankings are some of the dumbest and most biased things ever created.

Presidents are defined by what happens during their terms, good or bad, and they do little if anything to influence it.

Bill Clinton is thought of as a good President because he was President during a time of great economic prosperity, innovations in technology that led to huge increases in productivity, and Baby Boomers being in their prime earning years. Did Bill Clinton personally have anything to do with this? If he had been President from 1977 until 1980, he'd be thought of as a more charismatic Jimmy Carter.

I was telling people on the day he was elected that Obama was likely to be a 2-term President because, in all likelihood, he'd take the oath of office at or near a bottom in the economy. Dubya fell into that same category, as did Reagan. I've been saying Trump is likely to be a 1-term President, not because of Russia, but because he took the oath of office at or near a top in the economy. That same thing happened to Dubya's dad. He lost in 1992 despite a decisive Persian Gulf War vistory because the economy fell into a recession late in his term.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top