Geeto67

Combat vet? Fake news. How can you even prove it. For all I know you were at a desk in a US station. Heck, for all I know you were never in the military. What proof do you have? I call you a literal piece of garbage because you are in fact a literal piece of human refuse. Look at you getting all tough guy, why wait for cars and coffee, we live in the same neighborhood, I see you around the area often enough. Next time you are out, go ahead and stop me and I'll tell you to your face, And then what? you just gonna stand there and cry? gonna soak your underroos? You gonna try and convince me how you deserve respect when you don't seem to comprehend basic human decency? we both know you aren't going to do shit tough guy, so keep puffing that chest.

It's a good thing we don't have to pretend. He's an actual victim. No imagination necessary. You are literally human garbage. Please do us a favor and let whatever PTSD you might be battling from your time in the sandbox run it's course and remove yourself from the population. Don't let your friends and loved ones try to tell you different - you are exactly the awful person your own private self loathing says you are.

He's a kid, he's not a pro speaker. What were you doing at his age? Literally his only claim to fame is that he survived a tragedy at his school long enough for some internet trolls to call him nasty names and people like you to show literally 0 empathy for him.

probably because he's cute. (also, because a bunch of conspiracy dipshits focused on him, calling him a "crisis actor".) BTW, have you read some of the absolutely insane things people have written about him? Kid is a survivor of a massive tragedy and is rightfully upset and angry about it, and not shy about appearing on camera. Here is one example: https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/david-hogg-is-a-high-school-bully-mSI3k3Njd0OcUaS-35pFDQ?full=1 But welcome to America, where it's perfectly acceptable to treat victims of tragedy like shit because they say things you don't agree with.

You can really see the DP215 influence in the nose, as well as some Facel Vega, Morgan Aero 8, and ferrari Barchetta. You can really see the Alfa TZ2 in the rear styling, along with some ferrari 275 GTB4 and shelby Daytona coupe. I'd love to see some side and 3/4 profile images to see how this all pulls together but so far you are in good company.

great bike and welcome to the fold! The most important thing, and often the most overlooked thing by new riders, is to focus on the type of riding you want to do. Too many people jump into this buying what just looks "pretty" or is the fastest, without consideration as to how they actually want to use a bike. The ST is technically a "dual sport" or "Adventure" bike, although it is more versatile. Think of it as the Chevy Tahoe of the motorcycle set - can be taken off road capably (esp. if you change the tires), but will spend most of it's time on-road racking up miles and has the manners to suit that. My recommendation to you is to beg, steal, or borrow as many different motorcycles as you can to get a feel for what it is you like about two wheels. Lots of mfg offer demo days, esp. at big shows (like VMD at Mid-Ohio) and keeping a watch for ones in your area will help broaden your saddle time. There are two types of motorcyclists in the world. Those that treat their bikes better than their wives/girlfriends and won't let anybody near them, and those that are happy to share their bikes with their other friends who ride so that everyone has a broad experience. If you can try to fall into the second category and hang out with those people, it's just way more fun and you'll get a better feel for the hobby. This doesn't mean you should just hand your keys to anybody, but motorcycling is more social than people think despite being a solitary activity. A good network of other riders can only increase your fun.

That was publicized, so if it was ignorance, it was willful. Still you make a good point here in that it's a measure without a lot of teeth. I don't believe we will have sensible gun control without proper research and data, but given the absence of that it was still pretty sensible given the context of some other measures, and it was something - which is what a lot of people were asking for - just something to move. The fact that it didn't pass speaks to the impact of the Paul Ryan, Mitch Mcconnell, et al devised plan to object to everything Obama did regardless as to whether it had merit or not. Depends on the media outlets you are consuming. There are still core news reporting agencies that do a good job of factual and accurate reporting. No news piece is intended to give you "the full story" because there just is not space and time for that - it's intentionally condensed with the intent that if you really want to know more it's on you as the reader to seek out the information. That is, was, and has always been the expectation, even if the medium itself first through TV and then the internet. Most Americans are lazy or just don't have time to seek out the information, but don't put the laziness of most Americans on the media. The infotainment "media" is not doing anything criminal - it is simply filling a need in a market. They are no more "evil" than mcdonalds or Anheiser Busch. The thing that has disappointed me is the rise in popularity of Punditry, which is very biased, and more for entertainment than actual reporting. It used to be things like the Op-Ed section of the paper were there to give opinionated "color" to an otherwise neutral issue - now the consumption of it has lead to people picking teams and adopting other's opinion as their own, and that happens on both sides of the aisle with people like Rachel Madow and Sean Hannity (and formerly Bill O'Reilly) leading the charge. Still we live in a capitalist society, and there is clearly a market for infotainment that outstrips the market for actual reporting. To this end I kinda feel like people overuse the term "liberal media" and often wrongly. There are places like the AP news wire where there is no American liberal bias because it pulls reporting from a global network of reporting and also serves as the fountainhead for a lot of other news orgs to pull their story material from. There are also mediums with traditionally conservative and progressive audiences that actually end up having a reporting bias opposite their target audience (e.g. the Wall Street Journal has a slightly more progressive bias than the New York times, and PBS has a much more conservative bias than the majority of mainstream media). What I think is really interesting is that there was empirically less of an observable bias prior to the conservative media strategy pioneered by Rupert Murdoch of accusing the media of having a liberal bias and touting his own news organization of having a conservative bias. In essence the industry polarized fairly quickly, and gave rise to the market for partisan infotainment, where as before it had more of an academic round table approach (esp on TV). Agreed. But again it was something when the popular opinion wanted something, literally anything, to be done. As for the "18 shootings" number. That reporting didn't originate with "the media". It came from a not for profit activist group set up by former mayor of NY Michael Bloomberg (most recently a republican, but prior to 2001 a democrat). The group has a history of tracking gun violence, esp those that occur on school grounds and so it seemed like a trustworthy source for metrics. The org defines a school shooting as any type of shooting that occurs on school grounds regardless as to origin, and then uses other factors to draw a distinction. Most lay people don't seem to define a school shooting as that - they are more inclined to think of a mass shooting caused by a school affiliate, so right away there is a disconnect and not one that is intentional. I am not saying that the media isn't "sensational" at times, but I think in this particular instance it was more of an accident than it was intentional - here was an easy figure to grab from an otherwise trusted resource that had shock value on it's face that actually required much more in-depth analysis. Also I will point out that many sources, including many that ultra-conservatives accuse of radical liberal bias, immediatly reported on the misunderstanding or printed retractions or corrections (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.ddd080c18699)

that's like saying a car guy isn't a car guy because he likes modded b16 honda civics. This is a stupid road to go down.

That standard is already in place, a car dealer can be held accountable if he allows a knowingly intoxicated person to drive a car off the lot. That's such a rare scenario that it almost never happens in the modern age, but many states hold that it is illegal to even sell a car to a visibly intoxicated person because they cannot enter into a purchase contract of sound mind, and doing so would make you responsible for any thing that immediately happens afterwards. There have been proposals in the past to require car dealers to not sell to people with multiple convictions for drunk driving or even people with active suspended licenses. As far as I know none have passed, but people are thinking about this sort of thing. The question is, how close in time are the events to the point of sale purchase. obviously it wouldn't stop Cruz who purchased his AR-15 a year prior to the shooting, but what if the new accountability standard pushed for other factors like mental health stability checks (i.e. a note from a Dr)? The government can't require you to disclose that info without developing it's own forms and system for protecting your privacy, but a private seller could ask for you to voluntarily surrender that info before selling to you - it's his prerogative. Again, this is another thing research could help with. There are a lot of things the government can't do because of the intersection or conflict of other laws. If the industry was really committed to solving this problem they would be open to self policing. Unfortunately, the majority of the industry buys the NRA's extremist position of any control is too much and therefore doesn't do squat.

Are you saying vegas shooter was not a "gun guy"? because I'm pretty sure owning 47 of them puts you into some form of that camp.

Serious as in I think it would happen? no of course not. But, regardless as to how outlandish it seems it's not entirely without basis in the current laws. Think about it like this: most industries have a standard for responsible behavior, and deviations from that standard are often considered as a factor to the outcome and people can be held accountable for that factor. Under the current laws, a seller has the right to refuse to sell a gun if he thinks for any reason that gun will be used for an illegal act (or actually for any reason, but not liking your shoes won't end with a prison sentence). If they do and it can be proven, the seller can be held on related charges and have their license revoked. It's a very very hard thing to prove and doesn't happen often (and when it does it is usually selling a weapon to a person the seller knew to be a felon). So, what if we moved the line a little bit and instead of the government proving that the seller deviated from the standard practice, we make them prove that they took every precaution to vet the person before we release them from liability. I betcha the industry would develop their own standards really quickly. It would also fuel the black market in a big way so it's not a perfect solution. But it's not as outlandish as you might think at first blush. They can already deny to sell for any reason, so you don't think that already happens? How about instead of the government setting the standards, the industry sets them. This happens all the time in other markets, and it usually ends up with more comprehensive public records checks and cooling off periods. The options here are not binary, it isn't just "background check or racial discrimination". The government saying "you are now responsible for the actions of the end user unless you do something other than a standard purchase arrangement" is a pretty good motivator for the industry to self police.

Hard to argue with this, but someone is going to find a way to. Except the dickey amendment will prevent any further research into this other than the initial criminal investigation. Hence why it needs to end. Tim asked before what other research do we need, and if you want to know it's research into what causes these events and if there is a common factor or choke point. You can regulate the distribution requirements and licensed sellers without interrupting 2A rights of the individual pretty easy. I betcha if you started making sellers an accessory to the crimes committed by the individuals they sell guns to, they would sharpen up right quick and impose all sorts of tests and barriers to purchase.

They partner with USAA so if you are a USAA member, you can book through them and get the discount. FWIW, AAA gives the best discounts on rental cars in my personal experience. Supporting the 2nd amendment and supporting the NRA are two different things. Just to make that crystal clear. You can support the 2nd amendment in the current interpretation under the law and be different from the NRA's position of free and unencumbered access to all. you understand that right?

yes there is a military discount. Actually almost all companies offer a military discount of some sort, you really should be asking that question to them a lot more. https://www.enterprise.com/en/help/faqs/military-discount.html If you belong to a club or a rewards program, read their partnership and rewards page to find out who offers incentives. not a government site and not comprehensive in the least - but this details some of the discounts military members(active and retired) get: https://militarybenefits.info/military-discounts/

I don't think that's being said, and honestly that's a logical leap bigger than the Snake River Canyon to get there. Companies partner with others to offer discounts all the time. Some do it as part of services packages, some do it just to get access to a group of customers that normally wouldn't have access to. Those partnerships end all the time too for a variety of reasons. Simply choosing the not offer a discount is a pretty easy switch for a company to flip, so they aren't going out of their way to do this. In this case I think Enterprise's message is pretty clear, they no longer want to offer preferential treatment to members of an organization whose reaction to the shooting is dead set on maintaining the status quo rather than at least discuss gun control. They are not blaming the NRA for the shooting, but they are making a statement about the NRA's reaction. They are also not banning any member, they just aren't reaching out to that customer base any more to offer an incentive to rent.

Let's change the subject for a second: https://jalopnik.com/enterprise-car-rental-company-ends-discount-for-nra-mem-1823261339 discuss

And it never occurred to you that the other-side sees conservative "tone" as aggressive, demeaning, insensitive, or insulting on the outset? Esp given that usually conservatives write from a different presumed context than progressives? Do you not feel like you may owe 1/2 the problem to the communication breakdown?

What does this really mean? Did you ever stop to consider that the "equality" they are advocating is different than your understanding of equality? What is it that makes you think they "pretend"? Again explain. What are these "Advantages" that you speak of?

and you assume this is different for the other side?

says the walking hate tank.

Now, was that so fucking hard? Sport. Seriously, it's fun. You should try it sometime.

assume what? you said something word for word that is a meme on facebook. It could be a coincidence, or..... Care to back this up? cause I still see plenty of reporting on it. Then again, I don't have the attention span of a goldfish. No the other things you say do that, not just one comment. You do say a lot of ignorant unfounded shit - if you are presenting it as something that is not your opinion you sure do a lousy job of making that clear.

Wow, so you get all your thoughts directly from garbage memes that float around facebook? Seriously, I saw this meme on Facebook yesterday. Let's get one thing clear: Clinton and Obama didn't repeal any gun control laws during their administrations. In fact Clinton passed two major GC bills prior to columbine. Obama the same thing, although people were critical that Obama had not been pushing hard enough for control measures prior to sandy hook so in a way people were blaming him for not doing enough. In response he put forth several proposals, which the republican congress immediately shot down (pun intended) in favor of doing nothing. People were very critical of him not being able to move the needle in this area in the press, and it is often one of the things his oponents point to when they try to show he was ineffective (despite managing to pass other things in other areas while working with the most hostile republican stragety any president had seen before). You must not remember all this because that rock you were under did a good job shielding you from it. Let's clear up something else: nobody is blaming trump for not specifically stopping Nicholas Cruz. However, he did repeal one of the measures Obama was actually able to put in place in the wake of sandy hook: https://www.snopes.com/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/ (It is important to note that he actually rescinded it before it was set to take effect so it is unknown if the measure would have actually stopped Parkland from happening). In light of this, can you say that Trump isn't adding to the problem? Again it is stupid to blame politicians for not being able to stop one incident, but Trump and his policies and his actions aren't helping the situation. If you want to sit there and say stupid things like "nobody blamed Obama and Clinton so why blame trump" to protect your precious conservative bubble go right ahead, but understand that this type of rhetoric adds nothing to the discourse and only reveals that you to miss the point entirely. Trump made a choice to rescind something that speaks to this very issue, he deserves every inch of grief he gets for it.

The Norwegians, who else? Have you seen the Norwegians? There is a reason why the word Norse is usually followed by the word god.

Well everything looks either blue, green, or brown from space. If you zoom out too far you lose the detail.