Geeto67

Well since morality is a subjective, fluid, contextual, and comparative I'm sure you can find any metric to point to and say "see, morals are in decline" but it doesn't make it actually so. In fact you pointed to one of the more nonsense ones earlier and tried to make a case for the nonsense idea that people "identifying" as religious as being in decline means the world is becoming an A-moral pit. Religion and morality are not mutually exclusive, if they were the Catholic Church wouldn't have to continue to put so much effort into hiding pedophiles in their ranks. I actually went to several schools with school uniforms. In fact I went to a school that our current CIC went to (and was expelled out of for "moral turpitude"). The only thing wearing a school uniform taught me first hand is that it galvanizes a kid's resolve to rebel and forces them to become more sneaky about the shenanigans they pull. It does not "stamp" out those urges or make them fall in line. While I agree that discipline is a necessary tool, I don't always think all discipline is good. There are things that are meant to correct for generally bad behavior, and then there are things that oppress creativity and identity but serve no real moral purpose. I think School Uniforms, and martial or corporal punishment fall into the latter. I don't know about how many of you took actual beatings, but as a child I wanted to literally murder anybody who struck me (and it happened often). Speaking from first hand taking a regular beating just serves to make someone a violent person - it isn't a corrective measure for teaching character, and it doesn't teach the non-violent resolution skills that kids really need to become fully functioning, well adjusted adults. As an addendum to this, keep in mind that the crime rate over the last 60 years has been steadily falling as has corporal punishment. At the time when it was socially acceptable to be violent to children we had more crime and when that declined in the 80's and 90's we had less crime. I'm not saying it is the only factor contributing to the decrease, but it is a factor and one that can't just be ignored because you guys can't get an erection in middle age now without some old man in a priest uniform slapping you across the face. I mean seriously, how is it we are even having this conversation that beating the shit out of children is a good thing? More importantly how are your tying to claim the moral high ground for it in the same thread where you bitch about people not being religious (which I don't know how lapse you are, but I'm pretty sure all the big three promote non-violence).

Cue large block of text of Tim talking about how superior he is and offers no real solution. If you actually believed in root cause analysis then you would support funding for research that actaually collects data. You don’t. Because you are ok with the death of children being the cost of freedom. Moral decline is one of those stupid things that conservatives and religious zealots bitch and moan about to no end. It’s a lie. If there is a moral decline it isn’t due to crime (which has fallen dramatically over the last 30years), or abortion (which is also in decline), or divorce (which is also at a 30 year low). Even teenage pregnancy is at an all time low. It can’t be because of people not caring about their common man because charitable giving is up. The only metric that corresponds to “moral decline” is the then number of people that associate themselves with a religion is declining. So Moral decay is really a fiction people try to scare you with to either to get you to vote for their religious morality agenda or recruit you to their cult. But keep peddling that lie Tim, maybe someday it will actually be true.

and he's racist.

not really. Read back. And even if you do I forgive you because his combination of ignorance and smugness is epic-ly frustrating. Also he's really bad at it. Half the time I am responding to him I feel like I am kicking a retarded puppy.

There are ways to have sensible discussions about these topics without name calling. Have you tried to say less stupid antagonistic stuff? Are you literally butt hurt because greg won't internet fight with you?

does your mom know you are driving her car?

Why does this conversation always drift to "Disarm ALL citizens". you know there are other options right? I don't think you fully fathom the crazytown that is the NRA's "shall not infringe" message. They don't think anybody should be restricted access by the government to firearms: Children, crazy people, convicted criminals, people who oppose the federal government and advocate killing it's officers (but they refuse to call terrorists), some household pets that act human (ok that one is a joke) should all have unrestricted unfettered access. We, our spouses, our parents, our children, our pets, need to pay the cost of that lack of restriction with our lives, whether we want to or not. That's the culture - it's a "simple" message that attracts people who can't really understand the complexity of the issue. "Gun control means using two hands" is satire but it is the creepy kind of satire that is more true than joke. If you think I am kidding, remember those times 20+ years ago when the NRA advocated killing federal agents (Hint: they rhyme with Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidians). If you think some people shouldn't have access to firearms like, I dunno the mentally unstable or felons, you are already off message and an enemy as far as the NRA's political agenda is concerned. Never mind that their own constituents and members probably don't have nearly the same extremist view, as long as they continue to promote that the liberals are going to take your guns, the membership dues and donations are going to keep rolling in. One of the most effective campaigns the NRA has waged is de-funding research in this area. It doesn't cost them a lot, but the effects are profound. The resultant gun controls laws that get passed seem nonsensical because there isn't data and information to drive intelligent legislation. They run disinformation campaigns to convince people that research isn't needed because gun control isn't needed, and the belivers of this (let's call them morons) willingly hand over money to an organization that spends that money to insure they remain ignorant. So how about this as reasonable? Start funding gun violence based research again. Let's get some good old fashioned data and root cause analysis that will allow us to make meaningful legislation that will stem the problem and lead to a uniform set of control laws? If you are a healthy individual, well adjusted, and not a felon then it shouldn't affect your access in anyway. But if you have self harm issues, or a felon, let's put up some roadblocks so that access is much harder and discouraging. And the net positive result is that with the focus on effective controls, you can relax some of the carry and conceal laws that make things such a pain to travel interstate. But we won't. The Culture is that part of the "deal" of being an American citizen is you have to be ready to die so a crazy person can own a gun. Your children have to be ready to die because you, or your neighbor, or the guy working at 7/11, is repeatedly careless with fire arms. That culture is in power right now, and isn't going anywhere. So unless it changes (which Greg is right, won't happen in our lifetimes) here is where we will stay.

The military owns fucking F-16's. Please tell me what your little AR-15 is going to do against a squadron of F16's or F18's or F22s, or B1Bs, etc.... And the Orange45 administration had no problem clearing any restrictions on police purchasing military grade hardware, so.....Again, what's your AR15 going to do against an armored personnel carrier full of armored police carrying fully automatic rifles? By the way, as a military person I assume you are familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act. Are you? "The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981." It carries a prison sentence for pretty much anybody who suggests it seriously in the Executive chain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act This concern you have, many people smarter than both of us have already thought of it, and there are legislative safeguards to prevent it.

Answer the question. Unless you don't really know....

yeah, because HIPPA. And privacy, remember that right? the right to privacy?

well, fuck my shit: https://gizmodo.com/ajit-pai-is-reportedly-being-investigated-by-the-fccs-i-1823029745 It's pretty telling when your own agency thinks you are such a shill that they need to verify it. By the way this isn't even over net neutrality, it's over Sinclair media's attempt to become the local broadcast monopoly. For those who don't know sinclair broadcast group - they are the media company that makes liars out of people who use the term "liberal media". They are the largest television operator in the country and are wildly conservative. If you think your local news isn't politically charged, think again - Sinclair owns 3 of the local stations in Columbus broadcast area. And their tactics are shady as shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Political_views so...if fuckboi Ajit Pai is found to be the shill the world thinks he is, then what? do we get our net neutrality back?

I am going to presume you don't have any children. Do you think people just walk into schools? I can tell you right now that if my kid forgets her lunch it's an ordeal to get in there and bring it to her. I know bank branches that are physically less secure. The majority of the shootings are perpetrated by individuals with a relationship to the school and familiar with the security protocols. Heck, Sandy Hook's shooter had access to the school being both a former student and his recent mother's volunteer work at the school. Adding more guns to the situation isn't really going to keep them from coming in the door, or exploiting any holes in security that a stranger wouldn't know but they do. Adding more security only deters those who are strangers to the school, and the risk of a stranger perpetrating these acts is extremely low. So it isn't the deterrent you hope it would be. The other thing you have to deal with is adding more fire arms to the situation increases the harm to students through accident by a significant amount, not to mention adding a new class of perpetrator - the insider security guard with a legal firearm who snaps. But let's assume that you implement more security at schools. That only solves for schools. What about all the other open congregation areas like malls, and parks? for the 45 days in 2018 there have been 30 mass shootings, only 18 were at schools. Ther rest were on open streets, bars, malls, etc..you want to put armed security there everywhere? who is going to pay for that? For someone who likes "small government" and claims to be libertarian, your solutions seem to all end with the US becoming a police state.

Careful not to cut your self on that edgy comment.

wow, the drugs you take must be amazing. where can I get some? do I need a prescription? At the end of the day you don't know what satire is. That's so hilarious I literally don't know how to process both laughing at and feeling sorry for you in such great magnitude: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/735/523/12c.jpg

Better not let the NRA or any of it's supporters hear you concede that access to guns has at least some partial responsibility to this - it might affect your membership since that isn't their line. Sounds like you have one, so let's hear it.

Can't it be both? or does your binary thinking prevent you from even considering that?

I'd point out that your intellect has again run out of road so you revert to what worked for you in kindergarten, but let's be honest... that happened like five posts ago. enjoy your cuck life. Hey I hear this is worth talking about as well: https://www.theonion.com/white-house-compare-potential-food-stamps-replacement-p-1823030631 maybe you have opinions about how political correctness is ruining cinema: https://www.theonion.com/peter-rabbit-film-criticized-for-making-light-of-alle-1823014154

words have meanings man: Satire is, by it's nature of being absurdist, fiction. Even if it is based on real events. So it isn't really an article any more than a short story is an article in the New Yorker. I'm trying really hard not to call you stupid so early in the day, but you aren't making is easy. Is this really the product of Ohio educational system? Or are you "special"? I genuinely don't know what is worse: the fact that you thought the onion was real, or the fact that Greg's continued satire is just wizzing by you. He owns you bro, you are a total cuck.

satire. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/satire Also, It's not an "article". The onion is the literal definition of a humor publication. Calling this an "article" is like saying Mad Magazine has some deep hard hitting news reporting.

https://jalopnik.com/scott-tucker-potentially-on-the-hook-for-3-5-billion-i-1823030337 Honestly, he'll probably never pay it, which really sucks. If it weren't cruel and unusual - I kinda wish they would do this to him, except with every one of his race cars, the trucks, the tools, heck everything but the people:

That's an Onion headline. Did the satire make a wooshing sound as it went over your head? or was it so high up all you could see were the chemtrails. Since nobody is willingly going to step into your bear trap, how about I put it back on you Brandon: explain to me the difference between the onion satirical headline of "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" and the NRA and supporter's actual, real life, non-satirical position that "Killings like this are 'The Price (or cost) of Freedom'". Ready? go!

Depends on how many of them were also NAZI's. Hey, did we all forget he still has like 15 outstanding lawsuits involving sexual harassment/assault against him? Also he said publicly that he just grabs women by the pussy? (which is kind of gross too considering he doesn't look like a guy that washes his hands regularly). By the way - his statement on the matter was: "Those women deserve due process", which is the political passive aggressive soft tone equivalent of "fuck those lying bitches", so I don't know how much of a cuck he really is. Morrisey put out a new album recently with a song with the lyric: When Morrisey starts to seem normal and sensical, It's time to take a step back

Sorry, It's red and says "Slow and Slutty" - my memory failed me. Also looking at the pic on my phone it may be a 4 door cobalt and not a cavalier. Still, it's there pretty often.

which model? I've heard good things about the Forte (esp koup models) but man that Rio left a lot of salty people in it's wake.

I feel like the Kia badge means either you hold the car for 2 years on a lease or 10 years and drive it into the ground if you buy it just because the depreciation is so bad. Still, I feel like this is the car that will turn a corner for Kia and put them in mainstream acceptance, much the way the Genesis changed peoples' perception of Hyundai. Kia still needs to make other cars to the same value/caliber to change the brand perception from "that company that makes the shitpile rio" to "that company that offers a good car with a lot of value for the money", so I am kind of excited to see what their next car is. I am kind of hoping for an enthusiasts' car.