greg1647545532

Oh sorry, "started office" means something different to me, and presumably to most people for whom words have meaning. As of today it's $4130 up from inauguration day. But trending down over the last 4 months, guess that's nothing to worry about, might as well start more trade wars. They're easy to win after all.

You might want to check your numbers there...

I take it nobody wants to defend Donny Trump's trade war today?

God, can you imagine if there was a National Alcohol Association that graded politicians to shame them into falling in line with their agenda? And politicians would slam back shots of Wild Turkey in their advertisements to emphasize to their potential constituents just how pro-booze they were? Can you imagine if people screamed their heads off about drunk driving laws because they're a "slippery slope" to total alcohol bans? "Not one drop!" of restrictions, they'd say. Can you imagine if the NAA put out videos charging people for a culture war against the un-American non-drinkers? Would people threaten to take to the streets in armed revolt if the drinking age was raised to 21? "I drink responsibly," they'd say, "So why do we need public intoxication laws?" "Why don't we focus on the people getting drunk and not the alcohol?" Crazy.

Now Trump is firing his cabinet and replacing them with people he sees on Fox.

Jesus Christ. Dow Drops 724 Points Amid Fears Of A U.S. Trade War With China Smooth moves, Donny T. Unlike most stock market moves, this one seems squarely on the shoulders of the master negotiator himself. Anyone want to defend the moron this time?

Yeah Kerry, I don't know what the hell you're going on about. I said that Tim was lame, and Tim responded that he's not lame because he went to a party in NYC, which is a pretty goddamn lame rebuttal (I'm hip, fellow children), but nowhere in there was there a treatise on Irish alcoholism or whatever you're blithering about.

You must be fun at parties.

Always focusing on the gun I see.

There's no justice in the world.

I'm not going to argue that, I'm going to argue that the kids were going to walk out regardless of what the school did. Ooh, not a tardy slip. That would surely have prevented the walkout.

Well you're wrong, it was the school administrators pushing their liberal agenda and forcing kids to waste taxpayer dollars by using kids as pawns. Dumbass.

Where did the "go outside and protest against guns" idea come from? The school?

And remember that's the issue here, Tim has accused the school administrators of wrongdoing, "pushing a political agenda on school time involving students as pawns." It's an absurd accusation.

It's not like the protests were the school's idea, this was a nationally planned walkout that was going to happen whether or not the school got involved, right? So the school stepped in and said, "OK, rather than chaos, do your thing in this place at this time, and if you don't want to do your thing you can sit in this classroom with GI Joe and talk about how liberals suck." So yeah, there were probably a lot of non-political teenagers who participated because their friends were doing it and it beat sitting in a room with Tim's kid, but characterizing that as the school making them protest in any way is ridiculous.

Tim has described that his kids' school also "coordinated" a counter-protest, and two teachers volunteered to assist with it (and privately lent their personal support if I read the thread correctly), and nobody in this thread has given a shit.

But the school administrators pushed a political agenda on him and used him as a pawn at some point, right? I'm sorry if I have this wrong, this is a new development for me and I'm trying to keep up.

Damn, I missed that the students were forced by the school to participate in the protest. Carry on then, I'll admit when I'm wrong. That's egregious behavior.

"Red flag" laws cover behavior that wouldn't otherwise land someone in jail.

If I have this straight then, the high school students staging these protests have -- 1) Surmised (correctly, according to you) that adults (voters) have failed to address a problem (lack of action, per your words) that has resulted in them being exposed to risk. 2) Asked that, among other things, people with "red flags" not be allowed to own guns. As far as I understand you only objection to either of those two points is that they're focusing on the ownership of guns, whereas you'd like to prevent the people with "red flags" from shooting up schools by "removing them from society." Now, as far as I'm aware, multiple Republicans have proposed "red flag" laws that would prevent people with violent flags from owning guns. Since these laws are being proposed by Republicans (including, mind you, "Mr. 'take the guns first" Trump), it stands to reason that they could find bipartisan support. Also as far as I'm aware, nobody, R or D alike, has proposed any kind of "remove them from society" law. Essentially, you disagree with the student protesters not in spirit but in substance, and to the extent that you do, you don't like that they're in favor of something that might actually have a chance of getting passed instead of something that only exists in your fevered dream world. And because of this political disagreement, you feel fit to: A) call them brainwashed, and B) pretend that you actually care about them using taxpayer money to protest even though you don't. What a twat.

When you say lack of action by "we the people", do you mean children or adults?

It's like I'm asking if speed was a factor in an accident and you're giving me the goddamn runaround about how we can't discount which way the sun was facing. Jesus christ.

What the fuck are you on about? Of course there's a yes or no response. I'm not asking you if you solely blame the government, I'm not suggesting that there's "one entity" to blame, are you capable of reading and comprehending? Do you think the lack of government action to "address the people" represents a failure adults to protect children? Simple question.

Is that a yes or a no?

Regardless of the level of gov't, would you say that the failure of the gov't to thus far "address the people" represents a failure of adults to keep kids safe?