Trump's Final 100 days
Quote: darkozDid you actually pay attention to the trial itself while you were preoccupied with women marrying professors as a master plan for their future offsprings free education
Who said he was a professor?
Quote: AZDuffmanWho said he was a professor?
That's true. It's your imagination, what would you like him to be?
Quote: billryanThat's true. It's your imagination, what would you like him to be?
I don't have to imagine, they told us what his job function was.
What object will Melania employ to administer the much-deserved beat down on her Philanderer in Chief?
Quote: AZDuffmanI don't have to imagine, they told us what his job function was.
True deflection again
It doesnt matter if he was a professor or a janitor or whatever
The question was pertaining to whether you paid attention to the trial instead of the woman who in your mind finagled free tuition by marrying someone who could supply it for nefarious purposes
Perhap he took the job, knowing it was the only opportunity to find a decent mate.
Quote: darkozTrue deflection again
It doesnt matter if he was a professor or a janitor or whatever
The question was pertaining to whether you paid attention to the trial instead of the woman who in your mind finagled free tuition by marrying someone who could supply it for nefarious purposes
Of course I did. You can read about it in my blog, a few years back so you gotta page down a bit.
And of course we took it into account. Did she keep him around because the kids went to college? Of course we all agreed she did.
Why would you think it is not possible to do both?
Quote: MrVTiger's wife beat his cheating ass with a golf club when the news of his infidelities became too much to handle.
What object will Melania employ to administer the much-deserved beat down on her Philanderer in Chief?
"The Art of the Deal" Hardcover edition.
Besides it makes a great show at the divorce proceedings. My client was viciously beaten about the head with his own book.
Quote: AZDuffmanOf course I did. You can read about it in my blog, a few years back so you gotta page down a bit.
And of course we took it into account. Did she keep him around because the kids went to college? Of course we all agreed she did.
Why would you think it is not possible to do both?
Wait - they were her kids and not his?
The implication from your post was she got married to him then had kids (assumingly his) and then finagled a free education
If they were both their kids wouldn't he be giving them free education for his own benefit
Im also confused when you say the jury decided she was keeping him around just for the free education of her kids. How much could this guy with power to supply free college education not be responsible for his own actions
Can you supply the link directly to the blog. I am interested in reading it. That would help understand the case
Quote: darkozWait - they were her kids and not his?
The implication from your post was she got married to him then had kids (assumingly his) and then finagled a free education
If they were both their kids wouldn't he be giving them free education for his own benefit
Im also confused when you say the jury decided she was keeping him around just for the free education of her kids. How much could this guy with power to supply free college education not be responsible for his own actions
Can you supply the link directly to the blog. I am interested in reading it. That would help understand the case
She had a bunch of kids. 5 or so, I forget exactly. She then married him. Consensus was she got him to marry her to educate the kids. They were both on trial at the same time but with their own charges and own attorneys. We were jurors for him, she put it in the judges hands.
Can't link, but go to the DT site and go to my very first blog entry.
Was the sign taped to a Japanese steak house? Maybe they were still carrying a grudge against what happened 76 years earlier to the very day.Quote: ams288
This sign aint referring to Obama or Clinton
Another guilty plea in mueller probe
"Started at the bottom now we here"
Famous rap song
Quote: ams288
This sign aint referring to Obama or Clinton
An intelligent person knows we have only had 44 including Trump.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: ams288
This sign aint referring to Obama or Clinton
An intelligent person knows we have only had 44 including Trump.
Huh unfortunately i have to agree with you here
Ahem just for the record you are referring to grover Cleveland?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: ams288
This sign aint referring to Obama or Clinton
An intelligent person knows we have only had 44 including Trump.
I love how they capitalize "Presidents" too. lol
Quote: RSQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: ams288
This sign aint referring to Obama or Clinton
An intelligent person knows we have only had 44 including Trump.
I love how they capitalize "Presidents" too. lol
Hey at least they didnt spell it precedence
Quote: darkozQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: ams288
This sign aint referring to Obama or Clinton
An intelligent person knows we have only had 44 including Trump.
Huh unfortunately i have to agree with you here
Ahem just for the record you are referring to grover Cleveland?
Correct. You can win bar bets with this one if you don't mind the occasional screaming match.
"Intelligent" might not have been the right word., but I can't think of a better one to describe the types who know.
Number 5: "I hear you."
LOLOLOLOL
And dear god.... He has "45" on his cuffs.
Quote: AZDuffmanAn intelligent person knows we have only had 44 including Trump.
I'd bet good money Donald Trump does not know that.
Quote: ams288I'd bet good money Donald Trump does not know that.
Frederick Douglas is being recognized more and more. A lot of people are saying it.
Quote: ams288Actual image of Trump's cheat sheet during the gun violence "listening session."
Number 5: "I hear you."
LOLOLOLOL
And dear god.... He has "45" on his cuffs.
It's not easy to keep snowflakes from melting.
Not if his name is incorrectly spelled.Quote: SteverinosFrederick Douglas is being recognized more and more. A lot of people are saying it.
Quote: MaxPenIt's not easy to keep snowflakes from melting.
Probably not worth asking why parents and friends reacting to the death of their kid's and friends is snowflake behavior.
Meanwhile, Remington is going to declare bankruptcy and Smith & Wesson isn't doing too well either. Gun sales are soft. Mass murders when the government says they might do something is excellent news for gunmakers and the NRA who see spikes in sales.
If they go down arming the schools, I hope it's not the teacher's responsibility. They don't get paid well enough and their job is to teach, not to defend. Hire armed security guards instead. Just get it over with already. If I'm a teacher asked to conceal and carry, I'd be asking for a large enough raise to cover the $25k it would cost for security during school hours.
Quote: rxwineProbably not worth asking why parents and friends reacting to the death of their kid's and friends is snowflake behavior.
It's not. He just couldn't come up with a clever retort so he went the tired "snowflake" route.
Now if someone had to give him those points... that's another story all together, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
At some point, they can offer a training course and allow any teacher who qualifies to be armed. They should have to requalify every few years. Somehow, I think businesses, gun enthusiasts, donations, parents or whoever, would pay for this including a bonus for doing so.
It may even have a positive side effect and the little bastards might behave better knowing MR. Smith has a gun.
So is this voluntary, or mandatory?Quote: AxelWolfI say, let any teacher(even the janitor) who has a military or law enforcement background be armed, if they WANT to be armed (I assume there would be at least a few at most schools).
At some point, they can offer a training course and allow any teacher who qualifies to be armed. They should have to requalify every few years. Somehow, I think businesses, gun enthusiasts, donations, parents or whoever, would pay for this including a bonus for doing so.
It may even have a positive side effect and the little bastards might behave better knowing MR. Smith has a gun.
A) Mandatory - teachers signed up to teach, not take a combatives course and carry a gun and essentially be a police officer in a SCHOOL. I'd imagine you'd have to start paying teachers more than $40k/year to teach AND be a cop, no? Where is that money going to come from? What about for the training?
2) Voluntary - what do you do if teachers don't want to be armed? Blame them if another shooting happens when they don't believe in bringing guns in to the school?
Quote: RomesSo is this voluntary, or mandatory?
A) Mandatory - teachers signed up to teach, not take a combatives course and carry a gun and essentially be a police officer in a SCHOOL. I'd imagine you'd have to start paying teachers more than $40k/year to teach AND be a cop, no? Where is that money going to come from? What about for the training?
2) Voluntary - what do you do if teachers don't want to be armed? Blame them if another shooting happens when they don't believe in bringing guns in to the school?
Of course this all assumes school shooters are students and alien to the property. Mandalay Bays vegas shooting was a an adult
So when teachers are begin shooting students we will take the old "going postal" and rename it "going vocational"
Also just how effective are guns gonna be when 3000 students are running for their lives. Imagine the additional carnage in the recent shooting with a gun battle having taken place? And teachers not herding their students to safety but coming out guns blazing
Armed teachers just seems like a really bad idea
Quote: SanchoPanzaNot if his name is incorrectly spelled.
Touche.
I spelled his name wrong, but you voted for a guy who thought he was still alive.
The janitor who spent four years in service will, on average, have as little pistol training as a teacher right out of school.
Quote: billryanPerhaps people don't realize this, but few military personnel are trained with pistols. The vast majority of jobs in the military require minimal weapons training at all.
The janitor who spent four years in service will, on average, have as little pistol training as a teacher right out of school.
"The purpose of a pistol is to allow you the opportunity to get to your rifle" - every serviceman ever.
Romes, I know my writing sucks, but come on, most people would have understood the gist of what I was saying. Are you so heated about the gun issue that you didn't actually read my post?Quote: RomesSo is this voluntary, or mandatory?
A) Mandatory - teachers signed up to teach, not take a combatives course and carry a gun and essentially be a police officer in a SCHOOL. I'd imagine you'd have to start paying teachers more than $40k/year to teach AND be a cop, no? Where is that money going to come from? What about for the training?
2) Voluntary - what do you do if teachers don't want to be armed? Blame them if another shooting happens when they don't believe in bringing guns in to the school?
"if they WANT to be armed"
"Somehow, I think businesses, gun enthusiasts, donations, parents or whoever, would pay for this including a bonus for doing so."
Quote: RomesSo is this voluntary, or mandatory?
A) Mandatory - teachers signed up to teach, not take a combatives course and carry a gun and essentially be a police officer in a SCHOOL. I'd imagine you'd have to start paying teachers more than $40k/year to teach AND be a cop, no? Where is that money going to come from? What about for the training?
2) Voluntary - what do you do if teachers don't want to be armed? Blame them if another shooting happens when they don't believe in bringing guns in to the school?
Both my parents were educators for over 30 years - my Dad being a principal for the majority of his career. I went to highschool in a "bad" city school district, and good god you would not believe the psychological warfare a class of 35 asshole teenagers can wage. These teachers are usually making like $35k to deal with this garbage, and I have seen them go into full meltdown mode, they either lose their shit or run to the bathroom and cry.
Story time, my Dad's favorite principal story actually...
A parent called, and said their kid was in the automotive shop and the seniors were giving him swirlies. My dad says "Like, you mean head in the toilet? Yea, ok that can't be right, there has to be a misunderstanding here. Let me talk to the teacher and I will call you back."
So he brings the teacher who had just been hired that year into the his office and says "Hey a parent called and said their kid was getting swirlies from some of the older kids in class. I'm sure this is some sort of big misunderstanding or you would have brought it to my attention. This isn't happening right?"
The teacher is white as a ghost and can hardly talk. He says "Well.....they said it was a tradition when new people came into the classroom. I didn't think...."
and understandably, my dad loses his mind "HOW THE HELL CAN YOU JUST WATCH THAT HAPPEN AND NOT BRING IT TO ANYONE'S ATTENTION"
and the teacher says "Well.....uh.....they did it to me too."
That was that guy's first and last year as a teacher. F him being able to carry a gun into the classroom, absolutely not. I'm sure there are many teachers who could handle the responsibility, but there are just as many who couldn't. There is a reason prison guards do not carry guns either.
Quote: gamerfreak"Well.....uh.....they did it to me too."
Scared my dog I laughed so GD hard
Quote: gamerfreak... I'm sure there are many teachers who could handle the responsibility, but there are just as many who couldn't. There is a reason prison guards do not carry guns either.
Having teacher carrying gun is a very very bad idea. Has anyone consider many scenarios where bad-behaving students, deranged students in various fights, conflictes or angry confrontations with teachers and/or others grabbed hold of teachers' gun ...
Allowing teacher carrying guns will result in more bad news about massacres where students get hold of teachers' guns than good news of teachers' saving a few lives.
Millions of new gun sales to teachers, along with classes to qualify for them. Someone has to pay.
Acceptance of a more-dense gun culture than.we already have.
Future indemnity for the manufacturers if regulations are changed locally, state, or district-wide, or federally, to allow for their presence.
Etc.
And all.it does is place a gun where it is not now located, in proximity of children who are not mature enough to handle that proximity. Some of whom are much larger or stronger than the teacher (something around 70% of high school and lower teachers are women), who did not sign up to be an armed guard, and would be devastated to be either :
Put into the position of shooting a student, or
Having their gun taken and used on anyone, including themselves.
I can't imagine a worse solution for those who would actually have to do it.
But what does LaPierre (or the NRA) care? HIS consituency is the gun manufacturers. NEVER forget to follow the money when evaluating a political proposal.
Yeah, them kindergarteners are really f****** strong.Quote: beachbumbabs(something around 70% of high school and lower teachers are women)
Let's be reasonable and not assume k-5 are going to be attacking and overpowering teachers all the time.
Are they saying women can't handle their guns? That may be correct for most.
I'm just surprised that the women teachers have made it this far without having a gun since they are being overpowered all the time.Quote: RSI can't tell if that's sexist or not.
Quote: AxelWolfLet's be reasonable
I agree. Let's be reasonable.
It's not reasonable for anybody to have a weapon of war unless you are engaged in warfare.
Quote: SteverinosI agree. Let's be reasonable.
It's not reasonable for anybody to have a weapon of war unless you are engaged in warfare.
Does that include police (for someone having a gun that is not engaged in warfare)?
I can't really respond to that since I don't know what weapons that would include. One might use a bow and arrow for hunting and one may use it for war.Quote: SteverinosI agree. Let's be reasonable.
It's not reasonable for anybody to have a weapon of war unless you are engaged in warfare.
The fact is, people do have weapons and that not going to change anytime soon (if ever). So what now?
If you think I'm some big pro-gun guy, think again, I'm not. I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't agree with the gun nuts who think they should be able to have the most power autmatic weapons money can buy, and I don't agree with all anti-gun people who think all guns should be banned.
People are claiming they know what will happen if we arm teachers, well we don't know what the benefits or disadvantages will be. Of course, it won't be perfect, nothing ever is, however, it may work better than what's happening now.
I say try it and see how it works out.
Again, let's be reasonable, I'm not saying we should arm some nervous nelly or Barney Fife types.
Quote: AxelWolfI'm just surprised that the women teachers have made it this far without having a gun since they are being overpowered all the time.
In most cases, knowing a female teacher has a gun might make her more likely to be attacked.
Your school is under attack. You are locked in a classroom with five football players. All of whom think they are stronger and better suited to protect their friends than this middle aged female who has the only gun in the room. Does the teacher give up the gun or shoot the students who want it? Multiply that by every classroom in the school?
You are a teacher ,with 25 students in your class. Is your duty to stay and protect them or to leave them defenseless and go out to engage the unknown threat?
I did a very small smattering of substitute teaching in the late 80s/early 90s. This simply wasn't covered in the Substitute teachers Manuel
Quote: AxelWolfI can't really respond to that since I don't know what weapons that would include. One might use a bow and arrow for hunting and one may use it for war.
The fact is, people do have weapons and that not going to change anytime soon (if ever). So what now?
If you think I'm some big pro-gun guy, think again, I'm not. I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't agree with the gun nuts who think they should be able to have the most power autmatic weapons money can buy, and I don't agree with all anti-gun people who think all guns should be banned.
People are claiming they know what will happen if we arm teachers, well we don't know what the benefits or disadvantages will be. Of course, it won't be perfect, nothing ever is, however, it may work better than what's happening now.
I say try it and see how it works out.
Again, let's be reasonable, I'm not saying we should arm some nervous nelly or Barney Fife types.
So who should be armed?
Quote: RSDoes that include police (for someone having a gun that is not engaged in warfare)?
Silly.
The point is that regular citizens do not need an AR-15.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/parkland-shooter-s-ar-15-was-designed-kill-efficiently-possible-ncna848346
These guns are designed to inflict the maximum amount of damage in a short period of time. People do not survive from these wounds because of the damage the bullets do. It's not about it being automatic or semi-automatic. It's the damage that it can inflict on humans.
From the article above:
"a typical 9mm handgun wound to the liver will produce a pathway of tissue destruction in the order of 1-2 inches. In comparison, an AR-15 round to the liver will literally pulverize it, much like dropping a watermelon onto concrete results in the destruction of the watermelon. Wounds like this, as one sees in school shootings like Sandy Hook and Parkland where AR-15s were used, have high fatality rates."
The right to own one of these (and the shooting range hobby) is more important than saving lives?
#oneless
Quote: Steverinos
The right to own one of these (and the shooting range hobby) is more important than saving lives?
Yes.
The gun did not kill anyone, the maniac who was reported to the cops and they ignored did.
Quote: AxelWolfI don't agree with all anti-gun people who think all guns should be banned.
Who is proposing banning all guns? What anti-gun people are proposing that?
Rhetorical of course.
