BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 1017 Pages +
  • « First
  • 999
  • 1000
  • 1001
  • 1002
  • 1003
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#20001 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,570
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2022-June-27, 02:37

View Postmikeh, on 2022-June-25, 12:19, said:

In the US the political reality has been that there has never been and still isn’t sufficient support in Congress to make enabling abortion access the statutory law of the realm.

There has been support for a pro abortion bill in the US before, but because the Senate still has an undemocratic filibuster bill where 40% of the senators can veto any bill they don't like. The obvious problem with passing a bill is that when the political winds change, that bill can be nullified by a new Congress and president. The other problem is that because of gerrymandering of house districts, and the over representation of small population states, a minority of the people frequently controls legislation.
0

#20002 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,956
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2022-June-27, 04:21

View Postjohnu, on 2022-June-27, 02:37, said:

There has been support for a pro abortion bill in the US before, but because the Senate still has an undemocratic filibuster bill where 40% of the senators can veto any bill they don't like. The obvious problem with passing a bill is that when the political winds change, that bill can be nullified by a new Congress and president. The other problem is that because of gerrymandering of house districts, and the over representation of small population states, a minority of the people frequently controls legislation.


It's been reported in the news here Biden was looking at what he can do by presidential decree, no idea what powers he actually has.
0

#20003 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,570
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2022-June-27, 05:24

View PostCyberyeti, on 2022-June-27, 04:21, said:

It's been reported in the news here Biden was looking at what he can do by presidential decree, no idea what powers he actually has.

If there is something Biden can do by himself you can be sure that there will be lawsuits challenging his actions, which, surprise surprise, will eventually end up in the Supreme Court where there are the same 5-6 QOP justices. You can be assured that the QOP majority will make up any reason necessary to rule against any Biden Executive Orders.
0

#20004 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,866
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-June-27, 06:25

View PostCyberyeti, on 2022-June-27, 04:21, said:

It's been reported in the news here Biden was looking at what he can do by presidential decree, no idea what powers he actually has.

Not much at all concerning this ruling. He can tell the Executive Branch of government what to do but not the country or the states.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#20005 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,816
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2022-June-27, 07:58

View Postpilowsky, on 2022-June-26, 18:26, said:

I haven't watched movies or TV in years (I gave it up when a show called gogglebox appeared where I was supposed to watch people watching other people on television).
The fact the Trump was born on the day that John Logie Baird died was the nail in the coffin.

Something I recall distinctly is that in the shoot-em-up genre the villain in US productions is commonly a foreigner.
German, South African, Russian, English whatever.
Productions where a typical WASP defeats a typical WASP were rare.
Think of Die Hard, Lethal Weapon etc., Who are the villains?
In one of them they scored a twofer with Jeremy Irons playing a German.



I'll comment, mostly for the fun of it but also I do think our culture is screwed up so it might be relevant.

You don't much watch this stuff you know more about it than I do. I believe I saw all of or part of the first Die Hard but no subsequent Die Hards. I am pretty sure I saw no Lethal Weapons. These are both in the late 80s. Bruce Willis is in Die Hard, I cannot think of anything that I have seen him in that I liked. Mel Gibson was in Lethal Weapon (I looked it up). I did enjoy Gibson in Conspiracy Theory although I thought of it more as a romantic comedy crazily set within a political thriller. I think the bad guys were in the US government but I can't really recall.

The Wild Bunch, a 1969 film with Willaim Holden, gets generally high reviews. I have never seen it all the way through. The first time I did not make it through the initial extended shoot-out, I just turned it off (I was watching it on tv). Then I heard it was supposed to be a really good movie so I tried again. I patiently sat through the long initial shoot-out, watched for a while, got bored, and turned it off.

I liked The Bridge on the River Kwai. I very much liked Unforgiven with Clint Eastwood.

Sometimes I do not want to re-see a movie that I really liked. Unforgiven falls into that category. Knowing in general how it goes would mean I would not find it as interesting and since I was almost spellbound the first time through I want to leave it at that. By contrast, I enjoy watching The Third Man, I can watch it over and over. I think Holly Martins is a great character, I enjoy watching the single named (Alida) Valli, Orson Welles is perfect for the part of Harry Lime, the zither music is great. The closing scene is perfect. Besides all that, I read the Graham Greene novel and I believe it was the first novel I ever read that was intended for adults. Laura is another movie I never tire of, another movie where the villain is hopelessly bad at killing, but fun to watch.

The shoot-out movies that I like have interesting stories, or at least so I think. It's beyond me to understand why anyone over the age of 10 or so would enjoy a movie that mostly consists of a lot of people shooting at a lot of other people.
Ken
0

#20006 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,956
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2022-June-27, 09:08

View PostWinstonm, on 2022-June-27, 06:25, said:

Not much at all concerning this ruling. He can tell the Executive Branch of government what to do but not the country or the states.


I know on leaving office he can pardon people, is this only for federal crimes and is it only on leaving ? Can he say I will pardon anybody charged or convicted under any of these laws for example ?
0

#20007 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,422
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, Canada

Posted 2022-June-27, 11:13

First: a horrible week for our neighbours and my occasional co-workers. I wish I had anything to say that hasn't been said more times by more relevant people than I.

I also wish that the "democratic party ratchet" image didn't have the ring of truth.

Keep safe my friends - and all I don't know as well, as well.

Because I live in extremely north Texas, we have serious candidates for Premier saying "great idea - we should do this too" for our Courts, and elected members of the government publicly celebrating. And a parade with an actively racist "float" that somehow "wasn't agreed to by anybody" despite a week of public organizing on the parade's Facebook page. And was condemned - 24 hours later - by another leadership candidate who was there, and publicly really enjoyed it yesterday. Interesting, that.

If it's helpful for anybody, I present two links - one straight satire, one frankly straight up black humour (as in, if the quotes from the ruling were actually real, I wouldn't be surprised any more) - from our version of the Onion:

https://www.thebeave...erican-problem/
https://www.thebeave...o-be-gun-owner/
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#20008 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,866
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-June-27, 11:27

View PostCyberyeti, on 2022-June-27, 09:08, said:

I know on leaving office he can pardon people, is this only for federal crimes and is it only on leaving ? Can he say I will pardon anybody charged or convicted under any of these laws for example ?


The pardon powers are virtually unlimited but only for federal crimes. The only pardon that would not work is one proved to be given to prevent exposure of a crime - like a bribe to keep a mouth shut-kind of like what Trump did for Manafort and Roger Stone
.

PS: only a current president can pardon and it can be one at any time during his stay in office
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#20009 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,866
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-June-27, 11:41

View Postkenberg, on 2022-June-27, 07:58, said:

I'll comment, mostly for the fun of it but also I do think our culture is screwed up so it might be relevant.

You don't much watch this stuff you know more about it than I do. I believe I saw all of or part of the first Die Hard but no subsequent Die Hards. I am pretty sure I saw no Lethal Weapons. These are both in the late 80s. Bruce Willis is in Die Hard, I cannot think of anything that I have seen him in that I liked. Mel Gibson was in Lethal Weapon (I looked it up). I did enjoy Gibson in Conspiracy Theory although I thought of it more as a romantic comedy crazily set within a political thriller. I think the bad guys were in the US government but I can't really recall.

The Wild Bunch, a 1969 film with Willaim Holden, gets generally high reviews. I have never seen it all the way through. The first time I did not make it through the initial extended shoot-out, I just turned it off (I was watching it on tv). Then I heard it was supposed to be a really good movie so I tried again. I patiently sat through the long initial shoot-out, watched for a while, got bored, and turned it off.

I liked The Bridge on the River Kwai. I very much liked Unforgiven with Clint Eastwood.

Sometimes I do not want to re-see a movie that I really liked. Unforgiven falls into that category. Knowing in general how it goes would mean I would not find it as interesting and since I was almost spellbound the first time through I want to leave it at that. By contrast, I enjoy watching The Third Man, I can watch it over and over. I think Holly Martins is a great character, I enjoy watching the single named (Alida) Valli, Orson Welles is perfect for the part of Harry Lime, the zither music is great. The closing scene is perfect. Besides all that, I read the Graham Greene novel and I believe it was the first novel I ever read that was intended for adults. Laura is another movie I never tire of, another movie where the villain is hopelessly bad at killing, but fun to watch.

The shoot-out movies that I like have interesting stories, or at least so I think. It's beyond me to understand why anyone over the age of 10 or so would enjoy a movie that mostly consists of a lot of people shooting at a lot of other people.


I'll comment here, also, to see if anyone else views or senses things my way. First, I am a fan of story. I have always preferred reading to watching and when young disliked books with pictures as it spoiled the vision of my imagination.
I think the issue with movies today is wrapped up in our same problems with the current form of capitalism practiced and preached in the U.S. It requires real talent and real work to first produce a book or script with a strong, appealing story. Once the computer programs are written, though, it is not that costly to creates superhero flying zipgun spewing flame-throwing car-crashing crap over and over. The idea is to buy low, sell high, or make cheap, make a lot.

There is still something to be said for quality. "Still Alice" is quality as a movie. So is "To Kill a Mockingbird". The problem is in 2022, there are about 10 million car crashing flying superhero bang and shoot movies for every 1 Still Alice.

In reality, I think Huxley was right and we are already in a Brave New World.


"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#20010 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,866
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-June-27, 11:49

Btw, does anyone know where to go to update your passport to Gileadean?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#20011 User is offline   Gilithin 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 459
  • Joined: 2014-November-13
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2022-June-27, 13:44

View Postpilowsky, on 2022-June-26, 19:27, said:

Is it time to take a vote on who the candidates will be in 2024 and who will win?

JB vs RdS and RdS will win.
0

#20012 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,816
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2022-June-27, 14:42

View PostWinstonm, on 2022-June-27, 11:41, said:

I'll comment here, also, to see if anyone else views or senses things my way. First, I am a fan of story. I have always preferred reading to watching and when young disliked books with pictures as it spoiled the vision of my imagination.
I think the issue with movies today is wrapped up in our same problems with the current form of capitalism practiced and preached in the U.S. It requires real talent and real work to first produce a book or script with a strong, appealing story. Once the computer programs are written, though, it is not that costly to creates superhero flying zipgun spewing flame-throwing car-crashing crap over and over. The idea is to buy low, sell high, or make cheap, make a lot.

There is still something to be said for quality. "Still Alice" is quality as a movie. So is "To Kill a Mockingbird". The problem is in 2022, there are about 10 million car crashing flying superhero bang and shoot movies for every 1 Still Alice.

In reality, I think Huxley was right and we are already in a Brave New World.




We are in the same ballpark at least. I loved comic books when I was young and when I moved on I missed having pictures, but that was only for a short bit. I followed what I think of as a standard evolution. Comic books, then Horatio Alger, Tarzan etc then on to more adult books, but with detours, Caves of Capistrano for example. I regret not reading some of the assigned books in high school but I was an adolescent going through adolescence. Having a book assigned was sufficient reason for me not to read it.


An amusing aside. I read Peggy Covers the News. I see it was written in 1948, that would make me 9 but I think I was 10 or 11. I liked it but I kept it hidden. I did not want anyone to know I actually liked a book in which the main character was a young woman.


At the moment I am reading Vanished, a Danish detective story with flashbacks to the late 1960s and early 70s. One thing that happens in the flashbacks is a woman gets an illegal abortion. I gather the Danes followed a legislative path in legalizing abortion. https://en.wikipedia...tion_in_Denmark
Ken
0

#20013 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,866
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-June-27, 16:27

View PostGilithin, on 2022-June-27, 13:44, said:

JB vs RdS and RdS will win.

Or, as they say now at the SCOTUS, “It would be a shame if for some reason. God forbid, Joe Biden didn’t win a single swing state. Capiche?”
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#20014 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,649
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2022-June-27, 16:53

View Postkenberg, on 2022-June-26, 06:41, said:

The NRA definitely encourages people to buy guns. So far so good? The idea, at least implicitly, is that having a gun is useful for problems a person encounters in life. Still in agreement?

For me, the consequences of this are predictable and clear. Take me. I am not the strongest nor toughest guy in the world, nor am I the weakest. But what the hell, give me a gun and it doesn't matter. All I have to do is pull the trigger. So you get a lot of people thinking that way and then, maybe in the heat of the moment or maybe with planning, a lot of triggers get pulled.

I could tell various stories, some pretty personal, but I'll skip that. The consequences of widespread gun ownership, coupled with the idea that a gun can be a good solution to a problem, seem obvious enough. You speak a lot of the good guys and the bad guys. I have never thought it to be that simple. A good guy can suddenly do something stupid, something he would not do if he did not have a gun, and then he becomes a bad guy. Or he becomes a dead guy. Or both.

I thought of Ken's post when I read this news story today: Man killed Subway worker over ‘too much mayo on his sandwich,’ police say

Quote

A man fatally shot an employee and injured another at an Atlanta Subway restaurant over the weekend because he had “too much mayo on his sandwich,” police said Monday morning.

The shooter fired a handgun at two workers, a 26-year-old woman who died of her wounds and a 24-year-old woman who was in critical condition, Deputy Police Chief Charles Hampton Jr. told reporters. The injured woman’s 5-year-old child was in the restaurant at the time.
...

Willie Glenn, a co-owner of the restaurant, said the women were “model employees” who had started working there about three weeks ago, WSB-TV reported.

“It breaks my heart to know that someone has the audacity to point a weapon and shoot someone for as little as too much mayonnaise on a sandwich,” he told the news station.

Hampton told reporters that he was “frustrated” by “gun owners who don’t make the right decisions” and by momentary impatience that can hurt families forever.

Evidently the man had a hair-trigger temper and should not have been trusted with a firearm.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#20015 User is online   Chas_P 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yellows
  • Posts: 1,477
  • Joined: 2008-September-03
  • Location:Gainesville, GA USA

Posted 2022-June-27, 18:30

View PostPassedOut, on 2022-June-27, 16:53, said:

I thought of Ken's post when I read this news story today: Man killed Subway worker over ‘too much mayo on his sandwich,’ police say


Evidently the man had a hair-trigger temper and should not have been trusted with a firearm.

Which prompts the question once again, "Who's fault was it?" A 36 year-old male lunatic goes into a Subway and blows away a 24 year-old female whose only indiscretion (in his view) was putting too much mayonnaise on his sandwich. It's heart-rending. It's sickening. But I still don't view it as the NRA's fault.

#20016 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,013
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2022-June-27, 19:35

View PostChas_P, on 2022-June-27, 18:30, said:

Which prompts the question once again, "Who's fault was it?" A 36 year-old male lunatic goes into a Subway and blows away a 24 year-old female whose only indiscretion (in his view) was putting too much mayonnaise on his sandwich. It's heart-rending. It's sickening. But I still don't view it as the NRA's fault.

That reveals a very simplistic worldview: one in which there is no such thing as multiple causes, or subtlety in any form.

Nobody says that the NRA was responsible for that man being so unbalanced that he killed somebody because he didn’t like the mayo and only an imbecile would think that was the point.

Equally only an imbecile would miss the point that the easier it is to obtain and carry firearms, the more likely it is that some unbalanced individual (whether due to illness, personality disorder or substance abuse) will find himself (and it’s almost always a male) in a situation in which he has possession of a gun and uses it.

The NRA has spent millions and millions of dollars lobbying against any attempt to restrict the number and availability of firearms in the US. In doing so they have persuaded politicians to ignore the wishes of the majority of Americans who support stricter gun laws than have generally existed…including the wishes of many gun owners.

Only an imbecile would assert that the NRA’s lobbying has not resulted in the current sad state of affairs in terms of ready access to guns that exists in the US.

Thus, the NRA has contributed to the prevalence of this sort of gun violence even if it cannot be said to have directly caused this incident or, indeed, any particular incident.

But fewer guns, and making carrying guns outside of one’s home or a firing range or a hunting trip (or on other legitimate occasions) more difficult would undoubted reduce the chance that any particular individual, caught up in momentary rage, would have a gun on him. He might punch the other person, or just yell obscenities. I suspect the Subway server would have preferred that outcome.

The irony is that you post your stupidity on a bridge website. Bridge is a game of probabilities. The argument that the NRA bears some degree of responsibility for the prevalence of seemingly random gun violence is based upon probabilities. Imbeciles, being incapable of understanding anything other than concrete reasoning, often can’t follow this sort of reaoning.

As I say…only an imbecile would argue against this

You argue against it

QED

I do not mean that I think this guy is literally an imbecile. I’m expressing my frustration with the sort of thinking reflected in his posts. I don’t know him other than from his posts here, which imo do not reflect well upon him.

Further edit. An honest pro NRA argument might be that ‘I see the right to own and bear firearms in public as more important than the costs of so doing. Yes, unfortunately there will be more deaths and injuries of and to innocents, but that’s a price society should pay to preserve these rights’

I’d disagree but at least we’d know where our differences lie. In contrast, the argument that an organization dedicated to fighting efforts to control gun violence through limiting gun rights has no responsibility for gun violence seems to me dishonest as well as patently false.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
2

#20017 User is online   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,460
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2022-June-27, 19:54

From More Guns, More Unintended Consequences: The Effects of Right-to-Carry on Criminal Behavior and Policing in US Cities (June 2022) by John J. Donohue at Stanford Law, Samuel V. Cai at Stanford Law, Matthew V. Bondy at Stanford Law and Philip J. Cook at Duke:

Quote

We analyze a sample of 47 major US cities to illuminate the mechanisms that lead Right-to-Carry concealed handgun laws to increase crime. The altered behavior of permit holders, career criminals, and the police combine to generate 29 and 32 percent increases in firearm violent crime and firearm robbery respectively. The increasing firearm violence is facilitated by a massive 35 percent increase in gun theft (p=0.06), with further crime stimulus flowing from diminished police effectiveness, as reflected in a 13 percent decline in violent crime clearance rates (p=0.03). Any crime-inhibiting benefits from increased gun carrying are swamped by the crime-stimulating impacts.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
2

#20018 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,816
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2022-June-28, 06:59

View Posty66, on 2022-June-27, 19:54, said:

From More Guns, More Unintended Consequences: The Effects of Right-to-Carry on Criminal Behavior and Policing in US Cities (June 2022) by John J. Donohue at Stanford Law, Samuel V. Cai at Stanford Law, Matthew V. Bondy at Stanford Law and Philip J. Cook at Duke:




I always think caution is advisable regarding research into emotionally charged topics, but the conclusions cited are, for me, totally expected conclusions.

Mike, in the post above yours, says "An honest pro NRA argument might be that ‘I see the right to own and bear firearms in public as more important than the costs of so doing. Yes, unfortunately there will be more deaths and injuries of and to innocents, but that’s a price society should pay to preserve these rights’". I think that's the situation in a nutshell. Free and easy access to guns preserves the right to arm oneself to the teeth and it leads to a lot of people getting killed. More restrictive gun laws, roughly something that allows home defense and hunting but forbids walking the streets with a concealed weapons, intrudes on the rights of the gun enthusiast and lowers the number of violent killings.


There would be other pluses, some substantial. I recognize that police sometimes behave badly. I also recognize that they have a dangerous job, one that I would never take on. Better gun control could do two things. At least some cops would be less trigger-happy, and the job would be more appealing to people who could accept moderate danger in enforcing the law but who are wary of taking on a job where a traffic stop might result in a wild-west shoot-out. So it would improve the current situation and attract more nuanced people to the job.


Basically, more gun control would solve a lot of problems. The cost would be that people who would like to walk down the street carrying a machine gun would not be allowed to do so. Well, maybe a bit more of a cost. But home defense would not be affected. Reasonable hunting would not be affected. No RINO hunting.
Ken
1

#20019 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,866
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2022-June-28, 07:46

It’s hard to know how to respond to claims that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” That may well be accurate, but what if you start with the premise that there are no guns? Wouldn’t that provide an alternate method?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#20020 User is online   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,460
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2022-June-28, 11:00

Chelsea Handler, guest hosting “Jimmy Kimmel Live” on Monday night:

Quote

I will be here all week long, or at least until Republicans make it illegal for women to talk.

Jimmy is off right now doing whatever the [expletive] he wants with his body.

0

  • 1017 Pages +
  • « First
  • 999
  • 1000
  • 1001
  • 1002
  • 1003
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

6 User(s) are reading this topic
1 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google,
  2. Chas_P