media matters

[old salt]

So you think the WP is a "center" newspaper, since Bezos bought it from the Grahams ?
Talk to the people who work there, ...or used to.

Their EV story was an example. They're trying to mask the reality that the public overwhelmingly rejects the EV mandate & US automakers are taking it in the shorts because they were forced to base their future product development on vehicles the public are not buying & won't in the future, unless/until there's a breakthrough in battery tech & affordable, more reliable, electric power becomes more available.

That's weird, five minutes ago, you told me the Opinion section "doesn't count".....now you're citing it as evidence of lefty lunacy at the WaPo.

Why do you keep playing this game?

All you're doing is making my point: you want them to cater to YOUR Boomer Republican views, and are complaining when they don't. And playing dumb, acting like you're not smart enough to understand this.

Here's Pew asking about simply buying a EV. Nothing about the subsidies.....

Yep. You're right, shockingly people over the age of 65 are mad that we're pushing EVs. Then look what happens when you get younger.

If I didn't know any better, the younger Demo are staring at the world we're leaving them, watching temps rise and parts of the world becoming uninhabitable, and want to change course.

What a bunch of idiots, right? They should give up.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -vehicles/

Ya gotta read the entire article :
...the idea of phasing out the production of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035 faces more public opposition than support. About six-in-ten Americans (59%) say they oppose this, while 40% favor it.

The share of Americans who favor phasing out gas-powered vehicles has declined 7 points since 2021. Support is down among both Democrats and Republicans.

Get with the program. Even Kamala is backtracking on the EV mandate. Your fellow airhead socialists think electricity is free because they don't watch their electric meter spool up when they charge their EV. They think it's green magic.

What do you think EV sales would have been without a $7.5k tax credit. Have you checked prices of used Tesla's.
The green chic factor has worn off.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/a ... es-slowing

[a fan]

So you think the WP is a "center" newspaper, since Bezos bought it from the Grahams ?
Talk to the people who work there, ...or used to.

Their EV story was an example. They're trying to mask the reality that the public overwhelmingly rejects the EV mandate & US automakers are taking it in the shorts because they were forced to base their future product development on vehicles the public are not buying & won't in the future, unless/until there's a breakthrough in battery tech & affordable, more reliable, electric power becomes more available.

That's weird, five minutes ago, you told me the Opinion section "doesn't count".....now you're citing it as evidence of lefty lunacy at the WaPo.

Why do you keep playing this game?

All you're doing is making my point: you want them to cater to YOUR Boomer Republican views, and are complaining when they don't. And playing dumb, acting like you're not smart enough to understand this.

Here's Pew asking about simply buying a EV. Nothing about the subsidies.....

Yep. You're right, shockingly people over the age of 65 are mad that we're pushing EVs. Then look what happens when you get younger.

If I didn't know any better, the younger Demo are staring at the world we're leaving them, watching temps rise and parts of the world becoming uninhabitable, and want to change course.

What a bunch of idiots, right? They should give up.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -vehicles/

Ya gotta read the entire article :
...the idea of phasing out the production of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035 faces more public opposition than support. About six-in-ten Americans (59%) say they oppose this, while 40% favor it.

The share of Americans who favor phasing out gas-powered vehicles has declined 7 points since 2021. Support is down among both Democrats and Republicans.

Get with the program. Even Kamala is backtracking on the EV mandate. Your fellow airhead socialists think electricity is free because they don't watch their electric meter spool up when they charge their EV. They think it's green magic.

What do you think EV sales would have been without a $7.5k tax credit. Have you checked prices of used Tesla's.
The green chic factor has worn off.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/a ... es-slowing

I did read the whole article. You're trying to have a new conversation, and that's fine. We're moving on from your Media bias thing, and on to EV's.

You understand I"m not for banning gas cars, right? And that I've said repeatedly that we need to beef up our infrastructure before we even think about banning anything? And that we need nuclear?

I'm not in this banning camp. Remember? I'm a moderate, not a liberal.

That said, whining about tax subsidies is weak sauce. You LOVE subsidies if they help you, and complain when they don't.... just like all Republicans. You're all the same. You don't notice tax incentives and subsidies when you get them....you just notice (and whine) when "someone else" gets one.

It's a pointless complaint. This is America, you're not going to get everything you want. If you want that, move to Russia, and be Putin.

[old salt]

So you think the WP is a "center" newspaper, since Bezos bought it from the Grahams ?
Talk to the people who work there, ...or used to.

Their EV story was an example. They're trying to mask the reality that the public overwhelmingly rejects the EV mandate & US automakers are taking it in the shorts because they were forced to base their future product development on vehicles the public are not buying & won't in the future, unless/until there's a breakthrough in battery tech & affordable, more reliable, electric power becomes more available.

That's weird, five minutes ago, you told me the Opinion section "doesn't count".....now you're citing it as evidence of lefty lunacy at the WaPo.

Why do you keep playing this game?

All you're doing is making my point: you want them to cater to YOUR Boomer Republican views, and are complaining when they don't. And playing dumb, acting like you're not smart enough to understand this.

Here's Pew asking about simply buying a EV. Nothing about the subsidies.....

Yep. You're right, shockingly people over the age of 65 are mad that we're pushing EVs. Then look what happens when you get younger.

If I didn't know any better, the younger Demo are staring at the world we're leaving them, watching temps rise and parts of the world becoming uninhabitable, and want to change course.

What a bunch of idiots, right? They should give up.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -vehicles/

Ya gotta read the entire article :
...the idea of phasing out the production of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035 faces more public opposition than support. About six-in-ten Americans (59%) say they oppose this, while 40% favor it.

The share of Americans who favor phasing out gas-powered vehicles has declined 7 points since 2021. Support is down among both Democrats and Republicans.

Get with the program. Even Kamala is backtracking on the EV mandate. Your fellow airhead socialists think electricity is free because they don't watch their electric meter spool up when they charge their EV. They think it's green magic.

What do you think EV sales would have been without a $7.5k tax credit. Have you checked prices of used Tesla's.
The green chic factor has worn off.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/a ... es-slowing

I did read the whole article. You're trying to have a new conversation, and that's fine. We're moving on from your Media bias thing, and on to EV's.

You understand I"m not for banning gas cars, right? And that I've said repeatedly that we need to beef up our infrastructure before we even think about banning anything? And that we need nuclear?

I'm not in this banning camp. Remember? I'm a moderate, not a liberal.

That said, whining about tax subsidies is weak sauce. You LOVE subsidies if they help you, and complain when they don't.... just like all Republicans. You're all the same. You don't notice tax incentives and subsidies when you get them....you just notice (and whine) when "someone else" gets one.

It's a pointless complaint. This is America, you're not going to get everything you want. If you want that, move to Russia, and be Putin.

Tax subsidies caused an artificial boom in EV sales. Now there's not the infrastructure to support them. EV buyers are now eating it in resale value. All the subsidy went to the manufacturer via artificially higher prices. That's what happens when .gov tries to rig the market.
...& now that he's got their $$$, Elon's turned on you greenie Dems. ... ..suckers.

I'm cool with EV's when they work & they're practical. That day is not yet in sight.
Until it is, Plug-In Hybrids are the way to go. Let the market decide.

Even Indy cars & Formula 1 are racing with hybrid engines.

https://www.indycar.com/Fan-Info/INDYCA ... Power-Unit

https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/hybrid/ho ... ine-works/

[a fan]

Tax subsidies caused an artificial boom in EV sales. Now there's not the infrastructure to support them. EV buyers are now eating it in resale value. All the subsidy went to the manufacturer via artificially higher prices. That's what happens when .gov tries to rig the market.

The .gov rigs ALL markets, and you can't possibly have acquired millions without not just understanding that, but to line your pockets.

To wit: the .gov subsidizing the ENTIRE aviation industry. But sure, let's have THAT conversation again, when you play dumb, and forget that you told that the guys who keep the planes in the air were all trained by the .gov, because the private industry can't do it.

...& now that he's got their $$$, Elon's turned on you greenie Dems. ... ..suckers.

Nope, not a greenie Dem, and nope, he hasn't "turned" on them...he's still cranking out the EV's that make you angry. You're the one who's the sucker....he's using YOUR money to line HIS pockets. But sure, you fooled ol' Elon, OS.

I'm cool with EV's when they work & they're practical. That day is not yet in sight.
Until it is, Plug-In Hybrids are the way to go. Let the market decide

The .gov already stepped in and chose asphalt roads over rail over 100 years ago...the free market was NEVER allowed to work.

If the free market was allowed to work? Every road in the US would a be a toll road, and the .gov would be nowhere to be found.

And you'd be on here, complaining about how expensive it is to drive anywhere. But sure, tell me more about EV subsidies when the taxpayers are FORCED to pay for nearly every inch of asphalt in the US.

[old salt]

Tax subsidies caused an artificial boom in EV sales. Now there's not the infrastructure to support them. EV buyers are now eating it in resale value. All the subsidy went to the manufacturer via artificially higher prices. That's what happens when .gov tries to rig the market.

The .gov rigs ALL markets, and you can't possibly have acquired millions without not just understanding that, but to line your pockets.

To wit: the .gov subsidizing the ENTIRE aviation industry. But sure, let's have THAT conversation again, when you play dumb, and forget that you told that the guys who keep the planes in the air were all trained by the .gov, because the private industry can't do it.

...& now that he's got their $$$, Elon's turned on you greenie Dems. ... ..suckers.

Nope, not a greenie Dem, and nope, he hasn't "turned" on them...he's still cranking out the EV's that make you angry. You're the one who's the sucker....he's using YOUR money to line HIS pockets. But sure, you fooled ol' Elon, OS.

I'm cool with EV's when they work & they're practical. That day is not yet in sight.
Until it is, Plug-In Hybrids are the way to go. Let the market decide

The .gov already stepped in and chose asphalt roads over rail over 100 years ago...the free market was NEVER allowed to work.

If the free market was allowed to work? Every road in the US would a be a toll road, and the .gov would be nowhere to be found.

And you'd be on here, complaining about how expensive it is to drive anywhere. But sure, tell me more about EV subsidies when the taxpayers are FORCED to pay for nearly every inch of asphalt in the US.

Your knowledge of the aviation industry is woefully lacking. Most commercial pilots & aircraft mechanics were NOT trained by the military.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-06-973 ... em%20(NAS).
FAA is primarily supported by the Trust Fund, which receives revenues from a series of excise taxes paid by users of the national airspace system (NAS).

The construction of our network of roads was funded by the Highway Trust Fund (which was self-sustaining until 2008) & fuel taxes are supposed to pay for their upkeep.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-10/59634.pdf

The transportation system in the US developed as it has because it is the most cost effective & efficient mix.
Just as it has in other first world countries. It just does not conform to your personal preferences. You just want cheaper shipping rates by rail.

This comparison is really dumb. Our network of roads benefit everyone, even if you don't drive. RR's don't have universal penetration & access the way roads & motor vehicles do.

[a fan]

Your knowledge of the aviation industry is woefully lacking. Most commercial pilots & aircraft mechanics were NOT trained by the military.

Really? Well, you better break the news to this f'ing idiot, who thinks otherwise....

The airline, air freight & commercial aviation industries could not survive without military trained pilots & maintainers.

Now you're arguing with yourself.Have fun, and let us know who "wins".

The transportation system in the US developed as it has because it is the most cost effective & efficient mix.

You're on a forum with highly educated adults, trying to tell me these roads fell out of the sky and were all privately built using simple market forces.

The transportation system in the US was built by hundreds of different government entities.....State, County, Local, Federal. All making choices in the 1910's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's.....all the way until today. All dealing with what voters wanted....all different kinds of voters.....for over 100 years.

My daughter isn't this stupid. Do the forum a favor, and stop pretending that you don't know where America's roads and rails came from.

And FFS, pick up a history book that concerns things more than just war. Having to tell a grown man that the .gov CHOOSES where and when and for how much to invest in transportation.....is exasperating. We could have spent 50% of our money on rails, and 50% on roads. We CHOSE not to do that.

And you're acting like voter choice.....and their representatives' choices..... had nothing to do with it. And even better, that there's no such thing as government corruption. How far in Congress' pocket do you think Henry Ford was? Or are you so freaking Naive that Musk invented getting government to line his pockets?

https://www.hagerty.com/media/automotiv ... ping-club/

[old salt]

Your knowledge of the aviation industry is woefully lacking. Most commercial pilots & aircraft mechanics were NOT trained by the military.

Really? Well, you better break the news to this f'ing idiot, who thinks otherwise....

The airline, air freight & commercial aviation industries could not survive without military trained pilots & maintainers.

Now you're arguing with yourself.Have fun, and let us know who "wins".

The 2 statements are not in conflict. You made it sound like the aviation industry is 100% former military. You said the ENTIRE aviation industry.

You said :To wit: the .gov subsidizing the ENTIRE aviation industry.

This is just the top of the commercial pilot food chain. There are many more commercial pilots who are not airline pilots.
https://simpleflying.com/how-many-comme ... 0estimated%
Today, it is estimated that about one-third of airline pilots have military backgrounds, a sharp reduction that can be attributed to multiple factors.
https://stradaeducation.org/adult-learn ... -pilots-2/


According to available data, a significant portion of aircraft mechanics are military veterans, with estimates ranging around 15% of the workforce coming from military backgrounds, particularly from the Air Force, which offers extensive training in aircraft maintenance and repair.

According to data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Federal Aviation Administration, a significant portion of air traffic controllers are military veterans, with estimates suggesting that around 20-30% of the workforce in the US comes from a military background; the FAA actively seeks former military controllers due to the transferable skills gained in the service.

[MDlaxfan76]

I live in NYS accepting the mandates that come down the pike are something I have no say in. The Democrats run this state with an iron fist. Why do you think that Kamala Harris doesn't need to spend 2 cents of political capital in this state. I'll drive my Toyota Corolla until the effing wheels fall off of it. If you wanna drive an EV..knock yourself the f**k out. Kamala Harris has already declared she doesn't want big government telling Americans what to do. Are you now telling us that she is lying? No need to reply. I already know Harris is lying.

So you do like mandates, but just when it benefits you. Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.

Keep voting for the people who are gonna mandate what you can read, eat, worship, what women can do with their bodies, and more! Because they're not real mandates! Only Dems make mandates at the federal level and in NY State, no one else does.

Yeah your fellow Democrats have been disavowing those words of JFK for since as long as I have been posting on these forums. Those words should now read ...ask not what you can do for your country...but demand what your country can do to you...

Gotta love it! The whole point of the quote was to show how Republicans like you can't handle small changes in what you can buy that make the country a better place. Nope, you gotta have your talc baby powder and filament light bulbs. And then you went with your predictable "I'm rubber and you're glue / Sounds like a Democrat" fallback.

Of course those mandates pale in comparison to the gains we could make by regulating big corporations, but that's a non-starter for you people.

For the 10 thousandth time I'm NOT A REPUBLICAN. I don't give 2 chits about regulating big business. Democrats and Republicans could do that in a heartbeat if they weren't addicted to their campaign donations. I'm just a law abiding, tax paying citizen who wants to drive whatever type of car I choose to purchase. It will be a cold mother effing day in hell before I'll be forced to pay 30 grand plus for a car I don't want. The point is sailing right over all of your heads. Your girl Kamala boldly pointed out she doesn't want government telling us peons what we should do. Don't you agree with her or is it that you know she is lying about it? My plan is to drive my Toyota Corolla until it dies. If that ticks off some of you folks well that is too damn bad.

Did you read my posts?

Why are you repeating dumb things over and over again?

Respond to the points others made, don't just yell the same thing over and over.

BTW, I had a Toyota Corolla...they are reasonably well built but they do "die".
As will you as well, eventually...hopefully neither for a long time, but "turnover" is an inevitability.

I got 224,000 miles out of the one I had. First car out of college.

Me too, over 200,000.

[MDlaxfan76]

Beyond externalities, however, as a lifelong Republican I have a BIG problem with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting my personal choices that do not cost others. For instance, get out of my bedroom, damn it.

Yet you have no issue whatsoever with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting one of my personal choices that does not cost others. Get out of my gun room, dammit. I'll make the leap and suggest there are approximately 85 million fellow citizens of ours who also exercise a particular personal choice in a manner which does not cost others, who feel the same way I do.

Help the "no cost to others" gun owners (99.99% of us) understand.

There are very large externalities from unregulated guns.

Indeed, they are designed for such potential. Some are designed solely for such.

I own 9 guns, and because I am responsible at such, I have no issue with regulating the usage of them for the public good.

I’ve explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Beyond externalities, however, as a lifelong Republican I have a BIG problem with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting my personal choices that do not cost others. For instance, get out of my bedroom, damn it.

Yet you have no issue whatsoever with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting one of my personal choices that does not cost others. Get out of my gun room, dammit. I'll make the leap and suggest there are approximately 85 million fellow citizens of ours who also exercise a particular personal choice in a manner which does not cost others, who feel the same way I do.

Help the "no cost to others" gun owners (99.99% of us) understand.

There are very large externalities from unregulated guns.

Indeed, they are designed for such potential. Some are designed solely for such.

I own 9 guns, and because I am responsible at such, I have no issue with regulating the usage of them for the public good.

I’ve explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend.

I comprehend fine. What I refuse to accept is my rights and responsible usage of said rights being subject to an "interest balanced" policy based evidence making narrative regarding firearms and the public good. I've explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend. I do have a solution, however: I'm going to merge our bedroom and gun room together, and put a "No Government" placard on the door. Problem solved!

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Beyond externalities, however, as a lifelong Republican I have a BIG problem with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting my personal choices that do not cost others. For instance, get out of my bedroom, damn it.

Yet you have no issue whatsoever with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting one of my personal choices that does not cost others. Get out of my gun room, dammit. I'll make the leap and suggest there are approximately 85 million fellow citizens of ours who also exercise a particular personal choice in a manner which does not cost others, who feel the same way I do.

Help the "no cost to others" gun owners (99.99% of us) understand.

That’s Hillary under your bed.

I've called in the SWAT team!

[MDlaxfan76]

Beyond externalities, however, as a lifelong Republican I have a BIG problem with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting my personal choices that do not cost others. For instance, get out of my bedroom, damn it.

Yet you have no issue whatsoever with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting one of my personal choices that does not cost others. Get out of my gun room, dammit. I'll make the leap and suggest there are approximately 85 million fellow citizens of ours who also exercise a particular personal choice in a manner which does not cost others, who feel the same way I do.

Help the "no cost to others" gun owners (99.99% of us) understand.

There are very large externalities from unregulated guns.

Indeed, they are designed for such potential. Some are designed solely for such.

I own 9 guns, and because I am responsible at such, I have no issue with regulating the usage of them for the public good.

I’ve explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend.

I comprehend fine. What I refuse to accept is my rights and responsible usage of said rights being subject to an "interest balanced" policy based evidence making narrative regarding firearms and the public good. I've explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend. I do have a solution, however: I'm going to merge our bedroom and gun room together, and put a "No Government" placard on the door. Problem solved!

You do you.
You are in the minority of gun owners, most of whom embrace common sense regulation of guns, including substantially tougher than typical today. They understand those externalities.

And that’s just the gun owners, like me and all of my family, most of whom were or are long term Republicans. The younger are all now Dems, yet most are gun owners too.

But go ahead and deny these externalities. You simply aren’t going to persuade others that they don’t exist and you aren’t going to persuade anyone as to your notion of absolute unfettered rights to own, keep, carry and use any “arms” you wish, nor anyone, anytime, any where, any how they wish.

That’s an extreme view and rejected by a vast majority of your fellow Americans.

[a fan]

Your knowledge of the aviation industry is woefully lacking. Most commercial pilots & aircraft mechanics were NOT trained by the military.

Really? Well, you better break the news to this f'ing idiot, who thinks otherwise....

The airline, air freight & commercial aviation industries could not survive without military trained pilots & maintainers.

Now you're arguing with yourself.Have fun, and let us know who "wins".

The 2 statements are not in conflict. You made it sound like the aviation industry is 100% former military. You said the ENTIRE aviation industry.

You said :To wit: the .gov subsidizing the ENTIRE aviation industry.

So now you don't what your own words mean. This is great.

"The entire industry would collapse without military trained pilots and maintainers".....yet you don't think that that means that the government is subsidizing the entire industry?

Hey Old Salt: do you know what a syllogism is? Apparently not.

What happens to the industry if you remove the government trained workers? Old Salt says it collapses.

So......how the F is it that you think the industry isn't ENTIRELY propped up by that government-subsidized workforce?

You really need to argue with yourself and get back to us.

If you can't figure it out, go ask your wife, pretty sure she knows what a syllogism is.

[cradleandshoot]

Beyond externalities, however, as a lifelong Republican I have a BIG problem with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting my personal choices that do not cost others. For instance, get out of my bedroom, damn it.

Yet you have no issue whatsoever with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting one of my personal choices that does not cost others. Get out of my gun room, dammit. I'll make the leap and suggest there are approximately 85 million fellow citizens of ours who also exercise a particular personal choice in a manner which does not cost others, who feel the same way I do.

Help the "no cost to others" gun owners (99.99% of us) understand.

There are very large externalities from unregulated guns.

Indeed, they are designed for such potential. Some are designed solely for such.

I own 9 guns, and because I am responsible at such, I have no issue with regulating the usage of them for the public good.

I’ve explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend.

I comprehend fine. What I refuse to accept is my rights and responsible usage of said rights being subject to an "interest balanced" policy based evidence making narrative regarding firearms and the public good. I've explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend. I do have a solution, however: I'm going to merge our bedroom and gun room together, and put a "No Government" placard on the door. Problem solved!

You do you.
You are in the minority of gun owners, most of whom embrace common sense regulation of guns, including substantially tougher than typical today. They understand those externalities.

And that’s just the gun owners, like me and all of my family, most of whom were or are long term Republicans. The younger are all now Dems, yet most are gun owners too.

But go ahead and deny these externalities. You simply aren’t going to persuade others that they don’t exist and you aren’t going to persuade anyone as to your notion of absolute unfettered rights to own, keep, carry and use any “arms” you wish, nor anyone, anytime, any where, any how they wish.

That’s an extreme view and rejected by a vast majority of your fellow Americans.

We are now back to the same never ending discussion. Who determines what are " common sense " gun regulations as opposed to knee jerk reactions from people who don't like one particular type of weapon? I'm not a fan of AR 15 type weapons used as a primary home defense weapon. I'm also as wary of someone firing a 12 gauge shotgun with a rifled slug. If you have never fired such a round or been trained on the recoil a 12 gauge shotgun has your a danger to everyone around you. You already know MD how powerful the recoil can be on a 12 gauge, even if your firing a game load shell. I've also put a lot of 12 gauge rounds down range and dusted more than my fair share of clay pigeons. My dads 12 gauge JC Higgins shotgun he used to hunt deer with was a weapon the deserved all of the respect in the world.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Beyond externalities, however, as a lifelong Republican I have a BIG problem with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting my personal choices that do not cost others. For instance, get out of my bedroom, damn it.

Yet you have no issue whatsoever with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting one of my personal choices that does not cost others. Get out of my gun room, dammit. I'll make the leap and suggest there are approximately 85 million fellow citizens of ours who also exercise a particular personal choice in a manner which does not cost others, who feel the same way I do.

Help the "no cost to others" gun owners (99.99% of us) understand.

There are very large externalities from unregulated guns.

Indeed, they are designed for such potential. Some are designed solely for such.

I own 9 guns, and because I am responsible at such, I have no issue with regulating the usage of them for the public good.

I’ve explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend.

I comprehend fine. What I refuse to accept is my rights and responsible usage of said rights being subject to an "interest balanced" policy based evidence making narrative regarding firearms and the public good. I've explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend. I do have a solution, however: I'm going to merge our bedroom and gun room together, and put a "No Government" placard on the door. Problem solved!

You do you.
You are in the minority of gun owners, most of whom embrace common sense regulation of guns, including substantially tougher than typical today. They understand those externalities.

And that’s just the gun owners, like me and all of my family, most of whom were or are long term Republicans. The younger are all now Dems, yet most are gun owners too.

But go ahead and deny these externalities. You simply aren’t going to persuade others that they don’t exist and you aren’t going to persuade anyone as to your notion of absolute unfettered rights to own, keep, carry and use any “arms” you wish, nor anyone, anytime, any where, any how they wish.

That’s an extreme view and rejected by a vast majority of your fellow Americans.

Not denying externalities, and not sure how you define "extreme views". You must not hang out with many gun owners, other than folks at the Member's Only skeet club. Most I know - regardless of political affiliation - feel pretty strongly that existing regulations are not being enforced properly, and that proposed solutions seem to be focused on law abiding rather than criminal activities. I have no notion of absolute and unfettered anything on my end. There are 20,000+ gun related laws on the books, and acquiring and utilizing firearms is a rather heavily regulated thing, no? I do take issue with arbitrary political partizan BS definitions and blustering of what is common sense, at the expense of focusing on actual solutions which can make a difference in America's criminal violence scourge. My posts on Sensible Thread rarely receive any acknowledgement of "alternate solutions" even those with concrete evidence behind them. Instead of emotions.

I have never made a post putting words in your mouth, like you just did for me, while painting me into the "extremist corner" which is a form of high moral ground security blanket (as best as I can discern).

[cradleandshoot]

Beyond externalities, however, as a lifelong Republican I have a BIG problem with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting my personal choices that do not cost others. For instance, get out of my bedroom, damn it.

Yet you have no issue whatsoever with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting one of my personal choices that does not cost others. Get out of my gun room, dammit. I'll make the leap and suggest there are approximately 85 million fellow citizens of ours who also exercise a particular personal choice in a manner which does not cost others, who feel the same way I do.

Help the "no cost to others" gun owners (99.99% of us) understand.

There are very large externalities from unregulated guns.

Indeed, they are designed for such potential. Some are designed solely for such.

I own 9 guns, and because I am responsible at such, I have no issue with regulating the usage of them for the public good.

I’ve explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend.

I comprehend fine. What I refuse to accept is my rights and responsible usage of said rights being subject to an "interest balanced" policy based evidence making narrative regarding firearms and the public good. I've explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend. I do have a solution, however: I'm going to merge our bedroom and gun room together, and put a "No Government" placard on the door. Problem solved!

You do you.
You are in the minority of gun owners, most of whom embrace common sense regulation of guns, including substantially tougher than typical today. They understand those externalities.

And that’s just the gun owners, like me and all of my family, most of whom were or are long term Republicans. The younger are all now Dems, yet most are gun owners too.

But go ahead and deny these externalities. You simply aren’t going to persuade others that they don’t exist and you aren’t going to persuade anyone as to your notion of absolute unfettered rights to own, keep, carry and use any “arms” you wish, nor anyone, anytime, any where, any how they wish.

That’s an extreme view and rejected by a vast majority of your fellow Americans.

Not denying externalities, and not sure how you define "extreme views". You must not hang out with many gun owners, other than folks at the Member's Only skeet club. Most I know - regardless of political affiliation - feel pretty strongly that existing regulations are not being enforced properly, and that proposed solutions seem to be focused on law abiding rather than criminal activities. I have no notion of absolute and unfettered anything on my end. There are 20,000+ gun related laws on the books, and acquiring and utilizing firearms is a rather heavily regulated thing, no? I do take issue with arbitrary political partizan BS definitions and blustering of what is common sense, at the expense of focusing on actual solutions which can make a difference in America's criminal violence scourge. My posts on Sensible Thread rarely receive any acknowledgement of "alternate solutions" even those with concrete evidence behind them. Instead of emotions.

I have never made a post putting words in your mouth, like you just did for me, while painting me into the "extremist corner" which is a form of high moral ground security blanket (as best as I can discern).

If you want to twist the forum members here into Bavarian pretzels bring up their ineptitude in regards to how law enforcement deals with criminals caught red handed with illegal weapons.

[NattyBohChamps04]

If you want to twist the forum members here into Bavarian pretzels bring up their ineptitude in regards to how law enforcement deals with criminals caught red handed with illegal weapons.

They don't want the public to know a lot those illegal weapons are former cop guns...

How Police Guns End Up in the Hands of Criminals

Getting screaming deals and pre Freedom Group Remington 870's and 700's are worth it though...

[cradleandshoot]

If you want to twist the forum members here into Bavarian pretzels bring up their ineptitude in regards to how law enforcement deals with criminals caught red handed with illegal weapons.

They don't want the public to know a lot those illegal weapons are former cop guns...

How Police Guns End Up in the Hands of Criminals

Getting screaming deals and pre Freedom Group Remington 870's and 700's are worth it though...

Maybe the dumbest post I have read on this forum in quite awhile..Here's your sign. Stand up and take a bow. You've earned it.

And no I didn't read your stupid effing link. Links from you are about as useless as teets on a bull.

[OCanada]

Why would you ever read anything that does not tell you what you want to hear?

[a fan]

So the Zuck letter is a nothing burger. Got it. Apologies for taking up bandwidth and musing upon potential implications. Attempts to spark discourse earns a ticket for gaslighting.

Firmly held beliefs must never be reassessed as new ideas and information become available. And asking questions and being curious is a firing offense. Beatings will continue until morale improves, all systems normal, and full speed ahead.

So let me see if I have this straight......you give your opinion and ask a question....I answer your question, as requested....and you're upset because I give you my rational opinion?

You didn't answer MY question, and let's make it specific: when did the media finally gain access to Hunters' laptop?

Still waiting for you to answer this question. I answered yours. Reciprocate?

So this is your idea of a discussion......make a post, ask a few questions, and bail because you don't like the answer?

Are you just here to look for agreement and an echo chamber? Or do you honestly want to discuss ideas, and change your mind based on better arguments? I agree with many of your posts, and disagree with others...that's how it's supposed to work here.

BTW, the answer is: at no point has ANYONE in the media had access to Hunter's alleged laptop to verify that it is, in fact, Hunter's laptop.

Yet you want them to run stories telling the world "this is from Hunter's laptop"...and yell "conspiracy" when News Outlets refuse to run what Giuliani CLAIMED were emails from Hunter's laptop, when not even the NYPost writers who ran the pre-election piece were allowed to examine Hunter's alleged laptop?

What did the WaPo do with the Dem's Steele Dossier? Do you remember? Not only did they REFUSE to publish the Dossier or excerpts from it, they excoriated VoxMedia for publishing the Dossier, and called it irresponsible because (duh) it was completely unverified.

The media is operating the way we want them to operate. What YOU want is for them to do Trump's dirty work for him... and when they don't play his games, and publish unverified emails just two weeks before an election, you get mad.

Sorry mate, you're wrong here.