All The Things You Aren't Supposed to Talk About : Politics, Religion, & Money! && Grammar!!
- Thread starter simplyTravis
- Start date
What's so ironic about that exactly? Wasn't the point of him invading those countries was to expand his influence, and power towards those places? 
im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpirēəˌlizəm/
noun
im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpirēəˌlizəm/
noun
- a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
"the struggle against imperialism"- historical
rule by an emperor.
- historical
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-pol...uring-shooting-even-if-i-didnt-have-a-weapon/
No, he fucking wouldn't.
No, he fucking wouldn't.
What's so ironic about that exactly? Wasn't the point of him invading those countries was to expand his influence, and power towards those places?
im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpirēəˌlizəm/
noun
im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpirēəˌlizəm/
noun
- a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
"the struggle against imperialism"- historical
rule by an emperor.
- historical
If several dozen kids used their own bodies as shields to protect their classmates, used their wits to escape, sacrificed themselves, etc, I think this rich ego-heavy snob of a new Yorker could have shown some amount of heroism. He isn't held back by authority like so many officers and deputies were on that day.
@FriedShoes
Look up DPRK on Tumblr and you'll find a ton of fanboys.
My problem with leftism (again, not liberalism) is that schools of thought like Marxism-Leninism are often theories of conflict as inevitability, whereas Libertarianism, even in its left wing form, is about conflict resolution. That's why they often butt heads. Marx himself advocated revolutionary terror and rejected democracy.
Violence as anything other than reciprocal is inherently authoritarian. Your average Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Jucheist will disagree, and even a lot of anarchists would disagree as well (hence the saying "Liberals get the bullet too," guillotine jokes, rioting, etc.).
Last edited:
Interestingly, he is apparently quite terrified of blood, as was shown in an interview with Howard Stern some years ago.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-t...ust-while-a-man-bled-to-death-in-front-of-him
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-t...ust-while-a-man-bled-to-death-in-front-of-him
@simplyTravis As a Teacher yourself, what are your thoughts of the possibility of having teachers at schools armed? Do you think this will actually curb/get rid of school shootings happening, or might it actually increase the likelihood of occurring? And lastly, if your school implemented it, would you get the training necessary to arm yourself in school?
I'm also thinking of this from a taxpayer standpoint. Would teacher training be something optional the teacher pays for, or would that be funded by taxpayers (and then we ask ourselves the question why aren't we spending money improving programs in school, but we certainly have the means to have teachers armed)? I also think this plays into what role does a teacher actually play here? Not only would you then ask the teachers to play the role of a teacher/mentor, but now they are taking the place of a security guard effectively.
Also, hypothetically, lets suggest a scenario where a student who is disgruntled, or has talks to shoot up a school, and knows one of their teachers is armed at school. What's to stop that student then from tackling the teacher, taking the gun from them, and then using it against the teacher and the students?
One last thing I'll add: Let's say there is a school shooting at some school where some of the teachers are armed. Not only do teachers have to protect the students, but now they might use lethal force against someone while this is happening. And who's to say that after the cops are called, and SWAT arrives, do they know what teachers are armed and not? Are the teachers themselves going to be trained enough to respond to a situation where cops might be aiming their sights at the the armed teachers because they may or may not know who the actual shooter is?
I'm just curious what your thoughts are on this is all, and if your school has had these talks.
I'm also thinking of this from a taxpayer standpoint. Would teacher training be something optional the teacher pays for, or would that be funded by taxpayers (and then we ask ourselves the question why aren't we spending money improving programs in school, but we certainly have the means to have teachers armed)? I also think this plays into what role does a teacher actually play here? Not only would you then ask the teachers to play the role of a teacher/mentor, but now they are taking the place of a security guard effectively.
Also, hypothetically, lets suggest a scenario where a student who is disgruntled, or has talks to shoot up a school, and knows one of their teachers is armed at school. What's to stop that student then from tackling the teacher, taking the gun from them, and then using it against the teacher and the students?
One last thing I'll add: Let's say there is a school shooting at some school where some of the teachers are armed. Not only do teachers have to protect the students, but now they might use lethal force against someone while this is happening. And who's to say that after the cops are called, and SWAT arrives, do they know what teachers are armed and not? Are the teachers themselves going to be trained enough to respond to a situation where cops might be aiming their sights at the the armed teachers because they may or may not know who the actual shooter is?
I'm just curious what your thoughts are on this is all, and if your school has had these talks.
Can't answer for Travis, and we will likely have very different views, but I am surrounded by teachers, all 3 of my siblings are teachers, my mom is a retired teacher, my uncle was a teacher, as was his wife, and ex wife before, a few of my childhood family friends are teachers too... So it is all around me, not to mention all of the teachers I know because of my mom's time teaching... Since the arming teachers thing has come up, I have heard from dozens of teachers I know, and these are the common points...
1. "So you could never pay us enough because there wasn't any money for us, but now you can pay us more if we are armed?"
2. "So I have to be a teacher, an office manager, a babysitter, a therapist, and now I have to be a law enforcement agent too? See point #1"
3. "So I have perhaps the most stressful job in the world, and you want me armed and responsible for a weapon that upon a split seconds distraction can make it's way into the hands of a child?"
4. "WTF!?!"
1. "So you could never pay us enough because there wasn't any money for us, but now you can pay us more if we are armed?"
2. "So I have to be a teacher, an office manager, a babysitter, a therapist, and now I have to be a law enforcement agent too? See point #1"
3. "So I have perhaps the most stressful job in the world, and you want me armed and responsible for a weapon that upon a split seconds distraction can make it's way into the hands of a child?"
4. "WTF!?!"
The mystery of our century is, why, after communism/socialism have killed so many, there are still people attracted to it.
The second mystery, is why, despite so many people attracted to it and still so many people in the world starved and enslaved by it, there are still many saying that communism/socialism is dead.
The second mystery, is why, despite so many people attracted to it and still so many people in the world starved and enslaved by it, there are still many saying that communism/socialism is dead.
It IS utter nonsense. Remember when Trump said during his campaign that the world was laughing at us, and he would put an end to it? Well, he's sort of achieving that, but rather than folks laughing at us, they are now utterly horrified, and dumbfounded instead, so not much improvement really.
One of the things that I think will take point during the mid-term elections in the States this year is the polarization between guns in schools, and no guns in schools. That, and how people perceive the NRA, as well as the 2nd Amendment in general.
One of the things that I think will take point during the mid-term elections in the States this year is the polarization between guns in schools, and no guns in schools. That, and how people perceive the NRA, as well as the 2nd Amendment in general.
I don't have much of a problem with it. There are already 172 districts in Texas with armed teachers/staff so it's nothing new here. I think it is actually a pretty big deterrent. In all the active shooter trainings I've attended they teach you to do everything you can to frustrate and slow down a shooter because their goal is, disgustingly, to kill as many as possible. If you offer any resistance (blocked doors, debris in the way, scissors/books thrown as they enter, etc...) they tend to leave that area and move to the next room. With that thought process it would be a major deterrent if that shooter were to have bullets passing by his head or to know that there are some people on campus that will attempt to take them down. It is true that most plan on dying but they want a soft target to start with. Otherwise they wouldn't try at all.
So, what type of training does this require? Those that I know that have attended training to carry on campus have to train in more than just a sort of "target practice" only thing with a written test. You actively have to learn how to flank, box people in, set up perimeters, etc... and do so throughout the year. They also have to go through 9,000 rounds of ammunition and be very, very comfortable/handy with their weapon. It is not something taken lightly. There is also a round of psychological tests that are required.
So yeah, I'm for this happening but it has to be done right. Currently it seems like things are being done right on these campuses that I know of but there is no telling if it will be everywhere.
Would I go for this training? Probably. I'm fairly comfortable with my weapon but I wouldn't know how I felt carrying with my younger kids as they tend to pat you on the back or side when they want something. Probably a bad combo with a weapon holstered. If I was an admin all day or taught older kids only then I would be less ambivalent.
Do I think this should be required? No, absolutely not. It isn't being talked about as a requirement either.
As far as issues with teachers armed using deadly force goes...do you realize how "mamma bear" some teachers will get when their classes are threatened. I have no doubt that they could use that force to save a class. Also, the police should have an idea of who is armed when they enter the building because that information would be shared with the police dept at the beginning of the year.
So, what type of training does this require? Those that I know that have attended training to carry on campus have to train in more than just a sort of "target practice" only thing with a written test. You actively have to learn how to flank, box people in, set up perimeters, etc... and do so throughout the year. They also have to go through 9,000 rounds of ammunition and be very, very comfortable/handy with their weapon. It is not something taken lightly. There is also a round of psychological tests that are required.
So yeah, I'm for this happening but it has to be done right. Currently it seems like things are being done right on these campuses that I know of but there is no telling if it will be everywhere.
Would I go for this training? Probably. I'm fairly comfortable with my weapon but I wouldn't know how I felt carrying with my younger kids as they tend to pat you on the back or side when they want something. Probably a bad combo with a weapon holstered. If I was an admin all day or taught older kids only then I would be less ambivalent.
Do I think this should be required? No, absolutely not. It isn't being talked about as a requirement either.
As far as issues with teachers armed using deadly force goes...do you realize how "mamma bear" some teachers will get when their classes are threatened. I have no doubt that they could use that force to save a class. Also, the police should have an idea of who is armed when they enter the building because that information would be shared with the police dept at the beginning of the year.
Holodomor deniers piss me the fuck off tbh.
To clarify, people who question the validity of it being purposely manufactured don't, but those who denied that anything bad happened due to collectivization do.
Also, funny how a "communist" state like the Soviet Union ruthlessly suppressed strikes and nationalized labor unions. Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich was one of those people, look up the Ivanovo-Voznesensk strike.
Hell, I'm not even sure Cuba is communist considering that in the past, all wages were set by the state and there was no collective bargaining allowed.
To clarify, people who question the validity of it being purposely manufactured don't, but those who denied that anything bad happened due to collectivization do.
Also, funny how a "communist" state like the Soviet Union ruthlessly suppressed strikes and nationalized labor unions. Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich was one of those people, look up the Ivanovo-Voznesensk strike.
Hell, I'm not even sure Cuba is communist considering that in the past, all wages were set by the state and there was no collective bargaining allowed.
Last edited:
In all these active shooter training sessions you have attended, is everyone getting the physical component of what to do, or is it simply powerpoint telling you what should be done, and whatnot? Do the people get to train the muscle memory component? I'm just curious is all.
Currently, I just have a big problem with the notion of more guns is the answer, and I know you yourself have stated in the past that we should be looking at studying the mental health aspects of it, plus making sure kids are getting the help they need before they could possibly act out a terrible ordeal such as what most recently happened. Would more guns really put a stop to this? Now, I know you'll probably suggest we not only arm teachers (why not just have full-time Police instead since that is sort of their job?), but also look into the mental health aspects of it.
And I do agree that if this becomes widespread, it should in no way be required, and only optional. But I also think that maybe it should be treated like when there's an armed Marshall on board a Flight: Only the Pilots, and Crew know who that person is, but the passengers don't know who it is. I don't know how it's already done in the districts you mentioned in Texas, but do the students have an idea who is packing heat, or is that strictly kept from them in order to prevent the possibility of said teacher could be on the receiving end of an attack he/she may not notice?
I understand that the Police should have an idea of who is armed, and who is not, but this isn't a perfect world we're dealing with here. I suppose if teachers are properly trained (which is a broad term really), they will automatically surrender their gun in the event something happens, and they make it outside where the police are located. BUT, how often do the Police/Swat know who the shooter is when an event such as this occurs? And in the case of the armed law enforcement who according to what has been said, they thought the shooter was outside, and not inside the school. In fairness, it's not unreasonable to suggest they were under the impression the shooting was happening outside. I don't know the factors that played out, so I can't be sure if they truly were trying to protect students and faculty, or if they simply did not want to engage the enemy, which is also a possibility.
Currently, I just have a big problem with the notion of more guns is the answer, and I know you yourself have stated in the past that we should be looking at studying the mental health aspects of it, plus making sure kids are getting the help they need before they could possibly act out a terrible ordeal such as what most recently happened. Would more guns really put a stop to this? Now, I know you'll probably suggest we not only arm teachers (why not just have full-time Police instead since that is sort of their job?), but also look into the mental health aspects of it.
And I do agree that if this becomes widespread, it should in no way be required, and only optional. But I also think that maybe it should be treated like when there's an armed Marshall on board a Flight: Only the Pilots, and Crew know who that person is, but the passengers don't know who it is. I don't know how it's already done in the districts you mentioned in Texas, but do the students have an idea who is packing heat, or is that strictly kept from them in order to prevent the possibility of said teacher could be on the receiving end of an attack he/she may not notice?
I understand that the Police should have an idea of who is armed, and who is not, but this isn't a perfect world we're dealing with here. I suppose if teachers are properly trained (which is a broad term really), they will automatically surrender their gun in the event something happens, and they make it outside where the police are located. BUT, how often do the Police/Swat know who the shooter is when an event such as this occurs? And in the case of the armed law enforcement who according to what has been said, they thought the shooter was outside, and not inside the school. In fairness, it's not unreasonable to suggest they were under the impression the shooting was happening outside. I don't know the factors that played out, so I can't be sure if they truly were trying to protect students and faculty, or if they simply did not want to engage the enemy, which is also a possibility.
The active shooting trainings I have attended do not involve weapons. I haven't been to the more involved ones yet. There are trainings that they actually go through full drills in a school and such. I do train all my classes on what to do, what to flip over to block doors, where I'll be, what to do if I go down, what they are allowed to throw (everything, including gouges/scissors), and such.
At the districts I know of they have a warning on the outside of the school that basically states personelle is armed and will use any means necessary to keep students safe. I don't believe they share who is carrying.
The reason I stated that the police should have an idea of who is carrying involves the fact that the information would be shared at the beginning of the year with the police. There are always possibilities for things to go wrong during a real life event.
At the districts I know of they have a warning on the outside of the school that basically states personelle is armed and will use any means necessary to keep students safe. I don't believe they share who is carrying.
The reason I stated that the police should have an idea of who is carrying involves the fact that the information would be shared at the beginning of the year with the police. There are always possibilities for things to go wrong during a real life event.
This weekend was our annual martial arts seminar we do for our group, and today we had active shooter training, which is why I brought it up to you earlier. I wanted to get an idea of what you were being taught versus what our guys were telling us. On a basic level, situational awareness is a key factor before something happens, but in the event something does happen, there are three main choices you have in the event of an active shooter situation: Run, Hide, or Fight. Ideally, your first option is to run. Get out as fast as you can, and look towards that exit (provided it is clear). If in the event you cannot run because all exits are covered, or some other reason, hiding is your best option. Barricade the door as best as your can, and never say a fucking word. The guy was very clear about it. Do not let the shooter have any clue there is someone in there, and even they do, the barricades then make it more difficult, and less easy to break through, so
Now, lets say you have run, but couldn't get out, had to hide as best as your can, and still the shooter found you, it's now live or die. You must at point fight, or as our guy said, "If he takes your head off, pick it up, and beat him to death with it."
We also did some of the physical aspects of the active shooter stuff, although we ran out of time before we could go over more. But basically, we learned a few things concerning getting through crowds, if you are on the ground, if someone is on top of you, pinned up against a wall, etc. Some very interesting stuff. We do plan on having more of this type of training throughout the year in order to maintain it along with our other martial arts training we do. I also want to get back into combative, and tactical firearms training as I already have an airsoft gun that I can use to help further my muscle memory with drawing, aiming, and shooting. Better to shoot 10,000 rounds of a gas blowback airsoft, and then shoot maybe 100 rounds from a real gun than shooting 10,000 rounds of all real ammo.
Now, lets say you have run, but couldn't get out, had to hide as best as your can, and still the shooter found you, it's now live or die. You must at point fight, or as our guy said, "If he takes your head off, pick it up, and beat him to death with it."
We also did some of the physical aspects of the active shooter stuff, although we ran out of time before we could go over more. But basically, we learned a few things concerning getting through crowds, if you are on the ground, if someone is on top of you, pinned up against a wall, etc. Some very interesting stuff. We do plan on having more of this type of training throughout the year in order to maintain it along with our other martial arts training we do. I also want to get back into combative, and tactical firearms training as I already have an airsoft gun that I can use to help further my muscle memory with drawing, aiming, and shooting. Better to shoot 10,000 rounds of a gas blowback airsoft, and then shoot maybe 100 rounds from a real gun than shooting 10,000 rounds of all real ammo.
Ideological shift going on here: Socialism cannot exist with internationalism despite what the Trotskyites tell you; the "internationalist" line of thinking is what resulted in the neoconservative movement ("anti-communist" Irving Kristol was a Trotsky follower) and world building, i.e. Iraq, and when attempted in the context of spreading central planning, it resulted in the Eastern Bloc. Capitalism has to exist with internationalism since isolationism and autarky is bad policy from an evidence based standpoint, as noted in studies I posted here. I support open borders as well, so it's logical to support capitalism.
National capitalism is also an oxymoron, most hardlined nationalists are anti-capitalists (Falganism, National Anarchism, Chilean National Socialism (also anti-Pinochet), Peronism, National Syndicalism, Strasserism: all anti-capitalist) save for the moronic ancaps who unironically hate Jews while secretly admiring Pinochet, who was fond of Jews, and following a movement predominately started by Jewish people.
National capitalism is also an oxymoron, most hardlined nationalists are anti-capitalists (Falganism, National Anarchism, Chilean National Socialism (also anti-Pinochet), Peronism, National Syndicalism, Strasserism: all anti-capitalist) save for the moronic ancaps who unironically hate Jews while secretly admiring Pinochet, who was fond of Jews, and following a movement predominately started by Jewish people.
Last edited:
I'm very glad to hear that. Turns out, not everyone is taught it this way, according to the guys who were teaching this. Their information comes from one of their direct students who is an actual federal agent, and teaches this active shooter stuff to folks, including other agencies. So he's the teacher of teachers for active shooter training, and I'm sure many other things. According to what we were told, there is some bad information being spread around for active shooter scenarios, and what to do. Doesn't really surprise me as we encounter this stuff all the time in our martial arts training, so it comes with the territory I guess.
Sometimes, I think about the potential repercussions when using guns, even in situations of self-defense. The big question I think people should ask themselves BEFORE they possess a gun is simply this: Can you take another person's life? Some might say, "Sure I can," but what about in a real world situation where the adrenaline is pumping, your heart rate went from 60 to 160 in a split second, that tunnel vision you get, as well as the additional stress you'll encounter as a result? Could you still do it? Some might be highly skilled with a gun in a controlled environment, but under actual stressful scenarios, is it really that simple? I would say without a shadow of a doubt, no.
I, myself, have been training in martial arts for over 5 years, and we put ourselves into stressful situations in order to help us train to better combat that stress under pressure. It is not easy. In fact, I'd say it's more of a skill to be calm under stress than it is to be a skilled marksman with a gun.
Take a look at this fantastic scene from Collateral.
The fluidity of Tom Cruise's movements, and the sheer shock both thugs had just as they are about to be shot, especially the second guy. You can see he's struggling to get his gun out before he is shot. This is what happens to most people under stress, and it's because under stress, you regress.
Yes, it's only a movie, but this whole alley scene is more real than it is fake, especially compared to many other action movies. It's one of my favorite action scenes because of how simple yet effective it is.
I, myself, have been training in martial arts for over 5 years, and we put ourselves into stressful situations in order to help us train to better combat that stress under pressure. It is not easy. In fact, I'd say it's more of a skill to be calm under stress than it is to be a skilled marksman with a gun.
Take a look at this fantastic scene from Collateral.
The fluidity of Tom Cruise's movements, and the sheer shock both thugs had just as they are about to be shot, especially the second guy. You can see he's struggling to get his gun out before he is shot. This is what happens to most people under stress, and it's because under stress, you regress.
Yes, it's only a movie, but this whole alley scene is more real than it is fake, especially compared to many other action movies. It's one of my favorite action scenes because of how simple yet effective it is.
All I've seen for the last 2 weeks is that Texas was about to experience a "Blue Wave"! "All the democrats are energized and organized!!!" Even r/Texas has basically turned into r/Beto (the guy running against Cruz.)
Well..looks like Cruz has nearly double the votes of the entire Democratic turnout so far.
#FakeNews much?
Well..looks like Cruz has nearly double the votes of the entire Democratic turnout so far.
#FakeNews much?
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/971200381018570754
Beto won the nomination, and will take on Ted Cruz in the November election. I don't consider that Fake News. And a lot more Democratic votes were cast early than in previous elections, whereas Republican votes were down almost 40%. Again, that is not fake news. Not saying it's going to be a walk over in the November election, but just the fact there is a sizable increase in democratic votes should make someone like Ted Cruz just a little bit worried.
Also, Dems had what looks like 2/3rds the votes compared to the GOP vote, which is still less, but it is also within striking distance to make someone like Beto an underdog of sorts. Basically, don't write him off so soon. Now, he just may not be able to muster enough support in November, and Cruz wins, but if Beto does win, what does that say about the folks who used the primary election as a basis for the upcoming November election? "Well, the GOP vote was higher than the Dems, so it's quite clear the same result will happen in November."
Beto won the nomination, and will take on Ted Cruz in the November election. I don't consider that Fake News. And a lot more Democratic votes were cast early than in previous elections, whereas Republican votes were down almost 40%. Again, that is not fake news. Not saying it's going to be a walk over in the November election, but just the fact there is a sizable increase in democratic votes should make someone like Ted Cruz just a little bit worried.
Also, Dems had what looks like 2/3rds the votes compared to the GOP vote, which is still less, but it is also within striking distance to make someone like Beto an underdog of sorts. Basically, don't write him off so soon. Now, he just may not be able to muster enough support in November, and Cruz wins, but if Beto does win, what does that say about the folks who used the primary election as a basis for the upcoming November election? "Well, the GOP vote was higher than the Dems, so it's quite clear the same result will happen in November."
Cruz regularly makes Bernie Sanders look incompetent on CNN and Bernie is like the new-age messiah of the democrat party nowadays. Just wait until the debates hit with Beto.
You guys underestimate how smart Cruz is and what he has accomplished in the past and currently. He is a very accomplished lawyer bringing arguments to the Supreme Court and elsewhere. You also underestimate how popular he is in Texas. The guy is still a well liked presidential candidate and did very well against Trump until his "New York values" comment sunk him. That statement flies in Texas but not in the US as a whole.
This whole blue wave stuff is a myth pushed by newspapers that all lean so far to the left that they see the world sideways.
You guys underestimate how smart Cruz is and what he has accomplished in the past and currently. He is a very accomplished lawyer bringing arguments to the Supreme Court and elsewhere. You also underestimate how popular he is in Texas. The guy is still a well liked presidential candidate and did very well against Trump until his "New York values" comment sunk him. That statement flies in Texas but not in the US as a whole.
This whole blue wave stuff is a myth pushed by newspapers that all lean so far to the left that they see the world sideways.
I'm not saying it'll be a walk over, but when you consider all the elections that have occurred so far, the GOP should in fact be just a tiny bit alarmed, Texas included. Again, not saying the Democrats will swoop in, and take over Congress, but given the surprises we have seen thus far (even in my state), it's enough where some conservative folks should at least consider the possibility that the Democrats will regain some seats in the House and Senate.
Now, I've heard what you've said before: the Dems won't take over Congress, Ted Cruz will win, and Trump will not be charged with obstruction and collusion. It is entirely possible that at least one of those predictions of yours will be wrong. But in fairness, I could be completely wrong also.
Now, I've heard what you've said before: the Dems won't take over Congress, Ted Cruz will win, and Trump will not be charged with obstruction and collusion. It is entirely possible that at least one of those predictions of yours will be wrong. But in fairness, I could be completely wrong also.
https://apnews.com/ccc487c8cf854f57...pi-passes-law-banning-abortion-after-15-weeks
Fuck off, Mississippi.
Fuck off, Mississippi.
Here is your PSA to not do meth..ever...
SC Woman Who Gouged Out Her Own eyes Believed "Meth would bring me even closer to God"
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article204665864.html
Awwwwww hellllllll no!
SC Woman Who Gouged Out Her Own eyes Believed "Meth would bring me even closer to God"
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article204665864.html
Awwwwww hellllllll no!
