5 ms·

He transferred $21,000 of the public funds to his own pocket in an honest and legal transaction. On the whole this strikes me as a virtuous and patriotic thing

by gnu8 4y ago

He transferred $21,000 of the public funds to his own pocket in an honest and legal transaction. On the whole this strikes me as a virtuous and patriotic thing for him to have done and I can only aspire to be this enterprising in my own business affairs.

incahoots 4y ago
I generally hope this is sarcasm. If not then it's disappointing so many view this man's actions as virtuous or patriotic. If you don't have empathy for the problem then by all means ignore the actions that's being taken in an attempt to rectify the problem. By no means is a buyback going to solve the issue tomorrow but it certainly isn't hurting this man or anyone who's against the idea. If this man truly wanted to "point out the flaws" with this program he simply could've made the drive and speak his mind at a city council meeting, email, leave a voice mail to the party in charge of the program. There's no shortage of apathy in this country and exploiting a public system rather than coming together to find a solution seems counterproductive.
- User23 4y ago
  Guns don't commit violence. Saying that they do is at best a category error. "Not even wrong" would be another fair description. By all means, let's disarm prohibited persons though. But can you can stomach the "disparate impact?"
  - incahoots 4y ago
    No one is forcing anyone to give up their firearms, why does this keep being argued? It's even more comical when firearm manufactures record their most profitable years when Dem's control the white house.
    - User23 4y ago
      > No one is forcing anyone to give up their firearms, why does this keep being argued? You're straying rather close to intellectual dishonesty here. I think you're well aware there are some people in the USA who very much do want to force people to give up their firearms. Furthermore, similar groups have largely succeeded in other countries. That's why it keeps getting argued. > It's even more comical when firearm manufactures record their most profitable years when Dem's control the white house. I don't get the joke. What's funny about a perceived future shortage pushing demand forward in time? We saw the same dynamic with toilet paper in 2020. I suppose it's kind of funny that the perception of a shortage then creates a shortage, but somehow I don't think that's what you meant.
    - not_really 4y ago
      https://youtu.be/lMVhL6OOuR0 https://youtu.be/lMVhL6OOuR0
- PubliusMI 4y ago
  Maybe instead the fascists in the statehouse can stop trying to disarm the citizenry.
  - incahoots 4y ago
    Yeah like all those other times they forced citizens to give up their firearms. I consistently hear this but outside of maybe 4 senators that push a bill that prevents the sale of a certain model of firearm it's a boogeyman at best.

by gnu8 4y ago

incahoots 4y ago

I generally hope this is sarcasm. If not then it's disappointing so many view this man's actions as virtuous or patriotic. If you don't have empathy for the problem then by all means ignore the actions that's being taken in an attempt to rectify the problem. By no means is a buyback going to solve the issue tomorrow but it certainly isn't hurting this man or anyone who's against the idea. If this man truly wanted to "point out the flaws" with this program he simply could've made the drive and speak his mind at a city council meeting, email, leave a voice mail to the party in charge of the program. There's no shortage of apathy in this country and exploiting a public system rather than coming together to find a solution seems counterproductive.

User23 4y ago
Guns don't commit violence. Saying that they do is at best a category error. "Not even wrong" would be another fair description. By all means, let's disarm prohibited persons though. But can you can stomach the "disparate impact?"
- incahoots 4y ago
  No one is forcing anyone to give up their firearms, why does this keep being argued? It's even more comical when firearm manufactures record their most profitable years when Dem's control the white house.
  - User23 4y ago
    > No one is forcing anyone to give up their firearms, why does this keep being argued? You're straying rather close to intellectual dishonesty here. I think you're well aware there are some people in the USA who very much do want to force people to give up their firearms. Furthermore, similar groups have largely succeeded in other countries. That's why it keeps getting argued. > It's even more comical when firearm manufactures record their most profitable years when Dem's control the white house. I don't get the joke. What's funny about a perceived future shortage pushing demand forward in time? We saw the same dynamic with toilet paper in 2020. I suppose it's kind of funny that the perception of a shortage then creates a shortage, but somehow I don't think that's what you meant.
  - not_really 4y ago
    https://youtu.be/lMVhL6OOuR0 https://youtu.be/lMVhL6OOuR0
PubliusMI 4y ago
Maybe instead the fascists in the statehouse can stop trying to disarm the citizenry.
- incahoots 4y ago
  Yeah like all those other times they forced citizens to give up their firearms. I consistently hear this but outside of maybe 4 senators that push a bill that prevents the sale of a certain model of firearm it's a boogeyman at best.