Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".but then also confiscate the 300-400 million guns in the US. And Vanderbilt has a better chance of blowing out Alabama by 40 this year than that has of happening anytime soon.
Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
If we are talking about the gun side of things and not the school security side of things, the only real gun legislation that would go towards greatly reducing the chance of these terrible shootings is to basically not only have gun laws like the UK
Given that, it just feels like dems use these very horrifying events as a political tool and talking point. Which is disgusting imo.use these events for political gain. And if you think it isn't the fault of americans and what they want regarding guns, you aren't interpreting the polls correctly. Citing a poll that shows 68% or whatever of americans would support some useless piece
And no, it's not 'the republican's fault' that we don't have UK style gun laws and that we don't go out and confiscate 400 million firearms here. It's the 'fault' of the american citizenry. Which also goes back to my opinion that democrats attempt to
I guess I haven't posted here in awhile. I'm fine lol. Just don't know what else can be said about the NIL(let's not even call it NIL since it has little to do with that in terms of how it is actually used besides the name) discussion and have beenpretty busy. I've decided to split my time between Birmingham where I work in a large practice now and middle georgia where my family is, and open and try to build my own practice in middle georgia. Ultimately I'd like something that has me and 1-2 other
career satisfaction doing things my way. The main change is I will now control my own nurse practitioner and physician assistant slots rather than giving them up to a practice, and long term that's really the key from a financial standpoint. For now ofcourse I'll still keep working some for current practice I'm employed by, so I'll be going back and forth each month both working in birmingham some and building something of my own.
And of course despite all the pay for play drama out there, still excited about college football coming up in just a 3+ months or a little more. I'm sure I'll post a lot more getting closer to that.
On 5/25/2022 1:50 PM, michael anderson wrote:Just don't diddle your employees or make misogynistic remarks ("Rock out
"I guess I haven't posted here in awhile. I'm fine lol."
It is agreeable that you continue to post here. I look forward to seeing
more football content.
"I've decided to split my time between Birmingham where I work in a
large practice now and middle georgia where my family is, and open and
try to build my own practice in middle georgia. Ultimately I'd like something that has me and 1-2 other psychs(my sister is also a
psychiatrist), 3-4 psychiatric nurse practitioners(this is really how to expand net profits if clinic is full and billing is done right), and a
few salaried therapists. I also want to offer things like ketamine therapy. It's going to take awhile to build and there will be some struggles and setbacks, but I think down the road I could both make a
lot more money and have more career satisfaction doing things my way."
I hope your career and financial prospects continue in a satisfactory
manner, but if it's going to be all about acquiring money and
things...that is (IMHO) too narrow a vision for someone who has
demonstrated at least some intelligence.
GrtArtiste
"I guess I haven't posted here in awhile. I'm fine lol."
Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
I guess I haven't posted here in awhile. I'm fine lol. Just don't know what else can be said about the NIL(let's not even call it NIL since it has little to do with that in terms of how it is actually used besides the name) discussion and have beenpretty busy.
What's your take on (a) the NCAA getting rid of the conditions under which conferences can conduct conference championship games, and (b) the latest SEC idea of expanding its conference championship into a tournament of some sort (which would requirean NCAA bylaws change, the same way the CFP playoff did, but that's another story)?
an NCAA bylaws change, the same way the CFP playoff did, but that's another story)?What's your take on (a) the NCAA getting rid of the conditions under which conferences can conduct conference championship games, and (b) the latest SEC idea of expanding its conference championship into a tournament of some sort (which would require
On-topic:
b) will render a) irrelevant. The SEC IS the Major League of College Football. No playoff of any kind survives an SEC Championship Tournament, because it is routinely recognized that all or most of the relevant teams in the country are in the SEC.
require an NCAA bylaws change, the same way the CFP playoff did, but that's another story)?What's your take on (a) the NCAA getting rid of the conditions under which conferences can conduct conference championship games, and (b) the latest SEC idea of expanding its conference championship into a tournament of some sort (which would
On-topic:Which is the best excuse I have heard for yet (b) never happening, as the SEC would never get the votes needed to change the NCAA Bylaws.
b) will render a) irrelevant. The SEC IS the Major League of College Football. No playoff of any kind survives an SEC Championship Tournament, because it is routinely recognized that all or most of the relevant teams in the country are in the SEC.
Also, (a) applies to the SEC as well.
However, I think that if the SEC really wants a multi-team conference championship, the Big 10 and at least one other Power 5 conference will want the same thing (the Big 10 can taste the money already), which should give the idea enough votes to passfor just the Power 5 conferences - and I don't think the Why Are They Still In FBS conferences are really interested in a multi-round championship. There will still be a CFP, if for no other reason than there's always the possibility of a non-SEC team
The NCAA will still be around, but you do have a point: there's no guarantee that it will have anything to do with "big college football," except maybe the schools will agree to use the NCAA football rules, and even that's a little bit of a stretch (Not wrong, but you operate under the assumption the NCAA survives 2-3-4 more years, etc.b) will render a) irrelevant. The SEC IS the Major League of College Football. No playoff of any kind survives an SEC Championship Tournament, because it is routinely recognized that all or most of the relevant teams in the country are in the SEC.Which is the best excuse I have heard for yet (b) never happening, as the SEC would never get the votes needed to change the NCAA Bylaws.
Also, (a) applies to the SEC as well.
where we can overturn D.C. v. Heller and ban handguns!"Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....You're not listening to the right Democrats. "Get rid of the filibuster NOW, and bring back the assault weapons ban!" (That gets rid of one cause of this particular shooting; the "legal guns" used are now illegal.) "Pack the Supreme Court to the point
pretty busy.I guess I haven't posted here in awhile. I'm fine lol. Just don't know what else can be said about the NIL(let's not even call it NIL since it has little to do with that in terms of how it is actually used besides the name) discussion and have been
What's your take on (a) the NCAA getting rid of the conditions under which conferences can conduct conference championship games,
the latter democrats(if they really exist? i doubt they are mainstream) would never get enough traction because that would result
in electoral bloodshed for the party. Again, there is *NO* desire on the part of the american people to greatly change the gun
culture we have now *in any meaningful way*. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
And I'm not making a value judgement on that in either direction. Just a statement of fact. That's why it is disgusting to see
certain liberals and democrats whine about how the nra and republicans are "standing in the way of doing something to end these
shootings"......the NRA and Ted Cruz has absolutely nothing to do with this.
so georgia for example plays auburn, florida, and one other-.... South car? tenn?) and then has 6 other conference games which means that they would play each team in the sec at least every 2 years and in 4 years would complete a home and home seriesWhat's your take on (a) the NCAA getting rid of the conditions under which conferences can conduct conference championship games,eh....mostly who cares? Conferences may continue to tinker with these things, and what we are mostly all waiting on now is to see
what sort of model the sec will move to after Oklahoma and texas join. The general consensus now is that there will be no divisions, 9 conference games, not a pod system but rather a system whereby each of the teams has 3 permanent opponents each year(
and (b) the latest SEC idea of expanding its conference championship into a tournament of some sort (which would require an NCAA bylaws change, the same way the CFP playoff did, but that's another story)?
eh....not a serious idea. Look this is the time that people are bored and are just throwing shit out there to keep themselves and their
cronies in the news and all these bloggers and message boards need something to write about too. This is one more endless example.
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....a) you're wrong
b) the Dems, who won't do anything, would restrict certain guns.
c) the Repubs do nothing, too, *except* say "thoughts and prayers" and "instill family values" which is so vague as to be pointless.
Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....a) you're wrong
b) the Dems, who won't do anything, would restrict certain guns.
c) the Repubs do nothing, too, *except* say "thoughts and prayers" and "instill family values" which is so vague as to be pointless.
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:37:24 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just
say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".a) you're wrong
Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never
would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal
guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
b) the Dems, who won't do anything, would restrict certain guns.
Assuming the guns they would restrict are actually the sorts of guns
commonly used in these shootings(and thus
*may* have some small effect in reducing the likelihood of mass shootings.....
michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:37:24 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just >>>> say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
a) you're wrong
Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never
would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal
guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
b) the Dems, who won't do anything, would restrict certain guns.
Assuming the guns they would restrict are actually the sorts of guns
commonly used in these shootings(and thus
*may* have some small effect in reducing the likelihood of mass shootings.....
You know, we do have data on this, since we actually did a sort-of experiment. For 10 years we had a ban on assault weapons and greater than 10-capacity magazines. That period coincided with a signify decline in mass shootings and also a more significant decline in deaths from mass
shootings. And both statistics skyrocketed when it ended.
https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/12943/is-it-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban/
“gun massacres fell 37 percent during the ban period and in the ten years after it lapsed in 2004, they went up an alarming 183 percent.”
On 5/30/2022 7:35 AM, xyzzy wrote:
michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com> wrote:https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:37:24 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just >>>>> say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".b) the Dems, who won't do anything, would restrict certain guns.
Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never >>>>> would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal >>>>> guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc..... >>>> a) you're wrong
Assuming the guns they would restrict are actually the sorts of guns
commonly used in these shootings(and thus
*may* have some small effect in reducing the likelihood of mass shootings.....
You know, we do have data on this, since we actually did a sort-of
experiment. For 10 years we had a ban on assault weapons and greater than
10-capacity magazines. That period coincided with a signify decline in mass >> shootings and also a more significant decline in deaths from mass
shootings. And both statistics skyrocketed when it ended.
https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/12943/is-it-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban/
“gun massacres fell 37 percent during the ban period and in the ten years >> after it lapsed in 2004, they went up an alarming 183 percent.”
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 415 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 19:06:46 |
Calls: | 8,716 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 13,273 |
Messages: | 5,954,429 |