Republicans: continued

[Hermit]

...you might one day make me take a position you wish me to take, then you can celebrate glorious victory, against a worthy foe.

If I changed your mind one day I would not regard it as a victory, and I certainly don't regard you as a foe. I don't think of forum discussions in terms of fights to be won or lost, and I manage to distinguish between opinions and persons holding them without any difficulty. But you fight on if that is how you get your rocks off. It's no skin off my nose.

[Cunt]

Between opinions and the persons holding them...

I wonder where an interracial couple who are Trump supporters fit in your view.

But I do know - to you they are fundamentally racist.

It keeps me focused on fun stuff with you. I'm going to go try to tempt you into some. Stand by.

[Hermit]

Between opinions and the persons holding them...

I wonder where an interracial couple who are Trump supporters fit in your view.

But I do know - to you they are fundamentally racist.

Racism is a matter of opinion, don't you think?

[Tero]

It's no good unless it's a tax cut

FD3E2AE5-3F33-4ECC-8519-596D8B7AC22B.jpeg (98.17 KiB) Viewed 1099 times

[pErvinalia]

Is it a problem that the buyback worked well (they were compliant) or that I admit my surprise?

If you asked me, I would guess that it wouldn't work well. I had not considered those who are on the fence.

And why the hell would you be resistant to doing the same for cars? I understand lots of you need them, but like with guns, I would guess a lot of people are on the fence.

What the fuck are you talking about? Cars have a daily use that doesn't include purposely killing people. No one would surrender their car unless it was a shitbox.

[Cunt]

Is it a problem that the buyback worked well (they were compliant) or that I admit my surprise?

If you asked me, I would guess that it wouldn't work well. I had not considered those who are on the fence.

And why the hell would you be resistant to doing the same for cars? I understand lots of you need them, but like with guns, I would guess a lot of people are on the fence.

What the fuck are you talking about? Cars have a daily use that doesn't include purposely killing people. No one would surrender their car unless it was a shitbox.

Aw, you are so sweet that I should answer seriously.

Lots of people out there are 'on the fence' about their car. Every year, I have considered skipping registering it. It's thousands a year to keep it, and I use it less and less.

Lots of people retire, and soon give them up since they have no more commute. I know one lady who stopped going my motorized anything, saying she had time to walk there, and considered it healthy.

A buyback, even with my shitty way of phrasing it, would appeal for different reasons, but at the end, less cars and more people in public transit.

That's good, isn't it?

[pErvinalia]

If people didn't want their car they'd sell it. Is this a concept you don't get?

[JimC]

And why the hell would you be resistant to doing the same for cars?

Perhaps it might be useful to actually read my posts?

I know you are being sarcastic about a "car buy-back", equating it absurdly with the gun buy back (people rarely use cars deliberately to murder). However, a government-funded voluntary buy-back of the oldest and most polluting cars has been seriously mooted as a useful step to reduce air pollution.

Doesn't sound like being resistant to me. The key is in the word "useful"...

[Cunt]

I'm not talking about calling them murderers. I'm saying I think it would also work, without mass vehicular murder, just because offering a buyback nudges people off the fence.

I bet it would work pretty good, but maybe it's the kind of thing that attracts too much abuse. You are also focused on the cars, which is a different perspective. This starting in a gun discussion had me thinking about drivers. It's drivers, not cars, that are the targeted polluters in that notion.

[JimC]

A government buy-back of whatever needs a compelling reason (if only because they can be very expensive, and use taxpayer's money), and one that is popular with a majority. That was the case with our gun buy-back.

I'm unsure of the compelling reason for your own advocacy of a vehicle buy-back. If it is to remove old, dangerous and highly polluting vehicles from the road, then fine; it can be argued this is a compelling reason.

[Cunt]

More to remove drivers. (well, convert them to non-drivers)

It probably isn't compelling, but I know a lot of folks hold on to their car/license/garage beyond it's useful life. Habit more than utility, I mean.

[rainbow]

If people didn't want their car they'd sell it. Is this a concept you don't get?

Sex,

[Tero]

Oh my! family values!

[Tero]

Missori: transgenders and toilets, again
https://amp.kansascity.com/news/politic ... 88308.html

[pErvinalia]

Cunt and toilets again.