That and if you didn’t you got your ass beat. Can’t do that anymore.
Current news
- Thread starter Floorist
- Start date
Help Support Flooring Forum:
That and if you didn’t you got your ass beat. Can’t do that anymore.
With some kids. My daughter's 3 keep things clean. The oldest, my grandson is 17, He is in his second year of working 40 hour weeks at DQ and just graduated. He is saving his money for welding school. The other 2 are home schooled. Both are doing school work 2 years ahead of where they should be.
My daughter got her teaching certificate but it doesn't pay anything. She is working in home health care 60 hours a week and going to college to be an RN.
Yes it was, but why is there a reluctance to answer the question? Fear based teaching or encouragement based teaching. Close your eyes, imagine little Rusty in 1969, how would he want to be taught ?
Hey Rusty, I’m not a fan of Biden, but I am a fan of constructive conversation......As a side not, Economists have shared our current inflation is not due to the current admin. The thought that one man does is imho quite scary. Now back on task and addressing your last reply. Satire plays an important role in democracies by exaggerating our differences in the hope we educate ourselves on the subject and maybe change or soften our opinions. If our opinions are not moving up and down every day we risk stagnation. That guy or gal 
has grown in popularity. However at the end of the day, all comedy aside, we ultimately choose one style of thinking and acting over another. I’m arguing for less fear and more encouragement. How about you ? I promise if you constructively answer the world will not end. ( me adding some satire 
)
has grown in popularity. However at the end of the day, all comedy aside, we ultimately choose one style of thinking and acting over another. I’m arguing for less fear and more encouragement. How about you ? I promise if you constructively answer the world will not end. ( me adding some satire )
I like the concept of public education in Mexico where you go to 8 years or so instead of 12 so they're not wasting public monies with frivolous educational philosophies. Reading, Writing and Arithmetic and then let the kids/families find their own way to the library/internet/private schools/higher education. I dont want public teachers to do ANYTHING more than teach the three Rs. Kids cleaning their room? Why is that something to be even mentioned in school?
![MORE Luxury Vinyl Floor Cleaner for Vinyl Plank Flooring - Ready to Use, Daily Cleaning Formula for Tile, Vinyl Surfaces [Gallon / 128oz]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/413LZHZiqCL._SL500_.jpg)
Thanks Incognito for engaging, only through honest conversation can we understand each other and I’m hard to understand.
What I’m talking about cost absolutely no money, Philosophy is free. Do you yell and ridicule your subs or co- workers ? Maybe a few of them need it, but as a whole I bet your success was due to the ability to encourage others. Correct me if that’s not accurate. This is not a mammzy pammzy no discipline required approach. It’s a basic principle that encouraged minds function better than fearful minds. There’s plenty of room for boundaries and discipline when required. If we all decided to interact this way in the work place, Bar, home life, political debates, etc etc imho we would have more cooperation. That’s all ! It’s a work in progress so feel free to add to it, or subtract from it. Notice I used the words MORE COOPERATION RATHER THAN MORE DEVIDE. Our choice of philosophy will help us choose more cooperative words and Wouldn’t that be nice. Agree or disagree?
I do believe homemaking, auto shop, wood shop, metal shop and sewing should be required courses. How many kids go thru 12 plus years of school, but can't change a tire?
Can’t change a tire, can’t read a tape measure, can’t operate power tools…
I know the Boy Scouts got a bad rap but I learned a bunch when I was a scout. Ham radio is another activity that expands your mind and teaches you how to think and figure things out. What do we have now? Tik Tok.
I know the Boy Scouts got a bad rap but I learned a bunch when I was a scout. Ham radio is another activity that expands your mind and teaches you how to think and figure things out. What do we have now? Tik Tok.
Excerpts from the Opinion written by Clarence Thomas.
(In Heller) we looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” The Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.”
After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
We therefore turn to whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct — carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. We have little difficulty concluding that it does.
Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.
Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”
This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.
Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.
Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.
After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.
Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. “[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”.
The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.
The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further pro- ceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
(In Heller) we looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” The Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.”
After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
We therefore turn to whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct — carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. We have little difficulty concluding that it does.
Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.
Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”
This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.
Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.
Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.
After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.
Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. “[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”.
The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.
The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further pro- ceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Love that Supreme Court Justice!
From Alito's masterful concurrence:
Quote:
Quote:
| In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s? The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1 The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense. |
Flood warning in NYC. Tears are expected to overwhelm the sewer system.
Move over shrimp you're stealing my light.
What a b+tch
New York Judge Ralph Porzio ruled on Monday that New York City's extension of voting rights to non-U.S. citizens violated the New York Constitution, the state's election law, and the Municipal Home Rule Law — rendering another Democrat attempt to undermine elections illegal, null, and void.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spenc...n-noncitizen-voting-in-new-york-city-n2609385
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spenc...n-noncitizen-voting-in-new-york-city-n2609385
About time!
R Kelly, the singer was sentenced to 30 years for human trafficking.
Isn’t there a video of Our Previous President floating around using both elbows to get into the center of attention at a press conference ?
Both behaviors are rude and a sign that voters may want to elect candidates that demonstrate characteristics of humility.
