But look at all the "free" stuff [STRIKE]we'll[/STRIKE] [everybody else will] get (after we pay for it)!
Fixy
But look at all the "free" stuff [STRIKE]we'll[/STRIKE] [everybody else will] get (after we pay for it)!
Well if I can turn in magazines I bought for 6$ a piece and get 200$ apiece, thats a pretty good return...
You don't turn them in for $200, you pay a $200 'tax' for the priviledge of keeping them
Let me clarify what I mean by tolerance. I don't mean acceptance without attempt to change. What I do mean is an attempt to change through civil means.
When one gets married, most likely if there was a healthy dating period, one will discover things love, things they tolerate, things, they can change.
No relationship with any noun is static but dynamic. Things may move between categories.
No machine or firearm would function without correct tolerances.
Some tolerances are more important than others, some can be very tight and well made like a Beretta 9000S in 9mm. Others can be horrible like a Gluck 1911.
I suppose your last sentence IS tolerance in my opinion but it lacks the temporal component.
Yeah, but we're talking about a word and how it's used by others. The following definition is apt.
Tolerance: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
This assumes the part I object to. "Allow." Who am I to allow you to be you? I have no righteous claim to interfere. I can only deign such authority when the thing I might wish to tolerate or not is when you're interfering with my rights. Let me explain it in terms of behavior. My neighbor often mows a foot or two into my yard. I have every right not to allow that. It's my property. But I like my neighbor. He can't mow straight lines. He can't help it. There's no harm done. I allow it. I tolerate it. It would be within my rights and authority as the property owner not to tolerate it. My other neighbor has a son that likes to play basket ball constantly. I suppose I could be annoyed with the sound of the bouncing ball. It's not something within my power to tolerate or not. There's nothing I have any right to do about it. I accept that he does it. I recognize it's his right to do. That's not something that the world "tolerance" can apply to.
So it's the same thing with things that people talk about tolerating. Take religious tolerance, for example. WTF do I have any right to do about what someone believes about religious matters? I can be intolerant, and take steps I don't have the right to take, to interfere with that person's exercise of their religion. But that would be pretty ****ty of me to deign to have a say about another person's religious exercise. I could "tolerate" a religious person, and decide that I will not interfere with that person's religious exercise. But then that would make me an arrogant SOB for thinking I'm so high-minded for choosing not to be an ******* because I disagree with that person's religious beliefs. How about just not give a **** about what people choose to believe? Doesn't mean I won't engage them, or challenge their beliefs. Recognizing I have no right to interfere with other people's religious exercise is neither tolerance, nor intolerance. It's understanding my place in the world and what rights I have versus other people's rights.
I don't want to be "tolerated". I want a mutual understanding that we both have equal rights to our place in the world, and neither of us have a right to interfere with that. It is that mutual understanding that forms the necessary basis for the ability to live in a diverse world and not kill each other. You don't have a right to tolerate or not tolerate me. And of course I mean "you" rhetorically.
I think your bolded statement is dead on. They don’t care if we’re poor, all the more chance to control us. If you insist that you must buy their taxed mags, you deserve to be poor.Didn't read all the upthread posts, but here's my take on the question for this threads existence. It's not a question of how Biden can Unite our country but how far is he really willing to tear it apart?
He's not even in office yet and he his is alienating ALMOST each and every legal gun owner in the country and will do so if he tries to Unconstitutionally enact a tax on legal handgun's and rifles, along with magazines holding more than 10 rounds. That places a undue hardship on Americans to protect themselves. It would not only force people to purchase new items and magazines where the prices would be inflated, but to pay a excessive cost to keep them, and this will only be the start. His plan of "Phasing out" fossil fuels and fracking" will lead to unrealistic prices to heat and power our homes and drive our vehicles.
Factor in other things he has said and it will drive a wedge between the richest and the rest. Because only the rich will be able to survive.
Well united doesn't mean 100% agree with each other. If anything, it means a willingness to tolerate different points of view. Acceptance that a democracy may vote to do things i don't personally believe are right but abiding by the rule of law. Using those rules of law to change what I don't like by persuading others to my point of view.
Wanted to nuance more but puppy is at the door!
Let me clarify what I mean by tolerance. I don't mean acceptance without attempt to change. What I do mean is an attempt to change through civil means.
When one gets married, most likely if there was a healthy dating period, one will discover things love, things they tolerate, things, they can change.
No relationship with any noun is static but dynamic. Things may move between categories.
No machine or firearm would function without correct tolerances.
Some tolerances are more important than others, some can be very tight and well made like a Beretta 9000S in 9mm. Others can be horrible like a Gluck 1911.
I suppose your last sentence IS tolerance in my opinion but it lacks the temporal component.
Ok, it looks like I misused the word tolerance. How would you respond to what I meant by tolerance rather than what the word itself means. Feel free to give me a word that would mean the concept as I was describing it.
I have ZERO interest in uniting with biden, the communist trash of his ilk, or those that voted for it.
I saw a really good yard sign while traveling about the other day. Big ass sign right in the front yard. Said in big bold letters: "**** Biden!" and then under in smaller lettering, "And **** you for voting for him."
That probably doesn't unite us much. But I bet that guy felt real good while putting it in his yard.
You spend your platform saying "**** Trump" I can understand the sentiment of wanting to throw it back.
All the uniting talk is just lip service. If he really cared about unity he wouldn't be pushing such polarizing policies like gun control, amnesty, etc.