Curmudgeon

Some are playing politics and some don't understand risk. Playing safe by enforcing a 21 day quarantine on anyone who hasn't been exposed to a symptomatic Ebola patient is a nonsense. Some want to do it because they see an electoral advantage in grandstanding on this issue and some simply don't get that if there is zero risk, then 21 days to ensure there is zero risk is mathematically, and actually redundant.

Clearly some of the pictures you posted are of teens/children who participate in competitive shooting so that makes sense to me.

I do. If you think it has, you can try to explain your thought process, if you feel so inclined.

This thread is not about the second amendment and no one, apart from you has made any reference to it. Your question has no relevance to anything being posted here.

No facts then as to why this is an outrage? OK.

Do you have any facts to go along with your stale pictorial cliches? Why exactly is the Rep Sen upset? What's his factual evidence of wrong doing? Or is he like you simply upset that a sentence contains the words organic, garden, petting zoe and guitar lessons along with the dreaded words illegal immigrants?

The summary is this:
If you are infected in a western country with access to modern healthcare your chances of survival are very high compared to a 3rd world nation.

The biggest problem for those who are genuinely victims of prejudice, is that those who are prejudice do not always recognize what they are evaluating is a dislike of the person because of their physical attributes and not a proper evaluation of the person themselves or the opinions they hold. There are people who search for an excuses to pin their dislike on, scouring news media for stories that demonstrate how awful the president is. that's pretty prejudiced in my opinion. I don't go around looking for reasons to hate certain people. It's seems a bit insane to me.

The biggest problem for those who are genuinely victims of prejudice, is that those who are prejudice do not always recognize what they are evaluating is a dislike of the person because of their physical attributes and not a proper evaluation of the person themselves or the opinions they hold. There are people who search for an excuses to pin their dislike on, scouring news media for stories that demonstrate how awful the president is. that's pretty prejudiced in my opinion. I don't go around looking for reasons to hate certain people. It's seems a bit insane to me.

Personally, I don't care what props you choose to use in your portrait photo. However, I do think America should examine what messages are sent out the more you try to push away the reality of what a gun is and what it is primarily designed for. Guns are weapons that is what they are designed for and what they function as. If you happen to have won a deal of marksmanship contests for your school, I can see why you might want to bring that into the context of a school photo, but other than that, it makes you wonder what message the kid is trying to send out. I certainly would question the emotional maturity of someone that felt that having a gun in a photograph was a requirement even if you had no specific marksmanship skills to speak of.
I don't think it's a good idea to question a person's motives for living wherever they live if they are legally resident. It's basically none of your business, it's not like there is a requirement to own guns in the US, or approve of anything to do with guns or weapons so whatever a persons views on the issues are is irrelevant to their living arrangements.

The biggest problem for those who are genuinely victims of prejudice, is that those who are prejudice do not always recognize what they are evaluating is a dislike of the person because of their physical attributes and not a proper evaluation of the person themselves or the opinions they hold. There are people who search for an excuses to pin their dislike on, scouring news media for stories that demonstrate how awful the president is. that's pretty prejudiced in my opinion. I don't go around looking for reasons to hate certain people. It's seems a bit insane to me.

Personally, I don't care what props you choose to use in your portrait photo. However, I do think America should examine what messages are sent out the more you try to push away the reality of what a gun is and what it is primarily designed for. Guns are weapons that is what they are designed for and what they function as. If you happen to have won a deal of marksmanship contests for your school, I can see why you might want to bring that into the context of a school photo, but other than that, it makes you wonder what message the kid is trying to send out. I certainly would question the emotional maturity of someone that felt that having a gun in a photograph was a requirement even if you had no specific marksmanship skills to speak of.
I don't think it's a good idea to question a person's motives for living wherever they live if they are legally resident. It's basically none of your business, it's not like there is a requirement to own guns in the US, or approve of anything to do with guns or weapons so whatever a persons views on the issues are is irrelevant to their living arrangements.

I would not say it is demented but it certainly is completely out of place. Guns should not be treated as fashion accessories. Guns should be treated as weapons - which is precisely what they are - and not flaunted in public as statement pieces no matter how inbred one's family tree is.

I'm really shocked that Americans think 24% of teen girls are giving birth every year. Where do these people live that they have experience of 1 in 4 teen girls having children? I knew precisely zero teen moms growing up in the mid-80s to very early 90s, when I was a teenager, which was (as far as I can recall) kind of a peak time for teen pregnancy. Some data here: http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html

While I agree that she should be disciplined, I don't feel it should have been taken to social media. Public humiliation is not cool at all. There are better and more effective ways to discipline kids.

I don't have a problem with parents taking measures to curb unruly behavior. I have a huge problem with them posting their actions on internet websites as entertainment.

Indeed. No one in the UK believes the system is perfect but it is a good system that treats everyone equally. There are no different pricing bands based on what insurance you use and no one in the UK is bankrupt because they are unable to pay for primary care services and treatments. No one in the UK wants it to be disbanded not even UKIP

No one is fooled into thinking it's free either, what a silly argument. We all know it's paid for by tax payers. What a surprise.

It is free at the point of use and that's the really crucial difference, crucial for the health and welfare of the citizens of the UK.

Undocumented migrants do not have a political affiliation to a US political party and why are you suggesting that they are taking jobs away from indigenous (but specifically black) citizens? Undocumented migrants typically fill vacancies that no one wants to fill, that's the only reason they are hired. Should they be hired? Not my argument, but typically, undocumented migrants are not paid a wage that any citizen would work for, for rather obvious reasons that have nothing to do with the US Democratic party.
I have no idea. It doesn't make any sense.

I'm not sure it's really necessary to call people 'liars'. Surely there are better ways to express disagreement without doing that.

I am not sure why an American's opinion on the NHS is really that valid, it's not like he has provided data to back up his view. The acurate figures have been published, the UK health care system is one of the best in the world, even with it's faults. Should it be improved? Of course, do British people want rid of it? No, not even UKIP would dare run on abolishing the health care system or even partial privatization. The brits absolutely don't want it to be fundamentally changed and they don't call it socialized either, I wonder why? Sure, the royal family don't use it so what? They can afford to go private and those that can should if they want to. No one is worrying about that either.

This thread seems to be veering way, way off topic.

Indeed. No one in the UK believes the system is perfect but it is a good system that treats everyone equally. There are no different pricing bands based on what insurance you use and no one in the UK is bankrupt because they are unable to pay for primary care services and treatments. No one in the UK wants it to be disbanded not even UKIP

No one is fooled into thinking it's free either, what a silly argument. We all know it's paid for by tax payers. What a surprise.

It is free at the point of use and that's the really crucial difference, crucial for the health and welfare of the citizens of the UK.

Indeed. No one in the UK believes the system is perfect but it is a good system that treats everyone equally. There are no different pricing bands based on what insurance you use and no one in the UK is bankrupt because they are unable to pay for primary care services and treatments. No one in the UK wants it to be disbanded not even UKIP

No one is fooled into thinking it's free either, what a silly argument. We all know it's paid for by tax payers. What a surprise.

It is free at the point of use and that's the really crucial difference, crucial for the health and welfare of the citizens of the UK.

Why are you interested in this? Do you know anything about the background and history of racism in football in the UK? I somewhat doubt it.

That graphic has to be lies. If some guy in a US journal says the NHS is #######, it must be #######.