- Time
- Post link
Could someone tell me what is so funny about a female sports reporter talking about routes?
I had no idea what you were talking about until I looked it up.
And with that, I still have no idea how to answer your question.
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 474
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
- Time
- Post link
TV’s Frink said:
Just because dogs don’t have fingers it doesn’t mean that can’t do all sorts of things you wouldn’t expect.
- Time
- Post link
TV’s Frink said:
Just because dogs don’t have fingers it doesn’t mean that can’t do all sorts of things you wouldn’t expect.
- Time
- Post link
TV’s Frink said:
Just because dogs don’t have fingers it doesn’t mean that can’t do all sorts of things you wouldn’t expect.
- Time
- Post link
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/trump-rolls-back-obamacares-contraception-rule-243537
What a serious piece of shit this guy is. Jesus.
“No abortions! Also no birth control! Just… don’t have sex anyone! Unless you’re married or something, I don’t know!”
Great strategy, Napoleon.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Napoleon.
- Time
- Post link
Stinky is the anti-mirror Bronner.
I think.
- Time
- Post link
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/trump-rolls-back-obamacares-contraception-rule-243537
What a serious piece of shit this guy is. Jesus.
“No abortions! Also no birth control! Just… don’t have sex anyone! Unless you’re married or something, I don’t know!”
Great strategy, Napoleon.
Then there’s this one.
What did he protect? The right for religious people to discriminate against people they don’t like. Yay!
- Time
- Post link
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/trump-rolls-back-obamacares-contraception-rule-243537
What a serious piece of shit this guy is. Jesus.
“No abortions! Also no birth control! Just… don’t have sex anyone! Unless you’re married or something, I don’t know!”
Great strategy, Napoleon.
Then there’s this one.
What did he protect? The right for religious people to discriminate against people they don’t like. Yay!
More like: The right for anyone to discriminate against anyone else using religion as a pretext. But with the Sessions DOJ as the arbiter of what’s a “legitimate religious belief” and what’s not.
Which means that people will only be able to discriminate against certain other people using certain religious justifications. All the other cases will receive the same legal scrutiny as before.
So firing gay people because Old Testament overrides Jesus is now okay. Firing Klansmen because they wear sheets made of two different types of fabric is probably not going to make the cut.
- Time
- Post link
A former(?) forum-member proudly claimed in this very thread that he shed a tear of joy at his little daughter’s gun use and collection of weapons. Some of us were horrified no doubt but I think it’d be fair to say ALL of us would be horrified if he’d proudly declared that his young kid was already a full-blown alcoholic after he’d started her on Absinthe at an early age (we’d probably hope he was arrested). Why is a relatively (I want to emphasise that word) harmless thing like alcohol treated as worse in the eyes of the law than weapons designed specifically for the mass slaughter of human beings?
I think the forum member you refer to is Ferris. He is still a forum member here(he hasn’t been banned or anything), he has hasn’t posted for a while. Yes, his daughter is allowed to use guns. But to be fair, I think he made clear that she was only allowed to use guns while he was there(or perhaps the mother or other responsible adult) using reasonable gun safety, which I think he takes seriously. I think he made clear the girl was not allowed unsupervised access to guns.
- Time
- Post link
The missing word in that link text is “racist.”
why am I not surprised?
- Time
- Post link
The missing word in that link text is “racist.”
A lot of words could have gone in there.
- Time
- Post link
Adding this to the pile-on:
http://mashable.com/2017/10/06/fema-website-puerto-rico-data-removed/
The Trump administration continues to follow the playbook it has used since moving into the White House — delete or otherwise block easy access to unflattering information on government websites. This strategy is evident at the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where climate change pages have disappeared, and many other agencies.
And now, the same thing is happening with Puerto Rico hurricane response efforts.
Until sometime between Oct. 3 and Oct. 5, one could find information on how many Puerto Ricans were without power and without access to clean water via FEMA’s website.
But those statistics are no longer readily available, perhaps because it goes against the administration’s narrative that the situation on the ground in Puerto Rico is improving.
According to a report in the Washington Post and an analysis by the watchdog group, Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI), FEMA has removed statistics from its Hurricane Maria webpage that pertain to access to electricity and drinking water. In addition, EDGI wrote that “additional statistics, descriptive bullet points, and images were also updated.”
According to the EDGI report, one subsection of FEMA data, titled “Power Restoration and Fuel Impacts,” was completely removed, while other bullet points on water access and a logistics snapshot for the storm were taken out as well.
Another section, which stated that 50 percent of Puerto Rico residents have access to drinking water, was removed as well.
The power and water statistics are now available on a website maintained by Puerto Rico’s governor, Ricardo Rosselló, but that site is in Spanish.
The disaster response agency told the Washington Post that the information is still available, just not its website.
"Our mission is to support the governor and his response priorities through the unified command structure to help Puerto Ricans recover and return to routines. Information on the stats you are specifically looking for are readily available,” a FEMA spokesman told the Post.
- Time
- Post link
Not sure how I feel about this.
Today at the White House - Trump’s Access Hollywood video on loop all day, one year after the release. #WeGrabBack
- Time
- Post link
We all must remember Billy Bush Weekend. #NeverForget
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Apparently for some butthurt wannabe Nazis, it’s not cool to kill Nazis in video games anymore:
“Make America Nazi-Free Again. #NoMoreNazis #Wolf2,” reads a tweet from the video game’s account, alongside a trailer for the upcoming release.
The video is brief, just 13 seconds long, but shows heavily armored, mask-wearing, jackbooted soldiers marching through the streets under Nazi flags. “Not my America,” reads the text over the top of the images.
A certain subgroup of folks got angry online with the game-maker, Bethesda Softworks, for producing a product that thinks Nazis are bad. Many claimed they weren’t angry about the anti-Nazi stance per se, but rather that the game was tapping into liberal anger. Certainly it is political to co-opt President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, but Bethesda Softworks is hardly the first one to play with the line made famous by the billionaire Republican.
But in the wake of the deadly Charlottesville, Virginia, rally, where Nazis marched and chanted anti-Semitic slogans under the banner of “Uniting the Right,” Nazism is now apparently a right vs. left debate.
Pete Hines’ (Bethesda Marketing Director) response:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/amp/2017-10-06-bethesda-were-not-afraid-of-being-openly-anti-nazi
The fuck kinda backasswards world are we living in these days…
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
- Time
- Post link
Like those guys were going to play a Castle Wolfenstein game in the first place.
Can’t wait for the butthurt if this 80’s gem gets remade. 😉
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
Stinky is the anti-mirror Bronner.
I think.
“You have thought … wisely.”
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I don’t think I’ve ever argued against a federal minimum age requirement of 18 or so to purchase firearms (I’d also like to see other minimum ages baselined there as well)
^ Discussing solutions. Which is what I was saying that article was not doing.
I feel like teaching a child responsibility around guns and then allowing that child to own guns doesn’t really equate to the incredibly destructive disease of alcoholism.
You made the comparison. The point I was making with my continuation of your comparison was simply that many things like alcohol and driving are treated waaaay more seriously in law, than guns are. Basic common sense would suggest that something designed solely to kill the maximum amount of people, in the shortest possible time should be regulated far more rigorously than those other examples (and not to a lesser or comparable extent).
Honest question: do you think I have a disease because I learned about guns and gun safety and responsibility as a child?
Obviously not. Again, you started the comparison with alcohol. However, on that line of thought… if it was my child (and I had to choose) I’d rather hand them a bottle of Gin, than hand them a Gun.
I’m glad you were given gun training as a child, I’m sure it reduced your chance of shooting yourself, or a member of your family by accident. I’d prefer to remove that possibility full stop. I can’t even fathom why anybody would want to give a gun to a child but that’s me.
Boy, the job is sure starting to age Trump!
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
- Time
- Post link
Hey, remember a few years back when the Democrats unleashed the IRS on the Tea Party? Turns out perhaps not so much.
- Time
- Post link
Buzzfeed uncovered emails detailing how Milo Yiannopoulos worked with prominent white nationalists (nazis) to shape Breitbart’s coverage of politics.
As someone of Jewish ancestry, I of course condemn racism in the strongest possible terms.
Ok sure.
- Time
- Post link
Hey, remember a few years back when the Democrats unleashed the IRS on the Tea Party? Turns out perhaps not so much.
Well, it was a scandal, but of a different sort. A change in policy (more overtly political organizations can get favorable IRS classification than before) causes a flood of new organizations jockeying to get that status. The IRS could choose to either review every case on its merits like they used to, which would slow everything down considerably with all the extra cases, or they could try to flag some organizations as needing review, and fast-track the rest. Flagging liberal and conservative keywords was truly a dumb way of going about things, but I can kinda see how someone could make that choice when there might be an even worse consequence for “no, we can’t make that deadline anymore”.
Where’s the scandal? The policy change triggering this flood of applications, that’s where.
Also, not only was the extra review applied evenly to left- and right-leaning organizations, but outright rejections were tilted against the liberal ones. Yeah, some scandal there.
- Time
- Post link
I normally hate this argument, but in this case it works. Cars are extremely deadly, yet people deemed fit (low standards here) to operate them have a right to them.
Few things… First, cars are not weapons. Second, cars are heavily regulated. Third, I’d gladly not have a car if I didn’t need one.
Cars are heavily regulated, but pretty much anyone can drive them, no matter how incompetent. Why not just heavily regulate guns? Is necessity what determines whether a dangerous thing should be banned? Should people in cities with effective public transportation have to face a committee to deem whether or not they need a car enough to be legally allowed to own one?
The Person in Question
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Cars are heavily regulated, but pretty much anyone can drive them, no matter how incompetent.
You don’t have driving tests to determine competency? You don’t have driving licenses that the courts can revoke due to mental incompetence, physical disability, or dangerous behaviour?
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Cars are heavily regulated, but pretty much anyone can drive them, no matter how incompetent.
You don’t have driving tests to determine competency? You don’t have driving licenses that the courts can revoke due to mental incompetence, physical disability, or dangerous behaviour?
We have all of those things. It’s just that the driving tests people take are often said to be too easy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_licenses_in_the_United_States