If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Really? wrote:Dicky Semen is still doing the dance around how the "university press" published his "peer-reviewed" book.

[tw.eet][/tweet]

[tweet.][/tweet]

[tweet.][/tweet]

Should Carrier really be playing this card?

[t.weet][/tweet]

It looks like the formal warning from his micro-publisher resonated - no "Uni Press". Last thing they would want is a maverick author laying a turd

Wild Zontargs wrote:If you're stuck in argument-via-comic mode, this one is a good response.

[Fuck-off huge image not included here, you wouldn't be able to read it without going to the link anyway]

I really, really hate how people go straight to "it ain't censorship unless Uncle Sam does it, and there's no concept of free speech or expression outside of the First Amendment to the US Constitution".

They mention Net Neutrality as well. That's good.

It bothers me as well because it's a typical Right-Libertarian stance being espoused by people for whom libertarian is a dirty word, yet they're too stupid to see that they've fallen into the "it's only bad if da gubmint does it" trap.

Bhurzum wrote:Ever wonder where "Aids Skrillex" and his "comrades" get their ideas from?

Wonder no more...

[youtube][/youtube]

Infamy beckons.

Triggelyprof. :lol:

Billie from Ockham wrote:

Bhurzum wrote:Ever wonder where "Aids Skrillex" and his "comrades" get their ideas from?

Wonder no more...

[youtube][/youtube]

Infamy beckons.

I don't know her real name (yet) and I'm two pages behind, so probably :nin: 'd, but I absolutely adore the nickname TriggelyProf.

:nin: fuck off.

It's 37 degrees. I'm sick of this weather.

Brive1987 wrote:It's 37 degrees. I'm sick of this weather.

Me too. Can't wait for Spring.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:

Trump clearly does need an enablement act to provide a recourse against illegitimate opposition to his law making agenda.

It's almost as though he doesn't quite understand how the government works or something.

Yeah like that bully FDR who wanted to appoint more justices to ram through his agenda...what fools.

Brive1987 wrote:It's 37 degrees. I'm sick of this weather.

Went outside to put out the recycling. Came back in very quickly. It's oppressive out there.

Brive1987 wrote:It's 37 degrees. I'm sick of this weather.

I'll trade you. Usually it starts to get a bit springlike around now and instead it's near 0 and we got almost 6 inches of snow which is the most we have had in 5 years or so and a record for this date for snow on the ground.
On top of that, I only have summer tires. The road is plowed and bare in front of my house, but because of a petty dispute between the town and the regional district about a 1/4 mile of the road between here and the grocery and beer store is a mess. The snow plows got to the boundary, lifted the blades, drove to the next boundary, dropped the blade and went back to plowing the next 5 miles. It would have been just as fast to keep the blade down and plow the whole section. :twisted:

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:It's 37 degrees. I'm sick of this weather.

I'll trade you. Usually it starts to get a bit springlike around now and instead it's near 0 and we got almost 6 inches of snow which is the most we have had in 5 years or so and a record for this date for snow on the ground.
On top of that, I only have summer tires. The road is plowed and bare in front of my house, but because of a petty dispute between the town and the regional district about a 1/4 mile of the road between here and the grocery and beer store is a mess. The snow plows got to the boundary, lifted the blades, drove to the next boundary, dropped the blade and went back to plowing the next 5 miles. It would have been just as fast to keep the blade down and plow the whole section. :twisted:

Petty and pissy local politics, good to see it's alive and well in more places than New Jersey.

Last time I saw snow I was a kid - 1978. In the U.K. I seem to recall it was cold and slushy. I'd love some snow.

Our dog is doing the right thing - asleep with his paws in his water bowl.

Should have had your kid bring some back from Berlin

I'm going to the gym. It has air-conditioning.

Brive1987 wrote:Last time I saw snow I was a kid - 1978. In the U.K. I seem to recall it was cold and slushy. I'd love some snow.

Our dog is doing the right thing - asleep with his paws in his water bowl.

Usually, we have rain at sea level here in the winter and the mountains get a lot of snow, up to 20 feet in a season.
https://www.mountwashington.ca/weather/ ... eport.html

We have had Straline tourists here from time to time.

So I just watched the The Red Pill documentary and have literally no other avenue to discuss so sharing my thoughts here:

Firstly I thought the film maker did a good job and showed the human impact of these issues. In my view she went into the project with a critical or even dismissive opinion about the people behind the MRA movement and this made the film pretty balanced by virtue of basic resistance to the ideas being presented by the interviewees.

I think it would be fair to say that this dismissive stance is probably the cultural norm. I think it would have been very easy for Cassie Jaye to have simply made a film attacking these people, and it would probably make for a much bigger commercial success. That kind of true journalistic impulse is to be lauded, especially given the current fake-news mores of the press.

It seemed fairly evident that prominent feminists were loath to be interviewed for this project, and with good reason. The few that do appear are simply given enough rope and come of pretty callous, which resonates with the personal narrative being told regarding Jaye's attempts to hold onto her feminist values in the face of what she is learning. She does a lot of work verifying all the factual and statistical points, much more than you'd get in a standard documentary about some cause.

There is a lot I don't find personally appealing about some of the men involved with this: both Paul Elam and Dean Esme usually seem deeply christian-conservative when you read their writing. Esme especially comes off very awkwardly in this; Elam acquits himself a lot better and seems more likeable.

Ultimately this film humanises these people and humanises the movement they are working on, I can see why it is being so vehemently opposed by feminist organisations. This could well change some minds or at least find a path to common ground for discussing what are very real problems. Real no matter what you think has caused them.

The circumcision stuff was very brief but I found it an exceptionally difficult scene to watch.

Brive1987 wrote:It's 37 degrees. I'm sick of this weather.

Jesus. Winter is cold, summer is hot, up is down, today is tomorrow.

You people are just weird.

* Crap, fucked up another joke. "winter is hot, summer is cold"

Brive1987 wrote:Last time I saw snow I was a kid - 1978. In the U.K. I seem to recall it was cold and slushy. I'd love some snow.

Our dog is doing the right thing - asleep with his paws in his water bowl.

Fuck right off. It's bastard freezing here, horizontal sleet/rain that shrivels the scrote and prompts the missus to send me out with the hounds even though it's her sodding turn!

https://ridingstorms.files.wordpress.co ... pg?w%3D640

Bloody warm-weather privilege, check it.

Bhurzum wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:Last time I saw snow I was a kid - 1978. In the U.K. I seem to recall it was cold and slushy. I'd love some snow.

Our dog is doing the right thing - asleep with his paws in his water bowl.

Fuck right off. It's bastard freezing here, horizontal sleet/rain that shrivels the scrote and prompts the missus to send me out with the hounds even though it's her sodding turn!

https://ridingstorms.files.wordpress.co ... pg?w%3D640

Bloody warm-weather privilege, check it.

That sounds brutal. No wonder you people eat oatmeal porridge. :(

You are doing what with the hounds?

39 degrees now at 4.00pm with the in-laws due for "tea". This is killing me.

An interesting comment over at Jerry's. Pure speculation but:

Trump has taken an emergency appeal of Judge Robart’s temporary stay. When the Ninth Circuit denies that emergency request (which it is likely to to do, given the applicable legal standards), will Trump start tweeting insults about “this so-called appellate court”?

How about when Trump’s next round of emergency requests falls on the desk of Anthony Kennedy, sitting as the “circuit Justice” for the Ninth Circuit. I hope when Justice Kennedy turns Trump down, the Donald starts tweeting insults at him. Kennedy is the swing vote on the Court; Trump could push him a bit further to the left.

free thoughtpolice wrote:You are doing what with the hounds?

I'm using them to flush out pensioners; their walking sticks, zimmer frames and plastic hips make excellent winter fuel.

Improvise.
Adapt.
Overcome.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 2a6c94.jpg

"Low-flying angel at six o'clock! Go in low, aim for the surgical stockings!"

The poor we things.

It can't be healthy for them to chew on ancient Scots.

free thoughtpolice wrote:

That sounds brutal. No wonder you people eat oatmeal porridge. :(

Is there any other kind of porridge?

Jack Wooster wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:

That sounds brutal. No wonder you people eat oatmeal porridge. :(

Is there any other kind of porridge?

Pease porridge. Hot, cold, in the pot...

Sunder wrote:An interesting comment over at Jerry's. Pure speculation but:

Trump has taken an emergency appeal of Judge Robart’s temporary stay. When the Ninth Circuit denies that emergency request (which it is likely to to do, given the applicable legal standards), will Trump start tweeting insults about “this so-called appellate court”?

How about when Trump’s next round of emergency requests falls on the desk of Anthony Kennedy, sitting as the “circuit Justice” for the Ninth Circuit. I hope when Justice Kennedy turns Trump down, the Donald starts tweeting insults at him. Kennedy is the swing vote on the Court; Trump could push him a bit further to the left.

When I suggested Trump could have trolled the press & hysterical trump-haters... by meeting with Sarah Palin the day his SCOTUS pick was announced... you seemed unconvinced anyone would take the bait. But this speculation seems no more grounded in reality, than my flight of fancy. Why does this one pique your interest?

(and, for what it's worth, Washington Post now claims Trump convinced another potential nominee to drive toward D.C.,, the day of the SCOTUS announcement, to give the impression that-guy might be picked. A stunt.)

Service Dog wrote:(and, for what it's worth, Washington Post now claims Trump convinced another potential nominee to drive toward D.C.,, the day of the SCOTUS announcement, to give the impression that-guy might be picked. A stunt.)

To get a confirmation on his proposed judge, it would make sense to make the Democrats think that a far "scarier" candidate might be on the list.

Congress & Presidents have been playing the SCOTUS nominee chicken game for a long fucking time.

Throttling theory - how to silence people on twitterz, theory.

Service Dog wrote: PERPETUAL tyranny = 3 years. Feminists, then & now, like to pretend men had voting rights going-back to time-immemorial. Nope.

Declaration of Rights of Man: 1789
Declaration of Rights of Woman: 1791

I don't think that the "perpetual tyranny" that the article referred to was about voting rights. It was about marriage rights, property rights inheritance rights, guild rights, and in general the so-called "natural" rights (individual autonomy, which isn't actually more "natural" than tribalism, but was referred to as "natural right" in early Enlightenment.

The subordination of women to their husbands was a thing. This isn't to say that peasants and bourgeois weren't subordinated to priests and nobles. They were, but their wives were also subordinated to them: they couldn't manage their money independently, couldn't get an equal ruling in marriage disputew, were passed on in inheritance (the first male child was considered the only heir, women could inherit only if they had no male siblings), couldn't join guilds, etc.

Let me put this way: women and men had ... unequal rights before the law

MOST men had equal rights to women: "the vote was granted to approximately 4.3 million Frenchmen.[24] out of a population of around 29 million.[25]" Few men were deemed "Active Citizens". Most men were deemed "Passive Citizens" alongside women. In some ways, men had it worse than women-- such as it being legal to kidnap & press-gang men into dangerous servitude on sea ships.

If feminism fights for men, too, the majority of men shouldn't have been vilified by De Gouge as oppressors. She should have campaigned on their-behalf, too. She should have included those men in her Declaration. Except she clearly speaks of all men as a united conspiracy against women. That's patriarchy theory.

Which is exactly what Karen Straughan said in the video. IF feminism meant equality-for-all, she would probably be a feminist. But it has always included this fatal patriarchy theory brainfart.

As I've written this wasn't just about voting rights. The Declaration of Rights was about equality before the law in general, not just about voting rights.

No. Islam-controlled nations do NOT need to replicate feminism's wrong-turns & dead-ends. You said this: "there's also a fetishization of the US constitution, which was a great step forward, especially for its times, but not the last and final word on the development of liberal democracy." But you insist on fetishizing an imaginary good-old-days of Feminism, and this defective woman Declaration document.

It's possible that what you're saying is true, just as it's possible that this is semantic argument about what "feminism" means. But I'm not saying that this declaration document is the necessary blueprint for equal rights in islam, just the inequalities in islam exist.

For example in Qu'ran-inspired women need literally twice as many witnesses on court on their side than men. That's a blatant inequality, and one of the (many) reasons why the Qu'ran is a terrible source for laws. No matter how you call this inequality being fixed, fixing it is a good thing.

Karen & Allison Tieman didn't set-out to be Islam-apologists. They began by looking-back... to evolution & history... seeking an accurate understanding of males & females... to contrast against Feminism's distortions of the truth. I think they've done a great job. And one reason I don't fault them, if their theories remain imperfect... is an utter failure of critics to stipulate the parts the honeybadgers got right... & then debug any wrong-bits + build more atop that foundation. Aneris & you are doing it, too: dismissing them as mere mirror-images of Feminism's flaws/ categorically rejecting them, rather than parsing what they got right & wrong.

I'll look more into their arguments, but their videos are often wild speculations. I'm not holding this against them: that's a common problem with informal hangouts, it's easy to lose focus and ramble on about tangents, or to forget about what you said, or to brainstorm ideas without rhyme or reason. Nothing awful about it but it doesn't leave room for much coherent criticism. Formally planned speeches/debates or written arguments are much better to criticize.

When the conversation shifted from evolution & history to Islam-- the honeybadgers expressed skepticism about the "Islam elevates men and oppresses women" narrative. Essentially, they argued that they've seen a distortion of history so-many times before-- BadMen Oppress DamselWomen Patriarchy Theory-- that it seems highly likely that the same broken analysis is being applied to today's islam: a superficial appearance of Male Power and Female Oppression actually conceals a more mixed-bag of benefits & harms for both groups.

This isn't about benefits and harms, it's about equality before the law to make laws coherent and rational. Incoherent, irrational laws may be used by all sorts of people to benefit themselves. In the example of the driving ban on women in Saudi Arabia it's certainly possible that a middle-class lazy, entitled woman might use the ban as an excuse to have a personal chauffeur, but she's just as likely to try and pull the same stunts without a formal ban by guilt-tripping her male relatives through social shame.

The problem with the law is that it stops the women who might need to (because they're widowers or have a sick husband and/or live alone) or want to drive from doing so, not that it allows lazy women to be carried around. The problem with prohibitions is what they prohibit, not what they enable. Take, for example, laws that ban marijuana possession. The problem with those laws is that they punish people for a private act that hurts no one but the marijuana consumer, not that they enable people to dislike marijuana to say "see? it's illegal!" and look smugly superior. That's unpleasant but not a violation of other people's rights.

And many people pointing fingers of accusation at islam have unwholesome agendas.

People who have unwholesome agendas carried through by pointing fingers at islam are more likely to use concerns about terrorism and WMDs than concerns about women's rights. People who unwholesome agenda and mask them as concerns about women's rights exist, but they very rarely, if ever, point fingers at islam, they're far more likely to cheer on a transparent Saudi shill who leads their "women's march".

Islam needs to be thoroughly criticized, including for its women's rights issues. The Honeybadgers seem to parrot the conservative imams' bullshit excuse that "islam respects and loves women" (leaving out the big IF: IF they do as we say and dress as we say and talk as we say and are little good baby factories for their muslim men, so that we'll have more soldiers for the fights that allah wants).

The Qu'ran has little to no redeeming values. It's a book written by a raider/mobster who wanted some kind of legal order in his gang instead of the free-for-all of previous arabic gangs of raiders, wanted his gang to win and get others to submit without roughing them up too much (to avoid riots) if they look like they or their children might be useful, and wanted all his followers to kiss his ass constantly and venerate him as a prophet. His morals are just little more advanced than Hammurabi's code, which was already a couple of tens of centuries old when he started his raiding campaigns.

He stole a lot for Judaism and even Christianity to make himself look the ultimate prophet, something which he probably believed or started to believe after he won. He treated women of people on his side as useful baby factories and megaphones, to produce new warriors and keep the other warriors motivated and on target, while women of people on the other side were all cattle. He treated men as either potential converts for his cause or enemies to be forced to submit to his rule or be killed.

His ideas, if taken as literal commands instead of poetic language, are indefensible and need no defense, there are already far too many fans of his side who will lie, mislead or distort what's written in the Qu'ran to look appealing to the kaffirs (if it's useful) while they know fully well what the Qu'ran really entails.

Muslims need to abandon literalism. They just need to, because if taken as truth the Qu'ran is just as bad as the Mein Kampf. Not that the bible is much better, mind, but the difference is that most christians don't take it literally, they cherrypick, they interpret, they admit that some of things written are metaphors or "how god spoke at those times to be understood", even the fundamentalists (yes, even them, no matter how they say otherwise).

If a modern, American christian fundie like Ken Ham hears a man who claims that god told him to sacrifice his son they don't say "my god, this is just like when god said to Abraham that he needed to sacrifice Isaac! Maybe god is putting him to the test and he will stop him, let's see what happens!", they probably call the police (at least most of them, hopefully). On the other hand many "peaceful" muslim conservatives who hear men who say "we need to exterminate or enslave all the kaffirs, they've declared a war on islam, there's no other way" they think "better not let the police hear about them, this isn't the right time to say those things since the final war hasn't come yet but this poor fellow doesn't need to be punished for being a bit premature" not "oh my god this a dangerous nutter, the authorities should know".

And that's because the American christian fundies interpret Isaac's story as a "deeply meaningful" moral warning about "trusting god", not as a literal imperative to trust the voices in your head that tell you to kill your son, while the muslim conservatives actually think that in the end the kaffirs will be converted, killed or enslaved, and maybe this simply isn't the right time, but eventually it's going to happen, it's right there in the Qu'ran!

They need no defense. They need to be criticized more and more, to be shown that taking the Qu'ran literally in every aspect leads to violence and wars and if they don't want violence and wars they need to turn the literal prophecies into moral warnings about the eventual triumph of good over evil in the non-natural, non-temporal, metaphysical "end of times" (like some people in islam have already done). This is how they'll see nutters as nutters, turns on them and isolate them.

Saying "well islam isn't as bad as it looks: it actually values women if they're modest and having babies, and says that men should put those women on a pedestal!" isn't really helping.

I think the most-dubious assertions the honeybadgers have made were loose speculation-- thinking-out-loud livechat conversations, which they made public. As opposed to the more-grounded things they publish in formal essays & video essays. It's a bad idea to point to those exercises & declare 'gotcha!' It's counterproductive to the marketplace of ideas yielding the best ideas & sorting-out bad ideas.

I'm happy not to focus on the speculations and thinking out-loud in livechats. Is there an article of their which you find well-written and illuminating?

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:

Jack Wooster wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:

That sounds brutal. No wonder you people eat oatmeal porridge. :(

Is there any other kind of porridge?

Pease porridge. Hot, cold, in the pot...

Good point!

Donald Trump, admitting that the US have "a lot of killers" and that questioning the "innocence" of the US in international politics. We live interesting times when an ostensibly Republican president almost sounds like Noam Chomsky:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C329aHCVcAE7b0j.jpg

If you told me that this would have happened two years ago I'd have never believed it.

I think that Trump might be the first US president who doesn't claim to believe in "American exceptionalism".

Fuck me.

http://i.imgur.com/k3fK9v0.jpg

Inside thoughts Becky.

Brive1987 wrote:Fuck me.

http://i.imgur.com/k3fK9v0.jpg

Inside thoughts Becky.

I doubt many people actually stop Rebecca Watson because she's famous.

Kirbmarc wrote:I doubt many people actually stop Rebecca Watson because she's famous.

At Skepchick conventions she probably got more attention that normal because people actually knew who she was. The party girl doling out the booze.

deLurch wrote:

Kirbmarc wrote:I doubt many people actually stop Rebecca Watson because she's famous.

At Skepchick conventions she probably got more attention that normal because people actually knew who she was. The party girl doling out the booze.

I now get why Watson was upset that Elevator Guy offered her coffee: it means that he didn't know her at all. If he did he would have offered her a drink.

"Guys, don't do that. I hate coffee. Whiskey, on the other hand..."

Kirbmarc wrote:I doubt many people actually stop Rebecca Watson because she's famous.

I'll bet it happens often enough.

Of course, we won't hear about it.

http://imgur.com/6Nioumd.jpg

Bhurzum wrote:

dogen wrote:Can someone remind me of the F4 mod which allows one to not be Sean's parent.

I just done a quick search on the Nexus and drew a blank. However, I do remember a YT content provider talking about a mod which removes the parent/Shaun link. The two YT content providers I watch (listen to in the background) are:

1) Oxhorn (think it was this guy, he does lots of lore and mod reviews)
2) Norespawns (mainly does settlement builds etc but it might have been him)

I'd look myself but there are tons of videos and I'm about to pop out to dinner. If you have no luck, I'll have a sniff around when I get back.

http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/?

It's Start Me Up: http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/18946/?

Sunder wrote:An interesting comment over at Jerry's. Pure speculation but:

Trump has taken an emergency appeal of Judge Robart’s temporary stay. When the Ninth Circuit denies that emergency request (which it is likely to to do, given the applicable legal standards), will Trump start tweeting insults about “this so-called appellate court”?

How about when Trump’s next round of emergency requests falls on the desk of Anthony Kennedy, sitting as the “circuit Justice” for the Ninth Circuit. I hope when Justice Kennedy turns Trump down, the Donald starts tweeting insults at him. Kennedy is the swing vote on the Court; Trump could push him a bit further to the left.

Kennedy is socially liberal, but in every case involving a corporation vs an individual or group of individuals, he has decided in favor of the corporation every single time.

Jack Wooster wrote:

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:

Jack Wooster wrote:
Is there any other kind of porridge?

Pease porridge. Hot, cold, in the pot...

Good point!

I've only ever heard the rhyme use 'pease pudding'. Easy to make and delightful hot or cold as advertised.
And more - mealie porridge in Kenya is made from maize (aka corn mush in the US), wheaten porridge branded as Cream of Wheat, and that amazing slush sold here as Red River Cereal, which is a mix of wheat, rye and flax.
Then we might get into the porridge byproducts of yesteryear, such as flummery or frumenty which only survive these days as fruit porridge.

Craziest porridge I ever made had oatmeal in the bottom of the bowl, a layer of custard on top, then a layer of sliced banana then caramelised brown sugar on top of that. A cross between a porridge and a creme caramel. And for you poor buggers wilting in the heat, that's the kind of thing you have to eat to go out in the morning when it's -20ºC; hot and calorific. Then you shovel snow for a few hours and come back in for your hot pease pudding.

http://www.britishshopabroad.com/produc ... 4_zoom.jpg

Heathens.

Hunt wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:It's 37 degrees. I'm sick of this weather.

Jesus. Winter is cold, summer is hot, up is down, today is tomorrow.

You people are just weird.

Not to mention that the water in their toilets swirls backwards. Or so I've heard.

Service Dog wrote:When I suggested Trump could have trolled the press & hysterical trump-haters... by meeting with Sarah Palin the day his SCOTUS pick was announced... you seemed unconvinced anyone would take the bait. But this speculation seems no more grounded in reality, than my flight of fancy. Why does this one pique your interest?

Actually the bits about the appellate court upholding Robart's decision and Trump taking to the twitter pulpit to bitch about it some more seem very plausible to me. It's only the bit about his actions nudging Kennedy leftward that strike me as a flight of fancy.

Samuel Johnson wrote:Oats: 'a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people.'

THIS is a breakfast cereal:
http://images.tuckdb.org/postcards/imag ... 15_000.jpg

The dumbest attack on Judge Robart:
Trump made a big public show of talking down the importance of daily briefings and insisting he'd get them weekly or just whenever he felt like it. He's actively antagonizing his own intelligence community.

Tits are saying it's on Robart if there's an attack now. What, even from the countries that weren't included in the ban and that have actually attacked us in the past? No, it's not gonna be on Robart's head if a Saudi or Egyptian nutball kills anyone because Trump's retarded ban wouldn't have prevented that anyway.

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:It's 37 degrees. I'm sick of this weather.

I'll trade you. Usually it starts to get a bit springlike around now and instead it's near 0 and we got almost 6 inches of snow which is the most we have had in 5 years or so and a record for this date for snow on the ground.
On top of that, I only have summer tires. The road is plowed and bare in front of my house, but because of a petty dispute between the town and the regional district about a 1/4 mile of the road between here and the grocery and beer store is a mess. The snow plows got to the boundary, lifted the blades, drove to the next boundary, dropped the blade and went back to plowing the next 5 miles. It would have been just as fast to keep the blade down and plow the whole section. :twisted:

House for sale! Thank god i don't live in Baie-Comeau anymore. This pictured was taken this year, they're also having a record year.

https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5947861C

Sunder wrote:

Service Dog wrote:When I suggested Trump could have trolled the press & hysterical trump-haters... by meeting with Sarah Palin the day his SCOTUS pick was announced... you seemed unconvinced anyone would take the bait. But this speculation seems no more grounded in reality, than my flight of fancy. Why does this one pique your interest?

Actually the bits about the appellate court upholding Robart's decision and Trump taking to the twitter pulpit to bitch about it some more seem very plausible to me. It's only the bit about his actions nudging Kennedy leftward that strike me as a flight of fancy.

Agreed.

Sunder wrote: ....
Tits are saying it's on Robart if there's an attack now. What, even from the countries that weren't included in the ban and that have actually attacked us in the past? No, it's not gonna be on Robart's head if a Saudi or Egyptian nutball kills anyone because Trump's retarded ban wouldn't have prevented that anyway.

My low opinion of Trump is constantly foiled by statements like-this. Trump has an uncanny ability to position himself in spots where taking potshots at him would make me sound like-this. I dont wanna sound so daffy. Yet Trump's opponents go all-in on these groaner facepalm objections, loud & proud.

So maybe Im wrong... if the crappy level of discourse can push me rightward... maybe it can push Justice Kennedy leftward.

That's assuming Kennedy wouldnt agree with me... that the left is disproving their fitness to lead/ far-more than Trump is disproving Scalia's principles.

Close contender for second dumbest thing said about Robart is that he's "legislating from the bench, " when what was struck down was an executive order, not a piece of legislation.

Lsuoma wrote:

Samuel Johnson wrote:Oats: 'a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people.'

THIS is a breakfast cereal:
http://images.tuckdb.org/postcards/imag ... 15_000.jpg

http://imgur.com/HYx1JsR.jpg

Agreed. People are under-estimating the integrity of Anthony Kennedy.

I will remind you since it sems to keep slipping your mind that I voted for Trump precisely because of the Dems' failings. So if you think my criticism of him is an indictment of "the left," you're frankly already daffy enough.

Sunder wrote:Close contender for second dumbest thing said about Robart is that he's "legislating from the bench, " when what was struck down was an executive order, not a piece of legislation.

"are executive orders legislation" first google hit:

"Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power.""

second google hit:

"Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)."

pro-boxing-fan wrote:[
House for sale! Thank god i don't live in Baie-Comeau anymore. This pictured was taken this year, they're also having a record year.

https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5947861C

Hey there, Brian! How's Mila these days?

Explanation, for the Canadiana-challenged.

Service Dog wrote:

Sunder wrote:Close contender for second dumbest thing said about Robart is that he's "legislating from the bench, " when what was struck down was an executive order, not a piece of legislation.

"are executive orders legislation" first google hit:

"Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power.""

second google hit:

"Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)."

A large proportion of people, including those who comment about this issue, will not be able to detect the critical difference between those two answers . . . the difference that makes one correct and the other nonsense.

Ape+lust wrote:http://imgur.com/HYx1JsR.jpg

My nut shake brings all the poly-girls to the yard,
And they're like,
Its saltier than yours,
Damn right its saltier than yours,
I can date you,
But I have to charge
I know you want it,
The thing that makes me,
What the poly-girls go crazy for.
They lose their minds,
The way I spray,
I think its time
La la-la la la,
Warm it up.
Lala-lalala,
The poly-girls are drenched!

"Salty milkshake" - Dr. Richard "DNA bazooka" Carrier, PhD. (© 2017 Peer Reviewed Records)