They tried to make me go to rehab and I said,
Yeah, good idea.
followed tags: 26
followed domains: 3
badges given: 23 of 24
member for: 1125 days
I missed the word modern in your comment.
Maybe not in this example but "Hey, that guy's just like me," factors in frequently. Like Bush II was seen as very "down to earth." You know, the sorta filthy rich idiot who'd be fun to drink beer and watch football with.
I'm proud of what he's done and I think he's an awesome dude. But he's not an upper echelon quarterback. BUT the Dolphins signed Smokin Jay Cutler out of retirement so Kaepernick is a whole lot better than some starters in the league now. And now I have to politely ignore a bunch of conversations about how much Kaepernick is a spoiled whiner who sucks.
I hate everyone.
Whether or not this is a good investment is sorta irrelevant. This is a priceless, once in a lifetime buy. I don't see anything questionable about it. Every old master employed students to help. Hell. There's a painting that's important because Leonard might have painted part of it as a student. It's like 500 years old. Damn right it will have been restored. The Last Supper might have more restoration work than original at this point and that thing is just going to go away at some point because he painted it stupid.
Honestly I can't even believe there are Leonardos in private collection at this point.
lil the book is in the mail.
If anyone else wants a book of poetry by a guy who doesn't like poetry. Some of them are incredibly acceptable. Most OK book ever!
They cost about two bucks to print. Plus postage. And a cup of coffee or something for me would be cool
As a person who seems to know what he's talking about on this subject, what do you think about nuclear power in general? The opinions I see are usually one extreme or the other. Either "It's safer than a pot belly stove," or "OMG! Armageddon!"
I don't go looking for unbiased sources. I understand the bias of my sources. One of yours is accused by his peers of falsifying data.
I don't get the impression that you want to actually have anything like a discussion about this topic because no one who disagrees with you can live up to your self imposed standards. There's no reason to disqualify someone's about guns because they don't know ad much about them as you do. It's this easy: guns kill people. The ultimate denial of freedom is to deny someone their life.
You claim you want a civil conversation about guns but what I've observed is that you want your opinion validated, you don't respect anyone who you feel isn't qualified to comment on the issue and you want to have the conversation on your own terms. Which includes changing the subject and saying we're not in a position to do anything so the status quo is acceptable until the conversation can be had on terms you accept, by people you respect and using research and data you agree with for whatever reason.
Like, what do you even want? I've never seen you pleased by any argument outside the National Review and some NRA funded think tank.
But my sources are biased? OK. Look at their sources. Academics in the field that guy works in say he's not an ethical researcher. They're biased in the reporting they choose but those aren't opinion pieces or poorly and deceptively performed polls. They're facts they're presenting. And they may skew in a direction but calling a spade a spade isn't really that biased.
Didn’t you say jutists are grappling with this issue because it's so complicated? It wasn't until the NRA made it complicated with some fucked up interpretation of the second amendment that never existed in the courts for over 200 years.
There you go. Several generations of judges had this shit figured out until Wayne Lapierre and Charlton Heston decided.... I don't even know what they want. They just really like guns or something.
- On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.
- Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
This was all an irrelevant argument until the interpretation of the amendment was reinterpreted by a lobbying group.
I think you need to reevaluate your motivations for what you believe. I get a strong sense of dishonesty from your arguments. They're dismissive. They're pedantic. They're maybe a little elitist. If you really feel that there needs to be reform maybe back down from some of the red lines you've drawn in this debate because I don't feel that they're serving any point except making conversation more difficult and you come across as an ideologue who won't admit to being one.
You like guns. That's it. People are fucking that up for you.
You gotta give up some freedoms sometimes when other people abuse them. It's called living in society
No. But I'm not citing a research paper. I'm stating a fact
I can support all sorts of positions with disreputable sources. You need to be skeptical of claims from any side whether they agree with you or not and the easiest way to do that is to question where the information is coming from