Exactly. I get the frustrations of the son and grandson of factory workers that finds it hard to imagine anything more than working at Walmart wanting to tear it all down. What I don’t understand is my neighbor in Dana Point.
Exactly. I get the frustrations of the son and grandson of factory workers that finds it hard to imagine anything more than working at Walmart wanting to tear it all down. What I don’t understand is my neighbor in Dana Point.
Yeah, insta-fail is just lazy design. Becoming undetected again is fun.
https://youtu.be/J6bv92W4YnE?feature=shared
Found it, enjoy!
And Mel Gibson. When they were lobbying to get rid of the regulations, the supplement industry did commercials that had Mel’s home getting raided by SWAT-looking guys for having supplements.
I don’t know what “very little” means to you, but I have friends that are married with children, unlikely to face violence motivated by bigotry (location dependant, YMMV), and have legal protections from discrimination in housing and employment.
When I was a kid they could get fired or evicted with no recource, and if they had the temerity to poke their head out of the closet someone could kick their ass with impunity unless they were seriously injured or killed, and sometimes even then.
But sure, “very little,” let’s go with that.
Right? The tone really took a turn there. There I was, having a sensible chuckle, and suddenly I was sad
I don’t know if they’re still around, but when I was a kid and ATMs were still kind of new there were drive thrus at banks where you interacted with a teller using a speaker and a pneumatic tube for sending/receiving.
My mom would let me operate the tube from the back seat, I thought it was cool as shit.
Occupied West Taiwan
Google images of “oasis band members.”
As I understand it, that’s some Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson shit.
Back in the 70s liberal/liberalism meant pretty much the same thing in the U.S. as elsewhere. Nixon even called his reelection something along the lines of “a victory for western liberal democracy.” Part of liberalism is a focus on rights of the individual, including civil rights. Civil rights and many other liberation movements of the era used the language of that aspect of liberalism.
Enter a bunch of religious assholes of the time. They loved all the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, right to private property, greed, etc. of individual rights but had a big problem with women wearing pants and expecting to be able to go to work without being sexually assaulted, gay people existing openly and breathing, and probably the civil rights movement too but it was going out of style to be open about that. They started using liberal/liberalism in a denigrating way to describe feminists, LGBT people, and any other group that got their puritanical knickers in a twist.
After a couple decades the terms were completely divorced from their original political theory definitions which would, I think, have Republicans considered more liberal than Democrats. But I suppose that could depend on which aspects of liberalism you give more weight to.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a Russian propaganda piece. Russians were arguably the all time champs of anti-semitism and pograms (the word is even Russian in origin) before the Nazis industrialized them. Of course the Nazis used it, but it didn’t originate with them.
I didn’t realize French territory is so widespread.
So if the U.K. ever complies with the UN and the ICJ and relinquishes control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, the sun will set on the British empire, but not on France.
That’ll be funny as fuck and I hope France never misses an opportunity to point it out.
I keep hearing about Niagara and everyone says the same thing, it’s different.
Could you describe how it’s different? Just the setup, or is it different when you’re using it?
Even in Maine and Nebraska, two of their electrical votes are statewide just some are allocated to CDs. A state’s electrical votes are determined by their total number of senators and representatives. The ones that correspond to the two senators are statewide.
So we’re both in agreement that driving too fast is irresponsible.
But you think diving an unlighted buggy at night is fine. And furthermore, if that unlighted buggy gets in an accident with a car, it’s definitely the driver of the car obeying all the laws at fault, never the fault of the buggy driving scofflaw.
Nope, doesn’t sound like dogmatic culty thinking to me at all.
BTW: the appeal to authority fallacy is no better than a straw man. Much like traffic laws, they’re all important.
Lol, nice straw man.
Hey, let me ask you a few questions.
What if the next law these fucking jerks decide they don’t want to follow is driving on the right? You come to one of the bends you go around and instead of a deer standing there, or a fallen tree, there are two horses pulling a carriage toward you making the combined speed too high to stop in time. Your hood takes out their legs and a couple thousand pounds of house torso blasts through your windshield killing you and your family.
Are you and your deceased family victims now? Or is the victim still somehow the asshole driving the carriage who miraculously always remains blameless just because they’re not driving a car?
What does fuck cars mean to you?
To me it means drastically reducing the share of infrastructure and space given to the operation and storage of cars by improving public transportation and cycling/pedestrian friendly infrastructure to reduce, or even eliminate, the need for personal motor vehicles larger than an E-Bike in most, or even all cases.
Based on your comments “fuck cars” is just a mantra. A mantra you’ve repeated often enough to inspire a religious-like conviction that the driver of a motor vehicle is always at fault when they come in conflict with any other road user, no matter how ridiculous it makes you sound.
I suppose you could try to pass laws against animals or fallen trees in the roadway. I don’t know how successful that might be. Fining a bear for being in the road also presents challenges.
Using a road in any way is never going to be completely safe. All we can do is make rules that reduce or eliminate known hazards.
We’re not taking about a deer being a deer. We’re talking about a group of stubborn dickheads who despite knowing damn well that they’re sharing the road with vehicles that have large speed differentials, refuse to make themselves visible for the benefit of everyone’s safety.
The victim is the person injured or killed by someone committing an illegal act. Not the person acting illegally.
They have a very good chance of seeing me while I’m cycling because I’m lighted. If I’m forced to walk on the road at night without a light I’ll stay out of the roadway when cars are coming. Doing otherwise would be stupid, just as stupid as driving an unlighted vehicle with a significant speed differential at night.
I don’t necessarily disagree. But someome using the road legally needs be able to assume others are too. If you can’t, what do you do? Walking, riding a bike, or driving do you stop at every green light to make sure no one is going to decide the red lights don’t apply to them? Do you idle down the road at 10mph whenever it’s dark or there is reduced visibility to make sure someone didn’t decide the laws don’t apply to them and drove an unlighted vehicle?
The most important thing about using a road safely, whether you’re walking, riding, or driving, is to be predictable. A large unlighted vehicle appearing out of the darkness is not predictable.
If you think the law should be changed and some other accommodation made, that’s a reasonable opinion. But until that happens, the person injured or killed by illegal activity is the victim, not the person acting illegally.
Shit, I don’t even think it has to be subtle. People emigrate all the time for a variety of reasons. And most of them are much less compelling than “I’m surrounded by people who might decide to murder my entire family any day.”
They have no responsibility to stick it out and take the risk just because other people, including myself, don’t want to see the settlers win.