zoogs

It's really interesting, isn't it, how buying into reverse discrimination tends to be such a broad spectrum thing.

Parks and Rec!!! Yes!!! <3 

I don't think The Office is horrible, though. Parks is just newer. It taps into our time a little bit better. It's not even that new anymore, I guess. It's hard to believe how long ago now The Office was.

There is something harmful I think about how we always (even the general public, and even liberals) look at left-leaning (or even not very left-leaning) outlets and think, gosh, it's too tilted and then look at explicitly conservative advocacy and think now this is balance. It's the impulse that is at the heart of the cluster that has been the NYT editorial page recently. Like, finally, there's going to be conservative voices with a megaphone? 

Update: I can NOT recommend Starbucks Iced Americano. Oh, man. 

Facile and dishonest representations of liberals and liberal arguments fired off with regularity.

But oh no, we're not fair enough to the "I want to be violent, but now is not the right time (later is the right time)" white nationalist. 

Guys, I'm just a reasonable conservative who detests Trump personally and he's a bozo, but he must be vigorously defended at every turn, be a little open-minded.
 

Ah, I see. I've never had Peet's so maybe I just don't know what you mean, but are you guys literally talking about spoons standing....I dunno. I feel like all the coffee I've ever had had approximately the consistency of water. 

I've become a big espresso drinker lately. Double shot (I think it's double?) and on the iced side, americano. I don't know if it tastes that different necessarily (I have really bad palette) but it's such an interesting drink. I like the way it looks.

lmao, you guys, it's of the utmost importance that we give avowed white nationalists context and nuance.

You guys, Ben Carson is good again.

What a bar.

I mean, it's entirely consistent. Obama-era policies tried to push back against letting at-risk young people, especially minorities, fall into the trap of being over-policed and made into criminals. Intentionally or not, the system destroys lives early and sets folks on a path to crime. We know what people, any people, can do if given opportunity (keep falling up, Harvard Fellow Sean Spicer!) and we know what happens when opportunity is removed early and arbitrarily. 

The Obama position, the really scary one to some folks, is that this happens too much to minorities, which is obviously true, and we can do something about it.

The UNL 23-year old is a white supremacist, right? These are not the people they're worried about. 

The only way I know how to brew my own is press. Kind of watery, though, right? I like it, though. I used to drink lattes but I've moved away from the milk. Being in a big city has been great for my (relatively basic) coffee education. There's always something different to explore, and I'm often too busy to make my own. 

He's just expressing himself and that right must be respected.

Also, I'm a persecuted conservative on Huskerboard because nobody likes my views. Liberal tyrants!

Freedom is making sure 23-year-old kids like that can buy and own guns, stay on campus, and then if/when they follow through on their rhetoric using the weapons they must be allowed access to, we condemn "both sides do nothing about mental health" and try to lock up more of the mentally ill.

Ric, you've found your kindred intellectual spirit!

I use intellectual in the neutral sense. One can exercise one's mind in any number of ways. This is the particular way these guys have chosen, and what can we say, it really does it for them.

It's not that he believes those things. It's that "Hitler was a liberal" is a real argument circulating through the conservative intellectual discourse. Way to go, guys. Neo-Nazis are all in for Trump but liberals are the real Nazis.

How do you like yours? How have your tastes changed over the years? Where do you get yours?

The people running the White House are ducking awful. God. It’s way, way beyond thinking hey just are wrongheaded about policy (which is also true).

They ply themselves every day in the art of finding people to hurt, and coming up with ways to hurt them. It’s so unnecessary. And then they go and do it. 

And the allegedly reasonable adults in the room, the Republicans in Congress and state legislatures and so on...what of them? They either love this, or don’t mind it, or aren’t bothered to try and stop it. a&#036;&#036;hole&#036; up and down the line.

Oh man, of course he’s a “Hitler loved animals and was vegetarian” type of dude. You’d think it’s a false flag meant to make conservatives look ridiculous, if not for the reality that these people are genuine in their convictions. If you were Scott Adams you might even regard such people (or person) as Master Persuadors.

Trump is persuasive, in a way. He could actually convince his base to give s#!t all about due process. That latent authoritarian tendency in our populace has always been there, just rarely embraced so openly.

Starting to accept the possibility that this trolling that occurs in P&R periodically is all the same person. At least, I understand that this is exactly how it looks from this side now.

Quote

 how often someone's "junk stuff" came in contact with your food or your skin or whatever.

I prefer not to think about this, actually.  

Quote

 

She's tremendously average-looking, and I see women as good-looking as her every single day in Lincoln, NE.

 

I feel like this is the negative way of framing this. A lot of women are tremendously good-looking. Not all of them are models. 

^Can we assume no "I know my own weapons personally" bonuses and no "my gun doesn't have a firing pin"? But yeah, I believe that the disadvantages aren't necessarily that great. The weapons you're describing all sound like extremely combat effective tools that are especially well suited for killing lots of people, and very difficult to go up against. Let's put it another way: say someone has your training and your weapons and they decide to go on a killing spree, picking a very soft target to do so. What can they do? How would they be stopped? 

I do not know where to draw the boundaries, but maybe 30 round, easily exchangeable mag/clip is a good place to start. 

Every show is actually a soap opera, with some different window dressing.

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Unpopular Opinion: Americans spend way too much of their time worrying about cleanliness.

I agree with the soap thing.

...although I fell sick recently and could barely move for a week. And now I narrow my eyes whenever I see anyone cough.  And carry around that antibacterial goop.

Quote

It's not going to kill you if you don't wash your hands after you potty. That antibacterial goop you see everywhere isn't really helping.  Your body's immune system needs to be challenged.  If you get hurt, a lot of times you're going to be OK, even without a band-aid.

 

....OK, except for the bolded. Gah, what? Wash your hands after you touch your junk guys. If not for you, for everyone around you.

1 minute ago, HuskerInLostWages said:

I have a question for all the people calling them assault rifles.  I have an AR-15(commonly called an AR-9) that fires 9mm rounds, it holds 30 rounds, it has a much shorter barrel, but other than that looks darn near identical to a standard AR-15, is this an assault rifle now?  I also have a glock with a 30 round clip, they fire about the same distance, do the same damage with the same rounds and are both semi auto, isn't this your definition of an assault rifle, well pistol in the Glocks case?  

 

I also have whats called a plinkster, it fires a .22, holds quite a few rounds and looks exactly like an AR-15, is that an assault rifle?  The definition means quite a lot on how the whole thing comes into play, and if it's just the "look" of the firearm, we'd be attempting to ban a whole boatload of weapons that people find scary looking and label them assault rifles.

Someone takes your AR-9, how comfortable do you feel going against them with your Glock, out of curiosity? 

I think, yeah, we can include a whole boatload of weapons in a ban if we think it'll be effective. It's at least reasonable to try. Like maybe one thing we include in the classification is 30 round external magazines, so you can have some rifle with a limited internal magazine firing .223s, but that's fine. A ban only means that gun manufacturers alter their designs to fit the requirements, and then you still have guns, but they'll need to have a few more things different about them to conform.

As for the effectiveness of regulations like that on their own don't seem sufficient to me, really, but they do seem like an important piece of the puzzle and a basic step we should be able to take.

I think we can create laws that limit the kinds of weapons that can be sold to consumers to ones that aren't designed for combat, aren't modifiable in this way, and all those modifications too can be banned. We could draft up a set of requirements and call it a ban of a certain class of weapons. We could even come up with a name for that class of weapons, as defined by our publicly negotiated legal framework.