Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Isn’t that the current (acting) FEMA director or something? If he had said that then and in the context of that track, it’d probably have been fine, but he said it after the track had significantly changed.

[Trekkin]

Isn’t that the current (acting) FEMA director or something? If he had said that then and in the context of that track, it’d probably have been fine, but he said it after the track had significantly changed.

And still Trump used the Aug. 29 prediction map on Sep. 4 so he could doodle in him being right in black Sharpie.

This is like 1984 if they just drew glasses and mustaches on the unpersons and insisted they were different people.

[Folly]

Trump has seized another $3.6b from military construction projects to fund his border wall. Trump insists that these construction projects are not being canceled, but rather delayed until the next spending bill can fund them again. Democrats have already responded, saying that they will not fund these projects again while Trump is still in a position to intervene.

[Dunamisdeos]

How much is that total? Around 8 billion?

I guess it's closer to 5 billion according to the internet.

[sluissa]

Re: Hurricane Model

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2074

[hector13]

Isn’t that the current (acting) FEMA director or something? If he had said that then and in the context of that track, it’d probably have been fine, but he said it after the track had significantly changed.

And still Trump used the Aug. 29 prediction map on Sep. 4 so he could doodle in him being right in black Sharpie.

This is like 1984 if they just drew glasses and mustaches on the unpersons and insisted they were different people.

‘tis illegal to alter an official weather prediction. 90 days in jail.

In sillier news, the San Francisco city council/board of supervisors has declared the NRA a domestic terrorist organization.

This from the people that said we should stop calling people convicts, addicts, and juvenile delinquents, and instead refer to them as returning residents, justice-involved persons, or formerly incarcerated people.

[scourge728]

In sillier news, the San Francisco city council/board of supervisors has declared the NRA a domestic terrorist organization.

good job San Francisco

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Now I wonder how hard they'll lick leather when the NRA schedules a guns-out protest in conjunction with the SFPD union.

[smjjames]

In sillier news, the San Francisco city council/board of supervisors has declared the NRA a domestic terrorist organization.

good job San Francisco

Are they even able to do that at the city level? I mean, they can very well make a statement, but i’m wondering at the enforceability.

[Reelya]

Now I wonder how hard they'll lick leather when the NRA schedules a guns-out protest in conjunction with the SFPD union.

The police aren't necessarily on board with the NRA. Sure, the police like having guns, but they don't like everyone else also having guns.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Now I wonder how hard they'll lick leather when the NRA schedules a guns-out protest in conjunction with the SFPD union.

The police aren't necessarily on board with the NRA. Sure, the police like having guns, but they don't like everyone else also having guns.

Sure sure, but the police departments and the NRA are both riddled with far-right...well, "infiltrator" is probably the wrong word since they're welcomed with open arms, and the NRA is absolutely in the same political current as police unions. Cops don't like black people having guns, white supremacists having guns is cool and freedom.

[smjjames]

I’m sure the cops would prefer that nobody have guns, no matter what electromagnetic wavelength you are.

The NRA are only pro-cop until they do something that ‘violates second amendment rights’ anyway.

[Trekkin]

I’m sure the cops would prefer that nobody have guns, no matter what electromagnetic wavelength you are.

The NRA are only pro-cop until they do something that ‘violates second amendment rights’ anyway.

Sure, but cops generally prefer to live in a world where white people don't need guns and want to get there by strongly preferring to lynch black people who carry them. Or might possibly carry them.

Selectively applying high-minded general principles to serve nakedly racist and classist ends is the Republican Party's whole shtick; whichever part of a given problem gives them an excuse to punch down is always the most urgent one, the clear and present danger that must be addressed before liberal blue-skying is even worth talking about. It's why they'd love to fix our broken visa system but first we need to make sure all the rapist criminal druglord babies die in cages, for example, or why the only part of voting they ever want to talk about is voter fraud in districts that just happen to have been gerrymandered to disenfranchise minorities, or why religious freedom is only important when it motivates bigotry against GSRM.

If you want to understand the essence of the American right, imagine a very small child who, asked if he would like to trade half his cookie for half of another child's candy bar, extends his empty hand, and on receipt of the candy suddenly expounds upon how attempts at socialist redistribution have just been proven to increase inequality, as he now has everything and the other child has only half a candy bar, so clearly this trade was a bad idea and all such efforts must be stopped immediately -- although you could be forgiven for finding him difficult to understand, as his mouth will be full.

If, similarly, you'd like to grasp the far right, imagine the same child, but with a gun.

[smjjames]

So, uh, was the cookie in the mouth from the start of the trade in the first place? Because you don’t specify what happens to the cookie and I’m not sure if the candy bar or the cookie or both are supposed to be in the mouth.

Also, in the extension of the metaphor, am I supposed to imagine him eating the gun as well because that’s what you have him doing with the cookie/candy bar which... leads to a rather odd mental image.... and I don’t think you intended to invoke that mental image.

[Trekkin]

So, uh, was the cookie in the mouth from the start of the trade in the first place? Because you don’t specify what happens to the cookie and I’m not sure if the candy bar or the cookie or both are supposed to be in the mouth.

Also, in the extension of the metaphor, am I supposed to imagine him eating the gun as well because that’s what you have him doing with the cookie/candy bar which... leads to a rather odd mental image.... and I don’t think you intended to invoke that mental image.

It was not. The idea was that, having gotten through the pretense, he's just going to start eating one or the other.

And no, you're supposed to imagine him extorting all the candy at gunpoint, in the same spirit of liking fairness in principle but liking candy more in practice. Good point, though. That image was...not my intention.