search results matching tag: Suit

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (748)     Sift Talk (31)     Blogs (48)     Comments (1000)   

Let's talk about making the debate more fair for Trump

luxintenebris says...

like this vid.

the potus wears $1K brioni suits, talks w/the vocab of a 5th grader and this man in a mickey mouse t-shirt aces anything the leader of the free world has ever said during his term.

creates a kind of logic vertigo.

C-note (Member Profile)

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Republican

newtboy says...

Same goes for any other Republican that said the same and now wants a blitzkrieg to install a non judge (before her recent appointment by Trump and a woman who intends to legislate based on the bible) at an accelerated speed not seen in history not the constitution, right? Of course that's right.
So you support immediately impeaching everyone who's followed suit. Cool.

It's going to be a 6-3 supreme court with 3 being sycophants not professionals.

Yes, it's his decision, which patriots make based on national best interest but the right flip flops their thinking based on what's politically expedient, what's best for them, and precedent or their solemn word means nothing if it doesn't help them today, they're willing dishonest, disingenuous hypocrites but you love that.

The court today is heavily conservative now, 5-3, and will stay 5-4 conservative without him filling the slot during an election. Can't you count to 8?

At least when they get the power, democrats are poised to add as many seats as necessary to balance it.

Tell me when it's been a 6-3 liberal court.
Tell me when a lame duck president has confirmed a court pick during an election.
Tell me when the last time you sucked off a 13 year old boy was.
Tell me!

bobknight33 said:

Lets be frank.
Lyndsey Graham is a POS. He a political tool and goes with political wind.

The nicest thing I can say about him is that I hope he joins his friend ( also a POS) John McCain .


WRT of supreme court nomination. My first thought was no, not till after election. Then Democrats ranted and screamed that would pack the court and a few other things.

POTUS job is to nominate, as did Obama. Dems did not control the senate. Mitch McConnell was / is the Senate Majority Leader. It is his decision to or not to advise and consent.

AS to now the court will be conservative if Trumps pick goes through, that implies that it was had a liberal slant.

Sounds like liberals don't want that to happen

This is America it swings to the left for a while then to the right.

Doc Rivers

newtboy says...

Hmmmm...ok, that's not legislation but is what I meant. A forced buyback program is going to have issues.

1) I have no problem with companies having to answer for injuries caused by the prescribed, advertised proper use of their product. If shoes were sold as having the greatest shin kicking power, doing the most damage when you kick someone, shoe manufacturers should be sued by those who get kicked. If manufacturers haven't modeled and advertised in a way that suggests dangerous uses, the suits will lose. Lawyers don't take loser cases, so it won't be an issue imo. Special protections from liability are a problem imo.

2) I've never understood the endgame there. What is an assault rifle, and how are their capabilities special? That said, no one is clamoring for Uzis to come back. Without a legitimate reason for high capacity fast shooting rifles, and no attempts to ban semi auto rifles, I'm just not that bothered by it, but I do think it's placating not meaningful legislation.

3) I have zero issues with registration or background checks. That seems the right way to deal with "assault rifles". There's no reason it should be expensive or time consuming if records are up to date. If they make it expensive as a tax disincentive against ownership, I have a problem. Shooting isn't a cheap sport, $10-20 a year shouldn't bother those who spent $2k on one rifle.

4) No issue at all with voluntary buy backs. Involuntary buybacks are going to be a legal and practical nightmare.

5) one purchase per month, a bit much. One purchase at a time, I'm ok with, that's 3 a month, right? I'm suspicious of anyone who needs multiple guns quick before they calm down.

6) I'm all for universal background checks. I don't want nutjob and violent criminals buying guns they aren't allowed to own.

7) I'm all for not allowing those who can't handle day to day existence to buy guns. I'm even ok with TEMPORARY removal of their guns in some cases, but only if they're returned immediately after they're deemed competent.

misdemeanor hate crime? I thought hate crime was an enhancement charge that took a misdemeanor up to felony level. I'm definitely against taking gun rights away permanently for misdemeanors.

9) dunno what that is.

10) the problem is you can buy a receiver that needs to be finished, as little as one tiny drill hole is enough, with no serial number or registration. It's just a chunk of metal until it's finished. No problem with a background check for every purchase, but a maximum of one check per month seems a reasonable compromise.

11) with proper oversight and a system that ensures it's not abused, no problem for me.

12) Yes, strict guidelines and quick return seem necessary. 48 hours without a doctor stating it's necessary would work, but as of now they aren't ready for prime time on that it seems.

13) had that in cali forever, not an issue yet.

14) as designed, smart guns wouldn't be hackable, there's no reason for wireless connectivity. Battery? Make it charge itself by shaking it like some flashlights? I like the idea that guns can only be used by the owner, solves so many issues, mainly being shot with your own gun.

15) depends on what constitutes "safe". I agree, guns for home defense need to be available quickly.

16) some ghost guns are milled on professional cnc mills but unfinished. 3d printed guns, I'm not a fan. 3 shots is plenty to murder someone, and with no identification it's a near perfect weapon for crimes.
3d printing is advancing constantly. You can print in metal with fine details now on home equipment. I think it won't be long before stable guns can be printed if they aren't already.

Thanks for doing the research. I seriously doubt most could pass even a democratic congress but some would, and most won't pass court challenges, but I understand your reluctance to put that to the test.

If you're going to fight the swamp thing, I won't argue against leaving a few snakes in the black lagoon. Some opposition is healthy, but the ability to be obstructionist on every idea is gridlock. I don't see it getting better.

Plane Has to De-Board Because Lady Refuses to Wear Mask

StukaFox says...

Y'know that scene in Chernobyl where the miners pat their coal-blackened hands against the director's sky-blue suit as they walk by him? That same thing needs to happen here, only they punch her in the cunt instead.

oblio70 (Member Profile)

Nationalist Geographic

vil says...

Look for better ways to pick a leader? Find ways to adapt their party policies to suit the day and age? Find actual goals for society to promote instead of just being conservative or ayn rand for the sake of it (or rather for the sake of their own pockets)? Make the rest of the party admit that old, sick, poor and/or non-white people are not expendable. America can be great if you pick the right things to be great at. Not just gloating and bad golf.

Its not impossible. There has to be a liberal, small government movement to counter all those "letter people" who only have demands. It has to come from the bottom and will take a long time.

cloudballoon said:

I wonder what these Republicans behind the Lincoln Project will do...

Brave Men Save Pelican Tangled In Fishing Line

StukaFox says...

I love 84!

I had some friends into exotic cars and we'd take 84 over to the coast now and again, mostly because we had a shit-ton of money and a shit-ton of spare time to kill -- the Dot-Com fucking rocked!

There's a bend in the road just outside La Honda on the coastal side that's a 15mph hairpin with a tree at the apex. It's a lovely goddamn thing, especially when you forget it's there. So here we all come, lane-trading and exercising general assholery in cars that cost what a nice single-family home does.

Oh FUCK, the turn!!

My friend in the 911 does this beautiful trail-brake and swings through the curve. Elise follows suit, complete with smoking tires. Next up is Countach. He BARELY holds it together, but gets through without any real drama.

Now it's my turn.

Did I mention I was driving a '97 Camaro Z-28? Yeah, Camaros of that year are good at exactly one thing: driving very fast in very straight lines. Corners? Yeah, not so much. I realize I'm in trouble and I'm coming into the turn WAY too fast. I grab the shifter and get ready. My plan is that I'm going to slam it into first, let the rev limiter do its thing to save the engine, pull the e-brake and swing the tail, then punch it and swing the ass-end around and launch out of the curve with smoking Z-rated tires and all!

And HERE WE GO -- grab the shifter, yank it all the way down and...

That's when California emissions standards fucked me.

You see, when you buy a Camaro Z-28 in California, you don't actually get first gear. You get what's called a California First, which is actually SECOND gear, because if you were actually able to use FIRST gear, the goddamn car would belch enough emissions to make a farting Brontosaurus blush. And second gear ain't exactly gonna work for my little plan.

tl;dr is that I hit the no-lock brakes hard enough to get my speed down and was able to bring the ass around with the little e-brake trick. I wasn't out of the woods because I over-corrected on the way out and spun. The same God that I spite and don't believe in actually saved my ass and I didn't end up going off the road. Apparently, he loves fools and Z-28 Camaros.

I honestly had more fun in that car than the law allows: sometimes literally, like when I got clocked at 110 coming onto the straight at King City. Good times, man, good times.

newtboy said:

I love that stretch of coast.
As a teen I used to party at hidden beach a few miles North. The only access was a sketchy 6" wide path on the cliffside, so we knew cops wouldn't bother us there.
Should've taken 84 home, less time driving in the stink and you could've gotten great BBQ in La Honda. ;-)

Woman kicked off flight for not wearing a mask

newtboy says...

Boarding late only makes sense until others follow suit, then it becomes a contest for the last to board, and only if you have no carry on (or one that fits under seat).
It's also quite selfish, you're going to walk past and breathe on all those seated passengers just like you tried to avoid for yourself...and you would make others wait for the privilege.
If you follow directions and board in order from the back of the plane front, no one walks past those already seated....and no one has to wait for row 5 to get settled before row 23-6 can board and sit.
Also, no one has to wait for the last to board guy in row 23 to search through 15 full overhead compartments, leaning over and breathing over 15 rows of passengers while checking each bin before having their carry on checked anyway causing further delay.

cloudballoon said:

Boarding as late as possible makes sense. The problem is finding carry on overhead storage if you need them.

Lowest risk seat selection-wise and I'm afraid the longer the flight, the increased chance of the wider spread of the virus will negates the advantage initially gained.

The air filtration system is not in question, problem is the people breathing right next to and all around you during the entire flight. Their air doesn't go through the filtration system yet. When people going in/out (myself included) for the washroom, they act as the "spoon" when stir your drink: they mixes the air around as they walk to spread virus/germs out along their paths.

Walmart really dislikes shoplifters

wtfcaniuse says...

I'd say they dislike law suits more than shoplifters. The security guard tackling someone and cuffing them could end up costing a fuckton more than that guy could ever shoplift.

Doctor wears six face masks to debunk lack of oxygen myth

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

Reading comprehension, not a strong suit?

They didn't just reference Amerika, and didn't just host it's editor/creator, they actively supplied it with the personal information of artists that had discovered the secret alt-right agenda and publicized it.
BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'm not interested enough in the Canada thing to investigate, I've spent hours on this extensive discussion, I have no need to spark another discussion on another politicized topic today just to fight over every statement and act, but I'm fairly convinced the video clip she showed included the actual promotion of violence and hatred, not just a person who is well known in certain circles for promoting them. If that's against the rules, it's against the rules. Even in the unlikely event it did just include her innocuously, if she is a well known alt-right extremist provocateur and it's against the rules to discuss extremists and their views, then it's against the rules. I find that silly and unproductive, but institutions have a right to be silly. Like Malcolm X, some people don't need their positions verbalized, their image alone can get their message across because it's so well known.

bcglorf said:

I did read that one, admittedly with reluctance because I've found the independent can be a lot more opinion than fact(ala msnbc/fox). The article mostly states Mr. Osborne accuses the gallery of many things, by far the worst is association with the website "Amerika" which I'm not familiar with, but unless it is so vile that even referencing it when discussing ideologies is 'bad' it didn't seem enough to make the gallery into witches, errr nazis.

For the Canadian incident, the full debate she showed a clip from is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc

I'm afraid it's an hour long, but I don't know which 'clip' she would have been playing, although it was debate between Mattes and Peterson.

Lindsay Shepherd was the TA involved, this is the full audio recording of the meeting she was pulled into with 3 full staff and faculty to 'discuss' how her action of playing the video was wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nd32_uIcnI

Whispers

newtboy says...

You got that symbol backwards, not surprising since math and science aren't conservative strong suits anymore, and you clearly hate your dog.

My dog > Biden > a ham sandwich > Kanye > a full, leaking, and fermenting diaper in the bed > a racist strain of Ebola > Trump

FTFY

Edit: perhaps I misunderstood...are these rated on how destructive these things are to America? If so, you may be correct, but then that's one bad dog.

TangledThorns said:

TRUMP > Kanye > my dog > ham sandwich > Biden

Death of a Bee Hive

newtboy says...

THE SMOKE....IT DOES NOTHING!


That was insane! I've had multiple hives, and I could often pull them apart without a suit on if I went slowly enough. I've never seen anything near that aggression, even after transporting a wild hive in a bouncing trailer for 45miles, and they were pissed!

Too bad, it looked like a healthy hive.

I think he made the right choice to kill it. Sad.

Facial Recognition: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon