What if it comes with a contractual requirement that you personally stop engaging in any activities which might infringe on their exclusive right to worry your mother? Feels like a trap to me.

Why is this tagged NSFW? Am I missing something racy beyond implications in the lyrics?

the rub of "good guys w/guns" is the "good guys" requirement.

if the argument is "those that can be proven to be responsible, safe, and sane can own guns" then why fear the 'proof' part of the equation?

it's in their motto!

'bad guys' helping 'bad guys' get guns is bad guys, bad guys...whatcha gonna do?

plus

the idea that teachers/school kids can be expected to keep the doors closed - turn on the a/c or the heat up and just see if YOUR home doors are kept shut!

more fantasy from the infanticidally idiots. as if the uncompromising are themselves 'compromised'.




just think...this song is 30 yrs old...and it doesn't raise an eye brow now...

Republicans are perpetrators of near 100% of election fraud….and claim to be the only ones who care about it….what improvements to election systems or increased punishments for those committing vote fraud have they made to curb this anti democracy anti America issue with their party?

*crickets*

A: none, they’ve blocked any legislation proposed to secure elections and made them less secure by installing crazed partisan criminals as clerks who tamper with and steal voting machines making them invalid for use, costing millions and compromising what little election security existed.

Edit: The Republicans ACTUALLY control all three branches in multiple states, but haven’t done a thing to secure the election system (vote ID doesn’t address any of the fraud actually found, eliminating vote by mail might, but for the few (all Republican) fraudulent vote attempts it might stop it disenfranchises exponentially more legal voters…literally millions of legal voters.). No Republican state legislature has put a paper trail in place for electronic voting, nor have they increased the punishment for vote fraud. Why is that Bob?

*crickets*

Democrats have taken steps to curb mass shootings…limiting clip size, ammo purchasing, private gun sales, testing requirements to concealed carry, barring violent felons and violent mentally ill people and (temporarily) people with active restraining orders against them from gun ownership, etc on state levels, the only place Republicans can’t just block any attempted legislation without even reading it first.

Herd immunity is a myth with Covid because Covid immunity is not permanent, it’s very short lived, as little as 2 months. You can get Covid over and over and over until it kills you.
The same is true with vaccination, it’s not 100% effective nor does it last, but it seems to be better than natural immunity with the added benefit of not requiring you to get full blown covid to be protected.

Also, temporary immunity against one strain does not necessarily make you immune to other strains at all.

I like the joke, but the premise is faulty. I had heard the same things about some psychological test, but I got fixed with no children in my mid 20’s…the only “test” my doctor required was answering the question “are you sure?”

So, mr “wrong is wrong”… does that extend to Boebert, who was just notified by the FEC that she’s violated (more) campaign finance laws over 20 times this year by accepting personal donations over $2900? Just 15 years ago that would not only end a political career, but might end up sending the representative to prison…today it gets a stern letter and barely a mention by the media, but is no less illegal.
Let’s remember that she was with her husband when he exposed himself to two 14-15 year old girls, and tried to help him cover it up.
Let’s also remember she admitted she abused her travel funds massively, paying herself well over $20000 pretending (in writing) that she drove herself almost 40000 miles in 6 months for government business while serving in Washington, then changing her story and claiming a bunch of that reimbursement was for hotel stays she hadn’t reported (but any hotel over $200 is required to be listed, not doing so is also a crime).

So, the question is, should Boebert be barred from holding office for accepting these 20+ “bribes” and embezzlement? Let’s see if you can answer without deflection or projection..$5 says no.

Interesting N Carolina doesn’t disqualify candidates convicted of such things, isn’t it? Some places do, like liberal California. Liberals ACTUALLY care about crime enough to disqualify based on convictions, not “conservatives”.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2410_cfa_20120430_105724_asm_comm.html

Have you written your state legislature to demand they make a law so criminals can’t be elected officials? Thought not.

Then, again I ask you, why would you have ever supported repeatedly convicted con man (school cons, charity cons, repeated business cons) and racist (payed millions for redlining) Trump?

You SAY wrong is wrong, then you vote for convicted criminals constantly. I am certain you voted for the guy whose campaign harvested and filled out ballots in YOUR county, knowing beforehand that he had done that, he won despite blatantly defrauding the election, and would have again if he had run again. You absolutely didn’t say any Republican on the same ballot should be disqualified despite knowing his campaign also filled out fraudulent votes for any Republican they could. You lied and said he had suffered consequences, but you know full well he did not. None. Not only did he take office, and never was charged, he was allowed to run again in the special election required because of his admitted fraud.

The point here is Republicans (like you) SAY they believe in law and order and criminals shouldn’t be elected officials, then you go ahead and vote for people who admit to brutally murdering their wives and tossing the body in a creek and are awaiting trial and then, idiotically, go on to call Democrats the “party of debauchery”. It’s asinine and transparent.

You SAY you care about law and order, then directly encourage perjury (only from your “team”) elect child rapists, sex traffickers, people who protect child rapists, thieves, cheats, deadbeats, blatant racists, and insurectionists. (In one case, Trump, someone who is all of the above).

I can only find wrong worth mentioning on one side because only one side displays this level of wrongness. Why can you only find wrong on Democrats parts, and not see the 95% of horrific wrongness coming from your choices for representatives?

Democrats abuse their travel funds (but only about 10% as much as Republicans), Democrats commit insider trading (but not 1/2 as much as republicans).
Democrats don’t traffic little girls for sex.
Democrats don’t have cocaine fueled lemon party orgies (ugh, just the thought).
Democrats don’t try to commit a coup then blame republicans when it fails.
Democrats don’t run fraudulent charities for veterans which they steal from.
Democrats don’t have private parties with Epstein and little girls.
Democrats don’t repeatedly try to take guns onto planes (Cawthorn).
Democrats don’t harass young school shooting victims with death threats and claims that they’re not real people.
Democrats don’t put hurting republicans above the good of the nation either….they should start, turnabout is fair play, and hurting actual abusive criminals (not just fantasy crimes) is in the national interest.

Yes, I’m biased. It’s insane you aren’t, knowing what we know about current republicans, and what little we have of Democratic crimes. I find you a new disgusting Republican representative committing felonies daily, and you don’t flinch in your unbridled support of them, you toss out red herrings and whataboutisms without ever turning on the majority of pedophiles, hebephiles, rapists, insurrectionists, etc that keep coming from your chosen party.

I agree with your last sentence, but you do not.
You constantly vote for criminals like this and simply turn a blind eye to their convictions for crimes of moral turpitude. Democrats got rid of Al Frankenstein for a photo of him pointing at a sleeping woman, Republicans are still trying to elect judge Roy Moore despite his pedophilic history, and re-elect Cawthorn, and Boebert, Gaetz, Jordan, even Epstein’s bestie Trump. All directly tied to pedophilia, and you don’t care one bit. Not to mention the seditious coup attempt so many are complicit in, or the coverups afterwards, or the insider trading, etc.

You don’t care about criminal behavior if it’s a Republican, and you just can’t admit it, but you and all here KNOW it’s true.

I’ve actually changed my opinion…I now agree with Republicans that we should ignore the leak…for now. It will be easier to maintain the outrage until November if we put off being outraged until July.

I almost hope the Democrats fail in their efforts to write new federal law limiting limits on abortion access, and don’t change filibuster rules to once again require only 50 votes to pass a bill as that might drive Republicans to the polls just like this decision will drive democrats and independents and many Republicans to the polls to vote against Republicans across the board.
Between the sedition caucus being denied a place on the ballot and this outrage, the outlook for the midterms has never looked better.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

There has been no new evidence.
None whatsoever, only religious nut jobs put in office that rule based on what isn’t even religious doctrine and certainly is not US law, which is clear that embryos aren’t people, and women aren’t slaves nor incubators without rights over their own bodies.

It’s no surprise whatsoever that you’re fine with eradicating rights for women, or removing any rights you dislike others enjoying.

Of course you have no problem that each one intentionally perjured themselves during confirmation, because you don’t care one whit about crime if your team commits it, nor lies if they suit you. You’ve been abundantly clear about that, consistently.

Will you be fine when they reinterpret the second amendment to require strict regulations on militias, and they are the only non government entity with a right to OWN firearms, which can only be lent to licensed members that pass stringent testing bi yearly and screening and licensing at extremely high costs? Of course not, you’re a hypocrite.
Will you be fine when that new court declares flying a confederate flag is seditious treason and it’s retroactive, so old photos are enough to convict and execute?

You’ve had a conservative court for decades. Now you have one not interested in the law or science but only politics.

Of course, you’ll have no problem with Democrats adding 6 seats, ignoring all Republican whining and filling them with hyper liberal activist judges, and writing the law in a way that no more seats can be added without a constitutional amendment, then revisiting the issue in 6 months to get it right permanently. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

So, Bobby, what is the 2020 Republican platform?
“Block Democrats from any progress”, absolutely nothing else.
There wa a proposal for a Republican Party platform….”1) raise taxes by $4500 on all low income people who today don’t pay taxes because they are below the poverty level and 2) end all social programs like Medicare, Medicare, social security, food assistance programs, etc. by “sun setting” any social program every 5 years and requiring the new legislature to start over from scratch (unless the right has control, then forget it).

“We cannot blame republicans (for rich people not paying taxes) when HOUSE democrats have the majority” 1) the tax breaks for the rich were enacted when Republicans held the house, senate, presidency, and a supermajority in the Supreme Court…a simple majority in the house and no where else after the fact does not give Democrats the ability to repeal a horrific law.

Then he wants to blame the California legislature for local groups fighting against low income housing in their neighborhood, for zoning and construction laws that severely limit where and how you can build. Such nonsense. The housing crisis in California is not limited to the homeless, there just aren’t enough houses to buy or rent. Pretending there are just no programs to secure housing, that the legislatures just don’t care and are ignoring the issue isn’t just ignorant, it’s outright dishonest. No surprise at all considering the source. California has a housing crisis, not simply an “ignoring the homeless “ problem. Property in California is so in demand that average workers are priced out of the market and fully employed people find themselves homeless. Red states have cheap property because successful professional people don’t want to live there, which leads to more affordable housing and fewer homeless. My property has quadrupled in value over 20 years, and I’m not in any town or city.

California just approved $12 BILLION to spend on our homeless issues. Red states pass laws essentially making homelessness a crime, so many homeless migrate to “blue states” where services exist and they aren’t put in jail for sleeping in public or loitering.

Texas just made it illegal for homeless people to camp in tents.

So, Bob, tell me about the Republican plans to house the homeless in red states. About all the services and assistance they want to provide but are blocked by democrats from moving forward. Show me the high end Republican neighborhoods inviting low income housing into their neighborhoods, keeping in mind that many, even in California, are right wing neighborhoods with Republican led local government that blocks construction.

You’ve tried this nonsense propaganda before, about 6 months ago when it was originally posted if I recall, I debunked it thoroughly then. So sad @bobknight33 can’t remember anything for over 3 seconds or he would recall the last time he posted this nonsense opinion piece and I rubbed his nose in it.

Downvote into oblivion this right wing projection,

I hadn't heard about that story. Funny and sad at the same time. Definitely would get thrown out of court if the prosecutor did bring charges. Reporter did the right thing (telling them), it's a shame he's getting backlash of stupidity.

When it comes to sensitive data, the government and corporations have due-diligence requirements that weren't met here (even if it was unintentional/temporary), so maybe (IANAL) the teacher's union could file a class-action suit? They'd probably settle out of court for 1 year of LifeLock or some other such BS. Maybe the website was created by the Governor's grandson or nephew as a high school project? Mistake is worse than incorrect ACLs on a S3 bucket...

Yes, Missouri. The unhinged ignorant governor wants to prosecute reporters for viewing source data, but there’s no law about this, no hacking required, just a left click, and despite the governor’s politically motivated attempts to force a case, the prosecutor has declined to file any charges against the reporter who noticed and reported that the government website had publicly posted the social security numbers of every teacher in the state….likely because the only crime was on the government’s part….including the continuing politically motivated retaliatory investigations against the reporter who discovered this inexcusable lapse in security under the governor’s nose.

He (the prosecutor) should file charges against the website administrator for exposing 100000 teachers to identity theft, and the governor for abuse of power for trying to prosecute the whistleblower for reporting the non existent security to the government, he even held off publishing his report to give the school system time to fix the issue before it became public knowledge.

Anyone surprised the governor is a Republican, a moron, is more than willing to abuse his power to try to avoid embarrassment for his administrations incompetence, and has absolutely zero idea of how websites, the internet, meta data, or hacking work, or in many cases what they even are (probably thinks the internet is a bunch of tubes, hackers use hatchets, and that meta data is secret proprietary data)?

Sweet zombie Jesus, these morons get worse daily….I think Trump secretly requires them to eat >1gram of pure lead per day. Stupider by the minute.

I hope this monument to opulence fails miserably and the developers lose their shirts.
There’s no way they won’t damage or destroy that reef.
The first big storm is going to destroy much of the sand island.
But, 10% are special protection zones! Won’t matter, they can’t survive if huge amounts of the non protected reef are destroyed.

Not to mention sea level rise will put it underwater quickly, it’s barely above current sea level in the plans.

Look at Mexico, dozens of comparatively tiny resorts not even on the reefs, but on land, and that reef is not 10% what it was in the mid 80’s. Building ON the reef is guaranteed to destroy it, as is tourism.

I hate when companies are allowed to build on natural wonders to exploit the beauty, they invariably destroy that beauty within decades. That entire reef/coastline should be off limits to construction so the two desert properties have an attraction. When the reefs die from sun tan lotion poisoning, bleaching, sand displacement, accidents with supply ships, the first major fuel spill, etc, that place will be a $5 billion waste, abandoned to the desert.

Remember the “islands of the world” project in Dubai? This sounds even less thought out than they were, more ecologically disastrous, needing more infrastructure to be built, requiring ships to bring fuel as there’s no nearby port to run pipelines from (guaranteeing oil spills). All for what? So billionaires can get off their yachts for a while in luxury?

Wiki-Significant changes in the maritime environment [of Dubai]. As a result of the dredging and redepositing of sand for the construction of the islands, the typically crystalline waters of the Persian Gulf at Dubai have become severely clouded with silt. Construction activity is damaging the marine habitat, burying coral reefs, oyster beds and subterranean fields of sea grass, threatening local marine species as well as other species dependent on them for food. Oyster beds have been covered in as much as two inches of sediment, while above the water, beaches are eroding with the disruption of natural currents.

That was a $12 billion project to exploit the pristine coast and beautiful waters that no longer exist, the islands themselves are sinking and eroding, most were evacuated or never used at all, the water is now mud colored, the reefs are gone. An unmitigated disaster. This sounds extremely similar.

Oppose this and similar projects.