zn wrote:

I agree that owners should not marry showgirls.

They need to upgrade to a classier line of trophy wives.

Show girls have the legs and stamina.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

Ah, the arrogance of physicists. Of course if a physicist can’t comprehend how something as complex as consciousness could someday be understood then there’s no way any practitioners of the lesser sciences could ever figure it out.

Don’t understand using the term “lesser” referring to other areas of science. Especially areas of science in which knowledge isn’t disproven as often as it is in physics. IOW physicists don’t know nearly as much as they think they do.

Lesser only from a physicist’s perspective. Not all physicists feel this way of course but some I’ve met do have a superiority complex related to other sciences.

Of course, I have no idea if Witten is like that.

All sciences have ideas that are proven wrong. No shame in that -it’s an inevitable occurance in the advancement of understanding. But they are proven wrong through the work of other scientists. That’s the cool thing about science. It’s self-correcting.

Yes but I wouldn’t want to be the one updating a physics textbook. Always an extensive rewrite.

TSRF wrote:

Bob N Weave:

I’ve been trying to share (more than usual) my feelings because you are so tone deaf to what almost everybody here has been trying to say to you.

You don’t want to here it; I get it.

Just know I think people who hold the beliefs you do about guns are limiting everyone’s quality of life.

I demand a better future.

Matt

Actually you limit your quality of life.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

A fish masquerading as coral?

Nope. Try again.

A run over albino porcupine or hedgehog?

nittany ram wrote:

Who can guess what this is?…

A fish masquerading as coral?

zn wrote:

Well if you’re good at something you want to keep doing it while you also upgrade other things.

They weren’t 32 of 32 because of the long ball.

So while they improve in other areas we want them to stay effective at throwing long.

.

Their long ball game is not effective. 32 of 32.

Wrong voice found that blames the firearm rather than the person and the cultural violence people arm themselves against.

zn wrote:

The facts of the matter are Rams qbs throw long. CK did it without getting hammered. I don’t know if Foles knew how to. When they get Goff in there it will be even more of strength.

Sure the at least they throw long and SUCK at it. We don’t have an O line to give time for a QB capable of deep accuracy to a WR capable of holding on to the ball.

QB, maybe Goff.
O line, Still not there.
WR, If there then hiding extremely well, for years.

Rams will be dink and dunk in passing game because at best that is what they’ve shown they can do. Gurley and the RBs half the plays and majority of yards.

nittany ram wrote:

I’m just going to keep posting interesting animal photos that I come across in this thread as long as the mood strikes me. This is a giant coconut crab. At three feet long it is the world’s largest land dwelling arthropod.

Tasty tasty crab!

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Um, bnw, I don’t support the government murdering anyone. Never have. Never will. It would actually be the Hestons of this world who attempted murder, not the government. It would be the folks who think the government is being “tyrannical” by simply limiting consumer choice, or placing a few commonsense restrictions on weaponry, who would be doing the murdering. It would be the gun nuts who shoot government officials for simply implementing the law doing the murdering. Not the government.

If someone is willing to fight to the death over their guns, that’s just flat out insane, and it means they don’t have the mental capacity necessary to handle them in the first place.

Implementing law by the barrel of a gun. Spoken like a true leftist.

As a libertarian socialist, I advocate for the opposite of that. You advocate for the use of guns, to the death if needbe, to keep your guns even after they’ve been deemed illegal. You advocate for violence. I advocate for peace.

I also advocate for an end to empire, on our way to a stateless society. You still cling to the insane idea that you get to decide for everyone else when the government is “tyrannical,” because, guns, and that it’s okay to shoot and kill government employees who are just implementing the law. Again, they wouldn’t be the folks who initiated the violence. It would be you and your fellow gun nuts who did that.

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Um, bnw, I don’t support the government murdering anyone. Never have. Never will. It would actually be the Hestons of this world who attempted murder, not the government. It would be the folks who think the government is being “tyrannical” by simply limiting consumer choice, or placing a few commonsense restrictions on weaponry, who would be doing the murdering. It would be the gun nuts who shoot government officials for simply implementing the law doing the murdering. Not the government.

If someone is willing to fight to the death over their guns, that’s just flat out insane, and it means they don’t have the mental capacity necessary to handle them in the first place.

Implementing law by the barrel of a gun. Spoken like a true leftist.

As a libertarian socialist, I advocate for the opposite of that. You advocate for the use of guns, to the death if needbe, to keep your guns even after they’ve been deemed illegal. You advocate for violence. I advocate for peace.

I also advocate for an end to empire, on our way to a stateless society. You still cling to the insane idea that you get to decide for everyone else when the government is “tyrannical,” because, guns, and that it’s okay to shoot and kill government employees who are just implementing the law. Again, they wouldn’t be the folks who initiated the violence. It would be you and your fellow gun nuts who did that.

With all due respect you have falsely accused me of supporting violence which is patently FALSE. From my “cold dead hands” means the government doing the murdering. YOU ADVOCATE VIOLENCE. SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER. I advocate personal FREEDOM. The very spirit of which founded this nation.

Billy_T wrote:

bnw,

Please don’t click “quote” if you’re not going to quote someone.

Beyond that, Heston shows the complete and utter idiocy of anyone who would prefer death to a slight reduction in consumer choice, or a slight increase in paper work.

Death: “I choose death rather than giving up my access to guns that weren’t even legal twenty years ago!!!! Arrrrrrrgggggghhhhh! Frotttthhh, blagggghhhh!!!”

“I choose death rather than going back to the way things were in pretty much every state in the US until roughly twenty years ago, when conceal carry laws were virtually non-existent!!! Arrrrrrggghhhhh!!!!! Grrrrrrhhh, barrgggle gurrrrgggle!!!”

Since the amendment was written — and isn’t “original intent” a big deal for gun nuts? — since it was written, consumer choice for weaponry has accelerated astronomically, beyond the wildest dreams of anyone in the late 18th century. So people in 2016 now have options for weapons that did not exist one, five, ten, twenty, thirty years ago. If you couldn’t own an AR-15, for example, but you could still buy shotguns and .357 magnums and a host of other kinds of guns . . . . you’d rather die than lose the massive increase in consumer choice that wasn’t even there in the past? You’d rather die than lose something that was never, ever your “right” in the first place?”

Oh, well. If you’re intent on committing suicide . . .

I did quote you. That is why your name is there. I quoted your post about boats. Why your post didn’t show up I do not know.

As for “legal” guns I’ve already told you that the AR-15 (the latest bugaboo du jour) has been legal and offered to the public for over 50 years.

As for Heston he merely stated that he would fight to his death for his 2nd Amendment right. Sad that you would support the government murdering someone over it. Chew on that.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by bnw.

Billy_T wrote:

No sale. You’re using “Gun Safety” as a ruse to deny 2nd Amendment right. It won’t work.

No “ruse” necessary. The 2nd amendment never gave you the “right” you think it did. It’s never given you the right to unfettered, unregulated, unlimited consumer choice or firepower.

All it says is that if you’re in a state-run militia — which no longer exist — you can “keep or bear arms.”

That’s it. There is no “right” there to endless consumer choice of weaponry, free from restrictions, restraints or constraints. And we’ve always had restrictions, restraints and constraints, and the courts have always upheld them — even Heller.

No such absolute “right” has ever existed in the history of humankind. The radical right, led by the NRA, invented it out of wholecloth, and Trump is pandering to them. It sounds like you agree with their invention.

That right hasn’t been vague for 227 years. You have the right to keep and bear arms.

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Also, on NAFTA, trade and Trump.

He’s been lying to his followers from the beginning about what is actually going on. Instead, he’s used jingoistic and xenophobic triggers to get them to believe these trade deals help other countries while uniquely screwing over Americans. In reality, they make things radically better for capitalists, capital and especially American capitalists and capital. But he’ll never be honest about that with you. He wants you to hate Mexicans and the Chinese and poor people around the world and to believe they’re screwing you over, when it’s actually American business owners and interests who are.

They wrote the treaties. They lobbied to get them passed. They benefit. They ship millions of jobs overseas, chasing after cheaper and cheaper labor and more and more profits. Trump does this too, to this day. So he can’t be honest about the real set up, because then you’d be angry at him and people like him, so he scapegoats impoverished Mexicans and Chinese and Malaysians instead, even though they’re getting the shaft too. Labor is getting the shaft. Capital, capitalism and global corporatism win, and that includes Trump.

He’s conning his followers. And it’s too obvious to miss.

Trump is campaigning on protecting and increasing US employment particularly in manufacturing. So capitalists can make money by not shafting the US worker. No doubt domestic and foreign labor are getting the shaft in those trade deals but Trump will be working for the US worker which is as it should be.

We’ve talked about this before. Trump has never, ever, not once, talked about how he would increase US employment or help American workers. He has no plan, other than slashing taxes for the rich and deregulating business further. Deregulation means fewer protections for workers and the environment, not more. Deregulation means Capital and Corporations have even more power over workers than they do now.

Again, Trump has never spelled out one single detail of one single plan to help American workers. All he’s done is tell you to trust him. He hasn’t demonstrated why you should. Ever. Not once.

35% tariff on imported goods from an ex-pat company.

I wonder if any public money went towards the development of that pen? Can that medicine be given via a needle and syringe?

Billy_T wrote:

You go on to say:

Trump is not the establishment as all the establishment is all in on trying to defeat Trump. One has to be blind not to see it. Trump wants to shit can the TPP and renegotiate NAFTA and if necessary to shit can NAFTA too. Trump wants to have a dialogue with Russia against ISIS. Trump wants to audit the Federal Reserve. Trump wants to end illegal immigration. Trump ants to support the police and our 2nd Amendment right. All of these are contrary to the wishes of the establishment. Their time is done. The people are speaking through Trump. The election won’t be close to allow the establishment to steal it.

Your first sentence uses your premise as your conclusion. Sorry, logic doesn’t work that way.

Second, Trump, as president, won’t have the power to get rid of NAFTA, even if he wants to. That’s up to Congress. And when it was originally passed, more Republicans voted for it than Dems.

Third, Obama has had a dialogue with Russia about ISIS already.

Fourth, we definitely should audit the Fed. Bernie Sanders has worked hard to pass just such a bill for many years, and hasn’t been successful. I’d love to see the duopoly actually do it and let the sunshine in.

Fifth, Clinton also supports the police and the 2nd amendment. No difference there. Obama does too. “Gun rights,” in fact, expanded on his watch to include open carry in national parks. There were zero losses even under the right’s mistaken reinterpretation of the 2nd.

The establishment is perfectly fine with the 2nd amendment and gun proliferation. It’s never tried to stop it. It also obviously is strongly supportive of the police. The police protect the establishment from the actual will of the people all too often.

1. The establishment is all against Trump. That is obvious. No logical construct necessary.

2. You underestimate the power of Trump’s coattails. Not only will a lot of democrats vote against NAFTA so will a lot of peeing in their pants republicans wary of Trump campaigning against them in the future.

3. Wow. If by a “dialogue” you mean threatening Russia by overthrowing the Russian friendly duly elected government of the Ukraine to expand and base NATO’s anti-missile shield in the Ukraine as well as allow Monsanto to further expand its GMO market into the Ukraine then I have to wonder about the efficacy of the dialogue you tout. Putin has made it crystal clear he views the expansion and basing of NATO’s anti-missile shield as a direct military threat and Russia has banned all GMO food yet the winds from the Ukraine will spread GMO pollens into Russia. We can then discuss Syria in which Russia is at war with ISIS while the US supports ISIS attacking Syrian government forces. Since Syria has been a Russian ally for over 40 years and the Russians were invited into the conflict by the Syrian government the US has meddled in Syria in violation of international law. Some dialogue Obama has there with Russia!

4. Hey we agree about the Fed but Ron Paul gets the lions credit in my opinion.

5. Total BULLSHIT. Hildabeast and Obama would love to take away the 2nd Amendment and EVERYONE knows that. As for supporting the police Obama has been a disaster. Hildabeast would love to get BLM’s support if she could.