yoink

Along every sidewalk? It'd work. The infrastructure bill would be a monster!

In the long run these attacks with motor vehicles are going to be bad news. I don't see any easy way to stop them. Do any of you? Guns are easy - make them disappear and society would carry on but that's just not the case with transport. Removing them would literally cause capitalist society to stop functioning. Fully autonomous cars / trucks with no human interface are probably somewhat of a solution, but that's going to be a tough sell even when the technology is perfected. Unfortunately we just have to rely on better intelligence for now I think. But how much intrusion into your lives are you willing to put up with for that intelligence? I know most Americans see the UK as very much a big-brother state... and it's certainly getting that way. What would you accept in terms of giving up some privacy to try and better our intelligence. For me the government can read all the emails or internet traffic they want - I've long been of the opinion that anything digitally transferred via the internet isn't private anyway. They can put cameras in public areas... More than that I start getting uncomfortable with.

Why? They had a desalinator and fresh dog to eat... There's a good couple of weeks right there.

Why is it OK for vegetarians to come round for dinner and expect me to do a vegetarian option, but suddenly if I expect a steak when I go round to theirs I'm the asshole? NO. TOFU ISN'T THE FUCKING SAME.

Most college dorms smell like unwashed arse anyway. I'd take cooking garlic over that any day! And garlic powder is no substitute.

I still think it would take a literal smoking gun for the Republicans to do anything about Trump. And even then only reluctantly. I bet Sean Spicer is sitting in his office laughing his arse off at the moment.

It doesn't - at the moment. They'll probably use this as leverage for other stuff. It is important to clarify that the charges currently have nothing to do with the campaign. Precisely. The left need to make sure they don't get all gloaty just yet. As far as I'm concerned it's still mostly a nothingburger, but like you say it may well shake loose a few new things. Those are what I'll be interested in.

It doesn't - at the moment.

Hilder And I can tell you that the reports you read on that one don't get across all the details of that day, either.

As a third party, merely commenting after reading your posts with no axe to grind, I'm going to say that I don't believe for a second that you are capable of being impartial in anything to do with the BPA. Because of that, any comment you make that relates to the BPA I automatically assume carries a bias. Maybe you should consider this.

Hi Jerry, I'm going to agree with your son. Both have some pretty solid evidence against them (at least it appears that way). Neither is currently in any position in the government. Hopefully it's just the beginning. Let's play another game - how soon after the arrests will pardons be made? I'm saying

Sorry, I'm busy on the 19th. Can we reorganize to a later date?

That's the point of the science, Ron; To show that your spiritual pseudo-babble is wrong - at least when it relates to physical, provable, testable events. Do you remember CFC's? the gasses used in refrigerators that were banned in 1998? Those were proven to destroy the ozone layer, and guess what - as you put big holes in the ozone layer the area underneath that hole receives more direct sunlight. It heats up more than areas around it... It's also a much more contributory gas to the greenhouse effect than CO2. That's just a single example of how we directly affect the temperature of the earth and took remedial action. We DO deliberately affect (and therefore have some degree of control of) the temperature of the earth. Most climate change deniers argue over the extent or cause of that change, but not many people would say that we make no difference. And fewer still would try to back up that position with spirituality-based rationality. Furthermore, just because you feel that the 'ego-illusion' point of view helped you personally doesn't mean that it would apply to everyone else, or even anyone else, or every situation. Personally I think the fact that you felt the need to let go of your ego says far more about you than the world around you.

DNC and Hillary campaign paid for people to find a scandal. That's completely different to 'they made it up'... Honestly, I think stuff like this should be illegal, but it isn't so I'm sure goes on in every camp. Do you really think Trump's campaign wasn't doing the same? But then I also think that nominees should all run on the same (limited) amount of cash as well, so I have some strange ideas.

Rush - the Daily Mail is basically the equivalent of The Enquirer. They get sued for making shit up more than anyone else. Reading their shite will actually kill your brain cells.

But doing it when nothing is at risk it makes it worth nothing. It will carry absolutely no weight with anyone expect those who are already predisposed to believe it anyway. Anyone can not give a shit when there's nothing at risk, but it weakens the message you're giving. Maybe - but you have no proof of that because they're all spineless cock-wombles.

There has never been a bad case for background checks...

Is he saying nasty things because he knows he can't win (making stuff up out of spite, for example), or is he saying nasty things now because he knows he can't win? (having held the opinions but stayed quiet...) There's a difference. Honestly, if the Republican senators actually grew a collective spine and said stuff like this on the record when they weren't already on the way out it would carry much more weight. It's far too easy to dismiss it as being a sore loser if you only say something when there's no risk to saying it. Fucking cowards. Rush's reply is going to be absolutely typical of the dismissal of their conservative base.

They're not immune, but fear and anxiety are far more dominant themes among conservatives, I don't see that. I think there are DIFFERENCES in what the groups are afraid of certainly - conservatives seem to be afraid of more discrete things at the moment (which are easier to research) whereas most liberals / moderates I know seem to have a more general anxiety about the trends in society as a whole. I've certainly never known a more systemic attitude of general anxiety across my diverse groups of friends. It seems like no-one is particularly happy about anything, at the moment.

I've seen nothing but fear, weakness and anger from the right. From everyone, actually. The left are far from immune to these traits.

Only in the world of the "touchy/feely" liberals. Ask some of your conservative parent friends this: 'If an adult said to you that they were going to hurt / assault your child, would you ignore it and do nothing?" Get back to me on how many of them have the 'touchy/feely liberal' response of taking some sort of action about it. Hell - put a poll up in here if you want. It may not be the same action as I'd take, but I bet you $1000 there would be a response. Equally, you cannot possibly think that ignoring something like that is a good Conservative / right wing trait... Words have consequences. Those consequences usually take the form of actions. Take a look at your posts, Ron. You political point-scoring, the us vs them attitude you embody has gone so far that you're completely out of touch with reality. You have no idea what real people think or do - just these made up stereotypes of the pussy-liberal/ Dems and the patriotic red-blooded Conservatives that your opinions on how people react in a situation because of their perceived politics are nonsense. How you were ever an effective counselor if you're so quick to apply labels to people is beyond me. And for your future reference, we've played the politics game before - on just about every test I don't score as a liberal. I'm very much a moderate. On some topics I lean quite a long way left, on others quite a long way right.

Possibly, possibly not. I'd be legally wrong to do it, but I'd do it none-the-less. What's your point? My action would carry consequences without doubt, but the point is that rush's WORDS would elict a response. Sometimes 'something said' can have the same consequences as 'something done'.

If you came up to me and said 'I want to grab your daughter by the pussy', you'd wake up in hospital, even if you hadn't done anything. Sometimes words are enough to elicit a response.

Most supermarkets now have signs asking people to remove motorcycle helmets. It's blatant motorcyclism.

Maybe I misunderstood how pardons work, but this seems completely obvious to me. A pardon doesn't mean you're all of a sudden innocent of a crime that you've been found guilty of - just that you're pardoned from the direct consequence, right?