I'm tired of the NY-Chicago pizza wars. If someone put a gun to my head and said there was going to be only one kind of pizza in the world and it was my job to decide, sorry, Chicago, I go with New York. But nobody is making me do that. I enjoy Chicago-style pizza as a change of pace, and am glad it exists. Eat. Enjoy. It's not a zero-sum game.
I'm actually better with a gun, despite my rusty skills, than I ever was with a chainsaw. I routinely carry a pocket knife, Swiss Army folder with a two-inch blade, which, from a self-defense standpoint is better than nothing, but just barely. People sometimes think it's weird, but I find reason to use it for ordinary civilian purposes several times a week.
I own a couple of long guns, of the sort nobody worth taking seriously is interested in keeping sane, law-abiding people from having, and used to own a handgun, which I got rid of when license renewal came up because I had used it so little. Although where I now live has restrictions on guns (I probably couldn't get a carry permit if I wanted one), I grew up where gun ownership was no more interesting than chainsaw ownership. I don't miss the handgun (though I'm toying with the idea of getting licensed and getting one for largely recreational use), and, although I have lived in and have traveled daily through dodgy neighborhoods for decades at all hours, I have never been in a situation where I would have felt safer carrying a pistol.
The world does not work on Jaybird's schedule. It takes time to find things out, with sufficiently good sourcing for a responsible news outlet to publish. Just look at how Lawrence O'Donnell recently embarrassed himself and his network by rushing to tout an inadequately-sourced story, which may, ultimately, prove to be true. I had thought to give you a simple compliment, thinking you were a big enough person to point out the work being done, which you were skeptical would be done. I guess I was wrong.
Yeah. I don’t understand why CJ thought this would be a takedown.
Well, I'll have to take your word for what you say you don't understand. Including, for example, why you think it was supposed to be a "takedown" in the first place.
I must commend Jaybird for meticulously passing on the mainstream media's reporting as it uncovers things he was quite confident it could not be trusted to investigate.
You could certainly take that position. Many do, and some of those many even understand what they're talking about and have reasons they can articulate for their views. There's an entire industry devoted to criticizing Supreme Court decisions, but the thing is that unlike the participants in that industry, the Supreme Court speaks with authority, and, therefore, sets the terms of discussion within the industry. When the Supreme Court says something, that is, by definition, a "serious argument" for its position.
To be clear, nobody is saying that the welfare and regulatory state are unconstitutional, but rather than the Constitution relegates welfare spending and regulation of instrastate activities to the state governments. Is there really a serious argument that it does not?
Actually, lots of people say precisely what you say nobody says. And the "serious argument" that the current welfare and regulatory state is constitutional is over a century of Supreme Court decisions, which I recommend for light reading.
What did Luck actually know before the fans bought season tickets (or the team set up its draft board) that he should have made a decision about? If he knew then that he couldn't play, he would have said so. If he is anything like the competitor his entire football life suggests he is, he kept trying to get well and play. It became too much. That it didn't become apparent that his efforts would be futile until an inconvenient time is not his fault.
My wife, who grew up in NYC, went with relatives every year to the State Fair in Danbury, Connecticut. She thought it was The State Fair. When I told her about the New York State Fair, held annually in Syracuse, where I grew up, she was astonished to hear about it.
The "woke" might. And if they did, they would be factually correct. It wouldn't be the whole story, of course, but it would be part of it. So what is your objection: political, moral, aesthetic....?
L7: RBG's reference to "the literary genius known by the name of William Shakespeare," is a sly acknowledgement that Justice Stevens was an anti-Stratfordian, convinced (along with distinguished "Shakespearean" actors like Sir Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance) that the works attributed to Shakespeare were actually written by Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.
You know who else wasn't ADOS? Barack Obama. And last I looked, Jamaican slavery was even worse than American, if mortality rates and slave testimony mean anything.
What "credentials" are you talking about? It's not as though there is some sort of Cop License that makes you eligible for hiring elsewhere, or, more to the point, the lack of which makes you ineligible to be hired elsewhere. If some other jurisdiction wants to take the political heat -- and there are probably some jurisdictions where his conduct would be regarded as a feature rather than a bug -- it can hire him.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “When New York Pizza Became Better than Chicago Pizza”
I'm tired of the NY-Chicago pizza wars. If someone put a gun to my head and said there was going to be only one kind of pizza in the world and it was my job to decide, sorry, Chicago, I go with New York. But nobody is making me do that. I enjoy Chicago-style pizza as a change of pace, and am glad it exists. Eat. Enjoy. It's not a zero-sum game.
On “I Don’t Own a Gun”
I'm actually better with a gun, despite my rusty skills, than I ever was with a chainsaw. I routinely carry a pocket knife, Swiss Army folder with a two-inch blade, which, from a self-defense standpoint is better than nothing, but just barely. People sometimes think it's weird, but I find reason to use it for ordinary civilian purposes several times a week.
"
I own a couple of long guns, of the sort nobody worth taking seriously is interested in keeping sane, law-abiding people from having, and used to own a handgun, which I got rid of when license renewal came up because I had used it so little. Although where I now live has restrictions on guns (I probably couldn't get a carry permit if I wanted one), I grew up where gun ownership was no more interesting than chainsaw ownership. I don't miss the handgun (though I'm toying with the idea of getting licensed and getting one for largely recreational use), and, although I have lived in and have traveled daily through dodgy neighborhoods for decades at all hours, I have never been in a situation where I would have felt safer carrying a pistol.
On “Epstein Dead”
That's another way of putting it.
"
So you prefer speed and speculation to sourcing and responsibility. There's no accounting for taste, and no point disputing it.
"
The world does not work on Jaybird's schedule. It takes time to find things out, with sufficiently good sourcing for a responsible news outlet to publish. Just look at how Lawrence O'Donnell recently embarrassed himself and his network by rushing to tout an inadequately-sourced story, which may, ultimately, prove to be true. I had thought to give you a simple compliment, thinking you were a big enough person to point out the work being done, which you were skeptical would be done. I guess I was wrong.
"
Yeah. I don’t understand why CJ thought this would be a takedown.
Well, I'll have to take your word for what you say you don't understand. Including, for example, why you think it was supposed to be a "takedown" in the first place.
"
I must commend Jaybird for meticulously passing on the mainstream media's reporting as it uncovers things he was quite confident it could not be trusted to investigate.
On “A New Group Puts “Principles First.””
That may, syntactically, be an English sentence, but doesn't communicate any discernible meaning.
"
You could certainly take that position. Many do, and some of those many even understand what they're talking about and have reasons they can articulate for their views. There's an entire industry devoted to criticizing Supreme Court decisions, but the thing is that unlike the participants in that industry, the Supreme Court speaks with authority, and, therefore, sets the terms of discussion within the industry. When the Supreme Court says something, that is, by definition, a "serious argument" for its position.
"
To be clear, nobody is saying that the welfare and regulatory state are unconstitutional, but rather than the Constitution relegates welfare spending and regulation of instrastate activities to the state governments. Is there really a serious argument that it does not?
Actually, lots of people say precisely what you say nobody says. And the "serious argument" that the current welfare and regulatory state is constitutional is over a century of Supreme Court decisions, which I recommend for light reading.
On “Joe Biden’s ’68 Throwback Special”
No one born in the 1950's will likely ever be President. No one born in the 1930's was.
"
Get off of my lawn.
On “The Perspective of Luck, or Lack Thereof”
What did Luck actually know before the fans bought season tickets (or the team set up its draft board) that he should have made a decision about? If he knew then that he couldn't play, he would have said so. If he is anything like the competitor his entire football life suggests he is, he kept trying to get well and play. It became too much. That it didn't become apparent that his efforts would be futile until an inconvenient time is not his fault.
"
Don’t we have an expectation that the goods we purchase will be well-made, competently presented, and enjoyable?
We do. What basis we have for that expectation is another question.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The State Fair”
My wife, who grew up in NYC, went with relatives every year to the State Fair in Danbury, Connecticut. She thought it was The State Fair. When I told her about the New York State Fair, held annually in Syracuse, where I grew up, she was astonished to hear about it.
On “Speaking of Terror”
This is remarkably good sense.
On “To Lift This Great Social Incubus of Bad Cooking”
The "woke" might. And if they did, they would be factually correct. It wouldn't be the whole story, of course, but it would be part of it. So what is your objection: political, moral, aesthetic....?
On “The Hedgehog Who Won”
Brown people used to health care.
On “Wednesday Writs for 8/21”
L7: RBG's reference to "the literary genius known by the name of William Shakespeare," is a sly acknowledgement that Justice Stevens was an anti-Stratfordian, convinced (along with distinguished "Shakespearean" actors like Sir Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance) that the works attributed to Shakespeare were actually written by Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.
On “2019 Time Capsule”
Pocahontas.
On “The Hedgehog Who Won”
Well, he's branching out.
On “2019 Time Capsule”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kamala-harris-ancestor-slaves/
"
You know who else wasn't ADOS? Barack Obama. And last I looked, Jamaican slavery was even worse than American, if mortality rates and slave testimony mean anything.
On “Daniel Pantaleo Has Been Fired”
What "credentials" are you talking about? It's not as though there is some sort of Cop License that makes you eligible for hiring elsewhere, or, more to the point, the lack of which makes you ineligible to be hired elsewhere. If some other jurisdiction wants to take the political heat -- and there are probably some jurisdictions where his conduct would be regarded as a feature rather than a bug -- it can hire him.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.