softlynow

The GOP needs gutting. We used to have wild swings to the composition of Congress. The winning party used to be able to give its agenda a try. Considering the major issues facing us, Christofascism and Climate Change the foremost, maybe we should have a do something Congress this go 'round.

That he doesn't do it with advanced statistics anymore is the real sign of decay of our community.

I'm glad someone engaged on that point. I tried to find spirituality. I tried and found myself totally disinterested in those thoughts, techniques, teachings, and so on. But I know myself to be very empathetic and also know my many limitations. Sprirituality does not speak to me. The call to natural order or of its rights does not give me solace or ring true with my experience and knowlegde of the present or past. For any that it does, I only hope that the practice of spiritual thought gives them insight into the needs of others. I believe it does for you. I believe it is the justification of evil thoughts and deed in others. I do not take issue with your conclusion. We will end ourselves. I'm not sure Hollywood has showed us how yet, but it would probably make for a good epic trilogy for a successor sentient being.

Yep. Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

Fix on? Fixated? Mentioned once. But, OK. You, though, are quite obsessed with your white whale of positivism. As someone who lacks the rigidity of philosophical thought to be such an adherent, and who has made no assertions here holding me in that camp, I suggest that you find someone else on whom to fixate. What concerns me more than this spiritualism of natural rights is the strength of our legal rights. I'm happy that there are multiple ways to convince folks to preserve and strengthen them, whether it is by an appeal to God, an emotional appeal to something innate in carbon based life, an appeal to the utility of the happiness they bring to many, or an appeal to the pocketbook if that is what it takes. What good is a natural right or natural law if the default setting for humanity is to violate them with impunity? History tells us that violating every natural right anyone has concocted is just about our favorite pastime.

Good for them. They knew you should use shared feelings to give weight to your document. Much like the legislatures used in secession documents when citing their citizens’ understanding of the moral imperative to maintain the legality of chattel slavery and codify the superiority of the white race. Who said we needed to get further down any road, other than the question asked? That question is yes/no, and the “yes” camp keeps spinning its wheels or relying on bare, unsupported assertion.

If that was your argument, then you weren't making it clearly. The following quotes do not support you currently stated thesis, but rather my interpretation: In any event. I disagree with that thesis as well. Like most rheotorical devices, the concept of natural rights just made persuasion easier. Now the next part: Which leads us back to a definition of rights. You are, here, working with a different one than the generally accepted one. Your "right" is really just shared compunction. Does that exist? Absolutely. Does calling that a right make any sense? Yes, to the extent that it is persuasive to get societal buy-in to give force to others to cofiy that feeling with a mechanism to level the playing field at the level of the more temperate amongst us. And the last: Cool. That doesn't seem to address anything I said. It may be pointed at DixonHur and his cite of Çatalhöyük (yes, I know it was in modern day Turkey, for those who would proceed to argue like my mother).

This is coming across as resentment of your inability to defend your position. Just FYI. Your strongest point has been that jettisoning our framework for ordering society would be catastrophic. Unfortunately, that point only proves your opponent’s position to be true. Without human enforcement of rights, they are not operative. Meaning they do not exist, or they are meaningless. Also, saying “natural rights don’t exist” doesn’t (for all of us) mean that we want to ditch that construct as a call to action. Keeping it makes it easier to communicate with the masses and many decision-makers who lack the flexibility of thought to question the “truths” they’ve grown up knowing. I just think it’s best to not be deluded into thinking we don’t have to work at keeping and protecting those rights we hold dear.

People who believe in made up things are being asked to defend themselves.

Pointless discussion can be entertaining. This one would be unlikely to bring in unique views even with an MS Paint dick drawing showdown.

Arguing the wording or phrasing is purposeless. In Heller, Scalia said, “[It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The words in the USC mean what a majority of the nine say it means. They will torture the phrasing as they please and find persuasive whatever fact/anecdote/lie/gibberish gets them the result they like. This bickering is pointless. Power is all that matters, and those with power think their hobby, manufacturers stock price and/or gun lobby campaign donations are more important than human lives, let alone predicate phrases or antiquated syntax.

I don't have time to deep dive twitter accounts, so it's unclear to me that this is not the real Nick Adams. I've had the displeasure of hearing Mr. Alpha Male speak in person on more than one occassion (don't ask), and based on my memory of those speeches, that twitter account posts exactly the kind of idiotic drivel he would say and which his infinitely gullible audience eats up. His victims undoubtedly believe TS to be a money-grubbing whore.

Time-stamped for thread-title quote:

If Trump has it wrapped up, I could see it, but if the presidential nomination is still in doubt, no.

Y’all best not start arguing about the number of days in a week. It’s been done: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751

Their jokes are facsimiles of copies of summaries of faint rememberances of tired tropes. Everytime I hear one of their jokes I think of Robert Wuhl's character in Good Morning, Vietnam (although it could be any of his characters, really).

I'm with you. If Byrne is smart and feels secure, he should just delete Dabo from any list he has. I understand that it might become the safe play. Dabo failing would likely not haunt Byrne or result in his firing. But Dabo will fail, and there are a dozen guys out there that a real search would reveal that would not fail (meaning they would keep Bama in the playoffs on a yearly basis and at least win a couple SEC titles). I have no clue if Byrne is smart and/or feels secure. But I'm glad it's not Castiglione or CDC in that job. Either of them would take their swings at the DeBoer/Lanning/Norvell/Sark tier and then move to find the best fit amongst the non-splash names who can really coach.

The most accomplished, sure, not the best.

That didn’t suck.

One could always ask that question, and the best answer is ALWAYS, "no one should give a shit what that moron is on about."

Mine is that the right-leaning folks who don't engage on substance, but instead bitch about sources, or cannot admit even self-evident facts are true hold their political views almost entirely based on emotion. They may even think they have rational reasons for their beliefs, but, when I've heard them try to lay it out, it almost always derives from their feels. I think it's why so many of them resort to trolling. They're broken inside, and need the dopamine hit from triggering their enemy. Now, don't take me saying "they're broken" as me judging them. To some extent, we're all broken inside. Most of us just cope with it in ways other than advocating that the government make other people's lives harder and in doing so becoming a tool for billionaires to amass greater weath. For that, I judge them.

He was on fire because we played passively. When we attacked this year and tonight, good things happened. Penix was going to beat us on great throws. He made a few of them. We didn’t really make him have to much because of the plan we rolled with until the 4th q.

I’m only really mad at the defensive game plan. Penix was going to get 300+ no matter what. We needed to play aggressive for 4 quarters and not expect a 4 man rush to get anywhere near the QB against an OL that gave up 11 sacks all year. Just an atrocious game plan that, when we ditched it because we had to be aggressive, unsurprisingly good things started happening. i don’t know how PK could have coached this team through the UH, KSU and TCU games and still run that plan out there. When we were passive this year we failed. We were mostly passive for 3 quarters tonight.

We’re not allowed to be assholes here anymore? What kind of woke shit is this?

They won't need to be too creative, really. Scalia wrote this in his dissent to Arizona v. United States: "As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty." 5 or 6 (will Roberts flip?) on the court will just go with this reasoning this time around (though Thomas and Alito will likely write concurrences, given the different path they took in their dissent last time). Next up Abbot will call for the creation of a special division of DPS whose sole mandate is to hunt down undocumented workers. They will, of course, become the best funded agency in the state, because shit in the Chryons on Fox News or OAN are the real problems government is meant to tackle.