Jump to content

SquishMitten

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    6133
  • Joined

Everything posted by SquishMitten

  1. you know what else apocalyptic environments are bad for? Providing electricity along a convenient network to charge your rust bucket.
  2. JFC. Every time this thread gets bumped it’s just you thirsty virgins pining after Nicole. I’m kinda surprised jerseyman doesn’t post here every day to enhance his spank bank
  3. Well, it’s not entirely false. The projected risk was excessive.
  4. Yeah, that seems like a bad take. At some point, and we’re probably already there if not super close, the B1G and SEC adding more teams starts to devalue the current conference members. What other teams out there would add enough to a contract that every member would get more money than they do now? There’s not many.
  5. There’s is no contradiction between saying: a) we don’t know what X is, and b) we have no proof of extraterrestrial visitors
  6. Not going to address all of PTINS longcat, and I don’t necessarily disagree with the general point, but in this specific case, the fact that they came out so quickly and publicly acknowledged that their facilities are at least partially to blame, is a pretty damn strong indicator that they (or one of their subs) fucked up bad.
  7. Bank photographer in that situation would imply he was sent there to take pictures of a property the bank was either a) just routinely monitoring the condition of their collateral, or b) getting close to foreclosing on. I’ve had lots of my guys threatened when doing that, but no fights I’m aware of.
  8. Second the tomahawk idea. Also, dick towel, tequila gun, and of course, egg
  9. They didn't steal the train. They robbed the passengers.
  10. No taxes for the city or Austin CC. They already have their own utility district, and I think they'd pick up an emergency service district tax. So, a million dollar house would have paid ~$4k less in taxes last year.
  11. Down on Super Tuesday, huh? And Nikki Haley is spending way more money on digital marketing than Trump. Read somewhere this morning that she was specifically spending a bunch on social media today. P.S. - No CR P.P.S - *Removes tinfoil hat
  12. Fair. Like the rest of everyone here, I too am the same weight I was at 18
  13. That's how my kids sell lemonade. 1 for $1, or 2 for $3. When I told them they had it wrong, they told me their justification. Since almost everybody buys 2 at a time anyway, they based their pricing on consumer behavior.
  14. Windy Deuce?!? And here I was thinking there couldn’t be a more apt name for a wildfire than Smokehouse Creek.
  15. ^^ That’s fucking wild. How can something like that ever be contained?
  16. It’s how you mount a 1.3 sec bull though.
  17. It's not the slow motion. That bull is incredible. Here's full speed video. Appears it's name is GodMode
  18. You watch your mouth, son. Costner is a gotdamn American icon
  19. For being a supposed theory of everything, I understand none of it. It needs a better name
  20. Here’s the explanation for those of y’all too lazy to click and/or don’t have FB A bit of science. I've got several comments regarding the fact that the videos I posted these days must be fake. Someone thinks the videos are sped up (I never speed up videos, unless specifically stated), some others claim that it's fake because the snow doesn't produce steam when touched by the lava. Here I try to explain why the latter phenomenon happens. In the abstract of a paper published in 1984 by A. A. Mills called "Pillow lavas and the Leidenfrost effect" is stated: "This is made possible by the Leidenfrost effect, the phenomenon whereby film boiling replaces the usual nucleated boiling above a certain temperature, thereby forming an insulating sheath of vapour around any sufficiently hot body immersed in a liquid. Only on cooling below a certain temperature (defined as the Nukiyama temperature) will rapid heat exchange occur between water and hot, gas-free lava." This applies in the situation shown in the video. In easy words, when the water, or the snow in this case, is touched by a superheated surface (the lava) it forms a very thin layer of steam which protects the snow. It would take a bit longer, and a bit of cooling, to start producing plumes (nucleated boiling). Since lava moves fast, it covers the snow before that can happen. Regarding the speed, that's the actual speed of Thursday's lava flow. I have no need to speed it up for whatever reason. Basaltic lava, with that low content of silica and temperature over 1100°C, moves fast, even on a quasi-flat surface. So, before you waste your time vomiting your statements under some content, use it to study a bit of lava rheology or thermodynamics. Then we can have a constructive discussion. One thing is for sure, from me, you will never get fake videos or composite footage. That's not my style, and I have no need to change that. © Marco Di Marco/Volcano Chaser • 08.02.2024 . . . #iceland🇮🇸 #visiticeland #visitreykjanes #wheniniceland #reykjanes #eruption #svartsengi #dji #science #geology #basalt #eldgos #magma #lava #lavafield #hraun #volcano #rocks #landscape #latergram #instapic #instagood #instagram #igers #igersiceland #reeloftheday #reels #reelsinstagram
  21. I’ll agree with where you started that it shouldn’t be vice versa, but I don’t follow the rest of your arguement. The Constitution is what it is. I think we can all agree that Congress then generally gets to further define what certain things mean, and SCOTUS gets to decide if what Congress enacts is in line with the intent of the Constitution. But when the Constitution doesn’t perfectly state its purpose (e.g., you can’t be President if you weren’t born here), there’s nothing to debate. Insurrection is not perfectly defined; thus, Congress has the authority to spell it out more specifically. There are criminal statutes that more succinctly define it (admittedly, I’m making an assumption on that point based on other posts, but I think the point is valid whether that is true or not). When enacted, everybody knew exactly what it meant so they shortsightedly didn’t spell it out perfectly. Unfortunate, but I get it. We’d hopefully do it better now, but imagine if there was a Constitutional amendment tomorrow that said “anybody who participated in an attack to disrupt the certification of elections is barred from holding office” (or something along those lines), and a hundred years from now, a group of mouthbreathers attacked the Supreme Court building while they were hearing oral arguments on an election case. Would that count under the law I just hypothesized? Fuck it. I’m tired and don’t want to write anymore. I’m sure there’s obvious points/counterpoints in my argument that I skipped over because they seem obvious to me. I hate the orange POS, but I don’t think SCOTUS should affirm CO’s ruling as is. If in the next case they decide he’s immune, then we’re officially turbo fucked
  22. No, it’s not neutered. It has the same authority regardless of anyone’s opinion of it.
  23. Nicole, nobody actually think’s you’re the killer. You don’t need to keep making posts to support your alibi … as fake as it clearly is.
  24. I had to take a call right after the question was asked so I didn't hear the answer, but I see two very big possibilities. Starting with this.... .... This is a reasonable interpretation, and I saw that for two reasons: First, when written, it would be reasonable to assume they believed that a) someone who had committed insurrection couldn’t possibly win an election (e.g., they couldn’t fathom that the confederate states would have enough voting power to get someone like Davis elected as President as opposed to winning a Senator/Rep) and/or b) if someone who had committed insurrection WAS elected as president (which was ultimately made possible by flaws with the electoral college), then shouldn’t they be allowed to take office? Isn’t that the ultimate goal of a democracy? If the “majority” of the country believes a person should be president in spite of a constitutional clause, then isn’t that the will of the people saying they don’t agree with that part of the Constitution anymore? In other words, if they are supported by the “majority” then shouldn’t that be reason enough to allow them to take office? The second point someone falls apart when you compare it to age and birthplace limitations that everyone agrees can’t be superseded, but I can’t entirely disagree with the argument that those restrictions aren’t fundamentally different than the insurrection clause in their purpose, although I personally believe “committed insurrection” is a much more disqualifying reason than someone being 34 years old or born in Canada and lived all but the first few days of their lives in the US. I guess the point I’m making is that if someone like Trump could be re-elected, then isn’t that the entire point of our Democracy? Even if it means the end of it? Having said all that, I want it to be absolutely clear that I don’t think he should be permitted to hold the office, I don’t believe he should be allowed to live another day outside of a jail cell, and according to the constitution, should probably be executed for treason.
×
×
  • Create New...