FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
And every gimmick hungry yob
Digging gold from rock n roll
Grabs the mic to tell us
he'll die before he's sold
But I believe in this
And it's been tested by research
He who fucks nuns
Will later join the church
User ID: 195
My fantasy system is one where the right to buy almost any gun is licensed, but the licensing procedure is devolved to a local County Level gun club.
Virtually every gun owner I know thinks that some people shouldn't have guns, they just don't trust the government to make that determination. The anti-gun fanatics and the local range guys would agree on 95-99% of cases, but we can't get there because of agency and trust problems. If the anti-gun crowd granted gun owners the right to self-police gun licensing they would get most of what they wanted without a fight.
This is why one of my favorite policies is when I went for my CCW, I had to write down three references. At the time I thought, wow, what kind of dumbass policy is this, all I need to do to have a gun is have three friends? Then I heard of so many people who either can't find three people who will say they should have a gun and never apply; or who somehow manage to write down people who, when contacted, actively say they shouldn't have a gun! And while that's a minority of the people who shouldn't have guns, they definitely shouldn't have guns.
I'd want to see the same thing with gun clubs. To have a ccw or to buy certain classes of firearms, you have to be a member in good standing and spend time at your local gun club. This would require interacting with other people at the local gun club, who would naturally notice shitbirds or whackadoos or terrorists or the criminally insane in those interactions much more effectively than will the government.
Yeah...I think planning to fuck without a condom or a ring and baby trap a guy and hope it works out is just about the best example of jugaad ethics imaginable.
I feel like this isn't a case about your right to a firearm per se, but a case about your right to lie to get into a mental institution and then say "take backsies, I was just trolling" later.
It seems weird to say that I am free to punch other people (who don’t want to be punched) any time I like since they can always get their own back by slugging me in return.
But I didn't say that it was ok, just that it was different; sticking with your metaphor, there's a big difference between my punching someone who could realistically punch me back, and me punching someone who realistically could not. If I punch another large adult male who could punch me back, it's categorically less bad than if I punch a woman, child, weakling, etc. Escalating a conflict physically when I have escalation dominance is unacceptable, escalating a conflict physically when I do not may fall under acceptable mischief.
I've actually been thinking about this same kind of thing, and these kinds of social settings tend to have lower restrictions when you blend in, precisely out of a sense that you have as much to offer those around you as they have to offer you.
Did Congress declare war on Iran when I wasn't looking?
Listening to Ms. Clark, Ms. Zito said, changed her life. She started a Bible study group, cut down her drinking and stopped dating casually as she focused on finding a husband. She stopped using birth control, taking up a natural family planning method recommended on Ms. Clark's show, and became dubious about abortions and vaccines. She no longer identifies as a feminist.
To Rightists with daughters reading this: are you concerned that they might encounter "natural family planning" on the internet and really f*** up their life?
It's fascinating to me how this line has been misinterpreted throughout this thread.
Ms. Zito started focusing on finding a husband, and at the same time swtiched to natural family planning. This pretty strongly implies, if not outright states, that Ms. Zito is still at least considering making love to somebody, despite the lack of a Mrs. in front of her name. Otherwise, after all, she wouldn't need any plan at all. If she's currently celibate, she didn't "take up" a natural family planning method! You don't need any birth control when you're celibate until marriage! You just...don't fuck, any time, until you get married!
Isn't this a great example of Jugaad Ethics from the Right? Taking the junker of Abstinence Only sexual ethics, and hitching it to the strong horse of woo-woo affirmation feminism? You don't have to not have sex that would be too difficult, just time your cum properly (in ways your male partner will be completely unable to track!) and you're trad enough!
The entire article feels that way. A pastiche of traditional femininity.
This feels much closer to Female Dating Strategy and online Gold Digging subcultures, than it does to any kind of ordered idea of patriarchy. We're getting this weird amalgamation of right wing and left wing ideas, of patriarchy and mid-century modern freedom of choice.
Sure but that's vastly different.
"We're in a good faith relationship, and a pregnancy results, and we decide to move our timeline forward and get serious."
Has little in common with
"He thinks we're just having fun, I'm hoping to have his baby and force him to get serious."
Iranian victory is surviving, and climbing in the Jihadist Power Rankings.
It simply doesn't have the strategic depth to handle regular hits on essential targets every single day; to win, total, unconditional and most importantly indefinite American offensive support would be necessary. Though if the Houthis are of any indication, even that might be insufficient.
I think the problem is more that Israel has all these ambitions about being a tech startup hub, and even occasional missile attacks pretty much end that prospect.
Why do repeats when the whole trail iirc from 20 years ago in boy scouts is around 12 miles?
I don't care how the board is flipped, Trump will continue to be petty and impossible to work with.
Like, this is the glitzy high-class counterpart to stories of underclass black guys vaulting the ticket barriers in BART stations.
The difference being that likely at some point the venerable @Rov_Scam will have a wedding or other event, albeit not one as high-end as all this, which someone in turn might crash. Where a bunch of guys turnstile hopping will never, in turn, have their turnstiles hopped.
Just finished Norman Mailer's The Fight
I'm currently in the middle of reading, with three different people, All the Light We Cannot See, Infinite Jest, and Original Sin (the Jake Tapper book about Biden's dementia, not the probably forty seven thousand murder/romance books with the same name).
Next, I'm between continuing with Junger kick with Marble Cliffs, continuing with war stories with Band of Brothers, continuing with Mailer and war with The Naked and the Dead.
Great advice for a man, doesn't make "being crazy" a dominant female strategy.
If Congress didn't declare war, committing an act of war is illegal and unconstitutional. I didn't get this from whatever fantasy of Democratic talking points you're imagining, an opposition I haven't seen in any way in the newspapers I read, I got it from carefully reading my tattoo of the US constitution.
It could just be our location for whatever reason, but I have very little reason to keep going there after two mediocre sandwiches in a row.
I wouldn't be plugged into the cinephile universe enough to tell you, just enough to have heard the factoid and been amused to find out it was, as ever, more nuanced than that.
well, assuming he survives; I don't imagine corpses get into many fights
Oh Trump will absolutely get into fights after he is dead. Dozens of different Trump confidantes will claim to have received, in private, his political testament in the days before he dies. It will come out that he called Hegseth "Faggot Boy" over his makeup studio, that he had doubts about Vance's "bad genes" in the oval office, the he always hated Marco Rubio.
but if these people are all dead
Sure, there's a chance of that, but that would seem to be more to my point (none of the people we are worried about today will be relevant) than in favor of my interlocutor (these specific people will be relevant).
For additional fun have one of the contestants secretly be a trained MMA fighter.
I don't think it's much fun if it's secret, it's more fun when everyone knows what's up. Does the MMA fighter take a pissant attitude around the house, being unafraid to step on toes because he knows no one will challenge him? Does he have trouble getting anyone to accept his own challenges, since there's less shame in avoiding him than in avoiding someone who has an "unfair" advantage? Also, in my ideal libertarian-hellscape version of this contest, the contestants would be allowed to choose any amateur ruleset to fight under. So they could choose boxing, wrestling, kickboxing, kyokushin, MMA, muay thai, etc. So maybe you know that so-and-so wrestled D1, so you challenge him to box. Etc.
We have very limited data from the "enforced violence" dates which occur roughly once in each season of The Bachelor/ette. Every season the contestants are forced to box, wrestle, or otherwise scrap on one group date. Notable observations:
-- Women give credit to the winner of the boxing tournament even if he outweighs the other guys by 40lbs
-- Men don't care who wins.
-- Only one contestant, to my knowledge, has ever refused to participate on principle, during the Covid season in 2020. She was summarily given a terrible edit and booted off the show.
-- On the other hand, it's nearly always a good move during a rugby or football date to claim an "injury" preventing you from participating, which will allow you to hang out on the sideline with the Lead.
I'd imagine there'd be alliances formed early with the best fighter, but then later some betrayals as they try to get him removed. Maybe you have 4-5 guys each throwing down challenges to the same dude forcing him to decide if he wants to lose some face or actually fight each of them in a row. I'd bet that under almost ANY circumstances, sleeping 5 dudes in a row buys you immense status points.
I suspect we wouldn't see that many fights, with the fights primarily being used to settle "drama" problems in the old fashioned way: camera cuts to Chris telling us "Trevor told Kaylee I said X but I TOTALLY DIDN'T SAY THAT; Trevor must meet me on the field of honor or yield his argument!" If Trevor isn't willing to get in the ring, then he doesn't really think that X was said, does he? If he persists in lying, but refuses to back it up, Trevor's probably headed home, right? At the same time, if Chris keeps whining about Trevor lying about him, but never challenges Trevor, then Chris is probably headed home. And if they both get in the ring and bang around with no clear winner, does it overly impact either of them, positively or negatively? They both showed they were willing to fight to defend their honor, and both put up a good showing, is that enough?
But then the structure of the show is that there's normally out of 24 guys only about 6 Kaylee is actually interested in, and as the show winds on you'll also see challenges made in desperation, from guys who are about to be sent home because Kaylee doesn't like them. Trevor, who is definitely going home soon, will challenge Mike, one of the frontrunners, making up a bullshit offense as a reason and trying to get some juice out of the fight to get attention. Does Mike feel like he needs to accept the challenge, given that Trevor is so far beneath him? Does Kaylee feel that Mike needs to accept it, and will lose attraction to him if he doesn't? What if Trevor is much bigger and stronger? Might Kaylee choose to send Trevor home immediately, for trying to pick a fight without cause, or just to protect her favorite boy?
And because you get a wide range of size, strength, skill in fighting, and toughness in your contestants, do you get a white knight? Trevor, a former college football tight end, picks a fight with David, a scrawny software developer, and intends to challenge him publicly. Thad, a former amateur boxer who has made friends with David but also needs the attention, steps in and challenges Trevor first. Who does Kaylee end up falling for in this scenario?
But you have to be fair and also include repair costs in the delta between owning an efficient sedan vs. a big ol' truck.
Are these significantly different over the lifetime of a like-for-like comparison? Does a Tacoma or Tundra have that much higher costs than a Rav4 or Camry?
I don't think that has been my experience where usage is similar.
The punch line to all this? The author, Farha Khalidi, is an Onlyfans star!
I feel like Aella unleashed a sort of Rule 34 for gimmicks: there is no niche so stupid that some e-thot won't try to exploit it.
So it begs the question: what, exactly, is she advocating for?
She's advocating for money, from men, who will be charmed by her pretensions of intellectualism and pay to see her tits.
Or just keep a copy of the construction/as-built plans!
Redundancy is key! Don't keep just a single copy, and don't keep it in a digital format that might be difficult to access later. Don't count on others to keep them.
Because the house will be up for thirty or fifty years when you have a problem you need to deal with.
Re. 2, how do you recommend planning for it? Do you have an example?
Primarily by placing mechanicals (well pump, expansion tanks, water heater, air handlers, the first drain the septic system will back up into) in places where when they do leak, they won't destroy anything. Waterproof flooring, floor drains, leak protection, don't stack all your valuables and important paperwork right next to it, etc.
Do you think it would be possible to get away with less house? I'd actually prefer not to have to clean, cool, and maintain a huge house.
I've always been a fan, if not always a practitioner, of segmenting the house in ways that let you heat and clean selectively. I just have a ranch house, but the basement is on its own mini-split system, and as such we can keep it at a different temperature than the rest of the house, saving money. We also don't need to keep it as clean as it is primarily used as a hosting space other than the workout room. There's a lot of clever solutions to this. Though anyway, I'd imagine with five kids you shouldn't have problems getting chores done for cleaning the house.
I've noticed the quality at my local jersey Mike's has declined precipitously since the PE buyout. I've basically abandoned the place.
Which is a shame as they used to send us dozens of BOGO coupons that made them fairly affordable.
- Prev
- Next
It seems odd to write a massive post about Democratic infighting and barely mention Gaza.
Support for Israel among Dems is underwater. It's also declining among Republicans. 71% of Democrats under 50 have an unfavorable view of Israel.
Democrats have nonetheless failed to offer any coherent policy against Israel, even now when they can do so irresponsibly. Democrats failed to offer any organized opposition to Trump when he launched an illegal war (which he has since hopefully concluded). Democrats have failed to speak to their base's concerns, and abandoned their principles.
It cost Dems in 2024, and if they can't get out of it, it will cost them in 2026.
More options
Context Copy link