Jump to content

Clob94

banned
  • Posts

    193
  • Joined

Posts posted by Clob94

  1. 19 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

    multiple meanings of the phrase which apparently was switched just 6 years later (1546) from the original (1538)

    i always thought the everyday meaning was to show that someone cannot simultaneously do 2 contradictory things (such as post on Surly and still be a productive citizen).  But seems, that there are deeper meanings, and still deeper meanings which can only be understood by champions of masturbation. 

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

    Aggy math? 

    1546 - 1538 = 8

  2. 33 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

    Trumpism is a plague that needs to be shouted down. Sorry if that hurts your fee fees

    www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-anxiety-disorder-mental-health-political-divide-us-1.4762487

    You can go to therapy, it appears  

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 8
  3. 1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

    An isolated slap fight with a few blindside punches and kicks indicates to you that things are getting out of hand? Take a Xanax.

    My only concern is why didn't the Russian honor guard step up to quell the violence?

    A0D7C5BA-D3A0-41D3-9961-4FAC3A79F827.jpe

    Russian cheek bones are higher. 

    WNB. 

  4. 9 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

    I'm 46. I think there was quite a bit more graphic nudity and sex in mainstream movies in the 70s & 80s than in today's mainstream movies. Hollywood was more libertine in general in the 70s, and the raunchy teen sex comedy became a staple of the 80s. Slasher flicks with very graphic violence also became hugely popular in the 80s.

    TV is the opposite, however. The adult content & themes in today's primetime network TV shows never could have been shown on TV in the 80s or prior. Seinfeld and Friends were two shows that played a big role in changing that in the early 90s.

    I held off for 6 years before watching game of thrones. I haven't seen this many other men's penises since my years in the locker room.

  5. 1 hour ago, Art Vandelay said:

    I don't know, dude, it doesn't say. You asked me to give an example of someone who had to change their show to be politically correct. I gave you an example: John Cleese says he had to stop making race-related jokes. I am sure there are countless other examples out there. The Salon article includes quotes from 10 comedians commenting on the issue (not counting Seinfeld) who I assume have had to make changes to their acts, since they seem to care enough about it to complain.

    If you think you know more about it than they do, that's cool. But I'm going to give them more credence since it's how they make their living.

    It was the one about only 10,000 Mexican soldiers being at the Alamo because they only had 2 el Caminos and Ford truck. Or at least that's the joke I heard him tell years and years ago at a live show. 

  6. 48 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Yes. One of the reasons they favor having their cake and eating it too when there is a favorable Congress. 

    Eating their cake and having it too..... not being a dick, I can just hear my Aunt the literature teacher correcting me in my mind. 

    • Like 1
  7. On 7/23/2018 at 11:25 PM, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    This sort of stuff just brings me back to the (current) right being the party of simpletons.  The only information the right gives out on this, and the cartoon echos this, is the US gave Iran 1.8 billion to Iran! In actual factual cash! Just plopped it down on a big pallet!  As though no one would say that makes no sense, there has to be more to this story.  

    So, what more to the story is there? 

    • Fuck You 1
  8. 1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

    No, PR has not filed an application for statehood. They are trying to create an internal bill to set up an application for statehood.  And DC hasn't and doesnt have to do anything until they do.

    Also, the GOP has officially supported PR statehood if PR chooses it for decades. Will they approve it in this current environment? Probably not but only one way to find out. PR needs to officially start the process and see what happens. They dont need to ask Trump shit.  They could have it sitting in Congress now waiting for them to vote on it or sit on it, and it would be there for a Dem Congress to pass on day 1. But PR support for statehood will instantly fall with a Dem Congress. You really do undervalue how they feel about having a separate identity.   The closest thing would be Scotland, but the US does not allow states to have that type of autonomy or separate identity.  Their desires go in this order:

    1: Status quo with Dem Congress that provides support.

    2: Statehood

    3: Status quo with GOP Congress.

    4: Independent country.

    But they do need a new binding referendum because they need a consensus, and the majority have long been unwilling to break the status quo. That fact plays into the GOPs hands since it becomes an undemocratic push to statehood. 

    If PR becomes a state, wouldn't they then also be forced to pay federal income tax-- as most do not currently? 

    • Like 1
  9. 5 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

    Because you've been conditioned to think that way. Texas state parks kind of suck, because we don't put any money into them, and then you have to pay out of pocket when you get there. That's not the way it's supposed to work. We are supposed to pay a little more in taxes for them, and then have great state parks, and then pay no admission fee and very little for cabins and such when we go. It would also be nice if the state park system could acquire more land and build more parks and not have to charge for them, etc., but we'd rather just have more Schlitterbahns and shit. 

    We paid taxes to build roads that were built for us using federal funds. Later, greedy governments looking for a money grab turned some of those roads into toll roads in order to get us to what? Pay for those roads twice? If we pump more money into parks, eventually they will start charging again. Write it down in stone. 

  10. On 7/25/2018 at 9:05 AM, UDontKnow said:

    I'm sure Acho was shopping for a lady friend. It's not for his night and weekend gig.

    Maybe it's for his old lady's night and weekend gig. Is the south Austin ballet still open? 

  11. 7 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    It’s Parkinson’s research today, Health Insurance companies forecasting premiums on your kids tomorrow.

    Wait until the insurance companies start gaining access to your credit card statements. They'll know your eating, drinking and grocery store purchasing habits-- whether you're a member of a gym, if you buy tobacco at the 7-11-- the works. 

  12. 2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:


    By Sam Levine, HuffPost US
     

    Jaime Roy, a rising senior at the University of Florida, voted in a local race in Gainesville this year, but it wasn’t easy. Roy, who uses the pronoun “they,” doesn’t own a car. To get to their polling place at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Roy had to take two buses that took between 40 minutes to an hour each way.

    Even though Roy spends the majority of their time at the university, Florida’s top election official wouldn’t allow them ― nor any of the 830,000 students enrolled at public institutions of higher education in the state ― to vote early on campus.

    But that could soon change. On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the policy, ruling that the state’s blanket ban on early voting on college campuses is unconstitutional.

    U.S. District Judge Mark Walker found that the ban violated the guarantees of the First, 14th and 26th amendments. The 26th Amendment prohibits age restrictions on voting for anyone 18 or older.

    Walker, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2012, conceded that some inconvenience when voting is constitutionally tolerable, but said Florida’s position went beyond that. The ban made it more difficult for a particular group of people ― young voters around college campuses ― to vote.

    “Florida’s public college and university students are categorically prohibited from on-campus early voting,” he wrote. “This is not a mere inconvenience.”

    The ban has its origin in a 2013 state law that lays out where local election supervisors may allow early voting. Allowed locations included stadiums, civic and convention centers as well as government-owned senior and community centers.

    But in 2014, the office of Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R) issued an opinion saying the student union at the University of Florida, a state-funded institution, didn’t qualify as such a place, because it was “designed for, and affiliated with, a specific educational institution.” He went further, saying that the law did not permit early voting at “college- or university-related facilities” because lawmakers had explicitly chosen to exclude them from the bill.

    Walker did not buy that reasoning, nor the state’s argument that its interest in maintaining campus order and parking outweighed the burden the ban placed on students’ right to vote. In his ruling Tuesday, the judge said the state’s justifications “reek of pretext.”

    “While the [Detzner’s] Opinion does not identify college students by name, its target population is unambiguous and its effects are lopsided,” the judge wrote. “The Opinion is intentionally and facially discriminatory.”

     State officials banned on-campus early voting in 2014, an "intentionally" discriminatory move, according to a new court ruling.
    Walker listed a number of reasons why access to early voting sites, in particular, is important for college students. While they can vote on election day, the judge wrote, the lines are often long. Student communities also face longer transportation times to early voting sites, and people living near college and university campuses disproportionately lack cars. College students in Florida also vote early at higher rates than their counterparts across the country, he said.

    Through the ban, the judge concluded, Florida was “creating a secondary class of voters who [the state] prohibits from even seeking early voting sites in dense, centralized locations where they work, study, and, in many cases, live.”

    McKinley Lewis, a spokesman for Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), said in a statement the governor was proud to have signed an early voting expansion and would review the ruling.

    The suit was filed on behalf of Roy and five other university students in Florida, along with the state’s chapter of the League of Women Voters and the Andrew Goodman Foundation, a group that promotes civic leadership among young people.

    “The court ruling demonstrates that making it easier for our students to vote truly matters,” Patricia Brigham, the president of the Florida League of Women Voters, said in a statement. “This is the right decision, at the right time, for our democratic process. With this decision, we have an affirmation that making early voting accessible to all is part of a true democracy.” 

    Immediately following Tuesday’s decision, the supervisor of elections in Alachua County, which includes Gainesville, asked the University of Florida to use the student union building as an early voting site between Oct. 22 and Nov. 3.

    Jenny Diamond Cheng, a lecturer at Vanderbilt Law School, said this is the first time a court has struck down a state policy as intentionally discriminatory under the 26th Amendment. That’s significant, she said, because it gives future challengers support when they’re arguing that a voting restriction ― or any other law ― runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

    “Courts have tended to shy away from holding that state actors actually intended to discriminate. They’re reluctant to ascribe bad motives to state legislators or officials,” she said in an interview. “The groundbreaking element of this case is the finding not only that the 26th Amendment prohibits intentional discrimination, but here’s what that looks like. Here’s what unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of age looks like.” 

    Remember the student ID cards we were issued in college? During the 90s it had your photo and a little colored sticker that you'd attach to it each semester: fall 93 was yellow, spring 94 was blue etc... 

    Since those cards were issued by a state entity that also received federal funding, were those cards considered official ID cards? Were they subject to the same laws as a state ID? As in, if you created a fake one, were you subject to state charges? 

×
×
  • Create New...