2
JimQPublic 2 points ago +2 / -0

They've been gunning for him for a while now, well before the second impeachment farce. Last I heard, they were trying to determine whether he was of sound enough mind to continue to practice law, and of course they'd never be biased in making that determination.

3
JimQPublic 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think it's just artist shorthand for the American flag. Ricans' flag has a blue triangle rather than a square, and that's easy enough to draw that I don't think they'd draw it that way if they meant it to be the PR flag.

4
JimQPublic 4 points ago +4 / -0

Perhaps they would, but I doubt it would be possible to starve such businesses without government involvement. Too many people think the idea is horseshit, and plenty more agree with the idea but are fickle and lazy enough to do business while eschewing whatever social pressures there might be.

As long as no law is made to support such restrictions, I think small business would weather it as well enough. Big business and bought politicians are a big problem, but that's a whole separate (and massive) can of worms.

4
JimQPublic 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm actually okay with it if businesses choose to do it. That's some based free market shit, and I will happily choose to patronize only businesses that do not place such restrictions on their potential customers.

3
JimQPublic 3 points ago +3 / -0

I sense a World of Warcraft pede.

10
JimQPublic 10 points ago +10 / -0

This is a fine example of why you never allow your government to erode your freedoms even a little bit, because you'll never get it back if they can help it, and they'll always go back for more.

2
JimQPublic 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hope you don't mind if I comment here despite it not being directed at me.

The left and the right both engage in the same destructive things. When they have governmental power for a long enough time, they stop acting in good faith and start acting out of partisan and self-preservation motives. Our legislators need term limits, and I see it as a weakness in the Constitution that such was not written in, as it now falls to our legislators to pass a law that specifically limits their own career potential.

5
JimQPublic 5 points ago +5 / -0

Pictured: When you think you understand 1984 while you actively participate in your daily Two Minutes Hate.

2
JimQPublic 2 points ago +2 / -0

Now that's a familiar story. My dad broke me in with a .308 bolt-action when I was about that age. Took a week for the bruise on my collar to fade, but I was hooked. I may not have enjoyed very much of my time in the Army, but firing and qualifying with the M2 and Mk 19 are very fond memories.

3
JimQPublic 3 points ago +3 / -0

I love this comment, because your chosen username is likely what she'd actually be feeling.

6
JimQPublic 6 points ago +6 / -0

She is unfortunately not interested in owning or operating a firearm, and while I won't go into detail, sadly too disabled to safely operate a rifle or shotgun for that matter.

The recoil from a shotgun would likely injure her shoulder, and while I would like to buy her a handgun and teach her to safely use it, it would have to be very lightweight with a very simple and easy-to-differentiate safety for me to feel comfortable arming her.

Perhaps I should just move on to handguns and leave the shotguns for after I've already gotten her to dip her toes in the pool of liberty that is gun ownership.

2
JimQPublic 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's hard to explain, because IMO, even a self-applied label like the one I've used for myself here is going to be subjective. You are correct in both examples. Protecting against the erosion of the Bill of Rights (The Patriot Act is still a sore spot for me -- it's a blatant violation of the 4th) is a major concern for me, particularly the 1st and 2nd, and while the system of checks and balances is also a significant concern, it does presently take a back seat to my concerns about individual liberties.

I believe our Constitution was set forth to severely limit the ability of government to interfere in the lives of citizens, and that the spirit of that intent is important to consider and act in kind with when legislating, judging, or executing the functions of public office.

I do hope that you are acting in good faith, and until such time as you give me reason to believe you are not, I will engage with you under the assumption that you are.

As far as how I became a constitutional purist, I would say I have always been one, but I was not really politically activated (by which I mean, I did not care enough about the functions of government) until 2017, after witnessing a stark divide between what the media I had until then trusted was telling me and what I was actually seeing.

I am now active in such discussions of political thought, but my core beliefs have not changed very much. I tend to lean socially liberal (I don't think the government should have the authority to determine who can and cannot get married or enter into a civil union, for example -- it's just none of their business), however I also believe in small government and lean fiscally conservative.

4
JimQPublic 4 points ago +4 / -0

Always a classic. I'd like to say that's a solid idea under any circumstances, but I admit that a combination of supple spine where my wife is concerned and agonizing anticipation of sore lids from all the eyeball-rolling I'd be doing is making me spend more time than usual considering the prospect.

1
JimQPublic 1 point ago +1 / -0

Doing kind of a shitty job if that's the intent. I suspect it's just somebody bored on a Sunday morning. Might not even be a rabid leftist. It's hard for me to praise kek and get salty when someone attempts to troll me -- purely on principle -- but I would like to see at least a little effort go into it, y'know?

5
JimQPublic 5 points ago +5 / -0

I have to admit, my wallet is flush at the moment and that magazine-fed beauty is looking mighty pretty right about now. The question is, do I want to have a conversation with my lady about dropping half a grand on a shotgun right now? That one the jury is still out on.

2
JimQPublic 2 points ago +2 / -0

Kind of a low-grade effort to troll, my dude. If your intent is to imitate someone whose first language is Chinese, you should look at the way they actually write.

Here's a big tip from someone who has seen a lot of it:

  • Chinese-speakers typically do not grasp English punctuation. They will put a space before and after commas, periods, exclamation marks, etc. Any place where a pause is implied, basically.
3
JimQPublic 3 points ago +3 / -0

Every last vote to impeach forty-five

Is an ill-fated means to keep corruption alive

They think we don't see them

We'll financially bleed them

Let's see who takes office in 2025

1
JimQPublic 1 point ago +1 / -0

Having worked for Activision-Blizzard for several years.. fat chance of anything like that happening. The company is a hive of leftists and activists.

23
JimQPublic 23 points ago +23 / -0

San Diego is the last true bastion of conservative municipal governance, sadly. Coincidentally the only big city in California that isn't an utter shithole. Funny that.

2
JimQPublic 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sadly, mine too would likely express some concern that my interest in being choked out might not entirely lie purely in professionalism, despite my heretofore unmatched ability to demonstrate being choked out by martial artists.

5
JimQPublic 5 points ago +5 / -0

You okay, mate? Seems like you might've had a small stroke there at the end.

2
JimQPublic 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think I generally disagree about seatbelt legislation not being for the good of the consumer, but I could see a reasoned argument for why choosing not to use one doesn't need to be a crime. Ultimately I tend to think that humans choosing to legislate away natural selection is probably a mistake, but that might be too edgy to dive into.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›