It's as if these crowds were "bussed in".
This is exactly what this is. This is the playbook.
I do that with dark roast already. 64oz mason jar. 1C of dark coffee ground on #20. 8-12 hours on the counter, overnight in the fridge. Glorious refreshment.
GO wash your mouth out with light roast, blasphemer!
I'm on the fence about this one ... enough that I am going to get some stickers made up as well. It's an extremely comfy act of civil disobedience with very little downside.
VPN + PB + RARBG + 1337x
Not really. Outside of some very narrow anti-discrimination rights (which are problematic in their own right), you don't. You have the right to leave if you don't agree to the terms set by the property owner or their delegate.
Medium is pretty consistent across coffee makers, at least in the U.S. in my experience. I've never bothered with much in the way of light roasts so can't comment there. But most roaster's "dark" isn't very dark at all.
I'm gonna order some. I hope their dark is actually DARK and not some weak ass medium roast they left in ten seconds too long.
It's only a lolbertarian response of you consider the Founding Fathers and those who inspired them to be "lolbartarians", which your shouldn't, because that would be stupid. Don't be stupid.
In Federalist #54, James Madison captured it rather succinctly, "Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.”
George Washington wrote similarly that "Freedom and Property Rights are inseparable. You can't have one without the other."
Are these the lolbertarians you speak of?
FYI, I'm not a libertarian, and I think in general, that party is silly. Property rights are a thing. Property rights are cornerstones of liberty. Suggesting that government encroach upon or ignore them because you don't like the outcome is the same flawed thought exercise that leftists use to justify banning guns and ignoring the Second Amendment. Don't be a fucking leftist.
So we just get rid of private property rights then
So we just get rid of private property rights then?
How much time is appropriate? And if you answer, what do you base your answer on?
The very idea of 18 as age of consent is a moral designation by society.
Sorry, but you're wrong. You don't understand the concept you're arguing here. You may want to address the age of consent as a strictly moral issue because that's how you feel about it, but it has little to do with that. That's not the history behind it, that's not what it's about throughout most of the world. We can't have an honest discussion if you don't understand the topics beyond your emotional beliefs about them.
That's called reaction, and even the best training doesn't avoid it (because it can't, it's how we're wired). Training ingrains in you how to act when you have to act before you can fully process and think. That's oversimplifying things, by quite a lot, but it covers the basics. That has nothing to do with being trigger happy. Either you're wrong or you used a phrase you don't fully understand.
Sure, but that's not exactly what you said, otherwise I wouldn't have responded. Looks like we're largely in agreement.
The optics are bad, but I'm not sure it shows excessive force. It's easy to say that from the comfort of your couch, but once lethal forced is engaged within the OODA loop (observe / orient / decide / act), it takes time to process through that loop again to determine when to stop. We should consider 2 things here, (1) was the decision to engage in lethal force supported by the evidence on hand at the time of the incident as well as by the individual's actions. I would say that the answer to that part is yes. (2) is was lethal force ceased in an appropriate, and timely manner according to when the threat was clearly no longer actionable? That is a tough one, and likely one that will earn a payout to the family. Not because it was excessive force, but because it just looks bad regardless of whether or not the expectations that made the optics yucky are reasonable. A little force on force training will change your thoughts on this rather quickly if you're being honest with yourself.
I don't think you understand what a Conservative is, because you're actually describing a leftist there. I'm not trying to be insulting, but Conservatives typically believe, as a general tenet, in the most limited form of government possible, personal responsibility, and the rights of the individual and the family. Yes, they are generally grounded by Judeo-Christian values, but they do not require or want those values to be enforced by the state*. That gives the state far too much power and violates those core tenets above. At best, you're describing the old guard evangelical religious right faction of the Republican party, whose draconian ideas resulted in people turning away from the GOP and eventually electing Bill Clinton. Children having sex is a nonstarter because such a prohibition is based on consent (the age at which someone can enter into a consensual sexual relationship), loosely based on the tenets of contract law (though there is an undeniable moral framework involved). That is something that needs arbitrated and enforced through civil and criminal courts under the tenets of Conservatism.
*Please don't raise the red herring of abortion. That's an outlier in almost every sense of the topic, from both sides.
False dilemma. It's not stop it right now, as in today, or just put your head in the sand vote and hope in 2022. There is a middle ground which is to continuously work to fortify our election integrity between now and 2022, and then beyond, which is what everyone except Pollyanna's and doomers will be figuring out their part in helping with.
Brave Version 1.21.77 Chromium: 89.0.4389.90 (Official Build) (64-bit) running on Linux with the typical privacy extension.
Appeared logged out, clicked the login button and was logged back in without entering any credentials.
So you're saying that the government should determine at what age a child can engage, partake in, or be exposed to various environments and materials, and then enforce those decisions on parents and children? What if the government decided that 14 was old enough to visit strip clubs?
You do realize that's why the state is claiming the power to let kids decide to change genders, even against a parent's wishes, right? It's a tough situation because children exist in a moral and legal gray area, but I'm not going to easily agree with you that this is the government's decision to make because we know what that leads to.
You dont think they are trained to shoot when they see weird hand movements like going on pockets and such?
That's not being "trigger happy", that's called addressing a threat.
Schmoebody
Uh ok....I’m not disagreeing with you etc, it’s just every time I read your comments on this I hear Donut Operator. Relax bro, watch some his vids and have a good time with yourself.
Yeah, that was a quote from one of his vids. Thought you'd catch that. ;)
I don't know that there's evidence of the training being trigger happy, that's just human nature if we're being honest. Departments across the country spend tremendous amounts of money to try and combat that initial quick response because it's too easy to get wrong and absurdly easy to second-guess.
He is 100% right.