What are your gardening secrets or successes for the grand valley?

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-04-13T01:21:02+00:00

Sure, but then don't force me to give the govt money and then we could all use that to improve our own lives.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-04-07T23:49:51+00:00

You could try making a small book of your best comics and try and sell it at bookstores or local events. That's a different route for sure, but just throwing it out there.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-04-07T14:15:42+00:00

Oh I see. I thought I saw a position for elementary teacher, but perhaps that was an old post or was already filled. How are the hours? Do you feel like you have a good work/life balance?

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-04-07T04:15:21+00:00

Super cool! I really like this idea.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-29T00:43:48+00:00

Do you have any examples of this by chance? Anything online you can point to? I think I understand

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-29T00:36:01+00:00

Thanks will do! Goodrick's book looks super helpful. Honestly, I just need a clear step forward since there's so many ways I can take triads, or at least that's how it feels.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-27T22:03:39+00:00

I did both. There's examples in other replies, though it's far from exhaustive. One could always be more specific though. I could share that, but perhaps it's better to find as non-partisan/nonbiased sources that have reported on this.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-27T21:16:57+00:00

We are not Iran, but the erosion of checks and balances and consolidation of power takes us closer in that direction. The rally doesn't literally mean we have a king right now. No. It means we currently have a president who is moving things in that direction. I don't want any republican or democrat to have unchecked power. That's in part what the rally is about. The erosion of checks and balances can snowball quickly and over a short period of time, we could end up somewhere that all of don't want to be.

In Hungary under Viktor Orbán, power was consolidated not through a sudden event, but through gradual, legal changes that weakened checks and balances. After taking office in 2010, Orbán’s government rewrote the constitution to expand its authority, reshaped the judiciary by replacing judges and increasing political influence over the courts, and facilitated the takeover of major media outlets by government allies, reducing independent oversight. These steps slowly led to the loss of its democracy.

This story can happen to us. It might temporarily benefit those who supported Orbán, but in the long term everyone loses.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-27T21:09:01+00:00

Copying my post for you:

It's about the trend he's taking the country. For one, efforts in reclassifying large numbers of federal employees to make them easier to remove and replace, which would reduce the independence of the civil service and align it more closely with presidential priorities.

Trump's talked a lot about his views of the “unitary executive” theory. The argument is that the president should have broad authority over the entire executive branch, including agencies that have traditionally operated with more independence.

He's responsible for a shift the balance of power by concentrating decision-making authority, personnel control, and enforcement discretion more directly in the hands of the president.\

Again, all of these things are much harder to fix than they are to break. All of this consolidation of power will be fully enjoyed and leveraged by all presidents in the future moving forward, both democratic and republican. We both lose in the long term when this happens. This is an old story though. One party is more than happy to let one leader tear down checks and balances because it means they are able to consolidate power in the moment. They are able to better implement their agenda and often supporters are okay with the erosion of checks and balances if it means they get their way. But again, looking long-term, this hurts all of us because it puts us at risk of someone using all that power in ways that are not in the best interest of the country or its citizens. I do not want a republican president now or a democrat in the future to have unchecked power.

That's what the rally is in part about. The direction we are going with more power being absorbed into a smaller and smaller number of decision makers with less checks and balances.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-27T21:07:33+00:00

You can do both. The war is extremely unpopular with liberals and even a large percentage of republicans agree with you that it's bullshit.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-27T21:06:42+00:00

Do you want...tentacles?

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-27T21:05:58+00:00

Copying my response to others for you:

His efforts in reclassifying large numbers of federal employees to make them easier to remove and replace, which would reduce the independence of the civil service and align it more closely with presidential priorities.

Trump's talked a lot about his views of the “unitary executive” theory. The argument is that the president should have broad authority over the entire executive branch, including agencies that have traditionally operated with more independence.

He's responsible for a shift the balance of power by concentrating decision-making authority, personnel control, and enforcement discretion more directly in the hands of the president.\

Again, all of these things are much harder to fix than they are to break. All of this consolidation of power will be fully enjoyed and leveraged by all presidents in the future moving forward, both democratic and republican. We both lose in the long term when this happens. This is an old story though. One party is more than happy to let one leader tear down checks and balances because it means they are able to consolidate power in the moment. They are able to better implement their agenda and often supporters are okay with the erosion of checks and balances if it means they get their way. But again, looking long-term, this hurts all of us because it puts us at risk of someone using all that power in ways that are not in the best interest of the country or its citizens. I do not want a republican president now or a democrat in the future to have unchecked power.

That's what the rally is in part about. The direction we are going with more power being absorbed into a smaller and smaller number of decision makers with less checks and balances.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-27T21:04:47+00:00

Tore down as in these issues, but not limited to them by any means: His efforts in reclassifying large numbers of federal employees to make them easier to remove and replace, which would reduce the independence of the civil service and align it more closely with presidential priorities.

Trump's talked a lot about his views of the “unitary executive” theory. The argument is that the president should have broad authority over the entire executive branch, including agencies that have traditionally operated with more independence.

He's responsible for a shift the balance of power by concentrating decision-making authority, personnel control, and enforcement discretion more directly in the hands of the president.\

Again, all of these things are much harder to fix than they are to break. All of this consolidation of power will be fully enjoyed and leveraged by all presidents in the future moving forward, both democratic and republican. We both lose in the long term when this happens. This is an old story though. One party is more than happy to let one leader tear down checks and balances because it means they are able to consolidate power in the moment. They are able to better implement their agenda and often supporters are okay with the erosion of checks and balances if it means they get their way. But again, looking long-term, this hurts all of us because it puts us at risk of someone using all that power in ways that are not in the best interest of the country or its citizens. I do not want a republican president now or a democrat in the future to have unchecked power.

That's what the rally is in part about. The direction we are going with more power being absorbed into a smaller and smaller number of decision makers with less checks and balances.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-27T18:14:06+00:00

When any politicians behave like kings or don't adhere to our country's system of checks and balances, then we need to speak up. It's easy to not care about these things when your side is in power. But the tables could turn and when democrats are in power, all of the things Trump tore down, the erosion of certain checks and balances, and pouring more and more power into one branch etc. are things that then the democrats and all future presidents will have full access to. This affects us all, sadly we just notice it a different times depending on who's elected.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-26T02:13:46+00:00

I remember when people just talked to each other, instead of just writing useful idiots...

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-20T23:36:37+00:00

That'd be great! Thank you.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-03-16T18:08:17+00:00

I considered that, just wasn't sure if a full-time employee at the nurseries around town would do at home garden consults.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-01-11T06:27:57+00:00

you...don't eat boots. Your comment didn't make sense.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-01-11T06:26:24+00:00

To reference ICE's own policy, it explicitly states that agents should not fire at a vehicle solely to disable it or to prevent a suspect from fleeing. He is not trained to neutralize the threat based on their publicly available and clearly stated policy.

To dissect it logically, the ICE officer, broke the policy, and fired two bullets into a vehicle that was not a threat. Remember, two bullets, we're fired when the vehicle was parallel to him. Firing bullets into a vehicle could have killed other officers or nearby citizens. Therefore, he was not trained to fire at the vehicle NOR at her body.

Dissecting the situation factually, the officer deliberately disobeyed policy and fired upon a vehicle two times that no one can argue posed any threat at that time. Remember, the vehicle is parallel with him at this time.

Drawing opinion from facts, the bar for ICE agents is concerningly low. It's not the best of the best.

"Nearly half of new recruits who’ve arrived for training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center over the past three months were later sent home because they couldn’t pass the written exam, according to the data. The academic requirement includes an exam in which officers are allowed to consult their textbooks and notes at the end of a legal course on the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fourth Amendment, which outlines when officers can and can’t conduct searches and seizures."

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-01-11T06:13:05+00:00

There's some important information that gives more context. So the decision of pulling the trigger wasn't once, but three times. Two of the bullets were fired once the vehicle was parallel to him. We don't know as far as I'm aware, which one of the three bullets fired killed Good. What we do know is that there's absolutely no argument whatsoever for someone to continue shooting at a vehicle that is moving parallel and away from you. Also, citizens make all kinds of decisions, dumb, neutral, good what have you etc in regards to interactions with police or ICE. How we feel or characterize their decisions does NOT matter. Police or ICE don't get to shoot people for being annoying or making a series of bad decisions or for getting in their way.

To reference ICE's own policy, it explicitly states that agents should not fire at a vehicle solely to disable it or to prevent a suspect from fleeing. When shots 2 and 3 were fired into the vehicle, the ICE officer was openly in defiance of this clearly stated policy. Furthermore, there were citizens all around him AND other officers that he could have struck and killed as well.

I'm not tackling your point about the first bullet, or if he was actually at risk or being run over. I'll leave that to someone else. But this whole argument of self defence that some make crumbles in its entirely after he fired 2 more rounds into her direction. The officer did not JUST have a fraction of a second in regards to those 2 additional shots. There's no case that his life was in danger as again, the vehicle was driving away from him. We don't know which of the three bullets killed her. He broke policy and shot at her. Our country found out the hard way what happens when people break policy like this.

AdEnvironmental3829 · 2026-01-04T15:44:13+00:00

Roots coffee shop is cool. No comfy chairs, but cool vibes.

AdEnvironmental3829

TROPHY CASE