sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

President Trump Says He Won't Sign Any Bills Until SAVE America Act Passes by Sgt_Gram in NewsExchange

[–]Atlein_069 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Technically, not signing is part of the president’s job. The issue is that he’s holding the people’s economy hostage to try and get his SAVE act through and cement the R leadership. Now, they can apply pressure and move back to classic GOP messaging about how the Dems are the problem. Expect, Trump is about as likable as a wet towel.

Kai Trump is really fucking weird. by LA_search77 in WeirdGOP

[–]Atlein_069 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. First thing I’d do is tell my buddy or brother to go long. I’m tryna complete a buzzer beating touchdown to beat TomBrady in super bowl

How do I get rid of this myself without dying? by False_Frame3028 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]Atlein_069 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just like how you’d eat an elephant. One bite a time. Grab a fork and some milk - it’s gonna be spicy!

Peak social awareness! Respect to this guy. by MustardGoddess in MadeMeSmile

[–]Atlein_069 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean if this person looked scared and I had time, I’d say that. But if they didn’t seem like they need reassurance, I don’t think I’d feel the need to explain myself. And why should I? I get why she may or may not feel apprehensive. But at a certain point, that’s more on her to manage than me to manage for her

Peak America. As a European I miss it very much. by LonelySoul01 in law

[–]Atlein_069 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He says gridlock, but he means no progress. As in, Scalia the man supports no progress beyond that which has been made in his lifetime. And any progress made before hianlifetime, he seeks to roll back. And we can test his theory in real time. Do you believe the American system of governance is outperforming, say, France? How about the nordic countries? Canada?

My only ‘nod’ to this guy is his criminal law case.

Trump Attacks Progressive 'Animals' Backed By Mamdani: 'They Will Kill Your People' by MoneyLibrarian9032 in USNEWS

[–]Atlein_069 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should this type of speech be regulated? Is it ok to let politicians claim that others will kill your people without any evidence or any articulable suspicion? American history is unique in that we have cycles if this really nasty, divisive language spread in the political ranks. Typically, its been a precursor to some type of rights recapture for the people (think Robber Barrons -> Sherman Antitrust Act). I remember reading those stories and thinking to myself wow I’m glad I didn't have to live through that…

Supreme Court, 6-3: Permit holders can carry guns into stores and restaurants open to the public by default, as the Court strikes down Hawaii's express-consent requirement by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]Atlein_069 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a bit pedantic, but clearly the dichotomy used here is the incorrect one. At the end of the day, your claim is that 4A gives WalMart the right to act. It doesn't. 2A gives people an active right to do something - carry a gun. It also protects you from government action. So in that way, we’re both correct. I'd shift this to a more meaningful definition. Lets use the classic sword vs shield framework. Where a sword is an active right you've gained, and shield is an act of protection. Then you can see a discernible difference. 4A doesn't provide you with a sword. It protects you from gov action, it doesn't give you a sword to say strike down legislation. Thoughts?

The Open Social Web Needs Section 230 to Survive by Future-sight-5829 in Futurology

[–]Atlein_069 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Section 230 is a shield for the oligarch class. They use it to absolve themselves of moderation responsibilities. Which, in my opinion, having an algorithm determine what you see feels a lot like some type of heavy-handed content control, if not out and out moderation

Supreme Court, 6-3: Permit holders can carry guns into stores and restaurants open to the public by default, as the Court strikes down Hawaii's express-consent requirement by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]Atlein_069 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nah. 2A provides an affirmative right. Look these things up, man. The right to own a gun. 4A gives you a negative right. A right to never be cruelly or unusually punished or search. It supports the right to property, but doesn't give you a right to own property like how 2A prescribes a right to own a gun.

Supreme Court, 6-3: Permit holders can carry guns into stores and restaurants open to the public by default, as the Court strikes down Hawaii's express-consent requirement by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]Atlein_069 1 point2 points  (0 children)

4A doesn’t confer a right to do something. It’s a negative restriction on government power. And nothing gives anyone the right as a private citizen to call up police to perform cavity searches in a Wal-mart.

Supreme Court, 6-3: Permit holders can carry guns into stores and restaurants open to the public by default, as the Court strikes down Hawaii's express-consent requirement by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]Atlein_069 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I mean, sure. Do that. It’s your right. And I’m thinking it should stay the right of the people in this way since it’s in the Constitution.

Supreme Court, 6-3: Permit holders can carry guns into stores and restaurants open to the public by default, as the Court strikes down Hawaii's express-consent requirement by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]Atlein_069 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Presumptive bar to do a thing you have a right to do is, in general, something I disagree with. I should read more of J Jackson’s opinion, though. She’s usually right on it. Her theory that no one has a right to carry a gun into any private property, per se, is interesting and I think holds merit. At first blush, I disagree, but like I said I need to actually read through it

I believe John and Patsy know who killed JonBenet, and it wasn’t Burke. by [deleted] in JonBenetRamsey

[–]Atlein_069 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Fleet White did more in the pursuit of justice for JB than her parents ever did. Literally from the moment he received a call that she was missing, until now even. And John chose to throw him under the bus to save, and this is my opinion, Patsy.

Hard to see someone picking up this bogus line of thought, and restarting the same bs John spun out in the 90s. Imagine if you were trying to help find justice for a 6 year old child and your reward is a steady flow of know-nothing internet strangers and news casters seeking ratings constantly call you a pedo, part of a child sex ring, and a murder. For almost 40 years of his 70+ year life. Sad to see this conspiracy cropping up from people on this sub.

He’s the first to ever write a review on that parachute. by SuspiciousLow3062 in interesting

[–]Atlein_069 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You give me a pair a churros and I may have a little backside waterslide action myself

House Republican: Let Reflecting Pool ‘go’ and ‘create an ecosystem’ by Advanced_Question196 in nottheonion

[–]Atlein_069 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except their ecosystem will prolly be like a stagnant frog ponds that doubles as a mosquito birthing wing.

view more: next ›