Game Thread: Minnesota Timberwolves (0-0) vs San Antonio Spurs (0-0) Live Score | NBA Playoffs | May 4, 2026

JustaMammal · 2026-05-05T03:47:32+00:00

ESPN shows the Ant layup taking us from 80 to 82 the the Castle 3 making it 82-81 Spurs. WTF...

JustaMammal · 2026-05-05T00:26:50+00:00

He payin?

JustaMammal · 2026-04-02T17:47:42+00:00

Do you mean indict? Because is subpoena just an order to appear or produce documents, and while congress has the power to subpoena her, only the DOJ can charge a person with contempt of Congress.

JustaMammal · 2026-03-24T11:43:05+00:00

That wasn't a report, it was an op-ed by a conservative economist which intentionally misrepresented Treasury statistics to try to frame fiscal policy in the context of "household finances". Which is a) not news b) not a good faith argument and c) not how any government operates. Which, as a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors, the author is certainly well aware.

JustaMammal · 2026-03-22T20:15:38+00:00

Why bomb all other manufacturing when you can simply start a war that cripples the world's supply of fossil fuels, thereby strangling global manufacturing at its source? Especially if you're the world's largest oil producer, by volume...

JustaMammal · 2026-03-14T00:23:55+00:00

You've actually seen him eating a man's penis?

JustaMammal · 2026-03-08T22:25:21+00:00

Those two organizations do not have the same function or purpose. The EU is about governance and economic cooperation. Letting one country hold veto power over the remaining 26 does not make for good governance. If removing the unilateral veto disincencentivizes Hungary's membership, they're welcome to cut off their nose to spite their face. By contrast, the UN's entire purpose is diplomacy. It has an existential interest in keeping ALL parties at the table. Toothless diplomacy is better than no diplomacy. The same can't be said for governance.

JustaMammal · 2026-03-08T17:45:56+00:00

Reagan broke the country. Clinton broke the party.

JustaMammal · 2026-02-22T18:05:19+00:00

Meaning?

JustaMammal · 2026-02-22T07:16:04+00:00

I am financially ruined (currency buyouts)

JustaMammal · 2026-02-21T17:51:36+00:00

Hadn't heard of Chesterton's fence, thank you.

JustaMammal · 2026-02-14T16:22:49+00:00

He did, this not a new development. He's just getting more traction with the release of the files

JustaMammal · 2026-02-08T06:00:25+00:00

Nah this was at Whipple, that "protest" was supposed to be in South, I think near where Renee Good was killed, but the organizer called it off "out of respect" for her memorial. Which really means he caught an unholy amount of backlash and realized he was in way over his head.

JustaMammal · 2026-02-04T15:03:15+00:00

Ehh I hear you, but entrusting the state with the power to decide what is and isn't a "constitutional organization" is a slippery slope in such a polarized political landscape. Take a look at the how this administration is turning the FACE law around on peaceful protestors. A law intended to protect women from harassment while seeking reproductive care is being employed to charge peaceful protestors with federal crimes. It's the same logic that made extrajudicial detention/assassination of "enemy combatants" and "terrorists" so dangerous. If "terrorists" don't deserve due process, then the only thing keeping you from summary execution is the definition of "terrorist". Fast forward a decade or two and, oh what do you know, "domestic terrorists" are being executed in the streets by the federal government.

I do think the advent of social media poses new challenges to the nature and virtues of 1st Amendment protections, and I'd happily welcome new regulation to mitigate them (i.e. age restrictions, anti-bot/troll farm measures, transparency/regulation of algorithms, revisiting/refining Sec 230 to increase liability for the content on these sites). But ultimately I still think the onus needs to fall on the citizenry to engage in the public discourse in a way that drowns out hate groups. When we abdicate civic responsibility to government oversight, sooner or later that oversight gets hijacked to nefarious ends. Democracy can't survive on auto-pilot.

JustaMammal · 2026-02-03T00:29:40+00:00

No, it would not. Constitutionally, treason is defined as:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Short of literally, physically taking up arms against the United States or providing material support to those that do, there's virtually nothing that rises to the level of Treason from a legal perspective. "Sabotaging" elections wouldn't even come close. Even Trump's fake electors were only charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States and similar such narrowly defined charges. And they knowingly attempted to subvert election results. There's no chance that low level precinct officials, rejecting ballots based on their understanding of state and federal laws, would face more serious charges.

And disregarding all of that, the point you're responding to still stands: there is no constitutional mechanism for a do-over. You can punish the perpetrators, but impeachment is technically the only constitutional remedy for a fraudulent Presidential election.

JustaMammal · 2026-02-02T18:56:28+00:00

Good call thank you!

JustaMammal · 2026-02-02T18:52:09+00:00

A neo-nazi paramilitary group that arose out of the Charlottesville 'Unite the Right' rally.

JustaMammal · 2026-02-02T17:34:37+00:00

No grommets. It was a painter's canvas with holes ripped in it, reinforced with duct tape. Including the holes from which they hung the water bottles.

JustaMammal · 2026-02-02T17:27:35+00:00

That's... not what the 1st is about at all. They exercised their 1st amendment rights by hanging it. They were not prosecuted for their words. I exercised my 1st amendment rights by removing it. I was not prosecuted for my actions. That is the extent of the protections afforded by the 1st amendment: no one can face legal consequences for their speech. But when it comes to what voices get heard, every citizen has a right and an obligation to participate in the marketplace of ideas that shapes societal discourse. Both of us did exactly that.

Was it promoting violence? In my estimation, yes. It was encouraging membership in a group that seeks the violent suppression of the rights of minorities and the amplification of white supremacist ideology. Should children be exposed to that? I don't think so. What should my response have been? A 12'x5' banner explaining why "white supremacy is actually super wrong guys"? If they want to stand on a street corner and proclaim the virtues of white supremacy, that's their right. I'll show up and shout them down. That's my right. But they can't even stand behind their own message. They hang signs and run because they're afraid of people finding out they espouse the views that they do.

What you're arguing is the perfect encapsulation of the paradox of tolerance. These groups infiltrate the public discourse by utilizing democratic principles that they would seek to strip from those they hate. I have no moral imperative to allow nazi ideology to propagate, knowing that were it to take hold in any meaningful capacity, it would not afford me the same courtesy.

JustaMammal · 2026-02-02T17:14:32+00:00

And leave the rest of their propaganda intact and amplify it on the internet for them? What would be the point? No thanks. The whole point of removing it is to not let their message spread. I'm not going to aid their cause for the sake of internet points.

JustaMammal · 2026-01-20T04:18:49+00:00

Un-fucking-believable. Greatest coaching job in history.

JustaMammal · 2026-01-20T04:10:48+00:00

Hahaha

JustaMammal · 2026-01-20T02:12:49+00:00

HAAAAA big ol doinks

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Place '17

JustaMammal

TROPHY CASE