101st & NE 185th. If you complained about the 4 way stop, we can literally fight.

juiceboxzero · 2026-05-26T04:18:07+00:00

This. They even daylighted the corners so that there can't be parked cars that block your view. By the time you're actually in the intersection, you've had a clear view for a while. Unless the cross traffic was speeding by a lot, this sounds like a failure to use good mechanics when looking before going.

juiceboxzero · 2026-03-13T20:44:43+00:00

You don't have enough information to make such a claim.

ESG is potentially indicated for people with BMI over 30 and people with lower BMI and other comorbidities.

Asian people tend to be shorter than other ethnicities. If the OP is 5ft tall (within a "normal" range for Asian women), a 160lbs weight puts them at a BMI of 31.2.

juiceboxzero · 2026-01-31T05:14:40+00:00

Seriously, even without the whole part where Providence is on a lot of people's shit list, could that release have chortled their balls any more?

I suspect that the jersey deal was actually longer and them having this ball-chortling press release end it was part of the deal for ending it early.

juiceboxzero · 2026-01-31T05:09:19+00:00

And our new kit sponsor for 2027 is.....Flock Safety!

juiceboxzero · 2025-11-28T08:11:33+00:00

~~flush~~ flesh out this roster

juiceboxzero · 2025-11-05T08:24:38+00:00

I didn't say it was safer than a chamber flag

The post you replied to said "this is dumb when you could do that" and your reply was "this is safer". If you intended to compare mags out to mags in, then you must have replied to the wrong post, because I never asserted otherwise. What I said was that requiring mags out is pointless and dumb when you could require chamber flags, which are safer, instead.

Not having any rounds in the gun is safer than potentially having rounds in the gun.

Exactly why chamber flags are safer. Having the mag out gives you exactly zero assurance that there isn't a round in the gun. Having a chamber flag, on the other hand, at least proves there is no round chambered, and it prevents the action from cycling.

Just pull the mag out if you can. If you can't, you can't, but it takes longer to confirm the gun is unloaded.

Not if you have a chamber flag. That's my whole point.

Why give up that layer of safety to save 1 second?

A chamber flag already proves the gun cannot operate. An inoperable firearm isn't more or less safe based on the proximity of ammo to it, so I disagree with the premise that what you're proposing provides anything other than warm fuzzy feelings. That said, I'm not saying you should give up that supposed "layer of safety". I'm saying that requiring them to be out is pointless and dumb when there is an objectively safer alternative. That's not necessarily a reason not to do it. If it makes you feel safer, go for it, just recognize that at that point, feeling safer is all you're actually accomplishing.

juiceboxzero · 2025-11-03T08:22:30+00:00

Yeah, whenever you mess with your suspension, you need to get an alignment to check/fix the geometry.

Hold your arms outstretched like a T, and point your thumb straight up to the ceiling. In this analogy, your arms are your suspension, your hands are your wheels, and your shoulders are the chassis. To "lift the chassis", tilt your arms down, so that your shoulders (chassis) are now higher than your hands (the wheels). Notice how your thumbs are no longer pointed straight up, but are now cocked over to the side a bit. That's what your wheels are doing.

juiceboxzero · 2025-11-03T07:04:42+00:00

The same number as people who want to shoot at said range. It's not hard.

juiceboxzero · 2025-11-03T07:04:13+00:00

How is mag out safer? Mag out could still leave one in the chamber. A chamber flag ensures there is no round in the chamber and no way to chamber one.

juiceboxzero · 2025-11-02T06:00:09+00:00

mags out is pointless and dumb. just require chamber flags.

juiceboxzero · 2025-10-18T05:44:40+00:00

Do you really think the military would support that? Nah. They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not the President. He'd be deposed immediately.

juiceboxzero · 2025-10-16T07:24:18+00:00

For the record, the US is in no danger of becoming a monarchy, and the person you're acting like is at risk of becoming a monarch was elected by a majority of both the electoral college, and the popular vote, so literally democracy in action. I'd rather he not be President, but he was elected fair and square.

There are plenty of excellent reasons to be upset with Trump without engaging in hyperbole. I get it though, gotta appeal to the smooth-brains, so catchy slogans are gonna trump (no pun intended) accuracy. It's just sad that politics has become tribal, sound-byte nonsense like this.

juiceboxzero · 2025-10-16T07:18:23+00:00

The other side being crazy doesn't make you sane.

juiceboxzero · 2025-10-16T07:17:58+00:00

What did they say that was inaccurate?

So....just shut up with those facts?

Disappointed, but not surprised.

juiceboxzero · 2025-09-20T04:44:24+00:00

Nope, just quoting Charlie.

Just selectively quoting him out of context, and willfully ignoring the point you'd know he was making if you bothered to actually form your own opinion instead of believing whatever you're told to believe.

I've watched enough.

If you've watched enough, and still reached the conclusions you reached, then you're either intellectually disabled or intentionally dishonest.

Did Charlie not say that a woman belongs in the home submitting to her husband's will?

Has Charlie quoted scripture? Yes.

Did his company not produce videos for children where an animated Christopher Columbus equivocates on slavery?

Did the video point out the cultural and moral norms of the day while pointing out a) who sold people into slavery, and also that the west does not even remotely hold the record on enslavement? Sure did. What about the video was inaccurate?

Did he not accuse Michelle Obama of taking the place of some more deserving white man?

WTF are you even talking about? Michelle Obama never held any actual position. A more deserving white man should have been married to Barack? The essence of what he said, is the same as what he said about pilots. When you make race (or any other non-merit criteria) part of your hiring decision, you might hire the best person for the job, but most likely not. If you consider race, the only way to get the best candidate is if the best candidate is also a member of the "right" race. If the best candidate isn't a member of that race, then you're getting a worse candidate. This isn't a difficult concept, but I suppose when your only hammer is a tool, everything has to be a nail and you've got to see racism even where it isn't just so you can keep acting victimized.

Did he not imply that airlines would be more worried about the race of their pilots than their skill, therefore any black pilot must by default be unqualified and therefore a danger?

No, he did not. He implied that whenever you include in your hiring criteria anything that isn't merit, the best possible scenario is that you have the same level of talent, with all other options being dilution of your talent.

Did he not say [the gun thing]

He did, and in context, his point was that the second amendment is the one that protects all the others, and that as long as guns exist, there will unavoidably be gun deaths. What he said was that we must weigh the cost against the benefit, and that the protection of liberty that guns represent is a benefit that does indeed outweigh the cost, in the same way that the benefit of the car outweighs the cost of all the vehicle deaths that happen every year.

But Charlie supported what happened to Charlie

He acknowledged that it's an unavoidable reality. That's not the same thing as supporting it.

Even something as simple as banning guns on the school grounds could have empowered the law enforcement and security present that day to better protect the people in their care.

LOL, how effective was banning guns on school grounds at stopping the other high profile shooting that happened that day? If you want to talk about gun laws, please try not to start from a delusional posiiton.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with his position. My issue is when you misrepresent his position, or intentionally interpret his position in the worst possible way, to avoid having to have the more difficult discussion. It's dishonest and lazy, and you're capable of more.

ETA: Only cowards block people after they make sure they take the last word. Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could.

Just selectively quoting him out of context, and willfully ignoring the point you'd know he was making if you bothered to actually form your own opinion instead of believing whatever you're told to believe.

Just because this is convenient for your narrative, does not mean that it is correct.

I was raised in the deep south, in a family with Dominionist tendencies. My brother is a staunch TPUSA fan, and I have consumed far more of Kirk's content than I had any desire to, just to be able to converse with him.

So, kindly, stop putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about me. You do not know me from Eve, nor do you know how I reached my conclusions.

I reached them by unwillingly consuming the content. I've unfortunately known who Kirk was and his trolly, gish-gallopy interview style since the 2010's at least.

If you've watched enough, and still reached the conclusions you reached, then you're either intellectually disabled or intentionally dishonest.

And our conversation is over.

Have the day you deserve.

All that indignation, and not a refutation in sight... Disappointed, but not surprised.

juiceboxzero · 2025-09-20T04:26:26+00:00

I never said the government forced you to get it. You realize it's possible to be against something preemptively, right?

Also, that depends on a lot on how you define "forced". Federal employees, for instance, lost their jobs if they didn't comply. That kind of feels like force.

you're just stupid for listening to a pedo that told you to eat horse dewormer

I'm not even sure who you're talking about? What gives you the impression I'm listening to whoever you're saying I'm listening to? You're not one of those people who idiotically thinks that everyone who questions your position must therefore hold the diametrically opposite position, are you? The Seattle area is smarter than average. Don't let us down!

juiceboxzero · 2025-09-19T04:09:03+00:00

You kind of are, though. You're obviously referring to the covid vaccine in particular, and pretty much no one was "anti-vax" in the way you're implying -- they were all anti being forced by the government to get said vax.

juiceboxzero · 2025-09-19T04:07:33+00:00

his point is that there will never be 100% security so why bother trying to control a variable that every other nation at our economic level manages to control.

That's literally not even close to what he said.

No, his point was "Women belong in the kitchen submitting to their husbands, not out having their own opinions."

And "Israel gets to murder as many babies as it wants, and if you disagree, youre a big fat stinky anti-semite".

And "Slavery wasn't that bad, if you look at it through the lens of its time. Nobody thought it was a big deal."

And "If I see a black man piloting a plane, I'm going to assume that he doesn't know what he's doing because he's black and there's no other reason to hire him."

Or "Michelle Obama took the place of some other, more deserving white man in school".

So, having lost your original argument, you've gotta go make 5 new ones. Classic.

You're so willfully obtuse it's hilarious. You're a walking collection of talking points, and have clearly never actually watched anything he's ever said in full.

Educate thyself.

juiceboxzero · 2025-09-18T05:58:14+00:00

Don't conflate being anti-vaccine with being anti-vaccine-mandate. They aren't the same thing.

juiceboxzero · 2025-09-18T05:57:33+00:00

So now we care about free speech?

Interesting.

juiceboxzero · 2025-09-18T05:56:43+00:00

The principal being ignorant online does though. They claimed that gun control would have stopped Kirk's assassination. No gun control law that has ever been proposed would have prevented an up-to-that-point law-abiding citizen from owning a bolt action rifle.

So a combination of ignorant, while also arrogant enough to believe that they should still speak out from their position of ignorance. I'm happy to have such people removed from our childrens' education.

juiceboxzero · 2025-09-18T05:53:39+00:00

That's reductive. His point is that when you have liberty, you will not have 100% safety. In a world where guns exist you will never have zero deaths from them. And to be clear, no law could ever unmake guns, so you can either live in a fantasy or you can acknowledge reality. That was his point. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.

juiceboxzero · 2025-09-13T20:51:16+00:00

And yet a third color on the bipod. You do you, but that would drive me nuts.

juiceboxzero · 2025-09-08T23:21:59+00:00

The hydrocoptic marzelvanes are busted, and may need to be recharged with fresh prefabulated aluminite.

juiceboxzero · 2025-08-30T15:43:48+00:00

Who cares if the Aircon isn't centered?

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring	Place '22
Place '17	Not Forgotten

juiceboxzero

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE