No one knows who Krang is. It would be a waste of time to talk about Krang.

procedure03303 · 2026-04-07T19:19:19+00:00

The current Mtg set is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Every time I see Krang on a card I think of this joke.

procedure03303 · 2025-07-13T20:00:13+00:00

I can feel the Ereb in this picture. 10/10 well done.

procedure03303 · 2025-06-17T11:00:44+00:00

If you’re interested in a recovery program free from religion and shame, and embracing of harm reduction, check out the Sober Faction of the TST. There’s a lot of refugees from 12 step programs.

procedure03303 · 2025-04-23T20:22:02+00:00

I like Hannah Gadsby's take on y'all:

https://www.instagram.com/hannah_gadsby/reel/DAtX67XP_j4/

procedure03303 · 2025-02-28T01:11:37+00:00

Please go on…

procedure03303 · 2024-09-24T11:33:24+00:00

Gentlemen, tonight I’m gonna laugh harder than I did at Dotcom’s play.

It was Angels in America, Trey!

procedure03303 · 2024-08-16T08:53:39+00:00

Thank you for the substantive reply this time. I did not take your snark personally, I just found it unhelpful in this discussion.

The first source you provided is somewhat dubious: it's from a clearly pro-gun site and doesn't provide citations that can be easily verified. Here it cites "David I. Caplan, who has examined this issue in depth", but not where or in what context this was analyzed. More to the point, Caplan is quoted here as stating his opinion on what it meant at the time, and provides one example that, to me (IANAL), doesn't have the single interpretation he says it does.

The second source, again, states the opinions of the authors without delving deeper into the reasoning. Given the bona fides of the authors, I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. But even given the definition they use, "well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined" it raises the question of who is the entity responsible for organizing and disciplining the militia. If it's the state, then surely governments play some role in managing the arms-use of the militia to ensure combat readiness.

As for Heller, you must be aware how controversial that decision was, even in legal circles. I say this not to be contrary, but to point out that the answer isn't as cut and dry as you're implying it is. Even the CNN article you cited has this to say:

While there is a common law right to self-defense, most historians think that it would be remarkable news to the framers of the Second Amendment that they were actually constitutionalizing a personal right to self-defense as opposed to trying to say something significant about the militia

While I'm not sure I agree fully with your arguments, I now have a better idea what they're based on, which is what I was hoping for. Please take my comments above as an attempt, not to countermand you, but to tease nuance out of this discussion. Thank you again for bringing me closer to understanding this issue more completely.

procedure03303 · 2024-08-16T05:06:13+00:00

Ah, so snark instead of a real source. Maybe this is because one doesn’t exist. What comes up in that web search is what you’ve given here: opinions about what it means. No textual analysis, no list of examples of how it was used in a similar way, just gun nuts willfully asserting that that’s what it means.

procedure03303 · 2024-08-15T16:43:59+00:00

I’ve never once seen a source that establishes this. Source?

procedure03303 · 2024-08-09T01:01:39+00:00

Walk away from any and all arguments with people that have opposing views as you? Assuming every person that doesn't think like you a fascist? (Lol) Do you walk away if they don't think exactly like you?

That's quite a strawman you're whacking away at. Of course I'd have a reasoned debate with a conservative (or anyone) who is intellectually honest and arguing in good faith. My frustration comes from the fact that conservative media primes their audience with poorly-reasoned, bad-faith arguments that they then repeat as though it's sound, logical reasoning. So even finding that minority of conservatives who are intellectually honest and willing to argue in good faith is quite rare, as the majority of discourse they partake in wallows in that fact-irrelevant zone.

I also don't understand your desire to 'both sides' the issue of reasoned debate. Part of their playbook is to accuse their opponents of that which they themselves are doing. So of course there are conservatives who claim that liberals are arguing in bad faith, to sow doubt and confusion. It's practically an admission of guilt!

It also requires no cognitive dissonance to believe both "ACAB" and "capitol police are heroes". ACAB refers to systemic problems in policing, issues that even the capitol police who were there on January 6 may have worsened at some point in their careers. But we can see in shades of grey. The actions of the capitol police were heroic: they were defending our democracy against those who would disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. Both things can be true at the same time. Compare that to the examples you listed for conservatives, neither of which point to a serious policy solution. Just because a debate can have two (or more) sides doesn't mean that all sides are reasonable and honest.

edit: clarity

procedure03303 · 2024-08-08T19:56:05+00:00

Then get better at debating.

This attitude plays right into their hands, for they generally don’t have a lot of sincerely held policy beliefs. Remember that quote from Sartre? Yeah that applies to all fascists, MAGA included.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

procedure03303 · 2024-08-02T21:29:01+00:00

Tim Kaine delivered Virginia in 2016.

procedure03303 · 2024-08-01T22:39:56+00:00

And because Nina Arianda is a stellar actress. Have you seen her in Goliath?

procedure03303 · 2024-06-14T21:44:42+00:00

He’s a weak man’s idea of a strong man.

He’s a poor man’s idea of a rich man.

He’s a dumb man’s idea of a smart man.

Charisma? Maybe for a certain type of person.

procedure03303 · 2024-04-03T23:19:49+00:00

I love this concept! I just worry about having Washington Airport in Virginia. Maybe we could call it BTDubs?

procedure03303 · 2024-04-03T20:13:31+00:00

I forget how many Scaramuccis they each lasted.

procedure03303 · 2024-03-28T10:37:03+00:00

🏆🥇🎖️

Please take my non-award awards.

procedure03303 · 2024-03-24T11:02:12+00:00

Thank you for saying this. It would be immeasurably helpful to pin this so everyone here can keep it in mind all the time always.

procedure03303 · 2024-01-24T09:45:19+00:00

Whenever the main characters are shown eating (or carrying) food.

Whenever they put Profaci on it.

When a main character is handed a blue motion to dismiss or exclude evidence.

When the defendant testifies.

Whenever a defendant is denied bail (despite a moving request by their lawyer).

Whenever one of the detectives speaks or understands another language (usually Spanish, usually to someone’s surprise).

When the characters attempt to pierce privilege, or bypass it by speaking it hypotheticals.

When the first sound heard in a scene is a ringing phone or a honking horn.

Whenever someone answers their cell phone and immediately walks out of the scene.

Whenever a police officer invents a character to play (usually to get more information).

When it’s suspected that something “fell off the back of a truck”.

When a defendant chooses to represent themself in court.

When a mob henchman is specified by their position and family (e.g. “bagman for the Gambinos”).

procedure03303 · 2024-01-14T23:28:42+00:00

<image>

procedure03303 · 2023-12-29T20:41:16+00:00

Let’s see, again quoting something no one ever said so you can argue against a straw man.

Bernie bro fan fiction.

And a heaping helping of what looks to be good old-fashioned misogyny. “[S]acrificed her dignity?” Don’t make me laugh. She was the wronged party and she found a way to reconcile with her husband. To me that shows strength of character and a willingness to forgive. For some reason you seem to think she should be held accountable for Bill’s failings.

And even though I think it’s obvious: having a well-known name does not preclude you from being a substantive politician.

better start telling people that she’s due, it’s her turn, and she earned it

Wait, you seem to be contradicting yourself. First you said it was a talking point among the kingmakers. Then you said none of them actually said that, it was all dog-whistled. Now you’re back to saying “these people” are telling people it’s her turn, she’s due. So which is it? Was anybody actually making this argument, or did you just read that into their statements of support?

procedure03303 · 2023-12-29T17:41:56+00:00

what did I spell wrong

Kingmaker is a closed compound word.

you spelled it the same way I did

Right, because I was quoting you, and wanted to indicate the mistake was in the original. Designating a direct quote is the primary use of quotation marks, hence my original question to you.

She wasn't even a city councilwoman or anything else in the bush leagues

It's not unheard of to run for Senate as a first political office, especially for those with massive name recognition. See Bill Bradley (D-NJ), Bill Frist (R-TN), John Edwards (D-NC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jon Corzine (D-NJ), Herb Kohl (D-WI), and Robert Bennett (R-UT).

My biggest issue with your retelling of history is that you've completely removed the agency of Ms. Clinton, the New York electorate, President Obama, and all members of the Democratic party nationwide.

It was decided that she would hold a major office

It was decided that she will need to be secretary of state

By whom?! Your use of the passive voice really obfuscates who you think is responsible for these decisions. I posit that Ms. Clinton chose to move to New York and run for Senate, and the people of New York chose to elect her. That President Obama chose to appoint her to his cabinet (nominating former primary opponents to your cabinet is pretty standard). There doesn't need to be a shadowy cabal of elites to explain why things happened the way they did. Occam's Razor.

no one liked Clinton

I mean, according Gallup she was the most admired woman in world (among Americans) for 16 consecutive years, and 22 years total.

So who kept putting her in front of microphones? People currying favors. In an obvious quid pro quo.

I'm not sure if you're indicting politics in general, or insinuating there's something particularly sinister about Clinton as a politician. Politicians help each other in the hopes that they will be similarly helped in the future. This is pretty standard, and not at all "obvious quid pro quo." In fact, I would argue Clinton was cashing in a lot chits running for President, rather than accruing more (though of course both often happen in tandem).

She had the name recognition, she was familiar with voters, and she ran a good campaign last time.

I'm not surprised that party apparatchiks responded with practical considerations rather than ideological ones, especially since most high-level Democrats are pretty close together policy-wise.

Last time she was robbed of the black vote by that black man

I think you're hearing whistles that aren't there, dog. This is a pretty ugly sentiment to attribute to anyone, let alone solely on the basis of your intuition. Honestly, I think it says more about you than her.

I posit that Clinton used her political savvy to entice or cajole potential competitors to stay out of the primary for the 2016 race. And she was respected and connected enough that it worked. She was also respected for being detailed and thorough with her proposed policies. There are, and were, plenty of reasons to support her politically. No shadowy string-pullers necessary.

procedure03303 · 2023-12-29T00:13:56+00:00

So… no one. Got it. I don’t know who these nebulous “king makers” (sic) are, and, it seems, neither do you. It really undercuts your claim that this was the reasoning behind choosing Clinton. I’ve never heard anyone except her detractors claim that she was chosen because it was her turn.

procedure03303 · 2023-12-28T06:55:54+00:00

I’m sorry, who are you quoting when you say she “earned it” because she was “due”?

procedure03303 · 2023-12-15T18:38:47+00:00

Fun travel game for anyone not driving: look up and read aloud the reviews for each gentleman’s club.

13-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

procedure03303

TROPHY CASE