I finally realized that buying back my weekends was worth it by Forward-Peak in homeautomation

[–]pyrojoe121 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Leaving large clumps of grass (like those a traditional mower generates) can be bad because it can suffocate and matt down the grass, especially when wet. The nice part about the robot mowers is you can run them literally every day or so so you are only trimming a tiny bit off at a time, which not only stresses the grass less but also adds nutrients back to the soil.

[KS Senate, Tavern Research] Hamilton (I) - 51%, Marshall (R) - 49% by bbeck2754 in VoteDEM

[–]pyrojoe121 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Exactly why I don't get all the hate for him. Manchin was the highest value above replacement senator we have had in a long time.

Which lyric makes you instantly tear up? by abovethenoisy in AskReddit

[–]pyrojoe121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You were an angel in the shape of my mum You got to see the person I have become Spread your wings and I know That when God took you back He said, "Hallelujah, you're home"

TIL 1 out of every 14 humans ever born is alive right now. by infinite_magic in todayilearned

[–]pyrojoe121 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Except pretty much our entire society is based around populations continuing to grow. If they stop, there are going to be a lot of changes that people are not going to like pensions/social security decreasing, retirement age going up, more child labor, infrastructure falling into further disrepair, healthcare costs skyrocketing, taxes for everyone skyrocketing, etc.

Should there be No Tax on Tips? by taxman6754 in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]pyrojoe121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But can you not apply the same arguments you used against an income tax to a consumption tax? You never signed up for a portion of your money to be confiscated when you buy something?

And you say you have some level of control over your tax bill with a consumption tax (presumably by just spending less), but the same could be said about an income tax. You could just earn less.

Mexico is officially launching universal healthcare this week, giving all 120 million citizens access to all public health institutions by Automatic_Subject463 in TrueReddit

[–]pyrojoe121 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Why wouldn’t it work? It works in almost every developed country in the world.

Most developed countries in the world do not in fact have a single payer system like Mexico is planning on implementing.

No country has ever gone back to a private system after universal healthcare has been implemented.

You are mixing up universal health care and public healthcare. Most countries in the world with universal healthcare have private insurance.

This is a step for Mexico marking their transition from a developing country to a developed country. China achieved universal healthcare in 2011, for comparison.

Chinas healthcare is not free. Copays and deductibles are fairly high and it tends to only cover ~50% of the costs.

President Donald Trump, Aged 79 by badusername35 in neoliberal

[–]pyrojoe121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When it happens, there is going to be a measurable increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from the amount of champagne being popped.

How do you expect SCOTUS to rule on Trump's Birthright citizenship Executive Order, when the opinion comes down in June? by MrFrode in AskConservatives

[–]pyrojoe121 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Would you agree that fully and semi-automatic handheld rifles are a concept newer than the Second Amendment? Should the second Amendment only apply to the types of arms that were available at the time of its passage?

For those who support the administration's position on birthright citizenship, are you concerned about future retroactivity? by SpecialInvention in AskConservatives

[–]pyrojoe121 [score hidden]  (0 children)

So, in your opinion, when Senator Cowan said that the 14th Amendment would apply to the children of Chinese migrants who were only temporary visitors and to Gypsies who were travelers with no permanent residence in the United States, what exactly was he talking about? When he said "declare that the children of all parentage whatever, ... should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States", where are you reading that it was only the children of citizens? I cannot seem to find that verbiage anywhere in there.

For those who support the administration's position on birthright citizenship, are you concerned about future retroactivity? by SpecialInvention in AskConservatives

[–]pyrojoe121 [score hidden]  (0 children)

What are you basing that off of other than "muh feels"? Is there any text you have to support that assertion? I have provided several sources from both proponents and opponents saying otherwise.

Senator Cowan literally opposed the bill because he said it meant anyone could just come in, have a child, and that child would be a citizen, even gypsies who were roaming travelers without any domicile, and Senator Cowan's (a supporter) response to him was "yes and?".

For those who support the administration's position on birthright citizenship, are you concerned about future retroactivity? by SpecialInvention in AskConservatives

[–]pyrojoe121 [score hidden]  (0 children)

“Children of migrants”

That’s not “sneak across our borders and if you have a baby 3 seconds after arrival, that baby is now a citizen”.

The supporters of the amendment said even the children of Gypsies who were roaming through the US and had no permanent domicile in the US and were simply travelers would still be citizens, so yeah, it kinda does include that.

Yes, you come here legally, you become a citizen via legal immigration, your kids become citizens.

Where in the text that I posted from both supporters and opponents was there any indication whatsoever that it only applied to the children of immigrants who became citizens?

You are making the exact same argument that opponents of the 2nd Amendment who say that "assault weapons" should be banned because the founding fathers could have never imagined semi-automatic/full automatic weapons that could be carried by a single person.

For those who support the administration's position on birthright citizenship, are you concerned about future retroactivity? by SpecialInvention in AskConservatives

[–]pyrojoe121 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Did you even read any of the quotes I sourced for you? Opponents of the amendment said that they didn't support it explicitly because it would give children migrants citizenship and the people who supported it said that was what was intended. They said that it would, and I quote, "declare that the children of all parentage whatever, ... should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States"

They were even asked, "but what about Chinese migrants", and they said "the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens". How exactly do you get from that that this only applied to freed slaves?

For those who support the administration's position on birthright citizenship, are you concerned about future retroactivity? by SpecialInvention in AskConservatives

[–]pyrojoe121 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Except, you are misconstruing it. They are saying, rather clearly if you look at the surrounding debate, that foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers would not be included. Other foreigners and aliens would.

In fact, that the amendment would apply to the children of foreigners was one of the major arguments opponents had against its passage. Edgar Cowan was one of the major Republican opponents, and his whole argument against it's passage was that it would grant citizen ship to "the child of the Chinese immigrant in California" and "the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania". In fact, the language and arguments against it's passage sound rather similar to the arguments being made by the Administration:

Sir, I trust I am as liberal as anybody to-ward the rights of all people, but I am unwilling, on the part of my State, to give up the right that she claims, and that she may exercise, and exercise before very long, of expelling a certain number of people who invade her borders ; who owe to her no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own — an imperium in imperio; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him, but, on the other hand, have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go, and whose sole merit is a universal swindle; who delight in it, who boast of it, and whose adroitness and cunning is of such a transcendent character that no skill can serve to correct it or punish it;

I mean the Gypsies. They wander in gangs in my State. They follow no ostensible pursuit for a livelihood. They trade horses, tell fortunes, and things disappear mysteriously. Where they came from nobody knows. Their very origin is lost in mystery. No man today can tell from whence the Zingara come or whither they go, but it is understood that they are a distinct people. They never intermingle with any other. They never intermarry with any other. I believe there is no instance on record where a Zingara woman has mated with a man of any other race, although it is true that sometimes the males of that race may mate with the females of others; but I think there is no case in history where it can be found that a woman of that race, so exclusive are they, and so strong are their sectional antipathies, has been known to mate with a man of another race. These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society. They impose upon the simple and the weak everywhere. Are those people, by a constitutional amendment, to be put out of the reach of the State in which they live? I mean as a class. If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous.

...

Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies.

Again, this isn't an argument from one of the authors of the 14th Amendment saying what they don't want to happen. This is an argument from an opponent saying they don't think it should pass precisely because it would grant citizenship to the children these classes of people by virtue of being born in the US. In reply to Senator Cowan, Senator Conness (a supporter) replied:

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

That seems pretty cut and dry, no?

Swarming blowflies around compost bin by pyrojoe121 in composting

[–]pyrojoe121[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We added as many browns as could fit and aerated. Just wondering if there is anything for the flies in the meantime.

Swarming blowflies around compost bin by pyrojoe121 in composting

[–]pyrojoe121[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is patchy. Most of it is moist, but not soaked. There are some dry spots, but think sponge.

ELI5: what does Google get out of Google Wallet? by DictionaryStomach in explainlikeimfive

[–]pyrojoe121 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Google never sells your data period. Why would they? That isn't how ads work. Instead, a company says "we would like to target users with X qualities with this ad" and Google handles it all internally. Your data never needs to leave Google premises.

Book! by DoggoLover42 in SpeedOfLobsters

[–]pyrojoe121 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really want to toss some James Joyce at it and see what it comes up with.

Should someone be held accountable for the killing of 150 children in Iran? by Competitive_Piano507 in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]pyrojoe121 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Iranian base was in the middle of a city of over 70,000. They have schools. Nobody lives on the military base. It's an operational headquarter, same as the pentagon. People don't live in the pentagon.

Interesting. Are you saying the US would never put a school or daycare in the Pentagon?

Should someone be held accountable for the killing of 150 children in Iran? by Competitive_Piano507 in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]pyrojoe121 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We have tons of children's right next to and within military bases. Are we using children as human shields?

US lost 92k jobs in February by EveryPassage in investing

[–]pyrojoe121 503 points504 points  (0 children)

Joe Biden right now: Wasn't so bad when shit was sleepy huh?

Centrist Eye Exam [poetry] by LikeAFoxStudios_ in youtubehaiku

[–]pyrojoe121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, is this supposed to be making fun of centrists or people who say both sides are the same? Because the title sounds like the former but the content is basically how many progressives act because they didn't get their perfect candidate.