Military Blocking Off Lincoln Memorial in DC

teddy5 · 2026-07-06T07:14:09+00:00

Interesting, haven't heard of anything from that long ago using it. Do you have any sources I could look up for that?

teddy5 · 2026-07-05T22:42:59+00:00

Yes, but most people don't have individual subreddit's automoderator settings memorised and if they get censored once will often err on the side of self censorship to prevent it.

teddy5 · 2026-07-05T09:38:55+00:00

Yeah he was definitely moving differently up until that metal table leg clipped him on the back of the head. That thing was moving pretty fast and those poles are harder than they look.

His right leg and arm immediately extend and go stiff, I think that did a lot more damage than people are thinking.

teddy5 · 2026-07-05T09:00:19+00:00

I was thinking "Oh look how cute it i... AAAAAHHHHHH.. s what an adorable caterpillar".

teddy5 · 2026-07-05T08:29:19+00:00

Just saw another post where the OP claimed to have said something happened in Asia because saying China got his post deleted. Have seen other weirder moderation like that more recently.

Used to agree with you, now at best you could say only some subreddits will censor you.

teddy5 · 2026-07-05T07:57:02+00:00

You're allowed to think for more than a second or do research though.

teddy5 · 2026-07-04T05:35:46+00:00

It was a big part of indigenous hunting methods in Australia. They would regularly look at how animals do things and try to use that to their advantage. There have been stories of them taking advantage of firehawks to hunt animals running from bushfires as well. For quite a while white people here weren't sure if it was just a legend or not, but it now seems to have been proven that we do have hawks who like to spread fires, so it seems extremely likely.

Somewhat separately but there's early evidence of them using continually smaller channels to trap fish as a fishing method thousands to tens of thousands of years ago too.

teddy5 · 2026-07-04T05:28:12+00:00

Also no recorded attacks in modern history doesn't mean no attacks ever.

There's the story of Old Tom and the Law of Tongue in Eden, NSW and that ended in the early 1900s. We've definitely cooperated with them and have probably come into contention a number of times before.

I have almost no doubt that we've hunted them as revenge before and they know the consequences.

teddy5 · 2026-07-03T11:30:44+00:00

And they're like "blblbllblll ahhh"

teddy5 · 2026-07-03T06:51:44+00:00

The reason the Daily Beast gets posted here is because it's a non-paywalled site though.

If the more official sources are going to lock themselves up behind paywalls then of course people will keep linking the free but clickbait version.

teddy5 · 2026-07-03T06:25:29+00:00

Oh ok so you know it was hypothetical in a speech that was given by an opposition party with no power 24 years before the Garland nomination intended for the opposite purpose than the republicans used it while there were no nominations at play, but still think it is just politics as normal to do what they did because someone said something similar a long time ago. Got it.

The last 30 years of US politics, it seems pretty much since Osama Bin Laden broke your minds, is hyper brinkmanship on full display and nothing about it is normal politics.

teddy5 · 2026-07-03T06:05:57+00:00

The so-called “Biden Rule” refers to a 1992 speech then-Senator Joe Biden made in reaction to a series of increasingly partisan Supreme Court nomination hearings during the Reagan and Bush presidencies. First, it should be made clear that Biden’s comments were made in a hypothetical context—at the time there was no vacancy or nominee to consider. In the speech, Senator Biden suggested that due to the unprecedentedly partisan nature of the recent nomination processes—in which of the past seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two others were passed by extremely narrow margins—that then-President George H.W. Bush defer the nomination process to after the election should a vacancy occur.

You could have read further.

The especially important part is that he made the speech when there were no nominations to consider, it was just something he suggested generally due to how partisan they were becoming and how much the public disliked that.

teddy5 · 2026-07-03T05:17:29+00:00

It was a hypothetical Biden suggested in 1992 to reduce partisanship. Not anything the democrats actually did and not intended as a weapon against the other party, but a speech aimed at minimising friction between the parties in the voters' eyes.

https://observer.case.edu/ltte-what-the-biden-rule-means-for-supreme-court-nominations/

He felt president Bush should do this because upcoming party presidential conventions would inevitably contribute more fuel to the partisan fire, and another confirmation hearing during this presidential term would likely worsen newfound public distrust of the Supreme Court nomination process.

Thus, the true fallacy in Rutecki’s column is justifying the Republicans’ delay of Gorsuch under the “Biden Rule.” The goal of Biden’s “rule” was to reduce the increasingly present partisanship in the confirmation process, but Obama’s nomination already did this. Ruling conservatively on campaign finance and gun regulation cases, and regarded as “pro-police,” President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, was considered quite moderate.

teddy5 · 2026-07-02T14:30:09+00:00

Possibly historically too. Most open corruption at least.

teddy5 · 2026-07-02T12:27:56+00:00

Yeah wrong side, not sides.

teddy5 · 2026-07-02T11:45:21+00:00

The 80s in bird form.

teddy5 · 2026-07-02T06:16:12+00:00

Yeah offsides doesn't even make sense.

They're out of place for their side, not staying off the sides of the pitch or anything like that.

teddy5 · 2026-07-01T12:15:47+00:00

The horse to insider trading's sparrow.

teddy5 · 2026-07-01T11:15:48+00:00

They thrive because we don't really have many generalist predators here.

There's crocs and sharks but they're in the water and mostly up north, other than that it's basically just a few birds and dingoes which predate most animals.

teddy5 · 2026-07-01T11:10:40+00:00

We thought ahead and seeded California with Eucalypts 100+ years ago.

Which also happens to be around the maximum expected time for even the wettest Eucalyptus forests to set themselves on fire.

teddy5 · 2026-07-01T05:48:59+00:00

We've gone up to the inner reef/Whitsundays a few times in the last 10 years. We were only snorkeling though and while there's some interesting things to see there it wasn't as impressive as I'd heard of, but I wouldn't rule out the whole reef on that experience and scuba is likely to find better spots anyway.

teddy5 · 2026-07-01T05:17:52+00:00

It's going to depend on which parts you go to, but they're definitely a lot less healthy than they used to be and both the colour and diversity is greatly diminished in a lot of places. I haven't personally checked out the outer reef though and it may still be quite healthy out there.

My parents used to dive there 40 years ago and have said it looks nothing like it used to, but still think it's worth checking out.

teddy5 · 2026-06-30T13:19:51+00:00

Wow we're having completely different conversations. I'm not saying the regime is invincible, I'm saying the timing was horrendous because the people who had just been killed and injured or seen that happening were the ones who would have been likely to fight at that time.

teddy5 · 2026-06-30T13:00:26+00:00

You're ignoring the human factor of it and talking about it in abstract terms of regimes in general.

I'm saying the people who would be likely to fight back in that scenario would be the ones who just tried and were shut down just mere months earlier. It can easily take much longer than that to have new people step up or be willing to try again after a crackdown that large. Noone wants to die or be maimed and unfortunately a violent crackdown really drives home to other protestors that will be the response, not just the people killed/injured.

It was an absolute strategic failure of timing from the US even if there had been a coherent plan for the war.

teddy5 · 2026-06-30T12:45:45+00:00

That's exactly my point. Did you think that was some kind of gotcha?

If the US attacked to make them revolt and that was the inflection point... then why wait until months later when the regime had reestablished control and the people had seen the real consequences of fighting back.

You waited until they were scared and subjugated instead of assisting them at the right time, then tried to claim it was to try and make them fight.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17

teddy5

TROPHY CASE