Pretty Super Decathlon. I'm jealous. Even if I'm too susceptible to motion sickness to do aerobatics myself.
Someone once said that a day spent flying doesn't count against your allotment. I think they're right. Go have many more like it!
All those skeets about how they're unhappy that Bluesky isn't stopping racism or making this a welcoming space for oppressed-group-of-the-week are missing the point.
Bluesky was conceived and built as a place for free speech. Period. Don't like someone disagreeing with you? Too bad.
The entire point of decentralization is that the platform is designed and intended to maximize freedom of speech, including speech you disagree with.
He's a person. That he should be President is an idea.
The four boxes of American freedom:
Soap box.
Jury box.
Ballot box.
Ammunition box.
Many people are concluding it's getting to be time for the fourth, since the woke Marxist Left has rendered the first three ineffective.
Ideas are not responsible for those who hold them.
Mayo? On HOT DOGS??!!
Merciful $DEITY. Just when I thought I'd seen it all...
I don't know. What I do know is that they are going to be disappointed when they learn - likely the hard way - that Bluesky is, first and foremost, a platform for free speech, and the kind of censorship they used to enjoy from Twitter before Musk bought it will never happen here, by design.
Not a bot, but as it happens I count Eric as a good friend.
No, you're still a Screamingly Woke Socialist Liberal. It's just that you're swimming in a whole sea of them here. That used to be the case at Twitter until Musk ran off all of the Communists. (Yes, that term is accurate: a friend who used to work there said coworkers claimed to be "commie as f**").
He is sure living rent-free in a lot of heads. And the movie has gotten well over 100 million views, so obviously some people care.
What I expect this site to be is a haven for free speech of all political varieties. That's explicitly why Jack Dorsey funded it. The woke Marxists are not going to have it all to themselves, like they did Twitter before Musk bought it out.
Two words: remote work.
Republicans are really, really stupid sometimes.
In 1994, after the midterm wipeout caused by the gun grab, the Democrats realized gun control loses them elections and backed away from it.
2022 should have been ample proof that abortion is the same for Republicans. But we're doubling down.
It's time there were real consequences for left-wing college idiots shutting down speech they disagree with.
https://thelawdogfiles.com/2023/05/speech-is-free.html
If you want Europe, you know where to find it. Leave the US for those of us who want no part of living in Europe.
There is no such thing as too much icing.
Well, maybe there is, but it takes a lot more than *that*.
Parents shouldn't be sexualizing their kids, and neither should anyone else.
And it's not "duck". It's *never* "duck".
My definition is simple: any law that focuses on the tool instead of the hand that holds it is not sensible. Outlawing specific weapons? Outlawing magazines over a certain arbitrarily selected capacity? Requiring major hoops to get a suppressor? Taking someone's guns without due process of law? No.
I was turning the mirror back on the silliness of the original post. If it's valid argumentation for the Left, it's valid argumentation for conservatives, too.
I guess you missed the drag performances that were school field trips that were done without parents' informed consent, then.
Because your definition of "sensible" and mine - and that of a lot of law-abiding gun owners - do not coincide.
It's like "common sense" gun laws. They're common sense only to gun grabbers.
Got any real points to make, or can you only sling insults?
There's no such thing. You can vote your way into socialism. You have to shoot your way out.
Tell someone who escaped the Soviet bloc that "communism isn't some horrible boogeyman that people need to be afraid of". Then duck. And no, they won't care that you don't think that's real communism.
I consider myself a conservative with libertarian leanings. I don't think the entire libertarian program is practical, but I am biased toward free markets and less government coercion whenever possible.
Why do you insist on punishing the law-abiding gun owner for the acts of a small number of criminals and mentally ill people?
Get back to me when you come up with policy changes that would actually prevent mass shootings. Hint: they won't affect law-abiding gun owners in any way.
