mclumber1

5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

That obviously depends on your bank. I would expect Wells Fargo or Bank of America to fuck you over in a heartbeat or be slow about helping, but a credit Union may be more responsive. Ymmv

Yeah, I've been with Navy Federal Credit Union for 15 years.  Almost always a good experience.  Only problem with using them is that there isn't a branch within over a 100 miles of me.  Luckily they do partner with a lot of local banks/credit unions for no-fee ATMs. 

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Credit card skimmers having a direct line to your bank account and your money (not the cc issuers money) if you use a debit card

Although that's true, the few times my bank card number has been stolen, the bank/card company has been awesome about repatriating the funds that were taken.  

2 minutes ago, legend said:

I don't use a credit card at all. I had one a long time ago and rarely used it. Other than missing out on "points" and carrying you if you don't have the cash for something immediately needed, what is the reason for using one?

I'm pretty much in agreement.  I do have old credit card debt that we are paying off, and should be all done by next year.  We haven't used the actual card in a long time.  I should be in a position next year to never need to use credit again, aside from buying a house when we move. 

13 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Ya, he's supposed to have tea Diet Coke and Fish Delights with the Queen tomorrow.

I pay for all of my stuff with silver bullion and tool grade diamonds.  You guys are a bunch of schleps to use credit cards. 

8 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-usa-helicopters/mexicos-president-elect-will-cancel-planned-u-s-helicopter-order-idUSKBN1K1332?il=0

 

Mexico's new president cancelling $1.36 Billion helicopter order from the US.

Did you ever think he's canceling the helicopter order so his broke ass can pay for the wall?  This was Trump's plan all along. 

He's going to sprinkle lithium, a light metal, into the water supply, to cancel out the lead, a heavy metal. 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

You really have to stop pushing for things based on the assumption people, particularly governments, are rational actors with the peoples' humane interests in mind, just because you are smart and rational and responsible (which you are!).

 

I'm not outing you, but I have noticed a pattern. In this specific case (as the case with the DIY guns) you're technically correct but it's potential abuses outweigh its potentially benign nature in this case, and elsewhere where you've argued a more moderate or conservative viewpoint. 

 

To be clear, I agree with you, but its ignoring context and how people work and are. I learned this the hard way, where I thought objectivity was more important than context. This election and this era has taught me . . . it isn't. It just isn't, because the world isn't objective. So why would we be? We need to bend things to how they should be when one side is actively doing the opposite, but using the veneer of objectivity to push their agendas. It's insidious. Just my .02 not trying to hate, I respect your opinions as they are often very informed and I learn a lot. 

Thanks.  I suppose I could have added a bit more snark to my comment, as I wasn't being completely serious.  Sometimes /s is necessary.

Non fibeous asbestos is plenty safe.  And as long as you have adequate ventilation you won't die for many decades from the asbestosis.

16 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

For one, money isn't speech and corporations don't have a right to free speech

Would free speech apply to unions?

4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Moderates Democrats take their base for granted.  They think Democratic voters are suckers who will show up and vote no matter what.

Which is crazy because Dem voters don't have jobs that they have to worry about missing to go vote.

32 minutes ago, legend said:

All this signals to me is that the first amendment is antiquated. Unfortunately, I'm pretty pessimistic that we can get any amendment to it and if we did, I'm also pessimistic that it would be a good amendment rather than a backwards one.

What way is the first amendment antiquated?  In what ways would you want the government to restrict speech?

25 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Gun people continue to be fucking weird

17 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

As someone who thinks that we need to repeal the second and just ban all the guns, I think this is the correct ruling. Code is speech, and it should be treated as such. If they want to ban the making or distribution of unmarked guns (is that already illegal?) then fine, but banning the code is both a clear first amendment issue and quite impossible.

Unmarked/unserialized guns are not illegal as long as you don't resell it after you make it.  There is a booming market right now for 80% finished receivers (which is what the feds consider the "gun"  part of the gun).  You get the 80% receiver shipped right to your door, you finish the machining of the part, and then you assemble the gun.  I contemplated going this route when I built my AR a few months ago, but I decided against it because I didn't want to invest in a drill press at the time. 

1 minute ago, Ricofoley said:

Chicago's letting him build this thing, connecting O'Hare to downtown, (the Blue Line does this already, but improving already existing public transport is just an absurd idea apparently) and I'm terrified it's going to be a massive boondoggle

 

https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/7/10/17549684/elon-musk-boring-company-ohare-express

Moreso than any other public transport boondoggle? 

10 minutes ago, silentbob said:

Fuck that is some scary shit when you read that. Maybe them rules should be updated for the more modern times, or fuck it. Everything else seems to be going to hell in a hand basket anyways 

Sounds like you need to invest in a 3D printer!

Quote

Two months ago, the Department of Justice quietly offered Wilson a settlement to end a lawsuit he and a group of co-plaintiffs have pursued since 2015 against the United States government. Wilson and his team of lawyers focused their legal argument on a free speech claim: They pointed out that by forbidding Wilson from posting his 3-D-printable data, the State Department was not only violating his right to bear arms but his right to freely share information. By blurring the line between a gun and a digital file, Wilson had also successfully blurred the lines between the Second Amendment and the First.

 

"If code is speech, the constitutional contradictions are evident," Wilson explained to WIRED when he first launched the lawsuit in 2015. "So what if this code is a gun?”

 

The Department of Justice's surprising settlement, confirmed in court documents earlier this month, essentially surrenders to that argument. It promises to change the export control rules surrounding any firearm below .50 caliber—with a few exceptions like fully automatic weapons and rare gun designs that use caseless ammunition—and move their regulation to the Commerce Department, which won't try to police technical data about the guns posted on the public internet. In the meantime, it gives Wilson a unique license to publish data about those weapons anywhere he chooses.

https://www.wired.com/story/a-landmark-legal-shift-opens-pandoras-box-for-diy-guns/

40 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

Rand hates NATO cause they won't protect him from his neighbors.

LMAO

4 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

Sugar ethanol is far more efficient, right?

I know there was promising development a few years ago for bioengineered algae that could create gasoline or diesel directly.  Don't know what came of it. 

1 minute ago, Jose said:

 

If we could get off soy and corn, it would be a wonderful thing. 

And corn.  

I don't like when restaurants give you complimentary ice water, but don't give you a straw.  I don't want those cold-ass ice cubes up against my teeth.  I'm a civilized man and demand a straw.  

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-pardon-dwight-steven-hammond-20180710-story.html

Quote

President Donald Trump has pardoned two ranchers whose case sparked the armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon.

Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted in 2012 of intentionally and maliciously setting fires on public lands. The arson crime carried a minimum prison sentence of five years, but a sympathetic federal judge, on his last day before retirement, decided the penalty was too stiff and gave the father and son much lighter prison terms.

Prosecutors won an appeal and the Hammonds were resentenced in October 2015 to serve the mandatory minimum.

The decision sparked a protest from Ammon Bundy and dozens of others, who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near the Hammond ranch in southeastern Oregon from Jan. 2 to Feb. 11, 2016, complaining the Hammonds were victims of federal overreach.

I thought it was BS how these guys got thrown back in jail after they were released.  I think this was a good move on the part of the President. 

9 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

 

So just like with all reality shows, it was scripted.  

Roe was a dumb decision anyways.