Not a landlord, but I had a similar excuse thrown at me by a dealership. Towed my car an hour for a recall to a college town because everywhere else was booked for a while. They did close to $1000 of unauthorized work and then threw a fit when I told them I would not be paying for it unless they could show me a signed document where I agreed. When they realized I wasn't a broke college kid after I threatened legal action and to report my car stolen if they were not willing to give it back, I got the "this was a misunderstanding, it never should have went this far" from the owner who had just called me a liar 10minutes prior. Such obvious BS
I don't get this. I was raised by a cop, and I'm very comfortable with firearms. Flashing your concealed weapon in public is immature at best. I can think of zero reason to flash a concealed weapon in public (unless you intend to defend yourself with it, right there in that moment), even if someone is asking to see it the answer is, "It's not a toy". It's an object designed to kill, the threat is inherent in revealing it.
Not calling out you specifically, but the irreverent attitude of the loud pro-gun group has pushed me way further left on gun control than I used to be. Actions like OP tell me the leaders advocating for it do not have a healthy or mature view of firearms.
Interestingly enough, 2/3 of those are subs I dropped within the last year or so based on a lack of quality/content for what they cost (never bothered with ESPN, NHL games are easy to find). Seems like streaming is starting to collapse a lot quicker than TV did.
So now we're saying she actually did have both signficant political and legislative experience, but won because of a penchant for fundraising. Which is something you see as soliciting bribes. That's a fair interpretation.
From your original comment:
That's how Pelosi became Speaker in the first place in spite of having no legislative accomplishments to speak of nor seniority: she was simply the best at collecting fat checks from rich people and their corporations.
My gripe is why invent this idea that her taking a bunch of bribes and being good at soliciting more is the sole reason they made her speaker, with no other qualifications? She had held prominent positions within the party for a while (decades), and was minority whip (second in command essentially) for some time prior to becoming Leader/Speaker. She was minority leader when Dems took the house, which automatically makes her a major contender for the position and she was comparable to her opponents on the whole. A cursory search of her career casts a ton of doubt on your claims, and they're obviously flawed to someone who lived through that time.
Getting caught up in bashing Pelosi waters down the legit criticism you have, and makes your viewpoint seem biased. We should be upset that her penchant for fundraising is such an asset, not that she was good at it in the first place.
Pelosi had literal decades of political experience, and was co-authoring legislation in the late 80s concerning the AIDs crisis. She became Speaker after Democrats won control of the house with her as minority leader -- a position she won in 2002/2003 after being directly under it for a couple years.
I get not liking Pelosi, or fundraising I guess, but it's bizarre when criticisms are spun seemingly whole cloth.
Come on, man, it's "water under the bridge". I want to contribute but it felt like we were drifting into malaphors there for a second, so I'm gonna play it by year and just see what comes next.
It worked incredibly well from my perspective. Pretty much everyone I know that watched either show would watch both as a single block. I remember Colbert and Stewart doing little bits between the shows as well sometimes. Back-to-back was honestly a fantastic idea.
Biden needs to send the Army in and take over the Texas Border enforcement.
He legally can't. He is not able to unilaterally use the military as a domestic police force. This keeps the executive from using the military as their personal cudgel.
I agree with the strong arming via national guard though. I think there are some hoops, but there's absolutely plenty of precedent for a president taking command of a state's national guard (specifically in regard to border control as well).
It's worth a watch, but for the theory itself essentially the effort/resources required to colonize planets that are not earth-like is unsustainable. A lack of a self-restoring cycle for resources and general ecological needs would inevitably lead to one of a variety of possible collapses. This would lead most intelligent life to avoid extensive expansion due to the heavy cost. Issues brought up with the theory in the video was stuff like tech advancement improving the practicality of life in free space as well as the possibility of differing biological needs (i.e. if a species went more mechanical or used AI/machines they could bypass the need to terraform or transport basic biological needs).
A lot more and better explained in the video, but that's the gist
Yeah, I'm right there with you. He came up in a conversation over the holidays and I had to go through how in my opinion he had potential to be one of, if not the best, comic of his generation and he squandered it by needlessly punching down and taking oddly vindictive stances. Maybe this is always who he was, but I think the fame and frustration that came with how his career played out changed him.
I can't reconcile the Dave from old interviews and shows with this one, and it's kinda sad.
I think it was the Logan Act I was thinking of! Thanks!
Disappointing that it's never been enforced. While this scenario is not the makings of an diplomatic crisis, it seems a pretty cut and dry example of what the Logan Act seeks to block. It's a U.S. rep blatantly pushing acting against US diplomatic interests.
I think it would be utter chaos, but I'd love just a single solid year of throwing the book at obvious illegal behavior no matter how trivial. Put the fear of God in some of these morons.
Walberg explicitly encouraged Uganda’s leaders to resist opposition to the law from the U.S.
Can US representative just blatantly undermine US foreign policy, or is this one of those things where it's wrong but won't be pursued in any official way?
It's a skill issue. It's takes intelligence to conceptualize an issue or idea without accepting it. Seems many people talking about Israel/Palestine (in terms of everyday people) just aren't bright enough to break it down for themselves.
The whole thing is a legit clusterfuck. Israel has been commiting war crimes against Palestinians for as long as I've been alive, and Palestine's de facto government is a legit terrorist organization who has done some unforgivable things. In the middle you have everyday people suffering for no reason beyond being born in the "wrong" place, and being further radicalized by unconscionable IDF actions. There's no good guy on either side (in terms of those capable of taking action on a collective scale), and that breaks the brains of some. People ignorantly want a cut and dry solution, and a bad side to rail against, much more than they want to actually understand the issue and it's causes.
I always just wrote this little tale off as "good at reading people", and honestly that's still my assumption. After reading Blindsight though, I think it's a good allegory for possible intelligence without consciousness. What if the horse just has the ability to perform those kind of calculations when incentivized, but has no concept of what it's actually doing beyond responding to stimulus.
Then again I knew a horse that would recreationally lick electric fences, so probably not that. Interesting thought though.
Not a landlord, but I had a similar excuse thrown at me by a dealership. Towed my car an hour for a recall to a college town because everywhere else was booked for a while. They did close to $1000 of unauthorized work and then threw a fit when I told them I would not be paying for it unless they could show me a signed document where I agreed. When they realized I wasn't a broke college kid after I threatened legal action and to report my car stolen if they were not willing to give it back, I got the "this was a misunderstanding, it never should have went this far" from the owner who had just called me a liar 10minutes prior. Such obvious BS