• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

President Eisenhowler

Members
  • Content count

    9,452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About President Eisenhowler

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  1. Offshore harnesses / PFDs, yet again

    Haven't been offshore in a dog's age. What are the cool kids liking for harnesses / PFDs / harness-PFD combos these days?
  2. Joke

    Q: What do you call 19 millionaires sitting indoors in warmth and comfort watching postseason football? A: da Bears!
  3. For Woody: My simian kin humiliate a racoon

    I wouldn't have raised any objection if they had killed and eaten the raccoon. But they didn't: They just fucked with it and tortured it.
  4. Joke

    Why does a dog lick his nuts? Because he can!
  5. For Woody: My simian kin humiliate a racoon

    In the longer clip, I"m amazed at how randomly, gratuitously cruel they are to the raccoon. Fucking apes, they may as well be schoolkids.
  6. Joke

    Once upon a time there was a chicken, and a farmer. One day, the chicken turns to the farmer, and he says. "
  7. The fact that a shrink is exempt from civil liability does not mean that you can't file suit to challenge the diagnosis, it means that you can't collect damages from him. That's a huge difference, and the fact that the author plays fast and loose with that one fact instantly renders the rest of the article somewhat suspect. I'm not, by the way, arguing about the law here: based on what I know I certainly don't like the law nor do I like the way it was rammed through, and if I voted in that jurisdiction I would have a hard time voting for any legislator who supported it. Uhhh, I wouldn't say "clearly" wrong. Although he could have used better terminology. I'm not a lawyer and its been a while since I've stayed at a Holiday Inn..... but my understanding of civil cases is that its all about the damages or threat of award damages which often compels some one to change behavior and/or deters them from the bad behavior in the 1st place. While someone could technically challenge the "diagnosis" I suppose, there is nothing from preventing that doc from doing it over and over as a harrassment tool without the ability to sue for damages. I believe this is what the author meant when he said "forbidden to file suit to challenge the diagnosis". If all that happened was a judge said.... yep you're right, you're not crazy and you can have your gun back"..... by then the plaintiff gunowner is out many tens of thousands of dollars and potentially years of ass pain to get to that point. Without damages, the doc just moves on the next one and does the same thing. I think you understand what I mean..... I agree with you, but that's not what the author of the original article said.
  8. No, I haven't.... but then again I'm not arguing about what it does or doesn't say, either. But even without any background, one place where the author is clearly wrong is right here: The fact that a shrink is exempt from civil liability does not mean that you can't file suit to challenge the diagnosis, it means that you can't collect damages from him. That's a huge difference, and the fact that the author plays fast and loose with that one fact instantly renders the rest of the article somewhat suspect. I'm not, by the way, arguing about the law here: based on what I know I certainly don't like the law nor do I like the way it was rammed through, and if I voted in that jurisdiction I would have a hard time voting for any legislator who supported it.
  9. Umm.... why don't we actually look at what the legislation says, rather than looking at what other people say the legislation says. Primary sources and all that...
  10. I want to be in a position of not caring whether or not you drive your car: your decision to drive or not to drive should be absolutely neutral to me. As it is, though, when you drive your car you impose costs that I must bear; the taxes you pay on the gasoline you use do not fully offset those costs. As a believer in free market solutions, I would be all in favor of reducing the income tax (since why should we be taxing something that we want to encourage everyone to do) and increasing gasoline taxes to the point that driving is no longer net subsidized, with the overall result being revenue neutral.
  11. I have no idea if they're wrong-headed or right-headed; you can always dredge up law enforcement groups on either side of any gun rights debate; The leadership of these organizations have their own obvious and less obvious onstituencies and allies to answer to; I suspect the position of any such group has a lot more to do with electoral politics than it does with any sort of analysis of the impact of one policy or another.
  12. Generally, in a membership organization, "Executive Director" is a staff person, and thersfore would not be a member. The Executive Director is hired help.
  13. Yeah, I read that twice and am still not sure what point he was trying to make. I can't tell if he agrees or disagree with the Sheriff's statement on gun control. Maybe he was neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but filling in some background as to what exactly a New York State Sheriff is, and how that might inform the position their association takes? Seems like upstate, sheriffs are cops and more like what most people think of when they think "sheriff"; downstate, they're process-servers; very different situation; very different risk; very different population they're dealing with, etc.
  14. wtf did trayvon martin do?

    We have, basically, no fucking idea what either Martin or Zimmerman did. There are only two witnesses who really knew; one of them's dead and the other has ample reasons to be telling other than the full and unadulterated truth. What do you know?...If the truth exonerates him, Z has nor reason not to tell it. Anyone who is involved in a shooting, no matter how justified, has ample motivations to alter the story (maybe not even deliberately) to make themselves look better / their justification clearer.