Boaz - I said that I understood your stance even if I disagreed with it. You're the one who laid out the argument that you value guns more highly than children. I honestly don't think I'm distorting your argument here; you offered it up without being prompted.

"Your dead kids do not outweigh my right to own a gun" makes no mention of the shooter. You are straight up choosing a firearm over a human life. I may have been brash about my disapproval of this argument, but honestly - YOU said the words. If YOU use rhetoric like this instead of a reasonable response (which it seems plenty of other guns rights proponents are capable of doing), then don't be surprised to be called on your --------. Your exact language is that you'd rather have a dead child than give up your firearm. And you call yourself pro-life?

Boaz,

If you can't see how "I'd rather have dead kids and my guns than have living kids and not my guns" is an offensive argument, then I can't help you. I'm not sure anybody can. That's the crux of what you're saying. I don't understand how you can't see it.

Imagine the dead children are beautiful, lovely feet with long toes that end in gorgeously painted nails and maybe you'll understand why people are disturbed by your argument.

To be clear here - I disagree with your stance, but I respect it. I think your argument, though, is incredibly callous and offensive.

Huh. Generally knee-jerk reactions from the right, and a nuanced, thoughtful explanation from Joe, presumably from the left. Imagine that.

Even as a person in favor of more regulation and gun control, I had similar slippery slope concerns just reading this headline. The discussion here is very interesting, though, and Joe has given me a lot to think about as it pertains to advertising. It's definitely an interesting case.

And Boaz, and I'd like to go on record. The right of my children to live ----------------- outweighs your right to a gun. Find a new argument; this argument is morally bankrupt and is a red herring.

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

-Robert Frost
/obligatory

I wonder what Alexander Hamilton thought about the idea that a sitting president couldn't be charged or even investigated for murder? Or the idea that a president could override Congress to use tax payer money to bribe a foreign government into manufacturing dirt on a political rival? Anybody want to scrounge the Federalist papers for nuggets on those two items?

#44-
I think part of the problem is that useless noise is about the only defense Trumpers have left.

These witnesses are reporting their first hand experiences. Are you truly an idiot, or do you just play one on the DR?

If we're including witness testimony as hearsay, then I'd argue the transcript is also hearsay as it's not truly a transcript but rather a recollection. So we're in a position about who is more credible: droves of respected career diplomats with nary a blemish in their records, or the serial schemer responsible for Trump Steaks and Trump University and ... well this list could actually go on a REALLY long time.

Get bent, Dixville.

There was an interesting article a few months ago that posited that Goatman is really a troll.

No, it didn't. Nobody gives a ----. Stop making every thread about yourself, you jack wagon.

But seriously, there was an interesting article a few weeks ago that suggested that women make the ideal astronaut for long haul flights (Mars?) in essence because they tend to be smaller and they require fewer calories. Events like this matter if we want to continue to encourage greater equality and diversity among STEM fields. Sorry if reporting on it triggers some of you snowflakes.

#7-
That's a great story. I've run a few halfs, but never a full. I've heard one of the great things about running a major marathon is the idea that the elites and normal runners are all mingling on the same course (even if separated by 2+ hours!). Your story is a good reminder of that. I'm thinking about trying to get into Chicago next year for my first full. The lottery has a success rate of ~55%. We'll see.

As a high school English teacher, I can't decide whether I am offended by this story or whether I can relate to this story.

What about the man's doctorate requires the use of sarcastic quotations?

The coming explanations on this thread from the usual suspects will be truly entertaining.

here's the tl;dr version, I'm sure: "Yeah, sure, Trump is unstable. It's the Democrats' fault because they won't impeach him!"

I've been around a long time, but honestly I don't remember a permanent book review page. I remember threads popping up every once in a while to discuss books, music, movies, cooking, etc., which honestly sometimes comes as a relief when compared to the tension of all the political threads. It's the same reason I like a sports thread every once in a while.

#22-23 - LOL - fair 'nuf.

My image of you is now the food critic from Ratatouille, but I'm certain that Pixar movies are below you, so you probably don't know who I'm talking about. ;-)

Somehow I just knew a portion of this thread would be Nulli -------- on things that bring other people enjoyment.

Nullifidian? More like Null-elite-ian, amirite?

Regarding TDS, I honestly don't think in this case people are necessarily bitching about his policy but about how that policy is relayed.

1-2 days ago Trump was all talk regarding going to war. "We know who did it, we're ready to fight," etc. Today, he backtracks BOTH of those statements PUBLICLY.

The same people who chided Obama for his red line statement are going to be on the DR praising Trump for his careful handling of this situation.

As for me, I'm happy to not go to war. This is the right way to approach a problem like this. But also, you can't broadcast 1. that you're going to attack, and 2. that you're going to attack when ANOTHER country says it's time, and then back off and be like, "Meh, I think maybe caution is the right answer here." The problem is not really Trump's policy; it's his PUBLIC inconsistency in creating any sort of a unified response to this attack.

If the people can be trusted to make the "right" decision the first time, why shouldn't they be trusted to make the same "right" decision with a second referendum? If you oppose a second referendum, it can only mean a few things:

1. You don't trust the people's vote, which begs the question why the first vote should be valid in the first place.
2. You're worried that additional information voters might receive between the two referendums will sway them from the original result, which sure seems like you're afraid of information.

I understand the counterargument that elections have consequences and you can't have a do-over for every vote you disagree with, but it seems that with an issue this complex and impactful, careful deliberation and assurance of the will of the people would be seen as a an admirable goal and not something to be avoided.

With all due respect, while both actions are shady AF, putting your fingers on the scale is clearly not the same as throwing the scale out altogether. You implied they were the same thing; they're not.

#24 - fair enough.

*revision: "...not here to comment on the content of the article..."

22 posts so far. 17 are a r-wing-----------.

No, I'm not here to comment on the content of the thread - just to observe the self abuse.