I did try and fuck her. She was married…

[trav 6834]

6 minutes ago, ChosenOne2000 said:

Anyways, how about a new theory? If Someone didn't want to get caught, might they start the fire with no potential witnesses? This goes for Muslims and non Muslims.

 

Here in sG, we don't do logic.

[Dakota 4722]

On page 1, Trump was talking about grabbing pussy. On page 9, we're debating who burnt down a mosque.
 
Only in sG...
 
Anyways, how about a new theory? If Someone didn't want to get caught, might they start the fire with no potential witnesses? This goes for Muslims and non Muslims.

Nah that's impossible. Everybody knows racists also want to commit mass murder when they burn down churches and mosques

[UnknownLegend 5480]

41 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Nah that's impossible. Everybody knows racists also want to commit mass murder when they burn down churches and mosques

 

Exactly.  There's no way they would want to just send a violent message; they'd rather just kill people in every act.

[Darren 272]

7 hours ago, driz said:

 

1) Prove it helps kids
2) I never swapped reasons, all items listed are my beliefs

Why would you repeating what I just typed back to me hit a nerve? Please stop being stupid

Further I said the federal government has no place choosing which charity I donate to. Please work on your reading comprehension.

 

1) http://bento.cdn.pbs.org/hostedbento-prod/filer_public/PBSLM-EDU/docs/PBS-Learn-More-Report.pdf -> Summary: over 90% of the 146 studies reviewed show that PBS has a significant positive impact on child development. 

 

Here is one such study: https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1446854213resourcelearningwithpbskids-3.pdf

 

Children who are regularly exposed to PBS assets show higher math, language, science, and reasoning skills. It also appears to strengthen familial participation in learning activities, so the whole "PBS won't make shitty parents less shitty" argument might also be in question.

 

2) Fair enough. 

 

You keep equivocating government funding of public services like PBS with being forced to donate. The government isn't forcing you to donate, only to pay taxes. That's why I probed you about taxation after you said "Don't force people to donate to shit they don't support", because you're arguing about what the government should be able to do with your taxes.

 

There's no reason why being a non-government nonprofit should preclude federal funding if said nonprofit provides a service that lawmakers deem important enough to put money towards. Government funding of nonprofits expands the ability of the government to serve its constituents. Sure, the government could create a new program from scratch in order to provide the service, but it's more efficient to award contracts and grants to existing operations. It also incentivises higher standards for those operations, since better ones will be more likely to receive funding. 

 

[Jodas 1542]

@driz do you think that Trump made the right choice by removing Joseph Dunford, a military chief, from the National Security Council and replacing him with the former CEO of Breitbart?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-replaces-military-chief-9714842

[JFK 546]

 

Are you all tired of winning yet?

 

[Jodas 1542]

This is the most retarded shit I have ever seen

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-signs-executive-order-requiring-that-for-every-one-new-regulation-two-must-be-revoked-234365?cmpid=sf

[trav 6834]

For the "small" businesses lol

[Dakota 4722]

I'm not even upset about this. As long as it doesn't negatively impact our environment and actually helps lower and middle class, I'm all for it. This is one of those things we have to wait and see how it changes things. 

[UnknownLegend 5480]

4 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I'm not even upset about this. As long as it doesn't negatively impact our environment and actually helps lower and middle class, I'm all for it. This is one of those things we have to wait and see how it changes things. 

 

^

 

It's mundane, but it could be used to make regulations more efficient.  If there are two regulations with overlap, why not combine into one?

 

In practice it will probably be used to gut existing regulations and pass softer ones, but hey, I've got an open mind.

[centran 4457]

58 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I'm not even upset about this. As long as it doesn't negatively impact our environment and actually helps lower and middle class,

 

nope, nope, and nope. 

 

The only way that will happen is if there is some over-arching regulation that effects all businesses no matter their size. However, if removing that regulation would increase profits yet allow a smaller company a chance to compete then it will be worded in a way that the smaller company can't benefit.... "Chemical manufactures can now discard their unused resources into waterways. We understand that some see it as toxic waste but there has been little scientific evidence to suggest an ill effect on the environment and paying to dispose of those unneeded byproducts is a huge cost. However, since some extremist feel the harmless byproducts of chemical manufacture may cause problems we will require companies to either a.) purchase liability insurance in excess of 100 million dollars or b.) hold enough assets to cover the liability amount.

 

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!(for the wealthy)

[trav 6834]

3 minutes ago, centran said:

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!(for the wealthy)

 

But Trump is an average Joe! He's not part of the wealthy! We voted him because he was going to fight for us, not them!