Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: So, are you supposed to eat this? Because that's pretty hard-core... I've eaten a Sour Cream & Chives cricket before... but not a scorpion.
"And when there were no crawdads to be found we ate sand."
So, if you eat it, can the stinger not still sting you as you're munching on it ? I'm assuming the dude is dead. Doesn't the poison have a crippling effect on the nervous system? Or is that the point I guess?
So, if you eat it, can the stinger not still sting you as you're munching on it ? I'm assuming the dude is dead. Doesn't the poison have a crippling effect on the nervous system? Or is that the point I guess?
I am not sure exactly how they are prepared. I have heard various things such as that cooking them (boiling, frying) or soaking them in Mezcal will render them relatively harmless. I have also heard that the stinger and poison sack should be removed, but I will leave that to other, more adventurous gourmands. However, they are certainly eaten in Mexico and in Asia.
I have eaten the gusano from a bottle of Mezcal, but I didn't like it. It was something that every young man had to do in certain circles. But I will pass on any arachnid. Gracias, pero no!
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 02-28-2024).]
Let me be totally clear... the people who "leak" information, especially to the media, should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law. It betrays the trust of the American people where you (as an employee) have literally taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution. To that point, there are numerous avenues under whistleblower legislation that quite literally allows you to divulge information to your senator or representative in congress of your choice... (can be Republican or Democrat), and be free from reprisal. So there's no excuse to leak it to a reporter.
BUT... the reporter has committed no crimes. The reporter has not made such oath in duty as a Federal civilian or member of the armed forces, or even a contractor. They have no obligation to protect and secure classified information, at all. A reporter merely is an inference mechanism for acquiring information to / from sources for the benefit of public consumption. What this judge has done here is absolutely ridiculous. And I'm getting tired of this bullshit "virtual signalling" that happens where they rule absurdly, and then stay the order pending appeal. THAT'S NOT YOUR JOB... if you're staying the order, then it means you KNOW that you're decision is bullshit. What is with these radical leftist judges who think activism is acceptable in the judicial system?
This isn't a case where the FBI—or going up the chain—the DOJ or the current (Biden) administration is pressuring a journalist to reveal sources so that the government can take action against leakers inside the government, or leakers that were working directly or indirectly for the government.
I don't know if it makes sense to categorize this judge's ruling as any kind of "radical leftist activism"... even when the judge issued a stay of his own ruling so that his ruling can be appealed by the journalist before the journalist is pressed to disclose her sources to the litigant that is suing the government because of her data having been leaked to this journalist.
Someone would have to tell me more about U.S. District Judge Christopher Reid Cooper to persuade me that he is a "radical leftist"... more than citing just this one news report and adding that he was nominated and then appointed—after a unanimous vote to confirm by all 100 Senators—by President Obama.
"I'm all about more..."
"Dig" the comments on the YouTube page about this very memorable bro-mercial.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-01-2024).]
Let me be totally clear... the people who "leak" information, especially to the media, should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law. It betrays the trust of the American people where you (as an employee) have literally taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution. To that point, there are numerous avenues under whistleblower legislation that quite literally allows you to divulge information to your senator or representative in congress of your choice... (can be Republican or Democrat), and be free from reprisal. So there's no excuse to leak it to a reporter.
BUT... the reporter has committed no crimes. The reporter has not made such oath in duty as a Federal civilian or member of the armed forces, or even a contractor. They have no obligation to protect and secure classified information, at all. A reporter merely is an inference mechanism for acquiring information to / from sources for the benefit of public consumption. What this judge has done here is absolutely ridiculous. And I'm getting tired of this bullshit "virtual signalling" that happens where they rule absurdly, and then stay the order pending appeal. THAT'S NOT YOUR JOB... if you're staying the order, then it means you KNOW that you're decision is bullshit. What is with these radical leftist judges who think activism is acceptable in the judicial system?
BBS bad bull sh1t we need to know what is really going down not just what the government PIG allows us to KNOW
the current problem is reactionary fascist judges appointed by the rump who want to change settled law for religions cult reasons
First of all his premise is flawed. Trump did not "by pass" the media> He had the largest most popular news network on earth (FoxNews) on his side plus many more conservative media outlets (Dailey Wire, NewsMax, OAN, New York Post, The Blaze, Washington Times, Breitbart, etc, etc)
Second of all Dr. Bhattacharya was wrong. You can't protect the most vulnerable members of society at the same time that you try to establish herd immunity by letting the virus run free.
Third, anyone comparing Facebook algorithms to Russian gulags deserves a "Drama Queen of the Year Award" in addition to his "Samizat Prize" . The information that he tries to claim was "suppressed" was actually all over the internet along with tons of other dangerous misinformation.
First of all his premise is flawed. Trump did not "by pass" the media> He had the largest most popular news network on earth (FoxNews) on his side plus many more conservative media outlets (Dailey Wire, NewsMax, OAN, New York Post, The Blaze, Washington Times, Breitbart, etc, etc)
Second of all Dr. Bhattacharya was wrong. You can't protect the most vulnerable members of society at the same time that you try to establish herd immunity by letting the virus run free.
Third, anyone comparing Facebook algorithms to Russian gulags deserves a "Drama Queen of the Year Award" in addition to his "Samizat Prize" . The information that he tries to claim was "suppressed" was actually all over the internet along with tons of other dangerous misinformation.
First, Trump bypassed the hostile media....
Second, test you can. Isolate those that are the most vulnerable. Allow the rest to roam free.
Third, no, it wasn't suppressed because it was on the internet - that was the point.
Originally posted by olejoedad: Third, no, it wasn't suppressed because it was on the internet - that was the point.
Are you sure you read the article?
I read the article and the poiunt I got was that the internet wwas no longer free and open like it used to be. Here are the diretc quotes that made me think this was the point
"The Internet, in other words, was being transformed from a system for exchanging forbidden or dissenting ideas, like Samizdat, to a system for imposing top-down control over information and narrative, a GozIzdat. . .
the Internet offered breathtaking new surveillance capability, allowing authorities to detect thoughtcrime by algorithm and instantaneously disenfranchise those on the wrong side of the information paradigm, stripping them of the ability to raise money or conduct business or communicate at all. . .
We’re going to need to find new ways of getting the truth to each other, and it’s not clear yet how those networks will work, if they will at all. It may come down to handing each other mimeographed papers in subway tunnels, as they did in Soviet times. We haven’t built that informational underground yet, but no matter what, the first steps will necessarily involve raising awareness that there’s a problem at all. . . "
That is why I call it a "drama queen" piece. All the stuff he is claiming was suppressed was all over the internet. And where are the American Gulags with millions of political dissenters?
Victim mentality is all the rage these days.
SOCIAL MEDIA RULES TO DETER MISINFORMATION = MILLIONS OF POLITICAL PRISONERS DYING IN FORCED LABOR CAMPS
First of all his premise is flawed. Trump did not "by pass" the media> He had the largest most popular news network on earth (FoxNews) on his side plus many more conservative media outlets (Dailey Wire, NewsMax, OAN, New York Post, The Blaze, Washington Times, Breitbart, etc, etc)
I disagree. Sure, FOX might have been on his side, I don't really know as I never watched them directly. But the Daily Wire was very Anti-Trump and spent a lot of time badmouthing him, one of the reasons I stopped following them. The same for the Blaze. As you may or may not know, Beck was as Anti-Trump as the Left was. To the point where he wouldn't say his name. He was so biased that I cancelled my membership. Breitbart was pro Trump, but they were very quick to point out everything he did wrong, as did callers openly, which was one of the reasons I liked listening to them for opposing points of views. (They changed to a different host a while back and I stopped listening) I hear that Shapiro and Beck have changed their tunes, but I believe they just go where they can make the most money (They change with the wind.)
Originally posted by BingB: Trump did not "by pass" the media> He had the largest most popular news network on earth (FoxNews) on his side plus many more conservative media outlets (Dailey Wire, NewsMax, OAN, New York Post, The Blaze, Washington Times, Breitbart, etc, etc)
Oh yeah. The ones all of the leftoids by pass.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-09-2024).]
This might be a good subject for a whole new thread, but many people on the right have a very skewed view of the media. They believe that almost half of the country does not know that Foxnews, OAN, NewsMax, The Blaze, Breitbart, and all the other right wing media sources even exist. They even made up a term "mainstream media" to give the illusion that somehow THE MOST POPULAR NEWS NETWOR IN AMERICA is some some hidden secret that people don't know about.
Here is the truth. 99% of people who watch the news know exactly what options they have. There is no huge group of people blindfolded by the "mainstream media". Instead there are people who disagree with the rigth-wing propaganda and chose to watch some other news source.
"mainstream media" is a myth created so that the rigth wing could play their victim card. Everyone wants to be a victim these days. So people at the most popular news network in the country whimper and whine about how they are forced to be "outside" the public media access.
Originally posted by BingB: This might be a good subject for a whole new thread, but many people on the right have a very skewed view of the media. They believe that almost half of the country does not know that Foxnews, OAN, NewsMax, The Blaze, Breitbart, and all the other right wing media sources even exist. They even made up a term "mainstream media" to give the illusion that somehow THE MOST POPULAR NEWS NETWOR IN AMERICA is some some hidden secret that people don't know about.
Here is the truth. 99% of people who watch the news know exactly what options they have. There is no huge group of people blindfolded by the "mainstream media". Instead there are people who disagree with the rigth-wing propaganda and chose to watch some other news source.
"mainstream media" is a myth created so that the rigth wing could play their victim card. Everyone wants to be a victim these days. So people at the most popular news network in the country whimper and whine about how they are forced to be "outside" the public media access.
Why are you wasting your time. Lawyering did you no good and you are failing at teaching.
In your next reincarnation, you should be a psychologist.
Originally posted by BingB: You never post anything except your own personal opinion and childish insults. Neither one of those has any effect on striking down bullshit.
If you really want to strike down bullshit you have to post some links to facts or information that disproves it.
so they just make chit up like the crazy Gop bama chic who tryed to blame a BuSh2 era mex trafficked kid IN MEXICO YEARS BEFORE HE WAS EVEN VP on joe as an official anti-STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH/LIE SCREECH
STOP THE LYING STOP SUPPORTING LYING and maybe we can talk
The headline reads, “The Republican National Committee sues Michigan over the state's voter rolls”
The first sentence:
quote
The Republican National Committee sued Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, on Wednesday in an attempt to force election officials to trim down the state’s voter rolls.
OK, so the Republicans want to force Michigan to cancel some registered voters, right?
Third paragraph:
quote
The move comes just days after Trump allies effectively took over the RNC's leadership ahead of the 2024 election.
Trump has commandeered the party and is trying to influence the election. Hmmm…
Finally, in the fourth paragraph, we get a clue as to what is really going on:
quote
“At least 53 Michigan counties have more active registered voters than they have adult citizens who are over the age of 18. That number of voters is impossibly high,” the lawsuit said. “An additional 23 counties have active-voter registration rates that exceed 90 percent of adult citizens over the age of 18. That figure far eclipses the national and statewide voter registration rate in recent elections.”
And then we are told what to think:
quote
Still, there’s no evidence that bloated voter rolls lead to voter fraud, even as Republicans increasingly seize on the rolls as a focus of their election activism.
I will not tell you what to think. Draw your own conclusions.
still babbling about lost votes cheated votes and chads
hey it worked in 2000 they stole the election we got two long wars and a very near depression as a direct result of BuSh2 a war criminal
please give it up
rump will never be elected fair and square he lies he cheats he bribes/pays off/ he is a lucky sperm loser at votes far too many see thru the BS spin and smoke to the evil core
How can we discuss what Trump said if we can't use direct quotes of what he said to prove what he said?
yes that is rump mega land
“He didn't say that. And if he did, he didn't mean that. And if he did, you didn't understand it. And if you did, it's not a big deal. And if it is, others have said worse!"
