Does Rand eat squirrel brains, or does his simply possess one? Mad Cow Disease is not the only type of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) or other spongiform encephalopathy. An article in The Lancet from 1997 deals with
"... the possible association of eating squirrel brains with CJD in rural Kentucky, where eating squirrel and other small game is not uncommon. Culinary preparations include scrambling the brains with eggs or putting them in a meat and vegetable stew referred to as 'burgoo'."
Sadly yes. Somebody here at Wonkette gave me a link to this way over a long article in whatever the fuck magazine it was, maybe Vanity Fair maybe the New Yorker, where they thoroughly plumbed the whole fucking thing. Paul is the only guy in their gated community who doesn’t use the lawn care service. He does it himself and his riding mower shoots cut grass debris onto the neighbours lawn. And he finally lost it. I think it was in GQ.
"Trump has a right to meet his accuser! He can't be convicted based on some anonymous person who could be lying!" Good thing no one is trying to convict him based on the whistleblower, then, and are instead INVESTIGATING him based on the whistleblower and would try and convict (probably not the right word re: impeachment?) him based on evidence found and testimony given. Are cops no longer allowed to check out situations when they get anonymous tips?
It infuriates me that Rs and their Fox "news" base are either so willing to lie or so unwilling to think through the logic that their argument is literally, "You can't investigate things! If you don't have the smoking gun the SECOND an accusation is made it's illegal and wrong!"
Caveat: One assumes there is some base level of credibility for an anonymous tip, certainly. Like, cops aren't going to go investigate someone if they get a tip that X person is ACTUALLY AN ALIEN IN DISGUSE. Of course, this whistleblower complaint was already been deemed credible by officials working for this administration, so even that angle isn't something they should be able to scream about at this point. I mean, they ARE, but logic says they shouldn't...
Like the genius I encountered the other day who insisted that the Framers recognized a "right of revolution" if people didn't like a law... or the "strict Constitutionalist" who accused me of lying when I referenced Article I, Section 8 because he didn't see any such language in his copy... turns out, he didn't realize that there was a whole other document to which the Bill of Rights was attached.
That's the thing I *always* want to ask people who complain about Maybury v. Madison or judicial review in general:
Let's say that judicial review isn't a thing anymore and then my state, Colorado, decides to ban guns completely. Who then has the authority to decide that said ban is unconstitutional and, thus, invalid?
I once had that as a white card while playing Cards Against Humanity but I can't remember what the the black card was, which is a shame because it was fucking hilarious in combination
But what did the Doge do?
The Doge do?
Yes, what did the Doge do?
Well, of course, the Doge did what the Doge does.
I do want to lodge a formal complaint--the GIF following the Rand Paul tweet about Doges is borderlineSHAN Libelz!
(only b/c I always associate that image with her posts...yeah, it's a bit of a reach)
Does Rand eat squirrel brains, or does his simply possess one? Mad Cow Disease is not the only type of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) or other spongiform encephalopathy. An article in The Lancet from 1997 deals with
"... the possible association of eating squirrel brains with CJD in rural Kentucky, where eating squirrel and other small game is not uncommon. Culinary preparations include scrambling the brains with eggs or putting them in a meat and vegetable stew referred to as 'burgoo'."
https://www.thelancet.com/j...
I'm so glad we have an in-house rhetoritician. I honestly don't know how we got along without one. What a golden age we live in!
Bingo.
Sadly yes. Somebody here at Wonkette gave me a link to this way over a long article in whatever the fuck magazine it was, maybe Vanity Fair maybe the New Yorker, where they thoroughly plumbed the whole fucking thing. Paul is the only guy in their gated community who doesn’t use the lawn care service. He does it himself and his riding mower shoots cut grass debris onto the neighbours lawn. And he finally lost it. I think it was in GQ.
Weird. The comment is still up, and the 2014 column does indeed discuss ad hominems (albeit in the middle). Here it is: https://www.wonkette.com/de...
"Trump has a right to meet his accuser! He can't be convicted based on some anonymous person who could be lying!" Good thing no one is trying to convict him based on the whistleblower, then, and are instead INVESTIGATING him based on the whistleblower and would try and convict (probably not the right word re: impeachment?) him based on evidence found and testimony given. Are cops no longer allowed to check out situations when they get anonymous tips?
It infuriates me that Rs and their Fox "news" base are either so willing to lie or so unwilling to think through the logic that their argument is literally, "You can't investigate things! If you don't have the smoking gun the SECOND an accusation is made it's illegal and wrong!"
Caveat: One assumes there is some base level of credibility for an anonymous tip, certainly. Like, cops aren't going to go investigate someone if they get a tip that X person is ACTUALLY AN ALIEN IN DISGUSE. Of course, this whistleblower complaint was already been deemed credible by officials working for this administration, so even that angle isn't something they should be able to scream about at this point. I mean, they ARE, but logic says they shouldn't...
Well, they make up most of what they "know."
Like the genius I encountered the other day who insisted that the Framers recognized a "right of revolution" if people didn't like a law... or the "strict Constitutionalist" who accused me of lying when I referenced Article I, Section 8 because he didn't see any such language in his copy... turns out, he didn't realize that there was a whole other document to which the Bill of Rights was attached.
Holy shit, what a world, when I find myself nodding my head to tweets from Justin Amash - as Freedumb Cawkusey a twit as ever drew breath.
This is the weirdest timeline.
Ah. Well, my suspicious nature is still suspicious. But meanwhile. WHAT AN ASSHOLE!!!
That's the thing I *always* want to ask people who complain about Maybury v. Madison or judicial review in general:
Let's say that judicial review isn't a thing anymore and then my state, Colorado, decides to ban guns completely. Who then has the authority to decide that said ban is unconstitutional and, thus, invalid?
I once had that as a white card while playing Cards Against Humanity but I can't remember what the the black card was, which is a shame because it was fucking hilarious in combination
I think it’s more likely wet brain:https://www.healthline.com/...
Imagine the non-amazin' randi sitting in a chair and pounding his spoon on the tray.