HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Nuclear Unicorn » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 28 Next »

Nuclear Unicorn

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Sep 16, 2009, 07:33 PM
Number of posts: 19,497

Journal Archives

And this is why I love him.

Lover Boy and I went to lunch together with someone from his company and his wife. The husband asked what I did for a living and I responded that I'm mostly a homemaker while taking care of my school-aged SIL during the day.

"Oh, so you don't work," he said absently.

Lover Boy responded rather testily, "She said she's a homemaker and takes care of a kid. How much more f---ing work do you think there is?"

The gentleman apologized profusely for his insensitive remark.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Wed May 6, 2015, 07:48 PM (21 replies)

She had to know her actions were provocative against their deeply held beliefs.

Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Mon May 4, 2015, 10:30 AM (52 replies)

No one should be killed for drawing unflattering cartoons of Mohammed...

that is as far as I'm going in that statement.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Mon May 4, 2015, 08:26 AM (24 replies)

To those malcontents who say they can't see any daylight between the parties, I say --




-- malcontent on.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:04 PM (5 replies)

Would you want the Dem candidate for president to be pro-gun control if it costs them the election?

A) Yes. It's that important to stand on principle even if the election is lost

B) Obfuscate, then come out for gun control once elected

C) No. I suppose we have more public outreach to do before risking the presidency

D) Gun control is totally a winning issue!

E) I'm pro-RKBA so this is an easy choice for me

F) Other
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:04 AM (37 replies)

Report: Clinton changed stance on trade deal after donations to foundation

Report: Clinton changed stance on trade deal after donations to foundation

The Clinton Foundation reportedly accepted millions of dollars from a Colombian oil company head before then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to support a trade deal with Colombia despite worries of human rights violations.

The report in the International Business Times comes as Clinton readies an expected run for president. She’s been dogged by questions about whether foreign donations to her foundations could have influenced her official decisions.

The report centers on donations from Frank Giustra and the oil company that he founded, Pacific Rubiales. In a Wall Street Journal story from 2008, Giustra is described as a “friend and traveling companion” of former President Clinton who donated more than $130 million to Clinton’s philanthropies. He’s also a Clinton Foundation board member and has participated in projects and benefits for the foundation.

When workers at Pacific Rubiales decided to strike in 2011, the Columbian military reportedly used force to stop the strikes and compel them to return to work, IBT reports, citing the Washington office of Latin America, a human rights group. Those accusations of human rights violations were part of the criticism of the United States-Colombia Free Trade Promotion Agreement, which was passed by Congress later that year. Pacific Rubiales has repeatedly denied charges that it infringed on workers’ rights.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/238313-clinton-changed-stance-on-trade-deal-after-donations-to
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:45 PM (28 replies)

If you could pick your opponent: Who would you want to see on the GOP 2016 ticket?

Assuming you want the GOP to field their most vulnerable, easily-beaten candidate.

EXTRA CREDIT: Who would be the last/worst-case GOP candidate if they were to win?
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Thu Apr 9, 2015, 02:26 PM (12 replies)

How far would you go to tear down a cardboard fort?

Assume there is a city ordinance duly passed against unsightly displays in pubic view but the homeowner has built a fort for his children and the neighborhood kids. Notice has been served that the fort has to be taken down but the homeowner refuses, stating the ordinance is stupid and the kids are having fun.

He receives a citation but since he considers the citation to be based on flawed reasoning of a flawed ordinance he refuses to pay it. He is then served with a summons to appear in court but now his mindset is the flaws have reached an absurd level so he again refuses to answer to the authorities. A bench warrant is issued for his arrest. He does not surrender himself. Law enforcement officers are dispatched to his residence. He will not comply with their instructions.

What should happen next?

A) Never mind, the juice ain't worth the squeeze

B) Find some other mechanism to impose a penalty, something less muscular

C) Screw this guy. If he wants to thumb his nose at the system we'll show him

D) Other
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Tue Apr 7, 2015, 10:17 AM (178 replies)

So, who is to blame?

This OP feels a little too soon after the fact but this is gnawing at me.

The pilot that just murdered 149 people by deliberately crashing his plane had a history of mental illness and was deemed not fit for duty. In GD I have seen several threads cautioning us (lecturing us, really) not to blame the patient. I agree the patient doesn't want to be mentally ill and has done nothing to provoke their condition. So, in that regard, they are blameless and we should strive as society out of both basic decency and self-interest to provide them the treatment they need.

However, if the pilot had taken a gun and gone after his victims in a suicidal rampage who would be blamed?

-- The coed student not wanting to walk back to her dorm defenseless after staying out late studying

-- The store owner not wanting to surrender his meager earnings to common crooks

-- The wife escaping with her children from an abusive ex

-- The competition shooter

-- The hunters who feeds their families while ensuring game herds don't over-graze the land

-- The people spending time with friends and family at a generations-old hobby

-- The families protecting their homes from random criminals

And they are being blamed even though Loughner, Lanza, Hasan, Holmes, Alexis, Rogers, Cho and others were known to the authorities as being dangerous. Let that sink in. None of the above-named people emerged ex nihilo. All of them exhibited behaviors that brought them in contact with law enforcement, healthcare providers, superiors, etc. that made people warn there was a propensity for future acts of violence. We were warned. Why, then, are we blaming 80 million people for the acts of these individuals?

(By the way, how is it even logistically feasible to blame 80 million people -- a number so vast it can only be expressed as a generalized abstraction -- while those who commit the underlying heinous acts are so few they can be named as individuals?)

I suppose we could blame the authorities who appear derelict in their duties and try to hold them accountable -- but then who would be left to enforce gun control laws (assuming they would not be derelict in those duties, as well).
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Sun Mar 29, 2015, 11:46 AM (39 replies)

The drink called the "Mind Eraser" pretty much works as advertised.

And all morning, every time my husband looks at me, he starts sporting this insipid grin.

I'm scared to check social media.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Sun Mar 29, 2015, 11:21 AM (5 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 28 Next »