I’d rather have low T than low reading comprehension.

Sure why not, and lets kill a couple goats and shit for good measure too while we’re at it.

Just crunched some numbers. This dude is worth 2.3 billion. If he spent HALF of his money on $100 haircuts, he could afford 11.5 million haircuts.

Peer pressure.

No, I’m dead serious. I believe an exposed pie would survive on the ground long enough for a whole bush to grow around it and then subsequently be eaten by a dog. I am in no way being humorous.

Maybe the pie was there first and the bush grew around it.

Well, from a purely imperical viewpoint, it kind of is. Pros: a criminal is captured and potentially made to suffer in some way, which somehow balances out the cosmic scales of justice or something; this high ranking criminal can be plumbed for information, which has many assets seizing and additional criminal capturing implications. Cons: there is no reduction in criminal activity; there is actually an increase in violence and volatility; the power vacuum will inevitably be filled and essentially all the clandestine infiltration/investigation work up to this point resets to square one. Could be someone better, could be someone worse, but absolutely will be someone.

And if you out your charizo in there, it’s going to come out looking like landjäger!

Why would you not name the company? If they won’t protect you, you are not obligated to protect them.

I am so powerfully intrigued.

Funny meme. Anyone know what this is actually a picture of?

This is something I am woefully uninformed about. Can you provide additional information/resources?

Sure looks like track marks on the shirt. Also looks suspiciously well lined up. Alive or dead, whoever did it did not deviate from their angle at all.

DEA ultimately has final say though. And we are definitely living in tumultuous if not unprecedented times.

Speaking of HHS (from NYT):

Marijuana is neither as risky nor as prone to abuse as other tightly controlled substances and has potential medical benefits, and therefore should be removed from the nation’s most restrictive category of drugs, federal scientists have concluded.

The recommendations are contained in a 250-page scientific review provided to Matthew Zorn, a Texas lawyer who sued Health and Human Services officials for its release and published it online on Friday night. An H.H.S. official confirmed the authenticity of the document.

But sadly

Last month, Michael D. Miller, a Justice Department official, defended the D.E.A.’s prerogative in making the final decision on the administration’s position.

“D.E.A. has the final authority to schedule, reschedule, or deschedule a drug under the Controlled Substances Act, after considering the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria and H.H.S.’s scientific and medical evaluation,” he wrote in a letter to Representative Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat who has pushed the D.E.A. to reconsider marijuana.

I see no motivation for the DEA to voluntarily forfeit power and money just because it’s the right thing to do. Also think of career DEA guys’ pride and ego. They are not going to easily admit they’ve been wrong and that their rhetoric has been overheated for the past 50 years.

And unfortunately, the scheduling is determined by none other than the DEA itself. So I wouldn’t hold my breath on them forfeiting funding and purview over of anything as trivial as medical research or the will of the people. At least not easily or without some other political quid pro quo.

This is some real lowest common denominator type meme.

“you just waited patiently at a traffic signal behind a soldier driving a Hemi !!!”

“You just merged onto the freeway behind a soldier driving a Hemi !!!”

“You just momentarily shared a roundabout with a soldier driving a hemi !!!”

“You just got served coffee at a drive through after a soldier driving a Hemi !!!”

“If you happen to be a soldier driving a hemi, that means a soldier driving a hemi is driving behind a soldier driving a hemi !!!”

It could be interesting to cut all the movies into even pieces making one movie with the average runtime of all of them and see if it’s cohesive.

I’ve considered when a word is no longer “made up”.

There’s always some enlightened centrist claptrap about “all words being made up”, which I think even they know is pedantic and not really a solution.

Then you have the Websters who intentionally annoint words prematurely, I’m certain for marketings sake. Every year they get some free press about adding surprising words. I don’t really know who buys dictionaries on a regular basis, but someone must, so they must want to appear modern and get some free advertising while they’re at it. In Short, you have early adopters who want to appear hip, and that seems wrong, too.

Finally you have the hard-ass who doesn’t want anything new added. In my experience these people just get off on gatekeeping and pearl clutching. They don’t think that slang is worthy and they want to be part of the ingroup who decides which words are “real”. In these peoples opinion, if they’re being consistent, words like “legit” shouldn’t be a word, it’s just slang for legitimate. So that seems wrong.

I think the only answer is perhaps time. I feel like a word needs to live as long as the average person before becoming “official” (whatever that means). Like, who knows if in 79 years “bussin” will still be a usable word. But then again, useable by whom? If the issue with slang is that it’s too new and therefor only understood by a narrow group of people, can’t the same complaint can be applied to highbrow difficult words that are only understood by the overeducated? Or technical words in niche areas of understanding? Can you really say that more people can define metempsychosis, or kentledge, than can define edgelord, or doggo?

But even my time argument fails. Because what’s the harm in adding words? We aren’t bound by any space limitations or something. We don’t run out of “word slots” and once they’re all used we’re stuck forever.

Long story short, I don’t know what the answer is. But I do know that horsefeatherses isn’t a word.