I'm so old I remember when...

[unjonharley]

I was alive when this thread started.

[Patsh]

I'm so old, I hardly remember anything.

[Elorrum]

I remember when steward tickets were for essential camp members and not in exchange for pickup trucks for towing, or golf cart rentals.

[Miura-7]

I remember when Gorbachev was a good man, and Russia was headed toward democracy.

[DoctorIknow]

I remember when $1 would buy 4 gallons (3072 ounces) of gasoline.
Now $1 (@$6/gal) will buy 21 ounces, or 3 ounces less than a Monster Energy Mega Can Original (24oz)

[Miura-7]

I had to bumper ride cars in the snow, to get to school. Then I bought my first car at 12, and drove to school.

[DoctorIknow]

I had to bumper ride cars in the snow, to get to school.

We called it "boot hitching"

The perfect time was after dry snow was compacted by cars to about a 2" thickness. Wait at a spot on a corner where the target would slow down and not be looking in their mirror, then grab hold.

Of course today, no recent model car has a grab-able bumper.

[Elorrum]

… people posted photos of amazing things they saw, not just themselves in their costumes.

[Simon of the Playa]

4C0C523A-18CF-43D6-961F-C5FF7EC7ABE4.jpeg

[Simon of the Playa]

"It’s the brief taste of dance freedom at Christmas – and the occasional wedding – that remind me I’m a club person really. Underneath the stuffy dignified front implied by my age, the real me has hips that move when the rhythm calls. Beneath my disguise as midlife professional, parent and husband, I am a clubber, I have always been a clubber. I have just learned to keep it secret. When you’re 58 you only dance when no one’s looking."


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -with-that

[Elderberry]

Just wait 'til you hit 74!

[The Rod]

… eplaya was more than three monkeys in a trench coat posting heavily biased political articles no one is going to read

[ygmir]

… eplaya was more than three monkeys in a trench coat posting heavily biased political articles no one is going to read

this.

[Simon of the Playa]

nobody fucked with social security...

98DAD2FD-690D-4EB3-A1F0-6C3862F39240.jpeg

[Simon of the Playa]

when putin bought the secretary of state.

F327EEA3-9F1A-4E0C-B05B-5B7338FF51AE.jpeg

if know the history, and all begins to make perfect sense...

[some seeing eye]

A hot girl walk was a walk.

https://www.stylist.co.uk/fitness-healt ... end/659913

(It is actually a good trend)

Trends are created and fade out faster with more social media.

There are a lot of layoffs in the podcast space now.

[unjonharley]

I remember penny post cards and 3 cent letters.

[Elorrum]

What a miracle:mail. “Here’s 3 cents, take this message to the other side of the country for me, would’ja?”

I’m so old I remember when a new burner’s second year dream involved huge art, a theme camp idea, or mutant vehicles. Now it’s a shift pod, generator and ac.

[DoctorIknow]

I remember penny post cards and 3 cent letters.

How about aerogram's?

I used them a lot when I lived abroad. Cheap to send, always airmail, could not put anything inside of them.

[Elorrum]

How about aerogram's?

Yep! I remember needing to write legibly, and straight after ages of lined pages, making sure they didn’t get crushed, torn or have coffee spilled on them. They seemed a bit fragile, but a good deal.

[Simon of the Playa]

im so old i remember the last time THIS ASSHOLE tried to scam the ole' playa...


seems he's up to his old tricks again out there on the interwebs on that thar social media thingy trying to rope unsuspecting steers into another hogwash...

got shut down pretty quick like though..

bet he's kinda pissed it didnt work...

also, gypsy is now a slur, im so old i remember when it wasnt....

[The Rod]

It’s always been a slur. You’re old enough to remember when people didn’t care.

[Simon of the Playa]

shut up and let daddy watch his westerns on "decades" tv.


btw, catheter cowboy is a god...

[The Rod]

ok boomer

[Elorrum]

I’m so old I remember when I said burner like it was a good thing. It was practically a one word character reference, indicating capability, a fun spirit, even kindness.

[DoctorIknow]

In grade school I got high off the freshly minted mimeograph pages the teacher would hand out. I haven't found that smell in ordinary life since then.

The mimeograph machine in our school was a hand cranker. I got to do it once. That probably got me interested in silk screen printing 20+years later...

[some seeing eye]

Law and Order Republicans were angry that criminals were let off by the courts because of "technicalities."

However today if the case is "technicalities" in asylum or immigration law....

[some seeing eye]

The Atlantic

The Supreme Court Once Again Reveals the Fraud of Originalism
The justices did not want to throw Trump off the ballot, and so they didn’t.
By Adam Serwer

MARCH 4, 2024, 3:15 PM ET

It was always unlikely that the Supreme Court, with its right-wing majority, would uphold Colorado’s ruling throwing Donald Trump off the ballot merely because he tried to execute a coup after losing the 2020 election. As the unanimous per curiam ruling issued Monday overturning Colorado’s decision suggests, a Court made up of nine liberal justices may not have done so either.

That’s because sustaining the Fourteenth Amendment’s bar on insurrectionists holding office as written would put the justices in the difficult political position of looking like they were deciding an election. Such a thing could undermine popular support for the Court as an institution. It might prompt Congress to act to constrain the Court’s power. It could have led to a massive and potentially violent backlash from Trump supporters.

The unanimous part of the decision found that states do not have the authority to disqualify candidates for federal office, the least absurd and damaging rationale for avoiding disqualification, one that sidestepped rewriting history or contorting the English language on Trump’s behalf. The justices did not declare that January 6 was not an insurrection or that Trump did not engage in such, as elite pundits have twisted themselves into pretzels to argue in these past months; they did not decide that the president is not an officer “under” or “of” the United States, as acolytes of conservative legal movement have urged.

Instead, the justices argued that allowing state enforcement would lead to anarchy that could “dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times.” Referring to the potential problems that could be caused by individual state enforcement of the prohibition, the justices write that “nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.”

Not that this should have mattered to the Court’s originalists, whose commitment to that doctrine supposedly prevents them from deciding cases on the basis of their personal preferences rather than the law itself. But in this case, as the conservative legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen wrote last year, originalists’ preferred interpretive prisms—the plain text of the amendment, how it was understood at the time, the intent of its framers—would have led to Trump being disqualified, a result that, apparently, none of the justices liked.

Every one of them decided, as transparently as possible in this case, that the text of the Constitution would have forced them to do something they did not want to do or did not think was a good idea, and so they would not do it.

The justices did not want to throw Trump off the ballot, and so they didn’t. Not only that, but in order to head off the unlikely scenario of Congress trying to disqualify Trump after the election, they said that Congress must specifically disqualify individual insurrectionists, despite such a requirement having no basis in the text. Even if you agree with the majority that this was a wise decision politically, it cannot be justified as an “originalist” one; it was invented out of whole cloth—and in doing so the justices basically nullified the section entirely. As the three Democratic appointed justices note, “Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate.”

The thing to understand about this case is that, with the exception of the ruling’s partial unanimity, it is little different from many other recent big cases in which “originalism” supposedly carried the day, whether the topic was abortion rights, guns, voting rights, or something else. The conservative justices have a majority, and they may work their will. But the originalism they purport to adhere to is nothing more than a framework for reaching their preferred result in any particular circumstance. They felt that a plain reading of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment would lead to chaotic or adverse outcomes, and so they not only ignored it but essentially amended the Constitution by fiat.

January 6 is exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment was talking about.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett—alone among the Republican appointees in refusing to go along with their unilateral rewriting of the Fourteenth Amendment—wrote separately, seemed to urge the media to avoid stating the obvious, that the justices were doing politics rather than law. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up,” Barrett wrote. “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.”

No.

The message Americans should take home from this case is that when Justice Samuel Alito says “I do think the Constitution means something and that that meaning does not change,” what he means is that the Constitution changes to mean what he would like it to mean. They should take home the recognition that when Justice Neil Gorsuch says “Suppose originalism does lead to a result you happen to dislike in this or that case. So what?” he would never allow such a thing to happen if he could avoid it. And they should understand that when Barrett herself says that the Constitution “doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it,” she is not telling the truth, but she would prefer you not point that out.

This case reveals originalism as practiced by the justices for the fraud it actually is: a framework for justifying the results that the jurists handpicked by the conservative legal movement wish to reach. Americans should keep that in mind the next time the justices invoke originalism to impose their austere, selective vision of liberty on a public they insist must remain gratefully silent.

[unjonharley]

shut up and let daddy watch his westerns on "decades" tv.


btw, catheter cowboy is a god...

[Captain Goddammit]

I’m so old I remember when…
People used to use these message boards not Tik Tok or X or Instagram… Even Facebook is becoming “old”.