Too many friends and distant family, from marginalized communities telling me “They don’t mean me, I am a legal American citizen”

YES! Still have a poster kicking about from the “finale”. I loved the series growing up. RIP Edd

Thank you

I think its a gripen. I don’t know much of anything about jets but the only modern fighter I know with those foward wing things is the gripen.

Do you mean color? No, no I do not.

It’s crazy how expensive it is too. At my HS, as an ASB rep got contacted by DARE reps once and they where oh its only $15k per classroom. It all made sense when I started to learn its always been a money grubbing grift. It never had a good reason to exist other then excuse to charge alot for busybwork.

Removed by mod

Not all flamethrowers throw napalm, as seen flamethrowers predate napalm. A flamethrower made to abate weeds is not nearly as powerful as a military grade one, but it still throws flame. So even if you can’t buy a fancy flamethrower that shoots out 20+ feet, you can have some fun with a little propane tank based weed abatement “flamethrower”. I wasn’t trying to kick up an argument on the technicalities of what is a flamethrower, but your arguments are the weakest thing to support your idea.

The first flamethrowers date to the 7th century. No they aren’t modern military flamethrowers but as with the description “commercial flamethrowers are generally blowtorches using gaseous fuels such as propane”. No they don’t have the same range or lethality but saying they cant both be flamethrowers is saying a BB doesn’t shoot projectiles because it’s not as the same projectiles and range of a military assault rifle.

It is is a hadheld nozzle that ejects propane that is on fire ~3ft for the purpose of burning weeds, I think that is enough to count as a “flame” “thrower”

See I can’t see colour, but fun fact, flame based weed abatement systems can be easily purchased in many parts of California, and they are basically just a flame thrower attachment for propane tanks.

CBS says they will not fact check the debate, some people see this is because ABC was threatened and so CBS is caving to Trumps threats

That’s actually a very fair argument. Except for some mono or 2 colour decks, it runs great in all my decks. It is such a staple that removing it is bad.

Maybe there shouldn’t be cards you “have” to have. Even boots or signets are okay to omit in alot of decks.

Agreed, in casual play, I haven’t seen mana crypt be a big threat. On a few occasions it was a big reason or direct killer of players running it.

Yes, from I’ve read they haven’t quoted any specific patent to anyone. They don’t have good grounds, they just want it shut down.

If I remember correctly, they don’t have mammalian glands and instead “sweat” thier milk for thier young.

Fair, and sad that is a real possibility

Regulation? In the U.S.? Laws aren’t just made by anyone you know. /Joke Seriously, I don’t think this law is a huge step to solving the issue but American Corporate lobbyist will spin something like this as the second coming of the USSR. Actually that’s been the strategy for just about everything. We do have wayy to many people that’d rather see the country implode then, (oh no) compromise or (aghast) do something good for everyday folks.

Fair, that’s the part where I think a parent needs to have the will and authority to say no to their kid, but I understand that can be difficult. This may do some good but as I am sure some loopholes will form and it doesn’t forbid ads 100%, it wont stop Fast Food ads. Even if fast food wasn’t directly advertised, I believe there is more factors, like the availability of healthy options, many families don’t have the time or money to make good healthy meals. This law is a good thing, but I personally don’t see it as a huge win, just a patch that will be touted to solve problems it doesn’t address.

As I said, I think availability and awareness are as big of factors. I 100% believe most Europeans have better access to healthier foods then many americans. Granted ads may spur kids to bug thier parents but if parents did better at saying no, and could give thier kids better options. I think it’s not just a personal responsibility but a communal, a government responsibility to ensure access to information and food are available. When no better options are made available, there is a problem.