That is lovely.

There's a 'Show-Me(feet) State' joke in here somewhere, but I can't quite suss it out.

Hey welcome, soon-to-be new resident!

For the dog walking part, I can attest that we have lots of lovely parks in the area for exercising your pup. We als have an off-leash dog park that I think is kind of 'meh', but there are lots of lovely natural places.

As for other things: we have more restaurants/fast food places than you could swing a dead cat at, we all drive like madmen, and about 78% of the population is pretty nice.

Good luck in your move and I hope you like it here.

I guess it makes a little sense given Stoller's field and Hawley's signalling about tech monopolies and the like, but Hawley's so transparently self-serving that I'm surprised anyone would be taken in by his act.

That's pretty great.

This is the legislative equivalent of him wearing blue jeans and a flannel shirt in a campaign ad. He's as much a populist as I am a secret millionaire.

Nice charged language. I "stood against" the bill by stating that I'd back a similar bill written by another legislator. And from that, you got "dar, this guy loves corruption".

And since we're here: You realize I don't actually have a vote in Congress right? That what I think of the bill and its shitheel author is irrelevant to whether the bill is passed, right?

Show me on the doll where I said I'm in favor of government corruption.

The person who wrote the bill also supported the attempts to overturn the 2020 election, so anything coming from him is fruit of a poisoned tree as far as I'm concerned.

Nope. He's trolling.

I'm all for a similar bill, so long as it's: a) written by a legislator who didn't cheer on the insurrection, and b) not some kind of bad right-wing meme bullshit.

As a local I'd say I'm neutral to positive about Drury. I don't think about it much beyond knowing it's one of the colleges we have in town, but the handful of friends and relatives I know that have gotten or are pursuing a degree there have all been pretty positive about the school.

I'm useless on the academics or athletics metric because I don't follow college sports and have no knowledge about how Drury stands up academically vs similar schools or even state schools like MSU.

Yeah that's a little odd laid out against the rest of the menu lol.

Imma get that mushroom and swiss though.

https://beefaroo.com/menu/our-menu/

Their website. Looks pretty good. I'm kind of interested in how they'll perform compared to the Arby's across Kearney from that location.

I wondered what would go in there. I've never had Beef-a-Roo, but this talk of cheddar fries has me interested.

That's cool as hell!

It costs literally $0 to not be an asshole.

Oh god, I knew I forgot something this week! You're a lifesaver, OP

> that it completely unnecessarily and without benefit to anyone marginalizes poor people and anyone not willing or able to install an app while they are checking out and go through a separate payment process.

Oh, I agree.

That really sucks. I'm sorry your kid was disappointed, but I'm not sure it's really discrimination. Or not like, the legal definition of it anyway. Its definitely a stupid practice and impractical for anyone who doesn't want to/can't access the app, but that's a corporate practice that won't change unless it costs them money. I'd say your only real recourse is to not give them your business, which sounds like what you're planning anyway.

Again, sorry your kid had to be disappointed though. That sucks.

I believe they do wait until the polls close to start report, but idk whether that means right after 7 or closer to 8.

Damn, I'm sorry. That sounds awful. Props to your friend for giving you a ride and to you for voting while dealing with that.

Brevity. Love it. Go with that.

> January 6th argument against the Chaz/Chop, BLM "mostly peaceful protests"

This is a tired, old line of bullshit.

> Now in regards to your central argument that there is a hypothetical court that determines who has a valid stand on retaining or having their 2A rights restricted OUTSIDE of committing and being found guilty of an act like a felony or domestic violence that would preclude them from owning a firearm (something we both probably agree is a good thing for at least a period of time) Can you, and this is an honest question, can you fathom any situation or circumstance where this could be abused or bastardised and result in a law abiding citizen being stripped of their ability to defend themselves until a committee of likely unelected bureaucratic officials deem it safe? Could that system be weaponized?

Could you, and this is an honest question, possibly fathom any way to be more pedantic and overly prolix?

> If you agree so, is that just collateral damage you're willing to accept for the greater good?

> If not, do you then hold the position that such a court would be somehow foolproof in ensuring NO ONE EVER lost their 2nd amendment rights unjustly?

Ah yes, the ol' "How long has it been since you last beat your wife, and do you think spousal abuse is wrong?"

Your whole schtick is like a big old grab bag of intellectual dishonesty.

Edit: formatting

> invested all that time to talk AT me in a screed vs simply asking a question or two talking more shit and ending your comment on an ellipsis because deep