Yep, and they were locally sourced from a bakery. I think they cost about $25, and I put them in the convection oven at a low tempature. Not enough to cook them, but enough for them to be always warm, with melty cheese inside.

Edit: oh, and that stack of 2 plates? It was 3 plates. I used a plate for the chicken, and cheeses. I also had a few beers, and some jack n cokes.

The other 2 plates, their plates, you can see were unused. Everybody just ate chips off the orange serving platter.

Ah, that sucks too. At least you can take solace in the knowledge that it was unsafe to drive. Still sucks, but it’s a bit less insulting. My thing was on a sunny August day.

…you wanna come over and watch ghostbusters?

I’m so confused. Why would take away your own single upvote? That zero looks sad. Like it’s saying “Even I don’t agree with what I’m saying!”

They must HATE me…There’s a thrift shop just up the street from me. I bought Deadpool on DVD/Bluray combo pack. Still sealed new from factory, for $2.50.

I buy lots of DVDs there. My sisters say my collection is rediculous. She means it in a bad way, like I need to get rid of some stuff. But hell, when it’s $2.50, why NOT buy like 20 movies in an afternoon? And why NOT do that same thing several times a year? Although I will admit I’m running out of room…help! My apartment is filled with DVDs, and I can’t see the walls anymore!

Do we know WHEN they went out of business? Because 2007, it wasn’t uncommon to see gas at even $5.10 per gallon.

Also, on the day after 9/11, in New York, some gas stations went from the (at the time) common gas prices of $1.15 and made it as high as $5.00 per gallon. Then, the next day, president Bush had made that practice illegal.

So, if they happened to go out of business on 9/12/01, or anytime around 2007, this price would have been seen as low.

It’s nice to have options.

Shit. Should have just paid ME 1 million to post on Lemmy.

HEY! YOU! VOTE FOR HARRIS!!!

Money, please!

You still don’t get it. You’re still approaching this as if I’m sympathizing with trump. You’re acting as if I’m defending him. And as long as you continue to approach this conversion with that mindset, after I’ve explained three times it’s not about blame or sympathy, it’s about understanding the world around you by understanding the people at play and why they do what they do.

If you aren’t willing to seperate yourself from your own perspective, then you’re never going to get what I’m saying. It’s not just trump. Take whomever you think is the worst person in history. Now defend their actions. If you’re unable to defend the people whom you consider to be the most vile on the planet, then you do not understand their perspective. You don’t have to agree with it, but if you can’t logically defend them, then you’re either inserting your own perspective into their perspective, or you’re trying to approach things from an emotional level. I could defend hitler. I could defend ghengis khan. I could defend bill cosby. Doesn’t mean I agree with any of them, but if you try to see their perspective, you can UNDERSTAND them.

It’s never about sympathy. It’s always about perspective and understanding. Then extracting information out of that perspective to gain new insight to the world around you.

But if you’re not willing to do that, then we’re having two seperate conversations, and I see no point in me continueing. Because I’ve explained the concept several times, and at this point it’s less of a conversation, and more of an arguement, in which both sides are approaching the arguement from completely unrelated perspectives and will never have a resolution.

You still don’t get it. You’re still approaching this as if I’m sympathizing with trump. You’re acting as if I’m defending him. And as long as you continue to approach this conversion with that mindset, after I’ve explained three times it’s not about blame or sympathy, it’s about understanding the world around you by understanding the people at play and why they do what they do.

If you aren’t willing to seperate yourself from your own perspective, then you’re never going to get what I’m saying. It’s not just trump. Take whomever you think is the worst person in history. Now defend their actions. If you’re unable to defend the people whom you consider to be the most vile on the planet, then you do not understand their perspective. You don’t have to agree with it, but if you can’t logically defend them, then you’re either inserting your own perspective into their perspective, or you’re trying to approach things from an emotional level. I could defend hitler. I could defend ghengis khan. I could defend bill cosby. Doesn’t mean I agree with any of them, but if you try to see their perspective, you can UNDERSTAND them.

It’s never about sympathy. It’s always about perspective and understanding. Then extracting information out of that perspective to gain new insight to the world around you.

But if you’re not willing to do that, then we’re having two seperate conversations, and I see no point in me continueing. Because I’ve explained the concept several times, and at this point it’s less of a conversation, and more of an arguement, in which both sides are approaching the arguement from completely unrelated perspectives and will never have a resolution.

You seem to only blame one person, and my entire point somehow went right over your head (and quite a few peoples heads to be fair).

You seem to think I’m defending trump. Or normalizing his behavior. I’m not. I’m saying to try to understand someones behaviors, you have to see things from their perspective. If you can understand other people from their perspective, even if you don’t agree with it, you can begin to understand that persons actions.

Also if you only blame one person in a situation, you’ll always be wrong. There’s no such thing as a situation caused by multiple people that don’t have multiple people at blame.

In your example, yes I would blame the old guy, the parents, and the girl. Just not in equal amounts. No one talks about why the old guy is responsible for his share of the blame, because that much is obvious. If a tsunami hit Miami, and destroyed lots of buildings, you wouldn’t say “You know what did the damage? The water. I blame the water.” No, you’d blame city planners, and government officials for not executing a plan decades prior to build flood barriers, and design the city in a way that deals with hurricanes. We know what the natural disasters are going to do. We can plan around the disasters. But if we fail to do so, we don’t blame the hurricanes and tsunamis. We blame the people who failed to do anything about the tsunamis and hurricanes. Knowing they’re coming. Yes, we all know the disasters are to blame, but that much is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be said.

May I introduce you to Nintendo?

Hell, I don’t even want to ban users guilty of piracy. Oh no! Sony and it’s BILLIONS of dollars will surely be affected by pirating their dvd of a movie! Heavens to betsy!

Bop it!

I thought women said size doesn’t matter? Hmmmm…

How many times has Obama taken a picture with this sign, that they felt the need to put this sign up telling Obama not to take pictures with this sign?

Someone PLEASE think of the oppressors!

…how?

God I hope my adbock holds up…

I’m like visa. I’m everywhere you want to be!