Kudos to you for having the courage of your convictions. You seem to be a man of principle.
Yeah... but it's mostly people in their right mind.
Thanks. And thanks for the link to the Made in USA stuff. Even jeans that maybe aren't 100% American materials but sewn in the USA, like Citizens of Humanity, which are great jeans, are better than buying 100% foreign stuff. My favorite lately are Roy jeans. They are hand made, by one guy, Roy obviously, and he even specs the denim made in North Carolina (if I remember right). They are works of art.
If that's too much, you really should try TAD Gear's PD pants. Great fit, super tough, made in the USA. And only $135 which is a steal! I have several pairs and even a couple pairs of the selvage denim version which are even nicer.Yeah... but it's mostly people in their right mind.
Good to hear. I'd love to have some high-end clothes (though I'll probably wait until I get some weight off), especially for court days; frankly, though I know it's not American, I think it'd be fun to have a Savile Row suit (and an appropriate hat). I can't afford any of that right now, but I can respect those who make that choice and stand by what they believe.
For knocking around in the mud, crawling around under cars and tractors, and generally beating up before they have a chance to wear out naturally, though, I'll stick to my cheap-as-dirt Wal*Mart stuff. And, honestly, some of those foreign-made suits aren't bad, especially with a little tailoring. If I don't have to spend a ton on clothes and other supplies, I can pass the savings on to my clients; I'm sure they won't mind a Bangladeshi suit instead of a bespoke Savile Row number if it means I can knock a few dollars per hour off of their bills (though I suspect they don't want me showing up in cheap gym shorts, as it would affect the outcome of their case!).
Yeah... unfortunately my "good stuff" comes from Walmart and Atwoods. :/
Osa is a whole lot more than the political discussions.
There are great discussions about guns, holsters and the legal discussions about open/concealed carry.
This forum is a wealth of information no matter your political leanings.
There are a couple that post nowhere but the political forums and I feel badly for them for being so misinformed.
I hope we can truly help them. I mean this seriously.
They have Trump Disarrangement syndrome, and I'd like to help them back into sanity.
Can we help them by posting their insane made up fake news and showing them how that is destroying their own party as the party of lies and mistruths ?
...and since you mention works of art, and I'm fond of nice hats, I have to mention my one piece of bespoke clothing, which truly is a work of Art. Specifically, Art Fawcett, of Vintage Silhouettes in Oregon. True bespoke custom; he even sends a conformer (a ring with a couple of dozen fingers to precisely map the shape of your head) to you so it can be made to fit perfectly, as well as felt samples, and offers your choice of ribbon (including a wide selection of vintage grosgrain) and bash. Mine's the beige one with the brown band in the center foreground:
Not pictured is the gold-toned Beechcraft Bonanza pin on the knot; it was inspired by a Stetson Stratoliner, but since I was flying the Bonanza at the time, I decided it just worked better for me with a V-tail pin than with the Boeing.
Bulls hat.
The liberals on this forum get a pass for name calling.
When a mod, I defended ace to remain on the forum when it was imminent he was to be permabanned.
I was attacked by him daily because this forum needs diversity to give it validation. That being said, he is and should be no better than anyone else immune to forum rules.
You don't know squat about what goes on behind the closed doors
We need opposition to render the truth. We don't need his name calling and innuendo's.
I'd love to talk to Ace About guns and the legal/ownership of those items that we on this forum consider sacred. Meet and have a beer and burger.
If any mod or forum owner disagrees with my comment about Ace, I have saved it. Kinda anal about that.
I have been in discussions with several forum members recently, who's name I'll never allow to be disclosed, that they are disgusted the way OSA is progressing with some of the political issues where a poster can present legal proof and the opposite party has no legal rebuttal other than name calling that osa mods ignore in an effort to seem neutral.
Maybe there is a way to fix this?
Last edited:
Agreed, and see below.
I agree entirely on the value of opposition. The Brits have a term (rooted somewhat in its system of monarchy) in the form of the "loyal opposition." Here in the US (and based on the common law, again a British concept), we use the "adversarial system" in law and other contexts to investigate, flesh out, and examine arguments in detail to expose flaws and reconcile facts to get to the truth. The Catholics use the same system to promote saints; the term "devil's advocate," meaning to take the opposite argument, is literally based in arguing the devil's point of view, that the nominee shouldn't be canonized, as a way of fully exploring faults to ensure that the final decision is based on all of the facts.
Dennis and I spar here quite a bit, and with perhaps less subtlety than we ought (though certainly a lot more than I exchange with some of my truly liberal friends), but I'd like to think I keep him on his toes, and I will readily admit that he certainly keeps me on mine. I enjoy our exchanges, in no small part because his does a good job of keeping it fair and honest; he provides support when appropriate, and acknowledges where I do the same. We may disagree, but it's never "nuh-uh, you're a poopy-head," and where challenged for lack of support, we try to respond with evidence rather than resort to playground tactics.
Lively, engaging (and engaged) debate is healthy, for the individuals and for society as a whole. We all bashed Hillary because she had the questions spoon-fed to her before the "debate" so she could formulate answers in advance; that's not a debate, it's play-acting. Here, we can have open, frank discussions, for those who choose to do so, and can explore the topics in detail.
There's a reason court rulings (particularly appellate courts, and especially the Supreme Court) run twenty, thirty, forty pages are more. It would be easy to say "judgment for the plaintiff; now sod off." That's not the purpose of the ruling. The purpose is to convince the reader of why the ruling is right, so future parties can learn from it and use it to guide their actions. To do that, the court explores the opposing argument, then explains why it was rejected. Discussing the opposition in detail is a necessary condition to finding its dismissal credible; simply saying "you're mean, I'm not going to talk to you anymore" doesn't convince anybody; neither does "I'm going to pretend you don't exist because it's more pleasant that way."
Enjoy your safe spaces, y'all. Those of us who enjoy learning will keep our ignore lists empty.
Similar threads
