TooManyFoods @ BrokenGlepnir @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

577

Joined

2 yr. ago

It would nullify it, because all you'd need to do is sit in congress with a shotgun ready for one of them to even begin the word "impeach"

They'd probably need to steal a credit card too, at least from what I know. I can imagine a person who is willing lie, but I don't know if most of them would steal from their parents.

It's unprecedented. I know what the supporters would say "so is prosecuting an ex president ". There's a difference. A fast food CEO killing a dozen people and serving them up in 15 different locations is unprecedented. A judge wouldn't say that the jury has to try the burgers though.

The second one said that what communism isn't is something that ever actually existed in the real world. I think they agree with me.

I had bonobos confused with gibbons for a few hours, so I think that's why it didn't match up right for me.

In wwi the Russians were the only power that lost while being on the winning side. I doubt he had much to do with the strategy though.

Nationalistic top down systems with rigid class roles ruled by an all powerful dictator like Mao's china or the soviet union? Just because they claimed they were advocating for a classless society didn't make it true. There's this thing they were doing called lying.

But chimps are hominids.

Now french it

The actually cool way of increasing recruitment would be to pay higher salaries and increase the work place safety, with tax money taken from crying billionaires.

Have you seen the world's economy at the moment?

The thingy is, it wasn't that good of an economy outside of the war industry. People paid for car IOUs that would build tanks, but they never got the cars. Compared to east Germany that eventually got the cars.

It's also a country that was on the wrong side of 2 world wars. Not the senior power, and as part of a larger country one of the times, but still in the wrong side.

If I was his lawyer I may try arguing his mental state prevents him from understanding the words he says. I'm not a lawyer, but that's the only explanation I can think of as to why he keeps this up. There's a lot to say about his base, but honestly they can ignore things as they do with the rulings. He's got plenty of other people he can go after, plenty of hate he could spend time on. He just keeps sticking his hand in this piranha bowel. He's an idiot.

I mean didn't he tweet classified satellite photos to prove a point once? The question was rhetorical, he did.

I understand that. All of the people I know in person who call themselves libertarians do not. I was explaining how they contradict themselves.

Maybe he meant Iraq? I think Afghanistan taught us a lesson in what we've become. We were a country that could bomb another into the ground, but then rebuild it into a functional society. Regardless of the morals of that, japan and south korea are functional if unhappy. Unhappiness describes life, but I feel like the contracting on top of contacting and the line goes up profit obsession infected out zeitgeist so deeply, we are no longer capable of rebuilding what we destroy.

When you look at it, the moral authority for most of the libertarians I know is ayn rand. If any of them shift to biblical scripture, they should realize the Bible beaters try to take all or nothing, and its all is incompatible with rand. I despise how she looked at the world in many ways, but she described preventing abortion as the most evil thing she could think of.

Give me your grossest animal fact

I don't think that was the majority opinion, but the concurring opinion. The majority was party lines and stated that no, federal Court is also not enough, only action by congress will count.