If you don't believe that the cunty "ur not irish m8" attitude is borne of hatred for Americans... Show me the hoards of Englishmen, even, being told the same.
Wait... the Irish hate Americans more than the English now? Daaaamn. I mean, not like we don't deserve it, but so do they.
I'm very confused, though. If there is an age of consent, and anything below that age is rape, then why is there a charge for "sex with a minor," a supposedly lighter charge? It seems like the law does distinguish between forcible and statutory rape (though in cases of children it shouldn't) and your husband leaned toward the latter.
To be clear, I am not arguing that getting a lighter sentence or believing a 12-year-old can consent to sex with an adult is anything but rape. I'm just stating that your country may have a legal separation between the two that your husband might have followed and still been within the law.
That is if I'm reading what you've written correctly.
My question was less about how doable it is, and more... if you can't afford to buy a house, how can you afford to pay rent (and thus someone else's mortgage plus a little extra)?
The last place I lived, I could afford my mortgage but I wouldn't have been able to afford to rent an equivalent house. Hence my confusion.
I know this wasn't your point, but I've been confused on a particular point for awhile:
buying a house is simply out of reach unless you have dual income and it better be nearly six figure dual income....
Just the general idea of it being impossible to afford to buy a house. And don't get me wrong, the prices on houses have gotten ridiculous! At the same time, we talk about landlords buying houses and charging exorbitant rent (suggesting at the very least more than what they pay).
So if rent is more than the mortgage, insurance, etc, then how is it impossible to buy a house if it is possible to rent (an equivalent home)? Is it the down payment (if any)? Costs involved in purchasing? Because it seems like month to month it would be cheaper.
I say this as someone who has rented and owned, and owning felt significantly cheaper.
(Full disclosure, I'm in the military, so I had access to a VA loan... though not really sure what that did for me except maybe allow 0% down... if other people are absolutely required to put up a percentage then I can definitely understand it).
Because they're not disabled. What are you even talking about?
That's like supporting some racist segragationist bullshit by saying "well, can't black people just use disabled bathrooms? They're a small portion of the population."
See how ridiculous that sounds? It's not disparaging to disabled people to point out how inappropriate that is. You're just making life harder for disabled people to feed some asshole's bigotry.
So I get the sense that the whole third sight thing requires intent, as in it requires the force-user to specifically intend to use it as opposed to it just running in the background. So they would only use it in a fight (or navigating or something).
But it also seems like it would be a reflexive thing for a force-using warrior to immediately reach out for it if surprised or confused, so the second she heard loading I'd imagine she'd see her death and... you know... avoid it.
That one person is a gem and we should appreciate them. They noticed you got talked over, and made sure to circle back, noticeably so the others don't do it again, to make sure you weren't silenced. It shows they not only noticed, but were bothered by it.
A president who wants what is best for his people, seeks out the smartest man on the planet, and puts him in charge of the most challenging problem facing the country?
Yes. I want president Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho as president.
Unless he was diagnosed as a pathological liar, they should not. Not that he isn't, because he is, but as a news organization they should only provide the facts, quotes, and unbiased contextual information. That is what we should expect from the news. It should not be "left-leaning" or "right-leaning," because they shouldn't tell us what we should think about what they are reporting.
They should report that some of his former (and possibly current, if it's accurate) aids and expected cabinet members wrote, participated, or supported Project 2025. They should report what Trump's response was when asked about it, as well as including the factual context of how many people directly surrounding him that were openly involved (to give the lie to him "not knowing").
We need news to stop giving opinion. Period. They should strive to be as unbiased as possible, including reporting on events based on newsworthy-ness, not trying to be "fair" to the candidates by reporting on both in an equally negative way regardless of the severity of their respective news (e.g. Obama's tan suit vs. Trump's children in cages.)
I'm an American, and I had to ask my wife what that was the first time I saw it. And then I needed an explanation on why that was a problem, because I had thought the point of text messages was that you could read it and get back at your convenience, as opposed to a phone call you have to respond to in the moment.
That got me upset enough that when I read "GI Joe movie" in your comment, it was the first thing I thought of, before reading the rest of your comment.
But if you wanted to do something about it: these weapons come from this country and they have to get there in trucks traveling on roads to ports that load them on ships.
We are discussing voting, though. That's a bit tangential, because you can vote or not vote and still commit acts of... resistance...
And it's not like there's not a value to making genocide come with electoral consequences...
If you otherwise would have voted Dem against the Republicans, who are as bad or worse when it comes to the specific issue you're punishing the Dems for, you are hurting one group committing genocide by helping one who commits and wants to commit even more genocide.
All under the mistaken belief that by refusing to vote for the group you would otherwise vote for, you will get them to move Left. But if the Dems lose to the VERY right wing party, if the voting shows that Americans favor more right-leaning policies, they would move to gain the votes of the people who actually voted.
The reality is, refusing to vote is still a choice. As long as you are an adult who can legally vote in the US election, you are partly responsible for the results of the election. You don't get to wash your hands of it. Choosing to abstain because you don't want to partipate out of moral self-righteousness is saying your soapbox is more important than the lives affected by your choices, from the Palestinians to the Ukrainians, immigrants to LGBTQ. Nobody is more important than your ability to say "I didn't vote for a party that commit genocide."
Wasn't the US Constitution's 4th amendment the basis for Roe vs Wade? It would be fitting for the Florida 4th amendment to enshrine abortion access in their state.
Gotta launch the arrows at the climax, too, for maximum effect.