Are they saying it's easy for us to put out fires?
AnarchoAnarchist
joined 2 years ago
Spaces outside of home and work/school you can socialize or even just exist, without the expectation you will purchase anything.
Libraries, parks, playgrounds, places like this. Where you can go and sit on a bench without being arrested for loitering.
A pizza place with attached jungle gym for kids, a bar or beer garden, restaurant, mall, would all be examples of a place you can socialize but are expected and/or required to spend money.
I am sure all the Roma and Jews in those nations felt the warm glow of multicultural acceptance.
Want to watch the best Irish person turn into a raging fascist? Just mention Travelers in a neutral way.
Pestiny finding solidarity among his fellow sex criminals.
My wife gets "confederate heroes day" off in Texas every January 19.
Care to elaborate?
When I say "post hog" this isn't what I mean.
I could Nazi that coming.
(I am so sorry)
I looked up the tweet because I refused to believe 80% of Americans are in favor of airstrikes.
https://x.com/Osint613/status/1935360062274552236
80% of Americans don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But when asked about airstrikes, 48% support airstrikes to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, and 47% don't. 70% of Republicans support an airstrike, but 30% don't. All this Based on a CNN poll that I'm sure is completely unbiased (lol).
I don't blame OP for taking a screenshot of a sensational headline. But this Twitter account criminally misrepresented the video that they posted.
Americans are split 50/50 when it comes to airstrikes on Iran to prevent them from gaining a nuclear weapon. That is depressing and frustrating, but it is also so far away from 80% support for airstrikes that I can only assume "OS Int" is purposefully lying. The fact that everyone commenting on this tweet has obviously not watched the 80 seconds of video, is depressing, frustrating, and exactly what I expect from my fellow Americans.
In the '90s people were still talking about how Vietnam started off as the Democrat's war. Democrats also tended to be the party that talked about intervention, being the world's policeman.
H.W. and Reagan started plenty of conflicts but the average American saw no impact from these conflicts. They couldn't point to Granada on a map, and Desert Storm was just a fun show on CNN. These conflicts were quickly forgotten and through most of the 90s Republicans were able to position themselves as a party of peace. In 2000, George W Bush's campaign focused on limiting "foreign entanglements" and not acting as the world's police.
It's always been a lie from both parties, but even though it's a lie it's still the kind of message that wins elections.
I've been looking for sources that back me up and I'm starting to think that this impression I have, is less objectively true. I definitely remember in the lead up to the Iraq War, several people reminding me the Republicans had not gotten us into the quagmire of Vietnam or Korea, but rewatching the presidential debates of 2000, it's really hard to find a place where Bush and Gore actually differ on foreign policy.
Politics as sexual pathology, but 80% of the population has a step-parent fetish.