Historically, it's been alleged that some 'celibate' Catholic bishops fucked women. When the resulting bastard children grew up, they were rewarded with coveted Church appointments. If anyone noticed the apparent favoritism, they blamed the adultery on their brother, saying the appointee was a nephew (it: nipote) rather than the priest's own illegitimate son. Thus the origin of the term nepotism.
Probably some of them had different tastes and realized that fucking boys leaves less evidence.
Phil Ochs says it better than I can:
In every American community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects, ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally.
The issues have changed slightly from the 1960s, but his song's accusations of hypocrisy and NIMBYism among those who publicly espouse progressive causes still hit close enough to home.
Becoming a victim of one also works.
Don't correct that. He's wrong. It's way more than 46, most multi-term presidents defeated several different contenders.
Edit: I got 63 white men and 1 white woman, not counting pre 12th amendment elections, not counting minor candidates who didn't win any states electors. There's a lot more if you include minor candidates, but then one of them would be Cynthia McKinney who is a black woman.
I'm not a Libertarian, but I sympathize with some of their economic viewpoints -- significantly more so than tends to be welcome here. Unlike some of you, I don't speak to the motives and attitudes of all libertarians, only my own. I'm not a Republican. I don't smoke pot. I did vote for Jo Jorgensen in 2020. I do give a flying fuck about liberty. I don't confirm or deny being a myopic cunt.
Oddly enough, I do support some form of public healthcare. I'm well aware that most libertarians don't. A hundred years ago, maybe even 50 years ago, I wouldn't have either. The problem is that medical science has advanced to where a free market insurance model doesn't work as well as it used to. Health insurance used to be a luxury when lung cancer would kill a rich man almost as quickly as it killed a poor man. That's no longer the case, and the costs have accelerated to where the treatment can bankrupt an uninsured middle class man.
The real sinker however is pre-existing conditions. You can't insure a house that's already on fire, and we don't ask homeowners policies to do so. Waiting periods for costly conditions sometimes almost work, except for patients born a pre-existing medical condition. If the insurer had the choice, they'd just refuse to write the policy, even if treatment is cost-effective from a public policy standpoint.
So I support free market solutions where they exist. Health insurance may be one of the few situations where it doesn't.
Science (incl math) is green. Blue is geography. Orange is sports. Pink is Entertainment. Art and Literature apparently can be either purple or brown. You're still missing yellow for history.
I assumed the only reason we don't already is because of the ethical issues with subjecting human women to the practices that make bovine milk economical.
A lot of users here have a lot of wrong opinions about a lot of things, but it's not our job to fix them.
and I stopped trying to argue in the comments.
This is allowed. Maybe if you let someone get their last reply, they'll think they won the debate and keep on being wrong. But if you keep arguing, they'll think you're an asshole, and still keep on being wrong. Myself, I rarely share my thoughts on a topic more than once per thread, even if someone disagrees with it.
For a short while, the lemmynsfw server used a slur list that, in order to catch all the variations, only used the first syllable. It resulted in words like 'toremovedht' and 'hot and removedy'.
It was pleasantly nostalgic, with memories of Fark and its attractive and successful African-Americans.
Misinformation deserves no free speech protection.
However, what remedies are proposed in the event that a government official orders the removal of misinformation that later turns out to be a valid theory. Even if the evidence supporting the theory was unknown at the time of publication, if it was just a kook with a lucky guess, there should be some serious consequences for censoring accidental truth. Experts have been wrong in the past and might be wrong again.
Because I didn't notice that. Edited.
You can find just about anybody's Social Security number. (Equivalently, they can find yours.) Amazingly, some institutions still use knowledge of this number as proof of identity for purposes of extending credit to a stranger.