Turns out he’s not war criminal-ly enough for the club
running_ragged
joined 2 years ago
Yes, because that is how the administration uses it, knowing the trials would not be fair or just.
Im in Canada and have friends who believed his second term would be mostly as feckless as his first.
They didn’t understand how project 2025 meant he was going to be coming out of the gate with someone else’s agenda with all of the key players, including scotus in his back pocket. It all lined up to mean shit was going to go down fast and hard.
Look where we are one year in. 3 more years to subvert or nullify the next election.
By making the American poor people pay them, they transfer more wealth to the captital class by contracting out jobs to their buddies. Also, it huts sales for the exporters, so its win win for him.
Generates revenue that will almost scratch the surface of what they spent to buy it and finish it.
And will continue to contribute to the climate change that is destroying Canadian towns and cities nearly every year that will need federal funding to help rebuild.
Lobster, shrimp etc are all just giant sea bugs, so yeah I kind of agree.
Still feels gross to think about eating maggots though.
You’re 100% right.
This whole smear thing serves the same purpose as ‘if you don’t want to get shot, just comply with legal orders’. Normalize the messaging and then the assumption is that they were doing things they shouldn’t have been.
We won’t believe it for this one, but after it keeps happening, people start accepting it as inescapable.
It’s gross, but unfortunately it’s effective.
You can't apply today's definition of adulthood against the historical texts.
In the 7th century, the concept of "adulthood" was almost universally defined by biological maturity (puberty) rather than a specific chronological age like 18. In most Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures, the onset of menstruation (menarche) was the legal and social signal that a female had transitioned from a "child" to a "woman" and was thus eligible for marriage and its consummation.
The clause 65:4 also talks about wives who do not menstruate (yet), so that doesn't exclude prepubescent girls.
Your claim against 65:6 is just a meaningless since not all wives give birth and/or breastfeed. A prepubescent girl won't get pregnant or have to breastfeed. Doesn't mean she can't be forced into consummating a marriage.
You can approach it with all the maybe this or maybe that you want, but nothing here debunks the claim like you say it does.
Just remember, anyone, or anything can be posting those ‘truths’. There is no way to verify it’s actually him, or even his intent being represented by them.
Maybe, especially if things don’t change politically anytime soon. But as it stands, all the prestige that kids dream about is in the NHL. Playing with or against your heroes. Being televised on the most watched / streamed services etc.
Hard to break that hold, without the money being there first to buy attention and players.
view more: next ›
Not every brain works the same way. Not every brain responds to chemicals the same way. You can’t just ‘believe’ those realities away.
There are so many factors involved. But washing them all away as ‘just life’ to justify your beliefs is lazy.