correcthorsedickbatterystaple

https://www.theonion.com/national-funk-congress-deadlocked-on-get-up-get-down-is-1819565355

the only truth to the headline is the increasingly part - and it’s because of articles like this.

if anyone’s interested in some further reading / contextual information on this article / conflict specifically (or conflict generally):

distinction & proportionality

…not if everyone is afraid to use sick days / lose wages / repercussions from management / yadda yadda yadda

so take my hand and walk this land with me

who are you, Winston Smith, that’s so important…

Congress shall make no law

i think a lot of people misunderstand positive vs negative rights. the US Constitution doesn’t grant rights. the Declaration of Independence declared all are endowed with rights by a creator. that is the origin of our rights - inalienable. the Constitution doesn’t grant anything. it establishes the structure of a federal government, and the amendments to that guarantee what already exists in the Declaration. it limits power of an authority over a person.

a very divisive example is arms. the Constitution doesn’t grant americans the right to keep and bear arms. it limits the government from prohibiting such.

of course…this is the intent not necessarily the reality

edit:
also the lack of critical thinking of this argument is so astounding i didn’t even notice it at first…no freedom from religion…which…one? which version of that one…? the constitution - which compels nothing but the government - can…compel americans to all be…uh - jehovah’s witnesses? mormons? sunni? bahai?

that’s uhhh…my point? sort of. the constitution requires no ID. and in general no federal, state, county, or municipal authority provides ID. which makes any requirements unconstitutional.

you’re right. if i don’t make enough income to need to file taxes, i shouldn’t be allowed to vote

linking this, but inviting challenges to it knowing there are numerous counterexamples of instability but still 219 years is a long time

you’re absolutely right. perfect should be the enemy of good.

you honestly believe the global south will be no worse if the world’s only hegemon turns fascist?

deleted by creator

no idea why some take issue with your statement…the 9th paragraph of the article:

“The problem is that where destructive earthquakes are rare, buildings are simply not constructed robustly enough to cope with strong ground shaking, so many collapse, resulting in high casualties,” said Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London. “I would expect the final death toll to climb into the thousands once more is known. As with any big quake, aftershocks are likely, which will lead to further casualties and hinder search and rescue.”

emphasis mine

am i living in a parallel universe ?

…sounds like it

i’m sorry but i have to be pedantic here. it’s not how you get your revenue it’s the good or service you provide.

magazines are not ad companies. TV channels are not ad companies. the source of your revenue does not make you a company in a sector of that source.

wait was it nesisary or nesusary.

nesesary? nesasary? nesysary?

“hi lae’zel we just met --”

“i want your moisture”

ohhhhkay

If you wait until someone is about to die

yeah, if you push someone out of the way of a vehicle, you could say (accurately) that they were about to die but now they’re right as rain. but when someone is about to die because of an ever increasingly worsening medical scenario that unfolded predictably (that’s a big part of it - the medical knowledge we possess being able to prevent the condition)… it’s not like being on death’s door will suddenly mean you’re back to normal without great effort, cost, suffering, and risk.

imagine applying that to any other medical condition “yeah your head hurts / it’s difficult to breathe / your toe is green / etc, but you aren’t about to die yet. come back when you’re brought in an ambulance”

not disagreeing with your first paragraph, but sort of adding that it’s not a desire to control women’s bodies - it’s a desire to control everything. the society they want requires a “traditional nuclear family” run by a patriarch. a woman’s body is one part of this and is the means not the end.

i am disagreeing with your second paragraph as it was the ghoul in the senate who placed 3 fascists on the supreme court.