Good lord! 😢😡
07.03.2026 23:40
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Good lord! 😢😡
:chefskiss:
At least here in the US playgrounds often get "dumbed down" in the name of safety and get aimed for 2-6yos only. Lower, shallower slides. Shorter climbing structures. Much shorter swings 😢. Replacing sand with rubberized surfaces (so bye-bye sand play). Can be really boring for older kids.
I'm not dodging it at all. I'm rejecting your based-on-absolutely-nothing assertion that it "trivializes" anything.
If you don't like the *article* and wished he had written about a different topic then just say so.
But bitching about *this* headline for *that* article is just silly.
I mean you just proved true his criticism of your whine!
The article (still quite unclear if you've even read it) was about the specific topic of "just because the US is winning battles doesn't mean it's accomplishing anything". And the headline is a very accurate summary of it.
Did you read the article??
The whole article is about -- explicitly about -- the true fact that US forces are operating quite well, but that those operations are not in the service of any coherent strategic goal.
You can sell books and movies about how wonderful snake oil is on the street corner, though.
It's only "provoking" to the extent the article itself is "provoking".
It's such a bizarre complaint -- especially about a headline which is a very accurate one-line summary of the article.
Sure, headlines can absolutely be clickbait only tangentially-related to the substance of the article. But this one was right on.
WTF is so "glib" about it? That headline is a quite accurate one-line summary of the article and its core thesis.
The headline perfectly summarizes the article.
I don’t think you should be able to sue it unless you could sue a person for saying the same thing.
You can’t sue someone, especially a non-doctor, for saying “chemo is poison; take laetrile” and so you should not able to sue a chatbot for saying that either.
“Mr Blinken emphasised that the sanctions were not related to the content of the outlet's reporting, and he affirmed the US's support for independent journalism.”
www.bbc.com/news/article...
You clowns falsely think “propaganda” is some magic word that defeats the First Amendment.
In almost all cases “propaganda” is protected by the First Amendment.
“Our Constitution” prevents the government from punishing people who don’t support “our Constitution”.
Which is lucky for you, since as evidenced by your own words you don’t support it.
So did it actually make it?
The amount of delusion it takes to read this and say, "Yes. This is my leader. I trust him in all ways." is truly terrifying and pathetic.
<dons asbestos-laced armor>
Firefly
Though to be fair maybe for it being so ridiculously overrated than for itself.
Dudes -- it's a fucking space western. Not some amazing sui generis piece of art.
It's always a great time to read this:
voidmanufacturing.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/t...
I grew up in the era it celebrated and even owned one of the computers that comes up. And god, I hated the book. I finished it, both because of the 80s stuff and in for a penny in for a pound, but it was utter dreck.
Soon there will be willpower.... 🤣
Excellent!
Frankly, I hope this impasse drags on to the point where the matches in Foxboro get cancelled.
But in any event, the Select Board should unequivocally refuse to budge until the have the cash in hand or at least in an escrow account. Fuck FIFA and everything associated with it!
the cardinal directions of Massachusetts:
North, South, West, Marl, and Fox
The Fairness Doctrine didn’t do 98% of the things you’ve fooled yourself into thinking it did.
I’ll take the thoughts of the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute over your ignorant rambling:
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/freedom_...
A color photo of Eiser
A front page of the Spirit newspaper supplement, a cover to the Spirit comic book, a cover to PS: The Preventative Maintenance Monthly, and the cover to his graphic novel Contract to God.
Today is the birthday of Will Eisner (March 6, 1917-Jan. 3, 2005), one of the most influential American comic creators of all time.
Because the courts have long held that in general compelling anyone or anything to say anything violates their freedom of speech/the press.
There are narrow exceptions for a few things such as around speech trying to induce people into commercial transactions.
Lots of people in lots of states here were excited for Trump. How'd that work out? (I could have gone with a more Godwin's Law thing given P's beliefs.)
"The people of X are excited for Y" is a mindnumbingly stupid reason to vote for lying assholes and is damning condemnation of "the people of X".
