Hey man, sometimes you see that 6 foot tall kiddie basketball hoop and you can't help but dunk on it. Sure dunking on a troll doesn't mean anything, but it can be hard to resist.

I only played Arkham Asylum, but I hated detective mode, took me out of what was fun.

I love how their numbers contain people like my 70 year old mom who plays bejeweled everyday on her phone. My mom isn't a gamer, not even a "mobile" one, yet they include people like her as part of the market.

Say what you want, but Indians and Pakistanis having knife fights on the streets of London sounds entertaining at the very least.

To loosely quote Romance of the Three Kingdoms, "The kingdom long united must divide; the kingdom long divided must unite."

I think it is inevitable that it falls apart, but there is also a chance the division only lasts a decade or two.

Hey us straight guys got a smoking hot redhead with Matt Smith for a couple seasons.

Execute the criminal and deport all the family.

I wonder how many of them have male pattern baldness.

Yes, but they also should take the Biblical approach and stoned them the next day after a quick trial.

Really, look at the what the college students are saying. I don't think people on here support Hamas, but the college protests are full of crazy people.

They aren't bragging, clearly they are worried about the wave of Hamas support sweeping through the leftist base. Israel support on the democrat side is waning, meanwhile the many decades of organizations like AIPAC supporting policies conservatives consider heinous will at the very least ensure conservatives won't support AIPAC.

The best gambit for pro-Israel is to get Trump in office and make people like Charlie Kirk the primary drivers of that agenda, because the party of abortions and faggots isn't supporting Israel. I'm fine with that, I liked how Trump dealt with Israel, it was fair and he actually negotiated peace deals.

They fell 100 years ago, and many of the seminaries fell in the 19th century.

I thought April was already dedicated to taxes, what more is needed?

It's also a bunch of women who don't hike, because two solo hikers meeting each other in the woods is very common. I imagine 1,000 women have ran into me in the woods and mountains and lived trama-free.

It's got to be better than Africa, so maybe Africans?

Never say never, a guy lit himself on fire in protest just this month.

"Ex-men" is still one of my names for troons.

Definitely sounds like a faggot website.

I had "?" at the end of those points because I'm posing questions, as we simply don't know, yet we are sold that false dichotomy. We don't even know that it has to be 2 cities; it could have been two isolated military bases, or 1 on Mount Fuji where everyone could see, then one on some military base.

The point is the first and only 2 bombs were on cities, we don't know what effect dropping them anywhere else would have had.

Basically copy-pasting another reply: there is a false dichotomy and unfounded assumptions in that traditional defense for dropping the nukes on the cites. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo? It isn't simply "we blow up two large cities with manufacturering or we end up in an extended ground war."

Although the firebombing of Tokyo is usually used to justify the nukes, I'd argue that the firebombings help my position that large cities with civillian populations didn't need to be the target for the Japanese to surrender. As is oft repeated, the damage and deaths of the firebombings was greater than the nukes, yet the firebombing clearly didn't cause them to surrender. Thus, it logically was less the actual destruction of the nukes and more of the psychological terror of a mountain of fire capable of such destruction that lead to the surrender.

I get it, I used to think those cities had to be leveled -- it's what "the experts" have said since it happened -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.

There are loaded assumptions about hypotheticals in there. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo?

I use to parrot the same talking points about the nuke -- it's what "the experts" have said since the bombs were dropped -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.

As for everyone was bombing cities, "everyone is doing it" isn't a good moral arguement. As Jesus said, the wide road most people travel actually leads to hell.

Many thousands of Korean and Chinese slave workers were killed by the nukes.

My understanding of Tucker's argument isn't that dropping the bombs was the primary evil, but dropping it on civilians. I understanding manufacturering and whatnot takes place in cities, but it is quite the stretch to justify dropping a nuke in the middle of large civilian populations. Sure, legitimate military targets were hit, but the collateral damage was far too high.

In short, the choice of targets was morally worse than many other options.

The goal of political cartoons isn't humor.

Can we publish headlines like this the next time some mega thot is raped?

"She was known to whore herself out on Tinder 7 nights a week for nothing more than dinner."