Freaks bastardize even the words they speak
"Love" is a pretty poor word. The issue is that every twat born after Marx in the Anglosphere latched onto "love." Our entire global politics is based on "love."
It's a bit funny that Punished Trump may not be just an image macro.
Enabling is probably one of the most insidious sins out there
This is is what the Western Church has called "scandal." Its also another example of how the English language has drifted. Scandal is considered a "mortal sin" by Roman Catholics precisely because enabling or encouraging others to behave in a detrimental way is evil.
Sorry. This is ancient, not my capture.
Yes God wants you to love everyone
Faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of these is love. The problem is "love' is a pretty shite word, and a piss poor translation of caritas. Caritas is the love that teaches difficult children, the love that leads to an intervention, and the love that begs wayward brethren to return. It has nothing to do romance. In fact older Anglo Christians never said "faith, hope, and love, " they said "faith, hope, and charity." In the modern era I presume this linguistic shift was intentional.
This goes very hard. Do you have any direction if I wanted to dive into the history of this? Was the stuntman even a stuntman, or was she just some rando chick they pushed into a death embracing stunt?
Gay pastors, rainbow masses, and evangelical acceptance of anything that keeps the dollars flowing. All of these trends have been a equally acknowledged by Christians, “Christians,” and Anti-Christians alike. How are we to tell the difference and why would a anyone even care? Well, here's an old chan post to clarify things any literate knucklehead knew a century ago. Discussion to follow, maybe.
wasn't wearing a helmet (which is why she died) because a black woman can't not have a massive afro
Was THAT the cause? Any fucking prop guy prior to 1999 could have made a afro helmet in a couple of days! The bigger the fro the easier the task. I don't think Reynolds or Dominos' actress aught to be blamed, but they could have called out these bad decisions at some point, even years later. But again, there's a long Hollywood tradition about not giving a shit the working schleps like stuntmen.
That was a shit show and its all coming back to mind now. Hollywood has been getting stuntmen killed for a long time. I had forgotten about this. It was so fucking pointless: over extend a young and inexperienced stunt double when the shot could have been done by a more experienced person in a wig. Solely because she was black like their version of Domino. Fuck.
To be honest, I can't remember Deadpool 2, at all. I have no idea if you're serious. Not sure if ageing or subjugated to modern movie writers.
I'm sorely tempted to give them my money for this one. On the other hand, Deadpool 2 was "meh." On the other hand Ryan Reynolds willing shit into existence is amusing. On the other hand, there's no way Huge Jacked Man doesn't give an "I'm only here for the dumpster of money" performance. On the other hand, as OP points out: "Arrr Matey!"
We've got some deranged nagging trolls who keep creating new accounts that endlessly spam posts that argue we should be breeding girls by the time they're 12, if not doing that and then beating and murdering them. Its really fucking gay.
But to answer your question: it universally considered 40, and yes you encounter a person struggling with the fact their youth was gone a long time ago. Men do it too, but are more honest about it.
We need a complete house cleaning in every government agency.
Intelligence Agencies: burnt to the ground.
Department of Education: ditto.
State Department: zero operations on US soil.
EPA: willing to cut some slack, but only if it ceases to be used as a way to crush US industries in favor of foreign interests.
FDA: willing to cut some slack so long as all mangers are prohibited by law (statute or contractual) from joining pharma AFTER they leave.
Justice Department: decimated then decimated twice more.
Who am I leaving out?
I missed that. I just assumed Ft Liberty was some place I'd never heard of and not one of our largest installations.
For the moment your first paragraph is pretty much my actual position. But I'm exploring alternative views apart form the classically liberal position. I'm doing it under the corporal/capital dichotomy, and treating incarceration as a modern novelty. I think that the the behavior of leftwing prosecutors is costing innocent people their lives. I think this born from either a place of pathological altruism or an actual desire to abandon law. Both are bad.
Yes, yes, I know. Silverstein's work was pretty unique, and clearly more personal artistic expression than the agenda pushing that became ubiquitous during his generation. Frankly I view all the controversy and attempts at literally criticism around "The Giving Tree" and his other works to be a bunch of fart sniffing. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. There's not a whole lot of space for Jewish or communist propaganda in a body of work that seems like a sometimes macabre combination of fairy tales, Belloc's children's tales, and Dr. Seuss.
Edit: Except when you make it like OP's post.
Sigh, The Giving Tree turned Marxist for those who don't recognize the art. About time we put that Tolkien bit about "Evil cannot create..." in the sidebar.
Glad to hear it. Keep your head on a swivel though; I recall this story from frickin Montana.
I embarrassed to admit this, but Vance's "fire half the administrative state" has me hopeful in a way I haven't been in years. Punished Trump with a VP willing push the envelope and a Supreme Court that's leaning towards "yes, the President does indeed run the Executive Branch" could be a step change in American politics. Its a pipe dream, but I'm going to indulge in industrial grade hopeium for a month or two.
I've come to the realization that there's an angle to capital punishment that never comes up. For most of Western history incarceration simply did not exist. Punishment was corporal or capital* (heh, literally "body or head"). I suppose exile was a third option, but it was usually commutation of capital punishment. For minor offences such as fighting or petty theft you were beaten or put in the stocks or faced something something similar. For crimes against the lives (or property, if of sufficient value) of people you were executed. Armed robbery or assault with a weapon, for instance, has been a capital offence in most times and places.
Now a common argument against capital punishment is that it is not a deterrent to anybody. Of course its not! We only use it for the most heinous of crimes; in many places 1st degree murder is far more likely to yield a life sentence unless your particular case was especially vile. But here's the thing, outside crimes of passion, most murderers have a long list of priors, many of which would have had you in a noose prior to the 19th century. If armed robbery was a capitol offence, a whole lot of folks wouldn't live long enough to commit homicide.
What if the proper use of capital punishment actually requires us to apply it more broadly? "What about accidentally convicting innocent people?" you ask. Well, there is a reason Blackstone's ratio is 1) a ratio and 2) set at one in ten rather than one in a million.
I don't have kids, but I was (mostly) taught at home. If you're in a blue or purple state you might consider joining the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). They're sort of like the ACLU for families engaged in homeschooling, and they've been at it since the 80's when it was in vogue to send social workers after families who homeschooled. In fact, the ease at which parents are allowed to opt out of public schooling these days in favor of doing it at home is directly attributable to their judicial and legislative advocacy over the past 40 years. They have a fairly religious conservative bent as an organization, but nothing required of members if that's not your bag.
Oh and as to your point, they offer all sorts of non-legal resources to guide you getting started.
The day of I was inclined to believe the simplest explanation, but this is really starting to stink.
This just surfaced recently. Everyone who attended this training needs to be dismissed. To not run this up the chain means they are too stupid, too cowardly, or too leftist to be trusted. Same for every "Senior Army leader" at Ft Liberty during the time period in question
Edit: This is not about political neutrality of the Armed forces document and training materials like the response implies. This is about labeling law abiding American citizens as domestic terrorists based on their political opinions.
Its not always them, but there's always one of them.
I was raised in a mid-90s evangelical church. It kindda sucked for me because it was all personal prophesy and scriptural interpretation. It wasn't their fault, but a sect based on every last dude's interpretation is hard. To over-simplify, I was 30 before I learned Christianity had a 2 millennia history of moral theory.
What really hit me hard after my Confirmation, was that ideas like "Satanic inversion" didn't seem as far fetched as I remember as a kid in a Evangelical church. That was probably because I had read fucking Foucault who liked to fuck slave boys and had a large influence on modern ideas of sexuality.