145806 pts · May 20, 2013
Just a simple man trying to make his way in the universe. Apparently I'm an adult. Odd, because I have yet to receive my official "So You're an Adult, Here's What to Do" handbook.
Update: went back, found it. There's a big amount of context, this is functionally from part 2 of a trilogy. Ending still wasn't great though, imo, so your mileage may vary.
Wow, I gotta be honest, I have no memory of any of this at ALL, and that's...unusual for me haha. So, no idea, sorry!
866-OUR-VOTE is the nationwide hotline for the Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law election protection! Established and reliable.
(Melania is also a garbage person and willing participant/beneficiary of the worst of it all, not a hostage. Just so we're all clear.)
Given that the original post here is entirely re: the "M1895" gun with the variant named "M1900" I think it's pretty obvious which one lolol
Gonna go with "the turn of the century appropriate to the post" lmao
What's the turn of the century equivalent of "the VA has determined your absolutely fucked eardrums are not service related"?
“See the TURTLE of enormous girth! On his shell he holds the earth. His thought is slow but always kind; He holds us all within his mind."
They're also REALLY hard to kill. Just, y'know, for folks out there with bad luck.
(Don't mean that as hostile towards you, I just hate the implication that humanity overall agreed on this instead of a bunch of rich aholes)
I mean considering the US is responsible for (both historically and currently) a FUCKTON of the world's carbon emissions...
What's this 'we' shit, kemosabe; most of us won't see shit and don't want to. The corporate class is fucking the rest of us over eternally.
> worth their salt would lead the questions like that while trying to get details, that's just putting together something from nothing.
> the person talking to the source plants the some of the story in the conversation themselves, leading said source to agree. No reporter>
> are anonymous, heavily redacted, and without any sort of attributable detail or anything. Nothing lends any credibility to it at all, and>
I can say "that person's claim that Senator X hunts orphans on Mars is bunk because no proof", I don't need proof that he DOESN'T do that.
Pointing out "there is no proof this claim is true" is not something that...requires proof itself. Burden of proof is on side making claim.
> her 1/6 foreknowledge and potential connections as well as her very real misuse of campaign funds for personal uses. Evidence exists there
Idk, I think we need at least a SCINTILLA of evidence before launching investigations, otherwise it just undercuts everything. Investigate >
>but in terms of "making them unwelcome in any public sphere via yelling, etc." is a viable if uncomfortable option
> consequences NEVER exist. The deck is stacked but there used to be a tipping point; massive public pressure, beyond just calling Senators>
Also until VERY RECENTLY criminal scandals have taken down even speakers of the House (Tom DeLay, etc.); it's only a revisionist line that>
That kind of defeatism is self-fulfilling, though. Public pressure on DoJ and other officials to Do Their Goddamn Jobs is the only shot.
>but either way the case is made therefore to focus on things that make her potentially criminally/civilly liable that we have evidence for.
Both seemingly true (though look at how fast Cawthorn got GOT by his voters once the GOP establishment figured he was toxic to their brand)>
>stopped any number of folks from going "I hate her ergo it must be true", that shit just damages credibility and trust with no good outcome
Yeah it just doesn't add up to even a reasonable suspicion, honestly, much less preponderance of the evidence. V. annoying how that hasn't>
Respectfully that's...not at all how anything works. "There's no bigfoot" and "there's definitely bigfoot" are not the same level of truth.
Update: went back, found it. There's a big amount of context, this is functionally from part 2 of a trilogy. Ending still wasn't great though, imo, so your mileage may vary.
Wow, I gotta be honest, I have no memory of any of this at ALL, and that's...unusual for me haha. So, no idea, sorry!
866-OUR-VOTE is the nationwide hotline for the Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law election protection! Established and reliable.
(Melania is also a garbage person and willing participant/beneficiary of the worst of it all, not a hostage. Just so we're all clear.)
Given that the original post here is entirely re: the "M1895" gun with the variant named "M1900" I think it's pretty obvious which one lolol
Gonna go with "the turn of the century appropriate to the post" lmao
What's the turn of the century equivalent of "the VA has determined your absolutely fucked eardrums are not service related"?
“See the TURTLE of enormous girth! On his shell he holds the earth. His thought is slow but always kind; He holds us all within his mind."
They're also REALLY hard to kill. Just, y'know, for folks out there with bad luck.
(Don't mean that as hostile towards you, I just hate the implication that humanity overall agreed on this instead of a bunch of rich aholes)
I mean considering the US is responsible for (both historically and currently) a FUCKTON of the world's carbon emissions...
What's this 'we' shit, kemosabe; most of us won't see shit and don't want to. The corporate class is fucking the rest of us over eternally.
> worth their salt would lead the questions like that while trying to get details, that's just putting together something from nothing.
> the person talking to the source plants the some of the story in the conversation themselves, leading said source to agree. No reporter>
> are anonymous, heavily redacted, and without any sort of attributable detail or anything. Nothing lends any credibility to it at all, and>
I can say "that person's claim that Senator X hunts orphans on Mars is bunk because no proof", I don't need proof that he DOESN'T do that.
Pointing out "there is no proof this claim is true" is not something that...requires proof itself. Burden of proof is on side making claim.
> her 1/6 foreknowledge and potential connections as well as her very real misuse of campaign funds for personal uses. Evidence exists there
Idk, I think we need at least a SCINTILLA of evidence before launching investigations, otherwise it just undercuts everything. Investigate >
>but in terms of "making them unwelcome in any public sphere via yelling, etc." is a viable if uncomfortable option
> consequences NEVER exist. The deck is stacked but there used to be a tipping point; massive public pressure, beyond just calling Senators>
Also until VERY RECENTLY criminal scandals have taken down even speakers of the House (Tom DeLay, etc.); it's only a revisionist line that>
That kind of defeatism is self-fulfilling, though. Public pressure on DoJ and other officials to Do Their Goddamn Jobs is the only shot.
>but either way the case is made therefore to focus on things that make her potentially criminally/civilly liable that we have evidence for.
Both seemingly true (though look at how fast Cawthorn got GOT by his voters once the GOP establishment figured he was toxic to their brand)>
>stopped any number of folks from going "I hate her ergo it must be true", that shit just damages credibility and trust with no good outcome
Yeah it just doesn't add up to even a reasonable suspicion, honestly, much less preponderance of the evidence. V. annoying how that hasn't>
Respectfully that's...not at all how anything works. "There's no bigfoot" and "there's definitely bigfoot" are not the same level of truth.