Lol

No it doesn’t because a person chooses to get intoxicated. One does not choose to be a child or be mentally impaired.

I upvoted the post before the end and then saw your comment and was confused. The I read the end…

I believe it, but also what the fuck lol

Edit: also just saw their username haha

Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman, who ruled with the majority, criticized Evnen and Hilgers for attempting such a massive rollback of voting rights right before a major election. “Why now?” she wrote. “Why not take the opportunity to challenge the laws long ago with available remedies, rather than creating uncertainty at this time?”

We all know why

Depends on what I am using it for. I quite like oat milk in my coffee drinks. I feel like it is nice to have the oaty flavor paired with the coffee taste.

There are at least 4 different ones around where I live. I know, because they are all wrapped in different colors. One unwraped, one blue, one red, one white, and one black. Its astounding that many people bought it out around here

5/10 show your work next time! /s

This is what is so fascinating to me about most people, they don’t understand that companies hord their assets in my different kinds of investments when they are this large. Having real estate gives them an asset they can can store large sums of money in that generally appreciate in value over time. If a company is under finacial duress, they can fire a bunch of employees, then sale the land where those employees worked and and save themselves from much larger losses on revenue for a given time period.

You do understand that large corporations invest in many kinds of assets in order to diversify them right? Real estate is one of the oldest investments any entity can make, and is often considered a pretty strong investment. Everyone needs land right?

Lol, “my personal anecdotal story, means someone else is crazy and wrong, despite me having no other evidence either.”

• This person

Take my breakdown with a grain of salt, as I did not dig into all of it, owing to the quantity of citations. Picking some at random, I found a mix between sources contemporary to the time period and ones that are secondary. I did not check the relevancy of the wiki quite, this was just 15 minutes of snooping around.

This one was interesting as it claims it was minutes from a meeting of a contemporary society called the the American Philosophical Society.

[103] Ord, George (1840). “Minutes from the Stated Meeting, September 18 [1840]”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1: 272.

They still seem to be running to this day, and sound like they have a long history in the US. Not to say they are trustworthy, I know nothing about them.

It will not, because those laws already largely exist. It has been quite well established I’m the US that inciting violence is not considered protected speech. The laws just don’t apply the same to wealthy people like Trump as they do to anyone else.

Your edit gave me a chuckle

Lol

Always got to love victim blaming. It’s always a class act.

Be mad then I guess lol

I really hate the idea of saying corrected in this context. There is really no right and wrong in language iself. Standardized language is not some “correct” way to speak, but a common guide to try to help an individual be understood by more people. Someone not following standard is not wrong, just maybe difficult to comprehend due to not following convention. I think in one off mistakes that are hard to understand, it is better to thinking in terms of asking for clarification. In more consistent problems of understanding, I think explaining (which is not the same as correcting) to them a more conventional way of speaking to easy future communication is the best path.

Also equating individuals unique linguistic quirks to cancer is gross.

I knew exactly what video that would link to before I clicked. Great video, glad to see someone else reference it.

Holy propaganda Batman.

My point wasn’t that attempting to gain political power was not a necessary part of swaying the political landscape, it was that it should not be the goal. More over, why the all out rejection of mutual aid on the parties part? As you stated mutual aid is good as a means of charity, but they rejected the ideal wholely on the lack of conversion. Yet again, to me that is evidence the goal is not betterment, it is political power. Does the party think that the only people who diserve betterment are party members? That is, as stated before, a sign of being no better than the Democrat or Republican parties in my eye. I reject In and out crowd poltics no matter who the peddler is.