zarp86

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

The joke here being that Elon is a Nazi who took over Twitter? Not sure really.

This isn’t the comfort you think it is. If the bombs light up my horizon, I won’t be thinking “well, at least some remote tribe might continue a stone age humanity” while my entire family is consumed in a nuclear fire.

https://youtu.be/Y4lnZr022M8?si=ZdA6McK67Na01wri

Progressives are the easiest vote to disenfranchise. All it takes is one wedge issue, and they are out.

And then you have the corollary on the other side - for some on the far right, all it takes is one wedge issue to drive them in. Gun control, abortion, etc. I think that’s why we have to have an uphill battle every four years.

Probably referencing this court ruling.

deleted by creator

(I forget what, basically sounded like cleaning out the lining?)

You may be thinking of a D&C

20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

It doesn’t imply that at all? Please feel free to let me know what this passage is really about.

Amazing.

Defense, Space and Cybersecurity account for 39% of Boeing’s revenue.

Because the idea was always that we need a living wage.

It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By “business” I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living. -FDR

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9075220-it-seems-to-me-to-be-equally-plain-that-no

You know it’s funny, I was about to correct you and say Bugs made the joke, not Daffy, but I looked it up.

It’s widely reported that during a cartoon short titled “A Wild Hare,” a wise-cracking rabbit named Bugs Bunny called his nemesis Elmer Fudd a “poor little nimrod,” a sarcastic reference to Fudd’s skills as a hunter. Whether Bugs actually said it or it was Daffy Duck who called Fudd a “nimrod” is debatable. Bugs would get credit (it was after all a Bugs Bunny cartoon).

More reading on that for anyone interested.

As long as they think fascism will only hurt the people they want hurt

Ah, makes me take a trip down memory lane.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida

soft serve ice cream was partly invented by Maggie Thatcher, much-maligned ice queen of Britiain

This sounded so wild I looked it up.

Unfortunately, “most sources agree that the soft-serve industry arose in the United States, not Britain, and that it preceded Thatcher’s arrival at J. Lyons by about a decade. In 2008, Marian Burros offered a version of the conventional narrative in the Times.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-margaret-thatcher-soft-serve-myth

It’s often better to have three 25% chances of sinking the other guy than one 50% chance.

Three 25% of sinking is the same as three 75% chance of not sinking. Which is (3/4) * (3/4) * (3/4) chance of not sinking, which is approximately a 42% chance of not sinking, which is a 58% chance of sinking. 58% > 50%, the math checks out.

I mean, China will still exist and is way better Boogeyman.

If you have to have these laws they should specifically target elective abortions. Not the medical procedure in general.

I understand you are just playing devil’s advocate here, but even this is a bad idea. As we’ve seen in Texas, the law isn’t designed for nuance, it is designed to attack women. The Texas law was supposed to have exceptions for health and safety of the woman/fetus, and we saw how that played out. Having a law that specifically targeted elective abortions would have the same problem where the state would undoubtedly put the burden of proof on the woman. “Oh, your baby has no heartbeat? Fill out this form in triplicate, get your doctor to sign it, have it notarized, and your abortion will be approved in 38 - 40 weeks.”

Edit: for anyone who wants to or has downvoted me here, please do tell me how we can ban abortions and have an exception for rape

The answer here is simple: I reject the premise of the question. Banning abortion but having an exception for rape is morally disingenuous. You can’t say “abortion is murder some of the time.”

Ok? The DC can be 15 in both scenarios.