busdriver

Some of you guys will believe anything.... Try having some skepticism for reporting that confirms your priors, not just things you already think are nonsense.

This might be the dumbest thing they could have done. Hopefully.

I think this is mostly a call to arms, and a declaration of victory. The intended audience is other Islamists. Which I guess makes this a strong indicator of who the Taliban will let in, and their intent for the future. Rubbing it in our faces is a secondary objective. The Islamist movement has always been good at "social media" even before social media. A big portion of the mujahedeen were not Afghani. All the people asking whether an attack was directed by Al Qaeda (or any other group) or just inspired by them misses the point.

Public Service Announcement: There is an ignore function under your account settings for the board.

Taliban urge Afghan unity as protests spread to Kabul Also read a blurb saying the Taliban was threatening Afghan civil servants to get them to go back to work. I'm sure they'll just start killing people to get compliance, but it does present an interesting conundrum if the Taliban are trying to take control of the already established bureaucracy as the "new legitimate ruling class" rather than tear it all down and start over.

Why don't you explain the pros and cons of a fiat vs commodity monetary systems.

Not to mention the whole thing reads like the wet dream of a Qanon level conspiracy theorist.

Lighten up Francis. And stop engaging dogfish like he's a rational person. He eats paste.

That line has nothing to do with "papers please" Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Your tinfoil is getting worn, might want to fix it.

There are snippets. example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41375-021-01332-z I'm not convinced they amount to much. I'm not aware of any follow up studies to prove/disprove (common problem in the current media climate) but just listening to politifact declare everything false isn't true either.

This is the fundamental disconnect. Some agree with you. Some think the primary purpose of government is protect its citizens rights.

Looking at the top things on the list makes me think people with a demonstrated ability to doggedly pursue a goal no matter what correlates with success. Shocker. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Katie Herzog is a reporter, and was a staff writer for "The Stranger," which is a very left wing Seattle paper. She's also a lefty lesbian. Bari Weiss is a former New York Times reporter, also left of center and married to a woman. It's a far cry from "some lady's blog." And it sure as hell isn't a Newsmax/OANN fever dream.

It's human nature. Are also: "my/your truth" Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Moving the pole year, the 5 year promotion window, etc are all geared towards slowing everything down, giving folks more time to live a different career path and generally stop making everyone play the game of trying to make it to the flag ranks. However, there's a lot of "stuff" to figure out. whether that's policy, re-writing AFI or complying with law. Time will tell how it plays out.

For the love of the flying spaghetti monster, please stop saying this inane quasi-religious horse-shit. Also, you place way too much credit in the hands of political "leaders" to actually influence and shape the public's opinion. There are no JFKs in the wings, because that type of political actor is no longer possible.

Gas is the new shit paper.

It's a Festivus miracle!

I would argue a person has agency, and therefore a right to life and liberty. I don't believe in god, and don't think there's any inherent value in human life. Euthanasia and doctor assisted suicides are fine by me, even if the actual implementation is super sticky. I wasn't being snarky, justifiable homicide is generally how I think about an acceptable abortion at this point in time. I realize you can argue about levels of agency in a baby, but we all know babies grow. I can't see how a zygote is a person, I also can't see how a soon to be born baby isn't a person. I don't have a good answer beyond that. I'd probably be fine with an arbitrary line drawn somewhere in the middle. But I'm not personally wound up about, since I can't parse a 100% answer myself. Of course this is all philosophical. If you aren't dogmatic about it, that's the only place this conversation ends up. There are many people who aren't capable of actually having a conversation, nor agreeing on what the conversation is actually about.

If at the point in time in question, the fetus is a person: Ask what circumstances would make you think justifiable homicide makes sense. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

My point is it was enforced violation of individual liberty by government. Arguing about which government body gets to be big government misses the point that big government is a danger to individual rights. The state having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is (I think) necessary, but it carries risk that must be mitigated. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

But it was the state enforcing segregation. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Man you really just waffle around the middle of the conversation don't you.

You assume that the minority is inherently fucked without big brother to step in an help/protect them. Why? Historically it has been the government that has been the one doing the fucking by actively enforcing violations of liberty.