Total posts: 8,696
-->
@TheUnderdog
Covid vaccine vs Ivermectin. Which is better for treating covid?
- There are 300 versions of the vaccine under development. If we take the most effective vaccine- Pfizer–BioNTech prevents 95% of all mild symptoms related to a COVID-19 infection and 100% of all deaths from COVID. Taking the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine has resulted in zero deaths and mostly very rare and very mild side effects. These facts establish Pfizer–BioNTech as one of the most effective medicines in the history of mankind- far more safe and effective than aspirin.
- "studies found that ivermectin could inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2 in monkey kidney cell culture with an of 2.2–2.8 μM. Based on this information, however, doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect. Aside from practical difficulties, such high doses are not covered by current human-use approvals of the drug and would be toxic, as the antiviral mechanism of action is considered to operate by the suppression of a host cellular process, specifically the inhibition of nuclear transport by importin α/β1. Self-medication with a highly concentrated formula intended for horses has led to numerous hospitalizations, and overdose can lead to death, possibly due to interaction with other medications. To resolve uncertainties from previous small or poor-quality studies, as of June 2021, large scale trials are underway in the United States and the United Kingdom"
- There's a Turkish study out- Looks like 6 out 30 people-
- hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia,
- taking a large course of ivermectin alongside hydroxychloroquine
- died
- The control group of 30 took hydroxychloroquine only
- and 9 out of those 30 died.
You ask Which is better for treating covid?
so...try this for one rough measurement :
hydroxychloroquine only: 9 out 30 died
hydroxychloroquine + ivermectin: 6 out of 30 died
Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine: 0 out of 30 died
which medicine would you take?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
That’s GP in a nutshell. He’d rather report his fellow debaters as bullies than actually think up a cogent defense for the lies he tells. His mission is the 180 degree opposite of of this sites: rather than seeking truth thru dialogue and reasoned argument, GP seeks to broadcast lies without any challenge or effort on his part. He just wants to misinform, get his friends to like his falsehoods and mock all honest effort. I wish he’d relocate to parler which site was designed for weak unthinking followers like GP.
Created:
Saw Jane Campions power of the dog which was awesome - suspense in the old west. I swear every lgbt person understood the ending but none of the straight people. I’ve never run into a movie quite like that
Created:
Saw Paul Schraders The Card Counter- really great suspense- abu grahib and World Series of poker
Created:
I’d hate to see that Presidential Role voted in but if it is we need to have a referendum on the role as defined by MisterChris- which definition I thought was pretty good. I agree with 3ru7al when he says the role is more ombudsman than president. As defined, the role presides over nothing and nobody so president is a misnomer
Created:
I’m going to stay until Thursday tearing things down- the rumor is that there are cool extra movies in small theaters for the hangers on
Created:
Saw ENCOUNTER with Riz Ahmed- kind of a reverse ET the extraterrestrial. We travel from faith to skepticism , from optimism to pessimism. The adults become more dangerous as the alien threat vanishes.
Spare film making- uses a lot of classic chase through the California desert tropes.
Saw Werner Herzog, Jesse Plemons, Joe Wright, everyone except me has spotted Kristen Stewart but I’m not interested in another movie about Princess Di so…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, let's recall QAnon is supposed to be a single individual working for the Dept. of Energy with a Q clearance. One would assume that individual would represent core Q and 8kun certainly represented itself as the portal for that individual 2019-20. Now that that claim is debunked, I'm not sure what would represent core QAnon (or even how a religion persists after their prophet has been exposed as a fraud). I have read that the most popular QAnon site this summer is QSear.ch, and as the .ch domain demonstrates that site is being run by China. I think the 8kun server is in a backyard shed in Portland now but the site security is being run by the Russian military out of St. Petersburg. There's little to suggest that any core American interest is generating content now.How many people have you actually had conversations with who claim to be part of Q ? That's all I'm saying.I wouldn't trust a Muslim to describe all Christians, and in the same way I wouldn't trust a Christian to describe all Muslims.The "story" you've been fed about the origin and existence (and demise) of Q is not the same story you get from individuals who self-identify as Q.
Agreed. But that very fact invalidates QAnon’s credibility. The whole point of the religion was that there was a high ranking official within the dept of energy who was leaking information that nobody else in the Trump administration dare say. Since that story is discredited, QAnon itself is discredited and all the false assertions based on that source discredited.
To use your analogy, if we later discovered that the man who died on the cross was Jesus’s twin brother, Christ and his assertions would stand generally discredited. Sure James and Peter might try to change the story and claim that they self-identify as Christ now but why should anybody give a shit?
The story we’ve been fed about the origin and existence of Q came from Q. I guess conspiracy theorists can go back to making up their own lies but it is important that we that we keep exposing them as corrupt liars, right?
I think I would trust a Muslim to define Christianity more than I would a Baptist or catholic- more objective, no specific dogma to defend. Likewise, I would trust a Christian to describe Islam better than a Sunni or a Shi’a
Created:
Posted in:
i am going to be pretty busy until Friday. Not sure when this one starts but if it starts later in the week I might join.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, let's recall QAnon is supposed to be a single individual working for the Dept. of Energy with a Q clearance. One would assume that individual would represent core Q and 8kun certainly represented itself as the portal for that individual 2019-20. Now that that claim is debunked, I'm not sure what would represent core QAnon (or even how a religion persists after their prophet has been exposed as a fraud). I have read that the most popular QAnon site this summer is QSear.ch, and as the .ch domain demonstrates that site is being run by China. I think the 8kun server is in a backyard shed in Portland now but the site security is being run by the Russian military out of St. Petersburg. There's little to suggest that any core American interest is generating content now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
A friend of mine took a long business trip to China in the ‘80’s and put together a great slideshow out of it. He talked about how then the shores at the mouth of the Yangtze River were fenced off from the public and no photography allowed. He said that was because the shores were trashy and toxic but also because there were many babies’ corpses thrown into the river and coming to rest. The beaches weren’t white sand but white with paper and bone.
Created:
Created:
Saw Maggie Gyllenhal’s new movie, The Lost Daughter - which seems to argue that original sin is a pain borne mostly by women. Ms. Gyllenhal introduced and spoke of how difficult it was to make the movie
Saw an extremely trippy animation fest curated by Barry Jenkins. One was this incredible tribute to Fantastic Planet- it’s like a perfect imitation in mood and style.
Kirsten Dunst, Peter Skarsgard, Leonard Maltin
It is becoming clear that attendance will remain shockingly low. World Premieres of movies like Spencer starring Kristen Stewart as Princess Di and not all chairs are full. Mostly this is good news for me, I have less work to do and even the big movies are easy to get into. I wonder if the festival is taking a bad hit, tho.
Created:
-->
@Conway
I am also allowed to edit articles on Wikipedia. So are you. I mostly stick to improving spelling and grammar. I’ve never added or subtracted content. So I’d say writing for encyclopedias and writing for persuasive effect are two totally different styles of writing. Hyperbolic stylistic rants much don’t cut it when writing to inform but as appeal to the average American’s exasperation with the stupicidal right, I think it works pretty well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @oromagiI called it evil- that is a moral judgement.In reference to the CENSORSHIP question ?
Censorship is only a legal question. Non-govt entities have no capacity to censor.
Created:
Seems like the rights and responsibilities of any official should be clearly defined before we vote on whether or not such an office should exist.
Funny how all the supposed conservatives and libertarians jump at the first opportunity to increase government without even questioning what authority that government might possess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Funny. You said lie and then we both went straight to Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I could make myself an overnight billionaire off of Trump alone
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I see. So, do US citizens have a First Amendment right to make up lies about well established historical facts? Yes. The government may not restrict speech just because that speech is evil or motivated by irrational prejudices against unpopular groups of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Officially, the US Constitution does not care what God thinks.
Abortions were commonplace in Jesus' time and even more commonplace was child exposure- unwanted newborns were taken to the garbage dump and left there to die. Jesus certainly knew that fetuses and newborns were killed daily in cities like Caesarea or Jerusalem but if he ever had an opinion on the subject, the apostles did not capture it for posterity.
Likewise, abortions were commonplace in the late 18th century America. Abortions were illegal in Catholic countries like France and Spain but generally legal in England and her colonies (with some restrictions after the baby begins to move). It can't be argued that the founding fathers were unaware of the practice, stuff like that was just better left to the family patriarch to decide. If the founding fathers intended for states to force a woman to complete every pregnancy they would have said so. I just don't think the founding fathers though that was govt. business.
Created:
Posted in:
>@oromagiWhat’s changed isn’t Texas law, which has always been fucked up, but the Supreme Court majority’s unwillingness to even stay patently unconstitutional state legislation.Serious question, and I promise I won’t argue with you either way, but do you REALLY believe that abortion is a constitutional right? Like, imagine God Himself is asking you in your heart of hearts if you truly believe that the US constitution, which does not mention abortion whatsoever, guarantees it as a right?This goes for everyone else in this thread too. The Roe V Wade seems completely absurd decision no matter how you feel about abortion.“In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.”That’s…a lot of subtext. If we’re going to read abortion into this clause: “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” the constitution is worth less than toilet paper. And it does increasingly seem to be worth about tha
- The Texas law is unconstitutional whether or not one accepts the constitutionality of abortion. You have presumed that because I call the Texas law unconstitutional I must believe that abortion is a constitutional right
- The law provides a $10,000 taxpayer funded bonus for anybody who successfully sues anybody for "providing support" to a woman who has had an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected. The law protects plaintiffs from having to pay court costs for these lawsuits. The law specifies that the plaintiff does not need to be connected to the defendant in any way.
- In other words, the plaintiff does not have to show any physical or financial injury to sue (a predicate in Western Law since Magna Carta) and the state protects plaintiffs from the usual punishment for frivolous lawsuits, which is payment of defendant's fees. In theory, I could file 10,000 lawsuits every day alleging that GOP aided and abetted some abortion in Texas for just the cost of filing fees, forcing the GOP to spend hundreds, even thousands in defense for every dollar I spend in harassment and neither the GOP nor the courts would have legal remedy to stop me.
- I guess the Legislature's notion is that a flood of lawsuits from anybody, anywhere, with no need to show injury or no risk of court penalty will harass abortion providers out of existence, but
- We don't want States to be scheming how to harass people States don't like, and
- such an instrument is obviously begging for abuse.
- Any Conservative worthy of the name wants to
- preserve the tradition of showing injury to justify any civil claim,
- reduce not increase the volume of frivolous lawsuits,
- reduce taxpayers liability, not increase, for frivolous lawsuits,
- oppose state sponsored harassment of unpopular people, andso
- any Conservative worthy of the name would oppose this law.
- You have badly misread Roe v Wade if you think that decision calls abortion a constitutional right.
- Roe v Wade clearly states that the Right to Privacy is inferred from the 5th and 14th Amendments, not abortion.
- This is the same right that prevents the govt. from listening to your phone call or reading your emails or searching your house without a warrant.
- The US Constitution never explicitly says that the govt. can't monitor your telephone conversations it is just one of the many, many private things that citizens do that the government has no right to interfere with or legislate except on a case by case basis.
- Roe v Wade correctly states that biological processes inside a citizen's body are just another one of those many, many private things that should be none of the govt.'s business.
- No "right to abortion" is inferred any more that a "right to phone calls" is inferred. SCOTUS merely recognized that the Constitution restricted states from interfering at that level of non-public activity. There's no subtext or special reading- if you think the govt can't inspect your emails at will than you should also agree that the govt can't inspect your uterus at will.
- The weakness of Roe is that it recognized any govt role in determining the relative safety of the mother and the fetus, which exceptions have been exploited well past the point of rational safety concerns or privacy concerns.
Created:
I did manage to sneak into the French Dispatch. Visually stunning- Anderson’s ocd cool hyper-literary hyper-theatrical world pours out delivering a firehose of plot and eccentricity. Bill Murray, Tilda Swindon, Timothy Chalamet is Zeffirelli the revolutionary- great but none of the stars introduced it. Wes Anderson sent a message from Spain but this movie was supposed to be released just as COVID hit so everybody’s doing other projects now Francis Ford Coppola was there in a very mobsteresque black suit- I guess he and Matt Dillon are presenting the director’s cut of the Outsiderstomorrow
Created:
1. No. I guess I’d rather have good mods with the freedom to exercise good judgement. If inconsistent moderation becomes a problem I might change my mind.
2. No. I considered the office pretty destructive to community feeling on DDO and never experienced any improved representation. We’re such a small group I don’t think further layers of govt are needed.
3. Yes, fine
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
@Conway
I’ve got a busy weekend and no wifi but I’ll try to answer when I have some time
Created:
A lot of rumors that Wes Anderson’s new film is secretly showing. No rumors that Dune is here although timothee chalamet is here so I’m still hoping to stumble upon a secret preview.
Created:
Saw the world premiere of Branagh’s new movie Belfast. Autobiographical about him being a kid during the troubles. Branagh introduced the film to half empty theater and told the story of trying to get it made for 20 years. Jamie Dornan didn’t say much but certainly gave the best performance I’ve seen from him. Ciaran Hinds and Judi Dench are amazing as ever. The movie is black and white and mostly takes place on just one street. The tension builds well but the climax is sort of easy and lacks much drama. I was left wondering why the kid was the protagonist of the story beyond the obvious autobiographical intent. Works well as a period piece but probably won’t be remembered as a great film. Great soundtrack- all Van Morrison but one song and only one of his hit songs- matched to mood well. 60/100 perhaps.
Also saw Hillary Swank having fun at lunch. A lot of laughs. A lot of selfies.
Created:
Let’s also note that the founding fathers specifically put congress in charge of war powers and war budget. The idea that any president owns a particular military result would be deeply disturbing to the authors of the constitution.
Created:
Of all US presidents, only Biden can say that he gave his commanders a clear objective in Afghanistan,a short timetable, and stuck with that plan while ignoring all the fucking punditry. Generals can’t and shouldn’t hope for a commander in chief that wants to run the war and make the plans- the commander in chiefs jobs is to the state a necessary political objective that can only be accomplished by force and then sell that necessity to Congress and the media, sheltering his command from political interference as much as possible. I’d say this is the first president since Bush 41 who understands his job as commander in chief.
Created:
The notion that Biden left any aircraft is 100% faulty. The Taliban has captured some aircraft but all that aircraft has been in the Afghan military for years. Bush bought it for them (mostly Russian surplus from their war- the Russians specifically designed a small tough helicopter for their War in Afghanistan and Bush bought a bunch from Ukraine and Eastern Europe for cheap and gave them to the Afghans. Obama trained their pilots. Trump kept up the maintenance program because military aircraft need constant maintenance and new parts to stay battle ready and The Afghan military was unwilling to make that investment
The US did leave some aircraft behind but absolutely gutted and destroyed those craft. No American aircraft under Biden’s command are now in Taliban hands. Of the 33 UH Blackhawks in the Afghan Air Force on 12 were air worthy and a Northern Alliance warlord captured 8 of those and is keeping them in Uzbekistan. That leaves Taliban with a probable 4 blackhawks with expensive maintenance and spare parts needs and not enough money or know how. Those helicopters probably won’t weeks.
We could not have legitimately defended those afghani aircraft without getting back into the war. So the claim that Biden gave the Taliban blackhawks has zero merit. Bush is mostly to blame for giving the afghans old blackhawks
Created:
Posted in:
What’s changed isn’t Texas law, which has always been fucked up, but the Supreme Court majority’s unwillingness to even stay patently unconstitutional state legislation. In terms of political strategy this may backfire for the GOP in 2022 and will certainly improve dems fundraising while Trump is sucking up a lot of money that would normally go to GOP.
Created:
I think Biden handled the refugee question pretty well. Twenty years of military occupation tends to create some deep entanglements and obligations that we should make some good faith effort to respect. We definitely want to skim the top doctors and engineers and entrepreneurs, not only for US benefit but also so they aren’t aiding potential enemies. When Russia left, they left behind a well known Afghan Colonel who the Taliban forced to command and maintain their little Air Force of old MiGs. I’ve read that there’s 2-3 million who would like to immigrate but much of that number represents the same establishment that collapsed in front of the Taliban advance. Do we really to take In huge numbers of disillusioned and corrupt- is that to US benefit? Drawing the line anywhere is harsh and necessarily condemns some former allies but 120, 000 sounds right. I would guess the US takes less than half of those and only the best and brightest. I call that the smart play.
Created:
Long, wet drive to Telluride in an unfamiliar car. Had to borrow a car since my catalytic converter was stolen AGAIN last night. Very foggy the last hundred miles and my night vision is not what it used to be. I am staying with my little brother who lives in the last cabin before Lizard Head Pass, ten miles above Telluride. He is a mega-outdoorsman and bow hunter and sustainable living guy who tries hard to live year round on what he hunts for meat. He is a longtime fixture in these parts and so friends with many celebrities but he watches no tv or movies and is totally unimpressed by them, which is I guess why they like him. He taught Tom Cruise to rock climb and dined with Francis Ford Coppola. He’s doing contract work on Oprah’s house. A lot of stuff like that.
As we’re chatting, the festival starts announcing what movies will be playing and who’s introducing (it’s always a big secret until the night before). I’m looking at my phone and saying
“Peter Dinklage is here…do you know who Peter Dinklage is”
My brother:”nope”
I’m like, “Oh, wow, Kenneth Brannagh- you know like Henry V, he did Thor:Ragnarok?”
“Nope”
“Have you heard of Thor:Ragnarok?”
“Nope”
“Ooo, Helen Mirren’s talking tomorrow, do you…”
“Nope”
Pretty much our relationship in a nutshell.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
-->@oromagiI guess you don't understand what "accountability" means. When the President says "I take responsibility" that is being held to account.Accountability = consequences
What makes you say that Biden's decision was inconsequential? Or are you only dissatisfied that the consequences are not of your choosing?
Explain.Reality is that Americans were left behind and billions in equipment was left to people who had been trying to kill us for the past 20 years.
And what alternatives would you have enacted? What better choices might you have made?
What firm ever evacuated a population the size of Topka, KS out of warzone, surrounded on all sides? None. What firm ever ended a twenty year war? None.Combatting an analogy with literal answers🤦♂️.Ok we can play that game. If I left 86 billion dollars worth of equipment to practically rot I’d definitely be fired.
That $86 billion number is the total cost to train and equip the Afghan army for the last 20 years. Yes, we spent a lot on equipping the Afghan army and we had to let them keep that stuff as we left. We made promises to the Afghan government that they'd be able to defend themselves and we kept those promises even after that government refused to stand their ground for even 24 hrs.
20 years is 240 months of which 137 months were Republican administration's responsibility. 96 months were Obama's. The last 7 were Biden. (Let's note that neither Bush nor Trump ever actually said they were responsible for their decision the way Biden did today. Hell, Bush outright refused to estimate the costs of Afghanistan in his budgets, leaving Obama to do the actual accountancy and figuring out how to pay for it) If we prorate by month, Republicans lost the lion's share of taxpayer money at $50 billion. Biden should be credited with the last $2.5 billion for his 7 months of training and equipment. Let's agree that Biden by ending the war early in his administration, saved the US from further wasteful investment. Seems like any firm that had been bleeding billions for twenty years would reward a new CEO who came in and stopped the bleeding, rather than fire him or her for not stopping the flow on day one, which is what I guess you are complaining about.
So you've named 4 people you think have done something wrong and had some feelings about it. Are you going to state what you think they did wrong or hasn't Tucker told you what you think yet?I haven’t watched Tucker in more than a year. And let’s see.
And yet your opinions are in such perfect sync.
Austin and Milley as the top two military officials for being completely incompetent in the withdrawal process and leaving billions in equipment behind.
All of which was either promised to the Afghans' defense or scrapped at the end. All of that leaving behind seems to have gone according to game plan. Would you have prioritized equipment over human lives? Would you pulled out equipment earlier and so hastened the fall of the government? What better decision would you have made?
Essentially withdrawing troops and then sending them back in.
Trump left Biden with 2,500 troops. That was never going to be enough to evacuate Topeka, Kansas in 14 days. Are you criticizing Trump for leaving too few or Biden for bringing sufficient force to the mission?
Withdrawing from Bagram is a good one too.
Trump, acting on behalf of the US, promised to withdraw from all 5 military bases within 14 months. If you thought we should retain Bagram Airfield then you need to blame Trump for agreeing to withdraw.
Blinken for the disastrous embassy debacle. Vietnam all over again. Not to mention the mixed messaging given to Americans. Go to the airport or don’t go?
Can't figure out what you're talking about here. Pls. cite facts.
Idc if the top officials are still there, though I personally believe they should resign. But why aren’t lower officials being held accountable for their mistakes that cost American lives.
Which mistakes? You are saying you think US Servicemen were to blame for the Aug 26th attack at Abbey Gate? Can you get specific here?
Accountability and “I take responsibility” are the same things. Gimme a break
Oxford dictionary lists accountability as a synonym for responsibility. Don't know why you wouldn't know this.
Created:
PRIESTESS:
Hello, Neo. You're right on time.... Make yourself at home, Morpheus. Neo, come with me.... These are the other potentials, you can wait here.
SPOON BOY:
Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth.
NEO:
What truth?
SPOON BOY:
There is no spoon.
NEO:
There is no spoon?
SPOON BOY:
Spoon boy: Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.
PRIESTESS:
The Oracle will see you now.
ORACLE: (A middle aged woman sitting by the oven in the apartment's kitchen, baking cookies)
I know you're Neo. Be right with you.
NEO:
You're the Oracle?
ORACLE:
Bingo. Not quite what you were expecting, right? Almost done. Smell good, don't they?
NEO:
Yeah.
ORACLE:
I'd ask you to sit down, but your not going to anyway. And don't worry about the vase.
NEO:
What vase?
(Neo looks behind him and bumps a small table, causing a vase to crash to the floor)
ORACLE:
That vase.
NEO:
I'm sorry.
ORACLE:
I said don't worry about it. I'll get one of my students to fix it.
NEO:
How did you know?
ORACLE:
Oh..... (she strikes a match to light her cigarette) What's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything. You're cuter than I expected. No wonder she likes you.
NEO:
Who?
ORACLE: (she takes a puff)
Not too bright, though. You know why Morpheus brought you to see me?
NEO:
I think so.
ORACLE:
So, what do you think? You think you're the one?
NEO:
I don't know.
ORACLE: (nodding to a wooden wall plaque over the kitchen doorway. The plaque reads "TEMET NOSCE")
You know what that means? It's Latin. Means `Know thyself'. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Being the one is just like being in love. No one can tell you your in love, you just know it. Through and through. Balls to bones. Well, I better have a look at you. Open your mouth, say Ahhh.
NEO:
Ahhh.
ORACLE:
Okay. Now I'm supposed to say, `Umm, that's interesting, but...' then you say...
NEO:
But what?
ORACLE:
But you already know what I'm going to tell you.
NEO:
I'm not the one.
ORACLE:
Sorry kiddo. You got the gift, but it looks like you're waiting for something.
NEO:
What?
ORACLE:
Your next life maybe, who knows? That's the way these things go. What's funny?
NEO:
Morpheus. He...he almost had me convinced.
ORACLE:
I know. Poor Morpheus. Without him we're lost.
NEO:
What do you mean, without him?
ORACLE:
Are you sure you want to hear this?
(NEO nods)
Morpheus believes in you, Neo. And no one, not you, not even me can convince him otherwise. He believes it so blindly that he's going to sacrifice his life to save yours.
NEO:
What?
ORACLE:
You're going to have to make a choice. In the one hand you'll have Morpheus' life and in the other hand you'll have your own. One of you is going to die. Which one will be up to you. I'm sorry, kiddo, I really am. You have a good soul, and I hate giving good people bad news. Oh, don't worry about it. As soon as you step outside that door, you'll start feeling better. You'll remember you don't believe in any of this fate crap. You're in control of your own life, remember? Here, take a cookie. I promise, by the time you're done eating it, you'll feel right as rain.
(Neo steps out of the apartment's front door)
MORPHEUS: What was said was for you and for you alone.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Zero accountability from the administration. Zero.
I guess you don't understand what "accountability" means. When the President says "I take responsibility" that is being held to account.
ACCOUNTABILITY is "Good-faith acceptance of one's responsibility for something and of its consequences."
BIDEN:
"I take responsibility for the decision. Now some say we should have started mass evacuation sooner and, “Couldn’t this have been done in a more orderly manner?” I respectfully disagree. Imagine if we’d begun evacuations in June or July, bringing in thousands of American troops and evacuated more than 120,000 people in the middle of a civil war. There still would have been a rush to the airport, a breakdown in confidence and control of the government, and it still would have been a very difficult and dangerous mission.
We succeeded in what we set out to do in Afghanistan over a decade ago, then we stayed for another decade. It was time to end this war. This is a new world. The terror threat has metastasized across the world, well beyond Afghanistan. We face threats from al-Shabab in Somalia, al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria and the Arabian Peninsula, and ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates across Africa and Asia.
The fundamental obligation of a president, in my opinion, is to defend and protect America. Not against threats of 2001, but against the threats of 2021 and tomorrow. That is the guiding principle behind my decisions about Afghanistan. I simply do not believe that the safety and security of America is enhanced by continuing to deploy thousands of American troops and spending billions of dollars a year in Afghanistan. But I also know that the threat from terrorism continues in its pernicious and evil nature. But it’s changed, expanded to other countries. Our strategy has to change too."
They are out of touch with reality.
Explain.
This happens in any firm and there are mass firings or resignations.
What firm ever evacuated a population the size of Topka, KS out of warzone, surrounded on all sides? None. What firm ever ended a twenty year war? None.
It’s appalling Blinken and Austin still have jobs. It’s astonishing Milley still has his job.
So you've named 4 people you think have done something wrong and had some feelings about it. Are you going to state what you think they did wrong or hasn't Tucker told you what you think yet?
Created:
The fundamental obligation of a president, in my opinion, is to defend and protect America. Not against threats of 2001, but against the threats of 2021 and tomorrow. That is the guiding principle behind my decisions about Afghanistan. I simply do not believe that the safety and security of America is enhanced by continuing to deploy thousands of American troops and spending billions of dollars a year in Afghanistan. But I also know that the threat from terrorism continues in its pernicious and evil nature. But it’s changed, expanded to other countries. Our strategy has to change too.
We will maintain the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and other countries. We just don’t need to fight a ground war to do it. We have what’s called Over The Horizon capabilities, which means we can strike terrorists and targets without American boots on the ground, or very few if needed. We’ve shown that capacity just in the last week. We struck ISIS-K remotely, days after they murdered 13 of our service members and dozens of innocent Afghans. And to ISIS-K, we are not done with you yet.
As Commander in Chief I firmly believe the best path to guard our safety and our security lies in a tough, unforgiving, targeted, precise strategy that goes after terror where it is today, not where it was two decades ago. That’s what’s in our national interest.
Here’s a critical thing to understand, the world is changing. We’re engaged in a serious competition with China. We’re dealing with the challenges on multiple fronts with Russia. We’re confronted with cyber attacks and nuclear proliferation. We have to shore up America’s competitiveness to meet these new challenges in the competition for the 21st century. We can do both, fight terrorism and take on new threats that are here now, and will continue to be here in the future. And there’s nothing China or Russia would rather have, would want more in this competition than the United States to be bogged down another decade in Afghanistan.
As we turn the page on the foreign policy that has guided our nation in the last two decades, we’ve got to learn from our mistakes. To me there are two that are paramount. First, we must set missions with clear, achievable goals. Not ones we’ll never reach. And second, I want to stay clearly focused on the fundamental national security interest of the United States of America.
This decision about Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries. We saw a mission of counter-terrorism in Afghanistan, getting the terrorist and stopping attacks, morph into a counterinsurgency, nation building, trying to create a democratic cohesive and United Afghanistan. Something that has never been done over many centuries of Afghan’s history.
Moving on from that mindset and those kinds of large scale troop deployments will make us stronger and more effective and safer at home. And for anyone who gets the wrong idea, let me say clearly, to those who wish America harm, to those engage in terrorism against us our allies know this, the United States will never rest. We will not forgive, will not forget. We’ll hunt you down to the ends of the earth and you will pay the ultimate price.
Let me be clear, we’ll continue to support the Afghan people through diplomacy, international influence and humanitarian aid. We’ll continue to push for regional diplomacy engagement to prevent violence and instability. We’ll continue to speak out for the basic rights of the Afghan people, especially women and girls. As we speak out for women and girls all around the globe.
And I’ve been clear that human rights will be the center of our foreign policy, but the way to do that is not through endless military deployments, but through diplomacy, economic tools and rallying the rest of the world for support.
My fellow Americans, the war in Afghanistan is now over. I’m the fourth president who has faced the issue of whether and when to end this war. When I was running for president, I made a commitment to the American people that I would end this war. Today, I’ve honored that commitment. It was time to be honest with the American people again.
We no longer had a clear purpose and an open-ended mission in Afghanistan. After 20 years of war in Afghanistan, I refuse to send another generation of America’s sons and daughters to fight a war should have ended long ago. After more than $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan, a cost that researchers at Brown University estimated would be over $300 million a day for 20 years in Afghanistan, for two decades.
Yes, the American people should hear this, $300 million a day for two decades. You could take the number of $1 trillion, as many say. That’s still $150 million a day for two decades. And what have we lost as a consequence in terms of opportunities? I refuse to continue to war that was no longer in the service of the vital national interest of our people.
And most of all, after 800,000 Americans served in Afghanistan, I’ve traveled that whole country, brave and honorable service. After 20,744 American service men and women injured. And the loss of 2,461 American personnel, including 13 lives lost just this week. I refused to open another decade of warfare in Afghanistan.
We’ve been a nation too long at war. If you’re 20 years old today, you’ve never known an America at peace. So when I hear that we could have, should have continued the so-called “low grade effort” in Afghanistan, at low risk to our service members, at low costs I don’t think enough people understand how much we’ve asked of the 1% of this country who put that uniform on. Willing to put their lives on the line in defense of our nation.
Maybe it’s because my deceased son, Beau, served in Iraq for a full year. Before that… Well. Maybe it’s because of what I’ve seen over the years as Senator, Vice President and President traveling in these countries. A lot of our veterans and our families have gone through hell. Deployment after deployment, months and years away from their families, missed birthdays, anniversaries, empty chairs at holidays, financial struggles, divorces, loss of limbs, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress.
We see it in the struggles many have when they come home. We see it in the strain on their families and caregivers. We see it in the strain in their families when they’re not there. We see it in the grief born by their survivors. The cost of war, they will carry with them their whole lives. Most tragically, we see in the shocking and stunning statistic that should give pause to anyone who thinks war can ever be low grade, low risk or low cost, 18 veterans on average who die by suicide every single day in America.
Not in a far off place, but right here in America. There is nothing low grade or low risk or low cost about any war. It’s time to end the war in Afghanistan. As we close 20 years of war and strife and pain and sacrifice, it’s time to look at the future, not the past. To a future that’s safer, to a future that’s more secure. To a future the honors those who served and all those who gave what President Lincoln called, “Their last full measure of devotion.”
I give you my word, with all of my heart, I believe this is the right decision, a wise decision and the best decision for America. Thank you. Thank you, and may God bless you all. And may God protect our troops.
Created:
Last night in Kabul, the United States ended 20 years of war in Afghanistan. The longest war in American history. We completed one of the biggest air lifts in history with more than 120,000 people evacuated to safety. That number is more than double what most experts felt were possible. No nation, no nation has ever done anything like it in all of history, and only United States had the capacity and the will and ability to do it. And we did it today.
The extraordinary success of this mission was due to the incredible skill, bravely and selfless courage to the United States military and our diplomats and intelligence professional. For weeks, they risked their lives to get American citizens, Afghans who helped us, citizens of our allies and partners and others onboard planes and out of the country. And they did it facing a crush of enormous crowds seeking to leave the country.
They did it knowing ISIS-K terrorists, sworn enemies of the Taliban, were lurking in the midst of those crowds. And still, the women and men of the United States military, our diplomatic corps and intelligence professionals did their job and did it well. Risking their lives, not for professional gains, but to serve others. Not in a mission of war, but in the mission of mercy.
Twenty service members were wounded in the service of this mission, thirteen heroes gave their lives. I was just at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer. We owe them and their families a debt of gratitude we can never repay, but we should never, ever, ever forget.
In April, I made a decision to end this war. As part of that decision, we set the date of August 31st for American troops to withdraw. The assumption was that more than 300,000 Afghan National Security Forces that we had trained over the past two decades and equipped would be a strong adversary in their civil wars with the Taliban.
That assumption that the Afghan government would be able to hold on for a period of time beyond military draw down turned out not to be accurate. But, I still instructed our National Security Team to prepare for every eventuality, even that one, and that’s what we did.
So we were ready, when the Afghan Security Forces, after two decades of fighting for their country and losing thousands of their own, did not hold on as long as anyone expected. We were ready when they and the people of Afghanistan watched their own government collapse and the president flee amid the corruption of malfeasance, handing over the country to their enemy, the Taliban, and significantly increasing the risk to us personnel and our allies.
As a result, to safely extract American citizens before August 31st, as well as embassy personnel, allies, and partners, and those Afghans who had worked with us and fought alongside of us for 20 years, I had authorized 6,000 troops, American troops to Kabul to help secure the airport.
As General McKenzie said, this is the way the mission was designed. It was designed to operate under severe stress and attack and that’s what it did. Since March, we reached out 19 times to Americans in Afghanistan with multiple warnings and offers to help them leave Afghanistan. All the way back as far as March.
After we started the evacuation 17 days ago, we did initial outreach and analysis and identified around 5,000 Americans who had decided earlier to stay in Afghanistan but now wanted to leave. Our operation Allie Rescue ended up getting more than 5,500 Americans out. We got out thousands of citizens and diplomats from those countries that went into Afghanistan with us to get bin Laden. We got out locally employed staff in the United States Embassy and their families, totalling roughly 2,500 people. We got thousands of Afghan translators and interpreters and others who supported the United States out as well.
Now we believe that about 100 to 200 Americans remain in Afghanistan with some intention to leave. Most of those who remain are dual citizens, long time residents, but earlier decided to stay because of their family roots in Afghanistan. The bottom line, 90% of Americans in Afghanistan who wanted to leave were able to leave. And for those remaining Americans, there is no deadline. We remain committed to get them out if they want to come out.
Secretary of State Blinken is leading the continued diplomatic efforts to ensure safe passage for any American, Afghan partner or foreign national who wants to leave Afghanistan. In fact just yesterday, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution that sent a clear message about the international community expects the Taliban to deliver on moving forward. Notably, freedom of travel, freedom to leave.
Together we are joined by over 100 countries that are determined to make sure the Taliban upholds those commitments. It will include ongoing efforts in Afghanistan to reopen the airport as well as overland routes, allowing for continued departure for those who want to leave and deliver humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan.
The Taliban has made public commitments broadcast on television and radio across Afghanistan on safe passage for anyone wanting to leave, including those who worked alongside Americans. We don’t take them by their word alone, but by their actions. And we have leverage to make sure those commitments are met.
Let me be clear, leaving August the 31st is not due to an arbitrary deadline. It was designed to save American lives. My predecessor, the Former President, signed an agreement with the Taliban to remove US troops by May the first, just months after I was inaugurated. It included no requirement that the Taliban work out a cooperative governing arrangement with the Afghan government. But it did authorize the release of 5,000 prisoners last year, including some of the Taliban’s top war commanders among those who just took control of Afghanistan.
By the time I came to office the Taliban was in it’s strongest military position since 2001, controlling or contesting nearly half of the country. The previous administration’s agreement said that if we stuck to the May 1st deadline that they had signed on to leave by, the Taliban wouldn’t attack any American forces. But if we stayed, all bets were off.
So we were left with a simple decision, either through on the commitment made by the last administration and leave Afghanistan, or say we weren’t leaving and commit another tens of thousands more troops going back to war. That was the choice, the real choice between leaving or escalating. I was not going to extend this forever war and I was not extending a forever exit.
The decision to end the military lift operation at that Kabul airport was based on the unanimous recommendation of my civilian and military advisors. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff and all the Service chiefs and the commanders in the field, their recommendation was that the safest way to secure the passage of the remaining Americans and others out of the country was to continue with 6,000 troops on the ground in harm’s way in Kabul, but rather to get them out through non-military means.
In the 17 days that we operated in Kabul, after the Taliban seized power, we engage in an around the clock effort to provide every American the opportunity to leave. Our State Department was working 24/7 contacting and talking, and in some cases walking Americans into the airport. Again, more than 5,500 Americans were airlifted out. And for those who remain, we will make arrangements to get them out if they so choose.
As for the Afghans, we and our partners have airlifted 100,000 of them, no country in history has done more to airlift out the residents of another country than we have done. We will continue to work to help more people leave the country who are at risk. We’re far from done.
For now, I urge all Americans to join me in grateful prayer for our troops and diplomats and intelligence officers who carried out this mission of mercy in Kabul at a tremendous risk with such unparalleled results. An air-lift that evacuated tens of thousands. To a network of volunteers and veterans who helped identify those needing evacuation, guide them to the airport and provided them for their support along the way. We’re going to continue to need their help. We need your help and I’m looking forward to meeting with you. And to everyone who is now offering or who will offer to welcome Afghan allies to their homes around the world, including in America, we thank you.
I take responsibility for the decision. Now some say we should have started mass evacuation sooner and, “Couldn’t this have been done in a more orderly manner?” I respectfully disagree. Imagine if we’d begun evacuations in June or July, bringing in thousands of American troops and evacuated more than 120,000 people in the middle of a civil war. There still would have been a rush to the airport, a breakdown in confidence and control of the government, and it still would have been a very difficult and dangerous mission.
The bottom line is there is no evacuation from the end of a war that you can run without the kinds of complexities, challenge and threats we faced. None. There are those who would say we should have stayed indefinitely, for years on end. They ask, “Why don’t we just keep doing what we were doing? Why do we have to change anything?” The fact is, everything had changed.
My predecessor had made a deal with the Taliban. When I came into office, we faced a deadline, May one. The Taliban onslaught was coming, we faced one of two choices. Follow the agreement of the previous administration, or extend to have more time for people to get out. Or send in thousands of more troops and escalate the war.
To those asking for a third decade of war in Afghanistan I ask, “What is of vital national interest?” In my view, we only have one. To make sure Afghanistan can never be used again to launch an attack on our homeland. Remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first place, because we were attacked by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda on September 11th, 2001, and they were based in Afghanistan.
We delivered justice to bin Laden on May 2nd, 2011 over a decade ago. Al-Qaeda was decimated. I respectfully suggest you ask yourself this question, “If we’ve been attacked on September 11th, 2001 from Yemen, instead of Afghanistan, would we have ever gone to war in Afghanistan, even though the Tali bond controlled Afghanistan in the year 2001?” I believe the honest answer is no. That’s because we had no vital interest in Afghanistan other than to prevent an attack on America’s homeland and our friends, and that’s true today.
We succeeded in what we set out to do in Afghanistan over a decade ago, then we stayed for another decade. It was time to end this war. This is a new world. The terror threat has metastasized across the world, well beyond Afghanistan. We face threats from al-Shabab in Somalia, al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria and the Arabian Peninsula, and ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates across Africa and Asia.
Created:
HERALD:
I bring a message from your master, Marcus Licinius Crassus, Commander of Italy. By command of His Most Merciful Excellency, your lives are to be spared. Slaves you were and slaves you remain. But the terrible penalty of crucifixion has been set aside on the single condition that you identify the body or the living person of the slave called Spartacus.
(He gazes slowly around among the prisoners. His face hardens as nothing but silence greets his offer.)
Well --- speak up! Freedom's what you fought for, isnt it? Show me Spartacus and win it!
ANTONIUS: (looks quickly from the HERALD to SPARTACUS
PRISONER: I'm Spartacus! Turn me loose!
(Rising MURMUR among slave army)
A YOUTH AMOUNG THE PRISONERS: I'm Spartacus.
SECOND PRISONER: He lies! I'm Spartacus! Let me go free!
THIRD PRISONER: This one's a baby! I'm Spartacus!
I'm Spartacus!
PRISONERS rise by two and threes then by the score, each shouting his own identification
No over here ---- I'm Spartacus!
Me --- I'm Spartacus
Here's Spartacus right here!
Look at the real Spartacus!
I'm Spartacus, set me free!
I'm Spartacus!
(ALL SHOUTING)
ANTONIUS:
Here I am! Spartacus!
Created:
INT. THEATER LOBBY.
A lined-up crowd of ticket holders waiting to get into the theater, Alvy and Annie among them. A hum of indistinct chatter can be heard through the ensuing scene.
MAN IN LINE (Loudly to his companion right behind Alvy and Annie)
We saw the Fellini film last Tuesday. It is not one of his best. It lacks a cohesive structure. You know, you get the feeling that he's not absolutely sure what it is he wants to say. 'Course, I've always felt he was essentially a-a technical film maker. Granted, La Strada was a great film. Great in its use of negative energy more than anything else. But that simple cohesive core...
Alvy, reacting to the man's loud monologue, starts to get annoyed, while Annie begins to read her newspaper.
ALVY (Overlapping the man's speech)
I'm-I'm-I'm gonna have a stroke.
ANNIE (Reading)
Well, stop listening to him.
MAN IN LINE (Overlapping Alvy and Annie)
You know, it must need to have had its leading from one thought to another. You know what I'm talking about?
ALVY(Sighing)
He's screaming his opinions in my ear.
MAN IN LINE
Like all that Juliet of the Spirits or Satyricon, I found it incredibly...indulgent. You know, he really is. He's one of the most indulgent filmmakers. He really is-
ALVY (Overlapping)
Key word here is "indulgent."
MAN IN LINE (Overlapping)
without getting... well, let's put it this way...
ALVY (To Annie, who is still reading, overlapping the man in line who is still talking)
What are you depressed about?
ANNIE
I missed my therapy. I overslept.
ALVY
How can you possibly oversleep?
ANNIE
The alarm clock.
ALVY (Gasping)
You know what a hostile gesture that is to me?
ANNIE
I know- because of our sexual problem, right?
ALVY
Hey, you... everybody in line at the New Yorker has to know our rate of intercourse?
MAN IN LINE
It's like Samuel Beckett, you know I admire the technique but he doesn't... he doesn't hit me on a gut level.
ALVY (To Annie)
I'd like to hit this guy on a gut level. The man in line continues his speech all the while Alvy and Annie talk.
ANNIE
Stop it, Alvy!
ALVY (Wringing his hands)
Well, he's spitting on my neck! You know, he's spitting on my neck when he talks.
MAN IN LINE
And then, the most important thing of all is a comedian's vision.
ANNIE
And you know something else? You know, you're so egocentric that if I miss my therapy you can think of it in terms of how it affects you!
MAN IN LINE (Lighting a cigarette while he talks)
Gal gun-shy is what it is.
ALVY (Reacting again to the man in line)
Probably on their first date, right?
MAN IN LINE (Still going on)
It's a narrow view.
ALVY
Probably met by answering an ad in the New York Review of Books. "Thirtyish academic wishes to meet woman who's interested in Mozart, James Joyce and sodomy."
(He sighs; then to Annie)
Whattya you mean, our sexual problem?
ANNIE
Oh!
ALVY
I-I-I mean, I'm comparatively normal for a guy raised in Brooklyn.
ANNIE
Okay, I'm very sorry. My sexual problem! Okay, my sexual problem! Huh?
The man in front of them turns to look at them, then looks away.
ALVY
I never read that. That was-that was Henry James, right? Novel, uh, the sequel to Turn of the Screw? My Sexual...
MAN IN LINE (Even louder now)
It's the influence of television. Yeah, now Marshall McLuhan deals with it in terms of it being a-a high, uh, high intensity, you understand? A hot medium... as
opposed to a...
ALVY
(More and more aggravated)
What I wouldn't give for a large sock o' horse manure.
MAN IN LINE
...as opposed to a print...
Alvy steps forward, waving his hands in frustration, and stands facing the camera.
ALVY (Sighing and addressing the audience)
What do you do when you get stuck in a movie line with a guy like this behind you? I mean, it's just maddening!
The man in line moves toward Alvy. Both address the audience now.
MAN IN LINE
Wait a minute, why can't I give my opinion? It's a free country!
ALVY
I mean, d- He can give you- Do you hafta give it so loud? I mean, aren't you ashamed to pontificate like that? And- and the funny part of it is, M- Marshall McLuhan, you don't know anything about Marshall McLuhan's... work!
MAN IN LINE (Overlapping)
Wait a minute! Really? Really? I happen to teach a class at Columbia called "TV Media and Culture"! So I think that my insights into Mr. McLuhan- well, have a great deal of validity.
ALVY
Oh, do yuh?
MAN IN LINE
Yes.
ALVY
Well, that's funny, because I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here. So... so, here, just let me- I mean, all right. Come over here... a second.
Alvy gestures to the camera which follows him and the man in line to the back of the crowded lobby. He moves over to a large stand-up movie poster and pulls Marshall McLuhan from behind the poster.
MAN IN LINE
Oh.
ALVY (To McLuhan)
Tell him.
MCLUHAN (To the man in line)
I hear- I heard what you were saying. You-you know nothing of my work. You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
-->@oromagiI wouldn't be so cavalier in defining social justice as to equate it with Socialism. But your understanding of the phrase is important when considered in the context of your question from post #3:Why would any good citizen be against social justice?I think you would agree how one defines social justice is crucial in being able to answer this question. It is also important because you seem to be using the phrase inconsistently, but that is yet to be determined.
There are two distinct features of social justice, at least as it is most commonly understood, that would be helpful to clarify.First, social justice aims for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
- I don't accept rather than. Justice wants improvement in both. I don't see how you get to more equal outcomes in a fair and reasonable way without improving equality of opportunity. I've never seen a social justice movement that did not want better equality of opportunity. How can one evaluate improvements in the equality of opportunity without at least considering improvements in outcomes? The Temperance movement sought Prohibition as a matter of social justice but there were no equalities of outcome or opportunity implied.
- I think you are defining the term too narrowly.
Second, based on phrasing such as "community level" justice, I assume you would agree that social justice focuses on groups (such as race or gender) rather than focusing on individuals. That would mean that a focus on equality of outcomes is based on group outcomes, not individual ones.
- No. I think of communities as a mix of race, gender, and many other groups. It might be nice to strive for communities that are more alike in opportunities and outcomes but to enforce equality would not be fair or reasonable and therefore not just.
Injustice can be identified as disparities that exist between groups. When a disparity is found, justice demands we redistribute wealth/privilege/opportunity from the advantaged group to the disadvantaged group.
- When has this ever been true anywhere ever? This sounds very like the Fox News Strawman Socialist and unlike any social justice movement I've ever heard of.
Have I misrepresented your understanding of social justice?
Yes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
TheUnderdog, it is just faster to type his old username, Alec.
Plus, that's just the way I think of him. When he was Alec, TheUnderdog overtook RM to become number one on the leaderboards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Moreover, if we’re talking about energy, Pie focused much more of his effort being defensive about his role and engaging heavily with Luna in DP1.
I just picked through all of DP1 and DP2 and can state unequivocally that Pie's number one mission this game was to get Disc lynched.
I understand that you have to NK me now. I hope Earth will ignore you in DP5 and just go straight to the lynch but if you do pull off a SCUM win here, it was well deserved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
-->@oromagiThe first result when searching "social justice definition" into Google is:
- justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
This is also the typical meaning among proponents of social justice. Do you disagree with this definition?
Well, we know that "distribution of wealth" is a trigger phrase for Republicans but to the extent that fair and reasonable wages, equal pay for equal work, equal civil opportunities for equal capabilities, equal civil privileges for equal citizenship, fair and reasonable labor practices, etc are consistent with promoting justice at the community level, I guess I don't see a discrepancy. If you are kneejerking that social justice must mean Socialist then I'm not interested.
And again, my definition of social justice is non-sequitur to Alec's topic. Alec should define the subject of his thesis for himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
-->@oromagialright that makes sense. Hammer already happened but w/e
That's Okay. If you want TOWN to win, just VTL Whiteflame at the top of DP5 and stand your ground.
Created: