

Good snacking choices! I’m trying to be better about using fruits to appease my sweet tooth instead of candy.
You’re very smart. I didn’t realize that until you called someone a goof, idiot and moron, but now it’s very clear that you have far superior intelligence.
Thank you for your service 🫡
Because that one was over double the length of the record before it and this one is closer to a 35% increase.
Great lengths are gone to, to avoid responding to direct questions. If you can accuse the other person of being in a bad group (bot, capitalist, not actually left, from an instance I don’t like, etc) then you can avoid reflecting on your own philosophies and the flaws that exist in it. Cognitive dissonance avoided and upvotes gained, pretty compelling for our brains.
Acting superior presses the dopamine button. Especially since the other poster keeps being mature and kind in their responses, really gets that feedback loop going.
That your girlfriend?
Yes, I did read the comments.
Aside from perhaps a couple fringe exceptions, there is noting enshrined in law that prevents a felon from getting a job. A company may decide to not hire someone because they are a felon, that is their choosing and not a result of a law.
An individuals eligibility for running for president does not impact whether or not justice, as defined by our laws, is perused against them.
If I’m understanding correctly you think that criminals should not be eligible. It appeared that you were arguing that in our current system folks are able to be above the law because they are eligible to run from president. I was asking how someone’s eligibility causes them to be above the law.
I know things are very emotional now and that totally makes sense and perhaps is leading to the hostility of your comments. With that in mind I feel I have presented what I’ve set out to and will not reply to your further.
How does it result in that?
Being eligible to run for president is not a factor in someone being perused for justice.
What was breathless about the article? Seemed pretty matter of fact in its presentation.
You call the other person a name
You don’t respond to anything they say directly
You do it twice in the same thread
You call something context without providing context
I get why people throw that stat around but I don’t think it’s a fair way to view the sport. You can go in and only focus on those minutes but if you’re choosing to watch closely there’s lots in the middle bits too. It’s probably better to think of that stat as time of action. During that time there’s a chance to analyze how the teams are setting up, what movement and audibles are they making, consider strategy and future actions, etc.
I think probably most of our activities have an ebb and flow and highlighting only one aspect of it would certainly empower someone to try to ridicule or treat it as a waste of time.
Just trying to offer a different perspective because I do think the risk of concussion is worth highlighting but your ignorance is on display which can take away from the argument I think your trying to make.
I see what you’re saying but I do think it’s important to mention his duty as a father is to be there for his kid and extrajudicial “justice” means this father will be in jail causing further trauma for his kid and severely restrict his ability to be a father.
Whoa, were you there?
Why are there quotes around that? Is that a quote from someone?
I’m whooshing on this one :)
But as far as know, nothing in the cop rule book says an anaconda can’t be a cop.
Weird, I want cops to not strangle someone because they may have used a fake bill, or shoot someone because they were called there to help with a mental health crisis, or shoot someone because they busted into the wrong apartment, or to flash bang a baby.
But I suppose that means I want them to be kind to someone actively shooting kids.