jalapenos

Nothing says legitimacy like having to shoot people en masse in the street

Ok but also the Iran government has not been particularly good right?

Like, the previous king was a clown, true, but this regime hasn't exactly been a steward of the people's happiness has it

If you picked a random baker and put him in charge he'd do a better job

I feel the Iran protests have been quite a bit more shooty

That's why you give them a motto of "to protect and serve". Protection and service are very expensive, and utterances are very cheap.

I think it's just what democracy does, make people to turn off their brains and instead decide if something is good/bad, right/wrong based on whether they like the person saying it.

All you have to do is look at this food pyramid and the old food pyramid and ask "if I had to feed one of these a week to my kid which would I pick".

It's clearly superior and it's just sad that people are so just defiant to good, for who knows what reasons.

I would be especially concerned if the government attacked with non-military tanks.

The government dropping a water tank on your house certainly would be concerning.

Talking his book

Pretty much. Even to the non-religious, when you look comparatively at secular (which heavily overlaps with: leftist) cultures vs religious ones, one can't help but surmise that the goal was to open the gates to being as degenerate as a creative mind can come up with.

I think there are treatments too though. I think there's some drug that can be prescribed that blunts the pleasure of it for those predisposed.

What do they consider the threshold for alcoholism?

I.e. how bad was your drinking before you realized you had a problem?

Lol at the orange clown's outrage. Sure, Putin's never hurt anyone else's home has he...

I wonder at what point Europe just has to say "are we really going to appease aggression again" and just accept it's either now or later.

Very clever!

Can someone explain why GOOG is still sky high despite this?

Let's apply Trump logic:

First, apply huge tariffs in a chaotic way.

Claim this won't affect prices.

Then, fire people from the central bank, to pressure them to nevertheless lower interest rates.

Then, claim to be a force for reducing inflation.

Given the above, what is the nature of this article?

Yes, you guessed it, it's "fake news", presumably by the "radical left".

Misunderstanding why the CEO is paid so much.

If you've ever worked at a company that's a chaotic shitshow, you'll know how strong the effect of the CEO is - it always comes down to the guy at the top not being up to it.

The leverage of the role is enormous, and the strength of someone who can carry out this role well for a large company is sky high - not many such people in the world, and they only need one.

So the math all comes out very straightforward: even at obscene looking salaries, they're still a bargain.

Would be nice to live in a world where the stupidity of "intellectual property" and "copyright" had already been laughed out of the room. But alas we live in this one, the moral and legal equivalent of walking through a park covered in trash.

Usually I go the "didn't deny it" route on responses like these, but it's Christmas.

Smearing the right is absolutely fine - the left have honed this in expertly, so I don't think anyone on the right should be upset by it, instead just they should recognize that their enemy is what they think they are, and that they should at least learn and use all their techniques (since otherwise they'll be at a severe disadvantage since the left are already maxed out in the opposite direction).

Hopefully the result from this is that the center of mentally normal and healthy people will end up empowered.

As suspected, he was being an idiot and driving too fast, killing himself and his passenger.

No sympathy, no grounds for sob pieces.

Passive tense "...killed in..." is wrong here. Correct title "... recklessly killed himself and passenger...".

Because the whole thing wasn't actually wanted. They just needed some theatre to make it look like they were fulfilling their campaign promise.

Trying to get a government to reduce its spending from within is stupid and naive.

There is no scenario, no matter who is voted in, where government spending goes down. They just talk about it, and then increase spending on the things they like (e.g. the last "big beautiful bill").

This was the primary cause of the Trump-Musk spat: former promised the latter a cost cutting campaign, but it was just a trick, used only to destroy those parts of the government he disliked like USAID, after which he promptly neutered it and signed a massive spending bill, basically having conned him.

If it has actually been wanted - something that's literally impossible unless it was say created through an Article 5 convention - it would have been effective.

This, most problems are caused by other people's poor behavior, and the only way AI can fix that is through being able to impose consequences on them - and I don't imagine that startup will get funded

Well not out of the goodness of his heart, for "big beautiful oil fields" or whatever

It's widely accepted that the US lost in Vietnam due not to military defeat, but from the clever Tet Offensive - where they successfully influenced US politics via US journalism, to cause them to simply cease fighting.

Whether they should have bothered in the first place though, given how corrupt and dysfunctional the regime in the south was, is an open moral question.

Playing devil's advocate here, wouldn't Venezuela be massively better off from its "complete collapse of civilization" state and matching ruling class if it simply called up the US and said "hey, want to govern us?"

Sorry

Then they'll have to build their own tech though instead of just fining foreign tech and regulating tech to death. Not really their thing. China's helped by being pro-China.

No you're right, I was imprecise.

Ban EU in X.

Sounds good if bidirectional.

The weapon theory strikes me as silly.

But it's still amazing that we haven't settled where it came from, and instead everyone decided to approach this factual matter as a political one, stupidmaxxing.

Not only that, we all just moved on as if nothing happened, despite this event having killed so many people, and destroying countless other people's lives. Not by natural event, but (under either theory, since it really wasn't that deadly) due to the actions or reactions of people.

Kind of makes one understand where the emotional urge for "judgment" stories like the Egypt locusts in bible etc, where whole societies just get wrecked, motivated by various forms of wanting righteous retribution against society at large come from. The average person's attitude and behavior is just so profoundly contemptible.

I'm not religious, but I wonder when in say 50 years, when many western European countries have become Muslim countries, how they'll handle religious desecration. I do imagine though it won't be PG rated.

Does seem like a very efficient way to indicate male virginity.