America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,319 comments
  • 1,767,916 views
Would Puerto Rico be a blue state? There is plenty of machismo bull in Latin America to suggest it might be a red state.
 
reason.com

Ron DeSantis confirms (again) that his attack on Disney was political retribution

It's been less than three weeks since The Walt Disney Company sued Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over what it claims is an unconstitutional "campaign of
reason.com reason.com
It's been less than three weeks since The Walt Disney Company sued Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over what it claims is an unconstitutional "campaign of government retaliation" personally directed by DeSantis.

And in a newly published interview, DeSantis seems to admit that's pretty much exactly what happened.

"When Disney first came out against the bill [H.B. 1557]…people in the legislature started floating this idea of going after Reedy Creek," DeSantis told The American Conservative's Bradley Devlin in an interview published Monday by the right-leaning publication.

That bill—dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill by the media—forbade the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in elementary school classrooms (a ban that has more recently been expanded to include all public schools in Florida). In response to Disney's criticism of the bill, DeSantis began a monthslong crusade against the company and the Reedy Creek Improvement District, the special governing jurisdiction which contains Disney's Florida theme parks and associated properties. That effort culminated, for now, in DeSantis appointing a new board to oversee the zone and Disney's subsequent lawsuit alleging targeted political persecution.

In the new interview, DeSantis initially tries to pass off the idea as having originated with unnamed members of the state Legislature. Later, he argues that "Disney had fallen out of favor with our base" and become "unpopular with a lot of the legislators."

But the interview leaves little doubt about who was leading the effort. Devlin writes that, after Disney criticized the bill's passage, DeSantis "and his team" started digging into the company. Later, after the initial effort to simply repeal the Reedy Creek district nearly collapsed amid a series of legal and fiscal complications, DeSantis talks about guiding the process that ended with the state seizing control of the board that runs Reedy Creek.

Through it all, DeSantis tries to frame the Reedy Creek issue as a unique example of corporate welfare. But there are hundreds of similar special improvement districts scattered across Florida. Only one of them is under attack by DeSantis—and it's no coincidence that it is the district run by a corporation that's engaged in a political spat with the governor.

Indeed, DeSantis has openly bragged about engaging in political retribution against Disney, including in his recently published book. The 77-page complaint filed by the company last month is littered with examples of the governor and his political allies confirming that Disney was a singular and politically motivated target.

Asked about Disney's lawsuit alleging that political retribution, DeSantis says it misses the mark. "I mean, the idea you have a First Amendment right to corporate welfare or having a local government that you basically control with no accountability is ridiculous," he says. The attempt to take control of Reedy Creek did not "touch Disney's free speech rights," did not "pull ABC's broadcast license," and did not remove Disney's "ability to speak out," DeSantis argues.

But that's a deliberate misunderstanding of what the lawsuit claims. Disney isn't alleging that DeSantis directly threatened the company's right to broadcast its content. Nevertheless, DeSantis deliberately revoking Disney's self-governing status is still an unconstitutional violation of the company's right to free speech and due process, the company alleges—as the Supreme Court has consistently held.

Later in the same American Conservative piece, Oren Cass helpfully clarifies the situation.

"The interesting thing about the Disney example is that DeSantis wasn't going after Disney because Disney was being woke," says Cass, executive director of American Compass, a right-wing think tank. "What elicited response was Disney's decision to try to get involved in the political process."

Exactly. And here's the thing: The individuals who form a corporation have the right to get involved in the political process—and to do so without the threat of political retribution from elected and appointed government officials. The right to free speech does not end at the boardroom door.

"If the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion of a 1996 Supreme Court case that dealt with a very similar situation: a government attempting to revoke a government-granted privileged in response to the owner of a towing company exercising his free speech rights.

"Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible," Kennedy concluded.

Unfortunately, that sort of interference with constitutional rights is increasingly being cheered on the political right. Cass tells The American Conservative that long-held conservative principles about the free speech rights of corporations (and the people who run them) need "rethinking." Elsewhere in the piece, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts lauds DeSantis for the governor's willingness to wield the power of the state against private businesses.

"This is our moment to demand that our politicians use the power they have. This is the moment for us to demand of companies, whether they're Google, or Facebook, or Disney, that you listen to us, rather than ram down our throats and into our own families all of the garbage that you've been pushing on us," Roberts tells Devlin. "This is our time to demand that you do what we say. And it's glorious."

There may never be a more concise and apt description of what Reason's Stephanie Slade calls "will-to-power conservatism" than those few sentences. And, coming from the president of the Heritage Foundation, those words carry extra weight. This is no longer a fringe idea within the conservative milieu; it is the viewpoint of the Republican establishment and the calling card of one of the leading Republican governors in the country.

The courts will have the final say on the legal and constitutional elements of DeSantis' assault on Disney and Reedy Creek. Politically, however, DeSantis is quick to denounce those who disagree with his approach. "I think too many people on the right have basically been corporatists over the years," he tells The American Conservative.

But the rights of private entities—individuals, corporations, whatever—are fundamental to a well-functioning society. Without strict limits on the realms where politics can intrude, there will be no realms into which politics does not intrude, and the breaking down of those barriers should not be cheered.

Saying so isn't corporatism, it's constitutionalism—something that used to matter to leading conservatives.
Click to expand...
 

FwYloPCXsAI94xG
Click to expand...
Normal connie bitch doing normal connie bitch things.

Here's the same connie bitch threatning lethal force in response to exercise of a constitutionally protected right in a since-deleted Facebook post:

0decf34c-347d-4a18-8535-04a9006e4c6e-higgins.jpg
 
Finally, a weapon to surpass the Navy SEAL Copypasta.
 
Not surprised. That's the old Giga-Chad former Cop attitude of Clay Higgins coming out by immediately manhandling someone who didn't warrant the response.
 


Turns out that, as miserably as they may be treated, it's actually not.



To NYPost's...credit?...the story isn't their own complete fabrication but one presented to them and they ran with it without verifying...seemingly anything...because it's so "Biden BAD" and of course other outlets, pundits, parrots, propagandists, talking heads, and feeble-minded rubes treated it as gospel.
 
Last edited:
TexRex


Turns out that, as miserably as they may be treated, it's actually not.



To NYPost's...credit?...the story isn't their own complete fabrication but one presented to them and they ran with it without verifying...seemingly anything...because it's so "Biden BAD" and of course other outlets, pundits, parrots, propagandists, talking heads, and feeble-minded rubes treated it as gospel.
Click to expand...

So the real story is who concocted this lie and paid for it? But that's not the story anyone will remember.

EDIT: So it was the woman named in the article, veteran's nonprofit head Sharon Toney-Finch, who actually cooked this up, and it was Republican state assemblyman Brian Maher who fell for it. Amazingly, he's the one who actually confronted her about the lack of evidence, reported it as a hoax, and distanced himself from it. Very un-Repubican of him.
 
Last edited:
The scenario surrounding Dianne Feinstein and her absence is getting beyond outrageous and frankly just sickening.

In February 2023, Dianne Feinstein, the 89-year-old California senator and longest-serving woman in Senate history, took an indefinite medical leave of absence due to a shingles diagnosis. As her absence prolonged, only returning back to the Senate a week ago, pressure mounted for Feinstein to resign from the Senate, some even coming from top California Democrats like Ro Khanna. Feinstein's staffers, as well as Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, denied calls for her resignation and instead called for patience and understanding regarding her health. Given that with Feinstein's absence, there would be a dead-even split between Democrat and Republican senators voting on judicial nominees, no judges appointed by the Biden admin could be confirmed.

Why does this matter? One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration were a record number of federal, state, and district judges that were appointed, many of which are right-wing ideologues. The Biden admin was also, until Feinstein's absence, able to confirm an above average number of judges. With abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, union rights, and fair election laws at stake, it would make much sense to Democratic leadership that the Biden admin ought to appoint as many judges as possible and do whatever it would take, right?

But clearly not. This is practically a Weekend at Bernie's scenario unfolding with Feinstein, who, having returned to the senate looking frailer than ever and now wheelchair-bound, is showing signs of severe Alzheimer's and shingles-related encephalitis and not able to carry out the duties of being a senator. Verified reports by anonymous Democratic senators of her having Alzheimer's, as well as subsequent calls for resignation, have occurred since 2020. Her cognitive abilities are impaired to such an extent that she cannot remember anything beyond a 5 to 10 minute timeframe.

Here is a particularly troubling interaction Feinstein had with a reporter yesterday, in which she forgets that she was absent for months, and becomes testy.

R: "How has your return to the Capitol been received amongst your colleagues"?
F: "What have I heard about what"?
R: "About your return to the Senate"?
F: "I haven't been gone. You should follow... I haven't been gone, I've been working".
R: "You've been working from home, is what you're saying?"
F: "No. I've been here. I've been voting. Please! You either know or don't know".

In a just world, an elected official suffering this level of cognitive decline ought to resign much earlier and without controversy. But, the opposite is happening. There seems to be a concentrated effort amongst both Durbin and high-ranking Democrats, as well as her own staffers, to prevent her from resigning and keep her in the senate as long as possible. This, of course, is directly at odds with California, the largest state in the Union, having full representation, and pro-democracy judges from being appointed. Is deference to one senator alone really more important than these issues and the precedent that would be set?

The reasons it appears Feinstein is actively being inhibited from resigning go beyond just simple respect for the senator's dignity and personal wishes, despite her advanced Alzheimer's. If she were to resign, California governor Gavin Newsom would appoint a senator in her place. He is very likely to choose progressive Barbara Lee- the lone representative to be against the war in Afghanistan in 2001- especially as he announced that in that case, he would appoint a Black woman to the senate. However, not only are there fears that Lee would be too much of a progressive and outsider, it would prevent the more moderate and party-favored Adam Schiff from becoming senator. Furthermore, it was even revealed Thursday that Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Christine, is Feinstein's primary caregiver, despite previously denying her involvement with Feinstein. Pelosi has endorsed Schiff in the 2024 California senate election. While Schiff has the advantage of fundraising, endorsements, and favoritism of the party's establishment, it is more probable that the median California Democrat would prefer a more progressive candidate like Barbara Lee or Katie Porter in terms of issue positions. At this point, it seems like a coin toss whether Schiff or a progressive challenger would win the Democratic primary, but it seems clear that keeping Feinstein in the Senate as long as possible, preventing Newsom from appointing Lee, serves to benefit Schiff.

The precedent set here is frankly appalling. It demonstrates that one senator's own reluctance to resign, despite a diminished mental capacity and inability to perform duties reasonably, supersedes California having full representation in Congress and the Democratic party and voters' concerns for maintaining a stable democracy, voting rights, abortion rights, LGBT rights, etc. It is a common argument that progressives who are disenchanted with the party should continue to vote Democrat because unlike Republicans, democrats will not appoint reactionary judges, but if the entire process is going to be stalled due to the party's insistence on Feinstein, then that only belies this notion. Shame on Feinstein's staffers/aides, Dick Durbin, the Pelosi family, and whoever else is involved for allowing this to prolong; surely if it were their own mother or grandmother suffering from Alzheimer's and post-shingles complications, they would not force them to stay in their job as long as possible.

www.politico.com

Feinstein's primary caregiver: Pelosi's daughter

A quiet caretaking arrangement has raised questions about whether Nancy Pelosi has the ailing senator's personal interests at heart.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
www.nytimes.com

Why Dianne Feinstein, Like Many Before Her, Refuses to Let Go (Published 2023)

A life in Congress comes with power, prestige and perks that can be hard to leave behind. For some lawmakers who view their job as their identity, the prospect is unthinkable.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Last edited:
GranTurNismo
The scenario surrounding Dianne Feinstein and her absence is getting beyond outrageous and frankly just sickening.

In February 2023, Dianne Feinstein, the 89-year-old California senator and longest-serving woman in Senate history, took an indefinite medical leave of absence due to a shingles diagnosis. As her absence prolonged, only returning back to the Senate a week ago, pressure mounted for Feinstein to resign from the Senate, some even coming from top California Democrats like Ro Khanna. Feinstein's staffers, as well as Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, denied calls for her resignation and instead called for patience and understanding regarding her health. Given that with Feinstein's absence, there would be a dead-even split between Democrat and Republican senators voting on judicial nominees, no judges appointed by the Biden admin could be confirmed.

Why does this matter? One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration were a record number of federal, state, and district judges that were appointed, many of which are right-wing ideologues. The Biden admin was also, until Feinstein's absence, able to confirm an above average number of judges. With abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, union rights, and fair election laws at stake, it would make much sense to Democratic leadership that the Biden admin ought to appoint as many judges as possible and do whatever it would take, right?

But clearly not. This is practically a Weekend at Bernie's scenario unfolding with Feinstein, who, having returned to the senate looking frailer than ever and now wheelchair-bound, is showing signs of severe Alzheimer's and shingles-related encephalitis and not able to carry out the duties of being a senator. Verified reports by anonymous Democratic senators of her having Alzheimer's, as well as subsequent calls for resignation, have occurred since 2020. Her cognitive abilities are impaired to such an extent that she cannot remember anything beyond a 5 to 10 minute timeframe.

Here is a particularly troubling interaction Feinstein had with a reporter yesterday, in which she forgets that she was absent for months, and becomes testy.

R: "How has your return to the Capitol been received amongst your colleagues"?
F: "What have I heard about what"?
R: "About your return to the Senate"?
F: "I haven't been gone. You should follow... I haven't been gone, I've been working".
R: "You've been working from home, is what you're saying?"
F: "No. I've been here. I've been voting. Please! You either know or don't know".

In a just world, an elected official suffering this level of cognitive decline ought to resign much earlier and without controversy. But, the opposite is happening. There seems to be a concentrated effort amongst both Durbin and high-ranking Democrats, as well as her own staffers, to prevent her from resigning and keep her in the senate as long as possible. This, of course, is directly at odds with California, the largest state in the Union, having full representation, and pro-democracy judges from being appointed. Is deference to one senator alone really more important than these issues and the precedent that would be set?

The reasons it appears Feinstein is actively being inhibited from resigning go beyond just simple respect for the senator's dignity and personal wishes, despite her advanced Alzheimer's. If she were to resign, California governor Gavin Newsom would appoint a senator in her place. He is very likely to choose progressive Barbara Lee- the lone representative to be against the war in Afghanistan in 2001- especially as he announced that in that case, he would appoint a Black woman to the senate. However, not only are there fears that Lee would be too much of a progressive and outsider, it would prevent the more moderate and party-favored Adam Schiff from becoming senator. Furthermore, it was even revealed Thursday that Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Christine, is Feinstein's primary caregiver, despite previously denying her involvement with Feinstein. Pelosi has endorsed Schiff in the 2024 California senate election. While Schiff has the advantage of fundraising, endorsements, and favoritism of the party's establishment, it is more probable that the median California Democrat would prefer a more progressive candidate like Barbara Lee or Katie Porter in terms of issue positions. At this point, it seems like a coin toss whether Schiff or a progressive challenger would win the Democratic primary, but it seems clear that keeping Feinstein in the Senate as long as possible, preventing Newsom from appointing Lee, serves to benefit Schiff.

The precedent set here is frankly appalling. It demonstrates that one senator's own reluctance to resign, despite a diminished mental capacity and inability to perform duties reasonably, supersedes California having full representation in Congress and the Democratic party and voters' concerns for maintaining a stable democracy, voting rights, abortion rights, LGBT rights, etc. It is a common argument that progressives who are disenchanted with the party should continue to vote Democrat because unlike Republicans, democrats will not appoint reactionary judges, but if the entire process is going to be stalled due to the party's insistence on Feinstein, then that only belies this notion. Shame on Feinstein's staffers/aides, Dick Durbin, the Pelosi family, and whoever else is involved for allowing this to prolong; surely if it were their own mother or grandmother suffering from Alzheimer's and post-shingles complications, they would not force them to stay in their job as long as possible.

www.politico.com

Feinstein's primary caregiver: Pelosi's daughter

A quiet caretaking arrangement has raised questions about whether Nancy Pelosi has the ailing senator's personal interests at heart.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
www.nytimes.com

Why Dianne Feinstein, Like Many Before Her, Refuses to Let Go (Published 2023)

A life in Congress comes with power, prestige and perks that can be hard to leave behind. For some lawmakers who view their job as their identity, the prospect is unthinkable.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
She really wants to die with her boots on, doesn't she?
 
GranTurNismo
The scenario surrounding Dianne Feinstein and her absence is getting beyond outrageous and frankly just sickening.

In February 2023, Dianne Feinstein, the 89-year-old California senator and longest-serving woman in Senate history, took an indefinite medical leave of absence due to a shingles diagnosis. As her absence prolonged, only returning back to the Senate a week ago, pressure mounted for Feinstein to resign from the Senate, some even coming from top California Democrats like Ro Khanna. Feinstein's staffers, as well as Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, denied calls for her resignation and instead called for patience and understanding regarding her health. Given that with Feinstein's absence, there would be a dead-even split between Democrat and Republican senators voting on judicial nominees, no judges appointed by the Biden admin could be confirmed.

Why does this matter? One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration were a record number of federal, state, and district judges that were appointed, many of which are right-wing ideologues. The Biden admin was also, until Feinstein's absence, able to confirm an above average number of judges. With abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, union rights, and fair election laws at stake, it would make much sense to Democratic leadership that the Biden admin ought to appoint as many judges as possible and do whatever it would take, right?

But clearly not. This is practically a Weekend at Bernie's scenario unfolding with Feinstein, who, having returned to the senate looking frailer than ever and now wheelchair-bound, is showing signs of severe Alzheimer's and shingles-related encephalitis and not able to carry out the duties of being a senator. Verified reports by anonymous Democratic senators of her having Alzheimer's, as well as subsequent calls for resignation, have occurred since 2020. Her cognitive abilities are impaired to such an extent that she cannot remember anything beyond a 5 to 10 minute timeframe.

Here is a particularly troubling interaction Feinstein had with a reporter yesterday, in which she forgets that she was absent for months, and becomes testy.

R: "How has your return to the Capitol been received amongst your colleagues"?
F: "What have I heard about what"?
R: "About your return to the Senate"?
F: "I haven't been gone. You should follow... I haven't been gone, I've been working".
R: "You've been working from home, is what you're saying?"
F: "No. I've been here. I've been voting. Please! You either know or don't know".

In a just world, an elected official suffering this level of cognitive decline ought to resign much earlier and without controversy. But, the opposite is happening. There seems to be a concentrated effort amongst both Durbin and high-ranking Democrats, as well as her own staffers, to prevent her from resigning and keep her in the senate as long as possible. This, of course, is directly at odds with California, the largest state in the Union, having full representation, and pro-democracy judges from being appointed. Is deference to one senator alone really more important than these issues and the precedent that would be set?

The reasons it appears Feinstein is actively being inhibited from resigning go beyond just simple respect for the senator's dignity and personal wishes, despite her advanced Alzheimer's. If she were to resign, California governor Gavin Newsom would appoint a senator in her place. He is very likely to choose progressive Barbara Lee- the lone representative to be against the war in Afghanistan in 2001- especially as he announced that in that case, he would appoint a Black woman to the senate. However, not only are there fears that Lee would be too much of a progressive and outsider, it would prevent the more moderate and party-favored Adam Schiff from becoming senator. Furthermore, it was even revealed Thursday that Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Christine, is Feinstein's primary caregiver, despite previously denying her involvement with Feinstein. Pelosi has endorsed Schiff in the 2024 California senate election. While Schiff has the advantage of fundraising, endorsements, and favoritism of the party's establishment, it is more probable that the median California Democrat would prefer a more progressive candidate like Barbara Lee or Katie Porter in terms of issue positions. At this point, it seems like a coin toss whether Schiff or a progressive challenger would win the Democratic primary, but it seems clear that keeping Feinstein in the Senate as long as possible, preventing Newsom from appointing Lee, serves to benefit Schiff.

The precedent set here is frankly appalling. It demonstrates that one senator's own reluctance to resign, despite a diminished mental capacity and inability to perform duties reasonably, supersedes California having full representation in Congress and the Democratic party and voters' concerns for maintaining a stable democracy, voting rights, abortion rights, LGBT rights, etc. It is a common argument that progressives who are disenchanted with the party should continue to vote Democrat because unlike Republicans, democrats will not appoint reactionary judges, but if the entire process is going to be stalled due to the party's insistence on Feinstein, then that only belies this notion. Shame on Feinstein's staffers/aides, Dick Durbin, the Pelosi family, and whoever else is involved for allowing this to prolong; surely if it were their own mother or grandmother suffering from Alzheimer's and post-shingles complications, they would not force them to stay in their job as long as possible.

www.politico.com

Feinstein's primary caregiver: Pelosi's daughter

A quiet caretaking arrangement has raised questions about whether Nancy Pelosi has the ailing senator's personal interests at heart.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
www.nytimes.com

Why Dianne Feinstein, Like Many Before Her, Refuses to Let Go (Published 2023)

A life in Congress comes with power, prestige and perks that can be hard to leave behind. For some lawmakers who view their job as their identity, the prospect is unthinkable.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
It amazes me that this is what American government has come to, and the voters allow this crap by casting votes for criminals to take office. American politics is disgusting as the old guy (not naming names but I think everyone knows who this is) who touches kids constantly.
 
fastone371
It amazes me that this is what American government has come to, and the voters allow this crap by casting votes for criminals to take office. American politics is disgusting as the old guy (not naming names but I think everyone knows who this is) who touches kids constantly.
Click to expand...
I don't like Biden at all, but he's not disgusting. He just has the same cognitive functions as Reagan did in his second term.

But yes, Americans vote for criminals. This is why people like George Santos can get elected, why Matt Gaetz keeps his job despite stealing a cabana boy and buying underage girls, and why nearly half the votes will go to Trump in 2024. It's why people like Nancy Pelosi keep getting elected despite being guilty of the same crime Martha Stewart was guilty of. It's why Kwame Kilpatrick managed to stay mayor of Detroit despite killing strippers. Crimes mean very little in the grand scheme of things even though the people in charge of the country should be some of our best.
 
Joey D
I don't like Biden at all, but he's not disgusting. He just has the same cognitive functions as Reagan did in his second term.

But yes, Americans vote for criminals. This is why people like George Santos can get elected, why Matt Gaetz keeps his job despite stealing a cabana boy and buying underage girls, and why nearly half the votes will go to Trump in 2024. It's why people like Nancy Pelosi keep getting elected despite being guilty of the same crime Martha Stewart was guilty of. It's why Kwame Kilpatrick managed to stay mayor of Detroit despite killing strippers. Crimes mean very little in the grand scheme of things even though the people in charge of the country should be some of our best.
Click to expand...
Though Reagan wasn’t diagnosed with Alzheimer’s until over 5 years after his second term ended. Both Reagan and Biden have shown occasional memory lapses appropriate for their age and stress level associated with being President, but not quite indicative of Alzheimer’s.
 
GranTurNismo
Though Reagan wasn’t diagnosed with Alzheimer’s until over 5 years after his second term ended. Both Reagan and Biden have shown occasional memory lapses appropriate for their age and stress level associated with being President, but not quite indicative of Alzheimer’s.
Click to expand...
I guess Biden just really reminds me of how my grandpa was in the beginning stages of dementia. I'm sure age plays a part, but I know a number of people in their 80s who are "with it" better than most people. Hell, my great-grandma lived to be over 100 and played golf, bowled, and drank like fish well into her late 90s.
 
Amanda Gorman, the amazing young woman who recited her poem "The Hill We Climb" at Joe Biden's inauguration, has has her book banned by by the Bob Graham Education Center, a K-8 school in the Miami-Dade School District, after receiving exactly one complaint that couldn't even correctly identify the author.



This is the complaint.
Fw2Gl1MaQAUcVd.jpg


This is the "offending" section.

"We've braved the belly of the beast,

We've learned that quiet isn't always peace,

and the norms and notions

of what just is

isn't always just-ice.

And yet the dawn is ours

before we knew it.

Somehow we do it.

Somehow we've weathered and witnessed

a nation that isn't broken,

but simply unfinished"

This is the person who made the complaint.
 
Last edited:
"Do you have a massive chip on your shoulder?"

"Are you grandstanding?"

"Lemme guess, you do this instead of actually accomplishing tasks valuable to society?"

...really ought to go on the form.

INFORMATION ≠ INDOCTRINATION
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
443 444 445
Replies
13K
Views
614K
MatskiMonk
MatskiMonk
Dylan
2025 NASCAR Discussion Thread
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Eggstor
Eggstor
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
446 447 448
Replies
13K
Views
731K
E_Spori
E_Spori
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
753
Dotini
Dotini

Latest Posts

Back