The anti-abortion stuff makes a lot more sense when you realize that pro-life is just a front, and the real reason they want more babies born is it results in more minors being brought up with questionable parenting that they can prey on.
And “anti-law enforcement agitators” = non-whites who don’t want their children kidnapped.
Total non-issue. I’d be surprised if anyone can provide a single credible instance of this biting someone in the ass.
So is this the “law and order” they keep talking about?
Yeah, the phrasing definitely makes it seem like “one” refers to “plane” not “model” here. Headline is textbook clickbait.
Seems that if you tank education enough, the lack of subtlety becomes more of a feature. Lots of people who only pick up on loud, repeated, simple messages are still able to vote.
A police officer is then heard saying, “We’re letting you go. You can’t come back. If you come back, you will be arrested.”
Carroll is heard to say, “OK.”
It feels like this would have been a good time for follow up questions to clarify what, specifically, they’re threatening to arrest him for, rather than just “OK.”
Not to imply it isn’t an asinine reason to ban you, but that’s not a complete sentence.
“The negotiations could have been a Signal chat” would be be, but what you have is a dependent clause that does not contain a verb indicating what the negotiations did.
What a pointless article. It doesn’t even address the key line of the law they’re using for justification, which states “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.” That detail should be the main topic of discussion when the governor is actively against the involvement of the National Guard.
Not even escalate, just retaliate at the same level. The first part of the video isn’t what will get played on or matter to the viewers of fox news.
I know the similarities aren’t anything new, but: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-proposes-ban-child-free-lifestyle-rcna172616
No commander in his right mind would trap their troops on low ground like that unless it was a sacrifice.
Or they know the violent threat they’re using as justification is total fiction.
Something about “not sending their best.”
I don’t believe for an instant that anybody’s ever sincerely thought he was joking. Anyone saying this is not conversing in good faith, but I doubt that sort of thing surprises anyone reading comments on fediverse posts.
It’s common in other formal contexts too, such as academic research.
It can’t be just me, but RFK saying objectively wrong things related to health doesn’t strike me as newsworthy at this point.
On one hand, I understand that reporting the truth is important to ensure it’s out there and people paying attention are aware. On the other, I feel like it gives an air of legitimacy, making it seem more like a debate instead of what it is: a loud idiot with a powerful friend spouting nonsense while failing at a job for which he’s unqualified.
Would definitely be a good time to rekindle his push to go to Mars.
This administration sure claims to fuck up a lot.
This article’s a week old already. The lawsuit was “moving forward” and “advancing” per articles going back into May, so that’s not a great example of something happening.
This particular article wasn’t contributing anything new when written, and posting it now is just re-regurgitating the same stuff that’s already been out there for weeks. Their point is valid.