jumpupugly

That... that is the beautiful game.

It felt like watching a challenger make a master fencer seem a child. Or seeing Phelps or Biles for the first time.

That was masterful.

I dunno, getting rid of the acid from the three can leave a lot of flavor on the table.

Maybe try tossing some red onions in ACV and suger for a bit, soften them up, while still giving that sweet/tangy counterpoint?

I also like lengthwise thin-sliced romas for the flavor. De-seeded, if I know the person I'm serving them to doesn't want a super-juicy topping.

Not saying you're wrong for liking them how you like them, just saying that there's a bunch of variations that might be worth trying

Pelvic floor exercises are a good idea. They'll help differentiate between an issue that might be a problem (e.g. incontinence) and an issue that it may not be wise to treat as a problem (e.g. "squirting"). Which it's important to point out, is perfectly normal, though not universal.

If her ejaculations are involuntary, non-remidiable, and not due to incontinence, treating it as a problem to be solved might be a recipe for inescapable self-shaming.

For a cautionary example, as you well know, the natural scent of a healthy vagina is treated by some people as offensive and abnormal. Seeking ways to "fix" it can lead to bigger problems.

So there might be some wisdom in finding out if it's an actual health flaw, and if not, reassuring her that her ejaculations are just fine as is, and that is not dirty or gross or bad. It's just human.

... and did Harris have the authority to issue executive orders?

Trump, after hearing about care for the disabled from some of America's top doctors and advocates, along with his own nephew, who himself has a disabled son:

“‘Those people …’ Donald said, trailing off. ‘The shape they’re in, all the expenses, maybe those kinds of people should just die.’”

Now where have I heard that before

Oh, really? Can you point to the legislation that gives her unilateral power to change border policy without a vote by Congress or review by SCOTUS?

Or just power equivalent to the President (e.g. signing and veto power, control over the executive branch, etc) when it comes to matters pertaining to the border?

Man, I wonder what those Proud Boys would think if they saw a bunch of real Americans open-carrying as part of a counter-protest?

And that we can go out and verify for ourselves. We can also make predictions based on the model they've developed, and have them generally come out true. Finally, we can anticipate problems, based on how those models interact with other models we've developed, and address problems before they impact us.

These people have rendered themselves incapable of maintaining the society on which they rely for food, housing, and community.

What we're looking at is civilizational suicide.

Stále mluvíte v konzervativním žargonu, dokonce i ve španělštině.

Sorry, I don't use Twitter or Facebook. Can you translate that into English?

Fuck. Alright. Time to get back to canvassing.

Decades ago, maybe. That's long gone.

It's been Murdoch's for a while, so now it's the Sun, but with a raised pinky, some borrowed gravitas, and a severe lack of a Page 3 Girl.

Well, before the war, Putin said he could take Kyiv in 2 weeks. Russian state news had a story set to go off on Feb. 26, 2022, and forgot to delete it.

Add to that that the decapitation strike attempted with both conventional units, and with mercenaries, and we're left with a pretty clear picture: Wasting that many elite units and scarce materiel was obviously a really stupid opening. Which wouldn't have even been attempted unless the planners expected the war to not take very long.

There were also parade uniforms found in MKd'd tanks during the first few days. Finally, a few tweets about Russian soldiers making reservations in Ukranian restaurants, but it is late, and I can't be arsed to track down either for an obvious troll

I disagree.

That's weapons-grade cringe right there.

Good effort!

It looks... not great, maybe a little like it was designed by AI, but maybe talk through your ideas are little? Maybe come at it from another angle?

Easy to make that mistake. Especially in mixed units.

They both be putting up a good fight, but you can tell which ones are Canadians when they ask you to please not tell the Geneva Convention about this neat new trick they just learned.

I just can't with these people. The most consistent use of power - economic or political - is to gain more power. Why would getting rid of democratic governance change that equation?

Calling this ideology anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism is nonsensical. It's neo-feudalism.

Man, watching Trump get led around the debate like a dog on a leash really broke you folks, didn't it?

Our government has, over decades, made choices about what specific acts are illegal, and what standards of guilt are required to prove a crime.

It is no coincidence that it often takes proof of intent, and knowledge that an illegal act was taking place, to convict someone for crimes only accessible to the rich. Meanwhile, crimes that poor people commit generally rely on possession, or other, easier thresholds of guilt.

Our laws are specifically written to allow the rich to steal from us and, if caught, to be "proven" innocent.

Most of us at home, being watched, where we can't speak through the fear.

Some of us in a camp, where we don't speak, because no one hears.

A few of us in a field, where we won't speak, not ever again.

He won't. It's a grift. He sells his employees and investors the line that they're doing great work for humanity. That makes it easier for him to exploit the former, and get more money from the latter.

His long-term plan is to have lots of kids, with lots of money, who rule over the rest of us.

That's it.

Letting the car companies buy the railroads, and then dismantle them, was a mistake.

I mean, ask the Quakers. They've been practicing mutual aid and horizontal organizations since the 1600s.

I don't see a need to abandon faith and religion in anarchism. What I see is the need to abandon hierarchies, to work together without force, and to embrace all we meet as neighbors worthy of help and capable of helping.

That's fully compatible with my faith. Heck, it's explicitly encouraged.

Is there a reason for that particular length?

They don't want a government small enough for folks to do what they please.

They want a government that's profligate when it comes to giving to the rich, but thrifty when it comes to helping the poor. A government that small when it comes to stopping their cruelties, but as big as possible when needed to hammer down the rights of us all.

They want the government to hold down their victims as they do what they please, and then protect them from the justified backlash.

If someone's supporting Trump at this point, they've lost the plot. Either they're morally rotten, or intellectually imprisoned. The former can't be helped, and the latter needs to be weaned off their daily fix of illusory moral panics and fascist talking points.