It would be more like, they invented the atomic bomb, use it to take Iwo Jima and then the United States goes back to sulking and wondering how the hell they’re going to take the home islands.
In lotr they use the undead to win the battle of pellenor fields but they don’t use it to win the war. It’s a legitimate plot hole.
Right but, why bother with smoke and mirrors when you have an immortal unbeatable army in the first place.
Even in the book its not really explained why the oathbreakers only help out for one fight; the only difference is in the books they never actually go to Minas Tirith they just help against the corsairs.
Haha I’m committed to the truth but not that committed. Anyone can edit an article to put in whatever blurb they want, but it won’t stick for long if most of the community agrees with it and it has decent citations (none of which are in the screenshot). Also the text isn’t written professionally, “love to cuddle” is not language that would normally appear in a scientific wiki article.
That is true, thank you for explaining that to me. Although I read the dissent and what Sotomayor said was that the president would get their day in court to determine if those actions were constitutional, not that this ruling pre-approves them to do so. Meanwhile Roberts said these concerns are overblown… idk really, I don’t like the ruling, it basically feels like an expansion of qualified immunity to the president, which makes things more difficult for prosecuters but not impossible.
I’m not saying this fact about penguins isn’t true, I don’t know, but this isn’t a real wikipedia screenshot like it acts like it is. In fact, searching for “homosexuality is common in penguins” only returns results for transcriptions of this meme.
The big thing everyone is missing here is the ruling says the president cannot be prosecuted for actions that are constitutional. So this does not mean the end of democracy or whatever people are saying. The president can’t stay in office after his term expires. The president cannot order his political opponents killed- in fact, the Supreme Court issued a statement on that just this year.
Did you read the article? The scope of this ruling is pretty narrow.
That’s kind of a weird take. Centrists have not always done that (otherwise society would get steadily more conservative century after century) so you can’t just wave it away as meaningless. Instead I think liberals need to look at what is driving away centrists. (it’s immigration)
What is your objective, to hold people accountable or to save the planet? Saying that individuals are responsible for the majority of climate emissions is not about shifting blame. Oil companies and bad luck (society picked fossil fuels before we really understood climate change) are to blame, but now we have to switch to damage control mode and that falls on individuals (and the government and corporations, but in a democratic free market society those both wrap back around to individuals anyways). It’s just the hand that we have been dealt.
Yeah, down with the violence of the state! Although, to prevent bad actors and armed gangs we do need to have some sort of militia to protect the vulnerable from the greedy and cruel, human nature being what it is. And to prevent said militia from turning into the very thing it was supposed to protect us from, we need some sort of oversight, preferably from a democratically elected body, that tells the militia how to act and prevent them from violating the rights of the people. Oh wait I just reinvented violence of the state hehe.
People in Somalia hearing that America has a 1.8% homelessness rate: “wow. Things are really just as bad over there.”
I was stunned, and my belief in society is shattered. Gonna give my girlfriend a call so I can feel better. (Crazy story by the way. She texted my number by accident! She’s out of my league pretty and she has given me some amazing investment tips. Can’t wait to meet her irl!)
…yeah that’s not a real photo
By early in her career do you mean when she was like 18? I’m not saying she hasn’t had a lot of help. But I disagree with the idea that she’s just a figurehead. She is listed as a writer for pretty much all her songs, and you can usually tell a Taylor Swift song just by the sound/lyrics, which isnt something i can say for a lot of pop artists. If it was Antonoff the whole time then Bleachers would be more popular (relative to Swift).
-Very skilled songwriter. I don’t necessarily like all her stuff but I legitimately think she’s the best songwriter (meaning, composing music and writing lyrics) of her generation. Probably since Bruce Springsteen or Billy Joel.
-Very attractive and a good performer
-Well connected in the music industry let her get an early start/inside track
-obsessed with being popular. I don’t mean that in a negative way, but her primary objective with her music is to please as many people as possible. I think the documentary “Miss Americana” on Netflix explains that very well-at one point she straight up says “I just want people to like me” or something like that. That means her music/career has always focused on mass appeal as opposed to making more… limited-appeal music like most artists do at some point in their career
-she’s kept a remarkably clean image even through being famous for close to two decades. It’s very telling that the worst thing her haters can say about her is “but her plane uses a lot of carbon!” This means parents let kids listen to her, brands love her as a sponsor, nobody boycotts her, etc.
-one last thing, I think people love her songs because they feel like they’re true. Her songs have a very intimate, almost confessional quality that a lot of artists strive for buy often comes off as fake.
Might have a blue light filter on your phone or something