Sorry. For my defense, I claim Godwin's law. Sometimes, when looking at something written online, it's hard to distinguish between sarcasm and sincerity because people are fucking crazy.
bucho
joined 1 year ago
Except Musk is a fraud, and the "boring tunnels" are shiny deathtraps that cities are scammed into investing in at the cost of things like better public transportation infrastructure.
Musk is not a hero. He's a narcissistic billionaire with delusions of competence.
LOL - fair enough. I totally misinterpreted that. :D
I'm sure battlefield medics are aware of clinical death. But, being on a battlefield, they have limited options for how to deal with it.
Good. Maybe the rest of 'em will get the hint and go the fuck home.
Not according to doctors.
I mean, it's totally possible to die and get better. A cousin of mine had a nasty car crash a few years ago. Died twice. He's fine now. Granted, I don't think he's killed anybody so the point is moot for him, but people absolutely can have defined K/D ratios.
I mean, yeah. That'd be nice. But I sincerely doubt Ukraine wants to drag on the war until Putin leaves.
It's super easy to end the war. All Russia has to do is withdraw their troops, cede all of the territory they stole from Ukraine, return the hundreds of thousands of children they kidnapped, pay reparations for all of the carnage they caused, and promise to never invade again. That's it. The war will be over.
I'm guessing it's because he's an unhinged mental patient who has enough money to hire the best lawyers. But the smell thing, too, of course.
Either you're the stupidest person who has ever received a PhD in the world, or you're a fucking liar. There's absolutely no god damned way that you can hold this many imbecilic, counter-to-reality views while having had to engage with primary sources for the multiple years it took to achieve a PhD. Stop lying, seriously. Nobody buys your bullshit anyway.
Take solace in the fact that bureaucracy is a hindrance to morality. An individual employee of the US DOJ could be completely mortified by the idea of supporting Trump, but the bureaucratic handcuffs on that employee force him/her to run it past legal before making a decision. And legal's concerns are wider than just whether they will protect this one man. That one man happened to be president, through some unfortunate and wildly incomprehensible series of events. So their question is whether they will defend a president from some allegations of misconduct that had a tenuous connection with his presidency.
And while every normal person within that select group would be morally outraged by the idea of supporting a president in this instance, they would have to defer to their colleagues because the question is broader than one president. It's a matter of whether their organization will support any president given these circumstances. And because the question is necessarily broadened, it would require consensus, which requires time.
So once again, bureaucracy hinders common sense. But, ultimately, they made the right decision. Unfortunately, because of the red tape, it was sufficiently delayed that they defended the scumbag for a period of time. But now they're not, and that's good news.