No kink shaming.

Yes. Those were my favorite parts.

Lol, why in the world do you weirdos think USA should reign them in? Not thier party, not thier tamales.

You are the fascist problem of communism.

The part you wrote. The first post definitely, and then also this last post. It’s the words you used, and then the order you placed those words in.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I’m responding to someone saying you can’t debate it’s a war crime. And your response is terrorism is not real.

You are a poor Russian troll, sir. And you should be worried someone will throw you out a window for your bad arguments.

I mean. It legally doesn’t fall under the definition of terrorism, so there is that argument, lol.

I bet that felt good 👍. And your very small group of an echo chamber agreed with you.

The problem is you want to feel better. Not change something. Some people just like feeling better than others, others like making other things better.

This type of argument may make you feel better, but it doesn’t really help anything but make you think better of yourself. Listen to what others say in discourse, or they won’t listen to you.

Far too many make enemies out of allies and hurt their own cause in the process.

Lol, if there was an anti-anybody militia that sometimes acted against other states within the US. The US would raid their complex, set it on fire, and shoot people trying to escape.

Then, the government would blame the children and other non-combatants’ deaths on the militia. The public then will watch documentaries made on the subject over dinner.

Pager bombs aimed at extremists are not an American concern. Even if there was a level of non-combatant causilities. If anything, it’s a fun news blip of the week and will be forgotten in less than a month.

Hezbollah paramilitary targeted by ISF black ops spooks is the same in your mind as a UK Labor MP being assassinated?🙄

Militia not backed by a state are classified as unlawful combatants.

Honestly, it’s a pretty brilliant idea. It did what it was intended to do.

Nah I matched the tone of who I was responding to.

Intresting paper. It is not the conclusive evidence that you think it is. It’s ok, reading science is hard.

Paper concluded that the vegan diet did not seem to have adverse effects, but they had a very small sample size and the expiriment went on for a very short duration.

And then they site scientific papers that disagree with their findings. So there definitely is science out there that disagrees with the vegan diet being ok.

A person on the internet whose mother minored in meteorology doesn’t agree with scientific consensus! How do we move forward now?