yogurt

The thing they changed was cutting holes in the area where the fire was last time to "ventilate" it. I think it's the same fire just blowing out the holes and melting something different.

I don't know if you're falling for it or this is just how you feel, but Newsom was talking to Charlie Kirk who popularized the "groomers" line, calls June "groomer month" all the time and constantly talks about executing "groomers". Newsom softballed it to make it seem like Kirk just cares about sports, and repeatedly dog whistled a lot about how much he agrees with Kirk keeping it ambiguous about what exactly he agrees with.

Maybe you believe Newsom is deep down a good guy and he's just doing this to shill for right wing votes, and once you give him power he'll be normal. But right now all he's doing is telling his audience of out of touch liberals that the "I don't want to see a black pilot on my plane" guy is the kind of sensible conservative Democrats should be bipartisan with.

IMO based on how he talks and the trans bills he's vetoed as governor, Newsom is the type of liberal that likes the idea of being the big guy protecting "these poor people" from dirty rednecks, but is also extremely suspicious that all this gender shit is some kind of Tiktok trend that might get out of hand if he lets trans people have it too easy.

He doesn't, almost all of SpaceX's profit is Starlink. On NASA contracts they bid low and lose money to block competition. Elon bid 2.9 billion for a lunar lander so Jeff Bezos's company wouldn't get it, and it's going to cost Elon 4x that much at minimum if he actually has to finish it, which is why he's trying to kill the moon program.

Early on NASA contracts were funding SpaceX, now he has to pull up that ladder to protect his monopoly, and it's cheaper to just kill NASA entirely.

He can still get government money but once all the technical people inside the government are gone it would work like Boring Company. Draw some CGI of a space monorail and sell it to congress with no process or oversight and grift off hype and fomo.

They say "artificial sun" because that's what it is though, there's no fusion reactions here they're just microwaving hydrogen to millions of degrees to study the kind of thing that would happen IF somebody runs a fusion reactor for 22 minutes.

Their definition of "anti-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) content" is dialed way up into treating "China will fall in 7 days" like good content and anything less than that is Chinese propaganda. If they search for Tienanmen Square and get "pictures of the square without mention of the massacre" they classify that as "pro-CCP". If they get "unbiased historical content" or news coverage about bad shit China does they call that "neutral".

They also don't do anything to compensate for Tiktok's overall censorship, they went looking for massacre and genocide on the platform where people say corn and unalive, they don't compare how Tiktok deals with China vs any other subject.

They did a survey of how pro-China people are and how much they use Tiktok, but don't do anything to adjust for Tiktok being publicly associated with China. They could've put a question in the survey about whether people were boycotting Tiktok for anti-CCP reasons but didn't, which looks like they were fishing for a result.

I remember NCRI from back when they did the study comparing Antifa to ISIS, and they're still doing weird shit like that, if you like Luigi you're "Killing with Applause", colleges being too woke and anti-genocide is the "Corruption of the American Mind", if you do DEI it's your fault white people are racist.

A comparison of the writings of Chancellor Fortescue and Thomas More reveals the gulf between the 15th and 16th century. As Thornton rightly has it, the English working class was precipitated without any transition from its golden into its iron age. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm

The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

What makes Marxism communist is structurally you are more brutally exploited than a serf. A lord who kills his serfs stops being a lord, a boss who kills his employees is hiring. That nature of the exploitation left open an opportunity for a minority bourgeoisie to form and replace the lords last time, but this time capitalism doesn't allow room for that. It flattens everything into one homogenized capitalist class and one homogenized working class, so the only possible revolution is those two switching places. If Marx believed you were freer or more powerful than a serf he wouldn't be communist, he would be looking for which faction of workers was going to break out into a middle revolutionary class and replace capitalism with their own system of exploitation.

It's both. Many, many issues have 15 people who can explain what they don't like and try to do something about it, and then 15 million people who don't like the same thing but can't explain it, won't try, only vote when they feel like it, and will never see any scolding you try to do.

Leaves out the one catastrophic demand that the US actually cares about

(D) taking appropriate steps to return to United States citizens (and entities which are 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens) property taken by the Cuban Government from such citizens and entities on or after January 1, 1959, or to provide equitable compensation to such citizens and entities for such property;

"At the beginning of 1959 United States companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands - almost all the cattle ranches - 90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions - 80 percent of the utilities - and practically all the oil industry - and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports. ... The symbol of this shortsighted attitude is now on display in a Havana museum. It is a solid gold telephone presented to Batista by the American-owned Cuban telephone company." - JFK

Black beard guy is a Kick streamer called Destiny who was banned from Twitch for asking redneck militias to mow down BLM protesters because he thought BLM was hurting Biden's poll numbers.

Blonde beard guy is Owen Shroyer who works for Alex Jones and went to prison for January 6th.

Uncensored America is a litigation troll that gets student Republicans to invite them to hold a debate, and then announces they're inviting PR disasters like these two so they can sue the university if they try to back out.

The second one is more like what the original razed 17th century mosque looked like. Deng was the one who gave orders to open fire in Shadian, he's not good guy liberal here. Mao's strategy was to yell at people to be atheist. Deng's strategy was a religious red light district. Keep it alienated from secular society, make the mosques look like they were air-dropped from Saudi Arabia instead of having been there for 500 years, and give people the choice to be religious or Chinese but not both.

Starting before Xi China realized that wasn't working, especially in Xinjiang, so the new strategy was to integrate. That means less of Deng's "laugh at this weird foreign religion" architecture and more of "respect China's history of patriots who are Chinese first and Muslim second."

"Other devices" means manually-emplaced munitions and devices including improvised explosive devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated manually, by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time.

It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.

"Booby traps and other devices" is one legal thing, there's no legal distinction. Pager bombs are always a war crime regardless of circumstances.

From a liberal perspective what's the difference between MLs having "critical support" for the Soviets or China and anarchists celebrating historical anarchists like Makhno and the CNT-FAI who burned churches and killed kulaks too? If anarchists are online supporting US foreign policy then liberals can assume you're just a liberal and any claimed anarchism is just larping, but if anybody throws a brick through a Starbucks window that's tankie authoritarianism stealing rights and freedoms from the Starbucks shareholders.