I remember a stretch playing gta vice city in high school where it briefly slides into banger territory between the 50th and 60th listens though

this is almost verbatim the right wing line from the 90s defending the right for media orgs to just say whatever incendiary thing...they shouldn't beholden to standards because their audience doesnt have to believe what they say

I was a freshman at utexas for the usc title game in 06. stakes aside, this is the first game I've watched live that came close

truly living the spirit of the pilgrims though

cantaloupe, like cilantro

maybe it's ironic, maybe it's exactly what you'd expect, but man this stuff is exactly the total inability to experience criticism (either of themselves or a favorite thing) or entertain alternative viewpoints that they complain about

my favorite thing about this is that liquid death is legitimately excellent water, like, you could have skipped the nonsense and just successfully marketed as the best bottled water you've ever had

became extremely relevant in the first admin too, but it's kinda amazing how good structure and process don't mean anything without will to act

I tried this once in high school and got blocked badly because I was too slow for the move to work

my dad used to tell me that a liar often has a terrible time trusting people. I wouldn't be surprised that his essential conmanness is why he believes so fervently that sellers are getting one over on buyers

there's only one who can and that's one of many reasons what happened in November was such a tragedy

www.google.com/amp/s/www.al...

this was the platform that I referenced, and I stress, not good in any absolute sense, and certainly not good when considering past actions, but clearly better than anything trump wanted to do

but it seems obvious that he's not. Even just judging by the last month of escalation. You guys read this as "dems good! genocide doesn't matter!" which is very far from what I'm saying. Probably my fault for trying to have a conversation about such a sensitive topic on this forum with strangers

I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand. I'm not defending Israel or the actions of the dems post Oct 7. What i am saying is that the Harris platform was to try to stop the killing, and the trump one was to give netanyahu whatever he wanted. If you think trump is better for Gaza, then fair enough

humor me and walk me through it: by what moral principle or reasoning is voting for a nonviable candidate that holds a good position superior to voting for the viable candidate likely to get the best possible outcome

this perspective seems to prioritize the nominal endorsement of the actions represented by your vote over the impact to the people of Gaza. As someone who voted D in large part because their platform was better for Gaza, I've not been able to square this. Any thoughts?

podiatrist told me i had to wear arch supporting house shoes to walk on hard floors. Got some, and it's been game over ever since

butter chicken on a biscuit, fried chicken and mashed potatoes on the naan, maybe throw a little butter chicken in with it