WaltJRimmer

No. I think the whole community has only had three deleted posts, two of which were spam. But I could have tried to encourage what members we have more by taking some initiative and sharing memes, starting discussions, things like that. I've seen other mods who helped grow their community in that way, but it's not what I'm built for at the best of times.

I do thank you for the words of encouragement, though.

I guess they're trying to insinuate that there's a conflict of interest because he worked for a government agency and Wikileaks leaked documents pertaining to that government agency.

But, like... That would be like saying no judge could oversee the case of someone who attacked a courthouse because they work for the same legal system. That would be a real loophole in the law if by breaking the right ones, you just couldn't be tried anymore.

Would you be more comforted to know you weren't alone?

I can almost understand the Personal Liberties Libertarian, which I think is what the philosophy was originally supposed to be about. But we often see Corpo-National Libertarians or Totally-Not-An-Anarchist-I-Swear Libertarians, and both of those are baffling to me.

The alternate history where Caeser spent the end of his life in horny jail.

Yeah. If this hadn't been banned already in Canada, it makes me wonder what other laws I just assumed were common in Western republics and democracies actually aren't.

THAT HITS HARD, RIGHT HERE, IN MY EMOTIONAL PROCESSING UNIT.

Most people don't actually know what logic is. I would ask him to define logic to see where he's coming from. Because most people either don't have a definition or if they do it's different than the one the person they're talking to has. But to do that, you'll also want a definition you could explain to someone else going into asking the question.

I agree with you. But it's important to still point out and want to fix problems even in the "better party." We can't simply be accepting of "be less bad." We need to always strive to improve. And weakening the connections between Wall Street and Washington is a big progressive goal that the old guard of Democrats have directly opposed.

Does the bill specify who they're going to be paying the money to, though? Because an infrastructure bill saying we're going to spend a certain amount of money on these projects can predict changes in certain industries, but being on a committee and saying, "We're going to hire this specific company with this huge government contract to do this work," can tell you exactly what company is about to have a huge boost to their value.

Well, time to fill my life with meaningless debauchery, because it's not like there's a future to plan for.

I wonder how they'll choose who gets crushed to death at every screening.