You think is Jesus comes back he’s gonna wanna see another fucking cross?

Jesus: “Dad, I’m not going back till they’re wearing fishes.”

Great minds and all, they come to the same conclusions.

Having never been to Britain, this is the most British thing I have ever seen animals do. Blame Guy Ritchie.

They let Feinstein legislate with full blown dementia. As long as they can do what the lobbyists paid them to, these kinds of people likely aren’t going anywhere. It costs a bit of money to own a representative and their owners want as much ROI as possible.

Aperture Science. We do what we must, because we can. For the good of all of us. Except the ones who are dead.

My mobile client has a tagging function to tag users so I favor tagging and downvoting whenever I see stupid. That way others have a heads up. Blocking defiantly is better for most.

Hands down the most advanced and secure smartphone os is grapheneOS.

https://grapheneos.org/

It only runs on pixel devices. App sandboxing, buffer overflow protection, separate users, optional sandboxed google play if you need it for banking apps, automatic reboot after a set time to re encrypt your filesystem, assigning permissions for app access to folders and the list goes on and on.

You swear on it when you take the Oath Of Office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

However,

The Constitution provides no standards for determining whether a President has violated their oath. The fact that other branches interpret the Constitution, and may do do inconsistently with the President, creates difficulties in determining whether the oath has been violated. Just as some Presidents have suggested that the oath may require them to disregard laws when doing so is necessary to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, some lawmakers have argued that the President’s oath requires them to execute all laws, regardless of whether the President believes them to be constitutional.

The Supreme Court has not addressed these competing views, and the oath and its surrounding text do not suggest that questions about violations of the oath were intended for judicial resolution. The Court has held that the President is generally immune from civil or criminal liability for official actions taken while in office, which may impede judicial resolution of questions relating to a President’s violation of their oath arising during the President’s tenure. The Constitution’s justiciability requirements are another potential obstacle to resolution in federal court.

Impeachment provides a vehicle by which Congress may adjudicate a President’s alleged violation of their oath. Articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson charged the President with being unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office. Draft articles of impeachment to be used against President Richard Nixon alleged that President Nixon violated his oath, though he resigned before these articles were adopted.  Articles of impeachment adopted in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton charged the President with violating his constitutional oath, as did articles of impeachment adopted in both impeachments of President Donald Trump.

The political process provides another check on the President’s violation of their oath. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton suggested in various contexts that political accountability might help ensure the President’s fidelity to their office. In his second inaugural speech, George Washington observed that violating his oath would invite the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1-5/ALDE_00013936/

This series of video is so awesome. Didn’t know there was a book. Now I have to buy it!

Justice. Whats the right thing to do?. A free Harvard class by Profesior Michael Sandel.

Fucking ADHD, I meant to post this somewhere else. Leaving it here though out of lazyness.

Begun the mech was has.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Barrons good with the cyber.

Kind of what i was trying to get at, most of the countries in Europe have dignity and wouldn’t the majority of the US fucking up their functional governance. And the US joining GB would be just a horrible hodgepodge on your doorstep figuratively.

To be honest I’m happy the way you are too. I wouldn’t want my countrymen fucking that shit for you either.

No offence to the Brits, but there are far better countries in Europe for the US to be dissolved by and absorbed into. Think of Boriski Tories and Trumpets joining forces, their history of Thatcher and Reagan and the neoliberal hellscape they unleashed on the world. I just don’t see Europe benefiting.

Might be able to get behind MADN (Make America Danish Now) or MAFN (Make America Finish Now). Though again I don’t see what they would get out of the deal besides a .33% rise in right wing nutjobs and another .33% rise in neoliberals to drag them down. I really just don’t see Europe benefiting.

I hope this will help redeem your regretful decision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLm5oSJRxIU

That’s not a time machine, that’s a phone blue booth.

Alright you primitive screw heads, listen up! You see this? This, is my boomstick! The twelve-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart’s top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That’s right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. It’s got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That’s right, shop smart shop, S-Mart. You got that?

At a medium pace.

We’re all mad down here!