unsourced images on a random post in the fediverse
Bottom right of the image literally reads: "List source: whatbidenhasdone.wordpress.com"
The site isn't as thorough with sourcing from there, but they have a blog post with various sources cited, and their twitter account is full of sources for their claims.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24645
...as if Ukrainians don't have the capacity to think for themselves. Putin/Russian wouldn't give actual security guarantees on their end. It would also have required changing the constitution. Also after seeing the horrors of the war, they weren't ready to just roll over.
One of the roads near my house was removed completely.
All roads near my house were removed completely.
Two different implications, no?
Yes, the title implies something more extreme than is actually proposed, but that's why I read articles (usually) before commenting.
They would have had the money and time for the CGI if they didn't spend so much in footage for all of Morn's damn monologues.
Oh agreed: I just thought the meta-nature of the players themselves being unsure of the veracity of character information might make things weird for folks uncomfortable with gossip. In any case I think it sounds like a fun idea!
You're getting dragged, but I think I get your point: that it might seed suspicion and distrust among not only the characters but the players?
I think it should be Rule 0 that the DM and players all respect each other's boundaries, so consent is always part of the equation IMHO. Likewise, if everyone at the table insists on playing a certain way that I'm uncomfortable with, then it's time for me to find a new table.
You just don’t realize how good we have it here, even if it means we have to work hard sometimes and get up early and spend five days a work working for someone else. That’s an opportunity millions of other humans can only dream of having.
Do you ever reflect on the fact that "we" have it good "here" because other people are suffering?
We are incredibly fortunate, but it comes at a serious cost. The cheap electronics and clothing and tchotchkes we drown ourselves in is made on the backs of folks less fortunate (not to mention the biosphere as a whole). We didn't sign up to be on the side of exploitation, and we don't want to live in ignorance of what supports our way of life.
I've got some student loans....
It's what it costs you now, and you don't have alternatives now.
Maybe this will help you think about the future differently: be it planning to move or getting a different job so that you can use alternative transport, making smaller changes that would allow you to not use a car as much, or even long-term decisions like championing for change at the legislative level that might aid development of better transportation access.
Sorry, I took a more international route with the terminology: I meant state as in The State, not an individual state in the USA. Federal laws restricting the purchase of a firearm is IMHO the State interfering with the Second Amendment, if you're taking a severely strict interpretation of it.
So that's my question: is it OK to have the Federal restrictions on what you can buy (e.g. requiring a permit!), and from disallowing Felons? I'm a gun owner myself, but if you go back to what I opened with: the discrepancy between "The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun" and seemingly OK with some Federal oversight is a hangup for a lot of us. If a handful of laws are common sense (no felons), why can't we enact other common sense laws?
If I can barge into this comment chain, the confusion seems to stem from your initial comment.
It’s not really “common sense” though. The Constitution clearly says you have a right to own a gun.
The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun.
It’s a Right, not a “right”*.
Isn't the application of an FFL the state requiring a permit to own a (certain kind of) gun? Likewise, the state telling folks they can or can't own guns just because of a few measly felonies...isn't that against a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment? Doesn't that deny them a "Right"?
They didn't say it was, they were using what's called a metaphor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
Not everyone can participate in active resistance.