the new york times has always been explicitly on the side of the rich and powerful, you've just stopped bothering to pretend to hide it

doesn't he publicly think that sixteen year olds should be married broodmares

also this is a podcaster, why do they keep calling her an actor

that's fair, I do think we're not quite talking about the same phenomenon though. I think you're talking application of rules given the facts of the situation, and I'm more talking about situations regarding application of rules given the identities of the violator/victim.

have you mistaken the democratic party for an actual opposition because they won't do any of that

are you calling for Schumer's resignation because he thinks that's a perfectly fine sacrifice to keep airline profits high

probably something to do with training their customer base for decades to see wasteful and polluting as 'manly'

any selectively applied rule, no matter how reasonable it seems, is unreasonable because of the selective application aspect

we need to seize this webzone from the libertarian pedo defenders who run it

there's a name i hadn't thought of in a couple years

serious backpfeiffengesicht here

the aesthetics of neofascism: lazy, sloppy, looks like shit

it was a pretty clear indication about how Obama's presidency was going to go

isn't some great job creating victory by the doddering racist who occupied the oval office prior to the current doddering racist. pretending the economy was great is one of the reasons the democrats lost in 2024 (and also 2016 for that matter). rich people were doing great, and almost nobody else.