I see. So fuck all presidents, then? Or, perhaps, you really were saying absolutely nothing with your original comment, and don’t like it pointed out that it was a content-free hot take?

Of course it isn’t, hence simply declaring “He’s a war criminal!” is insufficient to say much of anything. Since that’s what you did, I’m still waiting on your clarifying caveats and convolutions why Bush the Lesser is a “bad” war criminal, while Obama or W. Clinton are “good” war criminals. Or, if you choose…

What president isn’t?

Isn’t the primary purpose of a movie to entertain? Or at least a major purpose? If so, in what sense could an entertaining movie be “bad”?

Right, which is why I think your question/accusation makes plenty of sense for Christians to contemplate; I think Christians should be more engaged in asking why Christianity doesn’t seem to make things better very often and just as often tends to make them worse. It’s just, if you give no credence to Christianity as…

That’s an odd and arbitrary place to draw the line and say, here, here is where all this misogyny started. Early Christianity has plenty of misogynistic baggage, but it was pretty much entirely a function of its Hellenic and Judaic predecessors, which were also insanely misogynistic.

I’d say that the first two-thirds of the movie is amazeballs. The last third, while still OK, is a bit untethered.

If they let go of the abortion issue they lose everything; evangelicals will almost certainly drift leftward, which is historically their more comfortable home anyway, and the remainder of the GOP wouldn’t be able to sustain an electable presence in most places, much less nationally.

A significant difference between then and now is the proportion of the population that concurs with the sentiment. Nixon resigned, in large part, because large swaths of the American populace, including leaders in both major parties, were extremely uncool with an untethered president.

And or course Lorien’s question was “Why are you here?”, so it works perfectly.

As a veteran, how do you feel about the context? Trump first blamed his predecessor, and then the general corps, for the death of Owens. Given that context, isn’t using Owens widow as an extended applause point to further deflect responsibility at a political event a teensy bit objectionable?

Neutral does not mean inert.

Yes.

That’s...not really true. I’ve seen projections by western scientists which reached similar conclusions. The real x-factor is whether they are ground-level detonations or airburst. Ground level detonation kicks much more particulate material into the atmosphere, creating the hypothetical shroud effect that would lead…

It would depend entirely on whether the sabotage was done before the pipe was in use, or after. In the latter case, whose land is fouled would heavily depend on where in the pipe route it was sabotaged.

Ugh, I still don’t get why the Aeneid was made. Didn’t we have the Iliad? Isn’t that enough of Troy?

The singular ‘they’ has been in use in English since the 14th century.

That’s literally the plot mechanic, in its entirety, for Travelers. It’s kind of shocking how much mileage and moral ambiguity can be squeezed out of that premise.

I dunno. I think seeing that the Shoah is still within living memory, jokes about wiping out the Jews are still, eh, too soon. It kinda doesn’t matter what the intent behind them is; people who have experienced genocide are not required to have a sense of humor about a repeat.

Well, you clicked, didn’t you?