Silent? He never shuts up about it. And his guests bring it up constantly too. But their comments are, understandably, mostly sarcastic and passive aggressive, because there is no legal recourse available to fight the choice.
exaybachae
joined 5 months ago
The motivations for a person's good actions are generally less important than that they act good, less you are looking for a way to manipulate them into acting poorly. Only then do the reasons behind their actions become more important than their actions themselves.
God aside, he agrees with the words some ancient people spoke regarding how to be good people and thrive as a society, and no science has ever proven those words wrong... Science agrees, hand over fist.
Research the sins and virtues and extrapolate their outcomes, or look to past examples. Then, when acting as an individual, choose the sin or virtue that best serves the whole community, including yourself.
I downloaded it before watching it.
So bribery. Maine residents are okay with immoral national politics, as long as they get their kickbacks for making it happen.
I'm thinking concessions for being the deciding vote should not be a thing.
So the real leftist plan isn't being played out in politics, it's being played out in business.
Join a co-op or credit union today.
Support local and sustainable businesses.
Support non-profits.
If you can, buy a for-profit and convert it to a non-profit or a non-profit co-op.
Most of the people at the top on the left don't have the drive or the power to enact real meaningful change in our lives, but voting left when you can is still the right thing to do politically. It at least makes it harder for the far right to gain yet more ground.
Like cancer, you can't just ask it nicely to stop killing you, you have to cut it all out.
But unlike cancer in a human body, we can also escape this cancers influence by simply building a separate cancer free body.
Technically we can do both, and hedge out bets a bit, but one is much easier to do than the other.
Interesting stories... But if she held a bunch of soldiers captive in her home with one firearm she likely wouldn't have been able to shoot one and still hold the others captive, as she would've had to reload for the gun to remain a threat.
It's more likely that she held them at gunpoint and then others helped detain them so they could be hung.
If even just one or two soldiers knew they were going to be killed they would've likely risked death to rush her or their other captors, giving themselves at least some chance at survival.
Back then soldiers and people in general usually carried knives too, not just guns.
They have contracts.