The gas stoves themselves aren’t the only reason, but they help contribute to a lower lifespan. Also 2 years over the course of, like, 75 years? Yeah that sounds about right

To be fair, hordes of people believing in the Anti-Christ is also supposed to be one of the signs

Somebody get this man some ice to fry!

While I do admit that the latter option is much funnier, it’s probably the former. That or they built all the above-ground rooms perfectly to scale, but didn’t know the exact layout of the service/security tunnels? Idk, but that is definitely an odd choice of wording

Answering both of our rhetorical questions at once: “because they were black”

How the fuck is “acquitted conduct sentencing” allowed and not a flagrant violation of justice? What the hell happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?

Lol wrong SSN, but I think you knew that

Mr Cody has all of Warmbo’s sticky corn cream

You suck, Warmbo!

I also watched the Rachel Maddow expose the other day (not my only source, but certainly the most recent)

In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one’s view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you’re not being fair at all; you’re giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don’t want to admit you’ve been played

In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one’s view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you’re not being fair at all; you’re giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don’t want to admit you’ve been played

Did you even read the rest of the article? Or did you just Ctrl+F “Trump” and “Harris”?

I agree in principle, but I feel like I should point out that mindset is very similar to what we all thought back in 2016, and he ended up ‘winning’ because we underestimated his chances. Unfortunately, we’ll just have to let hindsight be the judge

So this summary I’m going to give really does not do justice to the whole situation, but I’m going to try to be brief-yet-informative:

In 1921, Tulsa, Oklahoma, a black teenager, Dick Rowland, was arrested for ‘assaulting’ a white woman (most reports say he likely just tripped and accidentally touched her as he fell; she declined to give a statement). At the time, the black community in Tulsa was one of the most financially successful in the country, colloquially called “Black Wall Street.” Meanwhile, the KKK and racism in general were at a historic high across the entire country, not just the South. As news spread over the arrest, a large group of white people (some of whom had been deputized earlier that day for this exact purpose) arrived at the jail to lynch Rowland as well as a smaller group of black people who arrived to defend him from what was certainly going to be his death. Some sources disagree on how EXACTLY the violence started but the general consensus is that the police convinced the black group to go home but someone in the white mob tried to disarm them before they left, possibly even trying to wrestle away someone’s gun. A shot was fired, and then many, many shots. Over the next 16(ish) hours, white mob violence burned down 35 square blocks of Black Wall Street (at least 1250 homes), somewhere between 50-300 people died, many hundreds more were injured, and not a single criminal charge was brought to anyone. Also insurance companies refused to compensate the black families because obviously

Fast forward to 1996, and the city of Tulsa formed a committee to investigate the Massacre (only 75 years late). The committee found that the city was at least partially responsible and should (among other things) pay reparations to the few remaining geriatric survivors who would have been mere children at the time. The city refused to do follow their advice (even though they were the ones who MADE the committee in the first place) so a lawsuit was attempted. It was thrown out because the statute of limitations (which was only 2 years for a civil rights claim) had long since passed. Although the city DID give out some medals to the survivors as if they were fucking Olympic athletes or something and not the victims of a state-supported hate crime/murder spree

It’s another example in a very, VERY long list of American hypocrisy, broken promises, and racism that we refuse to even acknowledge on an official level. It’s kinda similar to modern-day Japan denying that they committed any war crimes during World War 2 despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary

And yet, they still refuse to even consider taking any kind of responsibility

deleted by creator

You got me. I could’ve sworn that was a still image until I got jump scared by Sisko

Completely agree with your point, not trying to detract or anything, but why 69?