One of the bills, to provide clean water to rural areas in Colorado, if I remember correctly, was passed nearly unanimously in both houses. To override the veto only requires 2/3 of both houses.

It’s just my personal opinion, but I think that if a lawmaker votes for legislation and then doesn’t vote to override the veto, and it’s not some extreme situation, they should be ejected from any government office and pilloried publicly for wasting taxpayer time and making light of their serious duties. Let the people pelt them with rotting fruit.

When I say “extreme situation”, I refer to the idea that some vital information comes out about the bill and that’s the only reason the President vetoes it, to get a better version of the bill passed. Like there might be some technically important legal jargon in the bill that seems otherwise innocuous, and nobody realizes at first. Or the situation the bill is supposed to address significantly changes in the meantime.

When charities go into underdeveloped areas and try to stimulate their economies, they don’t bring in big businesses and try to give everybody a job. They focus on doing things like giving out cheap loans to locals for them to create small businesses. They do this because that’s what actually works.

You can give it a set of instructions in the settings about how to act, so it wouldn’t be a part of the conversation. Even if they added a setting for this, it would do it in the same way.

You can already do this by telling it to act that way.

Isn’t there an old video somewhere of Hegseth saying that the military shouldn’t follow illegal orders?

“What are those?”

They don’t give to charity and they don’t pay taxes, either. They just keep it all themselves.

I’m sure that Vincent van Gogh had no idea that he’d be famous in the future. But I wonder what he’d think if he knew how much we focus on his ear.

Maybe if she specialized in milkshakes

The US began attacking non-combatant Venezuelan boats on September 1. The FIFA peace prize was given on December 5.

So Trump had already started military action three months before he received the bullshit prize.

Cats are often categorized by their coloring rather than breed. Jack looks to be a tuxedo cat.

…The claim they made was that they were wearing it to the office. Also, the screen cap appears to not be from the fediverse, anyways.

He came once about 2000 years ago, and he still hasn’t had his second coming.

I’m guessing this shirt must be a reference to something that I don’t know. If I saw somebody wearing this shirt, the only thing I would conclude is that they must be a furry.

If a home invader breaks into your house, and kidnaps your sister, then says, “I’m taking her out to my van. I’ll be right back to kidnap you next,” you’d be freaking out, yes, but it would be weird to say that you’re freaking out because of the precedent.

Just because they’re man-made distinctions doesn’t mean that they cannot be discussed or don’t have beginnings.

You can argue Newton fit the bill even though Liebniz was a peer of his. Einstein and Oppenheimer, etc.

Those are ones you can argue, though. Nobody would ever seriously argue that Kaczynski was anywhere near the top of his generation. There is no informed list of the greatest mathematicians that has Kaczynski on it.

Let’s imagine that, instead of being caught, Kaczynski simply stopped bombing things and was never caught, and lived out the remainder of his life in that shack. In that case, he’d be an obscure genius mathematician who wrote a few exceptional papers. There are a lot of people like that.

I suspect that while right now, you think it’s “a common phrase for an exceptional mind,” if you really looked into its usage, you’d find that it’s generally used for somebody who actually is uniquely exceptional for their time.

“A once-in-a-generation mathematical genius” is an extreme exaggeration, to the point that I suspect the person who used the phrase doesn’t really understand what it means. The implication of “once-in-a-generation” is that there is about a 20 year window somewhere around their birth where nobody was born who was better.

Where do these grow? Why are insects scarce? Is it cold?

Don’t Confuse Dying for Oil with Dying for Freedom

Okay, we know it’s about oil, but hear me out, What if it was for freedom? Would that make it okay? I think the official justification for the attack is that the US doesn’t recognize Maduro as the winner of the last election and claims that he is running a “narco-state.”

Is that really justification for using military action and taking over a government ourselves? Maybe the US is right about the election and Maduro didn’t win legitimately, but the US didn’t win the election, either. The US is even less legitimate than Maduro ever was.

We all know that this conflict is about oil, but even the justification is an admission of something horrible.