And we’re still seeing the chemtrails, not every day but still being sprayed over like roaches.

To clarify, are you saying you believe that long-lasting condensation trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft are actually “chemtrails” consisting of chemical or biological agents, sprayed for nefarious purposes undisclosed to the general public?

Thanks! Thats vaguely what I remember from the gulf war timeframe. I think we got cable a couple years after that.

And there’s an argument to be made that a single sentence stating an opinion with no rationale or justification doesn’t add to the conversation.

But let’s be honest, whatever “etiquette” may be, people here vote how they want, for whatever reason they want.

If it matters that much to you then you might prefer an instance where downvotes are disabled. Or, if you use an app, find one, like Voyager, that allows you to turn vote visibility off.

Why worry so much about someone who downvotes and won’t engage in discussion with you about what they downvoted?

Opinions can be unpopular. Complaining about downvotes is as unpopular on Lemmy as it was on Reddit, if not more.

Hey, I have a little grey in my beard!

As someone who was only just alive in 1985 though, I’m curious where you were in the US in 1985 and if you remember how big or widespread the news coverage was on the MOVE bombing?

That’s true, and I did already know about it.

However, being 1 year old at the time it happened I wasn’t in a position to speak up about it or to “allow” it to happen unchallenged.

The original question was should the US have entered in 1939. That word implies a moral perspective.

Should verb

1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions.

I can assure you, since it was my question, that should was used in reference to obligation or duty. So while it can be referencing correctness (morality), it wasn’t.

The US was isolationist, but should it have been. Should any country be? (Draw your own historical parallels to today).

Assuming your asking about correctness then that would depend on the person answering’s opinion and when they are answering from. Again, it is easy to say now, with access to all the information post-event but, clearly, in 1939 the reigning belief of the US population seems to have been “no”.

America shouldn’t be the world police, but it should help resource a world police force. And to be fair, the US did provide a huge amount of non military resources to Europe throughout WWII.

Here we agree, mostly. America also contributed 407,316 lives of its soldiers and 671,278 injuries to others.

I myself wonder if American hegemony would exist today if they had entered the war in 1939.

A large part of both the rise of America as a world power and world police role came about initially because of the war.

Between a form of legal profiteering in lend/lease, the huge industry boom during and post-war and the fact that Europe faced so much destruction and needed a lot of rebuilding, America’s rise came about. Then, rather quickly after I’d say, the perversion of their role began into what it is today.

In my opinion, America should have worked to withdraw over time and let their allies take over the “policing” role in their areas of concern, or actually allow NATO to work as intended.

Edit: On a separate note, I appreciate the civil discourse and conversation. I am well aware of the faults America has, they are many.

I wonder how many mid-50s or older Americans are on Lemmy?

Doesn’t matter. A Grand Jury proceeding, as I understand it, is almost always controlled by the prosecutor and results in an indictment if they want it to.

There’s no defense present or argument against indicting, it’s just a prosecutor explaining why they think there should be an indictment and presenting their “case”.

I think we can safely assume the DOJ prosecutor is operating on political orders and not in service of the country or the law.

I like this one. It’s similar to what I’d pick from English which is amble.

It means to walk at a slow, relaxed pace, often in a leisurely way.

Fair enough. Goodbye!

I thought CBS was the one eye network.

Yeah, I’d say that would cover them pretty well. Also, happy cake day!

Did the government claim it was accurate to the law? I’m guessing just providing code doesn’t open the government to liability. That would fall on anyone who implemented it. I always assumed that’s why for-cost software has Ts&Cs that indemnify them unless you pay extra for the protection.

It doesn’t matter what men anyone without female reproductive organs think, it’s none of their fucking business. It shouldn’t even be a discussion.

A man person without female reproductive organs only gets to decide whether they’ll be there or not if the woman person with female reproductive organs decides to not terminate the pregnancy.

Edit: had to modify my statement to satisfy the @SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one. Apparently they know a lot of trans men who are against abortion.

No. Spending time around people different from myself offers me different perspectives, interesting conversations etc.

Hanging out with someone exactly the same would be like living in an echo chamber with a yes man.

There’s a lot of issues going on, but one of the biggest is nothing about that was illegal.

I disagree with you here but not because of the reason Newsom gave. The deployment of Marines is a direct violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1385.

Thanks for posting this! Saves me from waiting until I see it in my All feed collection to block it.

I see what you mean on the growing healthy communities bit.

That plus private votes, nah, I’m good.

I was interested in Outer Worlds and No Man’s Sky around the same time and played OW first.

I enjoyed it while I played it and completed the story of the main game.

Then I played NMS and enjoyed that a lot too but when I went back to OW for the DLCs I got bored quickly.

Outer Worlds just seemed less fun after No Man’s Sky.