Oh please, you have no concern over that. Even if the US took out all of the problem actors you'd condemn them for the effort. Regardless of who they preyed upon.
I agree, war is far more expensive than feeding people. Although, feeding people is still in the program. After all, Skylab advanced botanical research by decades. But that was obviously a side effect to the primarily military mission of that space station. I don't look forward to war, but it's something people have been doing for a long time. And it's not going to end anytime soon. Maybe in a few centuries. If there's any land left.
They complain about government getting into every little part of their lives but they want government to enforce Christianity on everyone, including a woman and her doctor.
Remembering when longtime Wall Street Journal, opinion collumist, Brett Stephens left his job over Trump and went to work for The NY Times. I see him often on MSNBC. Anyone but Trump. personified.
Elizabeth Warren's detailed platform is a gift. Just wait until The Senator is in front of real journalists, not the cheering section which populates Democratic debates.
It's not about condemning. I was merely pointing out your claim is bullshit. The US aren't as succesful as you made it sound. Just as your personal assertion about me in above quote is bullshit. It all depends on the exact details and motive why and how the US, or any other country for that matter, would do such a thing. There's also an obvious reason why these kind of actions don't happen more often.
I'll buy that when someone else goes to the moon. Success can be an aggregate, sure, but there are some very high landmarks that go into that mix. I see far more high points than low points. But there too are some very low landmarks. The distinction should be made on the basis of having learned from the experiences, as a nation. However, even that is no guarantee mistakes won't be made in the future. But some, like slavery, probably won't be coming back. No matter how many times we hear that republicans are planning for it.
That has little to nothing to do with what we are talking about. I was responding to these claims: I would say nice try but it was a little bit too easy for that Lol. You got nothing better?
Yeah it easily could I'm not sure what you are getting at. The thing is a man who is trans is probably less likely to be interested in the toxic things. They are more likely to be a left leaning tolerant person where to me "toxic" applies to trans-phobia. misogyny, and things like that AKA things right wing males care about.
The necroposting in here is funny. Sorry but whenever i think of trump i always think of these editorial cartoons of him.
All I’m asking is that If the patriarchy is a real thing, shouldn’t we be discouraging girls from transitioning into boys, thereby preventing the “oppressed” to turn into “oppressors?”
If every male would be perceived as an oppressor your question would almost make sense. But the assertion that we live in a patriarchal society does not mean that.