brandon

APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD

Puppies & cream

If I had to venture a guess I'd say it was probably the tower at nearby Minot AFB. Perhaps the commercial flight's approach took them over the bases' airspace or something.

The problem is that federal income taxes are generally paid directly by employers to the federal government. It's not clear by what mechanism states and/or cities might withhold them.

It's true that the State of New York, and NYC are both large employers, so hypothetically I guess they could refuse to collect income taxes from their employees on behalf of the federal government, but certainly the IRS would still hold the individual taxpayers responsible for those taxes at the end of the year.

The cruelty is the point.

If Jesus was real and did come back we'd probably never know because he would get deported and die in a Salvadorian torture prison.

You know, I don't recall Medicaid being mentioned once in the bible.

I do seem to remember something about giving all of your possessions to the poor though. But maybe I am imagining that.

In New York the "Court of Appeals" is the highest state court, higher than the New York "Supreme" court. It's just a weird naming thing.

The difference is that Stewart's fucking slaps.

It's gorges or whatever

I heard a saying once (I cannot remember the provenance) that could be paraphrased like: "The liberal is someone who is for all movements except the current movement; against all wars except the current war."

There are two important points:

1. Every major movement in history has incorporated elements of violence;
2. Which movements we retroactively consider as violent is determined by sociological consensus.

For example, the American civil rights movement is today considered by people to have been largely non-violent. However at the time the movement's opponents definitely thought of, and portrayed it as a violent enterprise.

Opponents of a movement will always portray that movement as violent. The status-quo consensus perspective on historical protests is written by the victors. Therefore, the hypothesis that "non-violent" protests are more likely to succeed than "violent" ones is self-fulfilling. When protest movements succeed we are less likely to consider them "violent".

I was chastised by a random person at my local protest for joining in a chant of "Fuck Donald Trump".

Many of these people are still so attached to the idea of civility politics that they don't even want anyone to curse.