top of page

Brit took your table again?

Replacing So What? with EEE, unexpected 看 material!

Found a study earlier that ties right into the loudest issue in the feed. And if I'm reading this specific article correctly, the statement in question is that the overturn is a problem to those who have dependents with Down Syndrome and autism, caretakers who have additional hardships in obtaining resources. It follows that the speaker's contention is that the hardships would be eased by the judgment that was recently overturned. Bless her heart, not a twist is there in the interpretations that followed. (Adding this because of the photo initially shown in the search results - rather think the point of that thumbnail-title association is that's what they were doing, and you're still mad!)

If memory serves, balance was the point of having the same number of higher-level legislators for all states, then basing the number of lower-level politicians on state populations - though the individuals at lower levels have less power, more constituents increases the number of those politicians as a counterweight to those at a higher level. Increasing the higher-level legislators to match populations makes imbalance more likely and worse. The initial setup already took into account the complaint mentioned here - or perhaps the writer just didn't want to mention the details that address it. (Adding these articles to underscore the bog standard argument used for judgments that don't play along with the wish list.)

It's interesting that a notably left-leaning publication should note this impotence of someone they'd ordinarily prop up, along with what's prioritized instead.

And if citing a fratello whose judgment led him to enable a 兄弟 and a вpat is meant to be convincing on this issue, those bombs dropped ages ago - not that I'm keeping score or anything.

Adding this because I'd like to think that it's easy to differentiate between those who look like victims and who don't; thing is, the face paint and red nose (and sandwich) on this appendix of an issue sometimes gets in the way.

Adding this because it's what happens when government overreach meets PR. (The nearest term I can match to the issue in the feed is 作威作福, though I'd choose 徇私舞弊 for overseas.)

Adding these articles because 1) Vocab 北韩's been that way long before "making;" 2) 豺狼's needle is stuck on that mentality; and 3) Do I have to re-up links to maritime incursions that show they've got their own reasons to ally amongst themselves?

Adding this because haven't I seen this before, with one of the pay-to-prays? (Wonder if 赕佛 fits.)

Ending with this to satisfy my top two.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Classic
  • Twitter Classic
  • Google Classic
bottom of page