You could save that second if you don’t have doors or just skip the hello

Funny thing is food insecurity means getting fat instead of thin nowadays. We somehow are able to create cheap calories with no substance.

The comment contains several different categories of claims that should not be treated equally: Claims about Heritage Foundation goals The Heritage Foundation has published policy proposals, including Project 2025. However, a claim that the organization has a goal of reducing the U.S. population to 100 million people requires direct evidence: an official document, speech, interview, or policy proposal explicitly stating this. Attributing statements by individual members to the entire organization requires caution. Claims about specific individuals If JD Vance or another public figure has stated a preference for a smaller population, the exact quote and context matter. A statement such as “an ideal population size” is not automatically equivalent to a policy goal of population reduction through coercive means. Claims about famine, disease, war, or mass death being “acceptable” This is an extremely serious allegation. It requires direct quotations or documented policies. A policy that has harmful consequences is not automatically proof that the authors intend those consequences. Policy criticism vs. intent It is possible to argue that certain policies (for example immigration restrictions, deregulation, healthcare changes, or foreign policy decisions) may increase risks or cause harm. That argument is different from proving an intention to cause mass death. Logical issue The comment moves from: “Some members support policies I consider harmful” to: “The organization is equivalent to historical genocidal regimes.” That is a very large inferential jump and requires strong evidence. A rigorous evaluation would ask: What exact document or quote supports the claim? Is it an official position or an individual’s opinion? Does the evidence show intended outcomes or unintended consequences? Are there alternative explanations? Strong criticism of an organization can be valid without relying on claims that cannot be directly demonstrated.

No idea why we let chatgpt chat here but fine 😂

That’s 50 trillion people! Imagine this!

Can you provide a link

This is what profit is creating. There are tools used and marketed only to go back when someone sells bacteria and worms.

That’s not bad as long everyone gets the same share. If you are just the door and get less than it gets to be a problem.

Western Hemisphere? So he is going to attack Europe?

Superheroes does not exist

We can agree that tech gave more power to people they used it to be more authorial. That said when they don’t need worker anymore are we going to be allowed to exist?

Oh no. A country that surveillance is too much forces you to use a app? No no no no you poor thing!

Honestly it’s working. I don’t care what that buffoon is doing. The opposition seems to be without plan why should I care? Let him just do whatever. He is so incompetent he will not even be able to dictator correct.

Don’t worry. I understand that Trump dodged the Vietnam war to make the government smaller and stop helping foreign babies to help US citizens. /S

Bio weapons and chemical weapons exist.

As European we don’t!

What did they wear? Oh wrong topic? /S

Is the us really trying to start a war against Europe? I don’t get why.

Written on iPhone

Would not be vegan. Are you starting a religion?

So true. Was able to get a 200kg safe in my room alone. Didn’t wanted to ask someone