To be fair (according to everything I’ve been able to find), you ought to be as, apparently, they’re more favored, over there. I dunno; I do suspect I picked it up from reading and The Wind in the Willows and The Once and Future King were favorites of mine, in childhood, so maybe that’s it.
…wut? Really?
I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT THIS EARLIER.
Specifically, (as a native English speaker) my gut is to do the same thing (participle vs. past-simple) with irregular verbs such as this (others being dealt, learnt, spelt, etc.).
I couldn’t sworn I read something about that usage when I was a teenager but everything I look up regarding them, now, chalks them up to being just an EN-US and EN-GB difference but, otherwise, entirely equivalent.
This is one of the few valid criticisms I can think of. Like, I can get why she’d consider the legislation, considering the myriad of deepfakes made about her (which has got to feel…particularly violating on top of the non-sexual harassment and attention people have put on her since she, basically, first got elected) but there are really valid concerns about the legislation, particularly in the context of this administration.
And I don’t remember her, at least, even addressing those concerns and potential abuses of the law.
I’ve been subscribed to this asshole for nearly a decade (keeping tabs on what that side is thinking and talking about) and this kind of hypocritical positioning is par for the course.
His recent take on Kilmar Abrego Garcia was repeatedly reiterating that he had credible ties to MS-13 and that the president totally has every right to just boot this man to another country but he was worried that Trump’s defiance of the courts might endanger qualified immunity for federal officials.
Maybe we should question how good of an aid that is on its own when the eugenicists would happily love to offer such a service to help them in thinning the herd.
Mostly out of curiosity but what’d HW do? I think we can squarely put more of the war on drugs on his shoulders than Reagan’s but, outside of that, I can think of so many more concrete things Reagan did to worsen and destabilize America (even if the effects were much later) than I can for the 1-term HW (but that may just be unfamiliarity, on my part).
No; you were clear. I dunno what that other person was doing.
Probably because that’s what some had been told they would be taking before entering the slaughterhouse; but just a guess, on my part.
What section does he mention it (if just one or two)? Don’t have the free time for listening to the full hour, unfortunately, but I am curious (if you don’t mind, of course).
The bulk of society doesn’t make a distinction between liberal and the Left; a liberal is someone who is Left-leaning. Ergo, most people will see Bernie as a liberal politician.
That phrase “based on” is doing a lot of heavy lifting, here.
Not to mention circumvents the purpose of alt. text letting those unable to see to know what’s going on in the image.
It’s just like him to make the maximum degree of suffering the point of any inane policy decision he makes…
To be fair, it comes disabled; you have to explicitly go enable it, if you want to use it.
It’s funny because, while not a 1-for-1 cultural fit, Mastodon’s site structure has felt much closer to Tumblr’s. I feel like the reason Twitter people keep saying Mastodon’s insufficient (while, eventually, flocking to BlueSky) is that BlueSky offers a more similar UX, in terms of shunting you along algorithmically. I don’t think there’s any issue with Mastodon’s UI (other than maybe PixelFed, I think it’s the closest Fediverse project to other mainstream social media UI) but I suspect the UX isn’t quite right for people expecting Twitter.
However, I, as a Tumblr transplant, felt right at home.
I mean, I have to assume they meant “oppose” and just mistyped.
Don’t threaten me with a good time, Mr. Paul.
I feel like we’ve run this meme further than is useful; there’s absolutely criticisms to be had about how the separation of church in state operates within American government but it’s hardly the only “developed” (hate that word but you know what I mean) country to have a government that takes for granted Christianity as default; Britain, after all, has a state church – for (pun slightly intended) Christ’s sake – that definitely bleeds into the way its government thinks about what a religion is and how much “religion” gets support.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t prefer (and hope we move towards) a more strict and complete separation but let’s not pretend America is astonishingly unique…
People rarely seem to consider this.