Honestly if the person written a story is dead and the none is getting money or it I do not care.

So by stabbing themselves they prevent another country to decide on their own?

So a roundabout for Americans?

When your friend convinced you to go to church and get molested and there is no God

Pikachu

Besetzt

People should be angry

Honestly if you handle a gun there should always some form of punishment. Don’t know the legal system there but something like reckless killing. No matter how it happened. To kill someone you need to do a lot of things wrong and it does not just happen.

No it’s from the military you relied on is going to be forcefully be paid with Greenland and we see after that.

The USA turned into a state that does not stick by agreements and just relies on strength. You do not get help when you need it you are going to be sucked dry and maybe get the possibility to stay alive.

Who could be behind a hate for Firefox? Did you read it in your Google feed?

Don’t forget. Without the sweet dreams we have now

Stop talking and fight that Democrats or Republican are better! /S

You guys will never achieve anything you will suffer until the country dies!

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

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.

Had to check now it’s not funny anymore 😞

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.

Hitler wrote what he is going to do. People didn’t take him serious and everyone thought oh I get an advantage. Oh this doesn’t happen to me. Later when it happened to them it was too late as the people who it didn’t happen to didn’t wanted to help because it didn’t happened to them.

Oh I hated uAmerica for it but it was better than to be threatened with war and have cover ops run on your territory.