Please up vote this for the sake of visibility. It is clear that people here did not read the statement by Biden nor did they actually read the article.

The pardon was because the Republicans undid his[Hunter Biden] plea deal that the department of justice had agreed to. THAT was corruption. Political opponents should not be able to break up an already done pleas deal. The plea deal was fair and Biden said as much, but when Republicans broke up the deal, that's when he decided to issue the pardon.

You really should read more than the headline.

The pardon was because the Republicans undid his plea deal that the department of justice had agreed to. THAT was corruption. Political opponents should not be able to break up an already done pleas deal. The plea deal was fair and Biden said as much, but when Republicans broke up the deal, that's when he decided to issue the pardon.

You really should read more than the headline.

That's a lotta words. To bad I'm not... Readin' em.

Mainly because you're trying to come off as some pseudo intellectual and I have zero time for your self aggrandizing bullshit. Therefore, we'll have chatgpt analyze it for us.

The comment seems to be critiquing the notion that adopting children from orphanages is a simple, universally moral solution to systemic issues related to inequality, privilege, and exploitation. Here's a breakdown:

Key Argument: They're rejecting the "just adopt" narrative as a solution to broader societal problems. They argue that relying on adoption as a widespread practice might erase cultural identities, perpetuate systemic inequities (like class dynamics and imperialism), and disproportionately benefit the privileged. They also point out that this narrative is unrealistic because most people aren't inclined to adopt anyway.

Tone and Delivery: While their frustration seems genuine, the comment still reads as unnecessarily combative and self-congratulatory. Phrases like "lazy, irresponsible... literally erasing entire cultures" and "the nazi shit" feel exaggerated and detract from the argument. The shrug emoji caps it off with a dismissive tone, implying they don't care if others disagree.

Content Validity: There are valid critiques of child adoption as a systemic "fix" for larger issues, such as:

The exploitation of vulnerable families in the adoption industry.

The erasure of cultural identity, especially in cases of transracial or international adoption.

The fact that adoption doesn't address the root causes of why children are in orphanages in the first place (poverty, war, etc.).

However, the way they present these points muddles the argument and risks alienating readers who might otherwise agree.

Final Thought: Their argument has merit but is undermined by the delivery. A clearer, less confrontational approach would help communicate their concerns more effectively without alienating people. For example:

"Adoption can be a compassionate choice for individuals, but framing it as a universal solution to systemic problems ignores the deeper issues of inequality, exploitation, and cultural erasure. It’s important to address the root causes—like poverty and global inequities—rather than relying on a model that often benefits the privileged."

And that's where I disagree. If adoption were pushed as a societal norm, as in something that occurs as often as having a child the old fashioned way, then all of society would benefit massively.

No one is suggesting putting a stop to people having children. What is being suggested is that people be encouraged to adopt as well as have children, or to choose one or the other.

Additionally, it is not being proposed as a universal solution, if that was indeed your intention.

For example, some women may prefer to have children without having their bodies fundamentally altered.

Wtf? It may be A tool of Nazis, but it is certainly not THE tool of Nazis.

Moreover, it is better to adopt a child than to spawn one. You can do whatever you like, but there are hundreds of thousands of kids out there without families.

At the end of the day, you can do what you like, but mass adoption is a positive for our society.

I have no idea how this is supposed to play into Nazi talking points and I don't really give a fuck.

I will happily die on the hill that adoption is better for everyone than birthing more children into society. However, these do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is perfectly possible to do both, and that may be the best outcome overall.

Obligatory: Fuck Nazis

I have a copy of every dragnet ever (I think), x minus one, lum and Abner, and Hopalong Cassidy. If need be, I can put them somewhere for you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: Perfection

Bernie did not "betray" anyone, fuck off with that horseshit.

I don't think I could ever be quick with you

God I missed seeing you in my feed ❤️

Based upon your responses here, I don't believe you. But at the end of the day, you can run whatever you like, but don't encourage others to take stupid and unnecessary risks.

Also, you yourself should consider Linux, specifically Zorin OS. I am 90% windows user, but because I work for an MSP, I end up doing a lot on all of the "major" operating systems. I ran across Zorin and enjoyed it so much that I main it on my work laptop now.

Yes, it says what I have been saying all along. Banks and financial institutions have special service contracts with Microsoft.

You, do not. Don't run old ass windows versions that are not actively supported. This is not a controversial statement.

Your attempt to compare your usage vs the usage of a financial institution is not only a false equivocation, it's particularly stupid in light of the fact specialized contracts exist.