Posts

In a New York Times op-ed, Romney suggested strategies to face Putin in such a scenario.

Romney said continued support of Ukraine was necessary to avoid the subjugation of other countries.

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney suggested in a New York Times essay that “NATO could engage” in Ukraine, “potentially obliterating Russia’s struggling military” as an option against Russian President Vladimir Putin were he to deploy nuclear weapons.

The Utah senator also suggested that the West confront China and other Russian-allied nations with an ultimatum. “You are either with us, or you are with Russia — you cannot be with both,” Romney wrote.

“Russia’s use of a nuclear weapon would unarguably be a redefining, reorienting geopolitical event,” Romney continued. “Any nation that chose to retain ties with Russia after such an outrage would itself also become a global pariah.”

Romney warned that a “cornered and delusional” Putin could use nuclear weapons in the war against Ukraine, citing warnings from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Russian ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov, and CIA Director William Burns.

Burns warned in April that Putin’s “desperation” could result in the use of “tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons.”

Romney also encouraged the US to continue to support Ukraine’s war efforts against Russia. If the US stopped sending weapons and pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to concede to Russia, Romney wrote, Putin would continue “invade and subjugate” other nations.

President Joe Biden signed a $40 billion aid package Saturday to assist Ukraine; $20 billion will go towards military assistance.

Romney has been vocal about his disdain of Putin since the start of the war, referring to the Russian president in February as a “small, evil, feral-eyed man” trying to shape Russia into an “empire.” He has also called pro-Putin GOP members “treasonous.”

This week, Russian political scientist Alexei Fenenko told “60 Minutes” that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was a “rehearsal” for a larger conflict and that they were using the war to “test and go up against” NATO weapons.

@Background Pony #DF4C

Sunny calls her magic alicorn magic.

The recording revealed that Sunny´s cutie mark glows, this can be seen 0.51, the other cutie marks remain normal. Could it mean that Sunny`s alicorn powers are linked to her emotional state? And we have seen in other recordings that she can not easily retrieve her alicorn state “with a thought”, and that she can not always control her powers when they arrived. There are many indications that the Unity Crystals and her emotional state are important for Sunny to become an alicorn. And even without this, she is simply too powerful, a dinosaur among the birds literally. And I think Sunny is a little scared, since she knows little about the alicorns, only that they were powerful ponies. So it is possible that she will hesitate and be somewhat inhibited in her use of her alicorn powers.

But in the comics and the 3D series, she will find that her alicorn powers will be needed, especially if Sombra`s successor were to become her nemesis through the G5. (not the boss villian) And she will, as a matter of course, find out what it means to be an alicorn. For it is not only the magical powers that make a pony an alicorn.

If you can step down from the soapobx from which you constantly lecture the South as to how it should and should not behave - and if you have not yet been completely brainwashed by the NAACP and dissension groups of its ilk, you may have sufficient objectivity to see a little of the other side of the picture.
The so-called Freedom Riders in their bus ride through the Southern States have done more to provoke race hatred and disagreement than any of the Federal Government’s most flagrantly one-sided actions in years.

Beverley Britton
Richmond, VA, May 27, 1961

The seeds that have reaped the whirlwind in Alabama had been sown over a period of more than ten years by the NAACP, the AJC, 9,998 Communist front organizations, and the left-veering Federal Government.
But naturally those responsible heap their blame and abuse upon the selected Southern victims of their schooled agitators who incited the riots.

Rudy Simpson
Atlanta, GA, May 25, 1961

You know very well there is no general demand for the people of any color or creed to force integration or even for voting rights. Who is behind all of this agitation? People like Douglas, Humphrey, Morse, Javits, Lehmen, Neuberger. When I find myself in their company, I take another look, for I may be wrong. It would be well for The Tribune to take another look.
The important factor you leave out is the conspiracy of the Communists and Socialists trying desperately to transform the United States into a socialist police state. In order to do that, they must get rid of the Pro-American conservatives in Congress. One way to get rid of them is to get every Negro in the South to vote for every radical the Socialists tell them to.

George A. Birdsall
Annandale, VA, August 14, 1957

I am interested by your conclusion that there is moral rectitude in compelling the integration of Negroes and whites in Southern schools. What a change of morals, or the interpretation of what constitutes morality, has taken place in a short time. Apparently we were terribly deluded by our conviction that morals were long-standing rules of right and wrong. We must have been sorely deceived, for here, within a decade, a whole new set of rules has suddenly become moral, and all of the principles heretofore governing the relationships between the races have become immoral.
But of course, the sane and responsible people of the South are not being fooled by the gales of moral righteousness emanating from power hungry advocates of the new morality. These Southerners fully understand that social innovations can only be effected gradually.

John A Marque
New Orleans, LA, August 30, 1960

I wish some very patient person would explain to me what business “Freedom Riders” from New York have in testing desegregation in interstate transportation in Alabama - aside from the sophistry that they are interstate travelers. I say sophistry because they are not travelling on any other business than to provoke the white citizenry in the South to various ill-considered acts.

John F. Satterlee
Washington, DC, May 25, 1961

Is the Freedom Riders’ right to travel any greater than some of the other rights which are arbitrarily denied the rest of us? Recently I wanted to make a business trip, but I was advised that my chosen route could not be used because certain people had decided to go on strike. What about the freedom of the man who wants to work, but can’t unless he pays tribute to the picket line?

Paul C. Brown
Arlington, VA, May 25, 1961

There is little doubt that the controlling purpose of the “Freedom Riders” incursion into the Deep South was to arouse racial hatred and incite riots. Unfortunately for the South, these racial agitators have succeeded in doing both.

Harvey H. Hewitt
Falls Church, VA, May 25, 1961

At the risk of shocking the well-intentioned people of America, I submit that if my city were invaded by a lawless gang, I would not receive them courteously either.
Like it or not, there are segregation laws still on the books of some cities in the South. Violation of these laws constitutes a form of behavior that cannot be condoned in a democracy.
In spite of the above, I emphatically disavow the segregation policies of the Old South. They are onerous, unjust, and unwise. But cannot the actions of the “Freedom Riders” be similarly described? The problems of Alabama should be handled by the people of Alabama. And the laws should be changed in the courts, not the streets.

J. P.
Washington, DC, May 25, 1961

I am sure that if a group of segregationists from Alabama had visited Washington to protest against integration, you would have shouted from your editorial column that these people were “defying the law” and that they were “intervening in a matter that was not their concern.” You who preach equal treatment for all never measure up to your words in a situation of this type.
States still have laws and the state laws should be obeyed. When the Union is threatened from without, her citizens react to protect her. When a state is threatened from without, is it any more remarkable that its citizens should rally to protect her?

Edward Bradford
Arlington, VA, May 25, 1961

James Meredith would have served the Negro cause much better had he completed his education elsewhere and gone on to press gradually the acceptance of Negroes in such restricted areas as “Ole Miss.”
The wild and deep-seated hatred that has been reawakened in Oxford will be felt in adjoining states as well. This sorry business is not progress as the NAACP thinks it is. It is the most deplorable type of retrogression.

Saul Goodman
New York, NY, October 2, 1962

Oooh, nice. The syntax reference has been updated too!

Edit: You should make it give the _primary_ syntax for italics, though.

Edit 2:
Testing: ^- | ^-^
Testing: ^-^ | \^-\^

Edit 3: (line break test)

Line 1

Line 2



Line 3

Escapes work \o/

\
Line 2
\
\
\
Line 3
\
Escapes work \\o/```

Multi-line code blocks are a little hungry, though.

Edit 4: Fixed line spacing. I think the line breaks issue has regressed because it's back to scrunching my paragraphs together.

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

@Zincy
Excellent! So, can you address the findings in repeated studies that boys and girls routinely and commonly gravitate towards “gendered” toys when left to their own interests without encouragement in any given direction, as opposed to the contrary and commonly-argued viewpoint in the field of Gender Studies that “gendered” forms of play are the result of social impositions alone?

• To navigate the world, you need some kind of belief system to test things against. Like with the above example, it’s often unclear what, if anything, Chris actually believes.
• Chris legitimately does not understand how the world works.
• Owing to the fact that he grew up in a time when internet safety wasn’t as well-understood as it is today, he had a poor grasp of it.
• Learning from one’s mistakes requires one to swallow their pride. Chris’ ego is too big for that.
• Speaking of ego, in the heyday of Christory, the formula for trolling him was extremely simple: appeal to his ego or dangle something he wants in front of him. The prospect of getting something he wanted tended to outweigh the risks.

The disclosure of Alito’s draft majority opinion – a rare breach of Supreme Court secrecy and tradition around its deliberations – comes as all sides in the abortion debate are girding for the ruling. Speculation about the looming decision has been intense since the December oral arguments indicated a majority was inclined to support the Mississippi law.

Under longstanding court procedures, justices hold preliminary votes on cases shortly after argument and assign a member of the majority to write a draft of the court’s opinion. The draft is often amended in consultation with other justices, and in some cases the justices change their votes altogether, creating the possibility that the current alignment on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could change.