@vivigrot@LazyGenGamers Retard not realizing Sony sells to you at a loss and recoups that money by having you pay for PS+
If you buy only yearly essential, you paid 80$ per year.
So 400$ if you could have one at launch without disc + 80*6 = $880, with disc it's $980 without sales tax
@waitwhatSiren@jmonintendo@ALtraxF4 And double taps are the definition of nebulous.
Oh I can't shoot this guy again 300m away in an open field because I can't secure his weapon system safely, but it's completely okay to do it when I cleared a building and can secure his shit safely and cuff him?
@waitwhatSiren@jmonintendo@ALtraxF4 Ah yes a situation where no video was ever released that showed the second strike and timeline between the two.
A situation where I'm told the boat was blown to pieces and then survivors flipped the boat back over after an hour in the water and got back in it.
@waitwhatSiren@jmonintendo@ALtraxF4 If you can't imagine the legal consequences beyond a choice your hypothetical scenario, you didn't understand the hypothetical.
Encouraging soldiers enmasse to refuse nebulous illegal orders is by definition an article 94 offense in the UCMJ.
Which is an executable offense.
@waitwhatSiren@jmonintendo@ALtraxF4 So any competent officer will order someone else to shoot the baby or order them to remove you from the scene and he'll shoot the baby himself.
And no you can't claim self defense when you place yourself in front of his drawn gun and then shoot him.
@waitwhatSiren@jmonintendo@ALtraxF4 If your commanding officer in their conduct orders you to shoot the baby, all you can do is refuse and/or stand in front of said baby.
Claiming unlawful order is only a defense for articles 91 & 92.
@waitwhatSiren@jmonintendo@ALtraxF4 Nice framing, however you forget one thing, most of them are still subject to the UCMJ since they still receive entitlements.
And under the UCMJ all orders are presumed to be lawful and any disobedience gets said enlisted soldier court martialed
@jmonintendo@ALtraxF4 And in return the president made nothing but a factual statement and engaged in his right to free speech under the First Amendment.
@RoaldDahlCried@Unimportanz@DayalSami Even if I eat rice today, I'll be hungry tomorrow.
Africa has received over 1 trillion dollars in foreign aid through public funds and private charities since 2000, and 250 billion was in food
Couldn't even solve African hunger, yet you expect 250 billion to solve global hunger?
@jeffersonation1@JeffreyStockwe4 Wild you're saying that wearing Jefferson's skin and name
"Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to god," was on his seal no?
@benjamntenison1@Tito_som@TheGrapeGatsby2@Quirk22@SeeDaneRun The amendment he proposed to Congress in his second annual message in 1862 is the abolishment of slavery by 1900, compensation for slaves that are freed by their owners and then the voluntary deportation of said former slaves.
He viewed the harmony of the union above the slaves
@benjamntenison1@Tito_som@TheGrapeGatsby2@Quirk22@SeeDaneRun Because that makes even less sense.
He only pushed for immediate emancipation to be part of the RNC's platform in June of 1864 and he was cited to be working on the 13th amendment in February of that year.
That's not years of advocacy.
@benjamntenison1@Tito_som@TheGrapeGatsby2@Quirk22@SeeDaneRun Lincoln's singular term in congress had him back the Wilmot Proviso which would contain the spread of slavery.
And his own bill he put forward would've only emancipated children born after the start of 1850.
Neither of those scream anything on the scale of the 13th amendment.