Perhaps the Balrog underestimated Gandalf, thinking it could cast him into the abyss, then fly back up to deal with the rest of the Fellowship. Alternatively, maybe it calculated that its best chance of defeating the wizard was to grapple with him at close quarters. Either way, the Balrog falling doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't capable of flight.

But.. you don't use butter to make bread. Flour and water, maybe some yeast. If you're using butter to make dough, then it's some kind of pastry.

Man, I've been wanting to pick up Rimworld forever, but I'm pretty scrupulous about only buying games at a steep discount (making exceptions for supporting indie devs I like), and I've never seen it more than 20% off. I guess we'll see who blinks first.

Oh, and you can forget about wearing any kind of wrap-around shades! Might as well put on a red hat. I feel your pain.

Can you see that you're arguing against fictitious strawmen? You seem to be operating under the delusion that for all the dumb normies who have "bought into" the existing two-party system, politics is just a game that they play without understanding. You've reduced them all to NPC's who lack the capacity to reason; obviously their only motivation could be mindless conformity to their "team".

Is it your contention that it doesn't matter what party controls the branches of government, because they're both the same? While this is factually inaccurate, it would at least be in line with the actions you're advocating. Speaking of which, how exactly do you imagine a "protest" vote would deny the subsequently elected government legitimacy? What force and effect do you foresee that action producing? Because anyone with a working knowledge of our electoral system can tell you that the only discernable result will be the empowerment of the minority party, which in this case seeks a fascist overthrow of our democratic system.

What you're doing here is applying shallow, childish logic to a complex and nuanced problem, while pretending to have some high-minded motivations which—if they exist at all—clearly haven't been thought through.

If the last person who talked to him was Stephen Miller, it probably is. To paraphrase George Burns, putting an idea into his head is like putting a basketball into a thimble.

Damn ~~Uncle Scrooges~~ Uncles Scrooge ruining the economy with their improbably swimmable money bins! Where's Magica De Spell when you need her?

Literally nobody is saying this. You're full of shit.

Every single article about "gen x" this or "gen z" that is 100% bullshit. Stop reposting this garbage.

I just think calling people bots and shills has no place in honest discourse and the brushstroke always tends to get bigger and bigger.

Bots and shills have no place in honest discourse, but they obviously exist. Should we pretend they don't—assume everyone is arguing in good faith, regardless of how blatantly dishonest and inconsistent they are? What would you suggest?

I don't disagree that there's a slippery slope problem; there's no shortage of fringe internet echo chambers that dismiss all dissenting opinions as coming from npc's, cia shills, shitlibs, bloodmouths, breeders, , etc.

I had a science teacher that told us, "If you sneeze three times and nobody blesses you, the devil takes your soul!"

It's science.

There is some debate about the current usage, but many, if not most, Democratic politicians are arguably neoliberals. The model was promoted in the US by Bill Clinton, who championed a centrist, Third Way approach for the party.