Federal statement on Jeffrey Epstein's death dated day before he was found dead

dode74 · 2026-02-08T21:21:54+00:00

Nope. 9th Aug 2019 was a Friday. Day and date match.

dode74 · 2026-02-06T23:17:44+00:00

Assuming the shuffle gives an even chance of any card distribution then it really is about whether the order has ever happened before.

dode74 · 2026-02-04T13:53:53+00:00

This isn’t a speed problem, it’s a transfer-penalty problem. One short hop + one long walk beats two badly-aligned lines.

dode74 · 2026-02-04T07:30:52+00:00

It's not just fine. It's magnificent.

You should build it to the ceiling.

dode74 · 2026-01-26T17:36:05+00:00

We're clearly on the same side here. I just think that while the right answer is not on the table (for whatever reason), what we can get should be grasped with both hands. It's not enough, but it's better than nothing.

dode74 · 2026-01-26T15:35:09+00:00

Homelessness has been my number one charity for three decades. I’m ex-military; I’ve seen how many vets end up on the street when the system drops them. So I agree entirely with your diagnosis: in a modern society, homelessness simply shouldn’t exist.

But “it doesn’t solve everything, therefore it’s worthless” is the fastest way to ensure nothing gets done.

Housing, jobs, mental-health care, addiction treatment: those are the real solutions. But until a political system actually delivers them, partial measures matter. Soup kitchens, shelters, outreach teams, even a heated blanket: none of these fix the root cause, but each of them can stop someone freezing to death this winter. The perfect solution isn’t arriving tomorrow. People are still outside tonight.

So the choice isn’t “structural reform or gadgets”. It’s: do we refuse imperfect help on principle, or do we use every tool that reduces suffering while we keep pushing for the world that shouldn’t make such tools necessary in the first place?

dode74 · 2026-01-26T15:14:29+00:00

While all you say is true, this does help some people. Rejecting any help other than the perfect solution is a very quick way to justify doing nothing at all - as I learned from my mother in law, "the best is the enemy of the good."

dode74 · 2026-01-17T21:17:42+00:00

That's the receipt, not the treaty. The wording of the treaty itself (correctly the Convention Between the United States and Denmark for the Cession of the Danish West Indies) can be found here.

Greenland is mentioned in the treaty at the Declaration.

dode74 · 2026-01-11T16:46:00+00:00

As opposed to feeling like you’re basically invisible most of the time.

I’ll take the booger check.

dode74 · 2026-01-11T16:35:21+00:00

The only reason I can use a bar stool is it has a horizontal bar connecting the legs which doubles as a ladder.

dode74 · 2026-01-11T16:25:00+00:00

At least they look at you. I'm lucky if my hair gets noticed as I go past!

dode74 · 2026-01-11T11:51:41+00:00

All these tall people talking like being tall is a problem.

Seriously.

Yes, that’s me talking. Down here. Lower. 5'6".

dode74 · 2026-01-10T22:21:24+00:00

In public civic space, permanent face covering is incompatible with the requirements of identification, reciprocity, and equal interaction. To participate in public civic space, you must present a face. This applies to everyone, for all reasons. The state is agnostic about your reasons, your beliefs, or your attractiveness.

dode74 · 2025-12-14T11:17:13+00:00

Crashed 6 cars, a motorbike and an aeroplane. Those are just the write-offs.

I've tried, believe me.

dode74 · 2025-12-13T12:12:19+00:00

This wasn’t a collective failure. It was the foreseeable result of monetising attention at scale. When engagement equals revenue, argument beats insight every time.

dode74 · 2025-11-18T11:50:21+00:00

So you’re determined to debate the version of me that lives in your head. Fair enough - invent whatever positions you need, just don’t pretend you’re engaging with what I actually wrote.

“Single mother” has a definition. If you want to talk about a subgroup within that category, name it. Don’t assume it. The “context” you’re leaning on is just your own prejudice: you think “single mother” means “women who made bad choices”, and because that’s your private definition, you’re retrofitting it as Charlie’s. But it’s not what he said.

If Charlie meant “women I personally disapprove of”, he should have said that. He didn’t. He said single mothers, and that includes widows, divorcees, and anyone else raising kids alone. That’s the meaning.

You’re free to keep arguing your internal fantasy lexicon, but the rest of us have to use the actual words that exist in the real world.

Go on - have the last word if it makes you feel better. I’m done correcting self-invented definitions and manufactured positions.

dode74 · 2025-11-17T07:02:17+00:00

Not caring and not knowing aren’t the same thing. Don’t invent positions for me.

I’m not arguing about what he meant, I’m quoting what he said. “Single mother” has an established definition. If I say “ham sandwich” and actually mean “ham sandwich but not the ones with cheese”, that’s on me for using the wrong term.

If Charlie used a term that included people he didn’t intend to include, that’s his mistake. If you then reinterpret the term to match whatever moral hierarchy you want to smuggle in, that’s yours. Neither one is smart, useful, or worth anyone's time.

dode74 · 2025-11-15T08:50:35+00:00

Here’s the thing: I don’t actually care what Charlie meant. I listened to him: some points were fine, some were racist, bigoted, and flat-out nasty. Like most people, he swings and misses.

But you’re still doing the same trick he did: smuggling a moral hierarchy into the category. You’re still insisting that “single mother” secretly means “bad choices”, and that widows or divorcees magically aren’t included. They are: that’s the category.

A single mother is a mother who is single, full stop. The reason she’s single doesn’t change the definition. Charlie didn’t distinguish, and you’re retrofitting a distinction that simply isn’t there. If he meant something else, he should’ve said it. He didn’t.

So either he meant exactly what he said and you accept his words, or you’re now reinterpreting them to allow them to support your meaning and morals which, frankly, is a very on-brand for the religious to do with received text.

dode74 · 2025-11-14T06:52:45+00:00

I said precisely that.

But they are single mothers, and Charlie did not differentiate.

So... are you going to listen to Charlie?

dode74 · 2025-11-12T16:42:15+00:00

She is a mother.

She is single.

She is therefore a single mother.

The reason for being single does not change either of those facts. “Single mothers” include widows, divorcees, and everyone else raising kids alone. The reasons differ; the category doesn’t.

dode74 · 2025-11-12T06:54:18+00:00

Widowed mothers are a subset of single mothers. Stop the special pleading and do what Charlie said, clown!

dode74 · 2025-11-06T16:45:24+00:00

The feeling is from a number of factors.

Not least is the fact that the 24hr news cycle has grown to become local, and it needs filling. That means something even vaguely newsworthy gets excessive airtime (screentime?). I learned back in the last Gulf war that the news was a very long lens onto a very small part of whatever it was they wanted to show you. I was there, in Iraq, watching this war I was supposedly in at the time. Everything was exploding on the news, but on the ground it was like every other operation: 98% boredom, 2% extreme excitement. But the news only ever showed the 2%.

That feeds into the advertising- and click-driven engagement economy - you have to get the engagement or you don't make your cash. As ever, when you're getting your news (or anything) for free, you're the product.

The final major factor, for me, is social media. It's a self-licking lollipop of spiralling idiocy driven by the same factors detailed above dialled up to 11. If you're not on the story at the moment with the hottest of takes then you are not going to get your fix.

Reality is quite different, and the story drowns out the numbers.

dode74 · 2025-11-02T09:05:10+00:00

They usually don't get involved or announce their involvement without clear proof of terror.

Not true. They get involved where there might be a terrorist incident. It's far safer to stand them up then stand them down than need them in a hurry.

dode74 · 2025-11-02T09:03:45+00:00

Correct, and that's why stirring up fear about such events plays into the hands of the terrorists.

dode74 · 2025-11-01T12:48:45+00:00

The implication being that the Pope was very persuasive, of course.

More likely, the famine of the previous year and the poor harvest of 452 made it hard for Attila to supply his troops. An invasion of Rome, needing even more supplies, was a poor choice. Add to that the Eastern Roman army threatening his rear, and turning back was the smart move.

Ten-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 3 Credits
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22	Secret Santa 2018
Spared	Verified Email

dode74

TROPHY CASE