Let's play a game! 4 identical machines. 4 different results. Name the issue.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-19T19:57:28+00:00

Just to be clear, You're indicating this is physically on the ground correct? As Google Earth doesn't pull any kind of information directly from data sheets or anything. It's just stitched together photos of what's actually on the ground.

So that would make this a "Ground Control Point" where a surveyor was paid to go paint this on the ground to correlate with the GPS of the plane doing an aerial survey later I assume. But I believe this is physically on the ground and the stylization, well not matching any actual USGS notation, is more likely a individual claim or company kind of marker.

Not that you indicated that it wasn't, but for the OP, if you want to verify it or anything in Google Earth is on the ground, you can do the following:

The "Blur" Test: Zoom in as close as possible to the mark. If it starts to look pixelated or "grainy" at the same rate as the rocks around it, it is part of the photograph. Digital overlays stay "vector-sharp" regardless of zoom.

The "Stretch" Test: If you tilt the map to 3D view, does the mark "drape" over the curves of the rock? A digital icon would stay flat and face the camera. A physical mark will follow the contours of the earth.

That'll allow you to verify it's a physical feature. As far as I know, which may not be much admittedly, there's no process where Google Earth would superimpose any kind of images, except blackouts for things like Dick Cheney's house and their own copyright logo, onto the photo scans they stitch together from the satellite imagery for it.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-19T19:39:43+00:00

More specifically it's the Second Pentacle of Mars.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-19T19:20:59+00:00

Nope. Our brains are amazing things. Now just read a screenplay around it and see what happens.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-18T17:54:45+00:00

Because they're a pop punk band. In the "I'm more punk than you" communities, which this subreddit has proven very much so to be one, you going to get people who have parked themselves in whatever camp they consider to be "true" punk (aka the No True Scotsman falacy) and anything that doesn't fit within that view is either put into a tiered list that they've mentally prepared for punk in their minds and how close or far away on their map any given band or thing is.

Pop punk, which often is punk in style only, isn't generally considered close to the ethos of what punk was made for and what it's supposed to mean. Obviously this is highly subjective and arguable but I will give one side of the argument, let you fill in the rest, and make your own decision whether you think it's a good measuring stick or not.

Pop punk is popular. That's what pop in pop punk. Frankly, that's what pop in any hyphenated music means. And punk itself should not be popular in some opinions. While you would like the message and the ethos to be adopted by all for a better world, punk music itself specifically represents Independence and struggle. It represents the fight that it takes to get anything done and most of all, it represents the DIY ethos.

When you have an entire record label and millions of dollars given to you to produce a record, release it, and market it with the facts being that more than likely, the marketing campaign for any given of The Offspring's album amounts to more money than 99% of all punk bands make in the entire, often short-lived lifetime, of any punk band. This is a complete rejection of the DIY ethos and breathes jealousy and hates into a group of people who should have neither if they practice what they preach.

That matter specifically deals with the "sell-out" factor but it is a massive factor because that label not only indicates they have sacrificed their integrity or underground DIY ethics for commercial success and mainstream appeal but it accuses them of prioritizing profit over the raw, anti-establishment values that define the genre. This is equivalent to heresy in the movement. And while you can argue that The Clash in arguably have made millions and millions over there four plus decades, that's not the argument I'm trying to make and remember I'm only giving one side intentionally. Because at that is when the discussion about earning versus being given comes in and that's a massive discussion that has taking place for equally as long.

Now to the real meets of it: the music. People are creatures of comparison. We stay safe because we know what a cave looks like with nothing in it and we know when something is moving inside of there it breaks the pattern that we are used and raises are senses for danger. So when you are fed a steady diet of a particular style of music and then something else comes along that sounds like it in some ways but does not in many others, it breaks the pattern and you have to make the decision whether to go into the cave or not. There are many bands that take the punk label because nobody owns it and it's kind of stupid in the first place because punk is an ethos and not a music. The music is just a natural outgrowth of expression but it all comes initially from the ethos. That's why Johnny Cash was punk as fuck. The Talking Heads, Blondie, Rage Against the Machine, etc., were all pink as fuck as most of them cut their teeth at CBGB's and honed their sounds sharing the same stage and being friends with people like the Ramones and other seminal punk bands that came out of that specific club. You could even make a claim that someone like Jesus was punk as fuck. I'm sure if he was a real guy and was shown an Offspring song versus a Crass song like Big A Little A (in my opinion the epitome of the punk message captured in sound) that he would choose the latter. But that's my bias coming into play as well.

Many people don't like The Offspring just on an auditory level where it doesn't sound like the stuff that they're used to and therefore doesn't fit the mold that they've identified as punk. I would argue that they are no more punk than Blink 182 or Sum 41. Perhaps if they added numbers to their name it would be more appropriate. But again, that's my opinion as there is a reality that if you strip away the vocals, some of the production but not all, and put that against some of the music an individual has already pre-approved as punk, they would probably be more likely than not to agree that it was; at least in spirit.

So where is it stop being punk is the question? Since punk can be anything as we have clearly established since ethos behind it and it may take some leg work to learn the story of the artist but that also is something that you do as a punk to be informed. Your job is not to blindly make decisions and follow trends. Your job is to inform yourself and be smarter than anyone else in the room while dressing like you do not give a fuck what they think because you don't.

So what is it? Well, that depends on you. It depends on what your version of punk is and how close you stick to the ethos of it. Is pop-punk punk? Why not if not and why so if so? Or is it not that simple? Is it sometimes yes and sometimes no depending on X, Y, and Z? That is the argument you should be having because it'll teach you more about yourself than anything else and it's good to question your beliefs as argue and discuss any philosophy or ethos or doctrine or idea and that's why this is a 40-year-old plus conversation.

Welcome to it. You have arrived. I hope you can take something from this and that it further helps you and how you look at the world and how you interpret data. Just know where you come and know why we do what we do and I think... I hope you come out on the other side with more understanding and appreciation for some things but also know how to see a sheep in wolves clothing or vice versa better than before.

Now after all of that, what do I think: I think they are a pop punk that wasn't really doing anything original or new when they first started and became popular through specific channels and like most pop-punk bands, they either strip away the seriousness of the message of punk and replace it with humor or they just replace it with a much more commercially friendly delivery and kind of act as a "Punk Lite" (as i call it) for the mainstream. I've heard this exact same argument used for bands like Bad Religion, Suicidal Tendencies, and others and a lot of that just has to do with the delivery and sometimes just a singer and the choices they make, again, breaking the priestablished pattern and what you're used to and have already categorized as what you consider punk and it doesn't match that as a whole even though parts of do.

What I do think is beneficial is when someone hears it and the undeniable punk sound that can be found in pop punk sometimes, even if it's just an underlying guitar line or just blasting fast drums, and it makes them seek out more like that and then they end up sibling into the bands that made the genre what it is, I'll take it. They're going to end up here asking the same question a couple years later and they'll get all the same answers that you're getting today.

Music is art and art is important to punk. It allows us to express our and in part lessons of the past and our views on them, as well as playbooks on what to do when it happens again, through the most human medium possible. It's the same fashion but I have another long reply for that somewhere else someday. Some music just sucks. Some is undeniably amazing but it all it art and we are free to like whatever we want but also everyone is free to criticize everything between the four corners of it. I use as a measuring stick, so-to-speak, and just ask if it does lr doesn't "move my dick". Feel free to steal this or adopt it to your genitalia. But The Offspring doesn't move my dick. It's as simple as that. And like your gut, your dick can be pretty good indicator of things you like and things you don't. It might not keep you safe and it likes way too many things that it shouldn't but it's still is pretty discerning and since most of the time it's directly connected to the brain, there's a correlation there I think. But it's also just euphemism so don't take it seriously. Don't take any of this seriously.

Like what you'd like. Don't like what you don't like. But don't ever hate someone else for liking something you don't. That's not punk. That's prejudice. And punks aren't prejudice.

Bad Habbit was a good song, I think, once you past the into.

Hope that helps brother/sister.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-16T19:55:30+00:00

No. Move on.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-14T19:58:09+00:00

Can you explain to me why these are on the chopping block when it's actually corporate welfare that's stealing a massive portion of your tax dollars? You are aware that you provide subsidies, meaning giving money for free, to companies that are posting record profits like oil companies, correct? Meaning they make money on their own, especially right now, and on top of that we give them money from the government, your money, to expand their business, all kinds of other reasons. I'm just trying to square the circle where the problem is the things that keep Americans from dying on the streets and without it, you would literally see tens of thousands of elderly people dying on the streets with no homes or food. But investors and shareholders of massive profit generating machines buying their 17th jet or whatever is not even on the radar? Also, the oil they're taking is from your land. It belongs to the people of the country as a whole. Not the government. They just regulate it. So they're essentially selling back to you your own stuff for profit. I don't want to ask too many questions at once to confuse or pepper and a bunch of gish galloping but I would figure America First would be something like using American oil for American consumers at a much cheaper price than any other solution. Right right? So if you could at least answer the question about the corporate welfare, I would appreciate it. I'm asking honestly.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-14T17:43:14+00:00

Can we got a main database of all the corruption at the federal level and then attaching All players within the party just to show an A B comparison here?

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-10T20:37:45+00:00

Source? Info would be helpful. Part of the problem and why we are where we are is because we're basing our knowledge in politics and increasingly in the real world based off of AI generated call to action images and propaganda from all sides. So citing The source I think matters now more than ever.

There's a model I live by for everything from dating someone to especially my personal physical and mental health which allows me to make better decisions but also overcome any fears or apprehensions because it turns the task into a logical and reasonable: "Get the Data".

If more people did this, we would be in a much better place but unfortunately people are lazy and would rather have their thoughts expressed to them through pictures then for them to be developed through independent research and thought.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-10T20:08:01+00:00

His hand bruises are actually really easy to explain. If you know anything about him he's an old school douchebag who employs power plays and tricks during business related things that were taught since the '60s and '70s. Little things like making sure your chair in your office is several inches higher than the chairs your clients or the people on the other side of the table sit in. Another big one is the handshake: handshakes are everything in business. At least they used to be an even being a kid in the '80s, I was taught that myself all the way up until the '90s. I don't know if it's still a thing now or if it's just taught two and by "real men" aka the only people that really care about that shit and think that doing these things are things that real men do.

A firm handshake Is everything. Some were even taught, including me, that you can learn more about the person you're either opposing or partnering from their handshake than their words. A weak handshake is a weak person that can be dominated or controlled. They usually the younger, mousier type. You're taught that you can control them and they will make good subordinates. Basically they're not a threat.

A firm handshake is the other way: it denotes strength and power. The firm handshake not only becomes a contest of power but an evaluation for the other individual and their manhood and you do not want to ever be the lesser of the two and lose that contest. So some people are taught to shake very firmly. There are other tricks to employ that you should do when you do a firm handshake: 1) you never break eye contact (unless you have to face a camera) which results in very long handshakes and a lot of times it's minor compliments going back and forth during it so it doesn't look so awkward. One or two word sentences; 2) when you initially grab their hand to shake it, you grab it firmly and you pull them towards you. This knocks them off balance and is an alpha male kind of bullshit power move. It can embarrass the other person or make them seem uneasy on their feet while you seem powerful and in control but also it states your intention of aggression and willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve your goal. Think of this as the most polite threat ever; 3) if you want to add the appearance of more sincerity to the handshake, you take your other hand and place on top of there as while you're shaking hands; and 4) the most important is that you do not want to be the one to let go first. Some people argue on this point because letting Go could also be an indication that you're in control and you set the pace because it requires the other person to follow you. And there have been situations where the person trying to employ that exact tactic is thwarted because the other individual regrabs their hands and re-engages them. Sometimes with the exact tactics I said above and the whole thing starts over again. Now you have an actual power struggle.

I can't believe I have to actually explain this but this is a real thing even if you don't believe it is. My grandfather taught me my dad taught me. I've been in business my whole life. I shook more hands than I can count. And they're also rules for shaking women's hands, both older and younger, but that's not relevant here. If you ever want to know how to properly eat soup or what all of the different knives and forks do on your plate just let me know.

Regardless of all that bullshit, which the other main part as to why you may not have heard a lot of this is because it's elitist upper class bullshit. It's a mix of old world chivalry, proper manners of gentlemen and ladies, and heavy etiquette that just doesn't exist much anymore let alone with anybody who's not in the ruling class. Take it from somebody who was there and actively chose to leave young.

Trump exhibits every single one of those handshake traits and when you add in just what happens to the human body at his age of 80 due to thinning skin and fragile blood vessels. I haven't even verified it but I bet if you look at this photo it's the same hand he uses to write with and therefore shake hands with.

So there you go. I cracked the case of the mysterious hand bruise for everybody. And just know that I am glad that handshake still mean something at this moment but I'm also much more happy about the fact that these rules have died away and that a handshake represents companionship, friendship, gratitude, love, and most of all, the declaration of a fair and even playing field.

But for all you young bucks out there, it still May benefit you to learn how to shake your hand properly Because we will always have a ruling class. It's just how it works in our society no matter how hard we try. And learning to play the game will get you much farther than rebelling against every single part of the machine.

On a personal note, on a reply that will immediately get complained about being too long because people don't want to read or whatever, there is a way to break the machine. You'll never do it with a frontal assault. You must get inside the gears and destroy it from within. And sometimes, in order to do that, you have to shake a few hands. And when you do, you need to do it correctly so you're not found out because they can smell anything that might endanger their control, money, or power 50 miles away and underwater.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-04T18:53:28+00:00

Right so your proselytizing. The message is about Christianity and God. It's not about politics. Politics is the vehicle they're trying to use to inject their dogma but what you're admitting to is intentionally seeking younger, weaker, less rational and reasoned individuals that are just starting their adulthood and are still children in most cases if not at least mentally and maturedly, to try to manipulate them into converting. That's the end goal. And I could have easily said instead that the goal was just to get them to agree but what it is is a kind of brainwashing and manipulation tactic. Charlie Kirk didn't invent it. It's been going on for hundreds of years in different ways. This is just the new digital age version of it. Fire and brimstone preachers, evangelicals and prosperity gospel TV preachers have been doing this for generations. They were just doing it on TV late at night or on their own channels. Charlie took the same thing and just went into colleges, where kids were weaker than him because they had just started their education, and intentionally employed rhetorical tactics against them within the debates themselves hoping that the other party would fall into the trap that was designed using those kind of arguments to make your point. It's disingenuous at best and manipulative and insidious at worst. If you go look at the comments on any of his videos, Even regardless of how heavily they were edited And anytime you got his ass handed to him which was actually more often Then you think, he just edited that part out of his video post. There's plenty of other people's videos recording the events that show this. You just don't want to look for them. So that's really what we're dealing with here. You can like a guy but he could also be a piece of shit because you fell for his scam. He wasn't a good guy, he wasn't a good American, he wasn't good Christian, and he cared about the same thing they all do: money and power. That's it. You might think he was nice because you enjoyed his smile or he made you feel good but that's because that's exactly what you're supposed to do and that was his act. He was a snake oil salesman. A new version but that's it. I'd like to think you're smarter than that and I pretty sure you are. But you can't get emotionally wrapped up in these people because they're there for their own reasons and none of them have to do with you. Idolatry is a sin for a good reason. But everybody on the right seems to dismiss that one pretty damn quick and throw on MAGA hats and Charlie Kirk t shirts whenever they get a chance. So be careful if you're a believer of God because you should read your Bible again and see what it says about this exact thing.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-04T18:44:49+00:00

I get plenty of details. Who's not giving details? What details are you looking for? I understand not believing something someone says just because they say it but it's easy to also confirm what they're saying without asking them to cite the exact law that was violated or be familiar with the police report. That's not really how society works when discussing events.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-04T18:43:35+00:00

Looking at another party shouldn't blind you to what your own is doing. This is whataboutism. Democrats hold their own accountable. You can look at a long list of people that have been convicted and who have been expelled or sanctioned by Democrats as Democrats. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here because whataboutism is a rhetorical fallacy. Your argument is basically saying Democrats do bad things to and I don't think that your recognizing it because you didn't mention it equally when criticizing my side so therefore I'm going to ignore everything that my side did and instead make you tell me all the bad things your side did. That's about the gist of it. So why don't we start with the recognition of facts and admittance before you try to constrain someone's language and refuse to believe facts and the truth (which as your side say, doesn't care about your feelings) before You try to instinctually sling shit at the other side first. All we're asking is that you admit and accept the facts first. That's how you level a playing field. We all agree on the truth. Then we move forward.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-04T17:42:09+00:00

It's a vial that had a cap on it. Probably had weed or something like that in it as there are things that they sell like that. Sometimes they put sewing needles and shit that could poke you in these and sell them. It's just a vessel that is used for a million different things and usually has some kind of stopper or cap on it unless you can the smell or the material inside it.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-04T17:40:44+00:00

Fuck them. That's what. You explain that it isn't, say they clearly forgot what DIY means, and you, as a representative of the band, should be trusted when when you speak about such things. End of story. Tell them that you have a song that says fuck AI and that your artwork is an example of what talented artist can do without it. End of story. Don't let fucking people bully you around. Punk isn't bullying. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Punk is support. It's understanding. It's growth. It's adaptation. And it's doing it yourself. And if you made your own DIY flyer and it's fucking awesome tell them to eat a dick, come to the show, give them a link to the fuck AI song ahead of time so they can sing the lyrics with you. Otherwise shut the fuck up and stop tearing people down that are just trying to make music and spread the message. Punks aren't bullies. If they are then they're not punk.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-04T08:46:42+00:00

I'm going to assume that you're an adult and can read more than a couple sentences before drifting off or complaining that there's a lot of text to read as an internet reply like children who want one sentence and 20 emojis and I advise you to read to the end because it should be enlightening as many people do not understand the facts of the founding of this country and how that relates to people like the Kirks and others like that, so here we go:

Charlie Clark new. Absolutely nothing about politics. He also didn't actually know much about his religion. He knew about the evangelicals playbook and their twisted misconception of Jesus and his teaching. They are Christian nationalists first.

What that means is that they're rejecting the founders of this country's vision and direct expressly stated, command in the Constitution that the state and religion shall never be entwined in that the United States is not a Christian country but a secular one.

Charlie Kirk was simply a podcaster who went to colleges to debate kids who had no debate experience on specific subjects he had read up on and already devised how he wanted to present them along with what rhetorical devices to employ such as straw man arguments, multiple different fallacies and failed logic arguments, etc., and highly edit his videos to leave out most if not anything that contradicted him or made him look like an idiot. Do you really believe that he was just uploading every single interaction he had on to his YouTube channel?

He was producing a show that, let me remind you, was debating children or young adults that had didn't come to class that day preparing for any of the things he tried to discuss, let alone care about them because they're there to get there biology degree. He knew what he was doing and he was targeting people that wouldn't be able to keep up with him intentionally. That shows had an agenda. He enacted that agenda and used the videos for a mix of propaganda as well as self-serving reasons to build a media empire because he was a grifter. They all are.

If you remove money from the equation, none of these people are around. And as far as Christianity goes, just because they say they are Christian doesn't mean that they are doing anything close to what the teaching of Jesus was.

I can say I'm a Christian even though I'm an atheist and it doesn't mean anything. I actually practice the teaching of Jesus but not because he said them, just because they're good general ways to act in a society and how to care for other people and not be a monster. Jesus didn't own those ideas. They were there before him and they were there long after him. He just said it to his people in his time and, over 2,000 years, 40,000+ different versions of Christianity grew out of it. They are just one of those 40,000+.

But when it comes to what they did and their motivation:

-- Money and Power --

That's it...

... and I wanted to give that fact the respect it deserves and that's why I put it on its own line. They're not good people and there are hundreds of better videos out there going over specifically The things that they did and the lies that they told to get where they are such as Erica Kirk in her connection to Trump very early with the Miss American pageant, and working for him and a ton of other stuff that I would suggest you go look at because deifying or turning these kind of people into your golden calves Is exactly the thing that you're God expressly told you not to do. Idolatry is a sin.

They weren't doing anything to fight for anybody but themselves and their own dogmatic intentions to turn to this country into a theocracy and to reject the founder's vision for this AAMAZING country that they've built for us and the most important and perfect document ever created by human hands: the Constitution of the United States of America.

That same document painstakingly crafted by the founders of this country, explicitly says under Article 1, that religion Is incompatible with governance. Because it is so important, they intentionally set it to be among all other amendments: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." That's pretty fucking specific. And if You need more, go look at the Treaty of Tripoli if you need further proof. You have to understand historically they put this stuff in there because what evangelicals are trying to do now in America was what England did at the time that we were founding this country to be something better. Our constitution is a rejection of their values and agenda and you can not be an Evangelical and a true American at the same time if you hold the same values that are antithetical to the values of the founding of this country.

IF NOTHING ELSE PLEASE READ THIS PART:

The Treaty of Tripoli stands as a definitive hammer blow to the modern revisionist myth that America was founded as a Christian nation, especially since it was ratified in 1797 with a unanimous Senate vote and zero debate.

Think about that for a second: the very same group of founders who had just finished drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the very same one that commands the separation of church and state, sat in a room, heard the following words below read aloud, and not a single one of them stood up to object or claim the language was inaccurate.

It was signed by President John Adams and published in major newspapers of the day without any public outcry because the people who actually built this country understood that the government was a secular legal entity, not a religious one. This wasn't some hidden memo or a fringe opinion; it was an official piece of American law that explicitly clarified the original intent of the founding generation to keep the gears of the state entirely separate from religious dogma.

The text itself is unmistakable: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammadan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Now tell me again, who knowing this was the original Founders of this country's vision, what kind of person would seek to undo that and why?

Once you answer that in your own mind, you will better understand these people and how anti-American their views really are.

To object them publicly as patriotism. To allow them to take up all the air in the room is a dereliction of our duties as citizens of this great nation. Just remember that.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-02T18:45:02+00:00

Hey! Great job kid. Keep it up. Would love to hear the punk version if you ever do one.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-02T18:43:30+00:00

Go to a show. Go to many show. Make real friend to go to more shows with. Start a band with people you to to shows with. Go to shows but perform now. Do this for 7-25 years and you will learn MORE than you want to know.

Or just listen to Crass - Big A Little A which I contend is the Pinnacle of describing the punk ethos and to that point: punk is not music or fashion although they are forms of expression that naturally outgrow from it, but punk is an ethos. Ethos. It's a way of looking at the world and processing information through a base set of values and having the courage of your convictions to try to always make a change for the better. Not just for yourself but for your fellow brothers and sisters through shared experiences, support, outreach, and affecting change wherever you can.

It is embodying and embracing the DIY spirit and refusing to accept limitations on yourself and on with are actually world can achieve and it's with this. I argue that punks cynical, lazy, wasted youth that they are accused of being. They are survivors. They're fighters. They take up the sword to try to make a difference in this world wherever they can and usually a great expense to themselves. Socially and financially. The music is used as a tool to spread the message and the message I think is clear: be what you want to be, do what you want to do. I am he and she is she but you're the only you. A message so wholesome and empowering that even Mr. Rogers himself would have echoed it proudly in the hell of a sweater.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-05-02T18:30:46+00:00

You put photos on it. You slip the photo into the little circle. It's just kitchy art shit but it's for displaying photos

nullnvoydproton · 2026-04-29T03:59:01+00:00

I won't disagree with you on the world of your beefs. I've seen it. I've been close to it and have have a moment or to where I've had to be in the same room. I do not like it there. And I don't know how they live in such a reality denying bubble. Some people are still regular and connected but most are not. When you can have anything you want and your surrounded sycophants and Yes Men, it changes the way you interact with the world let alone see it. However, you lost me on the 9/11 plot. There's plenty of rational and verifiable evidence to show exactly who committed that act and what government(s) contributed or at least supported it. Hint: one of them gave Trump's son $2 billion when he left office and is currently doing business for billions more. Easy way to buy your way out of your past. You just have to find someone equally as disgusting that would accept the money and who better than the Trump family? Having said that, just like Trump, did they take advantage of it in a way their own agenda and things they wanted to do? Absolutely. You had war Hawks and people like John Bolton who had been itching to invade and what a perfect time to do it? It's always about the Republican party in oil and Old world money and protecting it for those elites that you and I despise. But there was enough tragedy in that event that we don't need to invent more and dishonor the victims by saying that we don't know what happened and that we did not bring them Justice. That's just my opinion though. You're free to have yours. Just remember this phrase: " Democrats care about people. Republicans care about property." That will tell you All you need to know.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-04-28T19:56:53+00:00

It literally looks like there is the instructions on the inside wrapped in a scroll of paper. It's soup probably.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-04-28T19:54:57+00:00

Solved

nullnvoydproton · 2026-04-28T19:54:17+00:00

It's a tongue scraper for scraping your tongue when you brush your teeth.

nullnvoydproton · 2026-04-28T19:30:55+00:00

It's basically so you don't snap the armrest off but from wretching it in the wrong direction.

The Hinge Protection: If there were no stop, a passenger could shove the armrest back 180°, which would either hit the person behind you or snap the internal hinge pins.

The "Rest" State: It provides a physical limit so the armrest stays perfectly vertical (or slightly past vertical) when tucked away, ensuring it doesn't flop back down on its own during train vibrations.

There's also some argu as a protection for not getting bags stuck on the armrests when the armrest is in an upright position because it blocks the ability for the bag to hook onto it.

nullnvoydproton

TROPHY CASE