As an adjective:

riatach
adj
/Riəhdəx/

1. wanton
2. immodest
3. illegitimate
4. outlandish

As a noun:

riatach
n. masc.
/Riəhdəx/
bastard

https://learngaelic.scot/dictionary/index.jsp?abairt=riatach&slang=both&wholeword=false

How else do you differentiate between a gym bench and a park bench?

It’s not exactly brain surgery, is it?

She’s turned the weans against us!

Sharon Osbourne, an immigrant in the USA for decades, advocates for hatred and discrimination towards immigrants. What a cunt.

I believe the proper nomenclature is lobbied. Therefore it’s legal and okay. Definitely not just another word for bribery and corruption, no no no.

Don’t look inside that brown envelope under the table!

And when you don’t know what 80:20 rule means, that’s when Wikipedia comes to the rescue.

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80:20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity[1][2]) states that, for many outcomes, roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes (the “vital few”).[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

The term is used to describe detention in prison for an indefinite length of time;[3] a judge may rule that a person be “detained at His Majesty’s pleasure” for serious offences or based on a successful insanity defence.[4] This is sometimes used where there is a great risk of re-offending. However, it is most often used for juvenile offenders, usually as a substitute for life sentencing (which might be much longer for youthful offenders). For example, section 259 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (which applies to England and Wales) states, “where […] a person convicted of murder, or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law as life imprisonment, and the person appears to the court to have been aged under 18 at the time the offence was committed. The court must sentence the offender to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure.”[5]

Prisoners held at His Majesty’s pleasure are periodically reviewed to determine whether their sentence can be deemed complete; although this power traditionally rested with the monarch, such reviews are now made in the name of the monarch, on the advice of government officials — the Secretary of State for Justice in England and Wales, for instance. Minimum terms are also set, before which the prisoner cannot be released; in England and Wales, these were originally set by the Home Secretary, but, since 30 November 2000, have been set by the trial judge.[6] Prisoners’ sentences are typically deemed to be complete when the reviewing body is “satisfied that there has been a significant change in the offender’s attitude and behaviour”.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_His_Majesty's_pleasure#In_penal_law

It’s specifically not life in prison because minors aren’t fully responsible for themselves and life from the age of 10 and life from the age of, for example, 55 are completely different things.

A child (pl. children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty,[1][2] or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty.[3] The term may also refer to an unborn human being.[4][5] In English-speaking countries, the legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, in this case as a person younger than the local age of majority (there are exceptions such as, for example, the consumption and purchase of alcoholic beverages even after said age of majority[6]), regardless of their physical, mental and sexual development as biological adults.[1][7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

In law, a minor is someone under a certain age, usually the age of majority, which demarcates an underage individual from legal adulthood. The age of majority depends upon jurisdiction and application, but it is commonly between 18 and 21.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)

They were children. There is no need to adultify minors here.

If you want to know more and increase that anger a notch, here’s Ocean With David Attenborough showing the devastation of bottom trawling: https://youtu.be/IzG9AwlypaY

Or get an extremely dwarfing rootstock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootstock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_tree_propagation#Rootstocks

To be fair, almost none of Europe survived those same outside forces a few years later. With the prior warning of what happened in Spain.

1930s Spain is where the Nazis practiced their Blitzkrieg technique, before using it to control almost the entirety of Europe.

The political systems of Czechoslovakia, Austria, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, etc aren’t called into question in the same manner because they couldn’t resist the German military machine so why should anarchist Spain?

It’s already been explained, but here’s an example: https://youtu.be/Qe0qpwXI6aM

Skip to 1:08:30

Warning! It’s a fish auction and shows fish being filleted

Relevant Mitchell and Webb

https://youtu.be/NwmwB-biQpc

Also:

Some experts think tongue cleaning can remove good bacteria, such as microbes that process nutrients, along with the debris.

I’m leaning on the Mitchell and Webb skit being more accurate than I first thought. Especially as this is from an American dentist

deleted by creator

Ah, I see the confusion. I’m used to the modern critical definition, not the original.

Exceptionalism as “exemptionalism”

During the George W. Bush administration (2001–2009), the term was somewhat abstracted from its historical context.[104] Proponents and opponents alike began using it to describe a phenomenon wherein certain political interests view the United States as being “above” or an “exception” to the law, specifically the law of nations.[105] (That phenomenon is less concerned with justifying American uniqueness than with asserting its immunity to international law.) Critics argued that American exceptionalism was increasingly used to justify foreign policy decisions that placed the United States “above international law.” This perspective claimed that the U.S. invoked exceptionalism not as a model of global leadership but as a rationale for unilateralism and selective application of legal norms.[106]

The new use of the term has served to confuse the topic and muddy the waters since its unilateralist emphasis and the actual orientation diverge somewhat from prior uses of the phrase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Criticism

Exceptionalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

Alright, let’s be realistic, a lot of competent high ranking officers are out of work since the purges of Trump. And a lot are still in work, that managed to survive the purges.

And when I say purges, I mean redundancies and firings. Not like Saddam Hussein, taken out back and met with a bullet or rope. But just given their military pension and told to fuck off.

I’m not expecting the average grunt to be able to do much. But an officer whose rank allows them the command of hundreds or thousands of people is capable of something.

There has been not even a murmuring of mutiny, resistance, or rebellion, let alone a coup. Some sailors stuffed t-shirts down their toilets, likely more in rebellion at being at sea far longer than they were meant to than anything else. But that’s about it.

Americans, until very very recently, have had freedoms and liberties that the Chinese and Russians have never enjoyed. Do you think Russian military courts are comparable to American? To compare them is disingenuous. Although in saying that, Xu Qinxian did refuse his orders at Tiannamen Square. He refused saying he’d rather be executed than be a criminal to history.

But there’s always an exceptionalism, an excuse, for why America is incapable of thwarting fascism. No matter how much I argue here, somebody will come along with another excuse, another reason for why Americans can’t do what other countries around the world have done over and over throughout history.

Land of the Brave Bollocks.