FuglyDuck

If you recognize that as bad… why did you ask about authoritarianism? That’s… authoritarianism.

Also… I’m guessing it was removed because they thought you were trolling.

I mean the dog is everyone’s favorite.

It’s just not even close.

Explains the cray-cray

Molly is MDMA,

It’s apparently burning man and all the problem guys are freaked out by the bears tripping Molly and just staring.

The last pannel, the dude on the left is a Molly bear.

Paper cuts are no joke.

(Also, maybe find another job asap. That dude is psycho.)

Naw. this is lemmy. You're supposed to say "yeah, dump 'em. you're better off without that gaslighting loser in your life"

Wait. Er. wrong one. that's for bad partners. Uhm. lets just go with what you said. (probably the best advice anyone can give on the internet heh.)

I'd much prefer him dead.

alas, I'm a coward.

Looks like you could ox or ax on the triple there (there’s an open x.)

Edit maybe that’s a V,

there’s the do at the top of the board (bottom of the pic,)

Every performance is different. Sometimes it’s faster sometimes it’s slower. Some times it changes during the song.

Some of that is responding to the audience’s energy or whatever, and some of it is just the natural human imprecision.

For your typical rock band set up, the drummer sets the tempo, which is part of why they slap their sticks together at the start of a song. (They may also do it because they think it’s cool.) sometimes different people might set the tempo, but the drums picks it up and carries it.

Jazz is a bit more fluid, especially with improvisational jazz, where everyone takes a turn leading and with slight changes. More rigid jazz, it‘s set by the leader with everyone coming together on that- but also, jazz is a bit more fluid and responsive to the audience. L

fire arms.

Hands down.

Lets just put it this way. you don't hear about toddlers accidentally killing their parents because they got into the parent's bows and arrows.

its a classic, it really is.

This is just yelling at clouds rather than seeking meaningful solutions to resolve issue. You are complaining that senators are upset about the failure of the educational system. Btw one of those senators introduced legislation to prevent this from happening again. Link.

They’re certainly not going to admit to systemic failures.

Did you read the article? What do you think “State Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding and Sen. Eric Berthel said in their Dec. 19 letter. ‘We continue to seek accountability as to how this student was illiterate when she graduated and how the system failed her year after year’” they meant when they wrote this.

whose the one willfully misreading things now? That was a comment about the school seeking to blame anyone else. the 'They're' refers to the school district mentioned at the start of the paragraph. The point there was that Ortiz was getting rubber stamped through everything. more funding most likely wouldn't make a significant impact. What I can almost certainly assure you is that standardized testing won't do a damned thing to stop it. Which is why Bush's No Child Left Behind fucked up education. What ended up happening with NCLB is that schools were forced to teach to the test, meaning that rather than providing a well rounded education, they were instead basically providing test prep.

Yes, New England Republicans do tend to be much different than other states. No educational spending is not solely tied to party platform that ignores that blue states on average have higher house hold incomes and GDP due to historical & socioeconomic factors.

Most states in fact use a similar system of funding, with state funds being tied to a formula based on the number of students and other demographic factors. Sorry if you misunderstand me. That's not tied to party platform. What is tied, though, is how much funding that actually becomes. there is a broad and common problem where schools in urban areas are significantly underfunded because people like you insist that local taxes should pay most of it. maybe, maybe not. that's a different argument, and once again: Does not change that most of hartford's funding comes from state sources, and republicans in the state legislature bitching about lack of educational standards reads more like manufactured outrage than anything else. At least to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I rather doubt it.

The socioeconomic factors that give blue states the higher house hold income and gdp you mentioned? yeah, a large part of that is...you know. better public schools. Funny how that works. there is an exceedingly strong, and exceedingly global correlation between public school funding and long-term economic growth (by long term it's in decades, not two or three years.)