Especially since the military said they wouldn't step down unless the President ordered them to
It's quite possible that the military leadership wanted to support him, but the rank and file didn't. The soldiers guarding the Parliament seemed in many cases to put up only token resistance.
Those 'resources' exist for you. You do not need to justify your existence. Sabbath for man, not man for Sabbath. Even this pharmacist is there to make you better.
And let your neurologist know about this. They should be aware that their professional opinion, which they developed through years of training and experience, is valued less than £12.
From this angle the telescope looks like a guy wearing a Vietnamese hat and doing yoga.
Trump 'supported' such policies to get elected. Might as well keep reminding his voters what he promised to do, so that when he fails to do any of them you can convince some people to jump ship.
They'll just start conscripting women once every last man is dead.
This is correct. 'Middle class' is more or less 'people who need to work for a living, but can work on their terms'. Petty bourgeoisie, professionals, people who see themselves as 'respectable' and 'above the riff-raff'.
One thing I've heard from Americans is that what everyone else calls 'working class' they call 'middle class'. This is probably due to a hope that one day they will 'make it big', and a reluctance to see themselves as 'below average'.
Adopt strays. Reject breeders.
I can only see three nays. Also, Venezuela and Afghanistan abstained?
Collectively, our species massively overproduce food
The economist Amartya Sen, who studied famines in South Asia and Africa said that 'starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough food to eat. It is not the characteristic of there being not enough food to eat." Producing more food than we need means nothing if it does not reach everyone.
separate and solvable large scale land allocation problem
I would say it is more of a food-allocation problem. Land redistribution is a great thing, and has worked in the past. But natural disasters and crop failures can occur in regions, and larger farms can benefit from long-term planning and more scientific management. So the better solution, in an ideal world, would be to focus on guaranteeing food rather than land.
the solution to which frees whatever livestock use the argument excuses.
Solving food security will of course greatly reduce this problem, although personally I am worried that food availability will get worse in the coming years and decades due to the various ways in which we are damaging the environment.
Assuming the land in question is arable in the first place …
There's land that isn't good enough to grow crops, but is good enough for wild plants to grow. You can, as you said, 'manage' it - give enough fertiliser and water to make it suitable for agriculture. But that is often unaffordable for the people living in such places, so using animals to gather and concentrate the available nutrients is the best option available to them.
There's an element of truth here, in that parts of the world have a system where farm animals eat stuff humans can't, such as wild grass, kitchen waste and straw. But modern 'factory farms' do use insane amounts of growth su0lements and medicines, which are just as bad.
I don't get it. If an organisation loses its tax-exempt status, it will have to pay tax. This would definitely be bad news for the organisation. But how does it 'kill any nonprofit’s ability to function'? Why would they be unable to get banks to service them or get donations? Is it just hyperbole, or am I missing something?
Look at what Labour did to Corbyn.
Four Candles might be closer.
To be fair, at least personally, I learned the word 'cylinder' long before I learned 'rectangular prism'. Maybe because the latter is usually called a cuboid or box, while there is no simpler word for a cylinder.