The danger comes from both what they have that we wish they didn't, and what they didn't have that both us and then wished they did. They had nuclear weapons, and it was understood that if the regime felt like we were going to attempt to depose them like we did Saddam Hussein, they would end the world. They didn't have food or clothes because they redirected all their resources to military buildups, thanks to the fucked up mentality that told them ending the world was a totally appropriate response to conflict with the West. Ironically this actually made them even more dangerous because then we were dealing with a massive inferiority complex of people who had nothing, and could never admit that they had nothing. Armed with nukes. If they had spent their resources on producing food and clothes for their people like a good workers state should, instead of planning to cause the apocalypse, they wouldn't have had the inferiority complex,

that’s not what I’ve heard

Hahaha. Awesome.

But do you know why the little strawberry was sad?

Because his mother was in a jam.

Hehehehe

No, they couldn’t leave their friends behind

What do you call a fast blueberry?

A blackberry AHAHAH now fuck you

Should call it “The Balony”

HIPPO, ELEPHANT, AND A RHINO

Committee for State Security

Soviet equivalent of the Department of Homeland Security

Nice reach buds. Not what I said.

Would you like to explain?

Autistic teen you mean Greta is autistic? I had no idea, it increases my respect for her as a person though

I've searched hundreds of miles, asked anyone I could find, left no stone unturned, and now I have found the funny

ChatGPT more or less confirms you.

It is not clear where the idea that the relatives of someone who was crucified would pay for their legs to be broken as an act of mercy comes from. Crucifixion was a form of execution that was used in ancient Rome and other cultures for punishment and as a deterrent. It involved affixing the condemned person to a wooden cross or stake using nails or ropes and leaving them to die. There is no historical record of the relatives of crucified individuals paying for their legs to be broken as a mercy.

Leg breaking was not a standard practice in the execution of crucified individuals. However, it is possible that in some cases, the executioners may have broken the legs of those who were being crucified in order to hasten their deaths. This was done by striking the legs with a blunt object, such as a club, which would cause the person to suffocate more quickly. This practice is mentioned in the New Testament of the Bible, in the account of the Crucifixion of Jesus.

It is important to note that crucified individuals would often suffer a great deal of pain and suffering before they died. The process of being crucified could take several days, and those who were crucified were often left exposed to the elements and vulnerable to attack by animals and insects. It was a brutal and inhumane form of punishment, and there is no evidence to suggest that the relatives of those who were crucified would pay for their legs to be broken as an act of mercy.

Swaj indeed my friend, Swaj indeed.

I am no historian, sir, but I'll take your word for it ;)

All right, for the life of me I can not figure out how you thought this was going to go. I am curious how you thought the joke ended.

They're all the same city, but it was constantly being taken over by different countries.

That sounds like a plausible allegation. However, I was told, without being able to quote any sources, that breaking the victim's legs was in fact considered an act of mercy and relatives were happy to pay for that service.

Neither of these things happened.

My favourite movie, and yes a beautiful scene when he give the man in the dingy his leg back.

The doctor was disgusted!

She played xerxes in 300

I rolled my eyes, then I got it.