Hodad

Why would you automatically mistrust casualty figures provided by Gaza Health Ministry? Last time you asked why they should be believe, I showed you that they have historically been accurate and transparent with those figures. When secondary sources come in to validate numbers they have aligned very closely with the GHM reports. So if they have been trustworthy in the past, why would you mistrust them in this specific instance?

Indeed, the training--including the manual referenced--directs officers to use a recovery position after the subject stops resisting. If only there were a way to know why that is important... "Chauvin admitted that Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) policy and training requires officers to stop using force when a subject is not resisting and to move an arrestee from the prone position into a side recovery or seated position because the prone position may make it more difficult to breathe."

Well, I've tried to convince and invite you to be more than a useless troll. You've declined. I don't suppose there's any reason to see your posts anymore. Good luck in your future endeavors.

Blah blah blah. The same crowd who believed 2000 Mules was a factual documentary are going to eat up this crap. They are the same people crazy enough to believe that it's a coincidence that a man begging for air died after a full-grown police officer sat on him for 9 minutes. ? It took about 2 minutes to check and see who made this gem. Turns out it's a reporter for a kook propaganda outfit who happens to be married to a disgraced former Minneapolis police officer and union leader who himself was accused and disciplined multiple times for violence and racism--including accusations from fellow officers. But it's your life. If you've got nearly two hours (or whatever) to devote to a source with no credibility and a clear bias, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll "learn" so much. ?

There there now. We already knew. (You really think this style of yours is worthwhile? It's just the laziest, lowest form of trolling. Do better.)

I'm sorry you lost one of your brethren. I know he's a revered martyr for you now.

?The verdict was a foregone conclusion because there was video evidence of the murder and the jury watched it happen. Because what Chauvin did offends every conscience. Well, almost every... And two separate medical examiners identified the death as homicide due to cardiopulmonary compression. "Is the defendant the man you see on video crushing the air out of the victim until he died?" You people are too much. Video evidence isn't even enough for you anymore. Thank goodness the jury was still sane.

My goodness, when can we expect what was in the training manual or Floyd's past behavior to overwrite the 9 minutes of history during which Chauvin kneeled on top of a man who was begging for air until the detainee was not struggling, then completely limp, then unconscious, and then dead--and then kept kneeling on him still, practicing restraint technique on a dead man? Because that's what happened. Surrounded by witnesses and captures on video. If only the jury who watched video of a man murdered over the course of 9 minutes had known about the training manual...

So you think the lifelong Republicans are RINOs, and the newcomer carpetbagger who decided to run as a Republican is the "real" Republican? And all these people, who are intimately familiar with the administration and who spoke up about bad behavior, are traitors? But the one guy is right when he criticizes the large group of critics he once relied upon? That makes sense to you? I guess at least you're consistently bumfuzzled.

Let's not get carried away. Only half of them voted to expel Santos. -- Long overdue, but I'm still surprised it happened. I didn't expect it because they just ejected a guy because he has an ethics problem and is facing 23 felony charges. Seems like it will lead to some very awkward questions when they have to turn around and campaign for a man with an ethics problem and 90+ felony charges. I figured no one would want to deal with that contrast and those questions.

It's legal and relatively safe. Rascal scooters just aren't fast enough to do much harm.

We get it. You are the #1 Hamas supporter. Stop trying to convince us. Your denials confirm it. Your deflections confirm it. There is literally nothing you can say that won't mean you support Hamas. Because that's just how it works in the crazy-person logic that you've deployed here.

If you SAY you asked me first, it REALLY MEANS you asked me second, obviously! When you stop trolling, you can have a real conversation.

You are bad at this. A. The irony of you celebrating that this guy was arrested for some of the same crap that you defend Manafort doing is hilarious, and not lost. B. Quoting Trump's hand-picked FBI director from your article: “There are some important things that are getting lost here in respect to that case,” Wray said. “It’s the FBI who initiated this investigation, it’s the FBI and our agents that painstakingly and methodically put the case together against him, and it’s the FBI that arrested him….I think [what] the charges in that case demonstrate is the FBI’s willingness as an organization to shine a bright light on conduct that is totally unacceptable, including when it happens from one of our own people, and to hold those people accountable.”

It's obvious you fantasize about having a threesome with a Hamas terrorist and a gorilla. Why? Just answer the question, please? Why do you have that fantasy? Keep saying stupid shit. It will beget more of the same.

Is that what your Hamas handlers told you to say? Tell me you love Hamas without telling me you love Hamas! You can pretend all you want, but we know your denials and deflection and projections are just ways of advancing your anti-Israel agenda. (Conversations are like most things in life: you get out of them what you put in. If you persist in saying insane and insanely stupid shit, that's what you're likely to get back. Do better.)

That seems like good advice. Obviously it's tremendously difficult (basically impossible) to evacuate an area like that, but one could say at least warning was given. But then Israel conducts airstrikes on the very evacuation routes they told the fleeing people to take. They strike UN-run refugee camps and schools. Those kinds of things start to feel like there is no fair warning or good faith effort. Best case scenario is extreme carelessness or indifference. Worst case is that there is a deliberate effort to terrorize people and create a sense that there is no safe place and no right answers. To that point, Israel told everybody to leave North Gaza, to flee to the south. Many did. Now they're dropping leaflets on South Gaza and expanding the offensive there. In totality of all that, exercise some empathy. Put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian refugee. You're in an area that has been blockaded for years, the drive you out of your makeshift home in the north. You take your family and flee. People are bombed on the "safe" evacuation routes. People are bombed in recognized shelters. And now they tell you they are going to attack the south where they told you to go.. Don't you think it starts to feel like Israel is just going to kill you no matter where you are or what you do? That's a bit disingenuous. Yes, it's true that there is no Palestinian state, so there is no legal military. But also, the overwhelming majority of people there are not Hamas, let alone Hamas fighters. They are simply families with old people and children trying to live under decades-long tragic circumstances. That's a real-world distinction and shouldn't be dismissed or plastered over with legal hand waving. I'm also well aware that Hamas uses vile tactics to exploit these facts. I'm aware that they hide among and behind civilians. The trouble is that outside of the ticking-bomb situation--an immediate threat--I expect "the good guys" to act like good guys. Metaphorically (or perhaps even literally) if a Hamas terrorist holds up a baby as a shield, I expect the good guys to find another way. Hamas thinks that Israel is too good, and decent and civilized to shoot the baby. That's the one thing I want Hamas to be right about. Right now, Israel is just shooting the baby and hoping they get the terrorist too. Historically, they have been a reliable source with a good track record. But frankly there aren't a lot of options. If you see piles of bodies (which we do) and you wonder how many there are (which we do) and there is only one organization counting them in a war zone, that's the only real number you have. Look, there's no question that this is a complex situation. Strategically, Hamas has put Israel in a bind--that was the intention. If Israel does nothing/not enough in response to the October 7 attack Israelis lose faith in the hardline government. If Israel reacts with a disproportionate response (as they are currently doing) then they will lose a meaningful amount of international support and global sentiment and sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians will increase. It's a win-win for Hamas, and a lose-lose for Israel. Frankly, I think Israel is making all the wrong decisions now, morally, militarily and politically. They are losing support. And even if they somehow eradicate Hamas, they aren't going to eliminate the threat of terrorism. To the contrary, the massive collateral damage they are doing is going to absolutely guarantee generations of new terrorists. All those brothers and sons and cousins and nephews etc. who watched Israel destroy cities and murder innocents will eventually fight back. They will think of themselves as freedom fighters, not terrorists, and because the world is watching what Israel is doing right now, a lot more of the global community will see it that way too. What I actually think they should be do is to take advantage of the moment. End the blockade and the military action as leverage to force a two-state solution on their terms, force an election in new Palestine and give the Palestinian people a voice. Let them decide right now if they want their own state with a chance at real self governance, or whether they want to fight to the bitter end with Hamas as stateless refugees.

Sort of. That monstrosity is the result of our radical new court and was decided through the lens of a first amendment protection. That is to say if a business can make a case that the service rendered is sufficiently "artistic expression" they can discriminate under this ruling. Ultimately it's going to mean a lot of businesses going to court to try to rationalize that they make art. Not going to fly for most businesses. That case was a literal sham, BTW. Almost nothing about it was factually true. If I remember right, the plaintiff made up the whole story. Literally lied her way to the supreme court. Go figure.

It's not forced labor. It's a condition of operating a business. If they don't want to meet that condition, they shouldn't run a business. No different than fire codes and licensure. You probably don't think it's slavery to "force" business owners to do the labor to meet fire code, right?

You've got the relationship backward again. No, the worker isn't forced to take the job, just like the customer isn't forced to buy from the bigoted baker. They need to have the option though. Neither public businesses nor employers can discriminate against protected classes. There are conditions on operating a business. If you don't want to pay for a business license, don't open a business. If you don't want to meet safety standards and fire code, don't open a business. If you don't want to serve the whole public without discriminating, don't open a business. Nobody is forcing you to open a business, but if you want to, there are standards and rules and obligations. The argument you're making is the exact same, nearly word for word, that the Jim Crow southerners made. See the Heart of Atlanta case. They could not abide being forced to serve someone they considered so far beneath them. In a fit of irony, they equated the requirement for equal access to slavery. My point is not that you're a racist or something, but that the argument has been thoroughly tested and has failed as a matter of both logic and law. We simply can't have a country where "all men are created equal" and then say that if your skin is one color your 5-year old daughter might have to poop in the woods behind the gas station because "her kind" isn't allowed to use the restroom and the next stop is a hundred miles away. To be free and equal citizens, people have to be able to access places of public accommodation. There can be no second-class citizens. No lower caste.

?‍♂️No, I used recency bias exactly correctly to contrast the point-in-time Hamas attack with the ongoing Israeli response. You folks were complaining about the CURRENT volume of condemnation of Israel's killing relative to Hamas. I explained why. The alarming videos and headlines that are more recent naturally consume more of the mental and emotional energy of the audience. The focus of conversation naturally shifts. I'll quote myself for your benefit: "That empathy, sympathy and support does get eroded quickly as the retaliation blows up civilians day after day. What we're actually observing is an example of recency bias. We can all look at what Hamas did in October and say that was wrong. But what the Israelis are currently doing is active and ongoing--they are killing civilians day after day--so of course the emotional support shifts very quickly to STOP THE KILLING." I appreciate that you went and looked it up and everything. You got the definition right. Good on you. But now you have to actually apply it to the conversation. And again, kudos for acknowledging the misinformation on the revised death toll. Progress.

Murder 2, murder 3 & manslaughter. He's a convicted murderer. Reaffirmed on appeal. Yet, some denizens of this forum are so committed to teamism and the "culture war" that they'll defend murder. ?‍♂️

That's really a different issue though. If people don't want to patronize a business because of the quality of service, that's fine. But businesses shouldn't be able to discriminate in the delivery of their service--that becomes a legal issue. If you can make a reasonable case that someone made you a shitty cake because you're gay (or whatever) there are legal and financial consequences. In the exact same way that if an employer is caught making gender or age discrimination decisions there are legal consequences. The cases can be hard to prove, but such is life. We don't make laws to govern or regulate the quality of every personal interaction, but we do need to set a baseline, and that baseline is equal access.

Not sure what to tell you. You are welcome to try to refuse to work for people based on reasons covered by protected classes, but prepare for extensive legal entanglement, including shuttering of your business. At a practical level, we simply cannot allow that kind of discrimination and still be a nation of free and equal people. Allowing it creates exactly the kind of caste system that we used to have, with Blacks excluded from jobs, neighborhoods, restaurants, gas stations and everything else. "Sorry, we don't serve your kind here." It can be nearly impossible for the excluded to exist in that environment. Is that really the society you want? Because that is the literal consequence of your proclamation. And I think we've learned that that is not the type of society most of us want to live in. If you're serious, you hold a very fringe opinion. To your specific example, there may be reasons a gay couple might choose not to patronize a certain baker they think won't give them good service, but there should not be a legal protection for businesses to exclude and discriminate against classes of people. Two separate issues.

Disagree completely. Modern American life is completely built on the idea that places of public accommodation--businesses open to the general public--cannot refuse service based on protected status. That is to say, you can refuse to serve someone for being a total a-hole, but you can't refuse to serve someone for the fact of their being Black, Jewish, gay, etc. The consequence of what you are saying opens the door to the bad old days of "whites only" restaurants and other discriminatory arrangements that are far better left in the past.