Hodad

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.

Not quite. First degree murder (in most states AFAIK) requires deliberate intent to kill--a planned killing. Chauvin was convicted of second and third degree murder in Minnesota, neither of which require planning or premeditation. Basically, he set out not necessarily to kill, but to deliberately "hurt" Floyd in a way that might reasonably result in death.

Exactly. Nine minutes of active restraint is an eternity. It's hundreds (at least) of opportunities to assess and reassess and decide over and over again to keep doing what he was doing. Chauvin may not have consciously made the decision to murder Floyd, but the shocking degree of indifference to the well being of the victim amounts to murder.

You can't hide your support for Hamas. You keep decrying Hamas, so you must REALLY love them. Have you officially signed up? You can deny it, but it will only mean you support them even more. (This is what it feels like to read your childish posts.)

If you think an old grandpa who is overaffectionate is creepy, you'll enjoy this. Trump tells 14 year-olds help be dating then in a couple years. Says he'll be dating this tiny little girl in ten years. Now that's creepy. Remind us again how much you really care ...

Well, thank goodness you're here. The two silly medical examiners who pronounced Floyd's death a homicide and identified the cause as cardiopulmonary compression wasted all that time and money on med school. They should have just called a mall cop!

FWIW, Hillary said half of the Trump supporters, not half of the nations voters, then the next day she expressed regret for saying half. But the point that Trump had expanded the tent to include the ugliest of the alt-right was correct. Those creeps didn't used to have a cozy home in the mainstream Republican base. That was new.

Some of us are highly educated and have those words, phrases and concepts as part of our operational vocabulary. If you need a definition of recency bias because it's a "shiny new word" to you, just go look it up. And you start a post with "leftwards" (because you people apparently can't have a conversation without childish nicknames) and end by pre-complaining about "sandbox insults." You're a real piece of work. Shoddy work, but still... Oh, and I guess we have an answer to this question: "B. Are you lying or wildly misinformed about the revised death toll for the hospital explosion? It wasn't revised TO thirty, it was revised BY thirty. Which is reasonable and normal, and a pretty good indicator that the numbers are in good faith. Go look up that factoid. Whether you are man enough to admit you've spamming misinformation will reveal the answer to the first question." Apparently just lying. I assume you'll post it again in a few days the way you continually spam the same debunked misinformation all the time.

It's not a sandbox insult. You're so deep in the conspiracy fever swamp, it's hard to do anything but laugh. There's nothing that will give you a conspiracy boner like the world's must trusted and important news organizations and platforms fighting misinformation and disinformation. Those are your favorite kinds of information! Q says there's a Tim Hortons in Chilliwack with an alien pedophile ring in the basement, and it would totally harsh your buzz if the media explained that it's a slab foundation before you even got to storm the place!

You are perfectly welcome to criticize the execution of the final stage of withdrawal. Some of those criticisms will be valid (obviously it wasn't flawless) and some of them will be nonsense. If you also want to call it a "surrender" that happened when the Trump administration made their deal exclusively with the Taliban and the only condition not to attack US forces (though 15 still were killed by hostiles, about the same rate as every recent year). There was no condition not to attack Afghan forces, and indeed, the Taliban ramped up their attacks and began re-conquering the country as soon as the ink was dry. The Trump administration didn't have any reaction to that because it's exactly what was implicit in the agreement, exactly what everyone expected. The deal was, in essence, "We'll leave and you can have the country back, as long as you don't attack us on our way out." Surrender was Nationalist's claim, not mine, but that's as close to an explicit surrender as you're going to see. Trump left Biden with a surging Taliban--one now legitimized by the US government --2500 troops in country, and no plan for an end game that was just months away. I suppose Trump was too busy bungling the Covid response to close his plan. Like a pinch hitter in a game that's out of reach, Biden didn't pull off any miraculous save, but the game was lost before he ever took a swing. Could they have done better? Probably. But not much. The only real option to "not surrender" at that point would be to surge 15 or 20 thousand troops back in and start re-taking, city-by-city the territory that Trump abandoned. Just not realistic. No one has appetite for that. The Trump administration negotiated and signed the deal. They empowered the Taliban. They excluded and undercut the Afghan government. And they pulled out nearly all the troops. If you guys want to call it a surrender, that was the surrender, not Biden trying to clean up the final piece with a token military force that was left behind as, essentially, a rear guard

What destroyed "respect and reverence" for police was camera phones. Well, that was the revelation for white America. Black America already had a front row seat. For far too long the bad apples could hide and were hidden.

I don't know how else one "gets" the enemy. I recognize the difficulty. I just know this current operation is a disaster, both humanitarian and strategic. Israel may very well destroy Hamas, but an achievement built on a foundation of dead children will bear perverse fruit. Israel is fighting Hamas, but they are surrending the high road. They are surrendering moral authority in exchange for moral ambiguity. They are creating martyrs and victims and enemies. A new generation of Palestinians (or two) have now been radicalized. We're watching it happen. Whether they join Hamas or Hamas is destroyed and they join the next incarnation with a different name, the effect will be the same. And what will the rest of the world think? Where will their sympathies lie the next time Hamas 2.0 perpetrates some act of terror? When Hamas 2.0 posts their videos on YouTube rationalizing renewed brutality? When they say "Israel killed my children, my brothers, my sisters, my cousins. They were only children. Israel is a bully, brutal and and oppressive. We have no choice but to fight for our freedom." It becomes very difficult to say that they don't have a point. We will have watched all of it happen. An eye for an eye...

What was that? I can't quite understand you. Perhaps if you stopped gargling Trump's balls it would help. The people responsible for what you call a "surrender" are obviously the people who negotiated and signed the"surrender" agreement and then tried to remove 100% of the Troops but only managed to get 80% out. While we're here, maybe you'd like to give Biden credit for other stuff Trump did. Hm. Did Biden pardon Paul Manafort and other Trump cronies? Is Biden actually responsible for the Trump tax cuts. In your fevered lovesick mind, I suppose anything could make sense.

Eh, you're way beyond reason. Not much else to do with you.