The fact is no one there on that day felt provoked by it.
You and I have different definitions of the word “fact”.
The fact is no one there on that day felt provoked by it.
You and I have different definitions of the word “fact”.
Three people attempted to murder him, unprovoked.
I would certainly consider roaming the streets openly wielding a firearm to fall under a reasonable definition of “provocation”. It is unreasonable to expect a person on the street to distinguish between an active shooter and a “good guy with a gun”.
It’s almost like the “good guy with a gun” is an idiotic idea which turns situations into powder kegs of confusion and violence where everyone thinks they’re the good guy and bullets start flying.
You don’t know the first thing about me. Your presumption betrays your insincerity.
It’s literally the job of the president to maintain diplomatic relations with other world leaders, even the ones we disagree with. It is not an endorsement of Putin to say that. Stein isn’t the president, or Vice President, or Secretary of State, or anything. She holds no office, much less one that necessitates meeting foreign dignitaries. She did this on her own, the question is why.
One of these pictures is of a government official fulfilling the diplomatic duties of the office, the other is a private citizen joining a MAGA extremist at a gala for a Russian propaganda network.
If you think Democrats are bad, you should see hostile foreign entities. If you can’t do your bureaucratic due diligence to double check election forms, you are absolutely not qualified to lead an entire country.
I don’t oppose the death penalty because I don’t think some crimes are heinous enough to deserve it, I oppose the death penalty because I don’t trust the justice system to not make mistakes.
Specifically what I said was that individual choice separates humans from violent, animalistic, and selfish impulses. I said that societal structure introduces friction to disincentivize those impulses for those who would submit to them.
Maybe relatively small societies, but there has always been violence in any society of consistent size.
That’s a nice thought, and I certainly won’t completely disregard our capacity for, but our extensive history of war and brutality proves that this absolutely universal. I’m not saying that every human is violent, but it’s silly to suggest that there aren’t violent humans at every stage of history.
My issue with this notion is the implication that the modern world is uniquely tortuous and exploitative. Humans are violent, greedy, opportunistic apex predators. Our nobility and justice are individual and aspirational. The whole point of the complex web is to introduce friction and disincentives to that violence.
Should we try to minimize that violence? Absolutely! But our institutions are our attempt to crawl out of the jungle. Without police we’d have other violent gangs with even less oversight.
It actually is a common occurrence, since the U.S. Flag Code specifies that burning is the preferred method of disposing of flags that are no longer fit to display.
AirBnB is great for large groups, when all the hidden fees and cleaning duties can be split up between a dozen people. It actually works out to cheaper than a hotel, and it’s much more intimate to be together in one place with big private common areas. Plus, those big 6+ bedroom AirBnBs aren’t exactly hurting homebuyers by being off-market.
But for just a few people? Hotels all the way.
As long as they can measure the frequency of the drive, some pervert is going to try to calculate the thing. Never underestimate the siren’s song of a familiar but tricky problem.
I think the obvious answer is “Yes, some, but not all”.
It’s not going to totally replace human software developers anytime soon, but it certainly has the potential to increase productivity of senior developers and reduce demand for junior developers.
We already established that this is straight up false. Ask your handler for better material.
She specified her criticism was against pro-Hamas, and you’re saying because she didn’t make an additional redundant statement to clarify what that means that she’s implying something other than her literal words? And her call for ceasefire isn’t specific enough, despite the fact that she doesn’t have the authority to draft specific details anyway?
Your reading comprehension isn’t justification for extrapolating these wild hypotheticals.
This is a convoluted uncharitable interpretation. She specifically condemns support of pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric. It’s disingenuous to read that as blanket condemnation of all pro-Palestinian protesters.
deleted by creator
Woosh