SkyDekker

You want a reasonable reaction to a post you admit was purposely inflammatory?

Sure, there has to be a standard for the legal side as well. But letting people kill with impunity and without oversight, nor penalty for misbehaviour is not quite the right way to run a military, or nay branch of it. Fucking up a judicial case is not a reason not have a judiciary.

Let me introduce you to Terryology https://twitter.com/terrencehoward/status/925754491881877507?s=20&t=dcFtco5xRx_U6l9BOmLT3A He had quite a scientific showdown in Uganda this week: https://www.vice.com/en/article/88qny5/terrence-howard-says-he-reinvented-physics-wants-to-give-uganda-new-forms-of-flight-defense

Rokita’s office responded with the following, “As we stated, we are gathering evidence from multiple sources and agencies related to these allegations. Our legal review of it remains open.” Blessed be the fruit.

That will never happen. How could they possibly protect a President when they can freely text about sedition?

All the more reason to allow the legal process to take place and refer problematic actions through the right channels.

That wasn't what I was discussing. It was presented as being child abuse. I reacted to that since Winsor belongs to a tribe that forces actual child abuse as part of their culture. Any decision made in conjunction with or for a child may not be in their best interest. You are a parent, I am sure you understand there is a very fine line between being supportive AND acting in the best interest of the child. When to seek out professional help, etc. Each situation and each child is different. I certainly wouldn't agree that each child that wants to transition should transition, nor do I agree that no child should ever be allowed to transition. All the more reason to allow conversation, dialogue, communication and a network of experts to work through these things. Not just blanket prohibition. Kind of like how we deal with circumcision as a society, just to bring it full circle.

Judge not, that ye be judged. For with what judgment, ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again Before you remove the mote from your brother's eye, see that you remove the beam from your own He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her

Blessed be the fruit.

Canada is way ahead of you..... https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/11/01/did-a-childrens-textbook-say-canadas-first-nations-moved/

Weird argument coming from a guy whose "tribe" cuts the foreskin off male babies and in some cases has a designated male suck it off the penis. Edited: penile gland or pineal gland is something entirely different....lol

I enjoy reading your perspectives and thoughts on the things we discuss. In that way you make my world better. I am certain I am not alone.

Weird comment since we have already established a lot of it is getting exported. There is absolutely no indication the US government has any interest in limiting the export of petroleum products. So, that argument also makes absolutely no sense.

I specifically do not agree with the argument that her case is pressing because she is black and lesbian in a country with negative sentiments towards both. This wasn't an issue for her as long as she was getting a few million dollars.

If a pregnant woman gets the death penalty it would be akin to abortion, which is illegal.....

I have a feeling this wasn't the first time she traveled to Russia with the cannabis oil. She was travelling on the dime of an oligarch. I would not be surprised if in previous years this simply wasn't a problem. However, in the end she went to Russia for nothing but pure greed and got caught. Hard to have sympathy or empathy for her. I believe she commented that the $225,000 she was making was too hard to live on.....

To me a good fund manager establishes themselves when the market is not doing well. Cathie Woods is failing on that front.

If I am the Twitter board I am suing Musk to complete the transaction. I think it would be a first for a company that did not seek a takeover is going to court to force a takeover. In y opinion, Musk either got caught by Twitter calling his bluff, OR he had this planned out so he could liquidate a sizable portion of his Tesla stock without tanking the price. If it is the second, the SEC should be investigating.

Sole reason might be to get out of criminal proceedings, but that appears to have backfired. Turns out Trump never exerted Executive Privilege to begin with...... https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-reveals-investigators-interviewed-trumps-attorney-connection-bannon/story?id=86588798

Year to date, ARKK is down about the same as bitcoin......

Was the land expropriated? How did the value of the land go to $0? If you mean he sold at a loss, or at breakeven, why did he sell and what would be the value of the land today?

Next challenges should be: Voting age should now be based on date of conception, not birth. Same with drinking ages etc. How do you deal with incarcerating a pregnant woman? The person inside the woman is not guilty and is now being unlawfully detained. The list goes on and on and on.

Grew up speaking Dutch, English is really my second language. High School was Dutch, English, French, German and the two classical languages: Latin and Greek.

This portion of a transcript of an interview with a UCLA law professor sums up how selective they are with the originalist and historical context: " Most notable is that the Court says it is going to look to history and tradition, but then ignores history and tradition. The Court says that only gun laws which have historical precedent are constitutionally permissible, and then the Court dismisses all of the historical precedents for heavy restrictions on concealed-carry laws as outliers. The Court says that it is going to look to history, but dismisses early English common law as too old. The Court says that it is going to look to history, but dismisses any laws that were adopted after the mid-eighteen-hundreds as too young. The Court says that it is looking to history, but also says that shall-issue permitting is constitutional, even though shall-issue permitting is a twentieth-century invention. So the Court says that it is doing history and tradition analysis, but conveniently ignores any history it doesn’t like. In terms of picking and choosing historical precedents, is that out of the norm or a common feature of Court decisions? This is singular. The Court says that history and tradition analysis is the way that constitutional rights should be analyzed. But all you have to do is go back to Tuesday’s decision on the funding of religious schools. The Court didn’t do any history and tradition analysis to show that there is a First Amendment requirement that states finance religious schools. [In the gun case,] the Court rejects the kind of interest-balancing that is commonplace in constitutional law more generally.' https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-historical-cherry-picking-at-the-heart-of-the-supreme-courts-gun-rights-expansion

My inability to maintain my marriage shows how God never intended for the races to mix. - Thomas (Probably)