Coreece

Here, some additional info so people can make up their own mind: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation https://www.vox.com/2019/7/9/20686347/jeffrey-epstein-trump-bill-clinton

Sounds a customer acted stupidly, an employee acted spastically, the police (Thanks for the additional info Bill) were fine but probably should've kept it out of the chatter box because the Breitbart crowd got ahold of it. Another possibility is that given the officers were regulars and that the barista knew them by name, perhaps she felt they were reasonable enough to handle such an unreasonable request and help her out of an awkward situation. That might also help explain why she didn't just go to management in the first place and let them handle it.

Are you sure? There's also the possibility that some women just choose to embrace Hirsutism.

I didn't want to offend the international community that might perceive it as an arrogant display of pride by an ugly American.

It probably was. I doubt anyone would really truckle to some whinging hoplophobic hipster. Either way tho, too fucking bad.

Bill I cannot agree with this more strongly. I witnessed this exact phenomenon at Penn State. As “the man” pressed his boot more firmly on the neck of the student body, the student body rebelled. We never had riots when students were allowed to smoke weed and drink beer on campus, however when a dry campus environment was imposed, all hell broke loose. Same shit here at MSU. I think our riots even made national news. The state changed underage drinking from a civil infraction to a misdemeanor and the school banned it everywhere on campus, even at tail gates. All minor in possession misdemeanor charges are removed from your criminal record after several years even if you were 20 years old because they're obviously still treating you as a minor, but they still keep it listed on your driving record indefinitely even if it had absolutely nothing to do with driving.

Nah, but I don't doubt that I've given that impression lately, especially after my little adolescent tantrum several days ago in the Salute thread. The strain has primarily been with my relationship to other Christians within my family and among my friends. I'm not really going to go into the details here, but it seems that ever since Trump was elected, our time together has been hostile, negatively political and exceedingly lame every time we get together. It's unbearable, and I just don't get it. I've had some of the best times of my life with these people over the last 10 years and it's like that joy that we'd experience on a daily basis has just been suddenly ripped away and they don't even seem to recognize it - it just fucking sucks and I'm very resentful about it all. . . .and ya, I know - I'm probably not dealing with it the right way either. Anyway, whatever, sorry for the distraction, carry on. . .

While unconventional, I understood what he was saying, so maybe that makes me crazy. I see some interesting predictions about things they've been talking about for years - and I'm going to enjoy the show like he said. Justice is coming.

They should've just given her one of those safe space stickers that ease anxiety and guarantee that nothing could possibly go wrong.

Yes and yes, I believe so. And while I'm not particularly fond of the whole guilt by association thing, these two leaders' sexual appetites and history of scandal really fucking creeps me out. . . .and I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves, but damn, if they were involved somehow, how satisfying would it be for lady justice to finally serve up those two juicy fuckers on a fat platter? Maybe then this country could finally find some common ground and wake up from this nightmare. . .

I really don't know much about all this Q stuff, but this sex scandal kind of piqued my interest. So from what I'm hearing, these QAnons on this QMap should probably be taken with a grain of salt, correct? And this Q source - are there avenues by which one can verify some of the claims? Because honestly, I don't think I have much more room for faith in my life beyond that of Christianity, and even that has been somewhat strained as of late. Also, I just wanted to say that your perspective and courage to post it here is much appreciated.

Good, it makes up for the rep point normiss gave to me last night in the firearm thread and then took it back like an Indian giver. (btw, can we still use that term today?)

I always wondered what the hell was wrong with people that periodically pop into a particular forum just to take a jab at someone. That's really big of you dude, like a bully trying to impress his friends. . . .and of course normiss would hypocritically give the guy a rep point for that garbage.

Ya, and I'd say that many of the presumptions were based on that military parade he wanted a while back, but didn't get.

It's all good bro, I was just busting your balls. In my last post I even threw in that JFK jr. line just for you!

Yes. I am sure that no one cares about shit pictures that aren't well composed, and sell for less than $500. Actually, I take that back. Shit photos like the one normiss posted typically go for a lot more money if they happened to capture a blurry UFO, or a Sasquatch, or perhaps even JFK jr. slightly hidden behind pixelated artifacts. . .

I can appreciate the other points you made in the rest of your post, I just think people are blowing this whole thing out of proportion. The celebration wasn't limited to the military and even then the military aspect of the whole thing was nothing even remotely close to what people were making it out to be. And if it was so political, the money would've had to come from his campaign fund, right? But it appears as tho he was very careful not to cross that line, but maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps it's just time to move on, but I'm open to anything else you might like to add.

geez, comments like these were mindless 10 years ago and still mindless today. good to see some have evolved.  No one is asking for more guns laws that make it illegal to shoot someone... and you are actually smart enough to know that is not the issue but you deliberately choose to be obtuse and pretend to be dumb about the actual issues that on the table.  I always wonder about that sort of behavior... I understand your frustration, but please understand that there were several things going on in that exchange. 1. I was dumbfounded that a 30 year-old could get drunk, pull out a gun, point it directly at his friend, pull the trigger and kill him - and then people are calling it a fucking accident? That is no more an accident than pounding a 5th of bourbon, flooring your car through a fucking red light and killing another driver. 2. We already have strict laws against all that stuff, but it didn't prevent that from happening, which is why I think our priority should be in raising more responsible children through aforementioned crime prevention programs, because if we can just get them through that rough crime-prone period of 15-24, then the risk of engaging in violent crime just plummets dramatically from that point onward. 3. I was expressing contempt for the "argument" that States with more gun laws have less gun deaths, because it's not the number of gun laws that really make the difference, it's the type of gun law, it's effectiveness and how it's enforced. I mean that's pretty fundamental shit, so pardon me if I find those types of indolent arguments rather meaningless and quite annoying. Because the alternative is to have a serious discussion about the topic. You know, given the shitload of data that I've posted to illustrate my perspective on the topic over the last several years compared to many here that just fling shit, post one-liners and then run away when asked serious questions, I really have absolutely no idea how you can honestly imply that I'm not at least trying to have a serious discussion even if I do get a bit snarky and emotional at times and use the fuck word more than I really should. And if people wanted to have a serious discussion, perhaps they should talk more about the actually laws that are making a difference and you'd see that I actually agree with CAP laws, safe storage and other restrictions especially those related to domestic violence issues. Hell, I even talked about all that before, but it doesn't matter unless you're also in lock-step with all the other exaggerated bullshit gun control talking points.

https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/ - A lot. 2500 'child' deaths in 2014, and 13500 injuries. that's just 0-19 years of age This has to be one of the worst cases of confirmation bias that I've seen in a long time, if not ever. You just find the first stat on the internet that you think fits your narrative and you just go with it - no fact checking, no critical thinking, no reasoning, no logic. If people cared enough to at least bother familiarizing themselves with the basic facts on the issue, they'd know just by looking at that stat that something wasn't quite right, just like the bullshit that normiss posted about South Carolina. If you even bothered reading the 1st bullet point in your link right above the stat you posted, you might've seen that that stat wasn't saying what you thought it said, and how lazily misleading it is. And they're either being deliberately misleading, or they're just as ignorant as the readers that are merely searching to confirm their own bias - the blind leading the blind by the nose, I suppose. This first bullet point from your link says that 6,885 people died in gun accidents over a 10 year period from 2006-2016, and then you'll have us believe that 2,500 of those 6,885 were children that were accidentally killed in 2014 alone? And what about the 495 total accidental gun deaths for all ages in 2016 alone? I mean how obvious do the discrepancies have to be in Ameristan to cause one to pause for two fucking seconds and at least try comprehending wtf they're actually reading. In this bullet point that you quoted, you can see they start out talking about accidental gun deaths and then conflate it with all gun deaths for that age group, giving the impression that they were all accidental - and your bias allowed you to blindly fall for it. We didn't cut the gun crime rate in half over the last 25 years by doing "absolutely fucking nothing," ok? We did not ban the CDC from conducting Research. I've been using their gun numbers on this site for years. The links you posted sourced CDC gun research over the last couple decades or so. The ban was against the CDC using government funds to lobby against gun rights, but the CDC isn't even a fucking lobbyist group. Trump just signed legislation last year clarifying the distinction and now millions have been proposed for more CDC gun research. I know you probably (apparently) haven't been following these threads, but even strong gun control advocates here have been talking about gun laws that have recently gone into effect. I've posted numerous links to youth gun crime prevention/education programs that have been proven to work. These should be the priority given that the research shows how we can significantly reduce crime within one generation if we can just get to these kids before they reach the most crime prone age group of 15-24, thus significantly reducing their chance of engaging in violent crime later in life. While there is more that we still need to do, the idea that we're doing nothing is just a bunch of ignorant bullshit perpetuated virally via the internet by a dying breed of emotionally retarded keyboard warriors - I implore you - do not go down that road - otherwise you may want to be more careful about those you accuse of being obtuse. . .

I think most people typically just take pictures throughout the entire day/event, so any bias would be in the selection of photos to support whatever story you want. Professionals like those working for Getty just want the best shot so they can sell digital copies for $500 each, so it better be high quality and legit. Compare that to the shit photo that normiss posted above. Nobody wants that crap unless you're some desperate liberal in denial trying to bullshit everyone into thinking that the Getty image (or similar photo) is fake.

Well there's the disconnect. I'm not the one that had a problem with those vehicles being called tanks, nor was I trying to imply that in my initial posts. Personally I think it's understandable given the resemblance, plus it just makes it easier to talk about without continually having to make a distinction between a Bradley and an Abrams or whatnot. The part about the "silly" misguided outrage was an afterthought to normiss's post describing the entire event as "silliness." Did he really say that there was going to be a parade with tanks in it? I mean I'm not trying to defend the guy, but what I heard was him describing a flyover and saying that "there's going to be some tanks stationed outside," and then suddenly it's Tienanmen square and North Korea and the Soviets and a thousand controversies and tearing up the roads and all that other bullshit.

Or other photos reportedly taken about the same time. Reported by whom? And when you say "about the same time," you mean give or take a few hours? Not unless you've been plagued by the outbreak of chronic confirmation bias that has been sweeping the country. . . Ya, why let facts get in the way of your feels.

Did you? I have literally no idea how you could possibly think they support your rant. "Point is outrage over battle vehicles being used, on streets in DC, at great taxpayer expense and for nothing other than a narcissist’s needs! "The sight of tanks on Washington’s streets grotesque!" "The resemblance to days before Tiananmen Square is chilling!" "This is more than chilling. This is a totalitarian regime’s show of strength- former USSR loved to do this , Putin and Kim Jong Un still do it and now trump is forcing this down our throats too!" "Around the world, analysts and observers have recoiled!" "This looks to me like one more deliberate step towards authoritarianism!" "Our military people deserve better than to be a side show prop for this egomaniac!" "Trump’s military presentation had triggered a thousand controversies!" "The tanks wasting our tax dollars and tearing up the roads in the process while ultimately accomplishing nothing is peak trump!" "This isn’t funny, it’s serious!" This makes me sick! "Despicable!"

But the only reason you were under the impression that it would've even remotely resembled anything like that is because of how full of shit some people are in this spoiled rotten ass country of ours.

Right, but it's also a thread that is utterly devoid of any outrage at the existence of a supposed tank parade.  Then apparently you didn't review the links I posted. What do you think prompted piisfish to start the thread in the first place?