@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

8 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

8 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

Was the shooting legitimate self-defense?

Yes. Foster had his rifle shouldered with both hands on it. While the barrel was pointed downward (not straight down, but at an angle), Perry in his car was actually below him... and in any case he could have raised the rifle and fired in an instant. Perry's car was also surrounded and being banged on by Foster's fellow travelers at the time. Perry was in reasonable fear for his life.

They pointed to posts made by Perry on social media, expressing hostility toward BLM protestors and discussing armed self-defense against them, and claimed that Perry intentionally crashed into the crowd of protestors to provoke an incident.

The social media evidence (concerning Perry saying he wanted to kill some other set of BLM protestors) was prejudicial and never should have been admitted. Perry obviously hated them, but that doesn't make him a murderer. Social media evidence from Foster indicating he carried his rifle in order to intimidate, and that he'd blocked streets before, were not admitted.

The claim that Perry "crashed" into the crowd is contradicted by the evidence.

As I've pointed out many times before, rules-based systems require trust that the rules are fair to operate. That trust is evidently gone.

The left never had that trust. The claim that the system is rigged in favor of the Man is a standard leftist one. Now, at least Abbott has finally realized that he doesn't need to act as if institutions controlled by his enemies are trustworthy.

Edit: Apparently they can STILL get him. He still has to face a misdemeanor deadly conduct charge. You'd expect this would be double jeopardy (since the charges stem from the same act), but I think we'll find the courts decide that the pardon wipes away the original jeopardy.

While Nike was named after the Greek goddess of victory (and came out of a company called Blue Ribbon Sports, referring to victory in another way), Budweiser was not named after the concept of being a buddy, nor after a flower bud.

Trump specifically mentioned the Insurrection Act, which allows the military to be used. They told him they would refuse anyway. This wasn't about legalisms.

As I recall, Trump had to use Customs and Border Patrol to do it.

There are no men with guns willing to actually fight for progressive values and Our Democracy(tm).

As the response to Trump's suggestion of using the military to stop BLM riots, there are; we call them the US military. The officers are blue now, the rank-and-file are not all that red, and many are minorities A red state governor trying anything likely ends up being crushed.

Biden is being forced to defend the black vote, and it's going badly.

Yeah but that's Israel rather than any style issue. He can't go full Hamas without losing a rather important segment of Democratic elites (and anyway I'm pretty sure it's not personally his desire to do so), but that hurts him with blacks.

I'm for "Trump smash". Breaking the current environment that any tactic is OK for the left but none (including ordinary political rallies, which as you may recall the left liked to disrupt in 2016) for the right is necessary for the right.

But I suspect that a Trump in Sing Sing for putting an expense in the wrong ledger category(with the correct one determined retroactively, natch) will have trouble doing any of those. The boomercons will desert him as a criminal and he'll lose, and the left will be emboldened.

Of course if they put Trump in Sing Sing and he wins, he'll almost certainly at least TRY "Trump smash".

But also, these governments are clown-level incompetent, and are always backstabbing each other to avoid their quotas.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure Western governments are not above bribing them to backstab each other.

The circle will be squared the same way it usually is. Disparate impact against unfavored groups will be ignored by setting up extremely high standards for it to be proved and carving out easy exceptions. Disparate impact against favored groups will have little burden of proof and few if any exceptions will be tolerated. Want to discriminate against Republicans? "Oh, republicans just are too stupid to be in academia, see we have a study here showing that". Don't want to discriminate in favor of black people? Too bad.

As for SCOTUS, you can barely get John Roberts to make a decision; he certainly won't enforce it.

Yes, but the lower courts could just ignore that. Maybe in another 10 years the Supreme Court will finally take a case and issue a wishy-washy decision that the lower courts could then ignore again.

How do you say "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" in modern Hebrew? The Arabs have tried that before; it did not go well for them.

The dancing Israelis, if indeed they were dancing, may have been a bunch of cynical scum -- the story is they were happy because they figured it meant the US would go to town on the Arabs. But there weren't street celebrations in Israel proper, the way there were among Palestinians in East Jerusalem (and also Jersey City).

The problem with the three-state solution is the same as the problem with the two-state solution -- how to keep the Arab states from immediately making war on Israel and sending us right back to the start.

He's almost got the face of the gigachad. He had to have done that on purpose.

But they're very silly space opera books, lots of action with basically no deep thinking.

Eh, not really; a lot of them are basically "puzzle" stories, where the protagonist has to outsmart the berzerker.

Anyway, that's not a complaint you can make about the rather heavier in tone Greg Bear books. Bear may have called it a "vicious jungle" rather than a "dark forest", but it's the same thing.

Legally you're correct, of course

Then the issue of a rules-based international order is settled in favor of the US's actions here, and further complaints are, as @Dean said, about a vibes-based order.

There's a number of treaties where the US is on the same side as Russia, including some of the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions. You can view them as weak countries attempting to dictate terms to the strong (since some of them go back to the USSR days), or as countries that were basically unserious and unlikely to be put in a position where the treaties would interfere with their goals as attempting to restrict the parties who might actually be subject to them.

As for Putin, Biden said the ICC's case was justified while pointing out the ICC had no authority in the US either.

related to above, pro-Americanism and the idea that to be America's best pal, especially now, also requires supporting Israel.

On that front, there's also this, Palestinians celebrating 9/11. Americans may not be able to hold a grudge the way Middle Easterners can, but it's been less than 25 years, not over 2000.

This does not apply to any other part of the Earth apart from Antarctica, covered by an international treaty, and has not itself been defined by a treaty, so clearly this claim is just an attempt to create a new international status to some territory for the specific purpose of benefitting Israel.

The internationally recognized status of Gaza and the West Bank were hammered out in the Oslo Accords. This status does not match the facts on the ground, but that's not actually Israel's doing -- it's that the Palestinian Authority was driven from Gaza, by Hamas. Gaza is (or was, until the current offensive) an unrecognized (including by Egypt and Jordan, who I believe recognize the Palestinian Authority) but de facto independent state. This is not some novel status; it happens every time some separatist movement becomes strong enough to hold territory. For another current example, there's Somaliland.

The present ruling population of Israel mostly moved to that territory in the late '40s, and from the start has continued violently expelling the ancestors of present Palestinians from their homes to acquire their land for themselves.

You and SecureSignals can keep telling yourselves that, but it's a strange narrative that ignores the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the first time the Arab states tried to push Israel into the sea.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The people promptly elected Hamas as their champions, and Hamas used that power to make war on Israel by firing rockets. Israel basically just withstood this (and built Iron Dome) for many years, until October 7.

It reminds me of women who say all men are rapists waiting to be rapey.

So you've got nothing but analogy to your headcanon?

This Patti Hearst-type phenomenon surely can't pattern onto all females?

Aside from the fact that it would be bad, why not?

Personally, I wish people would stop taking Cixin Liu's plot device in Three Body Problem as a serious speculative hypothesis.

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forge_of_God]Greg Bear[/url] came up with it long before anyway. And Fred Saberhagen as that article points out, though I don't know how explict he was about it.

But in that particular case, Winston was wrong!

I suspect this is the result of coordination. Male pro-Palestinian protestors -- especially if they're obviously Muslim looking -- will read as scary. So it is women who are recruited to front the cause.