leh-nerd skin-erd

Well, in fairness, I dropped a reference to Ashli Babbitt in a thread about a shooting in Utah several years later, absent context. I can understand and appreciate his response.

Huh. How about that?

You’re correct here, I was in line at a bank and typed quickly. I agree with you on law enforcement being fired upon, but it goes beyond that. You mentioned law enforcement getting shot at, and support them shooting back. In the Ashli Babbitt case, she was unarmed and shot by an officer. I should have asked what your thoughts were in that situation, where the officer was not being fired upon. It’s a complicated issue.

Then you feel Ashli Babbitt was the victim, John? She was unarmed.

Dude, yes! Comply with reasonable requests from law enforcement! The grand illusion of safety in our towns and cities requires that we respond reasonably to requests of this nature. On the other hand, law enforcement must act reasonably as well. There will be tapes of this encounter, and assuming law enforcement acted appropriately, we should move on. Let's see what happened. At the same time, this should be the standard always. With people like Michael Brown, Jacob Blake and the like, that doesn't seem to be the standard most democrats want to employ. In those cases, the micromanagement of police actions in dangerous situations bubble up, and the concept of shooting people in the foot is raised. I'd think we would agree that this guy in Utah should have been afforded due process, and reasonable options to de-escalate the situation should have been considered. To be clear, I would assume the actions by law enforcement were reasonable. That said, it sounds like the neighborhood became a shooting gallery at 6am, so it's reasonable to ask...was it reasonable?

It seems complicated, like those toys I used to put together for children at Christmas. Do this. Do that. Find bolt II, which could be 11, of which there are 18 when there should be 20. Page 4. Click. click. click. Besides, I'll follow you just to spite ya. On the bright side, I know how you feel.

You downthumbing mo'fo! I'm actually the victim! Carry on though!

I don't see gender. Witchlocks or Wartches--no issues so long as they don't cast their spells on me.

On the other hand, you could not tag him at all. Just a thought for the greater good.

Let's be clear--Clarence Thomas never, ever discussed business with the lesser Biden!

Prayers up for the officers involved, and thank goodness they arrived en masse to defuse this very volatile and dangerous situation. Feelings can be assaulted, too.

“…no good faith reason…”? It’s a website, not the Salem Witch trials.

I’m just catching up here and was about to type “…360….🤫” and see @JDHillFan addressed it. 🤣 I don’t pass judgment, and I’m not an elector at all. I’m just the notch guy. However, I truly believe Clarence Thomas would not have made that 360 error. You are being denotched by a one notch.

Obviously...that's the way lesser men respond. I knew that--I'm at notch 9.

Now you have it. I can move you up a notch on the Less-Lesser man list, but even after that, you're only at notch 2. There are many, many notches.

You'll be fine, everyone will be fine.

Trump's done so much bad ***** that cocaine is cool again!

On cue, a lesser man revealed.

Clarence Thomas is an incredible man, ridiculed and scorned by lesser men who see him as a threat to their vision of the status quo. It’s pretty simple, really. Supreme Court nominee Thomas laid it out in straightforward term 30+ years ago.

And what is the typical response from those on the left and media pundits? I’ll give you a hint….they blame law enforcement for being heartless and cruel. Based on what we know now, seems to me this guy was absolutely off his rocker. The video from the shooting should tell us all we need to know.

I called him but yeah, the real deal.

We have no evidence John is in Riverside, or that his name is John! criss cross…trust no one.

@Andy1 https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/07/trump-gag-order-is-likely-given-his-online-attacks-pence-jack-smith-legal-experts-say.html This article takes a deeper dive into the question we discussed the other day. True, it seems a bit hyperbolic on the importance of words in capital letters, neglects to mention that Trump has actually been the victim of political persecution according to many people in the know, but overall...why should his speech be limited beyond highly sensitive or protected information, when the govt has no such restraint? Gag orders are usually only imposed when the fairness of a trial is seen to be at risk, legal experts said. The judge will have to weigh First Amendment concerns against the need to prevent attempts to tamper with witnesses or taint the jury pool. later... In a filing Monday evening, Trump's attorneys argued that the Department of Justice's proposed protective order was too broad. The defense attorneys proposed a narrower order that they said would shield "only genuinely sensitive materials from public view." and... In a social media post earlier Monday, Trump claimed that a protective order in the case "would impinge upon my right to FREE SPEECH." In the same post, Trump said that Smith and the DOJ should be bound by such an order, claiming they are "leaking" information. Again, I understand the malice and disgust directed at Trump, but think the defense raises a valid point about being muzzled unreasonably.

A wise man once said: You could look your post from a very positive point of view, that this country is built on freedom and self-expression and that any "protest" is a strong indication of a healthy, free democracy; and their actions can be viewed as someone who believes the country could indeed be even better. In fact, you may even ask yourself, if they feel so strongly then perhaps we should listen to what they have to say. You don't have to ultimately agree, but you should feel comfort in their ability to say it. It's a soccer game. When someone ruffles feathers, feathers get ruffled. That's the point. I'm ok. You're ok. We just disagree. Personally, I don't care if they win or lose. I have no interest in soccer generally, but where I used to love the aspect of amateur athletics and the pursuit of glory, these super teams of well-compensated individuals doesn't hold much interest to me. It seems more like a sponsorship deal than anything else, though I can see young fans being inspired to be great as well.

I'm just a humble observer, but considering the totality of the board that seems extreme. I'm not just speaking about here, where people getting tagged often upsets the fragile amongst us, but even on the main board, there's some mean-girl posting that goes on. I'm not sure who Chris is, but he sounds like a scoundrel. I'd start a petition to Free Irv, but honestly it seems like a lot of work.