in the U.S. 15 - 20% of all pregnancies will end in a miscarriage or stillbirth.

if that's nature, GOD lets it happen. so let's be thorough. punish all those who would 'kill' babies. burn down the churches! that'll show HIM!

it's a cruel law meant only for political gain or pseudo-moral pride. no one can say infants matter when they do little to nothing to help them AFTER they are born. that's a reality too.

want to refute that?

remember this?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeb-bushs-florida-lost-500-kids

likely those 'lifers' can rest peacefully ignoring the horror of some smug unjust hypocritical law - but the kid can't.

* * * *

or someone that says it better...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VDHg-KOhLw

also some of the things that the Holy Warriors overlooked...
religious freedom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e26YL3-TbE
federal land: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggpFARWaGlA&t=7s

from Asset Forfeiture
Policy Manual 2021


I. Guidelines for Planning for Seizure and Restraint
A. Background
The Department of Justice (Department) Asset Forfeiture Program (Program) encompasses the
seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, federal
crimes. The Program has four primary goals:
(1) Punish and deter criminal activity by depriving criminals of property used in or acquired
through illegal activities.
(2) Promote and enhance cooperation among federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law
enforcement agencies.
(3) Recover assets that may be used to compensate victims when authorized under federal law.
(4) Ensure that the Program is administered professionally, lawfully, and in a manner consistent
with sound public policy

II. Payment of Attorneys’ Fees in Criminal Forfeiture Cases
A. Defendant’s attorneys’ fees
The defendant in a criminal forfeiture action may file for an award of attorneys’ fees only under
the Hyde Amendment.4 A motion for fees and costs filed in a civil forfeiture case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2465(b) cannot include fees and costs incurred in even a directly related criminal proceeding.5
To prevail on a Hyde Amendment claim, the defendant must prove that: (1) the defendant was the
prevailing party in the underlying action; (2) the government’s position was vexatious, frivolous, or in
bad faith; and (3) there are no special circumstances that would make the award unjust.6
This burden
is heavier than the one the government must meet under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA

Hobbled to prevent further unjust hobblings. I understand if things get meta and I'm hobbled for hobbling the other hobbling.

He's on paid administrative leave because that's what the union contract stipulates. The reason being he shouldn't be penalised because he's waiting for the outcome of the investigation.

He's been removed from the situation.

The process is to protect the unjustly accused, not benefit the guilty.

I kind of swing the other way on this. We live in a cruel, violent, unjust world. Talking about that is not automatically an endorsement of it. Making jokes about it is part of talking about it and an important coping mechanism. Yes, talking and joking about it CAN be done in a way that encourages it, but it's NOT automatic.

As per your Toy Story examples, the ultimate take away for the young audience exposed to it is that the violence/torture was a clear cut bad thing. When someone in your office pulls a prank on someone and the other party responds by jokingly threatening to kill them for it they aren't normalizing murder. Nobody comes away from that interaction with the idea that murder is somehow more acceptable or less bad.

We need to relax a little bit about looking for micro-aggressions and 'bad' culture in every little thing that people say or joke about,

*promote

Kind of depressing. One of those things that deep down everyone knows is unjust, with exactly zero percent chance of changing.

I do wonder what let up to this.

The guy was unjustly shot. I do believe a boatload of coin from the county will be in order.



This does go to show that cops don't' just shoot blacks for nothing-- Whites are fair game also.

"None of our side died, points for us"...begging for retaliation, no? Also, give it time, the murderer may have killed himself too, domestic terrorism is a capital offence.

"None of our people killed anyone unjustly."
The car was struck by a bat after he murderously drove through the crowd killing people.

He's just begging for someone to drive into his next rally so he can open fire with all 5 guns at once and finally feel like a man, isn't he?

His followers are scurrying for the shadows now that they're being identified publicly. It will be hilarious if all their homes get robbed while they're in San Francisco harassing homosexuals on 9/11.

Was gone for the weekend and it turned into word fights (almost)...

It is so hard to carry on a discussion... the heat too easily turned up. Sorry if I contributed in the heat.

Thing is, I don't think any of us need to argue for God's omnipotent or his non-existence. God can select to do or not do anything he wants. He can choose to reveal Himself to a believer or a non-believer, or NOT to. What's the point. It has been argued for millennia and I doubt we are "The Chosen One(s)" to end this. And I think, most of us in our Western society, whether you're Christian or not, we know quite a bit about the Bible CONTENT. But the 99.99% of us non-Bible-scholars probably don't know the exact CONTEXT of the tough stuff. The churches avoid them too for obvious reasons.

For me the important things is, there are really horrible things done in history (and present) in the name of religion. Allow me to be a bit self-serving and consider these terrible, inhumane events as evil beings hijacking their religions so they can get away Scot-free. We can't allow that in this day & age. Hold the evil doers & hypocrites accountable, not the religion.

When I read the Bible, I see all the crap that makes no sense too, but I see the discrepancy as humanity making progress. There are so many years between us & the Bible's original writings (or oral pass-me-downs), words & meaning invariably changed (and not always for the better). Could it be the clear-as-day word "gossip" (its Hebrew equivalent) was not part of its language yet? Therefore Paul said those sexist things (in our modern eye)? Or just people speak funny in those days? I can't be sure.

So, I *try* to figure out the meaning of those difficult Bible verses by keeping the context of Jesus' teachings in mind. I mean, come on, all he want is us all having compassion towards each other, be respectful of God and oh, there's the promise of heaven. Like, THAT'S IT, that's the gist of it. Anything else is pretty secondary & incidental to me. The part that concerns between human-human interact? Yes, it's hard to put in practice. But it's not hard to understand what's needed to be done. E.g. If someone offends my religion, should I go on the defensive and then all Super-Saiyan retaliation mode? Or should put my focus into finding out why he offended me and try to understand the reasoning behind it, and if possible, do something positive about it? I believe Jesus asks of us the latter.

Thing is, as a Christian (granted, some Christian might not consider me one that much, maybe?), I'm OK to leave a lot of things in the Bible in the "gray zone"... because it is *I* that haven't the smarts to comprehend what's written fully. But I do think I understand its purpose enough to know what I need to do to be better. The world is full of hurt, we can't just standby and focus on sometimes pointless fights (ironically I'm typing this post, lol, mea culpa, but hope it's worth it), better put more energy on making things better -- like Jesus, arguably the most progressive thinker/doer of its time, wanted to make the world a better place. Jesus didn't spend his time setting up a religion, he was there for a peace & compassion revolution.

Seriously sad that when the topic touches on religion, there're way too much stereotypes & presumptions on every sides. I see the reality as far more nuanced. I can understand, and in fact conditionally support, a lot of the abolition of "Religion" with its ritualistic practices in today's society. I really don't trust anyone loudly proclaiming themselves "devout" but support sexist/racist/unjust policies. The smell of hypocrisy, ulterior motives & power corruption are too great. Don't sheepishly give them the political & God forbid... military power to do great harm to humanity. History has proven that time & again.

The whole conservative Christian Republican movement is directly opposed to the teachings of the Bible, though they claim to be the most Christian of all those here... If I were still a Christian (I used to be a far right, evangelical, speaking in tongues, going to 3 services a week, Republican is God's chosen party, Christian once upon a time, even my earliest posts, under a different name as I couldn't recover the password for that account, praised Fox news, creationism, though not young Earth creationism, and more) I'd be worried that the modern Republican party may indeed be the Anti-Christ system, since deceiving Christians would be priority one for Satan. No need to deceive the world, as they are already going to Hell, who you need to deceive are those already going to Heaven to practice a faith that claims to be Christ like, but isn't, while turning people off real Christianity, which is exactly what Right Wing Christianity does. Everything they stand for goes against he beatitudes, the commandment of love, the commandment to treat others as you'd have them treat you, how the rich (and not just that one specific rich guy) are very unlikely to get into heaven, to help the poor, to heal the sick , not to judge, and all that without exception... They ignore the fact the actual Sin of Sodom wasn't sexual perversion (though it didn't help to be fair), but being a "land of plenty while doing little to help the needy and poor" (and as a side note, while the Bible does indeed mention the sexual immorality, it also mentions how hostile Sodom was to foreigners)... and ignore Isiah 10 ("Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights")

As to the John Adams thing, they dismiss that as Adams being just political, because he made other statements about faith... of course his pro-faith and other Founding Father statements about pro-faith aren't just for political gain... no... statements against it though however.... Just like Mark Zuckerberg's recent pro-faith announcements have nothing to do with how he seemed to be making political moves so soon after... I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact an atheist or even agnostic can't get elected to high offices (not saying he didn't actually find faith, he very well may have, just the timing is odd).

I agree with you and don't hate Nazis. I hate murderers though, so I hate many of the Nazis but not all of them. Some Nazis helped Jews escape their fate and if it were not for them, some of those people would not be alive today. Disagree with me all you want, I couldn't believe otherwise.

In fact, even some of the mass murderers, the Einsatzgruppen, the meticulous destroyers of entire populations throughout Eastern Europe showed signs of their shame and guilt. When someone feels shame and guilt, that is a sign of their humanity which begs for love and forgiveness.

That doesn't excuse the horrors that they contributed to, but it also shows that they were not merely bogeymen and were themselves victims.

Now, it's very human for you to disagree with my sentiments on this topic out of love and honor for those who were unjustly murdered in this life -- we are a passionate species and it is very right to feel anger towards murderers -- but if an actual loving god (not a torturing one) were to exist, it would forgive and love for the same reasons. That's my belief and I sleep well at night for having it. Otherwise, I would simply be filled with anger and hate for the people who have caused me pain in MY actual life.

Nazis never did a goddamn thing to me directly so it's only conceptual hate that I can feel towards them. But there are people who existed side by side with me who have done me great harm -- and I even forgive and love those people who directly violated my trust. People MUST forgive those that have harmed them in order to move forward with their lives, by accepting their humanity, which although flawed, is still a mammalian emotional being, neocortex enabled and desiring compassion.

Another interesting conceptual form of love is when the family of murder victims forgive the convicted killers who harmed their own family. Isn't that interesting that some people are willing to not hate murderers of their own family members? Or when George Wallace forgave the man who attempted to assassinate him? Sure, he was a born againer and the pro-segregationist who tried to deny black people from signing up for school with white kids, but he still had it in him to forgive and to love, and that to me says he too must be forgiven and loved, because a change occurred in him and his empathy manifested in new ways as his perceptions of mankind changed over time.

This is where our views part: I am not ready to ascribe malice to what can be explained by incompetence. I am not willing to do so without something more to go on. I think this sort of sensationalism can be dangerous and polarizing.

There's no doubt that these two cops could have killed the caregiver had they the intent. Even just the cop that fired, had he really wanted to, could have killed the victim, easily. The fact that they did not do so doesn't exonerate them from all wrong doing, but it does stand in the face of your charges of attempted murder.

If three shots were fired, and only one of them hit the victim, why do we assume that he was firing at the caregiver, and not the other fellow? Either way, most shots missed, and we can see the prone man was between the sitting man and the shooting man. Horrible idea to be firing, but to ascribe motive at this point is to get ahead of yourself. Negligence seems more likely.

As for the delay in medical care, there are a lot of assumptions being made it seems. Where was he shot? Was he bleeding profusely? How many of those 15 minutes passed before medics were even on the scene? The cufffing is clearly a bad idea in this case, but also sounds like protocol, which can hardly be maintained constitutes attempted murder.

That is why it is damaging to jump to conclusions early. We can say that the shooting was clearly unjust and unjustified. We can say that the officer clearly acted incompetent in his job, causing significant harm to an innocent. Beyond that you're straying into the mind reading business.

The UK has done a much better job in handling the situation than the US has, it seems, though it has had more time to do so than the southern US. I don't think they achieved it by implementing systemic racism in the opposite direction, though. And let's be clear, even though we may feel justified in kicking out higher achieving students to replace them with a quota-satisfying minority group, that is systemically racist, the very thing we are trying to abolish. It is a clear example of committing a wrong to hopefully achieve a right. And it will never feel like anything short of racism to the individual student that gets short changed.

So let's say that it works, and black folk begin to integrate more successfully into the encompassing community, and the encompassing communities don't end up resenting them for the racist laws that are helping them to do s . Will we ever be remove these racist rules? Or will we be arguing about an ever small statistical deviation somewhere? Furthermore, all of the people that are unjustly damaged by these new racist rules (ie. Ashley), won't they then be due reparations in the future too? Who would pay those? Where would it end? Would it end?

I just doubt that more racism is the cure for racism.

1 in every 300 Americans is on the terror watch list.

Dems cried about how bad the watch list is, how it's unfair that innocent people are flagged and have practically zero ability to get their name off the list (unless they're some big wig).

...

But now it's not a retarded broken list that unjustly punishes innocent people without due process. Now it's good to go.

-scheherazade

I've largely opted out of this one. I'm not an economist or an expert in european law, so I haven't the knowledge to make an intelligent choice.

I am somewhat naturally inclined toward remaining: there was never a trace of patriotism in my soul, and the european courts at least have done some service toward protecting british freedoms, both from our government and from those corporations who'd like to own it. The common market's a good principle, and I don't have anything but admiration for the idea of a european superpower to oppose the twin fascisms of the US and China.

I never thought I'd grow up to care about immigration, but it turns out I don't like seeing millions of social conservatives marching into western europe from lesser cultures, pushing back against the progress we've made in recent decades.

There's another dimension to that question in the UK, which I don't think is well understood externally: where absolutely anyone with a european passport is allowed permanent residence here, the government keeps the figures down to appease its more xenophobic voters by making it practically impossible for those outside the EU. So, every year we tell thousands of highly skilled, highly intelligent prospective immigrants to just fuck off. Good policy.

In any event, I don't endorse unjust systems like democracy, and wouldn't vote in any referendum.