Where did you get this information that diametrically opposes her claims?
She said they confirmed the extra people were OK before they left home, and was told there's an extra charge, then was denied when they were 5 (3) minutes away calling for directions (if you don't know, many Airbnb listings don't include the address or directions beyond 'go to this town/intersection and call', so calling for directions 5 minutes away is not so abnormal.)
The pets, if not preapproved, are a perfectly good reason to deny her, but that's not what the landlord said in her texts.
Really? Her behavior is that of an Asian stereotype? You're going to have to explain that, as it sounds pretty racist itself.
As for the camera crew, it's a cell phone video. When you're lost in a whiteout, you ask the first people you can for help, the reporters were stopped there reporting on the blizzard in the pull out spot where her party was putting on chains, not flying past her, so she probably asked them for help or directions.
How is it "set up so perfectly"?
You certainly seem eager to support the landlord and dismiss all of this woman's claims as false, even with the texts from the landlord that were clearly racially dismissive and antagonistic in tone and no evidence yet that it wasn't purely racial discrimination. That's not a good look.

As for United, do you think they would have forced a younger articulate white doctor with patients to see off the plane like that? I don't.

But a real estate mogul who NEVER reads rental agreements that he signs?
A businessman who NEVER reads contracts that he signs?
That's pretty abnormal.
After 50+ years of doing it, would would expect him (or anyone who can read) to have picked up the terminology, wouldn't you?

Now he's a president who probably doesn't read the laws, executive orders, and military orders he signs and has no experience at all dealing with any of them. Terrifying. If he's not prepared to read fine print, he absolutely should not be running a company, much less a country. Details matter, ignoring them in favor of his interpretation of a verbal summary (that he can't review or compare with other sources) puts his advisors in total control. No thanks!

Can he even read the constitution? How can he defend it if not? I need irrefutable proof to move on to his next disqualifying flaw, because to me this one trumps all others.

I've known many 14 year olds, male and female, that had not reached full puberty, I was one. Some had not even started it. I admit, he did say he thought the law had set the 'line' at the right place, but went on to say that many 14 year olds and even younger were fully prepared for sex with adults and at least implied that it would not be immoral to have sex with them, just illegal. He didn't say how one would determine which were ready and which weren't that I heard....I guess trial and error.

Language is alive, and the meanings of words change, like it or not. When the common usage is so common that the actual definition is almost never what's meant when using the word, it's time to amend the definition. That's different from one generation who misuses language constantly out of laziness in their thought processes...most educated people at least know what literally means, even if they accidentally misuse the word more and more often.
Common usage today of "pedophile" is not limited to pre-pubescent, it includes mid-pubescent...in fact Merriam Webster's primary definition uses the word "children" as does the medical definition lower on their page.
The top googled legal definition is listed as...
Pedophile Definition: A medical condition causing a sexual preference for young children. ... A person afflicted with a serious mental disorder, a mental abnormality known as pedophilia, a sexual perversion in which children are preferred as sexual partner.

I think any of those definitions would/should include many if not all 14 year olds in most people's minds.

...but I don't mean to say that you aren't technically correct, the best kind of correct. ;-)

Stop. Because I think that doesn't mean I write them off. No person is perfect, I don't write people off because I disagree with them, or even if I think they do things I find distasteful. The minority blatant racist faction, however, I can't forgive, even though it might be the best solution. Some behavior shouldn't be tolerated, imo, but that's just, like, my opinion, man. I don't expect others to agree, and don't shun them if they disagree. I get that I'm abnormal.

Clearly, a huge percentage, mid 40's, found him the lesser of two evils or better. I agree, if the center wants them back, they'll have to reconcile, but forgetting what they're willing to accept to deny a Clinton power is a horrible idea, imo.

I'm not a democrat, but technically, Clinton won the election, she lost the electoral college. The Senate and house, your totally right on, though, which is more frightening to me, because THEY are elected democratically, unlike the president. At least they weren't actively appealing to and courting racists, though.

I almost agree, except for the timing part and the public disclosure of yet to be read 'evidence' in an open investigation which appears to be purely politically motivated.
What about the fact that they've had these emails for weeks, if not longer, but waited until it would have maximum effect on the election to inform congress (and therefore the public), against the direction of the D.O.J. that warned against notifying congress of this mid investigation 'development' (which likely is nothing more than normal work emails to her assistant, something that could be determined in a single hour if they just READ them), or the fact that they insist they can't tell if there's anything improper before the election, creating this false question about her criminality.
What about the public disclosure of yet to be analyzed evidence that likely is nothing, but the disclosure without analysis reopens a question in the minds of many voters, a question that's been answered repeatedly by numerous thorough investigations with no criminal act found by any of them?
To me, the timing and abnormal public disclosures of non-information are clearly politically motivated efforts by the FBI director to harm her candidacy, something that's undeniably wrong and a horrific precedent to set.

Doing these things as a prelude to proselytizing means they aren't altruistic, they are a part of the indoctrination process. If your church does all these things without ever mentioning religion, asking for donations, or asking for those helped to volunteer, it is incredibly abnormal.

"You dont get to see those kinds of Christians because they don't call attention to themselves"
And yet, here you are calling attention to yourself (and them), so you proved your statement wrong by stating it publicly. Oops! ;-)

Churches are for profit institutions, why shouldn't they pay taxes? The Catholic church is a haven for pedophiles, why have it's assets not been seized under RICO statutes? Many other for profit companies donate food, shelter, and services, yet they also pay their share for the public services they enjoy. Why should it be different for an organization who's product is intangible and invisible?

There won't be an effort to exterminate Christians, there may well be an effort to exterminate Christianity, along with all other divisive religions. I hope I'm around to see it.

Once again I would ask, why do you question your god's clear wish that I (and others) not believe in him? Shirley, you don't think you know better than he/she, right? (that's right, I called you Shirley.) ;-)

Doing 100 good deeds and one incredibly evil deed makes one evil. No church in history has ever reached that level of goodness. Churches are evil. I hope that clears things up.

Can you give an example of this? I can't seem to find any specific area where traffic looks abnormal.

Yes, you did say all that, but you also said none of that is a problem, at least not one to be really worried about. To me, that sounds a lot like climate change denial 3.0, where 1.0 was 'it's not happening at all, don't panic', 2.0 was 'it's happening, but it's natural and normal, don't panic' and 3.0 is 'it's human caused, but no problem, don't panic'. All of those are arguments designed to stall, not to be correct. If I'm reading you wrong, I apologize, but I've heard that argument before from those definitely in that camp.

If the IPCC says it won't be disastrous, yes, we would disagree, because I say it already is, and so have they in their summaries of their last few reports. Just abnormal drought alone is disastrous in many places worldwide already, as is increased flooding in some areas. I did not read the entire PDF's, only what you quoted because they were only linked as downloads/files, and I don't download files from sites I don't recognize.

I linked the first google search pages that came up with water/glacial data, not the other dozen that said the same, or near the same thing, not the NOVA on glacial retreat that said the same thing, not the movie on the same topic with photographic proof of the retreats-Chasing Ice. You ignored that they did list their source for the 2/3 of Chinese cities low on water and the 50% loss of glacial mass per decade as the Chinese military and claimed they were source less so easily dismissed.
As for the diatoms and shellfish, I've seen numerous studies on them, and again just grabbed the first one that came up in a search with data. You seemed to dismiss it as well, but it's not alone. In one snail study I saw, the woman said the last few years it had become nearly impossible to get measurements because the snail shells literally turn to paste in her fingers and weighed nearly nothing! I'm glad to read now that you don't disagree that it's an issue, you only think it's not severe?

I'm not holding my breath on fusion or fission, we've heard the 'we're only 5 years away from fission/fusion' line before about as often as 'Iran is only 2 years away from having a nuclear bomb', but we can agree on wind and solar, except I say it is great for base load, you just need to pair it with micro hydro storage (pump water uphill with surplus solar/wind, then run micro hydro at night). Small solar/wind also decentralizes production, safeguarding from terrorism, and is quite cost effective. Mine paid for itself in well under 10 years.

My issue with your position is that what we do today just with CO2 production reduction won't really effect the atmosphere for 20-200 years (the accepted lifespan of 65-85% of atmospheric CO2, the remaining 15-35% takes thousands of years to be trapped) and that's only IF the ocean CO2 sink continues functioning, so we're already well past the point of avoiding moderate climate change. Without quick action, feedback loops like methane and/or ice sheets melting make the problem exponentially larger and difficult/impossible to manage at all. It may already be too late even if we cut to zero CO2 tomorrow, but it's certainly too late to avoid more, massive, unsolvable global issues if we don't even mitigate them before 2050.

Let's not get into the quagmire of global dimming from sulfur in coal actually mitigating a large part of expected global warming by reflecting sunlight. I've yet to hear a plan or study involving that variable.

No other profession has the kind of power and interaction with society that police officers do. When cops abuse that power and goof around on the job, it has major effects on peoples lives.

So yes, damn straight they need to be criticized and even generalized because this shit happens way too often and there isn't usually evidence left behind to tell the whole story.

If your fellow officers would stop acting like power hungry douchebags, then they wouldn't receive so much scrutiny from the public...you know, the people that pay your salaries.

Let's make sure this is clear...this isn't the actions of one or two officers that were having an abnormally stressful day. This was an entire department abusing their authority. Sorry, "the actions of a few" defense goes out the window when you have an entire team acting the way they were.

OK, I see your point there. That kind of goes to my 'why are they both on the traffic side' though...although I grant he didn't really have much opportunity to move it to the side of the road. I would have retreated (edit: either on foot or in the car) when the guy got past his own trunk, but that's just me, and I'm obviously abnormal.

As to 'what happens next'...I want to say 'backup arrives', but I do see that he can't assume they will, maybe staking his life on that.
So, somewhat less outraged, but still quite disappointed that other methods were, at best, afterthoughts.

Making life and death decisions alone in the dark on the side of the road is hard. MmmmmK? And this is all Monday morning quarterbacking too with 20/20 hindsight. I do see that, lest you think otherwise.

You're making the assumption that angry dad has a point to make, and isn't just being angry dad, and that Kevin Smith doesn't have a child in the back seat himself, and that Smith was really driving badly/dangerously.
Dude driving like an asshole? Maybe. We didn't see that happen, and I'm hesitant to take the word of a raving violent asshole.
Dad's driving like an asshole by abandoning his car and child in traffic to scream, then assault someone else, definitely a giant throbbing asshole.
When someone jumps out of their car in traffic and approaches yours, filming them is totally appropriate, and being slightly amused is not abnormal. When someone assaults you by smashing your window into your face, having them arrested and their child removed by CPS is appropriate.

To me this incident is 100% angry dad being the dangerous criminal here. Even if the filmer was driving poorly, the reaction was ridiculously criminal and ACTUAL child abuse (committing a violent crime while driving/abandoning your child is certainly abusive).
Maybe I better get my pipe hitting, blow torch n' pliers using brothers to snatch and teach him a lesson? ;-)

From my point of view, your argument is asinine.
He (Lantern) made a definitive statement based on some witnesses and evidence by saying 'credible evidence' (which strongly implys that only the witness and evidence/interpretations that agreed with the police version is credible, and all others are not), I pointed out that far more witnesses had disputed that version of events, and the evidence is up for interpretation, not definitive.
You also discount (nearly) all local witnesses (and go on to insult them for no reason, or is it just racism that makes you label them 'low intelligence'?), then you try to make a point about group impressions using a group that absolutely DOES lie, in the performance of their duties they are TRAINED to lie to get information and/or compliance, and some are just natural liars to boot, and also a group that's historically well known as being incredibly over-defensive of their own, even when it's insanely obvious their own are in the wrong. I can't fathom how you think that makes a good point. (also not sure why you bring race into it again)

Another interpretation of the head shot evidence is that he was falling, having been shot multiple times already, and was shot in the top of the head on the way down. That was what more than one eye witness said happened. Are you implying that they were (low intelligence) criminalist masterminds that instantly knew what false story could still be born out by evidence, colluded, and gave that version? There was no gun shot residue on him, so he was not within arms length to grab anyone. That's fairly certain.

Yes, the DA certainly seemed to throw the case away. He did not act as prosecutor, (giving only evidence and interpretation that implies guilt,) but instead gave the jury all 'evidence' (including that which implied innocence, and allowed the jury to interpret it), allowed 'defense testimony' (without question, cross, or dispute), and gave insane legal instructions in order to confuse (like giving them the long invalidated law, then last minute telling them it might or might not apply, but don't worry why, it's not a law class). That's all totally abnormal, so the grand jury process was clearly abused by the DA with an aim to not get a trial. I'm fairly certain that's how most people see it too. It seemed fairly blatant.

I would agree that the more officers the better seems logical, but no longer holds true if ALL the officers over react (like 8 people on top of one man for an infraction, or never trying tasers because they 'might not stop the aggressor', even when there's already 10 officers with guns drawn). If officers tried the least amount of force required FIRST, rather than jump to the maximum allowed instantly, everyone would be happier. Sadly they do not.

If the feeling in the community (local and at large) was that this was an isolated incident, no amount of cajoling by a single distraught parent would cause rallies or riots. Instead they're happening across the country, and yet you blame a grieving father rather than the aggrieved's stated issue(s)/targets.

I'm glad that at least in the Garner case, you can see the injustice of killing an unarmed man (or even 'just' brutally attacking him) over such a minor infraction.

Oh...so it's OK with you to simplify and 'falsify details' significantly by modeling the earth as a perfect sphere, but not ignore the mathematically insignificant and immeasurably small possible movement of the earth in some direction or another due to multiple immeasurably small gravities?! WHAT?!? ;-)

....Um...1 degree on earth is 111.2 KM, there's such a tiny difference (1 cm+-) they are in the same place for all possible measureable purposes, nothing like 1 deg apart. My scientific calculator won't give an answer, 1 deg * (1cm/111.2km) =0.00deg on it. (OK, it's not hard math...1/11120000 deg.) Because of this, yes, they WOULD cross the imaginary line, AND hit the earth at the same time by any possible measurement. If the smallest distance measureable is FAR larger than the distance they differ by, and the smallest time measureable is MUCH longer than the difference in time they hit, normal (and most abnormal) people say it's exactly the same.

And again...the experiment properly ignores any infinitely tiny immeasurable movement of the earth in ANY random direction for the obvious reasons already stated. There's far more difference based on the precise position of mercury than the position of the bowling ball and feather, especially when they are nearly touching...You know and understand this.

If that's honestly the extent of your use of force, and they all were proper arrests on people who were also resisting (you only said one of them was resisting), and those you brandished at were armed and violently resisting, that sounds acceptable, but totally abnormal. I would guess that not all those you brandished at were armed threats.
EDIT:A good question....was every suspect you used force against convicted? If not, it seems you made a mistake and were a violent assailant to an 'innocent citizen' yourself, no? If there's no repercussion for those kinds of 'bad acts', how do you know it's wrong? (I'll answer, it seems you don't.)
My experience has been that cops brandish their weapons at anyone they think may be criminal, including those only guilty of 'contempt of cop', like me when a cop read my license plate wrong and assumed the car was stolen, so he violently threw me to the ground at gunpoint and violently handcuffed me (as tight as he could make them go) and acted like a douchebag bully until he realized his mistake. (I followed all his directions to the T without pause but was still treated like I was resisting.) Then there's no apology, in fact he said something more like 'You know why I did that, now go on your way or I'll find something else to arrest you for, and don't think about making a complaint, I know where you live now.' That's only one instance in my life out of many where cops did not act properly, due to no fault of my own. (I was not intimidated by his threat and did make a formal complaint anyway.)

That's 3 shootings (maybe 2 were the same cop?). It sounds like one may have been improper, shooting someone in the back is usually not acceptable, unless he had just been shooting at the cop and turned to run just before being shot, or was running at someone else that needed protecting. If he was not an immediate threat to someone, there was no reason to shoot him in the back rather than track him until he could be safely arrested.
It seems you have a problem understanding our position. We understand that 95% of interactions with cops are done properly and often respectfully. That does not excuse the other 5% by any means, just as it does not excuse someone from committing murder if they were a fine, upstanding citizen otherwise. Get it? It only takes one bad act to erase all your good acts. That's the way of the world. You can't say 'Yeah, I raped that 6 year old, but come on guys, I take good care of little old ladies the rest of the time, so it's fine.'. That doesn't play, neither does 'Most of the time we're good cops, so we should get a pass for those 'rare' times when we are terrible thugs and violent criminals.'
EDIT: It's not only deadly force that is inappropriately applied. You don't have to end up murdering the citizen to have acted inappropriately violent. I hope I'm not telling you something you don't know, only pointing out something you ignored.
The fact that you don't seem to think mandatory counseling is appropriate for those in 'authority' that have failed in their job (to protect citizens) and resorted to using force against citizens (yes, I consider that a fail, there's nearly always another option) is bothering. As I explained, it leaves you feeling it's 'us VS them' (which has been shown to be your mindset from your past comments) and that's terrible for someone in authority to think. I think you need counseling to fix that mindset, and find it troubling that you might disagree (yet are still in a position of power).

@lantern53

jesus hung out with the prostitutes,the beggars,the sick and the broken.

basically the freaks.

you would not find him in your station house,nor having cocktails in the posh businessmans house but rather you would find him in the crack houses,the whore house and maybe sleeping on a park bench with the homeless.

you know...the people you arrest on a daily basis.

there is actually a reason why many gay folk are flambouyant,gregarious and do not fit into a societal norm that you may find comfortable.

the process in coming to terms with ones sexuality can be arduous and takes immense courage.it is an experience a heterosexual human never encounters...ever.

so while you may find their decisions and behavior abnormal,and it may even make you uncomfortable if too much in your face.you should respect the fact that they lives their lives with a freedom you could never match.

societal norms have you firmly shackled to the wall.
they are free.
and you ridicule something you have little understanding of,but at its heart...you envy.
and what you envy.....you ridicule.

these folks are not moved nor influenced by your (or others) opinion of how they live.
can you say the same?