Bad parenting today, orange suit tomorrow.

On the bright side, this kid will be clothed on orange, for many years, courtesy of local law enforcement.

Fake media has brainwashed this kid family and will generationally curse them.

Not exactly, but the source isn’t really the question, is it.
Point to something not true. I can do that every single time you post some cut and paste propaganda. At least I give you the courtesy of watching/reading my sources and giving you a synopsis.
But you can’t point to a factual error. That’s why you just summarily dismiss it. It saves you from failing at debunking it.

Maybe look it up. Just because it’s not covered on OAN doesn’t mean it isn’t verifiable fact, in fact it makes that more likely.

Classic. I first heard this in my freshman year of high school. Our print shop teacher would play the 33 rpm vinyl record in class while we sorted out the California Job Case.

Yes. I was a pressman for years.

Courtesy link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_job_case

The constitution puts purse authority strictly in the hands of congress. Congress can pass any budget it pleases.
Reviewing any budget submitted by the president is a courtesy, not a requirement.

Actually, congress can pass laws that require (or forbid) the president to do things.

I am not discussing veto. I only mention it as one of the few presidential powers - and that I'm glad he has it, as it means less laws on average.

edit, According to this timeline, Hunter was working there since April 2014, in time for all the investigations.
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

-scheherazade

Would you do me the courtesy of reading what I say before rejecting it? I specifically said: "Somebody like Saddam Hussein usually didn't care about Jack Bauer style, minutes count specific intel."

Jack Bauer style meaning like your revelation of a closely guarded secret after waterboarding...

Saddam would do things like sending his police to a disloyal man's home, and them simply handing over a video of them torturing his son or raping his wife/daughter whom they still had in custody. We don't have to like it, but it absolutely was effective in crushing dissent from not only that guy, but as word spreads a lot of other start wondering if resistance is worth the cost.

Our world is absolutely filled with examples of violence, rape and torture being used as powerfully effective weapons and ignoring it doesn't wish it away. The fact it these things are so powerful makes them all the more awful and more important we discuss it.

Let's hope that pensioner, Mr Edwards, has a nice new mansion, courtesy of Mr Plumb, and Mr Plumb is now broke, jobless, and homeless. What a total douchbag.
85mph in a 20 mph residential neighborhood one lane road, then fleeing. He should never drive again. 4.6 years is hardly long enough, imo, especially with the first 1.2 spent in prison, so really he's only restricted an extra 3.4 years.

You can't possibly argue that the Pocahontas thing while at an event intending to honor Native Americans is acceptable behavior. If he thinks Warren is lying about her heritage, fine. Say she's lying about it some other time. Nobody put a gun to Trump's head and said he has to call her that. And on top of all that, at least have the courtesy to not do it at that event. Honoring World War II Native American veterans has jack shit nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren.

Even if you happen to think that there's nothing wrong with the Washington Redskins name, do you think it would be appropriate for the President of the United States to bust through the wall Kool Aid man style dressed head to toe in Redskins garb doing the Tomahawk Chop at an event intended to honor Native Americans? FFS!

What next? Meet with a Chinese delegation and walk in doing slant eyes and the ol' "Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees, *lift shirt* LOOK AT THESE!!!"

All he had to do was turn his "be a dick" switch off for a few hours to honor war veterans. Is that so hard? Apparently, it's impossible for him.

Watching this guy as President is just astounding to me. Every damn day seemingly he finds new ways to be a total dick when he completely doesn't have to be. Elizabeth Warren is going to be fine, I don't care he insulted her. But acting like an ass clown in a way that's very likely to offend actual war heroes in the process?! Zero justification, zero excuses.

Being President isn't supposed to be a 24/7 reality TV show where everything revolves around petty partisan/personal vendettas, including disregarding basic tenets of acting like a mature adult.

Your video, Accidental Courtesy: Daryl Davis, Race & America - Festival, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that, especially around cigars (they're simply not as much of a problem).

And in general, a bit of common courtesy goes a long way. If you're in a beer garden and someone sits at a communal table with you, they should have the decency to ask if it's ok to smoke, and the reverse applies also. If you sit down at a table and someone is already smoking, you don't really have the right to ask them to stop.

There isn't really an easy answer to any of this... it's the issue of individual rights vs collective good, and there just isn't a single correct answer to that. If you think there is, you're either naive or a fundamentalist ideologue with no concern for practicality (either way).

I see a lot of pedestrians that think that because they have the right of way that they can stop in front of cars so that they can play a game of Parcheesi, finish a text, or maybe just enjoy the sweet smell of exhaust while they idle on by. When I'm crossing the street I do my best to get across as quickly as I can, it would be nice if others showed the same courtesy.

I look at it in a simple way: words having meanings; people have motivations. A conversation has a context, and in your example the passerby isn't aware of that context. If she chooses to eavesdrop and feels offended, well, while I do feel sorry for her...it's really not any of her business what you and your brother are conversing about. You might as well turn to her, give her a once-over and criticize her choice of pantsuit. She doesn't know you; she didn't ask for your opinion; and your retort probably made her upset.

Should people try to be aware of their surroundings and try not to say inappropriate things? Of course, but that's just common courtesy...like not commenting on a funky smell at a funeral visitation. Political correctness is fine if we all agree, but we usually don't. And therefore we get people who virtue signal over others because they refuse to kowtow to the newest linguistic fashion.

Now, I'm a fairly polite guy. I hold open doors, give up my seat, offer to carry heavy packages, smile, wave and nod greetings to many strangers, etc. Yet I still occasionally get someone who disagrees with my legitimate use of a term (as I understand its meaning). Generally, I still apologize...but I don't then re-evaluate my language ability. I'm not willing to let the connotations of words take on new, questionable-yet-popular meanings.

I've had a Native American friend laugh at me for asking what he preferred I say: redskin, indian, aboriginal, first people, etc. I've also asked a "retarded" person if they preferred if I said "intellectually challenged." He preferred retarded because...wait for it...he had a lot of trouble saying the other one. Now that's irony.

I think my heart's in the right place. I was taught to be polite, and I try to be at all times. But it gets under my skin to have a total stranger "chastise" me when they know nothing about me. Frankly, I find it more offensive to interrupt and belittle a stranger than it is to overhear some stranger's questionable utterance.

Nono, you gotta courtesy flush. That's where you flush right after finishing the excretion phase and before beginning the clean-up phase. It gets rid of a lot of the smell-causing material and the excretion isn't aerosolized because it's blocked by a large mass (at least in my case..)

Of course, the courtesy flush might just be deadly with a toilet like this but... y'know, you win some, you lose some.

@SDGundamX, first up, it was a throwaway line, you're reading way too much into it.

I'm not going to go over Jim Jeffries joke (it's been discussed to death already), except to say that, yeah, I got what he was trying to do and no, it still wasn't that funny or clever.

Besides, I wasn't trying to compare the two. Mine was a throwaway line, his was an extended sketch by a touring professional comedian. My point was simply that taste is in the eye of the beholder.

And would you please do me the courtesy of not telling me what I'm thinking. I'm not angry about ignorance, I'm angry about woolly thinking (specifically, lack of critical thinking).

If you're ignorant, then you just need to be taught. I'm not angry at ignorant people, I'm sorry for them and I want to help them.

My problem is with people (like the guy in the video) who have been presented with evidence, but ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview.

200 years ago, if you believed that disease was a result of demonic possession, that's unfortunate. If you believe that today, you're deliberately ignoring knowledge.

As far as viewing people who reject evidence as a dangerous "other", I'm ok with that. As I've said before, I don't believe in "tolerance" as a virtue. If someone isn't bothering me, or someone is doing something I don't like, but it doesn't harm anyone, then I'm fine with them; I have no need to "tolerate" them.

But if people are doing something that causes harm (racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc), I don't tolerate that at all, and will speak out against it.


As for your torture example, it is flawed. You're saying that you wouldn't reconsider the ethics of torture, even if evidence of its efficacy was available. Do you see the problem?

You proposition was that torture is unethical, and your hypothetical evidence states that it is effective. The two are orthogonal properties. It is possible to be both effective and unethical.

Besides, I didn't say you had to change your position, I said you had to reconsider. If someone presented you with a philosophical argument arguing for the ethics of torture, are you saying you wouldn't even hear it out?

I hold positions like that myself. Despite everything, I believe that one day, people will overcome their petty differences and venture out into the stars. That doesn't mean I don't question it..

I re-read my post, all I said was that you were doing pretty much what Bareboards predicted, ie:

"Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting. "

We are all well aware of your opinion. And as I said, you have gone well past the point of discussion and now you're just repeating the same opinion over and over again as if reading it for the umpteenth time is going to peel back scales from our eyes...

I'll quote you earlier:

I'm stating that the word "feminist" as a word is not descriptive of a movement that works for "equality", it's descriptive of a movement that puts women first.

Some of those of us that have worked for equality of the sexes for decades are somewhat insulted by that misnomer, and very insulted by those that use the name "feminist" to describe man haters (that means both the man haters themselves and those that call all feminists man haters).

A misnomer in your opinion. We heard you the first time, I'd guess almost everyone understood you the first time. Some of us just don't agree with you, and a certain member has already politely asked you not to do exactly what you're doing. You're so worried about what name is attached to the movement to accord everyone equal rights that you forgot common courtesy? \= |

ps. I particularly enjoyed the passive aggressive snipe in bold below. Only like minded people really understand you and those that disagree are obviously misunderstanding (otherwise they'd totally agree right???). You'll just have to live with the concept that the sift is not a trigger-free-safe-space-echo-chamber. ; )