*promote because you shouldn't hire amateurs to build castle defences.

The camera view from the Dart spacecraft

NASA’s DART spacecraft is destined for a head-on collision with an asteroid in the very first test of our planetary defence system.

The ole "I'm rubber, you're glue" defence.

Looks like repubs' hate to me. Or a temper tantrum. Mass shootings are not self defence.

Ah. The default defence of every writer in existence. Usually follow by "why don't you write your own book?"

Congratulations! Your video, Rheinmetall Air Defence, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 5 Badge!

SKYNEX
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Skynex-Air-Defence-System

Rheinmetall Air Defence has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Skynex Air Defence System has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Your video, Rheinmetall Air Defence, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Only delusional cultists would say they failed to prove his motive was personal and against the national interest. Deal with it.
His "transcript", a heavily edited summary that put the best possible spin on his call proved it handily by itself, and not one word, action, or piece of evidence contradicts that conclusion.
His defence was "as president, I'm essentially king and can do no wrong, and everything is permitted. My party is in control and are too scared of me to convict." So much for faithfully preserving, protecting and defending the constitution, he can't even read one sentence from it, said it was a foreign language. (That's fact, not opinion, btw) It's obvious he has no idea whatever it says.
There was no amount of indisputable proof that would have convinced the cowardly sycophantic"republicans" to turn on Trump, they ignored all evidence provided and refused to look at any, much less investigate because they know he now owns what's left of their party and therefore their futures, and they also know the slightest step out of line makes them his target, which means losing their job, power, and family's safety because his cultists include thousands of potential domestic terrorists just itching for him to set their target.
Edit:"The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resistance." Thomas Paine

Edit: my theory is they reserved the dozen indisputable criminal acts they can prove until the Democrats run the Senate next year just in case he wins by hook or crook, knowing there is nothing, including cold blooded public murder, that the Republicans would convict him of.

@newtboy that is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of.

As for the kid (whose real name is Will Connolly) the defence fund is now around $30000, and part of the fund is earmarked for "buying more eggs". Will has stated he intends to donate most of the money to victim support*, once again being an absolutely top bloke. He's already been jokingly nominated for "Honorary New Zealander of the year".

Also to put his attack into context... in terms of victims per capita, if this had happened in the US, it would be the statistical equivalent of 9/11.

*there has already been nearly NZ$5m raised for the victims. https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/christchurch-shooting-victims-fund

or the British, who had the added dickishness of exposing their own soldiers to the blast.

sidenote: the hypocrisy of the US, Britain, etc criticising North Korea or <insert middle east bad guy> for developing nuclear weapons would be amusing if it weren't so tragic.

Short of looking at the cbc's coverge yourself I'm not sure how I can do much more to represent them. Here's a link to a podcast series they ran:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcasts/boushie/

The victim was Colten Boushie and the farmer was Gerald Stanley, googling that and grabbing the CBC results will show you pretty quickly what their coverage looked like overall.

The case ended with a not-guilty verdict and the farmer is home now. Now, the only witnesses that were sober that day were the farmer and his son. What's worse 3 of the witnesses all changed their stories in court from what they originally told police because they 'didn't want to get into trouble'. With such poor witness testimony and no other evidence of malicious intent on the farmers part it's not much of a surprise that the defence's characterisation of a robbery that led to a tragic and fatal accident was considered credible.

Despite that, Canada's Indigenous services minister responded immediately to the verdict saying;
"We all have more to do to improve justice & fairness for Indigenous Canadians."

And our justice minister tweeted:
"My thoughts are with the family of Colton Boushie tonight. I truly feel your pain and I hear all of your voices. As a country we can and must do better - I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canadians."

As though the outcome was somehow dictated by race. This victimhood mentality just ignore the underlying real problem of horrible conditions on reserve. The judicial system didn't racially undermine the case, the real problem is a lot more complex than that and is being ignored because it's easier and more popular to ignore the root causes and just echo platitudes about how everything bad that happens down the road is racial too.

It's an interesting question.

The video segment itself is pretty awful. It has no redeeming qualities outside of serving as a warning how far the American right will go in defence of the indefensible.

So, on one hand, you could argue that bringing this to light is a good thing and the video should be upvoted.

On the other hand, it's not like this is news to anyone. "Fox news lies" is not exactly a revelation.

Ultimately the reason I downvoted this is because I feel like upvoting it would be giving the message implicit approval. How do you separate "I'm upvoting this because people need to know how bad the lies are" versus "I'm upvoting this because I approve of its content"?