I count it as a hyper generous humanitarian gift given by Palestinians on day 1 that by day 3 (year 10+-) had become an invasion of hostile violent foreigners.

Because I don’t have a perfect solution for a problem no one could solve at the time does not in any way shape or form excuse the hostile invasion or fascist racist genocidal regimes since…
…but my solution would be every able bodied Jewish man and woman join the French (or Polish, Russian, British) army and fucking fight, not run off and invade elsewhere. If they had the fighters to take Israel, they had the fighters to turn the war years earlier, but went for invasion and occupation instead.

So, you DO think the people of Haiti have the right to come to your doorstep and toss you in the street. I disagree. I reiterate, not being safe at home is no excuse to go elsewhere and make it’s inhabitants unsafe, especially if those inhabitants had nothing to do with you being unsafe, more so if they actually stuck their neck out to make some of your family safe.

I’ll try to unscramble that…”what would I have the existing Jewish Palestinian population and new refugees do with themselves once in Palestine?”…the native Jews, nothing. They’re citizens. The refugees, refugee camps of a certain size and no over crowding. Once they’re full, go elsewhere. There were other places to go, although limited. The British had an obligation to support the Palestinians and prepare them to run the country, an obligation they completely shirked and instead facilitated the invasion of hostile foreigners while keeping the Palestinians defenseless.

Fuck you 6 million. They weren’t waiting for legal avenues for immigration. Those people for the most part had no option to be refugees or decide a thing, the Germans and Polish essentially woke up one day unable to travel. The people we are talking about had over a decade, and included Germans.

No, my POV relies on the theory that you having a bad time doesn’t give you a license to murder me and steal my stuff and subjugate my descendants horrifically.
Historically many groups have had tough scary times, many ending in actual genocide. Few took that as an opportunity to do the same to another group that was trying to help them out of the tough spot. Zionists did….and with Americans help. I’ll never stop pointing it out.
The Palestinians in Gaza are suffering a genocide today. Do they have a right to go invade some weaker nation for their safety? No. That’s not reasonable or acceptable.

I think your POV relies on the theory that, because Jews were being increasingly persecuted in Europe that gives them the right to take a friendly nation by force and subjugate and persecute its people forever…

the idea that those who support Roe v Wade are de-fetusists is absurd. it's reality. it's compassion. it's knowing life is cruel and we don't have to make it crueler.

even the belief that life begins at conception, ignores a significant fact: ~20% of all pregnancies end in stillbirth or miscarriages. many unnoticed or unknown. meaning a Crane takes many babies away before the crane can deliver them.

if the jokes ^ can make a person winch, then why doesn't knowing a woman will die not register? all for a law w/o good intent. for the intent to be real, there would be other realities already in place, such as...

- sex education - at all levels
- contraception for both sexes (even subsidized)
- prenatal care for the viable & wanted
- education for parents
- time off for parents
- groups privately aiding in the care (churches, societies...)
- daycare is provided privately, thru companies, or publically funded

...just possibly a few 'tells' that the morally magnificent are serious.


BTW: the FBI is no lie. don is dead in the water. cry a river but the flood awaits. don't know what's on the papers other than his ass. w/o someone paying the attys - he is defenseless. three times over - he is spit in the ocean. bet me.

You are defenseless target in the air who can't shoot back.

Trying to figure out the application for this. Maybe it puts something less at risk when assaulting the deck of a ship? Rather than one big target like a helicopter, you have 8 smaller targets and accept the loss of 4 of them to get an assault team on deck?

When I was about 13ish living in NJ, my friend and I decided to head down to the railroad near the Delaware river.

To get there we decided to go down the steel steps that ran down the hillside in our town. There are two flat platforms along the way and when we reached the first one we spotted a boy who, we knew from the area, coming up the steps in our direction.

His name was Ken. Ken had a mental disability but he was harmless. A friendly and defenseless kid that was about the same age as us and about a head taller. As he was coming up the steps I wondered what he would do if I punched him in the gut. A total sucker punch that he wouldn't see coming.

I knew he wouldn't retaliate so I decided I would do it.

As he got within range, without warning, I punched him right in the gut hard.

How he reacted and the painful look on his face instantly brought regret that, to this day, I still live with. Many years later I made an effort to find Ken and tell him how sorry I was for my violent, unprovoked actions that day. How much of an asshole I was and hope he might forgive me. I found out he had died just a couple of years back.

I think about how that punch may have changed him forever. How it may have destroyed his trust in people and planted a fear within him that I was responsible for.

Sometime later, when I was alone, I cried that day with that vision I saw on his face and I can still see it now and feel it in my gut as I write this.

That day had changed my life forever at his expense.

No, that's human patience. Chances are that the detainee is an alcoholic, which is a medical condition, not a moral failing.

That these Norwegian cops didn't beat him indicates a common sense approach to the situation. That American cops almost certainly would have battered this defenseless man is an indicator of a toxic culture that seems to be worsening.

Although I don't know the specifics here, and I understand that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, it seems flat out insane to criminally prosecute the guy.

I give him the benefit of the doubt that they are telling the truth and this at least started by bailing rainwater out of a boat. That's a very normal activity, no reason to presume that any harm could come of it.

Then, first bucket gets tossed in and he sees that big splash. It's Florida, so there could be lots of potential explanations. It might be bigass catfish. It might be alligators. Could even be dolphins, depending on where they are in Florida. ...And, it might be manatees, although that probably wouldn't be the first thing I would think of.

So, big splash. I'd be surprised. My first reaction would be: "I wonder if it will happen again after another bucket." NOT "Oh dear, perhaps I am frightening some poor defenseless little creatures and should immediately cease what I'm doing." If I came the the conclusion that it was gators (which seems more likely/reasonable than manatees to me, although I don't live there), it would even stand to reason that frightening them off would be a good thing to do -- encourage them to move away from populated areas.

Given all that, it seems very unlikely to me that the dude had any malicious intent. If he knew they were manatees and knew that stressing them out like that could negatively impact their health, perhaps punishment would be in order. But if he thought they were anything else (fish / gators / whatever), or just plain didn't know, continuing to bail the boat in an attempt to get whatever they might be to swim away seems like a very reasonable thing to do.

Educating people that "hey, if you see something like this happening, it might be manatees and you should try to avoid stressing them out" seems like by far a better and more rational option than "throw the animal torturer in the slammer!"

Although I'm in favour of sensible gun regulation, I'm not sure legislation alone will solve your gun problem.

The problem in the USA is, IMO, cultural.

The idea that you would need a gun for "protection" is quite foreign to almost every other country in the developed world.

But, as we've seen in threads here since Orlando, people in the US seem genuinely afraid that they will be "defenseless" if stripped of their arms.

Why is this?
When I've asked people before, I hear responses like "it takes the police 10 minutes to get to your house". Er ok, fund your fucking police?

But that doesn't address the fear of home invasion in the first place. Is it really that common in the US? And if it is, WHY is it?

It's simply not a concern for anyone I know in any other country (excluding war zones, etc). Clearly, if it is such a problem, having a gun isn't deterring people from doing this.

Maybe instead of looking at the short-term symptoms, you should be asking yourselves what is driving people to be so desperate that they are willing to risk their lives breaking into other people's homes knowing that the occupants are potentially armed.

The problem is essentially escalation ( the "Chicago Way").

10: "All the criminals have guns, I better have one too"
20: "Shit, if I'm going to rob that place, they probably have a gun, better go armed"
30: goto 10

Breaking this cycle means addressing inequality, racism, and poverty. People in the US aren't inherently worse than everywhere else, but your system is set up to incentivize criminals to carry a gun.

But FFS, at least stop burying your heads in the sand and let the CDC study this.

I have also linked this in the description, so people don't have to read the comments to find this link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/6/1534962/-The-daunting-and-powerful-statement-a-Stanford-victim-reads-to-her-rapist-in-court-goes-viral

Here is part of the full statement that was excised for time -- part of where she responds to the defendant's statement, point by point:

You said, Being drunk I just couldn’t make the best decisions and neither could she.

Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked. Having too much to drink was an amateur mistake that I admit to, but it is not criminal. Everyone in this room has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much, or knows someone close to them who has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much. Regretting drinking is not the same as regretting sexual assault. We were both drunk, the difference is I did not take off your pants and underwear, touch you inappropriately, and run away. That’s the difference.

You said, If I wanted to get to know her, I should have asked for her number, rather than asking her to go back to my room.

I’m not mad because you didn’t ask for my number. Even if you did know me, I would not want be in this situation. My own boyfriend knows me, but if he asked to finger me behind a dumpster, I would slap him. No girl wants to be in this situation. Nobody. I don’t care if you know their phone number or not.

You said, I stupidly thought it was okay for me to do what everyone around me was doing, which was drinking. I was wrong.

Again, you were not wrong for drinking. Everyone around you was not sexually assaulting me. You were wrong for doing what nobody else was doing, which was pushing your erect dick in your pants against my naked, defenseless body concealed in a dark area, where partygoers could no longer see or protect me, and own my sister could not find me. Sipping fireball is not your crime. Peeling off and discarding my underwear like a candy wrapper to insert your finger into my body, is where you went wrong. Why am I still explaining this.

Boy I bet nobody will ever vandalize these poor, defenseless things.

Your video, Hero Defends a Defenseless Blind Kid, Gets Suspended, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 20 Badge!

Dude, did you watch the video?

"*He's not wrong to be angry*, but the problem is he began to lose the moral high ground."

He even explained why you can't just smuggle your pets in.

He was pretty clear Depp shouldn't have done what he did. He was just making fun of someone handling the other side in what can only be described as a politically piss poor way.

If you want to get harsh public opposition for doing the right thing, the list for ways to do that would have to include killing defenseless puppies who did nothing wrong (in this case their owner did), saying publicly the puppies in what would be our equivalent in the US should "fuck off", personally attack an interviewer who was confronting him about how much of a douche he was being, and thin glibly celebrating his win on twitter like a complete prick.

If he was trying to piss off as many people as possible for doing the right thing, he should have just asked, "WWHD - What would Hitler do?"

With all that said, this wasn't Oliver's "serious" part of the show. This was for entertainment purposes mainly, you glassy eyed muppet donkey!

@RedSky profiling is dumb. I thought that exactly as Harris mention the old granny in the wheelchair who shouldn't be searched. Guess what, if that was the case where do you think they will hide the next one ? It's so dumb. If the bad guys know you will not search children or old people, who do you think will be used for smuggling next ?.
Your other post, Radical Christians are just as happy to die and go to heaven. it's called the Military, and yes they forcibly proselytize and recruit from the poor and minorities and yes they murder people of other religions on a massive scale.

@gwiz665 No. Judaism is just as bad. Judaism also suffers from Racism. That could be argued is why it does not spread. Look up Jewish intermarriage. Their doctrine preaches the disregard and manipulation of the 'GOYA' or 'animals' because they are lesser human beings. That is why they do not inter-marry or recruit. That is why over 90% Israeli's support bombing defenseless Gazans including targeting children. That is why Israel is imprisoning or forcibly deporting Africans. That is why Israel treats Israeli Arabs like sub humans.

ALL RELIGIONS ARE EQUALLY AWFUL.

I'd down vote your comment if I could, fuck un-empathetic assholes that support more aggressive, expansionist, religious-based, terroristic, genocidal murder against defenseless imprisoned innocent civilians because they worship the wrong god....as if there's actually a right god that makes it OK to be evil...well, on reflection there is Satan but he's it.

Not so in any meaningful way.

Israelis are the expansionists....aggressors.
Israel bombed first this (and many other) round(s)....aggressors.
Israel has many other less harmful methods of obtaining their 'stated' goals but prefer indiscriminately bombing civilian populations and shelters, then lying about it and blaming the victims....aggressors and liars.
Israel is safe as long as the iron dome system works, and it's working fine against the fireworks, but they still claim their offensive military campaign is defensive....aggressors, liars, and assholes.
Israel has done to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them, namely force them into ghettos, then a giant concentration camp where they are randomly killed, but Israel still thinks they somehow hold the high moral ground (in large part because of people like you who will tell them so, in the face of all evidence to the contrary)....evil, history forgetting aggressors.
I think that's enough to say you are dead wrong in the first part of your statement....but they are getting their butts kicked. To me, that's a statement about the inhuman willingness of Israel to repeatedly and viciously attack a defenseless, imprisoned population rather than a slight against Palestinians.

It's the epitome of ignorance to jump to the conclusion that because one sees one side being far worse than the other, that person must be promoting the 'lesser evil'.
It's just as ignorant to jump to the conclusion that empathy for the Palestinian civilians trapped in the giant concentration camp that is Gaza is tantamount to all out support for Hamas and it's tactics. That's a total straw man argument made by those that can't answer the actual issues of an expansionist Israel flexing it's significant military muscles against a trapped, helpless, completely defenseless population that has already been ghettoized into the stone age without qualm, using the blatantly ridiculous excuse of 'defense' for a purely offensive military campaign against a civilian 'quasi-refugee' population. It seems to me that people who make that argument have made the ignant (a stubborn kind of ignorance that can't be cured by education) decision to buy into the (quite well produced, I must admit) Israeli propaganda machine and ignore the indisputable facts.
Both sides are at fault, wrong, bloodthirsty, and bad, one side IS FAR MORE at fault, wrong, bad, and bloodthirsty...or if not more bloodthirsty then at least far better at blood lust sating without conscience.