Now that you know everything I said is correct, publicly verified, now what sucker? Because, with your head so far up your ass you haven’t heard these facts yet doesn’t mean they’re not verified. Because I pay attention to varied sources and often find information much earlier than you can doesn’t mean I’m jumping any guns, it means you’re sleeping in the starting blocks.

Every accusation you’ve made has completely fallen apart as stupid made up nonsense, like the theory that near broke Hunter was paid $3 billion by China despite zero evidence whatsoever…I would guess you will say you think he smoked $3 billion in crack, or your insistence that Jan 6 was all BLM pretending to be Trumpists despite 1000 Trumpist arrests and guilty pleas/prosecutions and 1000 more coming.

Plenty of proof the Trumps took payoffs from China, Russians in Ukraine, Russia directly, and Saudi Arabia (among many others), so much they couldn’t hide them despite trying….near $3 billion and they’re still at it, illegally taking $8 million or more from sanctioned Russian money to keep Toth Senchal afloat. Another case of every accusation being an admission.
Trump also stole hundreds of presidential gifts, pretending they were his personal property-admitted by Trump and he was forced to return what they proved he stole…more felonious thefts.

Quit looking stupid by defending criminality while accusing the innocent…IE post when news is real, even though that means 99.9% of your posts would never get posted.

I would say stop being an intentionally blind fool, but you’ve never been anything else so I know it’s not possible. How many times have you called me out for “fake news” that turned out to be the facts? Too many to count, nearly every time I post news, and you are ALWAYS wrong. ALWAYS! How many times have you been called out for posting MAGA anti American propaganda that’s thoroughly debunked before you post it? Again, too many times to count, nearly every time you post anything.

Such a silly little boy. Do you even see what a dishonest idiot you make yourself look like daily?

Today’s bonus MAGA criminality- Joe Harding, the now-former Florida Republican lawmaker who authored the extremist “Don’t Say Gay” bill could face up to 35 years in prison after pleading guilty Tuesday afternoon to federal felony fraud charges in a scheme to obtain $150,000 in COVID-19 relief funds, according to Florida Politics‘ publisher Peter Scorsch.

BTW- if I’m the shill for all liberals you pretend you’ve convinced yourself I am, why did I post this that makes Macron look horrible? https://videosift.com/video/Paris-Burns-As-Macron-Remains-Defiant
You might note his move is similar to the right’s plan to eradicate Social Security and Medicare by raising the eligibility age above life expectancy age. You guys might want to watch how that turns out for him.

You should meet yourself.

You don’t post those anymore (you used to until I beat you up over ridiculous lies and suppositions about Biden with proven facts about Trump, once again proving the accusation is an admission) because there’s absolutely zero evidence of any such thing, but tons and tons of payoffs, multiple unreported hidden secret foreign Trump “bribe me here” accounts including but not limited to unreported accounts in Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, China, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Grenada, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Qatar, South Korea, Saint Martin, Saint Vincent, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom, actual trades and offers to trade personal payments/favors to Trump/fam for stolen top secret classified documents PROVEN against Trump, and multiple actual trials against him for criminal abuses of office, absolutely nothing against Biden besides ridiculous whining liars, like you.

I would say you should stop looking stupid, but you are what you are…with you it’s not a “look”.

Everything I posted is fact, court filings and actual reporting of what those involved said (with no opinion added).
Remember, you recently posted gleefully about the one Democrat ACCUSED of having child porn…no conviction there…why jump the gun? Why can’t you ever wait until news is “real”….or is the definition of “real” or the “rule” different for you than everyone else…or can you dish it out but are way too thin skinned to take it? *ding ding ding ding

Tell me what isn’t legit. I double dog dare you….can’t call you a tool, tools are useful. You are a fool, and a willing one.

I know you wish I would stop rubbing your party’s constant, unbelievable, history making criminality in your face daily…but more is prosecuted and more are convicted daily, more top Republicans are convicted in $60 million bribery schemes, more go on the run from the law daily, more terrorist Maggots are fleeing to Belarus and Russia to avoid extradition daily. Certainly you want to know what your team is up to/dragging you into.

They might not know it when it happens.

Apparently, OAN, Newsmax, and Fox hadn't reported the results of the California election as of last night (maybe not yet). They even reported on Elder conceding without reporting that the recall failed....miserably. >2/3 to <1/3.
The right has become so delusional and infantile that they cannot even accept that they're unpopular and lost in California, their favorite state to hate.

They blew their plan to claim election fraud by jumping the gun and insisting on a special session to investigate all the irregularities (without listing any) claiming fraud determined the outrageous outcome of the election days before the earliest results were in....so early they had to retract their claims and remove their fraudulent election fraud website when, for one moment, it seemed they might stand a tiny chance.

LMFAHS!!!!

Yes, perhaps I've jumped the gun there

That's certainly not how I read....
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven," that is clearly not meaning "until I die and resurrect, then you can just forget those laws and go by some new ones to be determined later."
I don't know about heaven, but earth has definitely not yet passed away. That means you jumped the gun on abandoning the Law, and are now considered the least in heaven as you've told others to do so as well. It's 100% clear, no mental gymnastics or labyrinthian decryption needed to understand it.

Your second answer is hard to follow....he didn't say 'treat others as I would', it's 'as you would have them treat you'. Because most people fail to live up to it has no bearing on the instruction, neither does our moral imperfection. I would have them try to treat me fairly, honestly, and civilly, so I try to do the same, and not because Jesus said to, but because that's the best way to get others to treat me that way.

To answer your question...Aesop.

I don't think saying "hello, how are you?" and "no, I don't know why you pulled me over." are going to incriminate you... but it will make you look like a normal person with nothing to hide. Someone that sits there staring forward ignoring the cop like this lady just looks like they've come straight from robbing a bank.

This behavior reminds me of some friends when I was a teenager that would act suspicious in a dept store and then walk quickly for the exit so that security would chase them, and if caught they WOULD be innocent (and get to act like the victim), if not they get an adrenaline rush and a story.

If these cops had arrested this woman right away, THEN sure don't talk to them. But she jumped the gun and created the situation where she was being arrested from what looked like a routine traffic stop.(whether that was justified or not.)

I was stopped by a cop once on a freeway leaving a city and he said a car with the same description of mine had been stolen in the area. I showed my registration and he let me go on my way... If I had refused to say a word and just sat there, I would have looked very guilty and would probably have been arrested.

EDIT: According to 'separation of powers...and the roles defined for each branch, the Judicial has full power to interpret the laws as they interpret them. Period.

Exactly....but now it's been re-interpreted to give a right to a single individual...300000000 times.
Yes, you could, but that militia must be well regulated (which doesn't mean it never wets the bed or cries about it's parents being mean) before it meets the criteria to be protected...technically.

Your contention that "regulated" as a legal term actually means/meant "adjusted", as if a "well adjusted militia" was a phrase that makes any sense, or did back then, makes no sense. You may continue to claim it, I will continue to contradict it. Unless you have some written description by a founding father saying exactly that, it's just, like, your opinion...man. Try reading "Miracle at Philadelphia" for context.

If Y and Z didn't exist, but are incredibly similar to X, then it's reasonable to interpret laws to include Y and Z....if they existed and were not EXCLUDED, it's up to the judicial to interpret meaning...the less clear they are in meaning, the more power they give the judicial. Today, congress is as unclear as possible, and complain constantly that they are interpreted 'wrong'.

It's not a simple matter to make any law today....no matter how clear the need is for a law or how reasonable and universally the concept is accepted. Sadly. It SHOULD be a simple matter. It's not.

The court never "jumps the gun". They only interpret/re-interpret laws that are challenged, and a reasonable challenge means the law is in some way open to interpretation.

According to separation of powers... and the roles defined for each branch.

Parsing words is fine.
Persons vs people is moot. People = multiple persons. Unless your intent is to give a right to a single individual, you're always dealing with people.

The flip side is that if the 2nd amendment only protects militias and their armament, then it protects militias. So you are free to start a militia and get armed.
(Again, by 1791 parlance, well regulated meant well adjusted. There is no prerequisite for government regulation re the 1791 English it was written in.).


"well, they wrote X, but clearly the intent was to also cover Y and Z" doesn't work when :
- Y and Z did not even exist at the time of X.
- Y and Z did exist, and the writers chose not to include them.
In either case, you end up legislating from the bench.

It's a simple matter to make a new law covering Y and Z. There is no need for a court to jump the gun. Just find the case by the classic scope, and inform the legislature of the circumstances so they can take it into consideration. Heck, there is no guarantee that the legislature even wants the scope expanded. They could even want it contracted.
If it becomes a complicated matter with parties arguing - then it clearly needs debating and would have been inappropriate to decide elsewhere.

As a republic, the people are the state, and the state has all authority. The government exists strictly to record, execute, and enforce the state's will, by the state's authority (govt. has no authority inherent to itself).
The legislature is the channel that codifies the state's will. No other functional element serves that purpose. To codify something, it must go through the legislature. Else it does not carry state authority.

-scheherazade

D'oh.
You are correct sir. They don't make it easy to follow now. Even the websites that showed the count without the super delegates listed the 2383 number to win. I looked at 3 sites before writing my above comment, they all gave me the wrong impression.

EDIT: In my defense, they have been claiming she's the presumptive nominee since before the first primary, and again after every single primary day, so I mistakenly assumed this was just more of the same. However, it is correct that she's not the nominee yet, but she is the presumptive nominee with the votes to win, both pledged and non pledged. The actual vote won't happen until the convention.

But there is still SLIGHT hope that, now that she's the "presumptive nominee", the Republicans will jump the gun and indict her before the convention, giving the Democrats a reason to pick Sanders. Paper thin hope, tissue paper thin, but there is a single grain of hope left.

I'd love to see him announce Warren as VP immediately. Hell, Cruz jumped the gun on the VP call, so apparently that's no longer something that we need to wait on until after the convention.

While it wouldn't necessarily be the best possible scenario, I can't help but fantasize about a post-convention outcome of Clinton vs someone other than Trump (due to a contested republican convention), and then having both Trump and Sanders run as independents. It would keep a single third-party candidate from "spoiling" either side, and could really knock both parties down a peg.

Very cool and very clever, but if the goal is speed and simplicity what makes it better than cutting a v-groove with a router and folding that together? Is it that much stronger? Seems like something worth patenting, but unless the shape isn't as relatively arbitrary as it seems, surely there is some variation on it that's better in some way, and could you patent that? Seems like it might be jumping the gun to announce it before iterating the design and perhaps applying some computer analysis.

I'm only about 9 minutes in, but I don't agree with how Cenk took Maher and Harris' comments...

He said that Maher (and Harris) are suggesting that ALL Muslims hold the radical, fundamentalist beliefs. But I didn't interpret Maher's statement that way, and whether you do or not they both later suggest that a significant portion, sometimes even a majority in some countries, are the ones that hold those radical beliefs. A significant portion or "sometimes" a majority is NOT all.

I don't take that as painting ALL Muslims with the same brush, and I don't believe that either Harris or Maher intended it that way. They are, however, suggesting that if Islam is promoting these radical ideas such that they are present at (much) higher rates in Muslims than in other people... Well, maybe there is something wrong with Islam.

Cenk's argument about fundie Christians believing in the rapture is a good one. Christians believe that crazy messed up shit at a higher rate than other people of the world, so... Well, maybe something is wrong with Christianity. True.

BUT, Harris saying that Islam is "the mother lode of bad ideas" is still not necessarily meant in a racist/bigoted way (I believe it is not); OK, yes, the rapture is pretty fucked up, and people that buy into it wholeheartedly are capable of some causing a lot of fucked up damage. But I think that Harris would argue that Islam has MORE stuff like that than Christianity (death to those that leave the religion, homosexual hate, violence as a solution to many many "offences" against the religion, etc. etc.), and that unfortunately a greater percentage of Muslims buy into that extreme/damaging stuff than the percentage of Christians that buy into their extreme/damaging stuff.

I don't know that I fully agree with Harris on that point -- watch Fox News polls and you'll see that a LOT of people do unfortunately buy in to a lot of that way -out-there right-wing fundie nonsense. But, I think that Harris and Maher are correct to suggest that the best way to combat that stuff is to bring it out into the open and openly and logically criticize it for the dangerous nonsense that it is.

So, I may be jumping the gun by posting before watching the whole clip here, but I really feel like Cenk is misinterpreting what Maher and Harris were going for.

You did say it's fine, but also said you don't need any. I think it should be mandatory at least once each time cops are forced to use force.
That's a distinction that may have been lost. Your explanations often sound like excuses. You should perhaps be more clear that they are not, and you may garner less animus.
I do understand courts aren't 100% perfect at justice, but they are fairly good at being more impartial than the average cop on the street. If force is used against someone, but a case can't be made against them, there was no reason OR excuse of the force, it was 'jumping the gun'.
I also said that the <5% of inappropriate contact outweighs the >95% appropriate contact. Like I said, if 95% of the time a person takes good care of little old ladies, that won't excuse or explain them spending the other 5% raping children. Good does not excuse bad. 20 goods do not equal -1 bad. If only .01% of police contact is violently inappropriate, that's 0.01% too much, and if all the other cops protect those inappropriate cops, they'll all be colored the same. If cops would police themselves and turn on bad cops instead of being 'team players', I (for one) would not have issues with the entirety of them, only the bad few.

Tsk. They're jumping the gun a bit. Should have waited for part 4 to go to space like Critters, Hellraiser, and Leprechaun. Jason was fashionably late. You don't wanna be early to the space jam!

And how did they resist not having the announcer scream,
"INNNNNNN SPAAAAACE!?" Instead we get a very sensual read there at the end. Still, ya gotta give RR props for being prolific with a devil-may-care attitude.

Thing that creeps me out is the yelling then 3 pop pop pop then about a 3 second pause then 6 more pops, why the pause? why only one cop shooting?

Obviously disturbed man ALONE on a streetcar, confined. They could have used riot sheilds,I saw cops take a sword weilding guy down with a ladder and water cannon. They could have used tear gas, waited him out, non-lethal rubber rounds......shooting someone is the LAST option, this cop jumped the gun. (no pun intended)