😂
Trump has a new defense….he didn’t declassify the documents he stole but that’s fine, because he still has full top secret clearance and once Mar a Lago was a temporary SCIF (with now removed security measures and personnel), so leaving the top secret classified state secrets in ballrooms and hallways open to the public, photographed by the public, is a nothingburger. The problem, 1) he does NOT still have presidential level clearance, he lost it on Jan 20 and 2) the temporary SCIF designation was dissolved well before 2020. Might work with Cannon, his lackey, but will fall flat on appeal.
His only lawyer is happy to say she’s glad she’s pretty instead of smart because she’s so dumb she thinks she can fake being smart, but she can’t. Not good when your lawyer stands up in court and says “Your Honor, I don’t know how to try this case.” Her objections are nonsensical, not on topic, and have already annoyed the judge, on cross she just started reading tweets that had not been entered as evidence, and when asked what she was doing she answered “I’m trying to get it in.” (but Trump was too small to find under his gut) at which point the judge recessed the case so Trump’s lawyer could remind herself of how to enter evidence in a court, because she has no idea how courts work! After the recess she did the exact same thing, then begged the judge “well, what do I do?” And he had to stop the trial and explain the procedure for presenting evidence in a court to Trump’s legal team…BECAUSE THEY HAD NO IDEA HOW! THEN SHE DID IT AGAIN…JUST STARTED READING A TRANSCRPIT NOT IN EVIDENCE! He is livid at this lack of competence, decorum, knowledge, and intelligence coming from the entire defense side, not smart to make the judge an enemy….and it doesn’t create an automatic appeal just because you made the judge dislike you. Imagine if that was all it takes.
She’s going to be disbarred, but she got the fame she was after and her legal career was non existent before Trump so she won’t care…but will try to make you care enough to send her cash. You probably will. 😂

“We’re going to stop banks and regulators from trying to debank you from your, you know, your your political beliefs is what they do…they want to debank you and we’re going to debank think of this, they want to take away your rights, they want to take away your country the things they’re doing all electric cars, give me a break if you want an electric car good but they don’t go far they’re very expensive.” -Trump

Can you tell me what he said? What was the topic of that run on sentence? What is debanking? Why is it ok for you to debank but not ok for banks to debank? Shouldn’t they be the ones with the most right to debank? Can you convince yourself that is a functioning brain stringing those words together and not one ravaged by the late stage syphilis he obviously has?
What?

I don't have a lawn so I don't have this problem in front of my house, but I do encounter publicly available piles of dog excrement on sidewalks, in grass at the park, etc., and it always makes me livid at the many disgusting, nasty humans who don't seem to mind being so inconsiderate to their neighbors.

It was therapeutic watching this, despite that he did overdo it a little (hard to hold that against him though).

Everyone should be livid over this, not just when it happens to a child.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

Trump's tour with the WWE happened years ago....but the bat shit crazy persona stuck.
Queen is LIVID. They have repeatedly asked, and then demanded that Trump stop using their music. He continues to use it anyway, because he's a narcissistic douchebag that shits on anyone not 100% in full on hyperbolic blind support of him.
Why can't some BLM activist or Muslim terrorist snipe HIM? PLEASE! No jury would EVER convict.
Sorry, can't upvote, because.....Trump.

Wild? I was absolutely livid!
http://videosift.com/video/Not-the-Nine-Oclock-News-Gerald-the-Gorilla-1

Another case of bigotry and intolerance, excused because it's religion and therefore must not be questioned. Bullshit. I can't fathom why this is accepted. And before shinyb anyone says that I'm being intolerant of religion, I'm not - if you have religious objections to in-vitro fertilization, don't use it! Likewise with gay marriage, if you have a religious objection, don't marry someone of your gender.

If the day comes that the "liberal elite" try to force Christians to use in-vitro fertilisation, then I will stand up for Christians against this intolerance. If the "gay lobby" (such stupid phrases, like we/they hold secret meetings or something) tries to force Christians to marry their own gender, then I will stand up for Christians and decry the intolerant gay lobby.

More than anyone, religious people should be livid about this. Shit like this is being done in the name of your religion and this makes you all look like fools.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Ana is livid.
I think she's personally invested in the story.


We ALL should be "personally invested". No apology for mistaken intent can bring you back from the dead if another concerned citizen decides to pop a cap in your ass. This might happen to you. It almost happened to me.

When I was 14 back in the early 80s,I was hanging out with a friend around 4 in the morning in front of his apartment building. We were going fishing and his brother in law was supposed to pick us up. A pair of Big Guys call out to us from up the block,with a VERY Big Dog,and say something like,"What do you guys think you're doing out here?". WE see the guys,we see the dog,we look at each other and we ran inside the apartment building. We head up to his apartment and a few minutes later TWO COP CARS with lights flashing park outside and we hear people get out. We stay quiet and we hear a lot of footsteps walking up the stairs then back down again. Happily,they left and a half hour later we ride off with the brother in law. We weren't doing anything except talking and sitting on the porch,and the whole episode was scarey! I can just imagine how this poor kid felt when he sees Mr Vigilantte chasing him. And I imagine he knew people in authority really don't need a real reason to be nasty,especially to puny minorities.
Why this scumbag is still walking the streets? Who will be the next random victim?

Ana is livid.
I think she's personally invested in the story.

Wild? I was absolutely livid!
http://videosift.com/video/Not-the-Nine-Oclock-News-Gerald-the-Gorilla-1

Just admit it Quantum. Democrats and Republicans are all the same.

In some ways they are, in others they ain't. There's enough differences to vote.

Do you sincerely think all these Republicans are just gonna give up their power and stop funneling tax dollars toward corporations that "donate" to re-elect them?

No. But why would you assume that only Republicans are in bed with corporations, and only taxocrats care about the "working man?" Corruption is the grease of democracy.

If you're gonna be angry about the left you HAVE to be equally as angry about the right.

That's where the Tea Party originated; anger about both sides being corrupt in their own ways. A few States should threaten to secede. The federal mafia is too big and too stupid to correct course, assuming they're even trying.

Dems are playing minor league ball compared to the GOP.

No, they're probably about the same. I've observed that there's more prosperity when taxocrats are out of power than in power. I'm disappointed when republicans fail to live up to expectations, but livid when taxocrats exceed theirs.

Dude, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand what I'm saying. So I'm not going to tailor my posts to cater to your whims, sorry. If you can't understand what I'm trying to say, then simply ignore my posts and move on. It's really that simple.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.

Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.
In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oops.gif"> I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.



I know/knew the point of your first reply--however, since you unfairly and directly compared what happened with you to being mad at something like this happening, then I simply pointed out the two versions as completely incompatible.

You then stated, this time to me, to stop speaking for you--which I did not. Perhaps you were once again telling Re to stop but that makes little sense...

Now you're all huffy and sad because your feelings are hurt. This reminds me of the last time we discussed and you flipped because I inferred something from your writing. However, you assumed something about my writing so we were pretty even...

I just give up on you Duck; either write what you actually mean or do not write at all. Don't just use words you think are appropriate. I am an over-analytical sort and so I get confused when people use words just to hear themselves speak... I will always mistake your point if you have no clue how to put it down in posts.

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.

Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.
In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oops.gif"> I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.



I know/knew the point of your first reply--however, since you unfairly and directly compared what happened with you to being mad at something like this happening, then I simply pointed out the two versions as completely incompatible.

You then stated, this time to me, to stop speaking for you--which I did not. Perhaps you were once again telling Re to stop but that makes little sense...

Now you're all huffy and sad because your feelings are hurt. This reminds me of the last time we discussed and you flipped because I inferred something from your writing. However, you assumed something about my writing so we were pretty even...

I just give up on you Duck; either write what you actually mean or do not write at all. Don't just use words you think are appropriate. I am an over-analytical sort and so I get confused when people use words just to hear themselves speak... I will always mistake your point if you have no clue how to put it down in posts.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.


Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.

In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.

Rage-osterone. The other *femme cop is like, "ugh, why was I assigned on duty with AJ?"

>> ^JiggaJonson:

I don't think the people supporting what the girl did in this situation really understand what's happening here. I'm going to echo what Reiwan said " if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid." Regardless of what it is, the girl was taking something and deliberately putting it onto a police officer's face.
Sure bubbles are harmless, but so is spit,water, etc, and it's not the "what's being thrown in your face" that is creating an issue it's, again, the fact that something is being thrown in the face of another individual.
Imagine how up in arms everyone would be if there were 10 cops standing along the fence each with some self righteous hippy blowing bubbles in their faces when some kind of real security problem erupted. Now I understand that this wasn't the scenario but if you let one person do it sooner or later more will want to join in. I wish the video didn't skip over the "moments later" section so I could be a bit more informed about what happened but as it stands, I am under the presumption that the police were well within their rights.
Edit - Duckman was apparently writing the same time i was. Don't act like you've never asked a kid to stop doing something annoying and then in a strange twist of fate they didn't comply with your request.


The fence was way away - this happened in Parkdale - FAR FAR away from the fence, about a 15 minute drive west.

I recognize the buildings in fact - I'm pretty sure it's right here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1274+Queen+St+W,+Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario+M6K+1L2,+Canada

Ironically they're right next door to "Parkdale Community Legal Services"