I don't wanna be a 24kt dick here, but I fucking HATE seagulls.

Seagulls and Canadian Geese are both the assholes of the avian world and fuck 'em both. God was in a shitty mood when he created these flying abominations. Oh, and pelicans. Yeah, fuck them, too. A pelican took a shit the size of a dinner plate on my (at the time) brand new '97 Z-28 Camaro. Right on the fucking windshield, too. I mean, one minute, I'm enjoying myself at the beach and the next minute I'm looking at a greasy green rotten-fish-reeking shit covering half my goddamn windshield. I have no clue what pelican anatomy looks like, but they must be 99% rectum and 1% ill intents. What a wonderful time to discover I was outta windshield wiper fluid, too. Two little squirts and then my wipers were just smearing semi-digested fish across my windshield. Oh, that FUCKER! I know which one did it, too -- it was the one sitting on a post like three feet away laughing at me. Oh, sure, I could have beaten it to death with a tire iron, but then *I* would have been the one in trouble. You can't ticket a pelican for taking a massive dump on your car, but beat one to death with 2 feet of galvanized steel and you're the one who has to explain it all to a judge.

People feed those rancid fuckers, too. I hope the next cocksucker who tosses a Ritz in the direction of a pelican is staring at the sky with mouth agape when the damned thing decides to void its football-sized ass. That'd be karma right there, and fuck all the people right now going "that's not how karma works!" They can just start putting their Dharma-believing asses to work cleaning my windshield with their tongues.

Please forgive me: I've been drinking for the last six hours and I've gotten maybe a little feisty.

I just kept thinking to make this street legal, it needs plates, signal lights, brake lights, head lights... etc. But with those wheels on both front and back, where do you put everything else?

And that's beside the point of having fenders. which a bike legally needs, but imagine hitting water on the street or rain, the spray off that thing would be crazy.

You had him on video doing the deed, and you had his license plate number when you pulled up behind him. So was jumping onto the vehicle and threatening to shoot him actually necessary?

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

Completely agree, it's a clear case of child endangerment. Plate is visible so I'm guessing someone has sent it to the police already.

In a perfect world, yes, but in reality, no.
Police do not have to tell the truth, and if a lie gets them the upper hand, they'll often lie. Asking them to explain your rights, especially after annoying them by being obstinate and repeating to them that you know your rights, is just dumb imo. They have no obligation to teach you or to be honest about them and every incentive not to.....although it would be nice if they did.

Edit: asking for a lengthy explanation after being told 'any answer besides"yes" is considered refusal' is a point where you will be penalized for asking what your rights are....white, black, or purple.

Explain how it's ok to administer a test at any time but this time is harassment because he failed them, please, because that's contradictory.

He parked on the freeway causing suspicion,
admitted to drinking and driving requiring a field test,
didn't follow directions so failed the field test,
then obstinately repeated that with the breathalyzer by not answering yes and taking it. (After being told anything but yes legally means no).
Please, what's harassment there?....because there's definitely something more imo.

Remove race from the equation, and it's a good arrest. Adding race in does nothing to negate that imo.


Edit: I was a white punk with a long Mohawk. I got harassed far worse than this repeatedly, including being thrown to the ground at gunpoint because an officer read my plate wrong and accused me of being a car thief. Attitude usually has far more to do with the outcome than anything else in my experience. When I was polite and followed instructions I almost always walked, even when in the wrong. When I argued, I got slapped hard, like a vandalism charge for a 4" chalk line on a sidewalk or 2 hours of having my car searched in front of my friends house.

If I'm misunderstanding and you aren't claiming this was a dwb arrest, apologies. That's the part I'm debating, because it seems wrong.

Jesus fucking Christ....What bullshit.
He failed the field test after illegally parking on the freeway with dealer plates and admitting to drinking and driving, argued and stalled rather than complied, and then played games with the field test, failing it, and didn't submit to the breathalyzer as required by law (you can't delay the test by arguing about your rights as he did, by law, they clearly warned him so). That's automatic conviction in most places....white or black.

Totally cuffed for cause, then eventually had the charges dropped because they "lost" the footage, but by his own words he's guilty of the charge of refusing the test.
Every bad experience had by a person of color is not institutional racism, especially when they're actually breaking the law and being belligerent....which he was by parking on the shoulder and arguing instead of complying with lawful commands. Had they not "lost" the video, he should have been convicted and had his licence revoked....white or black.

Thanks @C-note, you've single handedly turned me from someone who exposed racism to someone who now actively debunks it. Congratulations.

1-3-5-7
Jelly donuts taste like heaven.
2-4-6-8
Put a dozen on my plate.

Speaking even a little Italian has brought smiles, extra plates, great service, and complete confusion (I'm not caucasian); same with Chinese.
Gotta work on my Spanish!

Possible, but I don't really think so. I think that the Medical minds of the time thought that physical shock, pressure waves from bombing etc. as you described, were a (or perhaps THE) primary cause of the psychological problems of returning soldiers. So the name "shell shock" came from there, but the symptoms that it was describing were psychological and, I think precisely equal to modern PTSD. Basically, "shell shock" became a polite euphemism for "soldier that got mentally messed up in the war and is having difficulty returning to civilian life".

My grandfather was an Army Air Corps armorer during WWII. He went through basic training, but his primary job was loading ammunition, bombs, external gas tanks, etc. onto P-47 airplanes. He was never in a direct combat situation, as I would describe it. He was never shot at, never in the shockwave radius of explosions, etc. But after the war he was described as having mild "shell shock", manifested by being withdrawn, not wanting to talk about the war, and occasionally prone to angry outbursts over seemingly trivial things. Eventually, he started talking about the war in his mid 80's, and here's a few relevant (perhaps) stories of his:

He joined the European theater a couple days after D-Day. Came to shore on a Normandy beach in the same sort of landing craft seen in Saving Private Ryan, etc. Even though it was days later, there were still LOTS of bodies on the beach, and thick smell of death. Welcome to the war!

His fighter group took over a French farm house adjacent to a dirt landing strip / runway. They put up a barbed wire perimeter with a gate on the road. In one of the only times I heard of him having a firearm and being expected to potentially use it, he pulled guard duty at that gate one evening. His commanding officer gave him orders to shoot anyone that couldn't provide identification on sight. While he was standing guard, a woman in her 20's rolled up on a bicycle, somewhat distraught. She spoke no English, only French. She clearly wanted to get in, and even tried to push past my grandfather. By the letter of his orders, he was "supposed" to shoot her. Instead, he knocked her off her bike when she tried to ride past after getting nowhere verbally and physically restrained her. At gunpoint! When someone that spoke French got there, it turned out that she was the daughter of the family that lived in the farm house. They had no food, and she was coming back to get some potatoes they had left in the larder.

Riding trains was a common way to get air corps support staff up to near the front, and also to get everybody back to transport ships at the end of the war. On one of those journeys later in the war, my grandfather was riding in an open train car with a bunch of his buddies. They were all given meals at the start of the trip. A short while later, the track went through a French town. A bunch of civilians were waiting around the tracks begging for food. I'll never forgot my grandfather describing that scene. It was tough for him to get out, and then all he managed was "they was starvin'!" He later explained that he and his buddies all gave up the food that they had to those people in the first town -- only to have none left to give as they rolled past similar scenes in each town on down the line.

When my mother was growing up, she and her brothers learned that they'd better not leave any food on their plates to go to waste. She has said that the angriest she ever saw her dad was when her brothers got into a food fight one time, and my grandfather went ballistic. They couldn't really figure out what the big deal was, until years later when my grandfather started telling his war stories and suddenly things made more sense.


A lot of guys had a much rougher war than my grandfather. Way more direct combat. Saw stuff much worse -- and had to DO things that were hard to live with. I think the psychological fallout of stuff like that explains the vast majority of "shell shock", without the addition of CTE-like physical head trauma. I'd wager that when the docs said Stewart's father's shell shock was a reaction to aerial bombardment, that was really just a face-saving measure to try to explain away the perceived "weakness" of his condition.

There is plenty of employment law that says that there is an objective correct answer.

It is very frustrating to get into the conversation over and over again, meet the intellectual points with reason, and be dismissed.

Until men -- and they are mostly men -- step up to the plate and acknowledge that their biological responses are a problem that relegate women to pieces of meat for their pleasure, this will never be addressed in a way that lets us move forward.

It is akin to racism. I'm a racist. I have racist responses that are a combination of what I was brought up with (thanks, dad) and are part and parcel of how human's brains evolved.

We evolved to quickly see difference.

Helped us survive, that lightning quick assessment.

But racism is purely BELIEVING that lizard brain reaction is based in something real and should be given precedence over the frontal cortex.

Racism and sexism are related. They put lizard brain over the frontal cortex.

Just because you feel it doesn't mean it should be indulged.

And there is plenty of equal opportunity laws on the books to say that subjective racist responses, while endemic in humanity, shall not be allowed in a modern society.

We are struggling as humans to rise above the muck of biology. Wanna join me?

1) The resurrection is absolutely not historical. Jesus the man MIGHT be.

There is a lot of scholarly research that says it is historical, especially in the last 80 years or so. There are volumes upon volumes of work, and there are a lot of things that deserve an honest and indepth discussion.

Almost all skeptical scholars affirm that Jesus was a historical person and that His disciples had an experience which convinced them that He was raised from the dead. Many agree that a group of women discovered the empty tomb. The origin of Christianity is something which must be accounted for, historically. You can't just wave your hand over it and say its all nonsense.

2) I know Christianity is a joke religion invented for political control by Constantine. That is a verifiable, historical fact.

On what do you base that conclusion?

3) mythos cannot verify mythos. You say Satan created other religions (many before Chritianity existed) to trick them out of worshiping Yahweh....why isn't that likely true of Christianity?

Because of the person of Jesus Christ, who is verified to be the Messiah from many lines of evidence. Some of these would include the fulfillment of dozens of prophecies, His life and ministry, and His resurrection from the dead.

4) not true. Verified truth can be proven and defended against being twisted with fact and evidence, at least to those willing to examine actual evidence and not rely on only propaganda and myth. God (if he existed) should have more backbone, and a clear, unambiguous word/voice. ( Your position seems to be he's not willing to stand behind his word and prefers most people burn in hell for their God given inability to distinguish which is which.)
How is it different from politicians? They aren't empowered by all powerful, vengeful gods....clearly neither are clergy.

I'm not sure why you think you are holding the keys of facts and evidence in your hand, first of all. Can your worldview account for these things? You would need to establish that before we can talk about what "verified truth" is. What is your worldview, by the way? I am assuming it is scientific materialism. Have you ever looked into whether it is correct or not?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/

5) ...you shall stone them to death.....thou shalt not kill. Not so clear.

I think that is easily explained. The laws you are looking at were civil laws which governed the nation of Israel. Consider that our society has a law against murder, yet we execute criminals. Same concept.

6) only those who believe are saved...so clearly the sin of disbelief is not erased and is worse than all others. If it's not automatic, he didn't die for MY sins or yours, he's trading being saved (from something he told you exists with zero evidence) for belief and obedience.

None of your sins would be erased if you reject Christ. You would be paying not only for unbelief, but for all of the other ones too. Unbelief is like any other sin execept that the consequence of the sin prevents you from receiving forgiveness. It is exactly like expecting your cancer to be cured without taking the cure.

Jesus died for the sins of the world, including mine and yours, but you cannot partake of the atonement unless you receive Him as Lord and Savior.

My evidence is not just what we are discussing. Jesus Christ is alive and He is with me every single day of my life. He comforts me in my distress. He encourages me when I feel stuck. He gives me strength to overcome things I otherwise couldn't. He gives me wisdom for every problem and situation. He gives me love for those I find difficult to love. He fills my heart with generosity when I want to be stringy. He helps me do the right thing when I am going to fall short. This is not abstract, but a living reality in my life that grows more and more. He has utterly changed me and made me into a completely different person just like He said He would.

7) things that only work if you believe are hokum or placebo, things that only exist if you believe enough are pure fantasy.

Without buying your system, I have no sin to repent so I should go straight to heaven and collect my $200.

That's kind of like saying you don't believe in the law so you think you won't be punished when you break it. You have to account for your sin whatever you believe you have any or not. Your conscience, however, tells you that you have done wrong things.

9) You have cancer and some guy tells you God sent a car (he just needs $50 for telling you about it), it's invisible, and will take you to the cure, but you must believe the car exists, and when you die sitting in the freezing street he says it's your fault for not believing enough in God's magic cars. Duh. I'll buy my own plane ticket and get myself there, not wait for ethereal magic cars.

Let's say that you got a sign that the car was legitimate, but you still stubbornly chose not to go. For instance, you had a dream that a green car with a florida license plate drove up to your house, and a middle age woman got out and came up to your door and told you she was sent by God to take you to the cancer cure, and then it really happened. Does that change anything for you?

Mostly the questions are for you, in hope you might see the contradiction and self reinforcing mythos, but your answers do offer insight to your (and other people's) intractable mindsets. Thanks

God had revealed Himself to me, personally, and verified the scripture in my as true. I know that He loves me, personally, and I know that He loves you too. My hearts desire is that you would know that love. That is my mindset, primarily.

I'm not at all convinced of that (Clinton's political career being over).

It would be the sane response. And yet, clearly the DNC (and US politics in general) aren't reined in by trivialities like sanity. I think that unless the fickle public gets really riled up over this, the DNC would swing just as hard for Clinton or some other corporate-friendly type over anybody like Sanders or Warren in 2020.

Sanders being an Independent in the Senate was held against him hard by party bigwigs. Somewhat understandably. That being said, Sanders' brand of "Independent" was/is a fantastic guide to what the Democrat party should be working to become.

Politics is all bullshit, all the time. As a result, a huge percentage of voters are quite disenfranchised and don't really see any candidate as being on their side. Sanders turned that on its head. And old, rather-eccentric, Jewish dude got people excited (me too!). Massive gold-plated opportunity, with giant fucking neon signs pointing at it saying "pounce on this NOW", and the DNC took a big shit on it instead because they can't fathom a world without being 99.9% funded by massive corporations in return for congressmen, vetoes, and judges being bought and paid for.

I think that's what the guy is talking about with regards to "taking over the party". The "Justice Democrats" thing is about progressive candidates funded by actual goddamn people instead of laundered corporate money. I'm not real optimistic about their chances of really shaking up the status quo, but by god I sure hope they do.

This is, in fact, rather common. If you take a look at fencing manuals (Talhofer and the like). Please remember that the blade was not razor-sharp because it was supposed to work against mail and plate.