Cause and Fault are 2 separate things and both can be true. The nuisance on the bike increased the level of distraction and added frustration on top of the situation. Thus causing the accident in my opinion. But the fault is with the driver.

Just remember after handing you a ticket police officers hop back behind the wheel of this.

https://www.cityoflawsonmo.org/images/images_mi/mi_104_squad_car_equipment_1352902479_2142.jpg

"There is plenty of scum to go around on both sides."

Ahh the classic false equivalency that Trump supporters often resort to.

First of all, every child should be taught at a young age that just because other children may act like little shits, that doesn't mean they can. The amount of functional adult Trump supporters who use "the Democrats are bad too!" as an excuse for Trump's behavior is just astounding. It's really just a pathetic diversionary tactic used to avoid discussing the issues at hand.

Second, your claim that Democrats are just as cruel is simply not true. Blaming Democrats for the very thing Trump is guilty of is a common smear tactic employed by extremist right wing propaganda.

Take Trump's zero tolerance policy which separated minors from their families for example. Right wing propaganda outlets like OAN love showing pictures of children housed alone in Obama era detention facilities and cry foul at the liberal media at the lack of coverage. The reality is that Obama faced a huge surge of thousand of unaccompanied minors from south america in 2014 who were detained. So yes, thousands of children were detained, but they were NOT separated from the families in the first place.

And while some families were separated during Obama's tenure, Obama's policies tried to limit this as much as possible. It is a far cry from what Trump's zero tolerance policy accomplished. The "liberal" media did not report this under Obama OR Bush simply because it was not an issue. If you believed that there was unfair media coverage for Trump on this issue, then you were lied to and manipulated. Its part of what we discussed earlier how Trump uses lies to discredit the media and further erode our democracy.

The point is that right wing propaganda and Trump himself routinely uses lies and deception to paint himself as the target of a "liberal media bias" that they themselves manufactured. And his gullible supporters like yourself love believing in his victim complex. If you don't believe me, then just refer to non partisan international sources like the BBC and you'll soon discover that Trump is just as shitty from an impartial view as the "biased liberal media" portrays him.

Both sides are not the same, no matter what lies Trump and Fox News et al. tries to tell you. And there are plenty of respectable media sources which are not CNN which also exposes Trump for the lying scum that he is.

You and me both. Years ago I had a job at White Sands Missile range, where the main entrance road was named after PFC Marvin R. Owen, an MP who had been on duty during one of those monsoon rains. Some guy reporting for duty from New Jersey, or some such station, didn't want to be late. So he drove into the running arroyo that separated him from post HQ. He had his wife and two kids with him as I recall, and they all started floating downstream. PFC Owen drove his pickup into the arroyo in an attempt to stop the car, but they were all swept away.

They all drowned in the middle of the desert, and the next day most likely there was hardly any water to be seen.

I tend not to be the first one to cross.

Ok, I, and almost all non right wingers disagree. CNN and Faux are no where near the same level. CNN may have some bias against the man who actively encouraged right wing terrorists to attack them as enemies of America and continues to do so....that's perfectly reasonable and professional.
What they don't do is make up stories out of thin air like Faux, edit video to create false impressions that are diametrically opposed to reality, hire mostly frauds who have been caught falsifying reports, repeat obvious lies because their preferred candidate/politician said them, or go on the campaign trail with candidates not to report, but to speak on their behalf. Your conflation of the two is either disingenuous, outrageously ignorant, or insane, you choose.

I watch more than enough Faux to know what they are, pure propaganda. You can deny it all you like, that only makes you look ignorant or dishonest. I'm certain I watch more Faux than you watch CNN, yet you've made similar (but less honest) claims about them, you must not watch it enough to know of what of you speak, you just take a convicted frauds word that they're liars as gospel and never investigate it seems.

You don't know me, sir, or you wouldn't make such a spurious claim. I gather information from multiple opposing sources. How could I debunk the lies from Faux and OAN if I don't watch them spout those lies?

Then how about what Trump himself did?...turnabout is fair play, so in this instance two wrongs might make things more right, at least more balanced. The left playing fairly, honorably, and attempting to avoid even the appearance of impropriety got us Trump, who has no such qualms. I hope Democrats don't sit on their high horse and complain that Trump doesn't play fair while he destroys our democracy and union....it's well past time to start tossing the steaming shit back at them.

Trump raped his pre-teen daughters on film and bragged about it, that's why he won't show us their long form medical and financial records.....that's far truer than his birther claims.
Also, his kids are all illegals, born to non citizens as anchor babies, (all his baby mommas are immigrants/invaders) when he tries to remove birthright citizenship they should be deported immediately. ;-)

No, none of those people are good at reporting news, not one can separate their rabid hyper biased opinions from fact, although Smith is doing better lately......but slightly better than god awful isn't good.
Fox is a joke, period. They don't have reporters, they have hosts. They're an opinion/entertainment/propaganda network, not a news network. It's really sad that you watch them but don't understand that basic fact, and you defend them as offering good reporting while also admitting they aren't even news...WTF, man?

The thing there is the news media is not being unprofessional, Trump is, but you're listening to him as if he wasn't an impudent infant and believing the nonsense that reporting on his constant vitriolic foibles is unprofessional. It's simply not.

Trump is the leader of the nation, not CNN, not his advisors, not Hannity. He is not being led to the right, he's dragging centrists far right or attacking them if they refuse to go along.
How about maybe he tries to lead towards civility and professionalism instead of impetuously attack any detractors like a spoiled brat, blaming them for his own actions?

A journalist's job isn't just to sit there and passively report what Trump says to you - that would be no different than any official party propaganda. Move to North Korea if that's what you want from your reporters. The media IS the conscience of any democracy, and it is their job to hold Trump accountable for his brazen lies.

That is why the first thing any fascist, communist, and/or dictatorship does to consolidate power is to attack the media and end free press. Trump is doing the same, lying to gullible people like you to discredit any news source that doesn't work in his favor. His lies seems to have worked on you because somehow you think CNN is the "trashiest", when there are things like Fox, Sinclair, and Breitbart, which are no longer news but have moved fully into the realm of blatant propaganda.

And it's laughable that Trump supporters are now crying for respect, when they showed no such thing to Obama. Just your every day Republican hypocrisy.

Also, I'm curious as to what "good" Trump has done. Sure if you're a racist bigot and you like the idea of separating Mexican children from their parents, Trump is your man. Other than that I'm curious what else you believe he's done for America.

Lol.
I never did homework or paid attention in class either.
My teachers insisted I only did well on tests because I cheated, so they separated me from the class for a test....the class average went down a full grade, not me. After that I never had to turn in homework.
On my binder I wrote clearly "I learn by osmosis" to warn my teachers....it actually seemed true.

You may have some valid academic point to be made about American problems.

That is however completely overwhelmed by your callous disregard for the suffering of people in actual slave labour camps, by likening them to American prisoners convicted by a jury of their peers to a standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt who are forced to work for their 3 square meals per day. Your not wrong to point out flaws in the American system, just incredible callous to the vastly worse suffering of others.

I would say you are morally wrong to exploit said people(and weakening concern for their suffering) to champion a separate cause that matters to you more.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Technically, neither party should be using religion for anything. Religion is supposed to be separate from the state. Our founders said this, our bill of rights backs it up, and that is the way it should have been.

Unfortunately, it seeps in. In God We Trust was never on money until a reverend asked that it be added to the two cent piece during the civil war. It didn't appear on paper money until the 1950's when President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. It went on to be considered a side motto to E Pluribus Unum because of continued pressure.

Under God was not part of the pledge of allegiance until in 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s urging, the Congress legislated that “under God” be added.

Both of these broke the guidelines set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They should have never happened but religious Judges keep allowing them under the pretext of Accommodationism, in that as long as they don't specifically recognize or benefit a 'single' religion they can be considered to be OK. They shouldn't be allowed. Churches should have to pay taxes on profits. Priests should be held by the same laws the rest of us are held by. But because of religious fanatics, we allow the blending of church and state. Many would say, to our detriment.

Movies didn't influence divorce rates. There were a series of events that led to them skyrocketing.

1. Birth Control pills. Women and Men were no longer forced to remain in marriages because of children.

2. Due to economic change and because of WW2, women became more acceptable in the workforce. This increased year after year due to varying factors and after a while, many women became less dependent on their spouses to support them. With this economic independence, women who were in unhappy marriages no longer HAD to stay in them. This also led to....

3. The rise of Feminism. With economic independence, women could start fighting for their rights. Rights that had been withheld from them for many years.

4. The Baby Boom after WW2. Most countries experienced it at some level and with a much high population, more people are going to divorce.

5. The importing and mainstreaming of new ideas in regards to relationships, spirituality, and sex. This didn't come from Hollywood, but from the East. The Kama Sutra, Mysticism, and more worldly takes on relationships.

6. Changes to existing laws, possibly one of the biggest reasons. Prior to the time period listed, divorce was a PAIN IN THE ASS to accomplish. Fault was usually required - one of the spouses must have committed a crime or 'sin' that justified the divorce. A long separation before the divorce used to be mandatory. Around the 50's, states began relaxing many of these laws, swapping to a no-fault style divorce and decreasing the separation period. By 1970, almost all states had laws allowing no-fault divorces. These laws had a great effect on the divorce rate. From 1940 to 1965, the divorce rate remained near 10 divorces for every 1,000 married women. By 1979, the rate had doubled.

7. Divorce also became more acceptable. The guilt and fault of the old divorce laws were gone. As more couples separated, divorce gradually became a normal part of life.

8. Children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced. As the number of divorced parents increases, so will the number of their children that get divorced.

These are the root factors, not movies. If you believe movies lead to divorce, you probably also think video games lead children to violent acts. We all know how wrong that is.

RICO will never be used against churches. Kavanaugh's appointment means more and more power handed to churches so long as they are Christian. We are heading to a theocracy, and it'll get worse. Kavanaugh doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, at least keeping the church out of the state and believes in the privilege of the church. Gay rights will go out the door. Give them time to replace one more justice on the court, and it may even become a crime. Kavanaugh believes that neutrality between faith and non-faith matters is in fact hostility against the faith.

RICO should definitely be used against churches. They should not be above the law, separation of church and state. Catholic church first.

Thanks C-note
This was a good find.
We can draw comparisons to any race or religion.
This injustice of creating sub-groups in society is more ingrained in societies than people even realize. And, while the majority of people don't support the concept itself, they do proliferate the injustice by going along with it, in fear of also being labeled.

Having "Visual differences" between the classes, just makes this deplorable method of sub-classing convenient to the bigots.

The only real solution to this and all "Racism" is not to support it - and stand up and shout at it when we witness it. This is particularly difficult when people are separated into their own groups (neighborhoods) because the racism can be hidden better and the bigots themselves shelter themselves from ever needing to be corrected.

Off topic slightly: I see myself as an alchemist. Part of this is to ignore labels, class and sub class, ignore hierarchies and so on - seeing everything as equal at all times. I don't care about Class, race, names ans so on. As humans on this planet, we are all equal when it comes to rights.
Of course many will disagree with me - mainly the people with more rights.

From YouTube:
"One Man could be heard asking the Officers, "Would you do this in your neighborhood?" There was no answer for his question. "

YES, they do this in my community!! And I encourage it.
Kinda separates the innocent people from the not-so innocent.

I'd rather they find out who's been doing the stealing before my stuff is stolen. It's very rare they find the stolen goods even once they catch the thieves - the loot is long gone. So catch them using bait, rather than waiting till real people are robbed and violated.

I don't disagree, and we have much the same thing in practice if not by law with our native people's, they even have their own separate tribal police, courts, and laws. They are in many ways a different country inside our borders.
I agree, removing the disparities in lower education is far more desirable....but at least here we're doing the opposite, defunding public schools and programs that offer assistance like breakfast and lunch while also making it easier for affluent people to use public funds to pay for private schools, effectively defunding the public schools even farther.
That leaves us trying things like affirmative action in admissions to try to mitigate the continuing unfair, unequal opportunities lower income students face. Far from ideal, but better than another poke in the eye with a sharp stick, as my wife used to say....and she ought to know! ;-)

They might put the argument in different terms. Which do you prefer....giving admission advantages to aboriginal students in recognition of the piss poor opportunities they've had educationally, or give sentencing advantages to aboriginal criminals in recognition of the across the board piss poor opportunities they've had, recognizing that neither approach addresses the underlying problems, only the results of those long standing issues that simply are not being addressed at all.
What doesn't work is ignoring their lack of opportunities and expecting them to perform on par with other, non disadvantaged kids. That just gets you uneducated, pissed off adults with a chip on their shoulder and no prospects for improvement.

So.....until we actually get to work improving their overall situation, easier said than done, it behooves us to give a leg up to those trying hard to do it for themselves....no? Otherwise we're likely just perpetuating a cycle of criminality that hurts us all.

I'm less familiar with American demographics, but I agree with the overall principal. Here in Canada we have IMO an even more severe segregation and unequal opportunity for Aboriginal peoples. It's severe enough up here though that not only are communities segregated by living on reserves with their own separate schools, but we have separate school divisions, and even their reporting and funding lines are different from all other schools.

That adds up to an enormous amount of differential treatment. Replacing that with equal opportunity though is much more desirable than 'waiting' till the school system has already failed kids and then 'lowering the bar' in one way or another to help them get into university.

In Canada I think our supreme court has done as at least 1 disservice greater than you guys though in making race a required consideration in sentencing. The appropriate section of sentencing:
"In sentencing an aboriginal offender, the judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular aboriginal offender before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular aboriginal heritage or connection."
The goal is to address the over-representation of aboriginal people in prisons. The effect however, is ultimately discriminatory as well. Before you dismiss the discrimination against whites as ok because it balances things out as is the 'goal', that's not the only affect. Another problem in Canada is the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples as the victims of crime, because most violent crime is between parties that are related. So on the whole crimes committed against Aboriginal people will on average be sentenced more leniently...

Failing to address the real underlying unequal opportunity can't corrected by more inequality later to balance the scales. In Canada, our attempt at it are too lesson the sentencing of people with unequal backgrounds, but the expense of victims that also faced those same unequal backgrounds...

And that 'corrective' inequality is also creating similar resentment amongst white people here too. People don't like their kids not getting into a school of choice potentially because of a race based distinction, but they like it even less to see a crime committed against them treated more leniently because of race.