It's apparently a Cannibal CME. The sun threw a Coronal Mass Ejection at us, and a while later threw a faster one. The faster one eats and merges with the original one to become one huge one.

My twin loves of astronomy and horror films combine. Mmmm.

A møøse once bit my sister.

(It was either that or mention of a Coronal Moose Ejection, given that we might well have powerful aurorae this Saturday)

This fake preliminary coroner’s report had been debunked before trial, and was again thoroughly at trial. These people you are listening to just hope you are too dumb to remember or too racist to care. Which is it Bobby? My bet, both.

The murdering racist pig justifiably serving 22 1/2 years was just stuck like a pig in prison.

AP-“Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin who was convicted of murdering George Floyd was reportedly stabbed in prison. Prison employees had to perform “life saving measures” before he could be transferred to the hospital for treatment.”

I agree with newtboy - Elon has a lot of bad ideas. (most of which are debunked with high school physics - see the many Thunderf00t videos). But there's a lot of smart people working at Tesla and SpaceX who are actually doing a bulk of the work & innovation.

But, this video isn't about Musk, it's about Robots and AI. Many more examples and companies than just Tesla-bot.

Don't worry though, humanity will be 'saved' from the robots by a large coronal mass ejection event that fries the grid and most computers on Earth.

Congratulations! Your video, LA Coroner Defies Sheriff, Releases Andres Guardado Autopsy, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 240 Badge!

Your video, LA Coroner Defies Sheriff, Releases Andres Guardado Autopsy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

But that stuff isn't aerated to the point that you can dunk someone under the sand. This stuff would be easily inhaled. I've seen aerated concrete powder kill a guy before. Coroner said his lungs were so hard you could stand on them.

Ahh, so you were lying. You did have time.

From your response it's clear you don't know much about medicine.

"If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital. "

No. You do get to call yourself a hospital. Most hospitals don't offer all medical services. Even major hospitals. You don't get to choose what is and isn't a hospital.

"There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling"."

Sort of. It's a chicken and egg situation that has an order to it.

Most private hospitals are unwilling to provide non-profit services and are therefore not equipped to provide them. You won't find hospitals with the skills (i.e. doctors and nurses able to perform the procedure) and equipment (which is almost always purpose specific in medicine) and not the willingness to do the procedure. Catholic hospitals won't have either of those necessary requirements for most of the disputed procedures.

"And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc."

No, mine was an appropriate analogy in regards to asking for a service or product that a company does not provide. In this case a Big Mac at KFC.

'"Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.'

I can't say it's bullshit, but it is irrelevant.

'Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?'

You're wrong. It is only an inconvenience. It sucks to be transferred to a different hospital but in general it has no adverse medical outcome on the patient. If the patient is critical the hospital will do what they can (which will be limited because they don't have the skills or equipment for that service) before transferring the patient. Just like one thousand and one other non-life-threatening and life-threatening procedures that most hospitals don't treat. Leaving the patient in place at that hospital carries a higher adverse risk than transferring them to an appropriate facility.

'And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.'

Not a strawman. You've given one example in a tabloid paper of a single woman who died from septacaemia, a week after a procedure. Unless you can show a conclusive coroner's report showing that the delay in removing the foetus (i.e. waiting until it was dead) was the cause, and not the 1000% more likely cause of infection during or after the surgery, then you don't even have that one example. And this sort of sepsis is just as likely from doing the same procedure with a live foetus. The procedure is pretty much the same. And even with one example, that's not statistically relevant. Do you have a study published in a reputable medical journal?

"The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot."

These hospitals have a mission statement based on their beliefs but they are practicing state of the art medicine. Based on their beliefs they don't offer all services , but this is no different than any other small hospital who limits their services. There are no statistically relevant adverse medical outcomes for anyone from this situation.

"But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")"

You're confusing you're belief of "shouldn't" with "doesn't". They can and should limit their services to what they want to offer as a hospital. The same as every public hospital does. And no, if the procedure is legal they do not have to provide it. This is true for public and private hospitals.

You seem to be sorely missing this basic vital understanding that all hospitals are limited in capacity and don't offer all services. If you go to the largest hospital near me (one of two major hospitals near me) and need emergency obstetrics, you will be shipped off to the other major hospital. That's how it works. If you go to one of many dozens of smaller private hospitals and ask for a,b, or c and they only offer x, y or z, then you're going to end up going to a different hospital.

The catholic hospital is practicing conscientious objection and passively practicing this (yes, passively, they're happy for you to go elsewhere). You want to force (that's the best word) all medical personal to bend to your will and don't accept worldviews that don't coincide with yours. Bigotry at it's finest.

'("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")'
FFS: Evidence of hospitals doing this please. Not an individual doctor. Hospitals.

'As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".'

You're saying "if you don't like my personal rules, then go find a different industry". Democracies a bitch when you don't get what you want. You're going to have to live with the fact that your way is just your opinion and nothing else.

You're getting pretty boring pretty quickly. I doubt I'll bother anymore with you, it's readily apparent that you're not going to learn any time soon.

The coroner's office in LA is so backed up they haven't started on it.

@eric3579, I agree with you. Hillary's reputation took a big hit after the DNC Leaks broke during the convention.

@newtboy, here's how I think of the campaign. (Please pardon me for this silly fable. I just kinda got writing and my creative side just sorta took over, and I just kinda had fun with it.)

.. ..

As the primary campaign advanced it was clear that Scissors was the front runner in the Rep's side. Unless something changed drastically, he would be become the nominee.

On the Dem’s side, the race was not yet decided. Rock was behind, but not by much. He was quickly closing in on Paper’s lead. Rock was hoping that his strategy of being consistent over time would prevail and win him votes. In the beginning Paper had taken off an airplane. Laughing at how slow Rock was to gain speed. But now Paper’s once comfortable head start was being called into question. Could Rock’s momentum grow fast enough to overtake her?

Paper had gone through extensive planning (on paper) long before the election. Paper wanted to keep news of Rock from reaching the voters. The idea as was to keep Rock "covered over" to the point that many of voters just didn't know about him. They just saw the old familiar name of "Paper" on the ballot and went with that. They had little or no exposure to Rock.

Rock was on a roll, and it was clear that it was gathering no moss.

Since so many voters relied on “traditional” media for information, it wasn’t too difficult to keep pro-Paper ads on the radio, and television, and in newspapers. It was expensive, but Paper seemed to have an unlimited supply of money to fund the campaign. It was almost like Paper had bought the press...

Though Rock started to break through into the areas that Paper had been dominant, the Strategy worked. Rocks downhill momentum wasn’t able to fully catch Paper’s airplane—head-start.

Paper would win the primary and go on to face Scissors in the general.

But at the Democratic Candidate Coronation Ceremony, something terrible happened!

It turns out that someone was keeping a paper-trail on Paper’s dealings. Paper had written many correspondences, and many of those letters had reached the hands of Wikileaks, which had finally chosen to publish the secrets!

The strategies Paper had used to ensure victory over Rock—the Cover-Up Campaign—were revealed. The fundraising done by The Paper Foundation to keep money flowing around laws were becoming clear.

And each week and new secret seemed to drip onto Paper’s hat…

What happens next? We don’t know. There are so many questions! Could a boat float if made of Panama Papers? How deep will the leaks get? What other secrets will be revealed before the final election? Will Paper win over former Rock supporters now that the reality of the Cover-Up-Campaign had been uncovered? Who will win the final election? Can Paper beat Scissors?

Could Scissors have been secretly helping Paper out behind the scenes out of a fear of facing Rock? Could Paper have been helping Scissors in the early parts of his primary campaign out of a fear of facing Ben Carson?

Tune in again for out next episode of House of Cards I mean Rock-Paper-Scissors to find out!

//

//

Okay, I hope you read that with in the lighthearted voice it was intended. And I’m not hiding my bias. This story was mostly about Paper—who (at first) I thought would be a fine second choice.

(I was rooting for Rock the whole time! I liked they way he rolled!)

Trump was Scissors: Wouldn't hesitate to cut his opponents with his uh.. 'wit.'
Sanders was Rock: Consistent over time. (Not blown around by the wind)
Hillary was like Paper: Thin, like her integrity.

So I used an link affiliated with Alex Jones for an image of unhappy DNC delegates, and that makes the argument invalid? Do you think that image was staged?

Here. Is this better?

https://twitter.com/TheBradMielke/status/758820748811116546/photo/1

Where were these people at Hillary's coronation speech?

Do you think they suddenly changed their minds and started thumping their chests for Hillary?

Downvoted for being a hype based, nonfactual, hysteria video that was put together by anti-abortionists without proper disclosure of facts.

As you can see in mysdrial's post, this has been mostly debunked. The costs being discussed are for secure shipping of biological materials that may be hazardous.

As far as her tone, she works in this field. I bet if you saw some undertakers or coroners talking shop, you would be pretty disturbed as well.

ALL HAIL THE CROWN!

...have a great coronation.

That's absolutely not what's been reported. The reports have repeatedly said his hyoid was severely injured and he asphyxiated.
Also, we can not take the word of the public coroner when it comes to officer involved death. Like the DA, they work with the cops daily, and bend over backwards to 'help' them repeatedly. Independent prosecutors and coroners are needed on EVERY officer involved death, without them we'll see you all as members of a deadly, powerful gang of thugs.
Cops should have TALKED to him instead of deciding 'he's not complying fast enough, get him fellas' and dog piling on him, starting from behind with a hold specifically disallowed by the department. (I'm glad you didn't try to say he wasn't choked, because that would just be ridiculous). That's really overboard for someone selling loosies, and was really, obviously about contempt of cop.

It might be a good idea for them to not laugh and joke about it while the body is still lying on the sidewalk and the family is filming them too, btw. (I've seen the extended video)

Perhaps he should have cooperated, but in no way would that ensure he'd be alive. The 77 year old man cooperated fully, (when a cop just nastily grabs at your papers for no reason and without saying a thing, pulling away is expected and acceptable) and was beaten and tasered for his trouble. Cooperation simply means the cops won't be hurt, not the citizen. Many many people are injured and killed cooperating with police and in full custody yearly. You somehow put the blame 100% on them and 0% on the police that have them under their control and have the duty to protect them. The rest of us have lost all trust in cops lately, and we feel if you have a duty you should perform it.

EDIT: How did 'cooperating' work out for this guy?
http://videosift.com/video/South-Carolina-cop-shoots-man-for-getting-license

Garner didn't die from being choked. Coroner ruled there was no damage or obstruction to the trachea.

His system was weak and he died from the stress of resisting arrest. He should have cooperated and he'd be alive today.