If they weren't fakers, I think they wouldn't have lost their composure and cursed him out, they would be disciplined and knowledgeable.
Their actions indicate they are frauds, I hope they get prosecuted.

Really? Explain why. It's in there, as clear and codified religious law.

I'll give you a synopsis:

God established the law because of sin:

Galatians 3:19

Why then was the Law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise referred. It was administered through angels by a mediator

The seed it is talking about is Jesus Christ, referred to by this prophecy in Genesis of the coming of the Messiah:

Genesis 3

14The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.

Sin came into the world through the transgression of Adam. Because of sin man was separated from God because God is holy and cannot dwell with sin. Because of sin God gave us the law as Paul referred to. Jesus, the new Adam, satisfied all of the moral requirements of the law by living a perfect life. He reestablished the relationship between God and man:

Romans 5

17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous

This is what it means when it says He came to fulfill the law. He brought everything full circle back to the way it was before man first sinned. That is why the law is no longer necessary, because we are made right with God not by obeying the law, but through our faith in Jesus Christ.

When Jesus died on the cross He said "It is finished". It is translated from a greek word "tetelestai", which means paid in full. It something a merchant would stamp on a loan document that was paid up. He said that because He fulfilled the law and paid our sin debt on the cross.

This doesn't mean that there aren't any moral requirements for Christians, but they aren't the same as the ones given to the nation of Israel. We are under a New Covenant and the law of Christ:

Luke 22

19And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

Galatians 6

Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Christ gave us commands to obey, one of which you mentioned: love your neighbor as yourself. Also, love one another as I have loved you and many others. All of the 10 commandments were reiterated although there is a deeper meaning and interpretation to some of them now. Do not commit adultery now extends to lusting after a women in your heart. Jesus also said that hating someone is murdering them in your heart.

The civil and ceremonial laws of Israel no longer apply exactly because Jesus did fulfill the law.

Treating others like you would have them treat you, the golden rule....what Jesus told you is the most important rule.

When Jesus taught us to treat others as we would have them treat us, it has force because He is morally perfect. We are morally imperfect. We tell people to do things we don't do, and tell people not to do things we do do. Can you name a single human being on whose shoulders we could place objective morals? If you can't then you can see the problem, I hope

Btw, here is a great educational site which is completely free

https://vmcontenders.org/all-courses/

Yes, this is Gilliam's windmill. The story's changed a few times from his original idea, but he hasn't given up in his quest.

Of course, now that it's in the can one of the old producers is claiming he holds the rights and is blocking the release, but every story needs a dramatic climax... let's just hope Terry survives it.

*related https://videosift.com/video/Terry-Gilliams-Cursed-Don-Quixote-Movie-Lost-in-La-Mancha

Nutria don't die off every winter, so the weevils are likely to be less of a problem. There was actually a small scale trial before they built the weevil greenhouses, which didn't uncover any major issues with them.

See https://features.texasmonthly.com/editorial/creature-green-lagoon/ for many more details including the lack of frost tolerance:

Still, their campaign faced a significant obstacle: Caddo’s unfortunate latitude. The bug, like the plant it craves, is tropical. Problem is, weevils are felled by frost, while salvinia can stand slightly lower temperatures. This has proven to be Caddo’s curse, said Julie Nachtrieb, a biologist who raises and studies salvinia weevils at the Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem Research Facility, part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In places with mild or even nonexistent winters, weevils can be released a few times and then “you can walk away and let nature take its course,” she said. But at Caddo, the weevil populations must be reconstituted every spring, giving salvinia a running start.

What's with the cuts? They weren't for cursing.
I was unimpressed. Marshal should have prepared better. He had a few good points, but the rhyme scheme left much to be desired.

Was it any better? Episode 1 sucked hard, and commercials made episode 2 look worse.
I felt it suffered from the McFarlane curse, by which I mean when he's in a live action movie, he's just not that funny and always has to insert some touchy feely or serious storyline that destroys the comedy.
Seth....be funny, or be serious. You can't be both, and trying makes you neither.

*nsfw for some cursing

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

"the mona lisa curse" is an excellent in depth version of this.

Carter, I think, was really the last president we had that really intended to try to change government. He failed because of numerous outside factors, but he truly was a person who wanted change. I think Obama gave it lip service to get elected, but he really was simply a watered down version of Hilary with a lot more personality.

Sanders I think would have been Carter part deux, and would have struggled for a full term against our failed system before giving up and not running for re-election.

also, *nsfw for some cursing by the commentator.

*quality

*nsfw because of cursing y'all

We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

Can't tell if that's sarcasm.

This video's bias is so thick, we could slice it into bricks to build houses for the homelss---except that would be (gasp!) communism! Which is pure EVIL.

The guy in the video is so far to the right, I could imagine he curses his non-right leg just for being there.

Right-wing propaganda.

Edit: Curses - meant to reply in the thread.