I guess you didn’t read…when he finally put out a personal statement, it was mostly about how upset he was at the right co-opting his song because wrote it about them.

The audience however heard every dog whistle, and when they found out he wasn’t racist and was singing about right wing politicians not Biden they dropped him like a hot potato. I’m afraid you are wrong again, the right definitely heard those dog whistles and are pissed he didn’t intend them.

Easy…when he said he thinks diversity is a strength of America, nearly half his right wing audience said “I’m out” and “try saying that in a small town” and no longer call themselves fans…because they’re racist and thought he was too. You can find thousands in the comments sections where his videos were posted before he spoke out. Here’s 8-10…Just read some…
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/viral-sensation-oliver-anthony-called-a-sellout-for-relatively-benign-“diversity”-comment-he-mad
e-on-fox-news/ar-AA1fG7Ct

I’m afraid it’s just know nothing people who latched onto what they heard as a racist anti welfare, conservative song who suddenly ran for the hills when they realized it and he were in fact anti conservative that suddenly hate this song. I admit I listened to it through “conservative ears” (since it was billed as the new conservative anthem) and I also heard every dog whistle they did, meaning it’s a really poorly worded song since so many got its message completely wrong. Even the Republican debate used it, which he found hilarious since the candidates were exactly who he wrote it about…but they were clueless about the irony.

He should have taken the $8 million, he’s going to fade into obscurity without the political backing he was getting.

So let me ask, now knowing he was talking about conservative politicians not liberals, and knowing he believes in diversity not tribalism…are you still a fan? (I know, you don’t/can’t answer questions). I’m not, despite learning all we now know about his intended message…but I retract my accusation that he MEANT it to be racist or hyper conservative.
Yes, I was w-w-w-wrong about HIM, but not his audience or the message they heard. Not the first or last time, but I can admit it when I’m wrong.

The answer was about Musk’s comment in regards to his assessment of the US economy contrasted by the numerous similar companies taking a completely opposite position and investing rather than downsizing. Too difficult a concept without pictures?

Maybe google WHEN he had those aneurysms…he’s proven himself quite capable and thoroughly unimpaired in the 34 years since he was successfully treated. Derp. Who’s the moron again?

Are you unaware of the stupid hateful far right tribal bs infiltrating Europe and elsewhere? It’s not an American monopoly.

The question was about musk's comment in regards to the US economy... Not about one of musk's companies.

is that a reference to the previous senile president you morons chose ?

Google how many brain aneurysms Biden had and while you are at it look at videos of him before and after. You Americans have been choosing one dumb fuck after another screwing over the world thanks to your stupid tribal bs hate for each other.

If that’s your position I wont bother reading past sentence one.

It’s exactly the same as your other mistake, claiming a billion in goods delayed in transport is the same as a billion dollar loss.

Money not spent is not the same as money lost. It’s actual money lost vs potential expenditure delayed. It’s permanent actual jobs lost vs potential temporary construction delayed (the project as planned is cancelled, not the plan to build a pipeline SOMEWHERE, and spend a billion on it, just not through reservations and sensitive watersheds on the cheap.)

The auto manufacturers will never recoup the lost production, the oil company will build a pipeline. There are costs to delays/redesign, absolutely, but they aren’t 100% of the projected project costs or anywhere close.

Have a nice day. I’ve grown tired of the merry go round. I’m pretty sure we understand each other’s positions, and don’t see progress beyond that. You insist on not seeing similarities and differences I think are incontrovertible….like the idea that a blockade of a major city, closing it down for weeks +, is far more unacceptable and inconveniences exponentially more people and business than a blockade of a railroad out in the country, or of a pipeline on tribal land by the tribe.

from Asset Forfeiture
Policy Manual 2021


I. Guidelines for Planning for Seizure and Restraint
A. Background
The Department of Justice (Department) Asset Forfeiture Program (Program) encompasses the
seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, federal
crimes. The Program has four primary goals:
(1) Punish and deter criminal activity by depriving criminals of property used in or acquired
through illegal activities.
(2) Promote and enhance cooperation among federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law
enforcement agencies.
(3) Recover assets that may be used to compensate victims when authorized under federal law.
(4) Ensure that the Program is administered professionally, lawfully, and in a manner consistent
with sound public policy

II. Payment of Attorneys’ Fees in Criminal Forfeiture Cases
A. Defendant’s attorneys’ fees
The defendant in a criminal forfeiture action may file for an award of attorneys’ fees only under
the Hyde Amendment.4 A motion for fees and costs filed in a civil forfeiture case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2465(b) cannot include fees and costs incurred in even a directly related criminal proceeding.5
To prevail on a Hyde Amendment claim, the defendant must prove that: (1) the defendant was the
prevailing party in the underlying action; (2) the government’s position was vexatious, frivolous, or in
bad faith; and (3) there are no special circumstances that would make the award unjust.6
This burden
is heavier than the one the government must meet under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA

I think we could generalize a bit further and just say it's tribalism. We're all so good at treating "slightly different" as "extremely suspicious and probably evil."

20+ year professional game dev here. This commercial conflates a mix of common game client bugs (eg: texture streaming errors, physics glitches, and animation attachment offsets) with straight up nonsense (upper half of coffee mug popping in with a phone over and over is caused by a slow network connection?). They never show any actual network performance problems that they, as a company, have been responsible for causing in real life.

It's as if a city council came out with electrified upgrades to their formerly-diesel city buses and to promote this fact, they cut an ad showing:

- monkeys driving the bus
- constant gunfights between the elderly
- piles of feces on the floor
- bus stops existing in a quantum superposition of clearly identified and invisible
- tribal warriors on the roof spitting blowdarts at passersby
- every seat is actually a block of super-chilled ice

Never once would they point out reduction in chronic asthma to the local schoolkids or lung cancer in their bus drivers. But hey, so long as the company looks good, who cares about accuracy in ads?

That depends on which bible you mean....there are many.

Really? Lost to history?! Hardly....lost to the ignorant and uneducated maybe, but even atheists like me know full well Jesus the man was a Jew, and definitely not a European or "white". Roman/Italian artists knew this, but worked for a Roman church so portrayed him in their image.

Genetic purity?! Lol. I guess that means no one has EVER become Jewish, you're either born one by two pure Jewish parents or not. Hardly reality, and would reject nearly every person in Israel (or elsewhere). Just because there is a long standing religious/cultural taboo against marriage outside the culture, it still happens, as does conversion. Racial/genetic purity is a fallacy debunked by genetic testing.

Prophecy is a leap. No prophecy has been correctly interpreted until AFTER the events supposedly prophesied occurred. It's ridiculous to go back after the fact and claim "see, now that I know exactly how to interpret the unclear prophecy I couldn't decipher before, it's a 100% perfect prediction" but never be able to predict the future. That's the same nonsensical logic mediums use.

The second temple was also the third, since the true second temple was originally a rather modest structure constructed by a number of Jewish exile groups returning to the Levant from Babylon under the Achaemenid-appointed governor Zerubbabel. However, during the reign of Herod the Great, the Second Temple was completely refurbished, and the original structure was totally overhauled into the large and magnificent edifices and facades that are more recognizable. Logically, the third temple was the one destroyed by Romans, the second replaced by Herod but the new one was still called the second temple anyway. (To avoid contradicting prophecy? ;-) )

If the dome of the rock, the second most holy place in Islam, is destroyed, expect Jerusalem to follow soon after, as that will definitely start a religious war between nuclear powers.

Herodotus is credited with using the term Palestinian first, in the 5th century BCE as an ethnonym, making no distinction between Arabs, Jews, or other cultures inhabiting of the area. Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term then came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.

I think you are confused about the history, here's a primer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

The area was populated by various people's including Jews until the Jewish–Roman wars of 66–136 CE, during which the Romans expelled most of the Jews from the area (well, really they arguably left voluntarily because they refused to be second class citizens barred from practicing their religion freely) and replaced it with the Roman province of Syria Palaestina, the Arabs were already there, not invaders or immigrants. When Assyrians (Mesopotamians) invaded in circa 722 BCE, they ruled empirically, meaning only the Jewish ruling elite left, returning in 538 BCE under Cyrus the Great....so no, the Arabs didn't just settle after the Jews were dispersed.

It's patently ridiculous to say the Arab nations were unprovoked, Jewish illegal immigration led to a hostile takeover of the region by illegal immigrants with rapid expansion of their territories into their neighbors continuing through today. The Jews defeated the Arabs thanks to American backing and exponentially better hardware. It was only their right if might makes right, and the Arab nations are under no obligation to let them keep what they stole any more than the Jews were obligated to let the Arab nations retain control in the first place. If Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any combination can take it, by your logic they have every right to do so.

I do agree, in the end there will be more conflict until the area becomes uninhabitable....largely because every religion's prophecies end with them in control, and no one wants to admit it's all nonsensical iron age tribalism at work.

When I die, I expect I'm going back to where I was before I was born....nowhere.

Obviously this "evidence" is not undeniable...I, and hundreds of millions....actually many billions deny it.

Religopolitical propaganda has no bearing on real life unless you make it. Christian scripture is political, compiled and edited by men with an agenda to make people more easily controlled. That is simply an undeniable historical fact.

You do realize that there are other "undeniable" scriptures from other religions that contradict your chosen dogma, right? You deny all of them, I just deny one more than you do.

I must be really special, because God has made no such thing evident, in fact he gave me the ability to reason which makes evident the fallacy of supernatural entities and powers and makes any creator totally unnecessary, superfluous, and infinitely unlikely.

It's reason that lets me see what "God" is....a tool for civil control and a soothing but baseless answer to the questions of the unknown.

I've told you many times, God is free to reveal himself at any time. He has not done so in any way shape or form, but his fans have offered mountains of proclaimed evidence that was all self referencing circular logic, stone age tribal nonsense, and fantasy fables, and nothing more. If he exists, it's his will to have me not believe. Plain and simple.
My heart is as opened to Jesus as anyone else....but he has to show up and work his way inside. So far he's a total no show, and I'm not holding a table reserved for anybody and pretending they're present. Mot has made more of a substantial showing than Yahweh...should I be serving him?

This is the result of our obsession with tribalism.

Yep, I totally agree.
Also, that's a lawsuit. You cannot put an attractive nuisance in your open yard designed to injure someone, even a thief. That's just a step away from a shotgun at your front door with a string on it's trigger attached to the doorknob. Sounds like a great idea to an idiot asshole, but it's totally illegal and murder if it works as designed.

@bobknight33, I hope that answers your question, but in the likely event you don't grasp it, one is petty theft/destruction of property (property with no monetary value) the other intentional assault with a weapon, and technically setting a trap is lying in wait which in many states could make the misdemeanor assault a class a felony.
You would like to pretend they're both crimes, so are equally as bad....fortunately the law isn't as short sighted, biased, and hyper tribal as you.

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.

Your assumption is incorrect. As I've stated repeatedly, I think people should be seen and assessed individually on the totality of their character. It's just that I see the inpracticality of that in institutional settings where a few people must assess tens of thousands of applicants in months. That necessitates putting people into groups and making assumptions, sometimes by necessity that's by race. Fund education better, they might screen better. Fund all education better, they might be able to abandon all criteria beyond past performance, but that just won't happen (but $12 billion for Trump's trade war's damage to soy bean farmers, no problem, who's next?).

Ahhh....but those discriminatory practices have, and still are encoded in the law against these groups in many forms. Some have been rectified, many not, and never has there been a reasonable attempt to make up the shortfalls/damages these policies have caused these groups over decades and centuries. If I beat you daily and take your lunch until 11th grade, then stop, it's still horrifically unfair of me to insist you meet weight requirements to be on my JV wrestling team and yet not offer you weight training and free lunch to help you get there. Same goes for groups, however you wish to divide them, that have been downtrodden.
Creating policies to address the damage done in order to get the long abused back to their natural ability level isn't bad unless they aren't ever modified once equality is reached. We aren't close yet.

Some won't, most do. You make a thousand little sacrifices for the greater good daily, one more won't hurt you. If your ability is actually equal to the poor kid trying to take your place, the advantages you have over them should make that point abundantly clear and your scores should be excessively higher. If they aren't, you just aren't taking advantage of your advantages, making them the better choice.

Time will tell, but I don't see this as political, I see it as rational realism vs irrational tribal wishful thinking.
My parents both worked at Stanford, and are Republicans, and both support giving less advantaged students more opportunities to excell, and both think diversity on campus benefits everyone to the extent that it merits using race and gender as points to consider during the application process if that's what it takes to get diversity.

Your main problem seems to be that it's decided purely by race. Let me again attempt dissuade you of that notion. Race is only one tiny part of the equation, and it's only part because they tried not including race and, for reasons I've been excessively sesquipedelien about, that left many races vastly underrepresented because they don't have the tools required to compete, be that education, finances, support of family, support of community, extra curricular opportunities, safety in their neighborhood, transportation, etc., much of which is caused by centuries of codified law that kept them poor, uneducated, and powerless to change that status. No white male with a 1600 and 4.0 is being turned away for a black woman with 1000 and 2.9, they might be turned away for a black woman with 1550 and 3.8 because she likely worked much harder to achieve those scores, indicating she'll do even better on a level field.

I don't see why Republicans care, they're now the proudly ignorant party of anti-intellectualism who claim all higher education is nothing but a bastion of liberal lefty PC thugs doin book lernin. Y'all don't want none of that no how. ;-)

Edit: note, according to reports I saw years ago, without racial preferencing FOR white kids, many universities would be nearly all Asian because their cultures value education above most other things so, in general, they test better than other groups.

@newtboy
Short sighted tribal reasoning was electing a lying cheeto with anger issues because it wore red.
Fair enough

"Objecting to using race as one of many criteria for admission in favor of a single test that clearly benefits your group..."
I see the misunderstanding, I specifically did not ask for a test benefiting a group, but instead specifically asked for one that did NOT. I'll quote myself again:"a color blind computational method of creating a qualification score for candidates."

Since the school admission examples seem to be encouraging misunderstanding, let's change fields. The NBA draft doesn't come down to a single score, but it does have a best effort by professional experts to select the top candidates based upon ability and projected ability at the sport of basketball. By all appearances, that process could be said to "clearly benefit 'a' group", but because I am confident the process is color blind and selecting candidates based upon ability I like it.

To introduce race as a consideration instead is racism, period. You can argue that fighting racism with racism is justified or even desirable, but at least have the honestly to call it that.

Your stance says it. Objecting to using race as one of many criteria for admission in favor of a single test that clearly benefits your group ignores "all racial discrimination and racial obstacles except that single instance you can point to where it doesn't come out in your favor, then suddenly racism IS a problem that needs eradicating...."

Short sighted tribal reasoning was electing a lying cheeto with anger issues because it wore red.

Yes, but that score must, to be honest and have any value, include a measurement of the obstacles overcome to achieve that score. Taking financial, societal, opportunistic, familial, etc obstacles they've overcome doesn't seem to bother you, race is one more obstacle for many, one that's rightly taken into account when measuring a student's efforts required to achieve their current status, especially proper when diversity is part of the desired outcome of the computation.

Include a numerical modifier that takes overcoming those multiple obstructions into account and skin color might eventually be reasonably removed, but not before.

Lower scoring candidates should be chosen over higher scoring candidates based on other factors. Race is, right now, the best way to generalize those factors when trying to create a diverse student body, something we've determined is a benefit to all students. Of course, it would be better to examine all facets of performance on an individual basis, but schools don't seem to do that anymore, it's a Herculean task. Again, fund them better and they tend to do better.