It wasn’t so much a discovery as a realization, no one told me…I never believed in magic, the supernatural, or mythological monsters, so the first serious examination of what Santa allegedly did was enough to understand it was just a cultural fantasy. I’m embarrassed it took me so long to consider….I might have even been 6.

Eventually I forgave them, but at the time I remember telling them I was very disappointed in them for lying to me, especially over something so dumb.
They were surprised, I think they apologized, and explained they were just trying to make things fun, not trick me somehow. I reminded them of the part about coal and switches if I was bad, and Santa knowing everything. I don’t remember their response to that, but I imagine on some level they were proud I figured out it was really about behavioral control at that young age.

Rittenhouse put on a ridiculously bad crocodile tear performance and the judge acted as his defense.

Not a tear, just huffing and scrunching his face. So transparent.
Remember, weeks after the shooting he was filmed partying and drinking with Proud Boys, throwing white power hand signals, wearing a t-shirt that said “free as fuck”. Where was this fake remorse then? Nowhere.



IMO, the judge has repeatedly shown extreme bias against the prosecution, from barring the prosecution from using the word “victim” unless he’s referring to Rittenhouse being a victim, not allowing discussion of near identical behavior weeks prior when Rittenhouse lamented being unarmed because he said he would have shot several people who annoyed him, and his blatantly hostile demeanor towards the prosecution and kid gloves with the defense. I think the prosecution should move for mistrial and he should be removed from the bench after a mistrial is granted, there’s no doubt he’s allowed personal bias to direct his actions and taint the trial.

"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape"

Warning shots seem to be enough for you to allow this kid to kill someone because they are so threatening. Warning shots seem like a reasonable means of attempting to escape. Warning shots were not exhausted by Rittenhouse, who is stuck having to exhaust all reasonable means of escape before using deadly force per Wisconsin law because he was engaged in unlawful behavior during the incident. If he doesn't exhaust all reasonable means of escape, self defense cannot apply. If he claims the shot fired in the air is threatening, he acknowledges that it's a means of escape through intimidation. Checkmate, dumbass.

Bob,

"as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night."

This is completely correct; however, it is not a viable defense. You cannot go "looking for trouble" (trust me, I know this one).

Here's a link to a counter-argument, out of fairness sake:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/looking-trouble-framing-and-dignitary-interest-law-self-defense

This part is what will send Baby Rambo to Fed for the next billion years:

"This means that any lawful intent or behavior that may have contributed to the confrontation should not be used to undermine the claim of self-defense."

Please note the "lawful intent or behavior" part. Everything Rittenhouse did was illegal up until the point when he went postal on innocent, if rowdy, protestors. The prosecution is going to nail him to the cross and he won't be coming back in three days.

So now you're an expert on deviants? You make it sound like a bad thing.

"Structural functionalism argues that deviant behavior plays an active, constructive role in society by ultimately helping cohere different populations within a society."

Perhaps "perverts" would serve you better.

Yes, he's making his point quite well.
He's pointing out all the ways they follow the law and rules of civilization, even though they're sometimes inconvenient or uncomfortable, even though many laws are to protect others more than themselves. He's doing it in a way that no one ignores. He's exemplifying the selfish, outrageous behavior they are championing in such a way that they can't help but disagree with him, which MAY lead to them questioning their own actions and recognising they resemble that display he put on.

When did he call them names?

Mask mandates are in place, put there by responsible representatives. This meeting was to explain why to those too obstinate to understand why, not to let them choose.
They have been told hundreds of times by calm reasonable people, calmly and using data and statistics to explain why masks and vaccines are necessary, and the answer was "keep yer govment vaxine urtta mah blud and yer Fouchi facemask off me and mah chilin!"

Only enforcing it when it's absolutely necessary, only where it's absolutely necessary, and for as short a time as possible has led us to wave 4, the worst yet. It's necessary now until the virus is gone, it's necessary everywhere so the virus doesn't have a Petri dish to evolve in and become far more virulent and dangerous, it's necessary to continue wearing them and getting vaccinated/boostered until the virus is eradicated....maybe until civilization falls if we're unlucky or too stupid to follow directions.

I have no idea why this touches such a nerve for you. It seems so obviously proper to most of us, and an excellent way to show them that they already do tons of annoying stuff for other people's safety, like driving the speed limit and stopping at lights and wearing clothes, not starting random fires, etc....all stuff mandated by the government.

Explain please, why that's improper.

Wait....so you say we shouldn't have a discussion at all with anti maskers/antivaxers, because they'll spout some nonsense?!
Um.....no.
You don't convince people to do the right thing by ignoring them when they do the wrong things for the wrong reasons. WTF are you saying?! Don't have any discussions because extremists will take hold and you think reasonable people can do nothing. Only true if reasonable people stop trying to discuss and convince them of reality, which is your suggestion? Um......

Holy shit....Biden is a fucking SUPER WIZARD!!!
He went back to 2019 to make a virus as a distraction from future failures 2 years later?! This sandwiching what you say is the most widespread, difficult, convoluted, multinational, (zombie including....Chavez), and consequential conspiracy involving at least half the country but leaving not one scrap of evidence nor one credible whistleblower.

Gawd Damn, the Democrats are just fucking amazing!

They're such unbelievably perfect criminals it's undeniable we should all be on their team, because there's no way to beat perfection....or maybe your head is just so far up your ass it's coming back out your own mouth.

Now, as to who's an actual clown, bizarre orange wig and clown makeup and outrageous stupid spoiled 2 year old "lets all stare straight into the sun and inject ourselves with bleach" behavior included..... (let me remind you, Trump actually did that)

- Covid
- "(...) get aids or be 14 and get pregnant."

Two of these things are not like the other...

"There are many risky behaviors that people choose / You either have free choice or you dont."

And some of them will get you put right the fuck in jail for a very long time -- like drunk driving and careless firearm discharge -- because they're FUCKING DANGEROUS TO OTHERS.

"I'm against the vaccine but realize that it was in my best interest to take it. ( 59, over weight, out of shape etc)"

Seriously, WHAT? You -do- understand what you just said, right? So let me get this straight: "Me me me me me me me me me and fuck you."?

So thank you from the bottom of my heart (seriously) for getting the vaccine for whatever reason you chose, but dude...

@StukaFox says

Buts its ok to be a gay and get aids or be 14 and get pregnant. Both are blights on society and costly of insurance dollars / government aid.


There are many risky behaviors that people choose.


I'm against the vaccine but realize that it was in my best interest to take it. ( 59, over weight, out of shape etc)


You either have free choice or you dont.

They are waiting for the FDA to certify as something other than Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA")--Although they don't HAVE to wait for that; they could.

One thought? If you push the anti-vaxxer folks out of law enforcement--and this is just conjecture--I wonder if you would also be pushing out a certain proportion of folks with particular political and behavioral beliefs...

You!?
Think?!

Bwaaaahahahaha!! I think not.

No, dummy, I’ve been exceptionally clear that I’m happy when violent criminal cops get taken out….not any cop, not cops doing their jobs with honor. Your claim that this means I want all cops taken out means you believe that all cops are criminal thugs that should be taken out. Who’s anti cop?

I’m for taking out cops like these….. https://videosift.com/video/Boston-Cop-Brags-About-Driving-Through-Crowd

I just say they’re all in cahoots, one gang, which is antithetical to proper policing, but they aren’t all murderers. I’m happy when power tripping cops abusing their power get pushback. These cops were not abusing their authority, they weren’t even exercising their power, they abdicated it by not using deadly force against deadly armed attackers. Conversely, when dealing with ANTIFA, there was no such restraint, violence is met with escalated violence not mass retreat, and arrests are made on scene.

I’m quite disappointed that the cops didn’t open fire more than once. If ever it was called for, it was Jan 6. The fact that only one shot was fired is a good indicator of how racist the police are….a black armed violent crowd invading the capitol looking to murder representatives and officials would have been mowed down like a neglected lawn. With the warnings they had of a violent attack/coup, there should have been a few thousand police/national guards staged like when BLM peacefully marched at the white house, and we know how police responded then with no physical provocation. These extra guards were requested and denied against Trump’s mob. Who refused to provide security is a major question of the investigation…one you would think Republicans would have wanted an impartial, unbiased, apolitical team to investigate, but they were dead set against it, or any investigation. Kind of like they are afraid of finding the truth because the truth is they incited the attempted coup/deadly political riot.

Since I’m sure you need help,

Cahoots- acting together with others for an illegal or dishonest purpose
Antithetical- directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible
Abdicated- fail to fulfill or undertake (a responsibility or duty).
Provocation- action or speech that makes someone annoyed or angry, especially deliberately; incitement
Apolitical- not interested or involved in politics
Incitement- the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully

The quiz will be tomorrow, it is not multiple choice. Misspellings like “ANTIA” are considered wrong.

always hear about 'common ground' this well should be it. Whether if you want to cite civil liberties or the golden rule - this is unacceptable.

partially agree w/bob, the Pasco Sheriff P.D. should be sued down to blue jeans, chambray shirts, and whistles as full police issue. but it's a shame to rely on lawyers to get public officials to act in a manner appropriate to serving the public. other government overseers should be the first in line at the gauntlet to flog the wrongdoers.

as bob would say, what is happening is unconstitutional. there is agrement on that. likely a case that this behavior infringes anywhere for the 4th to 8th amendments.

as bob should say but is unlikely to speak against his own party members, it reeks of fascism, nazis, and Gestapo tactics. as it started with the lowest and they worked their way up the ladder of undesirables...very much so in the way the GOP did w/Flake, up to Romney on to Cheney...difference/dissent is death.

it's like asking demons to uphold order in heaven.

but gives one faith, that even 33 can see the obvious...or some of the obvious...if he can see this, he can see Jan 6.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000007606996/capitol-riot-trump-supporters.html?src=vidm

Notice this lawsuit is about a pervasive culture of terrorizing fellow officers and their families, not the constant abusive behavior towards the public.

Where are the good apples? Fired, harassed, and in hiding with their professional reputations sullied and families terrorized, that's where.

Glad you're finally coming around to understand the entire profession is corrupted to it's core and they're nothing but a violent criminal gang running amok anymore.

It totally agree, @eric3579. Who can be trusted? It's harder to know every day.

My take....
Jones is right about the science, false negatives imply you've never been exposed when you have been, so people believe they cannot transmit the virus when they may in fact be infectious, which can lead to reckless nondistancing behavior and infections because they assume they're "safe"... also even a good (not false) positive antibody test does not mean they have meaningful immunity nor does it mean they aren't infectious as this woman claims. It only means you've developed some detectable antibodies to the virus. Period. Both misconceptions are big concerns. "Which is bigger?" seems like a silly fight.

The problem is, no matter what the test says, people think it means they're safe to be around. A negative test...."I never had it so I can't spread it, gimme a kiss"...a positive test..."I had it but beat it so I'm now immune and can't spread it, gimme a kiss". Neither is correct.

I had the chicken pox twice. If a chicken pox antibody test existed, I would have tested positive after the first round and assumed I couldn't get it or transmit it afterwards, but that would have been wrong even though the results weren't a false positive. Instead, because people suck, my parents and teachers just assumed I was "safe" and sent me to school sick and may have caused an outbreak.

Both of her claims here rely on most people completely misunderstanding what the results really mean, and people completely ignoring the possibility of false results. Sadly that's proper to assume.

Interesting how she puts it, she says Jones wasn't asked to fudge any data, just maybe present it in a way that made Florida's public covid numbers look better in the run up to the election....or another way to say that is she was asked to fudge the data....if I recall she claimed she was instructed to hide large numbers of cases in categories not included in the public presentations with the intent to create a false perception of a major downturn in cases under the "open up and unmask" plan.

Wasn't the "private data" she's accused of handing to the press the unadulterated anonymous covid numbers....not really private as it's public data collected by the government for public health reasons... and not personal data as she implied. That's what I recall the charge being....maybe there's more.

The rest is unverifiable and /or personal tabloid stuff....like did they point the gun at her kids or just menace them with the guns, did she get pregnant with her student, etc. Not germane to her claims about Florida's verified misrepresentations, and inappropriate attacks against the messenger instead of the message, imo. Distasteful to me, but besides the point.