Amentep

What part of "Local policing is the job of the City/County/State as applicable" didn't you understand? While the Federal Government, arguably, has the right to protect Federal land (and buildings on it) it has no jurisdictional authority on non-Federal lands. They do not have the authority to drive blocks away from Federal land/buildings in unmarked Enterprise Rent-A-Vans and abduct people off the street because they think they may or may not have done, or be about to do, something or another. The business you speak of has a right to expect the municipalities with authority (city-county-state) to protect them, but not the Federal government. Unusual circumstance does not give the Federal government the ability to do things that it has not the authority to do. If you accept that, then you've discarded the rules of law we have built up and the Federal government is the mob (or at least, a mob) defining rules and arbitrarily deciding when they obey the law.

Subscription service MD - you've gotten to the microtransactions, just wait until you get to the lootboxes!

That's why I asked if it was Federal land. I don't know.

Is it Federal land? If not, than to my understanding, federal forces should not be there. If the local police need backup on city or state land, that's for the city Mayor to work with the state Governor regarding deployment of the state's National Guard. I believe they could work with surrounding municipalities as well, if desperate, but I think that tends to be more trouble than its worth, given the way each municipality is set up to control its own areas, and not other areas.

https://moondisaster.org/ About the project - https://www.space.com/apollo-11-disaster-deepfake-video-tech.html

Hadn't seen that one before - neat! First thing I thought of when you said ambush was antlions but doesn't fit the setting: The Ambush Bug might be a good fit though -

I played the first one and enjoyed it. I don't know that I ever saw the second one anywhere I could purchase it when it came out. *Goes and looks at cover* yup I missed that one entirely.

I liked Strange Journey, but I could never get into SMT IV. I didn't even get halfway through either. That said, part of that was I had trouble with the DS screen size and even struggled with Strange Journey, so I'd probably get SMT IV a try if they remade it for the switch...

I dunno, I don't recall this for every presidential election I've lived through. I really only remember it for Obama and now Trump. Could be that I just didn't pay attention to the right news outlets. I certainly don't remember Carter complaining about mail-in votes being used to rig the election against him, or Clinton's senatorial pals suggesting (jokingly or not) that he was going to run for a third term because of all the investigations of him making that legal. Or Reagan or either Bush doing anything like it either. Again, maybe I just wasn't seeing the right news.

If its any help, they're also releasing the SMT3 remaster on Switch as well. My hope is that SMT-V is more like SMT-III and less like SMT-IV...

Most people I've known who've been put on insulin had many of the same questions; unfortunately I don't know that a ny of them came up with a universal answer as it seems so individually specific. Still glad you're doing somewhat better LadyC.

Critereon just released a new restoration of it. Supposed to be one of the best anti-war films ever made and an accurate depiction on German atrocities on the Eastern front.

The Flat Earth is the only space mask they need?

Japan? Probably less THE THING and more THE GREEN SLIME.

Impossible? No, never said that. Loads of people can amass wealth, but not top 10% wealth easily. Kim Kardashian is about $40 billion dollars shy of being the 10th richest person in the US, for example, but had some help from her dad, who had accumulated some wealth from being a high paid attorney. Still you have people like Jeff Bezos who did not, to my knowledge, have a family fortune to fall back on (his dad owned a bike shop, IIRC, which can be said to be an advantage over a family who were wage earners and not business owners, I guess). The argument on this is typically two fold, historically you have things like the "Black Wall Street" and similar prosperous towns that were destroyed over the years. The second is historical legislation that tended to target and make criminals of African Americans; many places deny the right to vote to felons and laws that made felons at a higher proportion (or were applied more heavily to African Americans) which begin the process of disenfranchising African Americans from a voice in government and opportunities in the community. If, over time, this is applied to a group so as to disenfranchise them systemically, then the group is going to be less inclined to work within the confines of the system. Working outside the confines of the system brings them into the hands of the legal system more often, perpetuating a cycle of disenfranchisement. At least that's the argument, as I understand it. One of the biggest problems with restitution, IMO, is that you end up having to play "whose victimization is greater?" And as a result, you're never (IMO) going to come up with a restitution plan for things in the past that will satisfy everyone unless you invent a time machine (and even then maybe not).

The counter to this is, how can these minorities "put in the generational work to build up a host culture and civilization" when everything that they have built is continually being taken away from them by force? In the US both the Native Americans and African Americans have time and time had the stuff they had or built taken away from them and/or destroyed. The history of the US is littered with agreements broken once gold was found, or prosperous towns destroyed and its populace killed because the right people (ie whites) weren't becoming prosperous.

Scientists discover manganese eating bacteria

I have never said that, nor have I ever implied that. Don't put your words in my mouth. I never said anything in any of the videos regarding this incident justified anything. I presented more footage of the video you presented. None of that footage showed the start of the argument that led to fight. The additional footage did show some physical contact between the groups before the footage you showed. If you didn't think the incident was worth discussing, then why did you post it? Really? And your evidence that the fight in the airport baggage claim is BLM/Antifa when you say "BLM/Antifa strike again:" when you posted the video is...what exactly? Because I found none when trying to find out more about the incident. If you know of a source for this information, I'd like to read more about this incident in a factual way and not a "gonna post on twitter to rile people up" way.

Additional footage around the baggage claim fight, although none of it seems to capture the start of the argument.

1. People believe Trump and pundits who side with him that COVID-19 is fake. If its fake, then the only reason to wear a mask becomes an alternative and unknowable rationale from the deep state (probably to make people more plyable to government influence and control) 2. The governor in this case was primarily elected by the same people who support Trump. He can't make masks mandatory when Trump won't, without alienating his base. He also can't allow cities and counties to require masks when he won't without looking weak. The legal option is probably the best for him. If they rule his emergency powers can be used to prevent cities and counties being more restrictive than the state, it appeals to his base and preserves his strength. If he loses, he can probably convince his base it due to liberal bench-legislating judges and that he did his best.

The statement from the councilwoman quoted is true, but she doesn't in that tweet (or in the group of tweets those are part of) suggest firing of white officers, specifically, on a criteria of race. She offers no criteria at all, but suggests only that firings could be approved to be on the basis of some other criteria than seniority, thus not having a reduction in force affect the diversity on the force based on the idea that the senior parts of the force are not as diverse as the junior. Unfortunately the article (and several people on twitter) leapt to the assumption that the only categories that could possibly be chosen are seniority and race. There are other theoretically neutral categories that could be used that don't rely on race or seniority either that could be used to eliminate positions without eliminating diversity in the workforce (if that was a goal). You could look at evaluations, commendations and discipline records. You could make everyone re-interview for the jobs that are kept. You could theoretically even choose a criteria based on who not to be in the elimination pool as opposed to who should be eliminated (say, protecting officers who serve in the community they live from being in the pool of officers eligible to be reduced*, or creating a statistical model and preserving top performers). Reductions in force are a minefield, and they'll want good HR teams and lawyers to work with to make sure whatever criteria they choose doesn't violate employment laws (local or federal). *I think this may be doable, but as I haven't actually seen this one done, and I'm not a HR expert, its possible that may violate some statute somewhere. I just know that with calls for community policing, it may be desirable for an police force to want to keep officers who live in the city they work. EDIT: I should add that they may not be able to choose seniority as a criteria, legally, if it eliminates almost entirely on racial lines anyhow as that could also violate employment laws. This would be true with any other criteria picked as well if it disproportionately affected a specific race.

from the article (and emphasis mine) : "Ella's attempts to highlight the "religious and racist aspects" of her and many other girls' similar abuse led only to "a lot of abuse from far-left extremists, and radical feminist academics," she said. Such groups "go online and they try to resist anyone they consider to be a Nazi, racist, fascist or white supremacist". Oh, NOW I see why you tagged Volourn on your post... 😛

1. I usually don't post in the political threads, but I have asked for context on videos before (and for other stories posted via social media in the political threads). This isn't to say the videos aren't what they purport to be, and it isn't intended to be a judgement on the nature of these things but I've found that videos are often circulated with their context removed, because the person publicizing it has an agenda that they don't want the facts to get in the way of. Also singular videos tend to amount to anecdotal evidence which can be interesting aren't necessarily statistically relevant if you're trying to draw conclusions to the larger population. 2. This is one of the reasons you have to be careful with statistics. Lets say there is one person of race X in town, and the 999 other people in town are race Y. Lets say that there is a random chance any one of these 1000 people may have non-negligible chance of attacking someone else. Race X person, if they commit violence has a 100% chance to commit it against race Y, while any race Y person has a .001% chance to commit it against a race X person. Statistically if you extrapolate this to more realistic population numbers with more realistic crime chances you can see that a town with a large majority and small minority should produce significant race X on race Y and rarely race Y on race X. Given that the USA has a lot of self-segregated areas, you tend to have situations with overwhelming majorities compared to the minority race, whichever ones they happen to be, and numbers will be vastly different in those areas where racial self-segregation is smaller (ie the majority and minority populations are roughly the same). Unfortunately the FBI data doesn't to my knowledge really get into where the raw numbers come from so that you can approach a nuanced understanding of what the numbers mean, hence my caution regarding these numbers.