And Toto has Africa pretty well covered.

It wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t also naked.

Also, they have interstellar travel but need to use crop circles to communicate. I know that’s just part of the premise but it’s still stupid.

But not nearly as stupid as flying all the way here and trying win a land war completely unarmed. If your battle plan can be beaten by a baseball bat and asthma, you should maybe rethink your invasion.

I get 3 in 1 but only use it as face and bodywash. I have long hair that doesn’t play nice if I don’t use decent shampoo and conditioner. But the 3 in 1 stuff isn’t any more expensive than other bodywashes and there’s enough fuzz everywhere else that I like a little conditioner in my soap.

[Happy Chewbacca Noises]

From what little I have seen, right wing outlets were interpreting the video as proof the officer was hit by the car because of the way the phone gets jostled at the end. You also can’t see in this video exactly when he draws his gun, or how the shooter is positioned. It’s damning when combined with the other videos, but on its own it’s a lot less clear.

And they also see it as proof that these were “agitators” obstructing “law enforcement” based on the confrontational tone with the woman outside the vehicle. They want to frame the issue as law enforcement vs criminals, rioters and radical domestic terrorists. They want to blame the victim and undercut the narrative that this was an innocent bystander.

Obviously a sane person would recognize that it doesn’t matter if the victim was politically active or even obstructing police, it’s still murder. But these aren’t moral, rational people and they aren’t trying to persuade an audience with legal arguments, just feeding the US vs them mentality.

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

The feds will protect him, but that’s only guaranteed for as long as the current regime is in power. Even if the next administration (or the one after that, or the one after that, etc) isn’t inclined to make a federal case out of it, they could easily decide to just not obstruct justice and cooperate, handing everything over to the state.

She was clearly performing a Y turn to steer around him. You can see him pull his gun out as she’s switching from reverse to drive, and he fires the first shot while she’s barely moving. She continues to accelerate after getting shot and yet he doesn’t get hit, but he does continue firing.

Her intent was obviously to escape, not to inflict harm. His intent was obviously to inflict harm, not to escape.

Real people don’t have scripts to read from.

But seriously, listen to the way people talk. It’s chaotic, messy, often unclear and very inefficient. Conversations meander wildly, with dangling threads that are never concluded and often times with people talking past each other as much as to each other. If you wrote dialogue that way it would just be harder for audiences to follow and waste precious screentime.

Realistic sounding dialogue is about writing what a real person would say if they stopped to think for a minute between each statement.

I really hate how many people resent the idea of any kind of student loan forgiveness.

Billionaires set up vast financial systems for the sole purpose of dodging taxes. No bid contracts get handed out like candy to politically connected scumbags. An obscene amount of money gets dumped into insurance companies that only make your healthcare worse. Giant corporations violate laws and rob both workers and customers, and if anything is done at all it will be a tiny fine that’s smaller than the profit from their crimes.

All those things that actually harm the rest of us? No big deal. But you suggest that maybe it’s a bad idea to keep generations ensnared in crippling debt? THAT’S A FUCKING OUTRAGE!

I mean obviously it wouldn’t be fair to have a policy that directly benefits some people but not others. Why should student loan borrowers get special treatment? Sure, I’ll fucking riot if anyone touches my tax credits for having kids and a mortgage, but that’s different, that’s good for society… unlike education. Besides, it’s not my fault your generation don’t buy houses and start families. Oh don’t bitch to me about how you can’t afford it, maybe you shouldn’t have taken those loans out then…

I’m confused. I thought the hostile takeover was supposed to work by appealing to the shareholders directly, presumably through some mechanism that allows a vote. If it just went back to the same board that had rejected their previous offers and accepted the deal from Netflix, how was this “hostile takeover” any different from a normal bid?

That’s what he’s doing.

It always felt like it was trying to be canonical but no one else wanted it to be. It was the little brother desperate to join the older kids only to get ditched at every opportunity.

Which was annoying because most of the show was good, and all it would have taken is a tiny Easter egg to acknowledge it exists. As far as I know, the only thing we ever got was Jarvis in endgame being played by the same actor from Agent Carter.

It’s kind of strange that the Netflix shows are the ones that got folded into canon when they basically ignored the rest of the MCU after Avengers. But I suppose that disconnect and the more narrow focus means there’s a lot less to clean up to make it fit. That and the fact that they were popular enough for Disney to see them as valuable.

On body-worn camera video played in court, Wasser was heard saying she wanted to check the bag for bombs before removing it from the McDonald’s. Despite that concern, she acknowledged in her testimony Monday that police never cleared the restaurant of customers or employees.

Unless they had probable cause to believe there was a bomb, that’s absolutely no excuse for a search. Might as well just get rid of the fourth amendment altogether if police can just imagine the possibility of a dangerous object and excuse searching anything at any time.

If she really thought there was a bomb, she is recklessly handling this herself instead of calling in a properly trained and equipped bomb squad. But far worse, she claims she needed to check it so as not bring a bomb to the station, but apparently has no problem potentially handling a bomb around a bunch of innocent bystanders.

That she is lying in order to justify what she knew to be an illegal search is actually the least damning interpretation. Either way though, the evidence should be thrown out along with her career.

According to Grok, the threshold is 50% of humanity. Apparently Elon Musk dying is as bad as or worse for humanity than a Thanos snap.

The reasonable solution would have been to include a mechanism for quickly and efficiently overruling these decisions when needed. They have to report to congress about anything that is withheld, but as far as I know they didn’t include a provision that would allow them to reject the given justification and order the release.

To achieve the status of measles elimination, a country must have no ongoing local transmission of the disease for at least one year. It will lose that status if it has a chain of cases that spread from person to person for more than one year.

We’ve been heading in that direction, but we won’t have officially lost our measles-free status until the current outbreak has continued for a full year.

I never said they would actually do it, only that they wouldn’t find it difficult to write that opinion. Seeing as they’ve had multiple cases in recent years where the opinion was completely untethered from law, precedent, and fact, there’s basically no position so extreme that I would assume they can’t rationalize it.

If they can invent presidential immunity despite there being absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify it, I’m sure they have no problem writing an opinion that allows bans on gay marriage.

My best guess would be that they would frame it as being about the right of the states to regulate marriage. If the state can decide how many people can be in a marriage, how old you have to be to marry, how closely related you can be and still marry, the requirements for starting or ending a marriage, and so on, then what’s one more criteria? Add some tangents about the history of marriage in the US, some comments about how government is involved in marriage specifically because of how it connects to issues relating to reproduction, cite some cases from the 19th century, and twist some more recent precedent to reverse its meaning so that you can pretend to be following existing case law and you have a pretty standard ruling for this court.

Surely this will get Donny his Nobel Peace Prize.

I’m a little disappointed that I haven’t see an article point out this one:

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

Musk’s name appears 11 times.

Grokipedia: https://grokipedia.com/page/Jeffrey_Epstein

Musk’s name doesn’t appear at all.

I would be curious to know how those polled would define capitalism and socialism. Even ignoring the ones that would boil down to cartoonishly good and evil, I would assume that there is a huge disconnect in what each side thinks those terms mean.

I suspect that if you had asked the same people how they felt about policies and priorities without explaining which are capitalist and which are socialist, and included a broad spectrum of ideas ranging from one extreme to the other, you’d see a very different picture emerge.