That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
I'll point out that a second cop rolled up and immediately detained him. Fuck that first cop. You can almost pick out the thought process. White guy harassing a latino girl? Why get involved?Skinypupy wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:50 am Trumper assholes gonna asshole, but the cop simply standing around doing while that guy repeatedly got in her face was ridiculous.
This has been making the rounds on FB, and the response from a few of my conservative acquaintances was "Since we don't know what happened before she started filming, I'm sure it's just more liberal fake news".Smoove_B wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:55 am That was uncomfortable to watch, and I'm pretty sure it's been happening daily all over the United States for a few years now. I'm glad she managed to film it as I have no doubt people wouldn't believe it otherwise.
I'm not sure about how I feel about that first cop. He was obviously on the horn describing the situation and was likely waiting for backup rather than accidentally escalating the scene. But at the same time his presence with no interjection at all when she was pleading for an interjection while fuckhead is clearly in the wrong reinforces my fear for my country. Fucko was constantly putting himself in a situation where cop on the horn could do absolutely nothing if the situation turned from verbal abuse to physical abuse.malchior wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:52 amI'll point out that a second cop rolled up and immediately detained him. Fuck that first cop. You can almost pick out the thought process. White guy harassing a latino girl? Why get involved?Skinypupy wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:50 am Trumper assholes gonna asshole, but the cop simply standing around doing while that guy repeatedly got in her face was ridiculous.
Agreed. I'm not well versed on the finer points of police dispatch procedures, but it seems like conveying "white male being physically threatening towards a hispanic female at park on the corner of Elm and Main. Please send backup units" would allow you go intervene in the situation rather quickly.LordMortis wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:22 pmI'm not sure about how I feel about that first cop. He was obviously on the horn describing the situation and was likely waiting for backup rather than accidentally escalating the scene. But at the same time his presence with no interjection at all when she was pleading for an interjection while fuckhead is clearly in the wrong reinforces my fear for my country. Fucko was constantly putting himself in a situation where cop on the horn could do absolutely nothing if the situation turned from verbal abuse to physical abuse.malchior wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:52 amI'll point out that a second cop rolled up and immediately detained him. Fuck that first cop. You can almost pick out the thought process. White guy harassing a latino girl? Why get involved?Skinypupy wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:50 am Trumper assholes gonna asshole, but the cop simply standing around doing while that guy repeatedly got in her face was ridiculous.
I believe I understand what he was doing but I think it was a bad judgement call in a situation that was already turning out poorly in small part to he his presence in choosing not to decide.
FTFYSmoove_B wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:55 am That was uncomfortable to watch, and I'm pretty sure it's been happening daily all over the United States for a few years now. I'm glad she managed to film it as I have no doubt white people wouldn't believe it otherwise.
We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. Also, "must not" are the only words you can use to say something is prohibited. Who says so and why?
Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."
They do not violate the flag code. The code stipulates you can't use The Flag for stuff like clothing. Clothes that were designed with flag patterns from scratch were never flown as the American Flag and therefore do not qualify.The Meal wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:30 pm
Your Stars and Stripes T-Shirt Technically Violates the Flag Code
noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:00 pmThey do not violate the flag code. The code stipulates you can't use The Flag for stuff like clothing. Clothes that were designed with flag patterns from scratch were never flown as the American Flag and therefore do not qualify.The Meal wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:30 pm
Your Stars and Stripes T-Shirt Technically Violates the Flag Code
§ 3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag
Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature; or who, within the District of Columbia, shall manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or to public view, or give away or have in possession for sale, or to be given away or for use for any purpose, any article or substance being an article of merchandise, or a receptacle for merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached, or otherwise placed a representation of any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so placed shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. The words 'flag, standard, colors, or ensign', as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.
That's not the flag code. That's a DC law (or appears to be so.)Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:03 pmnoxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:00 pmThey do not violate the flag code. The code stipulates you can't use The Flag for stuff like clothing. Clothes that were designed with flag patterns from scratch were never flown as the American Flag and therefore do not qualify.The Meal wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:30 pm
Your Stars and Stripes T-Shirt Technically Violates the Flag Code§ 3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag
Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature; or who, within the District of Columbia, shall manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or to public view, or give away or have in possession for sale, or to be given away or for use for any purpose, any article or substance being an article of merchandise, or a receptacle for merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached, or otherwise placed a representation of any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so placed shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. The words 'flag, standard, colors, or ensign', as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.
Cornell Law School: U.S. Code › Title 4 › Chapter 1 › § 3noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:05 pm That's not the flag code. That's a DC law (or appears to be so.)
SEC. 4.
...
(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard; or used as any portion of a costume or athletic uniform. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
As long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.
Deal.Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:18 pmAs long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.
Next person that commands me to stand and/or take off my hat for "God Bless America" is getting decked.noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:18 pmDeal.Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:18 pmAs long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.
Unless of course they are wearing some kind of Trump supporting garb.Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:18 pmAs long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.
Remember this old Gary Larson cartoon? Replace that last dude with a MAGA hat.gbasden wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:38 am
I generally don't hassle strangers in public even if wearing MAGA garb. Silenty judge the hell out of them with utter contempt, yes, but that's using the inside voice.
While I'd like to say, yeah "New Poll" is about meaningless. There is plenty of reason to be depressedMoliere wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:14 am https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 5281219584
Was this a poll of elderly white people who only watch Fox News?
Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:57 pm The Flag Code language uses the term 'should' for the vast majority of its items.
FAA
We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. Also, "must not" are the only words you can use to say something is prohibited. Who says so and why?
Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."
I just do it to Dodger Fans.gbasden wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:38 am
I generally don't hassle strangers in public even if wearing MAGA garb. Silenty judge the hell out of them with utter contempt, yes, but that's using the inside voice.
All his lies irritate me, but the stupid, petty, easily-disprovable ones like this feel more infuriating, for some reason. Mainly because there's literally no reason to repeat the lie, and anyone with half a brain and access to Google could take two seconds to disprove it...yet not a single Red Hat ever will. They will just take him at his word that winning Wisconsin when Reagan didn't is just further evidence of Dear Leader's greatness.President Trump on Thursday repeated for a third time his inaccurate claim that former President Reagan didn’t win the state of Wisconsin during his reelection bid.
“One of the states we won — Wisconsin — I didn’t realize this until fairly recently, that was the one state that Ronald Reagan didn’t win when he ran the board his second time,” Trump said during a press conference after the NATO Summit in Brussels.
“He didn’t win Wisconsin and we won Wisconsin,” he added.
This is the third time that Trump has reiterated the incorrect statement.
Reagan won the state in both 1980 and 1984. Minnesota was the only state he didn’t secure during the 1984 election
Of course he does. Paul Ryan.milo wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:52 pm Oh, sure. Like Trump knows the difference between Wisconsin and Minnesota.
