Data that’s like saying the China virus
"UK Variant of ...": OK
"Brazil Variant of ...": OK
"South African Variant of ...": OK
"... the China Virus": RAAAAAAAACIST!!!
this is a good watch.. i agree with it 100% - the people pushing for everyone having to carry id are the ones that have shown over and over again that they can't be trusted with people's information.
the tech companies want it because they would be able to link online tracking and information logging with people's real-world activities.
the government wants it because they would have control over people and movement.. both should be chilling to anyone with half a brain.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uggvgke0n8o.
Data that’s like saying the China virus
"UK Variant of ...": OK
"Brazil Variant of ...": OK
"South African Variant of ...": OK
"... the China Virus": RAAAAAAAACIST!!!
someone gets shot and or killed and hundreds of people decide to loot and destroy businesses or whatever else is in their path.
what does this do to make things better?
i really don’t get how they think it makes things better or solves anything..
Their motivations are probably more complex, which does not change the damage they do.
Their motivations are not really complex.
They have been force-fed a constant diet of victimhood and resentment and that they have been disadvantaged and have a right to "take back what they are owed".
The reality is that their lot in life is almost entirely of their parents and their own making.
Poor life choices lead to poor lives.
this is a good watch.. i agree with it 100% - the people pushing for everyone having to carry id are the ones that have shown over and over again that they can't be trusted with people's information.
the tech companies want it because they would be able to link online tracking and information logging with people's real-world activities.
the government wants it because they would have control over people and movement.. both should be chilling to anyone with half a brain.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uggvgke0n8o.
Please provide us with a single example of a right that was been permanently lost in the past that was originally done in the guise of a public health order.
I didn't say it happened due to public health orders. The fact is that governments use emergencies to grab powers, the electorate allows it to happen because "emergency", and then the powers are kept and misused.
There are many examples of the police in the UK misusing powers originally intended to prevent terrorism against people who are clearly nothing todo with terrorism. The legislation was intended to be temporary but becomes permanent and used against the citizenry.
If a government gets special powers when there is an emergency, at some point they will create an emergency to get the special powers. At the very least, they will take advantage of an emergency to extend their powers and avoid oversight.
Is the US capitol under attack? If not, why are there still troops and fences deployed? It sure would be convenient to a government not to have to deal with demonstrations and detractors wouldn't it?
People who have simply criticised politicians online have been visited by armed police. Why? Who called them? Under what authority or law?
You can chose to sleepwalk into a fascist state if you want, but some of us chose to pay attention.
someone gets shot and or killed and hundreds of people decide to loot and destroy businesses or whatever else is in their path.
what does this do to make things better?
i really don’t get how they think it makes things better or solves anything..
It's because they are fundamentally criminally inclined opportunists. They don't give a shit about someone being shot, hundred are shot every week by each other, what they do care about is having an excuse to take what isn't theirs and acting as a mob gives them cover.
Remove the constraints of law and order and people show who their true selves are.
They should be shot.
I wonder how many people would need to be shot to put an end to this?
It happens now because they know the police are going to stand back and do nothing and that encourages it. That's why it's become regular as clockwork and expected.
Once it was clear that there was a different response going to happen, people would change their behavior.
born philippos, prince of denmark and greece in 1921, prince philip has died aged 99 years old (june 1921 - april 2021).. a very long, quite remarkable life lived.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaqxest27_e.
Seems like he cared more about the people than the government:
Prince Philip: You've got to see "the consequences of dictatorships" and "the philosophy that individuals are there for the sake of the state."
"That seems wrong to me. It seems to me the state is there for the sake of the individual."
this is a good watch.. i agree with it 100% - the people pushing for everyone having to carry id are the ones that have shown over and over again that they can't be trusted with people's information.
the tech companies want it because they would be able to link online tracking and information logging with people's real-world activities.
the government wants it because they would have control over people and movement.. both should be chilling to anyone with half a brain.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uggvgke0n8o.
Nearly all "temporary powers" end up becoming permanent, and all powers are eventually used for political control to suppress opposition and dissent.
this is a good watch.. i agree with it 100% - the people pushing for everyone having to carry id are the ones that have shown over and over again that they can't be trusted with people's information.
the tech companies want it because they would be able to link online tracking and information logging with people's real-world activities.
the government wants it because they would have control over people and movement.. both should be chilling to anyone with half a brain.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uggvgke0n8o.
This is a good watch.
I agree with it 100% - the people pushing for everyone having to carry ID are the ones that have shown over and over again that they can't be trusted with people's information. The tech companies want it because they would be able to link online tracking and information logging with people's real-world activities. The government wants it because they would have control over people and movement.
Both should be chilling to anyone with half a brain.
born philippos, prince of denmark and greece in 1921, prince philip has died aged 99 years old (june 1921 - april 2021).. a very long, quite remarkable life lived.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaqxest27_e.
I've seen accounts of people who were present at some of these "incidents" and they were blown up into something they weren't by the media and the marxists anti-monarchists in them that wanted opportunities to pull the royals down.
Everyone should know by now that the last thing you should expect from the media are facts and honesty.
if you go to a restaurant, do you tip and typically how much?
if you were given a 90 minute time frame to eat at a restaurant, would that restriction limit your tipping to the waitress or waiter?.
also if you order a coffee and donut and pick it up, do you contribute to the “tip jar” that’s on the counter?
Why do you have to tip?
It works both ways. There are undoubtedly servers who make a killing from it - if you're picking up $30+ a time from tables and have 3 - 4 or more per hour, that is a damn good rate and they would probably be willing to work for $0 regular pay to get it rather than only be paid a set rate and the gratuity go to the restaurant.
But I suspect there are plenty of cheapskates who make that less common and make the job difficult.
From a business perspective, you would want employees who want to provide great service and if adding "... so that they boost their pay with good tips" on the end of that achieves it, what do they care? It's a system that has evolved that way and the service in such places probably is measurably better than places where they don't have that.
anyone following the derek chauvin trial?.
if you are actually following it, not just listening to the media, you will likely realize that there is a huge gap between what is going on in court and what is being reported in the media.. if the trial was fair, i think he should be acquitted.
there is plenty of reasonable doubt about the cause of death (his dealer doesn't want to testify because he could be guilty of 3rd degree murder for selling him a fatal amount of fentanyl) and even doubt over whether the officer even had his knee on the guys neck or did anything counter to what they were meant to do as per policy.. but is it fair?
Re: the ability to breathe or not, only someone who can't breathe can't talk, so someone who is talking can breathe and can breathe well enough that they are using that ability to talk instead of breathe.
It's a little like drowning - people don't drown like in the movies, splashing about and screaming for help. The reality is that people drown silently - there's many accounts where people trained to spot drowning have saved people who were very close to others (friends, parents etc) that were completely unaware of their predicament.
Don't forget, the police probably here "I can't breathe", "you're breaking my arm" and 101 other variations of fake claims 24x7.
The prosecution are bringing forth 3 charges:
1. Second degree murder
2. Third degree unintentional murder
3. Second degree manslaughter.
Doesn't the charge of manslaughter in itself act as evidence that you don't believe it's murder? Throwing so many charges shows they lack confidence and it's for show as much as for justice - "look, he's being charged for MURDER! (but let's hope we can at least make a manslaughter charge stick)"
It's a jury trial so really it could go either way. Having sat on a jury myself for a criminal trial, I don't really have much faith in the process - at least half the guys in the jury I was involved in were either desperately inadequate , unbelievably dumb or totally lacking in any sensible judgement.
Jury trials are hit and miss and often it's left with people who aren't smart enough to get out of doing it. In this case I think there is a real danger that people put their own self interests ahead of the correct decision and weigh up the consequences of an acquittal even though that should not be of any consideration whatsoever.
Because much of it is body cam footage, I’m pretty sure it’s officers themselves posting it (or maybe supportive admin or I.T. staff) I think as you say it’s an attempt to show the public the sort of situations they face on a daily basis
It's telling that after all the claims that police should have to wear body cams, some people are now wanting it stopped because the reality is the cams often provide the evidence that it was the perps at fault / the police actions were justified (and often the impossible split second choices that have to be made).
Anyway, media found a new "hero" and people have someone else to riot and loot over, so they don't need this result as much as they did last week.
Funny how no one seemed to care or riot over the police abuse of the black army lieutenant, it's always some criminal type that it's about.