Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: bloop_bleep on February 23, 2024, 01:02:41 am

Perhaps it wasn't a sniper round. Perhaps it clipped their head. Perhaps the parents wanted to try to save their child anyway. There's many reasons why this is plausible.

You are looking for explanations as to why the story you like is true instead of examining it critically.

No, I am showing that not one of the series of assumptions you made about an eyewitness account, one of many, many similar, to discredit it has any bearing at all. You made up your own story to project onto what was actually said, then went "see? Look how implausible, my feelings say so." You're the one here who is constantly nitpicking and clutching for excuses to try to explain away every single one of the hundreds upon hundreds of direct first-person accounts of Israeli war crimes. But of course, we are just Israel haters, while your assertion that every single one of the 2 million people in the Gaza strip, from ordinary Palestinians to foreign aid workers to Western journalists, are scheming Hamas propagandists is completely rational and not based in any prejudice at all.

As well as your convenient amnesia about what we have already known about Israel. Have you forgotten when Israel shot dead three of its own hostages who were clearly and unmistakably surrendering because they thought they were Palestinian civilians? Or when Israel let go a bomb on top of the AP press building? Or when Israel blatantly assassinated a journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, lied and said they didn't shoot her, sent police to beat up mourners at her funeral, then after the evidence started to appear made an about face and admitted that yes, they did actually shoot her? How about when they shelled and killed a Reuters journalist in the middle of an empty field right next to other journalists? Why is it so unreasonable to think Israel shot some more civilians, again, and lied about it, again? Are Israel's press office which contradicts itself all the time also a Hamas agent? Why does every reliable eyewitness account that is remotely critical of Israel gets to be surgically dissected but Israel's constant and effortless lies get a shrug?

While we were gone Israel massacred over 100 hungry people standing to get food. Again they contradicted themselves, first saying they didn't use any lethal force at all, saying the Palestinians ran over each other with trucks, and then saying they were defending themselves from the threat of the crowd of starving people. Utter depravity.

So do the police or whoever makes these arrests actually believe they are doing the right thing, or are they just given heaps of cash, or are they also afraid what might happen if they don't make the arrests, or do they just like making people suffer?

I can't wrap my head around this.

None of the above. They don't think. They go with the flow.

"Of course every poll has different numbers, but also my poll is the only one that matters."

Congress should pass aid to Ukraine, and Americans should want to have Congress pass aid to Ukraine. When has campaigning for the government to do something ever become illegitimate because the majority currently may or may not disagree? If the majority of Americans wanted to reinstate segregation would you be in here pontificating about how it should go ahead and happen?

Of course, you just might, considering you seemingly need to be contrarian to avoid your ballsack shriveling up and dying.

Quote from: Frumple on February 18, 2024, 04:54:57 pm

... isn't that the one the defense fucked up so badly there's nothing to appeal, anyway? Forget exactly which one it was, but one of the civil trials the idiot's ate damages for lately ended up like that. Appealing a civil trial takes specific issues to appeal for, and none of those were involved in the particular trial due to how badly the defense performed.

Can't even try for ineffective counsel or whatever that is because that literally doesn't apply to civil cases. The only recourse the shit will have will be suing the lawyers, and lol to that one.

Though I might be thinking of one of the defamation trials, I'unno. There's enough of them they get mixed up.

It's certainly not this one, no. I'm not aware of what trial you're talking about, but I don't find Trump interesting enough to pay attention to all of them, so it's probably just one of the defamation trials you mention.

Quote from: hector13 on February 18, 2024, 04:50:23 pm

He lied about a lot of things in order to enrich himself.

If you don’t think that’s a problem, I hope to never have to do business with you.

Come on, hector, you know there's room between "this doesn't meet the legal definition of fraud" and "this isn't a problem".

Your first quote, by the way, about the law, just makes it most likely that the law itself will be struck down if it goes to the Supremes.

No, he lied about the size of the apartment by a factor of 3. That is not subjective, that is a LIE. He lied that buildings were finished when they were not. That is not subjective, that is another lie. And so on. It does absolutely 100% meet the legal definition of fraud because he absolutely, undeniably lied about the objective facts of properties that were involved in a business transaction.

And on what grounds exactly, do you think it'll certainly be overturned on appeal, or even make the far-out claim that the Supreme Court will strike down the law? Why so confident your alternative legal theory will actually be considered at all? We've already established that the courts so far are in complete disagreement with your understanding of how the law works.

I can understand the impulse to want to be there where you are concerned about, in the middle of the fray, fighting.

Rest in peace. A brave and determined man.

Thank you, happy new year!

Perhaps use an aphid predator?