If so his defenders should not abandon him if he said slavery or the holocaust was a good thing or that collateral danger toward Muslim children when drones strike, should not concern us. But the fact that most would change their tune if he said that proves that the part of his support derives from many people partially agreeing with him or at least not being bothered that much. They are not really defending free speech.
How could they not take it upon themselves not to have independently vetted the sign language guy in South Africa? I always assume that the people I’m dealing with are incompetent, Even when lives are not at stake.
Perhaps this will teach politicians not to pretend to oppose something that they are actually in favor of just because it was proposed by a member of the other party. First they asked the President to go to Congress before bombing because they thought he wouldn’t do that, even though they actually tended to agree that presidents should act in situations like this without congressional approval . So when the president said OK to that they couldn’t criticize even though they didn’t like it. Then they pretended that they didn’t want military action because the president did. So now that it looks like he will take Putin’s deal to avoid it the Republican’s have to once again hold their tongues when they would otherwise be screaming.
Even though Syria is lying when they said they didn’t do it, that lie is important. Because it implies that they admit that the use of chemical weapons is wrong. If they said otherwise it would be terrible if Congress still voted for the military not to punish them. But with that admission by them, it is probably better if a vote not to punish them this time, wins in by a very close margin and Obama doesn’t override it. Such a result would avoid the complications a military strike would bring while at the same time making it obvious that Congress would reverse itself if there was one more transgression. I wonder if Congress is capable of colluding to bring about that outcome.
A nasty head of state is a lot more worried about himself thanr his people. Wouldn’t it be more effective to offer a twenty million dollar reward to anyone who kills a tyrant if he does obviously terrible things than to spend ten times that to bomb innocents? Even if he is well protected that’s bound to make him think twice before doing terrible things.
Although I agree with the verdict I think that George Zimmerman was probably guilty of a behavior that I don’t think is illegal but should be. Namely pushing a person into possibly attacking you when only you know that you have a lethal weapon (or even possibly professionally trained fists) that can kill under the supposed legal excuse of self defense. In other words I believe that there should be a law that specifies that someone with this lethal capability, especially if it is hidden, should take more than the normal amount of care not to entice someone to strike you. The mere provocation, if it is clearcut, should be a crime and of course if it results in the use of the weapon it is worse.
Hopefully in six weeks I will be able to claim that they worked well. With so many good new players studying standard strategy and counterstrategy, I’m thinking that the best way to thwart them is to make some plays that, while theoretically a little suboptimum, are so different from what they are used to that they won’t adjust properly. We shall see.
Now we all know that one of the main reasons the authorities quickly identified them is that they reacted abnormally to the blast. I guess they wanted to show how smart they are. Even if it meant that future terrorists will now certainly not make that same mistake.
Why do people make a big deal about any of it? It’s totally insignificant to any president or ex president. Money will never be an issue in any way shape or form.
Now he can conceivably be found Not Guilty by reason of insanity and after years in a mental hospital, get out and possibly kill again. And this risk was taken to achieve what.? To try for a punishment that is illegal in most countries and many states? The only good justification for the death penalty is as a deterrent. People who commit crimes like Holmes aren’t thinking about the punishment.