That’s pretty much my thinking too. I mean, what’s the less biased alternative to get to the truth here? The law firm has an incentive to satisfy the people paying them, but they also have their own reputation to maintain.
So I guess I’d be inclined to skeptically believe their findings. Although, it would be better if the firm released their own summary (or endorsed this one).
The headline specifically states those two amendments are omitted because it is the most likely to cause outrage, not because it is the most accurate description of the situation. It’s not incorrect. It’s misleading.
My county courthouse has a mural of the original constitution and the bill of rights: are they making a political statement by omitting all the other amendments?
This headline is technically correct, but it’s clearly meant to cause outrage. The headline “Trump’s Bible only includes the bill of rights” isn’t going to get as much attention.
Manufacturing outrage obfuscates Trump’s actions that people should actually be outraged about.
Not sure if this is exactly what you’re looking for, but the opening scene to The Conversation uses a high-zoom shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlwdpNw1FW8
Eye in the Sky also prominently features long-distance/high magnification shots from the perspective of a drone/UAV.
I agree with everything you’ve said. Hamas can be a terrorist organization, and still be the elected government. Both can be true, and acknowledging the how and why of that being the case is necessary reach a resolution to the conflict.
The fact that you’re trying move this conversation towards the actions of Israel while avoiding the actions of Hamas leads me to believe you’re not interested in having a genuine discussion. I think you’re trying to play gotcha.
Have Israel and Hamas used terrorist tactics? I think so. Do both sides not care about the well-being of civilians? I think so. Are both sides of this conflict bad? I think so.
My definition of terrorist tactics is irrelevant to how the OP would classify Hamas.
Regardless, here’s how terrorism is defined on Wikipedia: it seems pretty reasonable to me.
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants
If Hamas isn’t a terrorist organization then what would you call them?
And if you’re a fan of quotation marks you could call it a “2"x4”."
I’m in complete agreement with you.
I just wanted to bring up a big cultural difference I’ve seen in my area that people seem to be unaware of.
I’m not justifying it. I don’t think it’s justifiable. I just wanted to bring up how common this behavior is in some rural areas.
Just to reiterate, I’m not saying it’s right. There are absolutely better ways of addressing these issues.
But I don’t know what to tell you–I don’t live far from SD and I have personally spoken to multiple people (face to face) that have done exactly what Kristi Noem described.
Not saying her actions are right, but I live in a rural area and people personally shooting their own dogs and other animals that are deemed a danger is pretty common. People often do it when the animals need to be euthanized for health reasons too.
I personally know lots of people who do this. I have plenty of family members who have done it.
Again, I don’t think her actions were appropriate. I just want to point out how commonplace shooting ones own animals is (in some places) since a lot of people here seem totally unaware.
Not to mention the fact that all it takes is for one nuclear exchange to happen, and the world as we know it ceases to exist. The stakes are incredibly high.
Great quote! That’s one of my absolute favorite books. I recommend it to people all the time.
If you liked Alas, Babylon, I’d strongly recommend On The Beach by Nevil Shute.
They’re a weapon of last resort because of (warranted) fear of them. Hence, everyone absolutely should be scared of war between NATO and Russia.
A war between Russia and NATO would result in the textbook definition of a pyrhhic victory. Everyone should be afraid of that. There will be no winners in nuclear combat.
I’ve simply pointed out the irony and hipocrisy. I’m making no statement on whether or not Nicaragua should be involved.
The West shoe-horned themselves into the Middle East decades ago. The West currently has a “vested” interest because they’ve made an absolute mess of the Middle East, when there was never a good reason for getting involved in the first place. Historically, the West has done in the exactly what they’re now accusing Nicaragua of.
Additionally, it’s particularly ironic due to America’s historical meddling in Nicaragua.
I’m making no comment on Nicaragua making this move in good faith. I agree it’s obvious that they’re a pawn. I’m only pointing out the hypocrisy.
A Very Brady Sequel.