Question about Addison. Sometimes when we observe DE's we get caughy up in rushijg the passer. Addison has always been a pass rush specialist. So my question is to those that are there, when you say he has been looking better, is it because he looks more like an every down end or is it just because he is getting to the QB?
War on drugs. A waste of money, time, and life. The drug laws either end up in a literal loss of life to a dealer, addict, or a cop, but also a figurative loss of life because of the draconian harshness of drug laws, especially for addicts, making it nearly impossible to better their life once released from prison. The cop was just doing his job, and this is terrible. But the job he was tasked with doing has proven to be counterproductive, dangerous, and dumb. This is another reason for drastic reform to drug laws nationwide.
So a company that hasn't fired anyone yet, and didnt mention wages, actually are possibly firing people because of wages because someone at hedgezero wildly speculated that it is true? Neat. BTW they made 16 billion dollars in profit last year.
I am not saying they knew she was depressed. That is my fault for not articulating my point well. I am talking about throwing anyone in jail for 3 days who isnt accused of a non-violent or minor crime. In other words the person in this case dealing with depression got caught up in the system over a minor traffic ticket. Not that they knew and put her in jail.
Probably not. I am talking more on the larger picture of putting a person accused of a non-violent crime or minor crime in jail for 3 days for any reason. In this case the underlying charge of failure to signal.
Do you think addressing this incident with a dismissive "If she didnt hang herself she wouldnt be dead" is getting us closer to solving the issue, or getting us toward a 17th page? If somone is dealing with depression lets throw them in a cage for 3 days and see if they get better or worse.
Is the United States just that barabaric and uncivilized compared to other developed countries? Don't you think some people with bad ideas feel more empowered by having a gun? It is just hard for me to reconcile that we are that much more murderous than a country like Australia that was founded and began as a penal colony around the same time the US became a country.
I do read some contemporary stuff, but when I am trying to make my own judgments on something like this I prefer to do the research myself rather than read an author telling me what to believe. I appreciate your help in trying to find "reasonable" authors, but reasonableness is subjective. Plus it is the logical fallacy of "argument to moderation".
Then vote for him! Having a debate about historical context of the 2nd amendment in 1790 and the reality of gun law in 2015 are two different conversations Fact is that the Supreme Court affirmed individual rights in the Heller case. Unless that decision is overturned individual right is the law of the land. And me posting about the purposes and intent of the 2nd amendment doesnt change that fact.
I can appreciate the kumbaya can't we all get along sentiment. But this is something that has been building for decades and techonology is just bringing police practices into the spotlight and we as a society are re-evaluating these interactions and thinking "there is something wrong here". 40-50 police officers get killed every year. It is a dangerous job. But the job of law enforcement officer has implied risks. You know that going in. At the same time we have to somehow stop installing the mentality that their lives are in perpetual danger. Admittedly a delicate balancing act there, but now we have police who assume the worst in every situation to the point where they are shooting or escalating a situation when it is not necessary. To me the owness is on the police officers to change procedurally for a couple of reasons. 1- they are the ones with power in any given situation. 2- you cant control every citizen, but we can control police procedure and rules of engagement. No matter what you do there will still be police officers who get injured or killed in the line of duty. That just comes with the job. There will also be police homicides, we have an extremely armed populace so there will never be a way to completely eradicate police deaths or police homicides. There is not a perfect solution, but there are changes that can be made to reduce opportunities for death of our citizens. Lastly, there always seem to be a contingent of usually conservative posters that have this mentality that people who point out to instances of police brutality or racism as the instigators. To me this is an implicit endorsement of status quo and a shifting of blame from the people performing the acts to the people bringing those acts to the public's consciousness. If we dont acknowledge police brutality or racism doesnt mean it isn't happening. If you just ignore something it will never change. And that is unacceptable on both fronts. If you think about it, until technology and social media began to shed light on these police practices, the public was largely unaware it existed or was as bad as some had claimed. And until that happened there was no talk or public cry for reform. Willful ignorance does not affect change, and in this case change is very much needed and overdue.
1- Again that is not true. The "unorganized militia" is a phrase that was created for the Dick Act in 1902. No one mentions anything about an unorganized militia during the constitutional debates leading up to ratification because there was no such thing. Plus if you want to use the legal definition of "unorganized militia" it would not include any women at all and no man over 45 years old, as that definition legally only applies to men ages 17 to 45. Not the "whole of the people" by any stretch. 2- sorry that was my fault for not thoroughly explaining that, it only pertained to every able bodied man except for those that war activities were againt their religious beliefs Also, again you are wrong. Actually people didnt have a choice not to arm themselves (except on religious grounds) it was mandatory for the men to attend military training, have arms, report to their officers, and train with their regiments by act of Congress after the ratification. 3- I am simply pointing out that context matters to fully understand phraseology. That isn't exactly a crazy notion lol 4- not really trying trying to sway gun owners, just discussing the 2nd amendment and history. Not going to solve any problems in the Tinderbox here on the Huddle. 5- Bernie Sander 2016!!