ArbitraryValue

I am not a lawyer, but I think that presenting the defendants' case as written in their memorandum would not be lying, although I can see how doing so would make an honest man uncomfortable. Reuveni supported the morally right side when, in effect, he argued for the plaintiffs, but in doing so he failed to fulfill a lawyer's obligation to zealously defend his client. If he wanted to do both, he should have declined to take the case in the first place (although presumably he would have been demoted or fired for that too).

With that said, a man can do the right thing now even when he could have done so earlier and didn't (and doing so in court was certainly more dramatic than refusing to take the case would have been). I wouldn't mind donating money to him the way that people of a different sort donated money to Daniel Penny.

I'm not sure how to reconcile my view with the principle that even the worst criminal defendants have the right to competent legal representation. I suppose I make an exception here because the federal government is never in danger of being railroaded.

Thank you, but don't mind me. I just had multiple tabs open and accidentally replied to the wrong post.

I did think the answer from jms21y in the screenshot was interesting. Years ago, before Reddit existed, I used to post on a message board where there was a great deal of diversity and still people were polite to each other - the rules were strict about that. There were also only several dozen active participants so we all knew each other. Anyway, one of the regulars was an active-duty military guy and his perspective was often very interesting. I think the ideological range of the people I talked to has become so much narrower since then. People (including me) are so much angrier now than even during the GWB presidency.

They're the "Say Friend and Enter" runes. Gandalf couldn't figure them out but Merry (accidentally) did.

I don't think that's how people would have "gathered for instructions on an attack" especially when "attack" would mean launching missiles. But I'm glad that and we can trust Laura Loomer to handle the sort of intelligence gathering that would guide strikes like this.

Damn. Even the Jerusalem Post is disturbed by this.

But the IDF's explanation for the ambush already has problems. Initially, the military claimed that the ambulances' lights were off, but in fact, at least some of the ambulances' lights were on, though possibly the first ambulance had its lights off.

Also, despite initial IDF claims, the ambulances were properly labeled as Red Cross.

After killing the Red Cross workers, the IDF still believed them to be Hamas based on examining six of the bodies, though the military's explanation of what about the aid workers made them seem like Hamas forces was unclear.

[The IDF] buried the bodies to protect them from damage during any expected new fight, according to the narrative.

...

The Jerusalem Post was not provided with other cases in which the IDF used such a procedure to leave bodies of aid workers for the UN.

C++ style text streams are bad and a dead-end design and '\n'.

Obviously the judge can't order the dead raised, but if El Salvador won't release him then does the judge have the authority to decide whether or not Trump made a good-faith attempt to have him released? I don't think anyone knows at this point. It's clear to all that Trump could in fact have him released (or at least have his body returned if he has been killed) so what happens if Trump says that he tried and El Salvador said no? Will the judge accept Trump's transparent lie, or will he risk creating a Constitutional crisis that Trump would probably win?

I'm not optimistic. I don't think the American system of government is capable of handling the executive branch along with a majority of the legislative branch acting in bad faith with the support of a large part of the public.

Less housing in the sense of (owner-occupied + rented). Not all former rented housing would become owner-occupied housing. People who struggle to pay rent are going to have a hard time getting a mortgage, and if they do then they're betting a lot on an illiquid asset that they're paying for with an unreliable revenue stream, especially since that asset might go down in value to below what they owe on it like what happened to a lot of people in 2008. One of the things a renter pays a landlord to do is to absorb a lot of the financial risk.

A couple of anecdotes about when I owned a house:

I would have been better off by renting for above mortgage price than I was by buying, since I had to move a lot sooner than I thought I would. There's a lot of overhead to purchasing real estate that only makes sense if you plan on staying in one place for a long time. Fewer and fewer Americans are doing that.

I used to rent out the house at below-mortgage price but it was to good friends who were very trustworthy. (Even then, technically they shared the house with me although I would only come for one weekend a month, because then they would be easier to evict just in case.) Their rent covered interest and taxes, so I was paying off principal. I sold the house when they moved out rather than taking the risk of renting it to strangers. With that said, I don't think this is common.

I was thinking more of the Orz. They're inspired by the original cosmic horror, but they like campers as long as campers want to party with them.

That is funny. You think you see Orz but Orz are not light reflections. Maybe you think Orz are many bubbles too. It is such a joke. Orz are not many bubbles like campers. Orz are just Orz. I am Orz. I am one with many fingers. My fingers reach through into heavy space and you see Orz bubbles but it is really fingers. Maybe you do not even smell? That is sad. Smelling pretty colors is the best game.