Is this post in fuckcars? No? Well it should be. We should be investing more in public transit and building cities people can live in without necessarily owning a car. Your participation in society should not hinge on a multi-thousand dollar purchase of a car along with the yearly insurance and other maintenance costs.

Presumably members of congress don’t usually get a say in the disciplinary actions of any federal agency.

ICE sent a letter to Veasey stating it would address the matter and that such internal investigations can take up to 120 days, but it has otherwise not provided any information.

Veasey’s amendment came a week after the Observer reported that Rodden, who was apparently pulled from federal immigration court schedules following the Observer’s reporting last February, had returned to immigration court in Dallas.

Since ICE doesn’t want to fire the guy, this is one of the few official acts thay can be taken to “encourage” him to leave on his own.

It’s just like Rush Limbaugh said: if there is consent on [all sides], it’s perfectly fine, whatever it is.

There’s no real need for me to bring up the dead conservative talking head here, but I still laugh to myself sometimes when I remember how mockingly he got it exactly right, and maybe someone else could use a laugh too.

“The possible possibility” -> “The possibility” As someone else said, it’s just redundant here.

The first meaning of possibility relates to chance/probability whereas the second relates to ability/capability/feasibility

This is simply untrue, possibility doesn’t relate to probability except in a very binary yes/no, something is possible.

“It’s not necessarily necessary for you to wear a tie to the meeting, they might not care.” -> It’s not always necessary…

“The maybe necessity” -> The necessity of blank is still being debated

“It’s maybe not necessary” -> it may not be necessary

The second one would depend on the context, you could change things around or describe the uncertainty in other ways. The third one I think you’re just getting too stuck on a particular order for these words you want to use.

They’re probably out “not being political” and are ignorant to most curent events.

That’s the worst part: they do talk about Palestine. Just in the context of whoever they’re covering. It’s a little comforting to know you don’t really bother engaging with anything people actually say to you, though.

Starting around 38:30 in the podcast

Dan Friesen: So the argument is that the CIA was trying to recruit these hijackers and make them into informants. And that is a theory. It is not established. It is not proven. But they start to just treat it as if they have proven it.

Mark Rossini: You have the CIA then following one man and then two men all over the planet and then eventually even to America, right? Landing in Los Angeles, California, and you don’t tell the FBI.

Tucker Carlson: But why would the CIA want to hide the highly relevant and potentially dangerous fact that two known al-Qaeda terrorists had just landed in California? According to a recently released court filing, former White House counterterrorism star Richard Clark told government investigators that the quote: “CIA was running a false flag operation to recruit the hijackers.”

Richard Clark: When Cofer Black became the head of the counterterrorism center at CIA, he was aghast that they had no sources in Al-Qaeda. So he told me, I’m going to try to get sources in Al-Qaeda. I can understand them possibly saying we need to develop sources inside Al-Qaeda. When we do that, we can’t tell anybody about it.

Dan Friesen: So it’s important to pay attention to the way that information is used by people like Tucker and notice the little tweaks that they make in order to push their narratives. In this case, Tucker is setting up his clip of Richard Clark, and he says that Clark revealed that the CIA was engaged in a false flag to recruit these hijackers.

Then he plays the clip of Clark that does not say that. But instead is Clark saying that he could understand the intelligence folks trying to secretly turn the future hijackers into informants. He wasn’t saying that the CIA was doing this, but he understood how it was possible.

Yeah, one of the conspiracy theorists’ main tricks is equating proving that something is possible with proving that it’s true. Richard Clark saying that it’s possible that the CIA was trying to recruit the hijackers as informants is not the same thing as him saying that is what happened. But Tucker knows that to his audience, it is the same.

I don’t know man, maybe you need to work on your media literacy a little more. Or maybe just as a rule, you shouldn’t be taking anything Tucker Carlson says seriously.

Alright, cool. So what did Tucker Carlson say that you thought was so interesting?

And I guess follow up question: was it all just government propaganda? Because I doubt he ever debunked any propaganda about Palestine.

What are you talking about? Why would something be government propaganda just because you can’t find mentions of Gaza or Palestine? It’s a podcast mostly about Alex Jones, not a news agency. Are you always like this?

1092: Tucker, The Man And His 9/11 Documentary

The guys at Knowledge Fight went over the first part of the documentary, and my takeaway was there’s nothing new, the primary person being interviewed is a well known liar, and there’s a lot dishonest claims being made and not a lot of evidence being given.

So what exactly do you think is so interesting about Tucker Carlson’s series? What new things did you learn about 9/11?

Apple seems to disagree with you.

So yeah, it was about minors (children) trapped in a cave, not miners (the profession).

But in fairness, the Chilean miners I was thinking of was back in 2010.

I think that was a trapped minor incident. The trapped miner incident happened around the same time, but didn’t involve Elon.

From here it seems 3 would be normal, one for trash, recycling, and yard waste. But that house has three bins dedicated to trash pickup every week, which seems like a lot.

can barely remember that English speakers take pills, and not drink them (you don’t chew them, for fucks sake! Just say drink!)

In my mind drink is exclusively for liquids, which is why drinking a solid sounds weird to me. Because there’s no chewing involved swallowing pills makes more sense than eating them, but I’ll admit I don’t know why “take” is the usual verb.

The VA did the same thing in a newsletter they send out.

A duo of Tesla shareholder-influencers tried to complete Elon Musk’s coast-to-coast self-driving ride that he claimed Tesla would be able to do in 2017 and they crashed before making it about 60 miles.

From the article. I don’t think the Bearded Tesla Guy youtube channel was trying to have their tesla fail so quickly and spectacularly. I think they just wanted to rely fully on self driving and got unlucky with something being in the middle of the road.

https://areweanticheatyet.com/

Go look for whatever game you’re stuck on, it might just work.

They’re taking advantage of everyone with their shitty “dev exchange rates”

Also, it’s a bit light to say that they’re stricly saying taking advantage of people because only because of their fees.

I’m honestly not sure what you’re trying to say. I didn’t say the transfer fees were the only way they were taking advantage of people, I just wanted to use the thing you already admitted was predatory and use it to give an example of how roblox is taking advantage of children.

You don’t know how the known behavior that takes advantage of everyone, in a game popular with and marketed towards children, is taking advantage of children?