HelixDab2

...And what could I say that you wouldn't take as a copypasta talking point? The amount of dust that a homeowner would deal with, even with a fairly modest renovation, simply ain't that much, compared to the people that were ending up with lung cancers and asbestosis. AFAIK, there have been no documented cases of a person contracting either disease simply because they lived in a home that had asbestos, unless they also worked extensively with the mineral.

When your fellow lefty tries to murder you, I can see why you would switch pretty quickly.

Why? To put it in concrete terms, the person that tried to assassinate Trump was, by all accounts, a hard-right conservative. Would it be reasonable to expect Trump to make a hard left turn? I've been sexually assaulted by a gay man; would I be reasonable in taking that experience, and extrapolating that to mean that all gay men were just lying in wait to sexually assault straight men?

The truth is that people that truly believe in their core values don't tend to change those values overnight. It's almost always a long, drawn-out process, regardless of how deeply traumatic an event might be. The speed at which Rittenhouse changed course leads me to believe that he was either never left of center in the first place, or doesn't hold any moral/ethical beliefs very deeply. Given that he is, by all accounts, quite dumb, it could readily be the latter.

I support college for inmates, even if they are never getting out. Education is a good thing.

Sure. And I agree. We need significant criminal justice reform, even for people that we've decided are too dangerous to ever get out. But most people will get out, eventually, and they need some kind of opportunities if they aren't going to end up getting recycled right back into the system. I've found that approaching prison reform from a utilitarian perspective appeals more to people that trend conservative than moral appeals about education being good for it's own sake, and therefore something that we should be making available to prisoners. Esp. since there are a lot of people--mostly conservatives--that will say, 'well, I had to pay for it, so why should someone else get it for free?'

By protecting the property

...That's not a very leftist view, TBH. Valuing property over the people themselves is more of a typical capitalist view. To quote MLK Jr., "But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again."

I started my career as a combat medic in the Army. We carried rifles.

Not my point. My point was that he had very, very limited training in dealing with medical emergencies. In a real medical emergency, he would have been absolutely useless. AFAIK, he hasn't taken a basic 'stop the bleed' class, much less a combat lifesaver course. (And, TBH, I haven't been able to find the latter anywhere in my area, which makes it prohibitively expensive, but I'm at least up for stopping most bleeds and have a solid IFAK that I keep on my gun belt.)

I will say the ironic part is only at a Democrat riot can you shoot three people and hit two child molesters and three felons.

And yet, here we are, talking about a Republican presser where the target was both a felon and a rapist, and has been found to be such in court. So ima say no, Dems don't have the lock on felonies or sex crimes.

They're a great punk band. Bummer that they haven't done anything new since 2001.

Eh. He says that he was. But given how sharp his turn was to Proud Man-Children, et al. as soon as he was in legal trouble, I have a hard time believing it. I've def. seen a number of people that say that they support "progressive" politics, but they only support them as long as it doesn't affect them in any way; as soon as it e.g. hurts their property values, they suddenly go full-conservative. I've got a buddy that supports criminal justice reform, but balks at college education for convicts because college cost him money, and why should they get it free? (Hint: because it sharply reduces recidivism.)

I also have a hard time believing that someone that claimed to be in support of leftist politics would be at the protests supporting businesses, of all things. Why not go and help people that were protesting peacefully by providing support? And if he was really just there to provide medical help--as if he was a corpsman, which he ain't--and help with clean up, why would he need a rifle at all? It's just so goddamn stupid.

I honestly think that, had he not been armed, he would have been fine; I think the rifle made people think he was a threat, when he wasn't.

If it makes you feel better, I'm mildly autistic, so I tend to see things a bit more literally than most.

I can't help but think of Butthole Surfer's "Pepper" at this point in time.

I would suggest that you read more about the actual event. Go look on any left-of-center site if you want, as long as it's covering factual information, rather than offering commentary.

There is no information that, prior to the shooting, Rittenhouse had directly or indirectly threatened anyone.

Rittenhouse was on his way out when he was accosted by Rosenbaum; Rosenbaum threw a bag of clothing at Rittenhouse, and tried to grab his rifle. Rittenhouse shot him four times at close range, killing him.

Rittenhouse tried to run away; he was pursued by a crowd. Huber struck him with a skateboard and attempted to grab his rifle; Rittenhouse fatally shot him. Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at Rittenhouse, who shot him once in the arm; Grosskreutz survived, although he's lost much of the function in his arm.

Rittenhouse did not instigate the violence; he was leaving the protest when he was accosted and attacked.

Should he have been there in the first place? No. Should he have brought a rifle? Also no. (And, in point of fact, his mom didn't know that he had the rifle, because it had been bought for him by a friend--not his mom as was reported. But, all that said, he was never the aggressor in any legal sense; simply being armed is, by itself, not an immediate threat to do harm, and he was not acting in a threatening manner. Provocative, yes, but threatening, no.

Is Rittenhouse, personally, still a shitty person? Oh yeah. But whether or not he's a shitbag, he still has a right to defend his own life. Which is what he did, once you actually look at testimony in court.

There's a certain level of due-diligence that you can use when you're moving personal information around on the cloud. Hospitals have a legal obligation to keep your medical records secure; Google does not.

...Why would you post unencrypted personal information onto the cloud in the first place?

They're scared of losing their customer base. If most of their customers are trending politically left, they know that it's a potential corporate death sentence to say they support fascism.

Asbestos isn't an issue if it isn't airborne, and it's not going to be airborne in any significant amounts if it's in, for instance, tile, pipe insulation, or wallboard, unless you're cutting them for some reason.

"People who become ill from asbestos are usually those who are exposed to it on a regular basis, most often in a job where they work directly with the material or through substantial environmental contact." You are very unlikely to have "substantial" environmental contact in a typical 50s/60s/70s home, unless you are doing substantial renovations, because most of the fibers will be encapsulated in the material they were used with.

Asbestos PPE is made with the understanding that a person that is using it will be working directly with asbestos, or will be exposed to significant amounts. For the typical person, it's as unnecessary as it is to wear PPE to a gun range.

To be fair, the Winklevoss twins are every bit as awful as Zuckerberg is. They still got filthy rich too, just not as rich as they would of had Zuck fulfilled his agreement with them.