Eh, I’m not a big enough fan of milk to really go out of my way to drink it. Mainly just lactose free milk for cooking/baking.

In Colorado, aside from serious charges like murder or kidnapping, most felony charges have a three-year statute of limitations.

Well… That’s kinda crazy. I feel like a lot of investigations take longer than three years. Hell there’s places in the US that have like a decades worth of rape kits police are ignoring.

This picture makes my tummy hurt just looking at it. I have a bit of lactose intolerance, but even with lactose free milk…I couldn’t imagine just pounding down a tall glass of milk.

There’s always been a significant portion of American society that would have much preferred if the US would have intervened in WW2 on behalf of the Nazi instead of the allies. Imo that subsect of our population has never really changed in their belief, they just moderated their language to make their beliefs more digestible.

The amazing thing to me is that Communism has consistently been a dog whistle for these people for generations, being a substitute for a plethora of slurs aimed at a plethora of different people.

They are now attempting to utilize the same defunct laws that their grandparents made to strip away what little power we the people still have. Strange that there are laws against communist political parties but not against fascism…the actual people we engaged in a totalitarian war against.

24" of max overhang is a pretty typical standard for deck.

Most decks don’t have 12" joist supporting them… Plus, the roof appears to be cantilevered as well.

modified the supporting exterior wall to handle the extra load.

Tbh it’s hard to tell, it really looks like a house with interesting bones that got wrapped in shitty vinyl in the early 00’. But I’m not seeing any anchoring hardware, so there’s a chance that the joists are interconnected with the ones supporting the second floor.

It was definitely touted as one of the benefits of Thirdway politics. However, the real imperative was ending gridlock in Congress. Back in the late 80s and early 90s gridlock was new and actually seen as a big problem, especially after it caused a gov shut down under newt. Bill Clinton basically swept the presidential race for his second term for “solving it”.

Lol, no it really isn’t. Citizens vs United was the culmination of decades of the DNC constantly bending over backwards to compromise with conservatives.

Basically in the late 80’s and early 90’s the legislative grid lock we all know and love today was becoming the status quo. So a strategy of compromising with “moderate” conservatives over policy that benefited aspects of both parties was popularized by the Clinton’s.

This “Thirdway politics” led to short term benefits, and allowed the Clintons to get a death grip over the DNC. After a short period conservatives took advantage of this tactic of compromise to drag the DNC further and further to the right. Basically every sitting senator and most of the politicians in the house made their political careers by being the best at compromising with the right.

Right, but my point was that the Jewish community isn’t a monolith, 25% of the American Jewish population lives in NYC. Of that nearly 1 million people there are going to be a significant population of them that are going to have some pretty extreme views about Palestine.

While this poll may not accurately reflect the spectrum of beliefs of Jews in NYC, it’s statistically unlikely that NYC Jews represent the entirety of the American Jewish population who reject Zionism. Meaning more than likely more than half of the NYC population of Jews support Zionism, or believe that anti Zionism equates to antisemitism.

The majority of Jews in New York are secular and therefore don’t have a mouthpiece like the major Orthodox groups

That’s the thing with ethno-states, you don’t have to be religious to be a nationalist. It’s not just orthodox Jews who have a problem with Palestinians. Hell, you don’t even have to be Jewish to have extremist views about the genocide in Palestine. You could be orthodox, a secular Zionist, a right winged nationalist, or you could even be vicariously motivated evangelical who thinks a war in the holy land will spark the second coming. Are those views “normal”? Not to me, but I’m not exactly in charge of making those opinions for others.

As I said, it really depends on what your perspective is when it comes to what qualifies as normal.

Only takes one or two employees to pretend to have heat stroke/exhaustion and get a work sponsored trip to the hospital to force a change in the working environment.

Really would be safer for everyone to have someone pretend rather than wait until someone actually has one.

Eh, I guess it’s a matter of perspective. Just like you shouldn’t claim all Jews are extremist, it’s also inaccurate to claim that all New York Jews are just normal people who happen to be Jewish. That is unless you believe holding extremist political views is perfectly normal…which is a matter of perspective.

Imo the Jewish community has gone pretty far to the right, a similar response to America after 9/11. Even a lot of the prior moderate American Jewish community has recently adopted some pretty hard right stances when it comes to Palestine.

Just looking at Jewish communities on places like reddit can be pretty wild as far as how common it is for people to respond to valid criticism of the Israeli state as antisemitic hate crimes.

This is the inherent problem of ethno-states, it creates room for forced conflations between ethnicity and nationality.

Men ARE taught from an early age don’t hit girls. Boys and men who do are social outcasts for it. In a public setting men and women will step in to defend the woman.

And yet…women are still more likely to be victims of domestic violence.

Obviously societal mores are not an effective deterrent, otherwise we 1/3 women wouldn’t be victims of domestic violence .

I’m not claiming that men do not experience domestic violence, or trying to claim it’s not important to educate people the rate of violence men experience. I’m just saying that claiming more women are okay with committing domestic violence than men is just statistically incorrect.

None of the above is true about a woman attacking a man. In a public setting you’ll see indifference or even coming to the woman’s aid in attacking the man.

I think most people are taught at an early age not to hit people regardless of gender. Judging by the amount of down votes my response has, it seems plenty of people would be willing to ostracize a women who batter their partners.

There is zero social stigma against women being violent towards men. The assumption is always that he must deserve it.

Lol, then why are you upset? Are you not part of society? Societal views on domestic violence have changed pretty significantly in the last 30 years. I don’t think anyone is really cool standing by and letting anyone beat their spouse in public.

I think you are relying pretty heavily on anecdotal assumptions about social constructs instead of the actual evidence we have available that proves women are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse than men.

This is such a stupid thing to inject gender into.

“The amount of men that think physical violence against their female partners is acceptable or not an issue is disgustingly high”…

I think we can all agree that any amount of violence towards a partner is too much. If we wanted to inject gender into the equation statistically women are more likely to be battered by their male partners, who obviously think it’s an acceptable thing to do.

It’s not a license to engage in historical revisionism. Like the myth of the clean wehrmacht, the notion that Hitler didn’t have the broad support of the majority of German citizens is an attempt to deny the culpability of everyday Germans from the war crimes they were collectively responsible for in WW2.

It’s a bit pedantic to say that Hitler rose to power without the majority because he only received 43.9% of the vote… especially considering that over 17 million people voted for him and the next most popular candidate only received 7 million votes.

That really only makes sense if you are reviewing the election through the lens of someone used to a two party system. If we are going to evaluate it as if it were a two party system and combine the right and left into two coalitions…the Nazi, Centre, DNVP, and BVP would make up nearly 26 million voters while the SPD and kpd would only make up nearly 12 million people.

Even though the Centre party was much more willing to work with the Nazi than the socialist, if we added their votes to the left coalition you’d still have 22m on the right and 16m on the left.

The only way you can really claim that the Nazi didn’t receive the majority of the vote is if you misinterpret The Weimar Republic as a direct democracy and not a Republic.

The Clintons are largely responsible for the democratic party’s tolerance and enabling of fascism. They are responsible for popularizing thirdway politics in the US, and making compromise the Democrats only real priority.

Of course they are going to endorse the center right, that is the party platform that they’ve been building since the 90s. I honestly do not know why the conservatives demonized Hillary so much, the Clinton’s basically built their empire compromise by compromise.

I think that’s a massive mischaracterization of the elections in 33. Hitler mainly rose to power because the traditional nationalist party and centrist party thought they could control him and use his popularity to ward off a coalition from leftist and unionists. The centrists were among the first parties to vote in favor of the Enabling act, which granted legislative powers to Hitler’s government.

It’s a bit pedantic to say that Hitler rose to power without the majority because he only received 43.9% of the vote… especially considering that over 17 million people voted for him and the next most popular candidate only received 7 million votes.

That really only makes sense if you are reviewing the election through the lens of someone used to a two party system. If we are going to evaluate it as if it were a two party system and combine the right and left into two coalitions…the Nazi, Centre, DNVP, and BVP would make up nearly 26million voters while the SPD and kpd would only make up nearly 12 million people.

Even though the Centre party was much more willing to work with the Nazi than the SPD, if we added their votes to the left coalition you’d still have 22m on the right and 16m on the left.

But I didn’t just say there was a cease fire, I declared it… What don’t they understand about that?

Justice Mark Mastel agreed with defence counsel Cory Wilson that the period behind bars being sought by the Crown wasn’t necessary to send a message to other officers that police are not above the law.

Wouldn’t it be nice if judges evaluated their sentencing based on the effectiveness of the penal system for people who aren’t police? I’ve never heard of a judge claiming that sentencing a teen to jail for 10 years wouldn’t be necessary to send a message to other people addicted to drugs that drugs are bad…

Economics is basically horoscopes for old rich white dudes. They veil their practice in “scientific” language/mathematical models and then have the audacity to make claims like “future consumption should be discounted simply because it takes place in the future and people generally prefer the present to the future (inherent discounting)” or create models on the assumption that growth is forever sustainable in a closed system with inherently limited natural resources.

Really is concerning that society has yet to break free from the influence of sooth sayers. There really isn’t much of a difference between the leaders of states listening to an economics major or listening to a young girl getting high on volcanic fumes at the temple of Delphi.