The friend of certainty is time. One day perhaps then we won’t even call ourselves Americans. I doubt the 1860s will happen again anytime soon. Maybe something closer in scale to Blair Mountain.

Look to history. We’ve had two. Look at the words explaining the necessity of independence in the declaration of independence. Those were not hollow words but detailed a long series of abuses. Then look to the causes of the Civil War. A perfidious institution anathematic to the very core ideal of the nation, that all men are created equal.

Our times doubtless have our problems but the do not meet nearly the standard set in the past.

PolyMatter put out a video on China’s goal oriented social-political structure 2 years ago that I think will help understand the pace.

https://youtu.be/kBBre3bpvyk

use whatever his response was (even a 5a plead) as prima facie evidence

This would get you reprimanded in court at best disbarred at worst. Utilizing the right to remain silent can not be used against you in a court of law. If it could it’d defeat the entire purpose of it by making silence become an admittance of guilt.

Sounds to me like he decided to be dry firing post facto.

The 320 had a recall earlier in its life for drop safety but they did a redesign of the interior since then. I think today it’s more of a poor excuse for negligence.

Respectfully submitted,

United Nations

Again? This is the first I’ve replied to you. I think you misunderstood my position.

My only issue was with you claiming it was one judge not four.

I agree with the overall idea, but this wasn’t one judge it was the majority (4-3).

Even when all parties do the best we can reasonably expect on occasion a bone will slip through. But when that happens and someone suffers injury because of it they deserve restitution if they specifically ordered a boneless product.

The court didn’t look at the breach of warranty claim. Which was probably the best argument in this case.

This is an implied warranty of merchantability issue. They said boneless and it had a bone. In your watermelon example if you were hospitalized it’d be a valid claim to make.

Trump may be a very poor candidate, but he didn’t kill 13 million people.

I don’t think people 20+ years from now will instantly jump to Trump when they hear Donald. Just like how if you meet George you don’t think of Bush.

I think Cory Booker has potential. But a ham sandwich is the most electable candidate today. Just be somewhat alive and not problematic.

Not born in America. So he’s a no go.

So you honest to God believe that the Boston Massacre isn’t an important event in American history? Just as the the French-Indian War which had it not occurred the Revolution wouldn’t have happenen?

My supporting evidence only has served as a platform for you to hang your own argument off of. If you needed to go to Wikipedia to learn about the French-Indian War just now you’ve no place to qualify American History as solely that of the English.

yet i easily did it

You did it wrongly as well. The protestants arriving was critical in establishing Massachusetts as an English stronghold. If the English never colonized MA there would be no Lexington & Concord.

Claiming that citing supporting evidence is cherry picking is ridiculous. You imply such without supporting you claim with a single point, as if there was a sea of evidence contrary.

What about the French Indian War? Is that American history under your fine line model? How about the Boston Massacre? None of the involved parties there would have even considered independence at the time.

There’s multiple people on here with multiple opinions, and those opinions are subject to change as new information arises.

The history of the land is the history of America. My “cherry picking” is just pulling events that every American student gets taught in k-12 American History classes. This isn’t American exceptionalism this is recognizing that “French History”, “English History”, and “Native American History” that happen on American soil are American history.

Trying to divide the history as being that of a government rather than a land is impossible to do as the histories of governments are interwoven.

History builds on itself. The French and Indian War (1754-63) might not be considered by you to be the history of the USA but it was George Washington that sparked off the conflict. And it would inform the relations with native nations down the line. It also created the terrible economic situation that lead the taxation of the colonies. But for that war we wouldn’t have the America we have today.

And that war would have been much different if not informed by earlier conflicts like King Phillips War. There’s no fine line to be drawn.

Only if you define American history as that of the current United States government which would exclude events most if not all would consider core events to American history. Like the Pilgrims landing, Lexington & Concord, and Bunker Hill. If you define it as the history of those who lived on the land you arrive at a different conclusion.

I think he was alluding to pre 1776 American history as well.

It’ll be some time before we see 5 m of rise.