Is this Cassidy McCree?

It only looks like leap after leap to you because it doesn’t agree with your basic premise.

On the absolute surface level, you make what seems to be a good point. I don’t think that point holds up to scrutiny, though, and such lazy (no offense meant by this; I’m not calling you lazy, only the point you’ve made) reasoning is not far removed from using “think of the chldren!” to justify an agenda.

Any dwelling that is not yours is generally assumed to be off-limits absent an invitation to enter. Ignoring that and breaking into said dwelling is implicitly a statement that you are disregarding the safety and security of the inhabitants. That further implies that you equally have no regard for the health and well-being of the inhabitants, as your actions are putting your needs or desires ahead of theirs. You have, wittingly or not, made yourself a threat to the inhabitants of the dwelling.

Responding to an immediate, credible threat against one’s life with lethal force is quite rational.

I have no doubt that this will have detrimental long-term effects on the boy. I also have no doubt that the very experience of being present during a home invasion would have had similar long-term effects.

A ban is imposed on a person or an action. It can be rescinded at any time, but remains in place until it is explicitly rescinded. An expiration can be included in the terms of the ban, which automatically rescinds the ban after a set duration. The base definition of “ban” implies nothing about duration. Without clarification, any assumption regarding duration is baseless. Such clarification can be direct, such as including a clear statement of the period for which the ban is in place during the issuance of the ban, or indirect, such as context clues regarding the severity of the infraction that led to the ban being issued.

A suspension is placed upon statuses, privileges, credentials, or the like. Suspension is, by nature, a transitory state. Examples include being suspended from a job pending investigation of behavior, having one’s club membership suspended until club dues are brought current, or having one’s login credentials suspended while one’s account appears to be compromised. The transitory nature of a suspension implies that it resolves upon completion (or inaction on) of a task related to the object of the suspension. Upon completion of the sub-task, status is either reinstated or terminated. In the previous examples: employment is terminated upon conclusion of an investigation that proves the employee acted inappropriately, club membership is reinstated once payment of the outstanding balance is verified, account credentials are reinstated with access limitations once the account owner proves they are in control of the account.

Suspension is a step along the path to termination or revocation, not to a ban. The two terms are not directly related in that way. There can be overlap, but they are not different degrees of the same concept.

Keith David

Tiger Daly

That makes assumptions, like that they would have had all the ingredients available or that they would eat enough subs to make buying the ingredients more viable.

Jesus went to hell. That’s actual Christian doctrine. It’s called the Harrowing of Hell. 1Peter 4:6 and Ephesians 4:9 make direct reference to it.

If they’re losing so many electrons, they must be pretty positive by now.

Living up to the middle of your username, I see.

that’s a sticky question,

No, the banshee-wailing fuck it isn’t!

If someone truly believes they are in fucking danger, they need to remove themselves from the danger first and foremost, before any consideration of “but what about next election?”

O, to be so proverbially blissful.

The feeling is mutual.

You forgot the quotes. “Power.” She’ll be a progressive member of the minority party under a fascist regime who has already signaled a complete lack of care for its political adversaries.

I’d argue that the two women are not far removed from one enother in the amount of power they will wield.

Not a Democrat, just someone who understands that without unity during this election, we were always going to get this result.

There were two candidates who could win. I didn’t like either of them. That doesn’t mean one wasn’t closer to what I’d like to see for this country.

Now we have what we have.

Which is it? There are so, so many progressives who can effect change out there, or most everyone to the left of the Dems conformed but it wasn’t enough?

Road map for me how she will be of any positive effect once the new administration takes power.

Sounds like anyone and everyone who couldn’t figure out that we weren’t beating fascism unless we stuck together really fucked up. Now we get to live with it.

What we get to accept now is GOP control of the executive, judicial, and both chambers of the legislative.