AU9377

We have no power over those countries accepting refugees. They don't want them because they don't want the headache of filtering out the militants. They still don't want them slaughtered.

Everybody wants the debt and the yearly budget deficit reduced, but nobody is willing to sacrifice whatever special interest they support. We talk a good game about capitalism, but in one way or another we subsidize almost every type of industry, regardless of its ability to sustain itself.

Biden isn't delaying the win. In order to maintain any legitimacy in our efforts to maintain good relations with Egypt, Jordan and other countries, the U.S. cannot be seen as advocating the mass slaughter of women and children in refugee camps. We are still openly in support of the objective, which is the eradication of Hamas leadership in Gaza. Israel is now down to an area that is roughly 20 square miles in land area. Killing 50 thousand civilians in Rafah won't achieve the objective. It will achieve a stronger cementing of Iran's position.

They are here for the same reason that Indian doctors come here. They want to work and make a lot of money. They also want their children to have a future better than the future they had where they came from. That is the easy part, understanding why they come. We simply have to do a better job at regulating immigration. That includes understanding that we cannot accept everyone without consequences.

Atlanta prices are already at a breaking point. The scary thing is that most people don't realize how little of a push that it would take to cause defaults and send a lot of homes into foreclosure.

Yeah... that is Biden's fault too. LOL The sad thing is that there are people that actually believe that.

There is no chance whatsoever that our AD will fire Butch Thompson. That is a good thing. He will likely ask what he can do to help him get back to the standard Butch himself has set.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The only things that have ever brought us together have been wars and large scale disasters. Sad, but true.

I agree. He was also a weak candidate last election. His saving grace was simply that he was viewed as more acceptable to never Trump Republicans and Independents than most of the other Democrats in the race. He then pandered to the black caucus and picked Kamala Harris as his VP in hopes of churning turnout in minority districts in states like Georgia and Michigan. One view is that it worked and the other is that it didn't matter who was on the ticket, they would have beaten Trump in a close race. Views on all of them are driven by the media people consume more than any other single factor. The only thing the American public seems to have time for is fighting each other proving to the rest of the world just how entitled we have become.

They call Michael Cohen a liar, but won't acknowledge that his lies were on behalf of Donald Trump. I'm certain that it plays well within the cult of adoration and helps them get on Fox "news" later today. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trumps-gop-allies-show-up-in-force-as-michael-cohen-takes-the-stand-in-hush-money-trial/ar-BB1mjQWu

The population growth issue is something that gets close to no attention, yet it impacts economic growth in a major way. We aren't the first major country to deal with it, but it is something we have never had to deal with before.

He deserves prison. Nothing worse than someone that was able to skate by the first time and instead of changing his behavior, he decides to go all in.

It was, if you don't count Reagan's, Clinton's or Obama's. That must make it true....

I actually agree with you more than i disagree when it comes to the cause.

The body cam footage is what has the cop in hot water. What is happening around the country is unfortunate, but this case isn't about that. This is about a young man needlessly losing his life at the hands of law enforcement. The officer is allowed to stop and detain someone on the street. He is allowed to carry a weapon anywhere and he is given the authority to detain and imprison someone. The public places trust in the officer. The officer has a responsibility to not abuse that trust. This type of shooting makes the lives of police officers more difficult, not less. These type of shootings erode that trust. I am not anti cop and 8 times out of 10 defend their actions. This particular shooting is simply difficult, if not impossible, to defend.

She wasn't there. We will never know what he actually heard or what he knew because the policeman chose to kill him rather than simply telling him to put the firearm down and asking him to step outside the apartment. He was only there to ask if everything was ok in the apartment. There was no active disturbance and there would have been no arrest or probable cause to enter the apartment.

We will see. The facts here are much worse than any other case I can recall like this. The body cam footage is crystal clear in showing that Fortson made no aggressive move toward the officer or acted in any manner that suggested unloading into his chest could be justified. Unfortunately, we have promoted the gun culture that is now eating at our core.

This officer will now lose his job and serve 10-20 years in prison. I hate it for his family as well, but the situation should have never happened.

Nobody has the right to fire a weapon at another human being without justification. Nobody. There are way too many circumstances that are close calls. This isn't one of them. Watch the body cam footage and tell me what justifies shooting him 6 times in the chest. In fact, if this officer had entered that apartment without a warrant, he would have been entering the apartment illegally. There was no disturbance at that apartment. The guy was an active duty senior airman in the Air Force. Do you really think he gets shot if he is white? We cannot have two sets of rules in a functioning society.

It clearly shows that the gun was not pointed in the direction of the officer. It was pointed down and away. When the victim saw the officer's weapon drawn, he raises the other hand as though his hand can shield him from the shots, but never raises the gun in a defensive manner. He never makes an aggressive move toward the officer whatsoever and is inside his home. There was no disturbance at all when the officer arrived. None. He was home alone. The gun looked like a 9mm handgun. My dad keeps a shotgun near the front door. If someone from the Sheriff's dept was banging on his door, he may very well answer the door holding that shotgun, which he has every right to do. This officer had no probable cause to enter the apartment. The only first hand information he had was from a woman that told him she heard people arguing in that apartment "a couple of weeks ago when she walked by the unit." That was clearly BS, considering that the unit was on the 4th floor and on the end. Walking by would not be possible.

I just don't understand how anyone can watch the body cam video and actually believe that was a justified use of force. It clearly was not. He is entitled to defend himself to the charges that will be forthcoming. Nobody has argued that he isn't. This is much much worse than the George Floyd series of events. I often defend an officer's decision to use force. I still don't understand how people cannot see the officer's point in the Michael Brown shooting. This isn't like either. Michael Brown was issued several warnings and continued to be the aggressor. This man was in his own home and did nothing illegal. This man's crime was _____________________________ . He didn't point the gun at the officer or say anything threatening. He lost his life because a police officer decided that firing multiple shots was the best way to handle what situation?

That was legal for him to own and was not pointed at the officer. Should anyone holding a weapon capable of causing harm be shot on site? This situation wasn't an officer involved in some sort of altercation. Watch the body cam video. The guy opened the door and the officer immediately began shooting. The police officer could not have legally entered the man's home, but he had the right to shoot to kill?

Because legally it should have. He had done nothing wrong. Therefore, he should have been fine opening the door.