Toxic chemicals are found in nature, yes.

Everything... is chemicals.

"I'm just saying what everyone's thinking!" says only person thinking that.

"Obey orders or I'll kill you," is a robbery.

And if one person commits a murder during a robbery, they're not only still considered guilty of murder but so are their accomplices who created the situation.

​

I know you openly want a police state, but you're in favor of crime so it's not even a proper police state.

I've never been on a stage with a ramp, though I've been on plenty where you don't need one if you enter from backstage.

I dunno, quite a lot of people lack proper reading comprehension. That's a skill expected of someone with a high school education.

When I used to score standardized tests, there was a type of test paper we referred to as "The Attack of The Saurus." It referred to students who were trying to use a lot of big words, but didn't quite have them mastered.

Just thought I'd mention it. No reason.

That's normal for Monopoly.

It's a paraphrase.

"Studies are bad. I hate science. Data is yucky!"

>(how cautious varies from police department to police department, as well as far more care taken by EMTs)

In my experience police cars will turn on their sirens as they enter an intersection without slowing down at all, even though they didn't have them on in the first place any immediately turn them off afterwards, because they think that's legal and if it's legal there's no reason not to do it. Kind of surprising I've never seen one get T-boned.

Also in my experience ambulances do not do that.

The ambulance has to slow down and check because they can't assume drivers on a different road entirely have already noticed them--they'd be driving into traffic fairly often if they did.

But those drivers on the other road do stop once they've noticed. "Would otherwise be unlawful." So... it's not unlawful in this situation, then. That's a change to right of way.

Yes, that's the subject of the study.

Sounds like a reason to measure the impact to evaluate costs and values. Which is what a study is. Why do you hate science?

Also, they all hate science.

If everyone leaves room to move over, stopped traffic takes up the entire road anyway and the ambulance can never get through.

You think multiple lanes of traffic can all fit in the shoulder, which is generally smaller than one of the lanes? It's not physically possible--and that's where there is a shoulder at all.

And still not helpful at all for cars stopped at a red light who have nowhere to go. Cars can't just move sideways, they always have to go forwards unless they're moving backwards.

Emergency vehicles approaching intersections in stopped lanes are often not visible to approaching from the other direction because there are other vehicles (not to mention buildings) in the way. They have to be at the intersection to be seen.

>I'm referring to an emergency vehicle coming up to the intersection with the lights and siren on.

If you're approaching the intersection, drivers on the perpendicular road can't see or hear you at all yet. You're not on the same road. They can't react until after you get there.

>Emergency vehicles flip lights on and mash the throttle once they reach an intersection.

Police cards do that all the time. And then turn off the lights after, because there was never an emergency they just didn't feel like obeying traffic laws right then.

Yes. They were. Literally.

That's what happened. Why are you so dedicated to lying about? I'm not going to suddenly forget what happened, sorry.

That was the plain, unembellished description. The biased one was "riot."

I don't have to justify a plain, factual description. It's literally just what happened. I would never say they are "on par" with terrorists--they are literally, objectively, actual terrorists. It's only wild because the truth is wild, and that is most certainly not my fault.

You are not entitled to your own facts. You may not disagree with the facts. There are no alternative facts. These facts do not care about your feelings. Etc.

It's unclear from the title which of those two things happened "while on Tinder date."

Imagine inviting somebody to your house and that happens.

They call it a "riot" when people protest because murder is bad.

They call it a "riot" when a different group of people launch a terrorist attack against their own nation in an attempt to destroy said nation so that they can install as dictator the con artist in clown makeup that their death cult worships as a plague avatar.

Maybe those two things shouldn't use the same word--especially since neither is actually a riot anyway.

That's not what free speech means, though.

It's what he meant what he said it, but he was lying. Part of the lie is that that's not what it means at all.