Tolerance and understanding is nothing to be wary of, except when it negatively affects a victim of a crime.
Allow me to illustrate: ” Tolerance and understanding is nothing to be wary of, except when it negatively affects a victim of a crime.”
This man got 30 days. Why? Misplaced tolerance and understanding. “Can’t put him with the ‘real criminals’ right?” (except he is a real criminal…)
I thought you didn’t work in the Thought Police Dept?
“Tolerance and understanding is nothing to be wary of, except when it negatively affects a victim of a crime.”
FL Stand your ground law. I’m not saying it’s inherently a bad law. I may think it is but maybe it can be purposeful.
For or against, this is a case that, so far shows an excess of tolerance and understanding for the shooter. Here the law, since 2014, is on his side – for now.
But it’s going up to the state level and if it’s mishandled, with too much tolerance and understanding, it will probably kill the law they want to keep in a future administration.
Nah. I’m satisfied with it. “failures on both sides” weakens the fact that it’s Republican appointed folks getting actually tried for involuntary manslaughter.
Handwave with “all sides are to blame” if you like, but all sides don’t seem to be on trial.
Water quality is usually a state problem, handled at state level.
Asking the EPA to intervene is asking a slow moving dinosaur to get anything done.
Look how Washington DC’s lead problem was mishandled not just by the EPA but the CDC – and not in a Democrat ruled administration. It’s a slow culture, throwing problems like water quality back to the States whenever they can.
They do good work in a lot of areas, but drinking water quality is definitely an EPA cultural failure.
If you want more to the story, it’s that your story (narrative) about “banks, generally speaking” is missing reality.