I dont really discuss politics anymore. It's a mute point. Whether I like Biden or not I have to stand behind him and Hope's he does the best for us. He won't but one can hope.The guy is an embarrassment. Whispers during his speeches like some kind of fucking pervert. Also wheres the woke crowd with their pussy cat hates calling for Cuomo to be ousted? One big fucking joke.
I’ll light the fire. How is Biden an embarrassment compared to what we had for the last four years? Lmao if Trump had four more years we would have been worse off with this virus than we are now.
Biden is just as bad a president as trump. It doesn’t come with all the public shit that trump pulled so in theory its better, but this administration is a fucking mess.
And its not going to get better when biden dies any day now .
Biden is just as bad a president as trump. It doesn’t come with all the public shit that trump pulled so in theory its better, but this administration is a fucking mess.
I dont really discuss politics anymore. It's a mute point. Whether I like Biden or not I have to stand behind him and Hope's he does the best for us. He won't but one can hope.The guy is an embarrassment. Whispers during his speeches like some kind of fucking pervert. Also wheres the woke crowd with their pussy cat hates calling for Cuomo to be ousted? One big fucking joke.
* "moot point"
'Moot Point' or 'Mute Point'?
We'll get to the point.
For the most part, moot and mute keep their distance from each other. No law student refers to “mute court,” and no one looks for a remote’s “Moot” button during commercials. But in one common locution they’re now found swapping places rather often: the "moot point."
By the early 20th century, 'moot point' began to mean "an issue that lacks practical significance."
Moot goes back to pre-Norman-Conquest England, when it referred to a collective assembly for meting out justice. In contrast, mute, meaning “silent” or “unable to speak,” derives from a French ancestor that was imported to Britain by those same wily Normans. Thus, the two are hard to connect historically.
Strictly as a noun, moot is now only used in historical contexts (and on Game of Thrones). As a verb (“the issue was ultimately mooted by the firm’s bankruptcy”), it has been used mostly by lawyers. And as an attributive, its medieval meaning still echoes in the name of a venerable law-school ritual: the mandatory moot court, in which students pose as lawyers on opposite sides of a case, preparing briefs and then arguing them orally as if in a courtroom. Think mock trial, but on the appellate level.
The term “moot point” has been used since the mid-19th century to mean an unsettled issue appropriate for law-school debate. By the early 20th century it began taking on the related sense of an issue that lacks practical significance—related because the outcome of the rhetorical trial won’t change anything in the real world. Though this latter sense is relatively new, it has become (at least on this side of the Atlantic) perhaps more common than the original.
It was a moot point to consider whether the temptations that would be brought to bear upon him in his course would exceed the staying power of his nature. — Thomas Hardy, Two on a Tower, 1882
While the term’s meaning expanded, its spelling remained unchallenged for over a century. But around 1960 we began to see the variant “mute point” popping up. And today, though “mute point” is still widely shunned in edited publications, it nevertheless can sometimes be seen slipping through here and there.
Say what you will about Paul Gascoigne - and most people have over the years - but he remains one of the most technically gifted players in Great Britain. For how much longer is a mute point - his tank is running low - but where there is a will, there is possibly a way. — Russell Kempson, The Times (London, Eng.), 10 Sept. 1998
Since moot and mute aren’t swapped elsewhere, why the mixup here? Beyond their physical similarity, could it be that, however unacceptable “mute point” may be to purists, it really isn’t completely nonsensical? Doesn’t the notion of a noisy debate that has gone figuratively silent, or of an issue that is ”silent” in its real-world import, actually seem kind of reasonable? That said, keep in mind that should you use it, the people ready to tell you it's incorrect will not have a mute button.
Man all kids of protests going on around the world right now.
Ireland and france are protesting mandatory vaccines for different reasons. France is trying to make them mandatory for healthcare workers and ireland is trying to make them mandatory for people going to pubs.
“The police are supposed to serve and protect,” Anthony’s father, John Huber, said in a statement, “but that’s not what the Kenosha police did. They walked away from their duties and turned over the streets of Kenosha to Kyle Rittenhouse and other armed vigilantes. If they had done their job, my son would still be alive today.”
I mean in theory that is exactly what they are supposed to do. And it is literally printed on every single cop car in America. “To serve and protect.” But instead they are terrorists which is why everybody hates them. Which is why I love when retards’ arguments for police brutality is always “Well these gangbangers cause more death than police.”
Difference is it is not a gangbanger’s LITERAL JOB to protect civilians.
It’s not their literal job. That’s the part that everyone gets twisted. Legally speaking, Police have no special duty to protect you as an individual because they serve society as a whole.
To protect and serve is a personal motto/creed and not legally binding in any way.
Comments
'Moot Point' or 'Mute Point'?
For the most part, moot and mute keep their distance from each other. No law student refers to “mute court,” and no one looks for a remote’s “Moot” button during commercials. But in one common locution they’re now found swapping places rather often: the "moot point."
By the early 20th century, 'moot point' began to mean "an issue that lacks practical significance."
Moot goes back to pre-Norman-Conquest England, when it referred to a collective assembly for meting out justice. In contrast, mute, meaning “silent” or “unable to speak,” derives from a French ancestor that was imported to Britain by those same wily Normans. Thus, the two are hard to connect historically.
Strictly as a noun, moot is now only used in historical contexts (and on Game of Thrones). As a verb (“the issue was ultimately mooted by the firm’s bankruptcy”), it has been used mostly by lawyers. And as an attributive, its medieval meaning still echoes in the name of a venerable law-school ritual: the mandatory moot court, in which students pose as lawyers on opposite sides of a case, preparing briefs and then arguing them orally as if in a courtroom. Think mock trial, but on the appellate level.
The term “moot point” has been used since the mid-19th century to mean an unsettled issue appropriate for law-school debate. By the early 20th century it began taking on the related sense of an issue that lacks practical significance—related because the outcome of the rhetorical trial won’t change anything in the real world. Though this latter sense is relatively new, it has become (at least on this side of the Atlantic) perhaps more common than the original.
While the term’s meaning expanded, its spelling remained unchallenged for over a century. But around 1960 we began to see the variant “mute point” popping up. And today, though “mute point” is still widely shunned in edited publications, it nevertheless can sometimes be seen slipping through here and there.
Since moot and mute aren’t swapped elsewhere, why the mixup here? Beyond their physical similarity, could it be that, however unacceptable “mute point” may be to purists, it really isn’t completely nonsensical? Doesn’t the notion of a noisy debate that has gone figuratively silent, or of an issue that is ”silent” in its real-world import, actually seem kind of reasonable? That said, keep in mind that should you use it, the people ready to tell you it's incorrect will not have a mute button.
Really the same thing these days Mr Gnomez
“The police are supposed to serve and protect,” Anthony’s father, John Huber, said in a statement, “but that’s not what the Kenosha police did. They walked away from their duties and turned over the streets of Kenosha to Kyle Rittenhouse and other armed vigilantes. If they had done their job, my son would still be alive today.”
“The police are supposed to serve and protect“
lol
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
Difference is it is not a gangbanger’s LITERAL JOB to protect civilians.