You'd have to believe that its okay to run over law enforcement with your car while fleeing arrest and that it's perfectly fine to attack agents and their vehicles while armed. Both instances had an easily demonstrable lethal threat to the federal agents which makes their use of force justifiable. How far gone do you have to be to think that the actions of either of those activists were in any way lawful or peaceful in nature?

How can you have an investigation when leftist agitators forced federal agents to withdraw from the scene and where local authorities refuse to act? Any evidence was compromised by the same people who are crying foul. In the first case, the video evidence is conclusive on its own. In the second, events are less clear. However, even in the second case, you can't deny that the guy was interfering with the lawful duties of federal agents while armed after previously attacking an ICE vehicle. That's a far cry from the complete fantasy of the feds going around shooting innocent citizens. Stop attacking federal agents and bad things won't happen to you.

> the USA has the government executing citizens in the street with impunity.

Absolute propaganda. The lady that was shot by ICE was resisting arrest after intentionally interfering with federal authorities lawful duties. She tried to flee by car, pointed it at an agent and accelerated. The agent shot in self defense and the photos clearly show a gunshot through the front windshield. Your version is as abhorrent as the "hands up, don't shoot" lie where a cop shot a person that was beating on the cop as he was sitting in his cruiser.

The "nurse" that was shot was another activist intentionally interfering with authorities with prior video showing him damaging ICE vehicles while the agents were in transit. He was armed and got into a tussle with agents. At that point, you submit to arrest, you do not fight law enforcement. He reached for his firearm right after another agent had removed it. A gunshot rang out and agents reacted. While the source of the shot is unclear, the "nurse" put himself into that situation willingly. He wasn't a peaceful protestor. He wasn't observing law enforcement activity. He was a provocateur that learned the meaning of FAFO the hard way.

This persistent twisting of facts by the left has to stop. The federal government has full legal authority to defend our borders and is obligated to deport anyone that is in our country illegally, as is the duty of all nations. Denying this is akin to declaring that the world is flat.

That's why Europe doesn't have its own Google or Amazon or Microsoft. It's too hostile to business.

Then the feds apply tariffs or technology bans to the now-foreign businesses creating a need domestically which employs those people at new American companies. For a while it looked like China was going to dominate the tech sector, that's pretty much how that died. Not saying whether I think it's right or wrong, but it's now an observable pattern.

The size of the population doesn't matter to business if they're dirt poor. Other than being unskilled labor, which isn't something a company like Google needs.

The banks will adjust how they deal with credit scoring accordingly. They're not going to stop issuing credit cards just because the interest rates are capped. They may assess risk differently, but they'll still want the revenue.

Considering how much credit card debt people are saddling themselves with, wouldn't having cards cancelled and/or not issued be a good thing? Do you want to be hopelessly in debt? If you're not hopelessly in debt, your credit score will reflect that, and you'll be able to continue using credit cards responsibly. What's the downside?

Their push was for PCs with NPUs built in. That would host local AI workloads, not the cloud based stuff that gets handled by the "evil" datacenters. Problem is, those workloads don't really exist on the Windows platform, therefore the NPU is underutilized. It just needs a killer app, but there isn't one right now. People are gravitating to the cloud based stuff.

You probably also believe that Antifa is anti-fascism because that's their name. He was one of the people identified by the administration of being responsible for censorship in violation of our first amendment. Sure, they do it under the guise of "anti extremism". Our free speech rights have no such exception. Hate speech is free speech according to our courts. You're just proving my point. The US is on the right side of this, Europe is not.

Laughably predictable. Europe is violating free speech, but that's okay because of Trump. Any sane country would take a look at who is trying to enter their country, and they're going to filter out the bad apples. Maybe Europe wouldn't have seen so much violence over New Year's if they'd done the same.

Who has been imprisoned because of social media posts? The US is filtering out terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. That's a good thing. You don't want to be killed by terrorists, do you?

Meanwhile, Ofcom is going after 4Chan and every other site for actual free speech. France went after the head of Telegram. The EU seems to think X owes it an insane amount of money in fines, also because of free speech. Is Europe winning yet? Even Australia is ditching privacy under the guise of "protecting the children". But yeah, the US protecting its border, that's big brother! Good grief.

I'm just waiting to see how long it takes for these companies to sew advertising into the AI output. That's the best part about using AI chat programs, you can search for and read information without ads, without needing accounts on a bunch of random sites, without being tracked, and without nightmarish page layouts and color choices. It's a good thing that you just know marketing dweebs are looking to get their greedy sausage fingers into.

It is the same thing if you have to be politically connected in order to exercise the right. Even if you want to strip the right from everyone, you're removing a right.

What you do in the workplace and what you do in war are very different things. You may wish to consult your employee handbook if you don't know this.

"Anyway I shall bring whatever I choose to the office. Turns out if enough people bring it, then it matters, because a company needs employees."

I doubt you'd be as in favor if this if you were on the losing side of it.

"The workers at Mozilla did the upstanding thing, they informed their employer they would quit and gave them the option to choose"

No they didn't. They refused to work but still wanted to be paid. Had they quit, that I might have respected. They stuck around and interfered with the activities of those that chose to continue doing the work they were being paid for.

"Oh yeah I do know it's because Eich free speeched on something you agree with and then got massive blowback because people free speeched right back at him."

I don't want any activism in the workplace regardless of who is doing it. I'm not antireligion, but I don't like religion in the workplace, even if it's just passing out pamphlets or seeking donations. I'm pro-gun rights, but I don't want to hear about that at work either. I want to do the job and go home and not run into any non-work related strife along the way. There's enough stress on the job, we don't need to add more.

Mozilla is going down over this BS. You're still fanning the flames.

"You can't have freedom of expression without people having the freedom to say you're a dickwad."

On the job? That's not where your freedom of expression should be practiced. Do that on your own time.

"I don't even agree he should have been fired over it but he should have had to answer for it and the idea he would be fired over it to me is nowhere near out of bounds"

Except that a firing would have been out of bounds. CA protects employees against discrimination based on political affiliation and activities. By denying people the ability to participate in the political process, are you not in favor of stripping rights from workers yourself?