Unclear what you're calling me liar about specifically? Are you saying that I'm lying that inert and weakened versions of these sprays don't exist? Because I can assure you they do. I am also not claiming that no-one goes through training with full versions of these products either. There are certifications that actually require it. But there are also plenty of people who seem to insist that training with inert or weakened products, or even the full versions under controlled conditions (not to mention generally with young and healthy participants) is the same as it happening to the average person.
Going back to the actual subject, even if the actual people getting training in these microwave torture rays have to have it tried on themselves, it's pretty certain they would get low power/short exposure, etc. They certainly wouldn't have it suddenly affect them out of nowhere with no idea what's going on it a confusing setting, in a large crowd that might suddenly start panicking and trampling each other.

A significant portion of the people we're discussing did not enter the US improperly, so that's not really that relevant. Something like half of the so called "illegal immigrants" entered legally.

It was right before the election.
As for this happening all the time in, for example, academia, it still doesn't usually happen with fast food bags full of cash. I know US conservative types love corruption and apologism for corruption, but come on. Some people, when they find out that someone who is supposed to be on their "side" had a closet full of gold bars and cash stuffed into shoes and bags and things don't fish around for every excuse possible actually say to themselves "this guy is corrupt, we should not support him".

Yeah, you know what I always used when doing freelance software development? A contract.

Follow your own advice. I pointed out that the issue is that you never clearly state what you're claiming is wrong out what I said which was largely factual statement and only partially opinion.

Clearly not irrelevant. Even you yourself wrote: "mmigration judges are part of the due process ". Note "part of" which was accurate, but that doesn't magically translate to regular judges somehow not having any say or being actual judges as opposed to "administrative judges". Remember that the context was you claiming that because Tom Homan said that some percentage had a removal order that somehow that meant that legal immigrants weren't being targeted. Since immigration judges are not the only authority, it's relevant that there are real judicial branch judges that can override them.

The point of the sarcastic response was you implying that all of the issues with the system are due to the specific cause of dealing with "fake" asylum claims.

I wasn't talking about that case at all. Although if you're bringing it up, you might need to look into the Tokyo convention and how flag jurisdiction works at international airports (for the excuse that once the plane landed, the US would lose jurisdiction, so it couldn't just land, not disembark the detainees, refuel and return). Also, you're ignoring that the people on the plane were detainees of the federal government, not of a civilian airline.

"Fines forgiven" indeed. Massive, unconscionably large fines that would not ultimately hold up in court intended specifically for purposes of coercion. Good example.

Considering that the country just passed its 250th anniversary and it's been less than a hundred years since that even became a thing, that's an obviously false statement. Not to mention that crossing the border and legally entering the country were actually distinct concepts for most of the time since. It was generally accepted that people could cross the border on the map, then present themselves to "enter" at a "port of entry". This was back when these things were run by people who had a good grasp of physical and geographical reality. These days of course, things are run by people who believe it's physically possible and practical to build a giant concrete wall exactly on the border line along the entire border (not to mention put a crocodile-filled moat on the US side). Honestly, some of these people seem to get their understanding of the physical world from cartoons (you know, where ideas like painting a continent with a giant paint roller work): raking the forests real good, a giant concrete border wall (not just a fence) right on the border line, bombing hurricanes, magically expanding highly regional small scale concepts like iron dome to a massive nation, etc. Traditional practices there were based on real world logistics.

Of course, once again, we're mostly not actually talking about people sneaking across the border into the country. The anti-immigrant faction always try to pretend that's the issue, but the main thing actually being discussed is people who came here legally, one way or another.

My argument did not hinge on things that were formerly not crimes being made into crimes, that was just an aside on my part and you're using it as a red herring here. My point was that there are many situations even now that are not crimes, but rather civil/administrative, but you are still pretending they are crimes.

Once again, a red herring. Many the people we're discussing didn't enter illegally.

Plenty of Americans are anti-immigration. Many of those are even first or second generation immigrants. That's hardly the point.

Fuck those guys five ways! They cannot die soon enough! When Google Fiber came, I jumped so fast I almost lost balance!
Again: fuck comcast!

Well, it would be interesting to hear why you disagree with anarchy so profoundly.

My basic principal is that "illegitimate hierarchies are bad." In particular, having a hierarchy without consent is bad (ie, no taxation without representation sort of thing).

I would like to say I have a full system for how a very good anarchy system should look, but I fully admit it's not an easy problem. So instead I focus on general principals, and trying to find incremental changes that will improve things with high probability.

Realistically, modern democracies are already a massive improvement on the situation in most countries 300 year ago, with a much weaker hierarchy. Since a full revolution carries significant risk, it's better to make incremental improvements one at a time (unless the problems in the current system are severe). But simplistic "left-right" thinking and political parties are both a net negative, as they are both a method employed by bullies to to increase their power over others. So I feel confident getting rid of them would be an improvement (although I do admit there are some benefits to parties, like recruiting candidates to smaller, less important offices or recruiting election observers. So we need to be aware of the positive and the negative).

I'm curious how the nuclear decay of sodium 22 produces antimatter to begin with. Does something transmute, for lack of a better word, into antimatter when its nuclear bonds are broken?

No one expects you to explain basic economics. You're too ignorant for that. Even looking at the Wikipedia page, you would have found several conflicting definitions, none of which is adequate (for example, capitalism originated with capitalists making loans to sponsor voyages. But they didn't own the ship, or the sailors, which are the means of production. So the definition at the top of the page falls flat at the original encounter in history). Without empathy we aren't evil, we are blind. It's not the same. Maybe you meant sympathy.

If you weren't an idiot, you could have just given a definition of capitalism (although different people have different definitions, so that doesn't work). Instead you decided to rant about America. Is America in the room with you?

It's kind of funny that Trump was bragging about how great the vaccine was and his role in it.

ok grandpa lol

Of course the purpose of the money was to steer future administration contracts to the those paying when he re-entered the employ of the federal government. In any case, the timing of it doesn't affect the fact that he was taking fast food bags stuffed with cash. That's weird no matter what job he had at the time.

Wrong (see, two can play at this idiotic game of just writing a single word vehement denial without specific reference to anything). What I said about them not being part of the judicial branch is entirely true. They are so called 'administrative judges" and really should be considered in the same league as judges at a pie eating contest.

Oh. Uh huh. Right, sure.

You are confusing required to honor with actually honoring. They use various workarounds, like rushing people to airports to make it a fait accompli, other gaming of deadlines, etc., aggressive litigation, and of course the classic of simply coercing people to "choose" to deport through various dirty tactics including ones that look a whole lot like human rights violations.

The fact that Homan is trying to pretend that it's all about stopping illegal immigration when a large part of what they are doing is throwing a monkey wrench into what would otherwise be legal immigration. For example, revoking green cards on the spot for things that don't meet the traditional crimes of moral torpitude standard.

Technically, yes. In any practical way, no. Quite aside from the problems of aiming and getting any reasonable concentration back where you want it, your targets will be either wearing lots of armor, helmets, facemasks, goggles, and other protective clothing or actually be inside what's basically a sort of urban tank. Then there's also the fact that, if you do, like many things authorities may throw randomly at crowds of people, if anyone throws them back they're treated as if they just attempted murder.

Which is why the companies that produce these also produce "inert" and low velocity/softer versions for training purposes. You hear these people going on about how people should just man up and they went through it themselves in training, but they're really talking about having saline solution sprayed in their eyes, etc.

I think you have to work a "high-T" and "anti-woke" in there somewhere. Possibly some form of stylized grunt as well.