When did the person you responded to say they were friend with rapists. When you resort to ad hominem attacks on peoples character, you're signalling to everyone you have already lost the argument and have nothing of value left to say, just take the L.

Everyone has been on this tangent for years, this isn't exactly news. I think it's worth noting that the problem isn't really this simple. They concentrate the juice and pump it full of "juice" that is really just sugar. If you actually buy real pressed 100% blueberry juice, for example, instead of apple sugar flavored with blueberries, the sugar content is lower. And because you would never actually want to drink 100% blueberry juice because it wouldn't taste how you are expecting, you would water it down. Suddenly you have a glass of juice with 5 grams of sugar instead of 30 grams and you are fine. Additionally, no matter the type of juice, it is nearly always over concentrated because they are trying to boost the sugar content. People should really be watering down any kind of store bought juice.

No one is actually drinking "100% juice", they are drinking a product that resembles the fruit of juice. These companies are not squeezing juice into a bottle, they are concentrating fruit sugars and adding them back into water. The problem is just as much with false advertising as anything. I'm not saying freshly squeezed juice is healthy, but it as sure as shit healthier than the fraud they are selling on the shelves. As with everything, the problem is money. Companies know they will sell more if they say it's juice and then pump it full of extra concentrated fruit sugar.

Edit: I wish more companies sold actual 100% real pressed fruit juice, I would buy it and water it down with soda water. I also wish they were more honest with their labeling about what they are actually doing. Not everything needs to be flawlessly healthy, but we could take steps in the right direction. You should only be able to label something as 100% juice if it actually is squeezed out of the fruit and put in the bottle with no interference and additional processing.

Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, also fought most of his life for housing equity for black people and low income housing in general. He fought to allow housing desegregation and to remove barriers that sought to redline areas. He ultimately staked, and lost, his political career over that fight. I suspect that's what made Mitt such a coward, he saw the price Republicans pay for having a conscience when the rest of the party doesn't. George wasn't responsible for what his parents did. I might not agree with everything George Romney believed, but he was a good man.

So land was simply taken from a torn place that couldn’t protect itself.

I mostly agree, but 'taken' is somewhat reductive, it was more like a forced partition. Jews already lived there and were already emigrating there en masse long before the end of WWII, Zionism ramped up in the late 1800's, 60 years before the Jewish state. There was already violence in that area through a lot of early Zionism and a civil war in the few years leading up to partition.

It would be like if the UK decided tomorrow to give 35% of the US to Hispanic Americans despite them only being ~20% of the population, it just a weird way to split up a country that is bound to cause conflict. (Jews were 30% of the population of Israel/Palestine when it was split in half) No one actually expected Israel to survive the wars at the start, as you said they just wanted to push the 'problem' onto someone else. If you're a displaced population what do you do if no one wants to take you and your under threat of death most places you go? It's important to remember that Jews were pretty much universally hated everywhere in the world prior to WWII, they didn't have many prospects for peace.

I suspect however that if partition never happened, there would still be ethnic conflict in that area and it would have just shifted who was the oppressed group. Which really highlights the real problem as you implied, the inability for many religious communities to live side by side. Look at India, Nigeria, Ireland, etc. Whenever you have 2 prominent religions in large enough numbers living closely together their fanaticism often doesn't allow a shared sense of national unity. Banning religion is a great way to make religion popular again though, not the best way to get rid of it. A secular education is the best way to get rid of religion.

There is no such thing as a good religious person

I've known extremely religious people that were very kind to everyone around them, only focused on doing good in the world, and never pushed their beliefs on anyone else. "Good" and "evil" are very reductive and simplistic terms. Good people can have beliefs that are not good for society and they are not completely defined by that. If we go to that absolute then there isn't a good person that exists. Pretty much everyone harbors beliefs, irrespective of religion, that when examined may be detrimental to society, they just don't know their own blind spots.

If they died or went to prison then unemployment would go back down. The truth is they have no intelligent solutions and their economic beliefs are all make believe.

Guess who just got themselves put on the “do not respond to emergency calls” list?

Oh no! Anyway...

It's not like they prevent crime, they show up afterwards, take a report and then you never hear from them again. If you're unlucky, they show up, get spooked, shoot you and lie on the report and still never do anything to help you. What exactly are you missing by having them never show up?

I imagine that was entirely their point.

"Centrism is a political outlook or position involving acceptance or support of a balance of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy while opposing political changes that would result in a significant shift of society strongly to the left or the right." - Wikipedia

Seems like you are describing being an independent, not a centrist, imo.

I think this cultural blame on SUV/truck drivers is misguided, and I pedal a bike to work and share a car with my wife. While I try to make responsible decisions, the impact I can have on the environment is tiny in comparison to large corporations and billionaires. Largely my "sacrifice" is meaningless, past giving me exercise and making me feel good about my decisions. If every middle income or poor person in the world did their best within the system to make responsible environmental decisions we would still be headed to, and in, a climate catastrophe. Policy has to change and corporations have to be forced into making more responsible decisions. An electric car is still an incredibly inefficient use of energy. But I can't force my city to add public transit to make not owning a car viable. Large properties and spread out infrastructure is also killing the environment, but I can't personally force city councils across the country to scale back single family zoning in favor of multi use zoning.

The main place regular people are failing is not what they drive, but who they vote for, imo.