Selective reading also reveals motives. I haven't seen a single leftie defend Dem men caught in the files ... 100% always say "fuck them, too, just get *everyone* that was involved." How can you not have seen this??

Proper science must go through a peer review process that transcends the funder. Sometimes you'll see research published without review by biased agencies like cigarette or oil companies, but that's not proper science. Claims must be falsifiable, and peer reviewed, always.

MSM is, just, whatever.

I'm calling BS on this. There's no way they could identify 1 person, never mind 11, with the certainty required to justify *killing them* based on that imagery! If they're claiming they had some sort of deep prior surveillance, let's see it!

Excuses will all be non-falsifiable, of course!

Is that the fruit fly lab? I loved that lab, back in my biology days! Until a fungus killed all my flies during the final generation. :( But still lots to write up, math to do present!

Pretty sure all the prior bombings were justified (rightly or wrongly, that's not my point) as legitimate political/ideological targets. Carrying drugs to sell in the US is not an ideological action, it is criminal, and falls under the purview of justice, not defence. That's how this is different.

That's your yard?? 😳 Color me jealous! Very nice! :)

Well said! I love me a good Oxford comma as well! Puts everything on an nice, even keel, I say!

Yeah, but Golden posted about the hypocrisy of Obama's statement, given his controversial drone strikes. What made you roll your eyes at Newsom? Is his condemnation of political violence hypocritical as well?

Wait, did Newsom order a drone strike on civilians??!! How did I miss this news?! 😳

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.”

― John Adams