Jump to content




  • Content Count

  • Joined


  • Birthday January 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Some where within the space-time continuom

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Democrats make U-turn on calling border a 'manufactured crisis' Democrats now acknowledge there is a genuine humanitarian crisis and are preparing to pass legislation that would provide as much as $4.5 billion in federal aid to address the surge of migrants from Central America. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/449214-dems-make-u-turn-on-calling-border-a-manufactured-crisis
  2. Think that attempting to cram so many candidates into one debate would have been an even greater disaster. As it is I doubt that the field will iddle down anytime soon. The time of low intensity campaigning that is taking place at this time means that even those that are pollling the lowest can afford the vanity. It's not until the expense of etting up credible campaing organizations especially in Iwa and New Hamphire that relit will set in and we will see multiple candidates drop out. I simply see little reason why any canddate would drop out anytime prior to the end of the year.
  3. I never took offense or believed that you were being dismissive. You are simply arguing what you see as the facts as inteerpreted by your viewpoint. It's only when you listen to the views of those you disagree with and they in turn listen to your views that their is any hope to even find any common ground in a particular dispute. Further, aggressive supporting your own views or pointing out the weaknesses in an opponents arguments is or should not be considered "offensive" or "dismissive". After all, unless we are totalitarians and insist that the only acceptable view is that we oursleves espouse, there will always be differences on how reasonable people view the facts, the the causes and effects of those facts.
  4. Yes but the seminal difference between the Good Samaritan Laws and the case involvling the cop in Florida is that the Good Samaritan Laws acknowledge that any responsibility to help or report a crime or dire situation is conditional on you not having to put your safety at risk and the case in Florida would impose a duty to place yourself in imminent danger of your life or face criminal charges. Please note I am not arguing that a police officer should not have such a duty only that under present law he does not. Moreover, it would be wrong to suggest that it's the crrent standard of policing for the first officer at a ccite of a mass or multiple shooting to simply enter the premises without another thought as if police officers are supposed to be Rambo's. Truth is that the standard practice in the 1980's and 1990's was for the first officers to arrive to seal the sight not allowing others to enter or the perpertrater to leave until the local SWAT team came arrived. And it would be they who entered the building. After the 1990's the standard has changed so that while the setting up of a perimeter is still the first order of business once the perimeter is secred and sufficent officers arrive police officers enter the premises to confront the assailant and rescue any civilians that may be in the building. The problem with the Florida case is that it seems that it was either official policy or unofficial pracitice for that particular police department to totally secure the area and wait to have either overwhelming numbers or the arrival of the SWAT team before they entered the cite of the shooting. Presumably that is why the state took the rather unprecedented move of firing the police chief and several other high ranking members of the force. It's this combined with the rather dubious allegation that the first officer to arrive has a legal duty to enter the building and engage the shooter or shooters which makes me highly doubrful of the said prosecution of officer.
  5. I would point out that even Minnesota's "Good Samaritan Law" includes an out if acting would place the person in jeopardy. "I am still very sure one of is mistaken here and I still don't think it's me." I Cite a quote from the original New York Times article: "But experts say that criminally charging a law enforcement officer for allegedly being negligent in his response to a mass shooting is new ground." "“This is the first time I have seen somebody so charged like this,” said Clinton R. Van Zandt, a former profiler with the F.B.I. and an expert on mass shootings. " Even the FBI expert admits that the law enforcement officer who did not respond is breaking new legal ground and he is not aware that police officer has ever been attempted to be held criminally liable in similar circumstances. "What were the charges again?" From what I gather from the articles I have read the charge is "criminal negligence" which depending on the state is usually either acting wrecklessly or wantonly which is the highest level of negligence (smiple negligence, gross negligence, and wreckless negligence). Please note that in this case the charge is not that the oficer did not actively act in a criminally negligent manner but that his failure to act at all amounts to criminal negligence.
  6. "So the leave vote was diverse, and for many different things. We have no way of quantifying what the country actually voted for" Well actually we know that a majority of those voting in the referendum definately wanted a fundamental change from the the status of being a full EU member. "In my ideal world a vote with multiple options needs to be a transferable. Any option will need to attain more than 50% of the vote for us to make any progress, I suspect that we'd end up with no deal/remain as the last 2 options with the split being decided by soft brexiteers. It won't happen as government can't even organise themselves to do that lol" Of cpousre as a remainder you would want a Second Referendum as your side obviously lost the Referendum. also know "progress" will occur as an operation of EU law on October 31, when the UK will bust out of the Eu without the requirement of any additional vote.
  7. "I'm just being cynical in thinking that farage is being opportunistic when pre referendum he was arguing for the "Norway option" but now that's a betrayal of the leave vote" Yes prior to the Tories agreeing to hold a Brexit referendum he supported the Norway option as it was the most that he could hope for. Once the nation voted for Brexit, the situation obviously changed as totally leaving the EU had become not only possible but the express wish of the voters as signaled by Leaves victory in the referendum. If the government had done it's best to secure a good deal instead of either capitulating cmpletely to the wishes of the EU, a case might be made that the Norway option might be the objective best that could be agreed to, But having the government (led by remainders) so completely betray there stated aim to adhere to the results of the Brexit Referendum, calls to accept the Norway plan is seen as a rather transparent wish by Remainders to do everything they can to dishonor the democratic will that voted for Brexit. A last aside. You keep saying that the polls now show that a majority would now vote for Remain. But how would that change if the option presented were not simply a no deal Brexit and remaining in the EU but included a third option that was essentially the Norway solution or something akin to it? Might not a large portion of those now claiming to support Remain not opt for that Third intermediate option? By GFA are you suggesting that either the Global Furniture Alliance or the Guatamaln Families Association have something relevant to say on the Brexit process? 😉
  8. Well I only not that the situaton in San Francisco is so bad that an App was developed to report and warn people of the locations of human feces. But I agree that there is nothing particularly better in LaLa Land. Interctive Map showing the feces problem in San Francisco: https://www.openthebooks.com/map/?Map=32504&MapType=Pin&Zip=94103
  9. "Farage will scream betrayal, and people will believe him. That will happen anyway regardless of how we leave, that was always going to happen. There's no easy fix to it unfortunately" Farange like Trump is not the cause of the outrage merely the person that effectively voiced the outrage.
  10. "In principle you're right, the issue is that at some point our government are going to have to choose between regulatory alignment with the EU, q hard border in Ireland or an internal border. Brexiteers still think they'll find a unicorn and until they admit that unicorns aren't real we're messed up. This isn't the remainers unable to solve this, it's the brexiteers." Why exactly the Irish border a problem? The extent that a border is militarized, hard or soft is a function of bilateral agreements (or disagreements). The Ireland is an Island in which there two Nations that inhabit it decided under the Easter Agreements to have an open border. It seems to me that it's the EU is overstepping it's authority in attempting to negotiate a border policy of a member country.
  11. At least it does not include the Human Feces experience which has become a fixture of San Francisco walking tours.
  12. "Ok, agreed people vote on generalities not specifics. So let's look at the general promises made by vote leave, let's start with a deal, since they said no deal would be insanity. Or maybe no economic shock. Or maintaining access to the SM (when they weren't saying we'd still be in it) etc. No deal doesn't deliver even the basics of what they said" It delivers the essential part of what they claimed, reuturning immigration policy and the power to decide their own destiny in the future back to the UK. While the economic component of Leaving the EU is an important aspect it is not nor even the most important for those who voted Leave. "The money we owe, agreed at £39 billion (not as high as you stated earlier but not small either" I made an honest mistake the figure I quoted was in US Dollars not Pound Sterling and was based on the exchange rate that was current when the story I got it from was written. But please note that the UK "owes" that amount only to the extent that it is in the EU when the amount becomes due and payable. If the Uk leaves the EU under a no deal situation it is not obligated to pay such some. Moreover, while the payment of such some was bviously negotiable and was something that the EU wished for the UK got nothing of worse in exchange for agreeing to pay it under the negotiated deal . Agreement to pay it is simply another example that the "Deal" was negotiated in bad faith by by Remainders that only paid lip serivce to the result of the Brexit referendum. "I believe we would be in a stronger position if we maintained the position we had at the beginning, that nothing is agreed till everything is. Ie in theory we have a negotiated withdrawal, now let's negotiate the FTA. Then sign both, no need for the backstop and we're all good. However that means staying fully in the EU during these negotiations and that's politically unfeasible so [elaborate shrug gif]" The terms have a FTA could easily have been neogotiated within the three years since the Brexit referendum that it was not is another strong indication that the Government which was lead by Remainders was engaged in a Bad Faith attempt to either negotiate a deal that would change little of substance in the Uk relationship with the EU while still caliming to adhered to the results of the Brexit referendum or even worse was an attempt to negotiate the worst possible agreement so as to give rise to the Remainer cause.
  13. Really? For your information in the US people vote for President usually on their general stances not the nitty gritty details. So People who voted for Trump would be quite accept if Trump decided to keep the borders open but would generally not be too concerned with the details of his plan to close the borders to illegals. Moreover, the customs union and single market are part and parcel of the EU structucture so voting to leave the Eu would seem to imply that the UK would leave the customs union and the single market. This however, does not mean that people voting to leave the UK would expect their leaders to at the very least negotiate the best deal possible using all the leverage it can muster instead of accepting almost the entirety of the EU's initial negotiating position. Moreover, leaving the EU does not mean that the UK is totally forsaking trade with the EU as both are members of the ETC and moreover both have an economic interest to enter into a blilateral treaty (either now or in the future) that would allow for "freer" trade between the UK and the EU.
  • Create New...