Gromnir

the hypocrisy is thick. tell us more how your knowledge o' history made US support o' a new kurdish state the binary alternative to the humanitarian crisis which unfolded. fascinating stuff. genuine. the causal link o' hypotheticals all coming together and being described as likely/inevitable will no doubt be entertaining. am nevertheless moved to compassion for your personal plight. if is analogous to the kurds then is truly a matter which deserves international humanitarian attention. kinda fuzzy on details (no shock there) but if oro and kurds are simpatico save for the ptsd, must be horrific. you have our condolences and prayers that whatever is the vague and horrible tragedy which has befallen oro to put on par with the nightmares suffered by our former allies, then as much as we disagree with your bumbling reason and acceptance o' the unacceptable, you have our pity. Fox News reported Trump never said that dead US troops were 'suckers,' but the network's national security correspondent said ex-officials confirmed he did https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC fox news at it again... and when will they cover the florida tragedy? HA! Good Fun! ps when we did need go to trial, we much preferred bench trials. judges demand rational and reasonable. have mentioned on these boards more than once our lack o' faith in juries. people tend to believe they got critical thinking skills and is reasonable. have seen little evidence (not just talking juries) that such qualities is widespread.

something somebody heard on alt-right radio? such were never a serious concern. hardly binary: abandon to mass murder or a kurdish state made possible by constant US involvement. rl is rare binary, save for the upcoming election which will be either biden or trump. is gonna be a choice even for those who do not choose. from a cold/heartless practical perspective, we did lose a valuable intelligence gathering asset which could warn us o' those threats o' which trump voters have an existential fear. 'stead we got one less intelligence resource at the expense o' a humanitarian crisis as well as a cautionary tale for any considering future alliances with the US-- we are faithless, mercurial and mercenary when it comes to alliances. tough sell. am not knowing oro situation, but the media must be worse than we imagined if florida is suffering the same fate as the kurds. you need get the word out that not only are the governor and President killing you by the thousands with their incompetent response to covid-19, but that armed forces are chasing you from your homes and murdering you in the streets. terrible that no media, regardless o' skew, is covering the true scope o' the tragedy in florida. lets us all pause for a moment o' silence in memoriam o' the heretofore unknown florida tragedy. much like the bowling green massacre, we shall never forget. HA! Good Fun!

already linked the troop deployment articles. we got virtual same presence overseas as 2016 but we did get to add one o' those shameful American acts to the list by abandoning the kurds (again) and getting untold numbers o' our former allies murdered. Go Team America! HA! Good Fun!

true but misleading. very few americans is employed by contract. the vast majority is at will employees. if your employment is o' the K variety, there is a high probability the terms o' the contract will discuss, in mind numbing detail, what becomes o' the employee-employer relationship if the employee may no longer perform. you are a musician who has a contract to play "piano man" by billy joel on demand for a wealthy eccentric. length o' employment is five years. you injure your hand, (severe carpal tunnel syndrome from too much internet messaging,) and are no longer able to perform according to terms o' the K. K may says that if injury is anything other than an act o' God, the K is terminated. maybe K says that even if the musciscian is at fault for injury, he remains employed for term o' the K, but at 1/3 pay. maybe... collective bargaining creates uniformity. instead o' each player negotiating what is the terms o' their employment K, is done as a group, and as a group, the players agreed to stuff like drug testing and termination for inability to perform. am gonna suggest the actual villains is the veteran players who sell out their younger and less influential members so they may enjoy larger individual contracts. a veteran player who already has a few million in the bank is willing to risk termination for injury if it means they may personal negotiate a larger individual K. HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* never link us something which original came from breitbart and expect we won't deride or criticize. the legislation don't lower penalties for convictions. what the law does is it provides more judicial discretion... although the list o' exceptions where a judge may not decide is so voluminous as to severe undercut the perceived goal o' the legislation. pre legislation: nineteen year old and a seventeen year old engage in a consensual sexual act. might not even reach statutory rape level as were no penetration. nevertheless, if found guilty, the nineteen year old is having to register, for at least a decade, as a sex offender. post legislation: above facts same and judge has discretion to, for first time offenders who aren't mental patients (and a few dozen other qualifiers), waive or reduce the period o' reporting. HA! Good Fun!

of course it were sarcastic. ... the fact you don't understand the issue is disappointing. is a problem with not understanding history or is it your fear o' the middle east terrorist which makes you incapable o' recognizing naked and unapologetic bigotry? every US school kid, whether they like it or not, gets taught the pilgrims and plymouth rock story/myth-- kids is educated to know how the many who came to the new american wilderness were fleeing religious persecution. is why we have a first Amendment. the belief the US is different and should always remain a place o' refuge for those who seek religious freedom, if not acceptance, is why the Founders made certain religion were prominent mentioned in The Bill of Rights. Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" is the poem immortalized on the statue o' liberty. written in 1883 (?) by emma lazarus, a poet and activist inspired in no small part by the flood of jewish refugees fleeing persecution in russia and elsewhere in europe. quakers and other christians in the 1700s. jews in the 1800s. and when the US failed to live up to the ideals espoused in the first amendment we did indeed fail miserable (e.g. 1920 nativism) in the 2000s? another century and more refugees fleeing religious persecution. as often as not it were christians and moderate muslims fleeing persecution from fundamentalist islamic regimes, refugees daring beyond hope that the US would be different. the poem is aspirational. is s'posed what America stands for and if there were some kinda real American exceptionalism, it would be 'cause o' fact so many for so long believed those words in bronze and the sentiment behind the first amendment to the Constitution. and of course the muslim ban promise as an undeniable condemnation o' trump is ignored by trump supporters (and bruce?) trump supporters voted for trump. even if they didn't support the muslim ban, trump voters knew he had promised a muslim ban. bruce keeps trying to ignore how voters chose to elect trump knowing he were advocating a muslim ban and the naked bigotry it represented. so go ahead and tell us 'bout trump voters or that the muslim ban executive orders do not mention muslims. go ahead and explain to us how such overt bigotry is not as bad as it seems 'cause rust belters bought into fear which made it ok to not only exclude suspected terrorists, but anybody who happened to share the same faith as those terrorists you fear. shameful. were shameful o' trump voters, which is why the moderate trump voters never defend the muslim ban. they ignore. they marginalize. they convince self that the fear were legitimate. 'stead we get oro and skarp_one defending. and bruce? do a search on US internment of the Japanese during ww2. is one o' those examples o' shameful American behaviours and is representative o' how easy it is for us to abandon our lofty ideals when fear is the motivation. Scalia: Korematsu was wrong, but 'you are kidding yourself' if you think it won't happen again “Well, of course, Korematsu was wrong,” Scalia said. “And I think we have repudiated it in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.” At the time, Scalia said, there was “panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification but it is the reality.” took one freaking year for scalia's warning to become more than conjecture. oh, and trump's support o' the military is more bs. trump knows the military is popular with his base. mcmaster kelley mattis In Union There Is Strength I have watched this week's unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words "Equal Justice Under Law" are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation. When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside. We must reject any thinking of our cities as a "battlespace" that our uniformed military is called upon to "dominate." At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict— between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them. James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that "America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat." We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law. Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that "The Nazi slogan for destroying us...was 'Divide and Conquer.' Our American answer is 'In Union there is Strength.'" We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics. Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children. We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln's "better angels," and listen to them, as we work to unite. Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad. James Mattis both mattis and trump swore to defend the Constitution. corporal bone spurs is a fraud. oh, and muslim ban. HA! Good Fun!

trying to trick us with ordinary monitor lizards? shame. HA! Good Fun!

can't be certain that were a serious response. point out there is even worse stuff, (heck is worse stuff trump has done in the last couple years) is a rebuttal? every terrible thing trump has done as President, individually, is not gonna be in even top 10 most shameful American acts, though thank goodness the muslim ban was a promise by an idiot candidate to his ignorant base and so is perhaps not complete fair to blame America. the watered down version actual implemented is still kinda despicable, but nope, not top 10. genocide? enslaving multitudes? using minority soldiers as guinea pigs? etc. there is indeed much worse. *chuckle* but yeah, recognizing both the utter meaninglessness o' the admission and the embarrassment skarp_one should feel for seizing on the inane, the muslim ban were not the mostest shameful American act. congrats? HA! Good Fun!

Barr claims a man collected 1,700 ballots and filled them out as he pleased. Prosecutors say that’s not what happened. Trump ‘Swears on Whatever’ He Never Called Slain Soldiers ‘Losers’ “Also, I never called John a loser and swear on whatever, or whoever, I was asked to swear on, that I never called our great fallen soldiers anything other than HEROES,” wanted a pat on the back for approving the funeral o' mccain. Trump says ‘Portland has been burning for decades,’ excuses supporters who fired paintballs at counterprotesters Trump told reporters Monday that Portland had “been under siege for years,” but said that he could “solve that problem in approximately one hour,” if Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler would let him. In an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Trump expressed similar sentiments. “Portland has been burning for many years, for decades it’s been burning,” he said. Trump begins his hour-long interview Laura Ingraham by saying "Portland has been burning for many years, for decades it's been burning," which is a lie pic.twitter.com/wbzMqy6Uyj — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 1, 2020 He also, without evidence, pushed conspiracy theories about protesters in Portland being paid by outside agitators to protest. ... we are so beyond spin with this administration. spin is what politicians do when they attempt to not get caught in an objective lie. trump doesn't care about getting caught 'cause the muslim ban brigade don't care if trump lies. HA! Good Fun!

an observation which will no doubt muddy the waters: you got more Constitutionally protected speech rights on a public university campus than at a private institution precise 'cause the public uni is a government actor. "congress shall make no law..." however, such an observation is not the same as claiming you got more freedom o' speech at a public university campus than at any particular private institution. when we says what is the law we ain't making claims as to what is right. there is often a significant difference 'tween what is legal and what is right. what government may do to limit your speech is not same as a claim 'bout what a government should or should not do. what the government does is often different than the should conclusion. we can see there is much confusion 'bout what is the law and am sympathizing. to many, every Court ruling appears to be conflicting with some other Court ruling and when judges and Justices open disagree as to what is the clear meaning o' the law, it suggests law is more a matter o' perspective than the product o' impersonal and rational reflection. am also not claiming certainty that the europeans is doing wrong. is good arguments for increased regulation o any number o' activities even if we personal disagree with most o' those positions. don't need know law to make compelling arguments 'bout should. 'course once we get to folks suggesting what the US or the Courts or Congress need do to fix problems, then knowing what is law is kinda essential. act as if solutions is obvious when the Constitution forbids is counter-productive. apologies. we would clarify, but am suspecting it would only have a chilling effect. HA! Good Fun!

f'ng australia. even the platypus is venomous... which is why am near certain those is girl platypus. males got a nasty spur on their hind legs which they use to deliver venom, a venom which is not lethal to humans but is s'posed extreme painful. ... is it possible to despur a platypus, 'cause those two are of a good size and platypus (platypi? platypuses? whatever) is sexual dimorphic with males being considerable larger. regardless, would be like discovering that coming into contact with a river otter causes cancer or something. is unfair to make cute animals dangerous. HA! Good Fun!

saw mavis staple do the npr concert bit 'bout a decade past. she is so tiny. musta' been standing on a box at most concerts and for last waltz. such a big voice. amazing, HA! Good Fun!

... first, am gonna suggest common sense should be your guide. is internet more analogous to phone or tv and radio? is why we mentioned "media." do a search for how the content o' messaging may be regulated with tv and radio. phone service does experience considerable regulation including cold calls and robo calls and even phone sex lines. can regulate phone message content with (time place manner) limits to a greater degree than would be the case on streets or public parks. however, the biggest issue is privacy. we said we weren't gonna get into law, so take effort to self educate is your best option. however, we will point you in the right direction: katz v united states (1967) is a one-way trip. we criticize @Guard Dog for his tendency to indulge in slippery slope arguments, but based on history o' US handling o' media as public utilities, he would be justified in expressing reservations. serious this time. HA! Good Fun!

saw some rando image on the internet o' liev schreiber walking his dog. kinda an ugly dog. am not meaning that in a bad way neither. too often when celebrities is pictured with their pets the critters is perfect manicured pure breed ________. dog is adorable in that happy mutt way which is underappreciated. Liev Schreiber introduces new dog Scout on Instagram after rescue dog Woody got hit by car and died had to do an internet search for the actress, but another celeb who deserves credit for taking the rescue dog route. HA! Good Fun!

am not belittling the emotion. am a bit baffled by the double standard for celebrity... life and death. too soon for hurl? brandon lee died 1993. hundreds o' people die in firearm accidents every year. w/o internet to help, name five other than lee. am curious as to why so much attention is given to actors and entertainers. a fine young plumber or mathematician dies and her friends and family most likely proclaim what a wonderful human being she were as 'posed to focusing on her ability to solder pipes or add. am thinking is understandable but unfortunate entertainers and athletes get such a different measure. the entertainer or athlete does indeed become a source o' inspiration. become inspiration because they were an entertainer or athlete. curious. notable exception, and only a bit tongue-in-cheek for over invested hurl. 'course brian piccolo ain't remembered 'cause he were an athlete. HA! Good Fun!

is a handful o' actors we admire for more than their talents on stage or screen.. not all o' em are dead, the three (edit: four) who first leapt to mind and is hardly a comprehensive list. prodigious talents who endeavoured to make the world a better place for those less fortunate than themselves. am not trying to create some kinda epeen competition btw. is a whole lotta fine actors who died too young or suffered too much. nevertheless am most impressed by actors who used their celebrity for something... more. HA! Good Fun! ps immediate felt terrible for not including ms. hepburn

double but... Trump suggests people in N.C. vote twice to test mail-in system encouraging what is a felony in north carolina and a federal crime punishable by up to five years. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna stay away from making observations 'bout law 'cause admitted am fascinated by how citizens o' other western nations, and US edgelords, view free speech. however, two quick observations: 1) the tinfoil hat brigade is a curious bunch on the one hand, the social media platforms is devious enough to create means by which their efforts to control The Message is unprovable and undetectable to a degree professor moriarty would be jealous while simultaneous their efforts to muzzle individuals such as rittenhouse lawyer backfires so spectacular and instead o' marginalized the guy is effective provided sympathy and the national spotlight. is curious how so often for the conspiracy to thrive we must accept simultaneous portrayal o' the bad guys as criminal masterminds and bumbling incompetents when is so much more plausible to pick the one supported by evidence. 2) there is no going back again, am not gonna discuss the law, but the history o' US government intervention in mass media makes apparent that once you decide a private enterprise is in fact a public utility, you will never be able to return to pre government regulation. better be certain you are willing to embrace what it means to be a public utility. good and bad. HA! Good Fun!

might be too early to plan the wake. as noted, the injunction granted were based on the ada in light o' covid-19 realities. that said, even before covid-19, sat and act were becoming less essential. am not a fan o' standardized tests, as have tried to make clear more than once on these boards. however, from a practical pov, is much more difficult to implement national scale tests o' those aspects o' bloom other than knowledge and comprehension. is abominably difficult to achieve grading consistency where evaluation and synthesis is being measured. as a person who brief graded the bar exam (we got paid based on the number o' tests graded, so speed were functional encouraged,) am recognizing just how difficult it is to train individuals so that they all evaluate analysis and synthesis same, or same enough. throw out tests all together and leave to grades results in the issues mentioned in the linked articles, with socioeconomic factors playing an even more pronounced role in perceived success. keep some kinda test but fail to achieve any genuine consistency in grading and you will face legal challenges. https://admissions.berkeley.edu/student-profile is an obvious problem o' using grades as the primary measure if the average o' weighted gpa is 4.0-4.26? is why the holistic approach is so popular... don't have some kinda formula based on grades or tests or whatever. but again, the Court which granted the injunction were functional dismissive o' holistic. little practical guidance for universities. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna sit back and let folks discuss the law stuff sans our input. ins kinda intriguing to hear what folks believe, however, inspired by vol, we will make one observation: the Courts is not magical and all-powerful wish granting genies. for the Courts to act, there needs be an actual injury capable o' being cured by legal available remedies. on its face, even temp banned from twitter is not so much a first amendment issue as it is a Kontracts problem. if the interruption o' service violates terms o' the contract, then the injured could seek damages. wait, no contract? no fees paid? well... even if we analogize facebook and twitter to public utilities, which is a stretch when am talking 'bout individual citizens posting random opinions as 'posed to say the government using as a means to communicate information to the public, what is damages sought? injunctive relief? well, that would mean facebook would be told to reconnect service... which they already did. needs be actual injury, so can't sue facebook for possible/maybe future other plaintiffs who could possible/maybe suffer similar at the hands o' a faceless algorithm bent on the destruction o' lawyers and alt-right radio hosts. injunctive relief is a waste as service were already reinstated. actual damages? need show proof o' monetary loss. the publicity garnered from the snafu likely has opposite effect as many o' you now know the lawyer's name. how many criminal defense lawyers can you name w/o doing an internet search? less than five? have mentioned punitive damages, but again, there needs be underlying actual damages, which then get multiplied if the bad guy did knowing on a mass scale. if can't show individual actual damages, don't matter if the social media platform did for bad reasons... at least from a legal pov. sure, from a pr standpoint, media uncovering an actual plot by social media to punish mouthy lawyers defending vigilantes would likely not garner much public support... but if you can show other more compelling victims were injured... but is kinda pointless to discuss as pr fallout is not specific a legal remedy, even if is often enough to motivate a defendant to engage in settlement discussions. the civil Courts don't punish bad people for their injustice. goal is to make a plaintiff whole if is found they suffered a real injury. hurt feelings and indignity is not the kinda injury the Courts address, so... HA! Good Fun!

isn't so much 'bout bruce satisfaction as it is 'bout convincing people to take the vaccine. again, the vaccine is not anticipated to be a guarantee o' individual safety. much like masks and social distancing, the vaccine, with wide enough use, will "starve" covid-19 to the point where people may go back to something approximating pre 2020 life. the thing is, if people do not understand the benefits o' the vaccine or are too stubborn to listen to health experts, far too many people will fogoe taking the vaccine for it to be effective in halting the pandemic. is so utter disappointing that as efficacy o' the vaccine drops, willingness to take the vaccine similar dips. reality is that as the vaccine's individual efficacy drops, is actual more incumbent 'pon people to take it when it is available. again, much like masks, take the vaccine, particular if you are younger or healthy, will go a long way towards saving some rando person whose name you will never learn, a person three or four degrees of separation from you who becomes infected because you didn't take the vaccine. as were made clear with vol, am not advocating mandatory vaccinations (though private companies and possibly even schools may indeed decide that their services will be off limits to those who do not take.) however, once the government refuses to make behaviour mandatory, that means the responsibility to do the right thing is 'pon individuals. you can public burn a quran and post youtube video o' such. right to is not same as wise to. similar, refusal to take a safe and 50% effective vaccine is arguable irresponsible... and am gonna suggest the argument is strong. HA! Good Fun!

IF virtual everybody took the vaccine, 50-60% efficacy would be fantastic even if it sounds uninspired. Dr. Anthony Fauci says chance of coronavirus vaccine being highly effective is 'not great' current basement number is described as 50% but obviously that kinda number is more for public benefit than real world. Scientists are hoping for a coronavirus vaccine that is at least 75% effective, but 50% or 60% effective would be acceptable, too, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during a Q&A with the Brown University School of Public Health. "The chances of it being 98% effective is not great, which means you must never abandon the public health approach." "You've got to think of the vaccine as a tool to be able to get the pandemic to no longer be a pandemic, but to be something that's well controlled," he said. The Food and Drug Administration has said it would authorize a coronavirus vaccine so long as it is safe and at least 50% effective. Dr. Stephen Hahn, the FDA's commissioner, said last month that the vaccine or vaccines that end up getting authorized will prove to be more than 50% effective, but it's possible the U.S. could end up with a vaccine that, on average, reduces a person's risk of a Covid-19 infection by just 50%. "We really felt strongly that that had to be the floor," Hahn said on July 30, adding that it's "been batted around among medical groups." HA! Good Fun!

is almost as if you have you never posted on this board. HA! Good Fun!

similar, darkpriest could claim to be a fairy princess. HA! Good Fun!

@BruceVC people voted for trump based on his promise o' the muslim ban. the final executive order is immaterial insofar as the sins o' those who voted trump into office. also, the earlier iterations o' the muslim ban were so comical bungled in part 'cause they were transparent efforts to actualize the trump campaign promise. ban immigration from places where near all immigrants o' islamic faith arrive while simultaneous making exceptions for those o' christian and jewish faiths were awkward attempts to implement a muslim ban w/o using the words "muslim" or "islamic." point out how the the executive orders mentioned nations and not a faith is hardly compelling evidence that trump did not attempt to implement a muslim ban. btw, what trump ended up with should appal evangelicals as it has made near impossible for christians fleeing persecution in the middle east to seek refuge in the US. HA! Good Fun!