-
Posts
8528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
109
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Gromnir
-
unauthorized border crossing is illegal. ain't criminal. if gifted builds an extension on his house w/o such improvements being to code, his actions is violations o' law. illegal. however, such actions by gifted ain't criminal. government decides a good way to deter folks from doing home improvements w/o proper inspections and/or in violation o' code is to separate families who engage in such behavior. show up to a younger gifted's wrong-built home and take his wife and child away... temporarily. "so sad"? such silliness is ok though, 'cause folks is convenient forgetting how building code violations is illegal. multiple administrations has faced border crossing problems, though rare has they been so self-inflicted. nevertheless, previous administrations managed to muddle through w/o a general policy o' child separation. regardless, regarding gifted's poor coyotes, if you can somehow convince enough like-minded folks to pressure their Congressmen into changing law, then perhaps you may get your wish regarding the end o' manifest unfairness being delivered unto coyotes. am suspecting a long wait. 'course most o' us realize how similar actions may provide different levels o' criminal punishment. take identical male twins as an example. twin 1 is releasing measurable amounts o' carcinogens and toxins into the air daily. twin 2 is doing same. twin 1 is a 2-pack-a-day smoker. twin 2 runs a large chemical refinery and he is knowing polluting in violation o' law. pretend there is no difference 'cause they is fundamental doing same thing is absurd, but here we is somehow. HA! Good Fun!
-
smuggling people across the border is a crime and violates the immigration and nationality act. Congress passed a law, and the President signed and the Court has upheld the Constitutionality. you genuine need a review o' how this works? fines for violation is considerable and prison terms is up to 20 years if multiple undocumented persons is knowing being transported across the border at locations other than designated checkpoints. is two relevant code sections with only major difference being if smuggling took place at designated checkpoints. oh, and if an undocumented person dies as a result o' transport, prison for the smuggler may become life. so, gifted now knows enough so he can go out and pressure his Congressman to change laws? maybe he gets enough citizens to pressure their Congressmen regarding the manifest unfairness faced by human smugglers to get laws changed? am not gonna hold breath waiting. but perhaps you wanna do reverse and make the immigrants actions criminal? that would be more fair and equitable considering the poor treatment the coyotes is receiving? criminal trial for current and backlogged immigration cases? all +850,000? yeah, that is the change we should be demanding. however, you are right 'bout one thing, we should get more use o' the following: duh. which brings us to skarp's typical blunt comprehension fail... a fail that admitted started earlier with chill comprehension fail. the detainees is not being arrested pursuant to a suspected criminal infraction. duh. in the US we do not separate parents and children when a person is served a parking ticket. doing so would be ludicrous and am not thinking needs be further discussed. that being said, the Courts is aware o' the reality o' the situation at the border and the difficulties o' detaining large numbers o' persons w/o even certainty o' their identities and countries o' origin. is a logistical nightmare to process and adequate detain people in the current situation, which is why child separations has been ok'd when is necessary, but such separations need be for no longer than absolute required. again, these ain't suspected criminals who is being detained. child separations did happen under previous administrations, but such were limited and not part o' a general policy. we previous mentioned at least one child separation event which happened during obama's administration, and the government defense o' the separation were cringe-worthy indeed, so is plenty o' blame for everybody. nevertheless, discover the wh purposeful made child separation a policy to discourage immigration? well, that is what caused the brouhaha regarding child separations. and to be blunt, am thinking you would look like a world class idiot if you went before judge atsushi wallace tashima and told him, based on his exhortation regarding soap, toothbrushes and blankets for minors, he had "obviously" never had to endure "harsh conditions." yeah, his ww2 experience provided the judge with experience regarding detainment camp conditions. is the kinda first-hand experience very few o' us could claim. nevertheless, chill calls out one o' the few judges with such experience? and you agree with him? HA! but again, this is a blunt comprehension fail and strawman to boot. judge tashima were addressing "safe and sanitary" requirements o' the flores settlement. harsh conditions experience were complete irrelevant in the present situation. ... already explained this previous, and given blunt instrument am dealing with, am as optimistic now as hurl were earlier when he edited his post in recognition o' a presumptive fail. nevertheless, we endure. the flores settlement, whether you like or not, is controlling law regarding what is standard for government insofar as the care o' minor detainees. flores, as is often the case with such directives, is light on specific guidance. "safe and sanitary." in a recent case a fed judge determined that, at a minimum, "safe and sanitary" required the government to provide minors with soap, a toothbrush, a blanket and conditions conducive to sleep. judge ordered that facilities be inspected to make certain these bare minimums were being provided. government wanted to appeal the judge's actions, but they couldn't. weren't possible to appeal clarification o' the already existing settlement. so government tries a different approach-- claim specific enumeration o' soap, toothbrushes and blankets by the judge fundamental changed the meaning o' the flores settlement. chill's "obviously" statement were kinda pointless in the present context, but judges found what were obvious were that in the case o' minor detainees, many o' who were being held for significant periods o' time, access to soap, a toothbrush, a blanket and conditions conducive for sleep were part o' the "safe and sanitary" requirement from the flores settlement. sisyphus at work, eh? HA! Good Fun!
-
would be entertaining to watch chill chastise judge atsushi wallace tashima 'bout harsh conditions in internment camps. HA! Good Fun!
-
no, it ain't. the position gifted takes is nonsensical but appealing to the fringe. after all, no matter how poor detainees is treated, if they keep making hundred and thousand mile treks to get to the US, then obviously their treatment must be better than where they came from, yes? is silly and ridiculous, but has appeal to the extreme nativist 'cause embracing such a wacky viewpoint means there is no minimum legal standard or notion o' decency to which the US must adhere. in fact, the goal is to find the breaking point for immigrants-- find conditions and circumstances so appalling that immigrants stop coming. after all, as we now know, the goal o' child separations were an attempt to find such a breaking point. even the government lawyers is embarrassed when they gotta make these arguments. syllogism: bad enough conditions means immigrants stop coming and then nobody suffers, but if people keep coming, then conditions ain't genuine bad. is circular-stoopid, but has become oft repeated by the fringe... and this administration. HA! Good Fun!
-
the only remix o' a classic we have ever linked. and 'cause you can never have too much stevie wonder with james jamerson HA! Good Fun!
-
the cookie monster westworld were even better than the first two seasons. weren't amentep the person who linked? am not recalling all attributes, but cm received max for appetite and "nom nom"? dancing were 12. grouchiness were a zero and sharing were... either 12 or 17. only saw for an instant so is only a few numbers am able to visualize. HA! Good Fun!
-
our first year at Cal we got to know the third string qb. guy were like a 6'4" jeff spicoli. wore vans and skateboarded everywhere, which were kinda a trick in berkeley considering how hilly it is. nickname were "rope." the thing is, he gave himself the nickname. convinced everybody it were his high school nickname, and who were gonna second guess him eh? the nickname stuck and he were known as rope for as long as we knew him at university. eventual, 3rd-string qb admitted to Gromnir and a couple other guys on the team that he stated the nickname thing as kinda a joke. figured if he got folks to call him rope, girls would overhear and think it were 'cause he were well-endowed. recall we is taking 'bout a college freshman who reminded us o' this guy. not the best qb, but a talented drummer. go figure. anywho, is the only other rope we ever knew. HA! Good Fun!
-
gifted asked same not long ago, and gd smacked him with the rolled newspaper. thought the lesson were driven home. silly o' us. regardless, you are gonna need be specific. who is "everyone" and what specific issue are you speaking 'bout? regardless o' legality o' presence in the USA, all human beings is afforded a few basic rights by the US Constitution. one reason why a number o' administrations, democrat and republican, kept guantanamo viable as a detention facility is 'cause it were arguable not in the US. non-citizens who were held outside o' the US were having less/no rights, or so the argument were presented. but step foot in US and those Constitutional protections would immediate kick in and take effect, protecting due process rights and other such defenses. so an immigrant who manages to make it to the US, legal or otherwise, gots basic rights. am not certain why folks convenient forget that fact. also, as hurl points out, the immigrants is being held for civil offenses. is on par with minor traffic violations. hit and run and reckless driving is criminal, but minor traffic infractions is civil... and so too is illegal border crossing. so akin to parking or speeding ticket... but no more than 10 mph over the speed limit as that often is the point when excess o' speed triggers reckless. 'course even the most hardcore natavits who has at least a couple firing neurons would balk at making border violations criminal. why? 'cause then you gotta give accused illegal immigrants criminal trial protection such a speedy trial and lawyer and jury. at the moment, you got thousand and thousands o' backlogged cases-- years o' backlog. toddlers is being ushered into immigration courts where judges s'posed explain to the child their rights and responsibilities. this ain't a joke, and it happens daily... many times a day. am thinking far too many people have no idea what "illegal immigrant" means insofar as legal rights is concerned, or they is convenient forgetting. maybe you don't like the Constitution? you are welcome to try and change it. HA! Good Fun!
-
am only knowing rogan from news radio and from his moon hoax nonsense. thought news radio were funny. thought neil degrasse tyson revealing depth and breadth o' rogan's willful ignorance were also funny... though mr. tyson were trying to be as polite as possible. only stuff we know rogan from has been funny, though am suspecting joe weren't going for laughs with his moon hoax position. HA! Good Fun!
-
fire cannons do fire damage. am not being flippant. deck and sail fires is much more likely when using wyrmtongue... though there were a time when the wyrm cannons were kinda buggy. am not certain o' their reliability at this point. most o' what you might wanna know 'bout ship combat is in the links, though initial ship distance changed after the linked content were created. at release, and for 'bout a year following release, ship combat initial starting distance from enemy were ~ max range. this made imperial long guns effective in a few situations. however, now combat starts at ~350ish. so, double-bronzers is even better than they were before. kinda a downside to truncated starting distance is the rathun now get more o' a jump on you. with the dhow, by the time you turn to starboard or port, the rathun may already be too close to get a decent shot with double-bronzers. either keep the double-bronzers and use the sloop, or keep the dhow and use the short-range cannons available. damage isn't your primary goal when fighting rathun ships. disabling the crew is your goal. grapeshot the rathun a few times and they sink no different than a sack full o' kittens. HA! Good Fun!
-
The forum is horrible
Gromnir replied to a topic in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
hmmm. if this is your audition for the part o' baby groot, am believing the role has already been filled. HA! Good Fun! -
pps @Guard Dog ultimate loss o' liberty is death, and you hand the government you is angered with a legit excuse to kill you when you attack officers trying to collect property for which they paid you? Gromnir has not suggested or advised acquiescence btw. mlk did not acquiesce. thoreau did not acquiesce. is many things we would fight and even die for. kill for a chainsaw, particularly if we had already been dutifully paying taxes for decades? red cloud had US law on his side btw, even though he weren't an American citizen as is gd. not quite the same. even so, red cloud went to washington dc and realized just what his war with the US entailed. red cloud were never fighting to keep his things. red cloud were fighting to save others. when red cloud saw nothing but death in his fight, he gave up his weapons. are you gonna call him a coward 'cause he decided to protect his family and children rather than dying pointless to hold on to firearms? would you tell red cloud he were wrong? ok, am now done. HA! Good Fun!
-
is more pronounced this cycle, but the core issue is the same for democrats every Presidential election, no? is more registered democrats, period. regardless o' electoral college issues, if every democrat and every republican actual voted, post eisenhower we would always have had democrat Presidents. democrat candidates who get young people and apathetic voters to show up to polls wins. obama's "yes we can" got democrats to vote... though admitted outspending mccain by huge amounts also helped. weren't his record on issues or his performance at debates v. mccain, debates which he avoided complete. am knowing we mentioned previous that we were convinced bernie woulda' been a better choice for democrats in 2016. last Presidential election, too many democrats didn't like clinton, and too many more simple didn't care enough to vote. as close as election were, getting a few more democrats in battleground states to vote woulda' been enough, or such were our thinking. we have equivocated 'bout bernie since 2016. bernie does fantastic with democrat-lean independents, but the independents who functional decided the last election by voting johnson or trump is not the same independents who is responding to polls during the primaries. could bernie get enough democrats to vote to make up for the loss o' conservative lean independents? maybe, but am honest not confident. heck, bernie should be popular with those rural and poor who didn't get relief after great recession and has only seen their situation worsen under trump. dunno. regardless, this is actual a common problem for democrats and there doesn't appear to be an obama kinda candidate hidden 'mongst the multitude o' persons current vying for votes. 'course is worth recalling how obama didn't look like a realistic candidate 'til after his surprise showing in iowa. if there appeared to be a candidate who could genuine energize the historical torpid and indolent democrats, then we would go all chips in with her or him. in the alternative, seems perfect reasonable to pick the guy most likely to sway those handful o' up-for-grab votes which decided the last election, an election with terrible turnout and no popular candidates from any party. HA! Good Fun! ps young people are stoopid, but in a good way. only the folks too dumb to know their efforts is pointless is ever gonna bring 'bout meaningful change. am glad young people is more focused on issues than on practical considerations.
-
you said "private property" at the start, which includes money. is no meaningful difference 'tween your chainsaw and your cash. is no legal difference. is no practical or meaningful change in character or quality save that the cash is actual fungible. grouse as you do, you still manage to pay your taxes. no difference. am knowing you pay taxes 'cause you got a job and is using the internet and living your life relative ordinary. your government, a government composed o' your friends and neighbors, insists you turn over to them X value in property. they use the tax revenues to pay for all kinds o' things you likely don't approve. chances are many o' your neighbors don't like taxes anymore than does gd. "why should i pay a school tax when i don't have any kids?" they do anyway. you do anyway. if you don't pay property tax on home residence, then a lien will be placed on your home and it will be sold to pay debt you owe. you know this. you still pay taxes. you will violate laws and kill innocent men and women 'cause o' an imagined quality. you will challenge 'em to come to your home and take and when they eventual do, only after exhausting legal process and no doubt giving you multiple chances to pay your bill or surrender your property, you will claim your home were violated. is no heroics and principle is no more convincing than we would find in any number o' 8chan manifestos. we ain't gonna convince each other on this, which is fine. HA! Good Fun!
-
am believing we official became old this year. we now get 5% off shipping from ups store thanks to our senior discount. HA! Good Fun!
-
one o' the worst beatings we ever got were resulting from us dropping $12 into an asteroids machine one rainy june afternoon in 1980. am forgetting exact inflation/conversion calculation, but should be something ~$35 in 2019 money, so am somewhat understanding the punishment we received. ah, memories. HA! Good Fun!
-
does anybody genuine take the video game as inspiration for evil claims serious in 2019? the video game stuff is thrown in as part o' a laundry list o' ills one might imagine being penned by a 70-something baptist minister from alabama. am getting the concern, 'cause far too many Congressmen is 70-somethings from alabama and indiana and north dakota. the thing is, has been a long time since we saw any kinda widespread and real support for curtailing video game violence, particular as there is First Amendment issues at play. infants (legal description o' those under 18) may receive special protections which would otherwise be abhorrent to the First Amendment, but such protections is gonna be resulting in warning labels n' such as 'posed to outright bans. some may recall the prohibitions on killing kids in video games which affected fallouts? those were due to german laws. japan and other nations also got all kinda restrictions. American developers/publishers who wanna sell games outside the US often run into practical censorship issues, but is rare 'cause o' US legislation or fed exec rules. Fed Judge: ‘Difficult to Reconcile’ Mueller Report with AG Barr’s Statements “I do have some concerns because it seems to me difficult to reconcile the contents of the Mueller report and statements made by the attorney general [about the report],” Judge Walton is a george w. bush appointee. gotta agree with J. Walton. when we got around to reading the mueller report, we were genuine shocked by the disconnect 'tween barr's summary and the contents o' the report. during recent testimony, mueller refused to speak 'bout barr's characterization o' his report via the summary other than to note the summary were not wholly accurate. what a shame. mueller report made trump and others appear as incompetent, mendacious buffons who were at times willful ignorant. barr, on the other hand, ain't incompetent and he ain't ignorant. barr's intentional mischaracterization were done knowing and with clear intent. violation o' public trust and oath o' office. am not seeing a way to excuse barr's behavior. am glad at least one fed Judge has gone on record to express similar concerns. this should be a big issue, and in any other administration it would be. unfortunate, Americans have become numb to the daily and sometimes banal indifference to truth from this administration. is just another monday. HA! Good Fun!
-
a derisive retort that a statement or observation were too obvious to be worth mentioning? could apply with some regularity, but not enough to warrant a signature change. thanks for the input though. am curious to see who wins race to the bottom: trump complaining 'bout wind turbines again or gifted shoehorning concentration camps into another post. which happens first? more relevant to the thread: a minnesota farm family fights to save its land trump keeps saying the chinese and canadians and others is paying for his trade wars, but sure don't appear that way. not much o' a surprise, eh? duh. HA! Good Fun!
-
HA! Good Fun!
-
gotta wonder why trump doubles-down regardless o' how ignorant and wrong he is on an issue. wind turbines... again. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/donald-trump-cincinnati-rally-fact-check/index.html the underlying psychology is baffling. wod and his use o' stalinism were a classic board example, but he were hardly alone in the repeated defense o' indefensible. trump is a narcissist, so am kinda/possible recognizing why he not only refuses to admit mistake, but doubles-down. is that the only explanation? curious. HA! Good Fun!
-
we thought the el paso perpetrator were sent to jail. kinda need segregation And denial o' due process to get an accurate concentration camp label. post ww2 cyprus were a concentration camp. so too were japanese internment camps here in the USA. that said, post ww2, use o' concentration camp language has folks immediate think o' nazi death camps, which probable ain't constructive if goal is meaningful debate. regardless, gifted's sarcasm-by-ignorance efforts appear off-target. nothing like repeating a failed effort to drive home a point, eh? but back on topic, trump is calling for tougher background checks on gun purchases. one wonders if the President is aware the House sent such legislation to the Senate where it languishes in part 'cause trump has threatened to veto it. perhaps the President is so busy ending aids and saving the nation from wind turbines to know what he has said previous 'bout background checks? HA! Good Fun!
-
taking clause don't make a distinction 'tween property type. is a non factor, even though gd did raise spectre o' the government violating his home with intent to do harm as meaningful. keep your eye on the ball. as to specific incidents, you may take your pick from many. at the time, American coal mine ownership were an oligopoly and systematic exploitation o' workers were repeated in many locations over the course o' a few decades in late 1800s and early 1900s. the mine owners owned everything from the homes the miners lived in to the tools the miners were needing rent from the mine owners. the mine owners defended their ownership rights with as much verve and talk o' principle as gd defending his chainsaw and his guns. mine owners were fighting to save American values and as such their violence were just. hogwash. regardless, gd is the guy who raised the "private property" taking as a core issue, and private property encompaseses both real and personal property... plus. "OK, tell me a constructive way to "ban guns" that does not involve making the private property of millions of people who have committed no crimes suddenly illegal?" government takes through power o' condemnation/eminent domain all-the-time. heck, every time the fda bans a new drug, making 'em illegal to use and distribute, they don't even need pay folks who legit and legal purchased such drugs previous to the ban. again, happens all-the-time. the drug bans should be more o' a concern for gd and his libertarian notions as fda bans w/o input from Congress. executive branch sudden declares gd's private property to be illegal? where is the outrage? *snort* HA! Good Fun!
-
calling bs and apologizing for length. the government came to your home, armed and w/o any desire for violence... 'cause what peace officer carrying out duty wants to be shot at by some l00n willing to die for his chainsaw? the government agents come armed 'cause you, and those like you, is armed and it would be irresponsible o' the government to send officers to your home w/o means o' defending themselves. if You didn't have guns, they wouldn't need be armed. freaking circular nonsense. the government agents in the scenario is acting legal. they ain't bullies or bandits. they ain't acting out o' cruelty or malice. there is a government authorized taking. they come to your home 'cause you did not follow law requiring you to surrender your chainsaw... or gun or whatever. you holed up in your home and then complain when the government finally, after exhausting every alternative, finally shows up at your doorstep? arrogance indeed. your friends and neighbors, acting in accordance with democratic principles, pass a law which demands you surrender your chainsaw. you had a chance to fight law. you had a chance to use legal process to fight taking. instead, gd invites the agents to come and take his stuff... if they dare. you see some grand difference 'tween you defending your home, which is only in danger o' being violated 'cause you refused to follow law, and the el paso killer defending his country from filthy foreigners? am doubting he sees the difference. Gromnir sees you both as villains. if we are still talking chainsaws, then your friends and neighbors need no more than a rational basis for divesting you o' your property, as long as you get paid. is nothing special 'bout a chainsaw from a legal pov. you defending chainsaw ownership to death o' self or others don't make you least bit heroic. alternative, if we are genuine talking 'bout guns, then that means gd is either bat crap crazy, a convicted felon, or laws has been changed via constitutional convention action or amendment repeal, both o' which means a ridiculous large % o' his neighbors and friends came to agreement that firearms is too dangerous to be kept by private citizens. as such, defending gun ownership through violence is arguable even less defensible. your principle looks pretty darn self serving. mine owner in late 1800s and early 1900s. is his mine and he is defending his property from those who wanna unionize. those rickety shacks where the miners live? those is the mine owner's property. the miners can leave any time; they don't need to work for the mine owner. sure, the miners all owe debt to the mine owner and they has only ever been paid in scrip which is only redeemable at the company store and in businesses owned by the mine owner, but nobody forced the miners into their bad situation. the dirty unions and the government is trying to force the mine owner to give up what is his... his property, his home. so why shouldn't he hire security to defend what is his? heck, the mine owner at least believes he is acting lawful, whereas gd is willing to injure and kill even though he knows he has broken law. defending his stuff. only way we get gd principle argument is if we got some weird kinda dystopian scenario wherein is actual no longer US Constitution working. current fed system gets replaced by functional tyranny o' one or tyranny' majority and need see that gd has lost substantive and procedural due process. guns and chainsaws as symbols? gd is defending such as a last ditch effort to stand 'gainst the oncoming tide o' darkness... or whatever? is that the argument? caution: such reasoning is exact what el paso killer were using to justify his violence. HA! Good Fun! ps all o' this is moot anyway. is no way US outlaws firearms. legally there is such near insurmountable hurdles as to make this a pointless debate. government shouldn't be afraid o' an armed populace... and it ain't. gd imaginary demons aside, is not corrupt government apparatus which wishes to take guns away from the populace to keep 'em meek and controllable. the gun control movement is a populist development born out o' not complete unreasonable concerns. perhaps folks is too easily swayed by graphic media depictions, but is not unreasonable for folks to be concerned when they realize just how much damage one k00k with firearms may exact on just anybody, anywhere. the thing is, those semantics which hurl questioned is not gonna disappear. like it or not, the 2nd amendment is an absolute bar on any kinda absolute federal firearms bar. is not a single Justice on the Court who would support an absolute firearms bar, no matter how liberal you believe 'em to be. and Congress... Congress couldn't even pass a bump stock ban. in spite o' gd fears, SCOTUS won't pass a blanket ban 'til evey Justice is replaced with pod clones engineered on Krsylyaxz IV. worst-case/best-case scenario from an all Stevens clone SCOTUS is having clock turned back and once again letting communities come up with their own reasonable gun control laws. am personal in favor o' more enlightened gun control efforts, and we hope to see such in our lifetime, but the fear o' gd, and perhaps the hope o' others that THEY are only one more mass shooting away from breaking down gd's door to get at his firearms is just not possible.
-
yeah, Gromnir has fought for principle to our detriment more than once, but the idea that we would kill or severe injure somebody trying to take our chainsaw, or wallet or even car is the opposite o' our notions for fighting for principle. the chainsaw is a thing, and it' ain't even rising to the level o' necessity o' life. killing to keep somebody from taking your stuff and calling it a matter o' principle is, to our way o' thinking, the worst kinda arrogance. after all, any vile or despicable behaviour could thus be defended on the basis o' principle. the el paso shooter? clear he thought he were acting on principle. and no, is not absolute democracy, but thanks for missing forest for trees once again. HA! Good Fun!
-
ps am thinking you would have a hard time explaining to hurl and others how no public good is served by a government taking of guns. should be obvious, but gd don't get to decide which "public good" is genuine good. ... am not gonna need explain the whole democracy thing again, yes? HA! Good Fun!