The All Things Political Topic - Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one

[Chairchucker]

10 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But surly the race of the superhero has to be accurate to the history of the character

So for example, Clark Kent came from Krypton. If the next Superman became Mongolian that would be weird and incongruous to his history?

Eh, theoretically Kryptonians could have any colour skin, surely. And there seem to be so many different origin stories to every superhero, one more wouldn't really matter.

Although personally if I were going to make a black Superman I'd probably just make it another Kryptonian rather than Kal-el. Maybe Kal-el has a son. (with a black Kryptonian, whatever) Maybe some other Kryptonian comes and takes the mantle after Superman gets killed by doomsday or whatever killed him most recently in the comics.

I just looked up the Superman wiki page, there's been a few other people called Superman, should've known they'd do that. One of them was his son apparently. Or his clone, either way. They write a bunch of alternate origin stories for some of these dudes.

[Amentep]

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Amentep whats your opinion on changing the race of  superhero characters from white to black? I know this has been  discussed in the past but I want to get your current view

I am opposed to it because I dont think you need to change any established character for something to be financially successful. Black Panther is testimony to that outcome

The entertainment industry should create new black superheroes and if the characters are  memorable and exciting then the agency and success will be decided by peoples wallets the way it should be 

But I dont see the point of a black spider-man or black batman because the original characters werent black ?

I'm not opposed to it.  A lot of it depends on the character and the story.  Some characters origins are so vague, they could be anyone.  Wildcat was a prize fighter who donned a costume and fought crime with his fists using his boxing skills and street smarts.  Not much in that most stripped down version of the origin that implies a race.  Batman might be tougher (mostly because the fact that he's rich due to generations of inherited wealth that goes back to the founding of Gotham 140 years ago or so might (or might not) be difficult to make work) but not impossible to make a straight flip.

I'm more annoyed, for example, that they change Ms. Marvel's powers for the TV show (in the comics her powers are specifically designed to be odd, ungainly and unattractive because (a) the creators noted that most superhero teen girls got cute, sparkly powers and (b) the powers were because she was an Inhuman, so it tied to her genetics and thus became part of an allegory for body acceptance amid teenage girls for the character in her opening story arcs) than I am at changing the races of Black Adam, Hawkman and Cyclone in the Black Adam film.

5 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

I know you didn't ask me BUT

 

I actually don't follow comics much, (love the movies though) but I get the impression that for some superheroes, mantles are frequently passed from one character to another.

 

For example, by far the most common Batman has Bruce Wayne as his alter ego (or vice versa, however that works) but others have also donned the cowl, most notably Richard (really, that one's censored?) Grayson.

AntMan has been the alter ego of Hank Pym, Scott Lang and Eric O'Grady.

Funny you should mention Spider-Man, because as well as Peter Parker, there is a black version of him; his name is Miles Morales. Other Spider-Men (Spider-Mans? Spiders-Man?) appear to include Ben Reilly, (a Parker clone) Mattie Franklin, (she apparently became Spider-woman once Peter Parker came back from retirement) and some alien or something (a member of the Vodu pantheon whatever that means) called Anansi who was supposedly the first ever Spider-Man.

People got mad when there was talk of Jane taking over from Thor, but I guess they were ignoring that the title of the God of Thunder had previously been held by a bunch of different other characters, including a frog looking dude called Beta Ray Bill.

One of my favourite examples because I like both characters and the TV show bearing the name: both Clint Barton and Kate Bishop are known as Hawkeye.

 

The comics seem to have a long history of weird alternate versions of heroes, baton passing etc, and heck, I think it's neat.

I agree with CC. Pardon me, however, while I indulge in a minor bit of comic pedantry-

• Miles Morales isn't a black Peter Parker, he's Peter Parker's successor from an Alternative Universe.
• Mattie Franklin is the third Spider-Woman (after Jessica Drew and Julia Carpenter) but was also a Spider-Man (pretending to be Spider-Man when Peter was gone)
• Anansi is a Spider-God and the main Spider-Totem that empowers spider-people
• Beta Ray Bill has a horse head.  Frog Thor is Throg.

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I always like to get anyone's opinion on any question I ask so its great you sharing your view on this

Cancel culture and culture wars I find are more of  a US contagion that is fueled by their endless  political dichotomy and  we all  sometimes tend to get pulled into those unhelpful debates  in many of our countries so my question is not about anything related to that. I know you not suggesting this but this is how some people respond to that  question

You make some good points but its hard to see my concern if you not a fan of comics and certain characters and the symbolism. Their shouldnt be a need to change the original race of anyone, you can create new characters and those can become loved and admired

But I agree mantles in comics do get handed over and I have no  issue with that in the case of Bruce Wayne retires and he hands over to a Hispanic, Chinese or black new Batman

But I would object to a female Thor because Thor is the son of Odin and he is a man and thats based on the accurate Norse mythology 

 

In Marvel's comics, whosever is deemed worthy can lift Mjolnir and gain the Power of Thor and usually is called Thor (until Thor takes Mjolnir back; the other characters are typically spun off as a different character).  Character's who've done that include Thor Odinson (of course), Jane Foster, Beta Ray Bill, Puddlegulp/Simon Walterson/Throg, Steve Rogers, Eric Masterson/Thunderstrike, and Squirrel Girl.

4 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

I suppose that's theoretically possible, (and I'm excited for some of the more diverse heroes we're getting in the MCU now) but established heroes seem to get more attention. Just checked Wikipedia's  list of theatrically released live action DC films, for example, and there appears to be 9 Batman movies, 6 Superman movies, a Batman vs Superman movie, and 17 others. When there are slightly more movies starring Batman or Superman than there are DC films not starring either, and of those 17, one prominently features both, (Justice League) and three more star Batman villains, (Catwoman, Jokes and Harley Quinn + Birds of Prey) it's clear that the people with the licenses think different iterations on the established heroes are the way to go.

DC has a weird development schedule for their properties, but has been working with more diverse casts in some of their re-occuring work outside of Bats/Supes in film and TV (the Shazam/Black Adam films, the Suicide Squad films/Peacemaker TV, Doom Patrol/Titans tv, Arrowverse TV).  Does anyone care that Deadshot was a different race?  Nothing in his origin or character ever really implied one.

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But surly the race of the superhero has to be accurate to the history of the character

So for example, Clark Kent came from Krypton. If the next Superman became Mongolian that would be weird and incongruous to his history?

Not really?  He's an alien - why should he only look like a white guy?  It might make for a vastly different story for Superman if you're trying to establish Clark Kent in a period setting (since the 40s were a vastly different place depending on race in the US), but for a modern story...?

4 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

Eh, theoretically Kryptonians could have any colour skin, surely. And there seem to be so many different origin stories to every superhero, one more wouldn't really matter.

Although personally if I were going to make a black Superman I'd probably just make it another Kryptonian rather than Kal-el. Maybe Kal-el has a son. (with a black Kryptonian, whatever) Maybe some other Kryptonian comes and takes the mantle after Superman gets killed by doomsday or whatever killed him most recently in the comics.

I just looked up the Superman wiki page, there's been a few other people called Superman, should've known they'd do that. One of them was his son apparently. Or his clone, either way. They write a bunch of alternate origin stories for some of these dudes.

There's a teen (early 20s?) clone of Superman/Lex Luthor and a biological son with Lois (who through alternate universe stuff is now also a teen).

[Chairchucker]

5 minutes ago, Amentep said:

• Miles Morales isn't a black Peter Parker, he's Peter Parker's successor from an Alternative Universe.

Not really?  He's an alien - why should he only look like a white guy?  It might make for a vastly different story for Superman if you're trying to establish Clark Kent in a period setting (since the 40s were a vastly different place depending on race in the US), but for a modern story...?

 

I worded it poorly, I meant he was a black version of Spider-Man.

 

On the second point, now I kinda wanna see black Superman land in 1940 or something...

[Amentep]

Superman in comics early on was very much challenging the status quo (usually challenging the rich exploiting the poor, though), and in 1946 famously the Superman radio serial tackled the KKK in a serial that seems to have hurt the organization nationwide. So certainly a black Superman in the 40s dealing with the historical 40s fits the series/character. 

 

[Gromnir]

Chief Justice Roberts joins with liberals to criticize 'shadow docket' as court reinstates Trump-era EPA rule

"The majority's move, Kagan insisted, signals the court's view of the merits even though the applicants have failed to make the irreparable harm showing "we have traditionally required."
"The emergency docket, she said, "becomes only another place for merits determination -- except without full briefing and argument."

"The five conservative justices did not explain their reasoning for reinstating the Trump-era rule."

... 

for those individuals who held their nose and voted for trump 'cause they wanted a conservative Court, this is kinda the monkey paw result. in 2022 you got the s'posed limited fed power Justices collective making merit-based decisions on topics as diverse as epa rules, the franchise and free exercise o' religion, and is not as if the Court is taking a consistent federalist approach to state power neither. if a state wants to limit access to abortion or the right to vote, the Court now bends over backwards and in spite o' current precedent defers to individual states, but if is free exercise or an epa rule then the Court skews in favour o' fed authority? why? 'cause o' the relative importance o' issues to current conservative groupthink? a conservative majority has resulted in an acceleration o' judicial activism, which is so not what the libertarians and traditional conservatives were expecting when they applauded mitch mcconnel's machinations which resulted in a J. Gorsuch instead o' J. Garland. 

gonna repost a recent J. Scalia quote:

The people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school--maybe better. If, indeed, the "liberties" protected by the Constitution are, as the Court says, undefined and unbounded, then the people should demonstrate, to protest that we do not implement their values instead of ours. Not only that, but confirmation hearings for new Justices should deteriorate into question and answer sessions in which Senators go through a list of their constituents' most favored and most disfavored alleged constitutional rights, and seek the nominee's commitment to support or oppose them. Value judgments, after all, should be voted on, not dictated; and if our Constitution has somehow accidently committed them to the Supreme Court, at least we can have a sort of plebiscite each time a new nominee to that body is put forward." --J. Scalia, planned parenthood v. casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

the shadow docket shenanigans by the Court should be garnering more attention. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sarex]

NATO is bat**** crazy. They flew a eurofighter or some similar variant under a Serbian passenger plane near the Russia/Latvia border. The Russian asked the Serbian pilot to id the aircraft below it, after which the NATO fighter withdrew. Just in case anyone here wants to think there are actually any good guys in this whole mess... The **** they are willing the orchestrate to suit their needs...

[Hurlshort]

37 minutes ago, Sarex said:

NATO is bat**** crazy. They flew a eurofighter or some similar variant under a Serbian passenger plane near the Russia/Latvia border. The Russian asked the Serbian pilot to id the aircraft below it, after which the NATO fighter withdrew. Just in case anyone here wants to think there are actually any good guys in this whole mess... The **** they are willing the orchestrate to suit their needs...

I mean, I'm not sure if that is on the same level as invading a country, but ok.

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, Sarex said:

NATO is bat**** crazy. They flew a eurofighter or some similar variant under a Serbian passenger plane near the Russia/Latvia border. The Russian asked the Serbian pilot to id the aircraft below it, after which the NATO fighter withdrew. Just in case anyone here wants to think there are actually any good guys in this whole mess... The **** they are willing the orchestrate to suit their needs...

Isn't that normal in Baltic sea area, both Russian and Nato military planes are constantly flying close by of civilian planes and violating air spaces of countries where they don't have authorization of flying. And they also often fly their transponders turned off so that civilian planes have hard time to detect them.

Such has been norm in that area over 20 years now.

[Sarex]

30 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

I mean, I'm not sure if that is on the same level as invading a country, but ok.

I mean, I'm unsure what you wanted to say with that statement, but ok. They invaded a bunch of countries too if that makes a difference.

1 minute ago, Elerond said:

Isn't that normal in Baltic sea area, both Russian and Nato military planes are constantly flying close by of civilian planes and violating air spaces of countries where they don't have authorization of flying. And they also often fly their transponders turned off so that civilian planes have hard time to detect them.

Such has been norm in that area over 20 years now.

I haven't seen them doing that with EU passenger planes. They were baiting another MH17.

[Elerond]

12 minutes ago, Sarex said:

I mean, I'm unsure what you wanted to say with that statement, but ok. They invaded a bunch of countries too if that makes a difference.

I haven't seen them doing that with EU passenger planes. They were baiting another MH17.

They do it for Finland's Estonia's, Latvia's Germany's, passenger planes every month.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Hurlsnot said:

I mean, I'm not sure if that is on the same level as invading a country, but ok.

newsflash to putin defenders: if you thought the US and NATO were bad in january 2022, the events o' the past couple months don't make 'em less bad.

*shrug*

at this point you gotta expect the false equivalency, whataboutism, deflection and outright lies. is part o' the playbook. nevertheless, people have difficulty letting go o' a narrative in which they is complete invested. NATO & US = bad. ok, fine. the russian invasion o' the ukraine doesn't make NATO and US less bad, but somehow the defenders o' putin reflexive work hard to frame russian actions as a balancing equation. 

again, what happened in bucha, grozny and aleppo (just a few notable examples) doesn't make the US and/or NATO the good guys; is no need to constant fight that battle, but the putin defenders and the folks who has spent decades invested in the idea that the world's problems is all linked to western imperialism are unable to change tactics. is perfect reasonable and rational to see US as the worst o' the worst while simultaneous recognizing russian behaviors with the same suspicion individuals has previous reserved for the west. 

HA! Good Fun!

edit: but, not bust. sheesh.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Hurlsnot said:

I mean, I'm not sure if that is on the same level as invading a country, but ok.

Not sure he actually argued that, but ok.

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

Isn't that normal in Baltic sea area, both Russian and Nato military planes are constantly flying close by of civilian planes and violating air spaces of countries where they don't have authorization of flying. And they also often fly their transponders turned off so that civilian planes have hard time to detect them.

Neither side constantly flies near civilian aircraft, it's rare enough to get some comment when it happens non incidentally. When it does they are usually either brief (ie making sure they aren't a spy plane with a rigged transponder) or, well, incidental. Kind of have to clarify that though, as military <--> military interceptions can be... theatrical. You have to be behaving very oddly to get one of those treatments as a civilian jet.

More detail is needed to know how serious it was. Say it every time it comes up but actual intrusions into airspace are not at all common except around St Pete's where the airspace is complicated- and you're still talking a few incidents a year level- it's usually intrusions into either ADIZ (which have no legal standing whatsoever) or civil air controller areas (which typically project well outside territorial airspace over water)- or resolve to 'approached our airspace but turned around before reaching it' when over land. All the english language sources I could find have it as an actual intrusion, and since it's Russia/ Latvia it would have to be over land; but, that's not exactly conclusive.

It does however appear 'close' is a bit of a misnomer, since Vukcic is at least quoted as saying it was 1000m- a full flight level- below the passenger jet which should be perfectly safe.

[Gorth]

Life as a passenger jet near "hot zones" has a history of tragedies... the Donbas seperatists were shocked (watch the youtube video with subtitle when the commanders inspect the wreckage) to discover the Malaysian Airlines jet were a civilian plane flying over them and not the usual Ukrainian transport plane they were routinely targeting, The US shot down an Iranian passenger jet when it made a bombing run on a frigate, whose captain got a medal for bravery under fire or some such, or the Soviets shooting down a South Korean passenger jet because it strayed a few miles off course close to military installations in the far east of the Soviet Union.

 

Edit: Forgot the Iranian shooting down a Ukrainian passenger jet just a couple of years ago. I would say, plan your trip carefully and avoid the worlds hot spots where possible

[Malcador]

7 minutes ago, Gorth said:

The US shot down an Iranian passenger jet when it made a bombing run on a frigate, whose captain got a medal for bravery under fire or some such

Sort of the funny thing about this was the Vincennes' crew's incompetence when trying to launch the SAM, 27 times or something, if they'd failed a couple more times maybe the Iranians would have been spared.

[Zoraptor]

And they were only trying to shoot at it in the first place because the operator had managed to assign it a grounded F-14's transponder because he didn't know how to work his system properly. The really 'funny' thing is he (Scott Lustig) got a medal for his conduct as well despite being flagrantly and obviously incompetent.

(Have to admit I do rather like that as an example of debunked propaganda as it was the first example I really remember as such. Flight wasn't scheduled! Yes it was, your ship was on Bahraini time though, which isn't the same, and you didn't take that into account. They ignored our hails! Strange that they ignored hails addressed to "Iranian warplane", and which... got the flightspeed incorrect (used groundspeed, or v/v I forget), and were mostly on a military channel the plane literally could not pick up (and occasionally Guard, but meh if you're giving wrong identifying info anyway). But it wasn't broadcasting a civilian transponder! Yeah it was, and the other US warships confirmed it, you just managed to associate an on ground F14 with it instead because you're an idiot. Well I guess at least the Vincennes was in international waters, eh! Uh, yeah, about that, wonder why the report map was redacted in the declassified version... oh yeah, you were in Iranian waters even as recognised by the US, and not marginally either)

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

..the Soviets shooting down a South Korean passenger jet because it strayed a few miles off course close to military installations in the far east of the Soviet Union.

Plenty can be said about that too, but KAL-007 really was a very, very long way- around 500km- off the course it was meant to follow. Pretty easy to see why, though.

[Gorth]

7 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

And they were only trying to shoot at it in the first place because the operator had managed to assign it a grounded F-14's transponder because he didn't know how to work his system properly. The really 'funny' thing is he (Scott Lustig) got a medal for his conduct as well despite being flagrantly and obviously incompetent.

(Have to admit I do rather like that as an example of debunked propaganda as it was the first example I really remember as such. Flight wasn't scheduled! Yes it was, your ship was on Bahraini time though, which isn't the same, and you didn't take that into account. They ignored our hails! Strange that they ignored hails addressed to "Iranian warplane", and which... got the flightspeed incorrect (used groundspeed, or v/v I forget), and were mostly on a military channel the plane literally could not pick up (and occasionally Guard, but meh if you're giving wrong identifying info anyway). But it wasn't broadcasting a civilian transponder! Yeah it was, and the other US warships confirmed it, you just managed to associate an on ground F14 with it instead because you're an idiot. Well I guess at least the Vincennes was in international waters, eh! Uh, yeah, about that, wonder why the report map was redacted in the declassified version... oh yeah, you were in Iranian waters even as recognised by the US, and not marginally either)

Plenty can be said about that too, but KAL-007 really was a very, very long way- around 500km- off the course it was meant to follow. Pretty easy to see why, though.

An interesting outcome in some ways… Reagan allowing the rest of the world access to the gps system to avoid such navigational errors in the future  

[Elerond]

6 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Neither side constantly flies near civilian aircraft, it's rare enough to get some comment when it happens non incidentally. .

It is quite regular, which is why Finland rises Baltic Air space safety issue every time they have meeting with Russia, USA or NATO. 

It is just not seen as issue by anyone else, except when they use it in their propaganda.

[Sarex]

@Gromnir Not exactly sure where I defended Putin, or do you take me not declaring Russians as the scum of the earth in every second post I make to qualify me as such...

But I guess it takes actual effort to read what someone wrote.

10 hours ago, Sarex said:

Just in case anyone here wants to think there are actually any good guys in this whole mess...

Here it is again for your viewing pleasure.

7 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

It does however appear 'close' is a bit of a misnomer, since Vukcic is at least quoted as saying it was 1000m- a full flight level- below the passenger jet which should be perfectly safe.

I'm not sure how much of a difference that would make if the Russians fired a missile at it. There was absolutely no need for the fighter to have been anywhere near it.

[alanschu]

On 3/1/2022 at 4:19 PM, Zoraptor said:

Our own Kiwi version of the Canadian antivax protest is finally getting moved on like the bunch of hobos (apologies to actual hobos) they are. It's exactly the same as Tiananmen Square, you know when the Chinese used a bit of pepper spray and riot shields instead of running protesters over with tanks and flushing them down the drain with firehoses...

Should ship the lot of them off to Ukraine to see what real problems are. Only problem is, something like 80% think Ukraine is some sort of global elite conspiracy to get them off the front page and would probably end up joining up with the Russians...

It's very entertaining in Canada as a lot of the conservative wing says the world needs to buy our oil instead of oil from dictators, while the base for those politicians strongly feel that our Prime Minister is also a dictator.

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Sarex said:

@Gromnir Not exactly sure where I defended Putin, or do you take me not declaring Russians as the scum of the earth in every second post I make to qualify me as such...

 

*chuckle*

oh, wait, you were being serious? okie dokie.  

can't recall last time you specific mentioned putin, much less an overt criticism, but your usual posts don't garner our attention so is possible we missed; too likely to embrace conspiracy nonsense for us to bother reading. we do recall the russians making "steady progress" and avoiding civilian casualties in your expert estimation, while simultaneous doing the whataboutism/false equivalency schtick we describe. oh, sure, we got an obligatory they are all bad actors post in there somewhere, but hardly the hyperbolic "every second post."  history suggests your actual your future posts will focus on the evil western devils and the underappreciated successes and civility o' the russians on the battlefield, though am recognizing you likely have enough sense to not repeat your avoiding civilian casualties blunder anytime soon. 

but hey, if you don't believe the criticism applies to you, feel free to ignore it. a few recent replies in this thread already makes us look a bit like étienne eugène azam even if you believe you are somehow not deserving to be lumped in with our generalization. that said, am admitted curious to see how long it takes before your next nato/us are the real villains post, but am admitted not caring enough 'bout you specific to track such. 

HA! Good Fun! 

ps am not gonna get roped into a debate 'bout ukraine btw. we avoided pre-invasion, noting how board pundits were setting themselves up to look stoopid. when russia invaded, were a complete lack o' self awareness by many o' the redditt cellar trolls who, in spite o' being dramatic proven wrong, nevertheless blundered forward with new predictions... following same pattern o' failure as pre-invasion. 

the situation in ukraine is an unnecessary calamity and we got no desire to gawk at the wreckage. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Gromnir

[Sarex]

Oh Gromnir, let us not go through your posting history and find all the things you said, it would turn embarrassing real quick.

Either way this is what I wrote

Then again it's your standard MO to twist things out of contexts.

You could have also mentioned the post where I condemn Russian actions and the invasion of Ukraine, but that goes against your narrative and as such can be ignored.

 

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Sarex said:

 

You could have also mentioned the post where I condemn Russian actions and the invasion of Ukraine, but that goes against your narrative and as such can be ignored.

 

we did. and is amusing how quick we went from "every second post," to "the post."

*chuckle*

3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

oh, sure, we got an obligatory they are all bad actors post in there somewhere, but hardly the hyperbolic "every second post."

it was a, they are all bad post by sarex. context, yes? 

am not reading every one of your posts (lord no) and have been avoiding the ukraine stuff, but you did indeed claim that russians were avoiding civilian casualties when that were never really a thing save in russian-relative terms. if you later realized how bluderific were such an observation, then good for you. am nevertheless waiting for a link to all those posts, "every second post," where you condemn putin and russia.

but feel free to whataboutism yourself deeper with imaginary ukraine posts from Gromnir... or are you speaking o' general embarrassing posts by Gromnir? 

*shrug*

seems kinda off-topic, but have at it.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

since J. Barrett joined The Court there has been at least seven times J. Roberts ended up on the short side o' a 5-4 shadow docket decision and none o' those shadow docket decisions offered us a chance to "read the opinion." the only surprise is J. Roberts finally spoke up 'bout the manner in which the shadow docket is being abused. is not as if anybody is gonna confuse J. Roberts with the late J. John Paul Stevens-- J. Roberts is hardly going rogue by finally speaking up 'bout what should be an all too obvious abuse o' authority. 

please keep in mind it is not gonna be a surprise if this Court turns back the clock on voting rights by decades and finally ends roe v. wade. like it or not, there is legal arguments supporting both such conclusions, and in the case o' roe, is amazing The Court hasn't already addressed the relevant legal aberration which has managed to lurch 'cross decades, but the current state o' law is that roe is controlling precedent and section 2 of the vra is still a thing as o' 8 april 2022. clean water act? oh sure, has been law since 1972, getting bipartisan support at the time it were made law, but this Court don't mind undermining it by means o' a shadow docket decision with no opinion to justify the action.

the shadow docket decisions which undermine existing statutory law and precedent w/o a written opinion to support is a shock the conscience level o' judicial activism. 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, alanschu said:

It's very entertaining in Canada as a lot of the conservative wing says the world needs to buy our oil instead of oil from dictators, while the base for those politicians strongly feel that our Prime Minister is also a dictator.

Hi Alan, nice to hear from you again 

I have often wondered how you were keeping because I will always remember the interesting debates we use to have on certain topics.

I see their is a new DA4 game in development, it looks interesting and I will be definitely be playing it