Namutree Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Eh, colluding with somebody that incompetent can only have hurt Trump. He can collude with manual breathers all he wants. :D I'm no expert on Nigel, but wasn't his primary political goal to achieve Brexit? "Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking. I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.
Blarghagh Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Yeah, I suppose he's proven a very competent liar. (Also, his father's fortune and America's lack of education and subsequent obsession with reality TV stars made him a billionaire and US president respectively.) 3
Malcador Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Oh dear, is Mr Trump in a bit of hot water because of some e-mails? Finger lickin' good, this. Hmm doubt it. His sons sure are idiots though. But this whole thing is good as ig does wind Trump up a bit, so there's still some good. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Gorgon Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 I was meeting for a drink with my friend from UK and he asked an interesting question in regards to "Russian interference". Why are Dems so invested in proving Trump was colluding with Russia which seems like a lot of chore, when they could with ease put the "colluding with foreign power" on Trump by pointing out Nigel Farage. Mr. Farage was an UK politician and member of EU parliment to boot and he was practically a member of Trump campaign. Why this collusion doesn't count? Because the Russia collusion is a better story obviously. What I'm worried about is not the Trump campaign meeting with Russians, that's normal, it's their inexperience and mistrust of the State Department and intelligence services. It leaves them vulnerable. 1 Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Blarghagh Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) Yeah, I suppose he's proven a very competent liar. (Also, his father's fortune and America's lack of education and subsequent obsession with reality TV stars made him a billionaire and US president respectively.) Sure, sure. But Hillary Clinton achieved everything by herself with heroic struggle :D I don't really care all that much, I just think it's funny that Donny Jr just tweeted it out and Trump's getting **** over e-mails after all this whining about Hillary's e-mails. >>>>>(I'm not a Hillary supporter either.) Hillary was a charisma black-hole with a campaign that was all about how stupid the opponents were and not what she wanted for the country*. In fact, I take back what I said. The dems providing Hillary as a candidate despite her lack of voter support is what got Trump the presidency. The fact that such an unsympathetic coorporate stooge managed to go toe to toe with and got the popular vote over Trump speaks volumes to me, but fair enough. EDIT: *I mean, seriously? "I'm with her."? Even her tagline was about her getting support and help from the voters, not telling the voters she could mean something for them. What happened to the enthousiastic go-getter attitude of "Yes we can!"? It's no wonder her ****ty campaign lost to "Make America Great Again" patriotic pandering. When your whole campaign is "vote for me or you get the other guy" you'll never get people passionate, only fearful and despondent. Grumble grumble stupid dem's giving Trump an easy win grumble... Edited July 12, 2017 by TrueNeutral 1
Gorgon Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Screwing over Bernie at the DNC did not go over well with his supporters. Now the knowledge of that was a definite case of Russian intervention if you remember. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Zoraptor Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 I was meeting for a drink with my friend from UK and he asked an interesting question in regards to "Russian interference". Why are Dems so invested in proving Trump was colluding with Russia which seems like a lot of chore, when they could with ease put the "colluding with foreign power" on Trump by pointing out Nigel Farage. Mr. Farage was an UK politician and member of EU parliment to boot and he was practically a member of Trump campaign. Why this collusion doesn't count? Was Nigel Farage a part of the UK government at the time? He was (still is) an MEP. I doubt being an actual member of the government really matters though, if Zhirinovsky or Zyuganov met with Trump it would still 'count' even though they aren't part of the Russian government, one suspects. I do sometimes wonder what the response would have been if old Yanukovich in Ukraine had thrown McCain and Graham into jail for interfering in Ukrainian politics when they were there encouraging the Maidan. Not, one suspects, that they should not have been interfering in another county's politics and deserved everything they got. Lawyer lady has nothing to do with the Russian Gov anyway, she just claimed she did so she could get another subject completely raised with a Trump- adoption; probably some Russian who had been farming out babies for americans splashing cash in an attempt to get the Magnitsky Bill repealed.
injurai Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 I was meeting for a drink with my friend from UK and he asked an interesting question in regards to "Russian interference". Why are Dems so invested in proving Trump was colluding with Russia which seems like a lot of chore, when they could with ease put the "colluding with foreign power" on Trump by pointing out Nigel Farage. Mr. Farage was an UK politician and member of EU parliment to boot and he was practically a member of Trump campaign. Why this collusion doesn't count? That was out in the open and they had similar platforms.
injurai Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 I was meeting for a drink with my friend from UK and he asked an interesting question in regards to "Russian interference". Why are Dems so invested in proving Trump was colluding with Russia which seems like a lot of chore, when they could with ease put the "colluding with foreign power" on Trump by pointing out Nigel Farage. Mr. Farage was an UK politician and member of EU parliment to boot and he was practically a member of Trump campaign. Why this collusion doesn't count? That was out in the open and they had similar platforms. And what that has to do with anything? It's not collusion if it's out in the open? Is the foreign power ok if the platform is similar? I'm confused People all around the globe endorsed Obama publicly when he ran for office. The accusations in relation to Russia go deeper. Involving funds, secrecy, mutual profiteering prospects through real-estate policy, throwing FUD with respect to Clinton. As much as I dislike Farage, I don't see how him speaking at a rally is colluding. "It's not collusion if it's out in the open?" -- I don't normally throw dictionary definitions at people but I guess this is when one would do so. col·lude verb gerund or present participle: colluding come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire. "university leaders colluded in price-rigging"
Gromnir Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 I was meeting for a drink with my friend from UK and he asked an interesting question in regards to "Russian interference". Why are Dems so invested in proving Trump was colluding with Russia which seems like a lot of chore, when they could with ease put the "colluding with foreign power" on Trump by pointing out Nigel Farage. Mr. Farage was an UK politician and member of EU parliment to boot and he was practically a member of Trump campaign. Why this collusion doesn't count? That was out in the open and they had similar platforms. It's not collusion if it's out in the open? ... uh. ... why bother? HA! Good Fun! 2 "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
smjjames Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) Someone saying 'hey, I like you! I endorse you!' isn't collusion, it's equivalent to saying 'Im a fan of your's, good luck!'. There's nothing material about it or anything of value. Nobody (well, besides some Bernie supporters maybe) complained when other leaders got behind Clinton, nobody complained about Farage and Geert Wilders supporting Trump either. Most of the time though, they generally stay out of it. If people feel like that is collusion in the 'please butt out' sense, fine, but that's not the legal definition. Edited July 12, 2017 by smjjames
HoonDing Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Why aren't the same standards placed on the Democrats. Look what Hillary Clinton may have gotten away with. Disgraceful! The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Guard Dog Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 OK, now where were we before being so rudely interrupted by a four hour conference call? @Ben, the other point you made that I wanted to address is the removal of religion from public. In the US we have a philosophy of "a wall of seperation between the church and the state".. It was Thomas Jefferson who first coined the term. It's rooted in the first two clauses of the 1st Amendment of our Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" . In other words we don't compel anyone to follow any particular faith or no faith at all. And we do not stop anyone from practicing their faith whatever it is so long as no one is harmed by it (no human sacrifice or whatever).. Now I'll grant, particularly lately we have not done such a great job of following that. The former clause has been enforced with too much zeal and the latter often ignored. But in my opinion this is a model to follow. You say the state has no business being involved in religion. And I agree with that. But when the state starts to interfere with the free practice of religion in the manner you suggested (banning it in public) then it IS getting involved.The better way to go would be hands off 100%. But of course we don't even do that here. We should. Now, your other point about the child in a religious school. They are free, in that when they become adults they are free to follow or reject anything they were taught as a child. If their parents chose to put them in a religious school that is a choice they are free to make. Religious schools in the US are accredited in the same way public schools are. The kids are taught the same subjects with the same requirements with the addition of the curriculum of the sponsoring faith. The difference is those kids are not costing the state any money. Those schools are private and the parents have to pay to send their kids to them. @aluminiumtrioxid: In theory yes. Is the economy could continue to expand with the valuation of the currency staying ahead of the costs of goods then yes there are an infinite number of dollars. Of course that can't happen. Eventually the growth slows once the value if the currency starts to fall due to inflation. There are a lot of theories on WHY inflation happens (I tend to believe the monetarist theory that the sheer amount and availability of anything including currency eventually undermines it's value) but whatever theory you like... it happens. That leads to contraction and eventually recession. Once that happens the prices of goods starts to drop until they catch up with the devaluation of currency and the whole cycle starts over. That's the beauty of the system. It corrects itself naturally... sort of. @Gorgon: OK, that is a whole other conversation. We were talking just about the effect on income tax on consumers and investors. Getting into business behavior it all comes down to one thing: what is the cost of producing one widget here as opposed to anywhere else. This is something I'd like to dive deeper into but I'm leaving for the day in a half hour and don't have time. We'll come back to this one. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
smjjames Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Why aren't the same standards placed on the Democrats. Look what Hillary Clinton may have gotten away with. Disgraceful! I assume you're referring to the stuff with Ukraine? That was at Paul Manafort However, I'm gonna note that there is no such crime called collusion, but there are crimes that involve collusion. Sure, a lot of what Clinton and the DNC did was shady, but did they break a law? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. What Trump and co. did rises to another level entirely. Also, the Ukraine thing was entirely on their own prerogative. As for why the same standards aren't placed on Democrats, politics and partianship, unfortunately. It's the same kind of hypocrisy that Republicans would be screaming bloody murder if Clinton did the same thing Trump is doing now, and yet they aren't at Trump, a Republican.
PK htiw klaw eriF Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Parents right override children's rights. Why? "Akiva Goldsman and Alex Kurtzman run the 21st century version of MK ULTRA." - majestic "you're a damned filthy lying robot and you deserve to die and burn in hell." - Bartimaeus "Without individual thinking you can't notice the plot holes." - InsaneCommander "Just feed off the suffering of gamers." - Malcador "You are calling my taste crap." -Hurlshort "thankfully it seems like the creators like Hungary less this time around." - Sarex "Don't forget the wakame, dumbass" -Keyrock "Are you trolling or just being inadvertently nonsensical?' -Pidesco "we have already been forced to admit you are at least human" - uuuhhii "I refuse to buy from non-woke businesses" - HoonDing "feral camels are now considered a pest" - Gorth "Melkathi is known to be an overly critical grumpy person" - Melkathi "Oddly enough Sanderson was a lot more direct despite being a Mormon" - Zoraptor "I found it greatly disturbing to scroll through my cartoon's halfing selection of genitalias." - Wormerine "I love cheese despite the pain and carnage." - ShadySands
injurai Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Children certainly have rights that bar their parents from treating them in a variety of manors. They are still minors however. A parental guardians liberties supersedes a the dependents liberties is probably a better way of saying something similar. But that is sort of a modern tautology.
HoonDing Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 "Parents right override children's rights." I must say, fitting avatar. 2 The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
redneckdevil Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Lmao! Reason is for several reasons. 1. Legally responsible for minor until a certain age. 2. Provide food, clothes, shelter, medical care for child until a certain age. 3. Children are parent's creation and responsibility to shape and teach the child to take care and interaction with the world. To teach the knowledge they've gained to better succeed in the result of child being able to survive and be happy in their life. There's many more reasons. If u are responsible BY LAW moreso than moral code for spending your time and money and also held legally responsible in caring and raising your child u created and providing for it and being held responsible for the end result of the child's decisions....then yes, the parent in alot of areas (but not all) rights are above the child's rights. A parent is able to take away privileges and optional from necessary basic human rights like the right to drive, and in situations where in birth it's a life or death situation. Duh lol. Tldr Parents have the right to restrict or take away certain rights so they in those specific but very varied and common situations override the child's rights.
Hurlshort Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 All that is true, but there are limits, and children have successfully sued to end parental rights in certain situations. But yes, redneckdevil is quite correct. With that power comes certain responsibilities, of course. You legally have to provide an education for your child. You can't just keep them at home and brainwash them. You have to jump through a bunch of hoops to do that. 1
redneckdevil Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 The end result is them having their own place and becoming their own masters. Hopefully they will take the knowledge and learn from it.
Agiel Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Given how the bottom keeps falling out for the Trump family as a result of their own corrosive nature, I think this serves as a useful allegory (with the Trump family as the warrior form Xenomorph): 1 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Raithe Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 For the comments from the cheap seats... 2 "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Namutree Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) For the comments from the cheap seats... Better get rid of this then since "undocumented *workers" is misinformation. EDIT: Word error, now fixed. Edited July 13, 2017 by Namutree "Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking. I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.
Blarghagh Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Is it? I thought the problem was that they took yer jerbs? Or did popular culture lie to me yet again? (I'm not up to date on US immigration issues).
Recommended Posts