It appears that your arguments are somewhat clichéd and don't reflect the reality of the current situation. In the 19th century people were literally starving to death and had terminal illnesses. There was no organised welfare system, no functional medical treatment available. Racism was chronic and jobs were few. There was no special treatment for immigrants. They begged or worked long hours at hard manual labour, there were no handouts. They owed nothing to the host countries and we should not feel any guilt for it. As for Ireland having a low density population. Do you expect immigrants to live in ditches. Where is the accommodation, infrastructure, services, jobs etc. We don’t know the provenance of some of these immigrants. In the early 2000's we got an influx of criminals from eastern Europe. We've already passed saruration point.
It's 90% tolerance and acceptance, leaving 10% for the possibility for changes in the other person. Expectations are the root cause of the problem. If you can't tolerate and accept the other persons behaviour then if it is serious end it rather than 'die' by a thousand cuts.
Not any more. Non-nuclear warfare has changed dramatically. If the U.S. doesn't modernise and learn the new techniques they will be ineffective. Who knows how much of their 'modern' equipment will be useful. Complete retraining is also necessary. Russia is possibly ahead at this time and they still haven't succeeded in their military mission.
Increases in CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases such as methane increase the absorption and emission of infrared radiation causing a rise in average global temperature and ocean acidification.
CO2 is slightly heavier so it saturates the earth and oceans therby warming them too.
Troublemakers will always try to cause trouble. This pair is known for it.
In the case of Biden we have life long political experience at all levels and all aspects gained through his own work and through learning from his superiors, colleagues and opponents both domestic and foreign.
That's hard to match and shouldn't be ignored.
On the other hand Trump has a broad spectrum of knowledge from being at the front line in big business. He has seen successes and failures, corruption and all the unsavoury tactics employed by the best and worst players. He is a realist who knows what people will do to get what they want and how to get things done himself. For example all the world leaders who met Putin in his first decade as president were fooled by him, but Trump was not. He has walked the walk and survived where others have failed. The others were nice guys.
This cannot be ignored either.
Bear in mind that there are plenty of unsuitable and unqualified young contenders who will make costly mistakes.
I watched the whole video yesterday. IF it came from a totally neutral source it would be useful but knowing that Bias is rampant one has to be critical.
It's good as a timeline in that it shows Trump speaking at his rally completely oblivious to the disastrous events unfolding at the Capitol.
It shows the Capitol Police royally mucking up, as they are prone to do which in itself would make a great comedy skit under different circumstances.
It shows one guy planning the storming of the building and being active in orchestrating events. This seems to be the intended fall guy. Blame him and not Trump.
A couple of things which seemed to me to be slightly fake is the police saying repeatedly that "they were set up to fail". That kind of dialog is unusual.
They're the main points.
In summary. If it can be believed it's good and is an interesting watch.
Jac "Trump may yet become the Republican candidate running for the presdency despite being found to have incited insurrection."
Making statements like this is misleading which can cause confusion. The question of inciting insurrection is not applicable to Trump. It is the unqualified opinion of lots of people (those opposed to Trump) and you it seems.
I'm not familiar with this case (as I said at the time) but based on one of your statements I gave an example of how the President could fit 14/3.
Based on Reality however that example is not relevant to this case.
I gave you the benefit of trust because you said you had done indepth research, looks like my trust was misplaced. I should have known better. Troll farms are busy doing much the same thing.
Let the people decide who runs and who is elected.
Having said that the UK has sanctioned approx £1 Trillion worth of property in southern England which they probably hope to keep, to cover out of pocket expenses, whereas Arkansas may have to pay a premium price for that piece of land.
Agreed, it's insidious behaviour, death by a thousand cuts. Too late for Australia by the sound of it. And London(grad). And Palestine. Glad to see somebody taking action, it should be a federal law, and amend the constitution.
Tulefell, it was said that Putin would block any candidate who posed a risk to him. Ekaterina Duntsova wanted to run on an anti-war basis. This was far too controvercial for Putin because he has worked hard to convince the people that the war was justified and the soldiers were doing their patriotic duty. Ekaterina Duntsova would have been informing the people of the truth and Putin couldn't allow that. She may still work as an protest activist but she will be arrested or assassinated without doubt.
I don't know if he or you explained how he would go about 'changing everything' but I suggest that he start with the power of "signing into law".
The POTUS isn't involved in finalising legislation originating from Congress, it bypasses him. So he should get that sorted out.
He could also get lawyers working on test cases to challenge the constitutionality of the current laws that he wants to scrap.
All this would take time though which he doesn't have.
I think it would be appropriate for you to give us something more solid than a hunch that Trump will start a campaign of destruction of democracy. I've given you a start.
To answer the first part above the SCOTUS will have to show plausible reasons for it's decision.
This also covers your 2nd part.
Presidential Executive Orders are subject to judicial rewiew (SCOTUS) and must be supported by statute or the Constitution. Also it is pre-determined that the President can't change the integrity of the Constitution and the changes must be in the interests of the US.
You focused on the fact that I said I prefer to be impartial which hopefully ensures that I avoid bias. That was merely a statement about where I like to be, not intended in another way that you might have thought.
Having said that did my posts not address your two questions?
I removed the superfluous options and fitted the President into the formula for a positive match in 14/3 which gives us a backup to our opinion. A qualified lawyer could take that and phrase it in legalese, my education only covered Contract Law.
I tend not to take sides, I prefer to be impartial but for this instance if I was the prosecution I would go with what I posted.
The Colorado District court denied the motion at first but then decided to go ahead and found the result you have so I'd say it's a solid result. No more than that I can say because I haven't studied it.
Here's 14/3 simplified by choosing just one instance of the applicable options.
[Definition: President, the officer in whom the chief executive power of a nation is vested.]
"No person shall hold any office [the office of the President] , civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as an executive officer [the President] of any state (or all States), to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same (the United States), or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof (the United States)."
"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Note: there is no indication in the text that the intent in the ruling applies to any specific event or timescale.
Good, I don't believe in Sanctions against 3rd party Critical Infrastructure Projects. Because this project called for Long Term Finance and Investor State Backing only Russia or China could meet the full requirements otherwise it couldn't go ahead. IMO.
I don't know how they evaluate sanctions but although the work on this project has an estimated cost there will not be a cash settlement for the work carried out and 'payment in kind' won't start until the plant is in production. So difficult to see how sanctions can be applied. Secondly no US Company has a stake in the Contract or shares in PetroSA so therefore the US can't apply sanctions. IMO.
Hello Catfoot. I'm not for or against anything here. Just posting some information which I think explains the background to some of this. If I'm wrong, fine.
Secularism, Sectarianism and suppression of religon by invading forces have led to Islam extremism. The most recent example in the Middle East was in 1967 by Israel.
Islam is not Secularist. However many Muslim countries operate a secular system as do most Christian countries including Russia.
The following extract from Wikipedia gives an overview.
"Secularism—that is, the separation of religion from civic affairs and the state—has been a controversial concept in Islamic political thought, owing in part to historical factors and in part to the ambiguity of the concept itself. In the Muslim world, the notion has acquired strong negative connotations due to its association with removal of Islamic influences from the legal and political spheres under foreign colonial domination, as well as attempts to restrict public religious expression by some secularist nation states. Thus, secularism has often been perceived as a foreign ideology imposed by invaders and perpetuated by post-colonial ruling elites, and is frequently understood to be equivalent to irreligion or anti-religion."
Ok, I thought we were debating the cause of global warming but it's really about you and how corrective action to save the planet will interfere with your lifestyle. No problem.
online today!Merlot22 Blog Comments (351)
you've put an image in my head now that I can't get rid of. 
RE: When peaceful protests fall on deaf ears
It appears that your arguments are somewhat clichéd and don't reflect the reality of the current situation. In the 19th century people were literally starving to death and had terminal illnesses. There was no organised welfare system, no functional medical treatment available. Racism was chronic and jobs were few. There was no special treatment for immigrants. They begged or worked long hours at hard manual labour, there were no handouts. They owed nothing to the host countries and we should not feel any guilt for it.As for Ireland having a low density population. Do you expect immigrants to live in ditches. Where is the accommodation, infrastructure, services, jobs etc.
We don’t know the provenance of some of these immigrants. In the early 2000's we got an influx of criminals from eastern Europe.
We've already passed saruration point.