Tep

Where in hell did anybody get the idea that there was a "war on xmas", oh, forgot faux (not the) news. And while remotely related to a "person" that has tried to impose her faux "christian" sharia on others it isn't really on the subject. Perhaps you should click the Bill Maher link for a little edification from someone who knows what they are talking about.

Let me see if I understand this. You would like people to "click the Bill Maher link for a little edification." You have got to be kidding me. Maher is nothing more than a not so funny comedian. Actually, this forum is full of not so funny comedians.

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis should be commended for her decision not to involve herself in issuing same sex marriage licenses. This clerk did this because of her biblical beliefs. I'm sure the judge who hastily had her jailed is having second thoughts over what he did. Religious liberty is becoming a major civil rights issue of our time. Who knows, Kim Davis may well end up being the face on this movement.

Bigots claiming to be victimised because of their bigotry. I love it. Bigots standing at the Lincoln Memorial and saying 'I have a dream' to literally dozens or maybe even hundreds of religious loonies to mark the celebration of the civil rights issue of our time. Roll out all the fat old white men like Rush baby to thump his chest and bring on Santorum to explain why his name is so closely linked to gay sex. You can get hats made like Trump so the grumpy old men can hide their bald spots. Religious liberty. I am all for it. Let the Davis's of the world believe what nonsense they like but it should be kept away from the children of course. We must protect them from these un-natural people.

If PC was merely about being polite I'd have no problem with it. However, PC has been used top commit such stupidities as stopping people saying Merry Christmas in a Christian country and renaming Snow White and the seven dwarves as Snow White and the seven friends, when "dwarves" is not even a derogatory word.

I get it. It is so difficult to have people reject the really important elements of cherished cultural values. Things like Santa Claus is white; gay people are not normal so can be treated like second class citizens; darker skinned people have a tendency to violence and crime. I too grew up with the Disney-fication of white American culture in the mid-century 'golden age'. So I won't start wailing on you - sorry for the ebonics - for your cultural chauvinism.

The black experience has shown that words matter. Empowerment comes with taking ownership of words. It is a staple of identity politics. The 'n' word is pretty much removed from white speak unless you live in part of the South in the US. Gay people are similarly taking back words that used to be used to discriminate against and oppress them.

A well funded political hate group is encouraging, facilitating and supporting the now poster child for religious extremism. A lot of people make their living out of the culture wars. No doubt this former dowdy nobody will do the same. Sarah Palin led the way on monetising tea bag lunacy. Reading through these types of threads it is easy to see how money can be made from the crazies steaming towards the flame.

Gay people didn't put her in jail. She refused to follow SCOTUS. SCOTUS is not gay people.

It's interesting that gay activists who praised San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for illegally issuing marriage licenses now vilify Kim Davis. I would add to this but I have someone following me deleting my posts.

The law and order poster calling anyone who makes the slightest criticism of law enforcement personnel despicable now advocates defiance of the law. Newsome's issuance of marriage certificates has been validated by the SCOTUS decision. So you now advocate selective disobedience of the law? You threatened on many similar threads since the SCOTUS decision to make your 'thoughts' known on this issue. When you finally did, they are deleted. Get the message?

lol....go to any anonymous forum with white people , and you will see the real form of racism in them.

Yeah, sure. Only white people are racist. What load of crap.

Racism is not about saying nasty words about white people or black people or any other people. Racism is a systemic issue. Reverse racism does not exist http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reverse-racism-isnt-a-thing_55d60a91e4b07addcb45da97 If a black person says they hat Whitey, this is not racist or racism. White republicans as victims! Give me a break.Racism was not solved then revived by Obama's election. The 'take back America' crowd are too gutless to face home truths and allow a society to move forward.

There is no such thing as reverse racism. Dude, you are a moron or a black panther with two brain cells. Lol, this place rocks. Love the views of those having to flee normal lives because: (1) they cannot get laid in their home countries; or (2) they cannot get decent jobs and keep up with the Jones in their home countries.

The fact is there is more of a problem with reverse racism than conventional racism in the US. I voted for Obama and have always been anDemocrat until recently.

Them I see stuff like this Freddie Gray crap, Obamacare and how Brown, Martin and etc. have been referenced by Obama and I am like WRH. Boy I was stupid and trusting.

Still waiting for your billboard pic. Can't wait for season 2 of Better Call Saul.

The settlement amount is offensive. A lot more going on here than meets the eye. Settlement amounts are typically based on pecuinary value of one's life which was very low or approaching zero for a career criminal who may have worked very little and been provided for by the state in a custodial setting. It is offensive considering what normal, good, hard working people would revive in a wrongful death case for bread winners of families that were actual productive members of society.

Forget pecuinary value, there are tort damage caps at issue here and this is also a filal consortium claim which typical has very little value unless child is actually supporting the parents. I would venture to say the most they could have received at trial was very low 6 figures with a tort cap of around $400,000.

This case would have received about squat had it gone to trial so it sounds as if there were wealth shifting forces behind authorization to pay this huge amount of tax payer money.

There is definitely more than meets the eye here to pay a filal consortium claim of a loser about $6,000,000 more than the claim was worth or would have received at trial.

Your formula includes the discount for being black right? Don't worry about whether people are going to like you. Just keep up the nonsense.

Yep. Dude, this is what I do every day of my life.

He actually had a very short suffering period. I see people daily with catastrophic injuries and uncontrollable back pain for years. I see quads stuck in wheel chairs entirely dependent upon other for their ADLs.

This all comes down to how damages are calculated in a tort case. First, look up the governmental tort liability act and see what the cap is, I.e., the most they could get if they go to trial.

Then we have a claim by parents which is typically very low, nominal or nonexistent unless the parents rely upon the adult child for support.

I am talking legal principals that are applied to everyone, every day regardless of race. This guy would get maybe $100k or less if this was decided by a judge or jury under current laws.

Lovely. We have a personal injury lawyer. Can you send us a pic of your billboard?

I love it when two lawyers get introduced to each other and immediately get in a pissing contest about degrees, universities and other such nonsense.

To give you the benefit of the doubt since you did not demand information on my degrees, I will take you at face value.l Someone recently taught me a wonderful phrase. Apples and Oranges. You are applying your vast experience on valuing compensation presumably in insurance or similar cases to an instance where a life was taken irresponsibly by agents of the State. This no car accident victim. Th metrics you use do not apply here. The compensation is not about how much value this person's life had or could have had, it was recognition of the responsibility of the State to compensate for its agents murdering a person.

Valuation of a human being is a necessary but cruel evil. My Chemistry teacher told us the value of the quality of chemicals that made up the human body. this is not compensation for damages. It is punishment of immoral actions by State agents. Perhaps the vodka can help you see the wood from the trees.

lol....go to any anonymous forum with white people , and you will see the real form of racism in them.

Yeah, sure. Only white people are racist. What load of crap.

Racism is not about saying nasty words about white people or black people or any other people. Racism is a systemic issue. Reverse racism does not exist http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reverse-racism-isnt-a-thing_55d60a91e4b07addcb45da97 If a black person says they hat Whitey, this is not racist or racism. White republicans as victims! Give me a break.Racism was not solved then revived by Obama's election. The 'take back America' crowd are too gutless to face home truths and allow a society to move forward.

The settlement amount is offensive. A lot more going on here than meets the eye. Settlement amounts are typically based on pecuinary value of one's life which was very low or approaching zero for a career criminal who may have worked very little and been provided for by the state in a custodial setting. It is offensive considering what normal, good, hard working people would revive in a wrongful death case for bread winners of families that were actual productive members of society.

Forget pecuinary value, there are tort damage caps at issue here and this is also a filal consortium claim which typical has very little value unless child is actually supporting the parents. I would venture to say the most they could have received at trial was very low 6 figures with a tort cap of around $400,000.

This case would have received about squat had it gone to trial so it sounds as if there were wealth shifting forces behind authorization to pay this huge amount of tax payer money.

There is definitely more than meets the eye here to pay a filal consortium claim of a loser about $6,000,000 more than the claim was worth or would have received at trial.

Your formula includes the discount for being black right? Don't worry about whether people are going to like you. Just keep up the nonsense.

I still wonder why it is so prevalent in Thailand.

Without commenting one way or the other on why it is so prevalent in Thailand, there is a fairly large corpus of evidence to suggest the main trigger is psychological, though I don't have specifics. Hence gender re-assignment is often done solely to align the physicak body with the psychology of the individual.

It's not at all politically correct to say so, and many won't agree but it is my view, so if you don't like it you can flame away.

Many Thais are what I would suggest is a bit odd (in my opinion it's largely the consequence of a repressive culture and a sub=par education), and the incidence of mental illness in Thailand is huge (though the government denies it - which they would do, it's a really serious loss of face for a government of any persuasion).

Coffee time...

Put your flamesuit on if you wish, but just because you're entitled to your own opinions does not mean you are entitled to your own facts.

The corpus of evidence is actually increasingly suggesting the opposite. That there are a number of physiological and biological reasons for how gender identity develops in humans.

Much like so-called "ex-gay conversion therapy" the evidence shows that attempts to "fix" gender identity to conform to a badly flawed idea that humans are 100% perfectly dimorphic (we're not) causes irreparable psychological trauma. You can't "fix" what isn't broken, and when you try, that's when you start breaking things. Our sense of self, our personalities, our every existence as sentient being exists in the brain, and yet we still know very little about it.

Psychiatric professionals realise that changing the body (often more accurately, helping it be more dimorphic one direction or the other, vs a nondimorphic middle ground) in a society that expects a person's gender expression and presentation to match a certain dimorphic body type is the only way to minimise the outside stressors associated with gender dysphoria.

Trans people are perfectly normal, and the treatment is medical. It's just taking the majority, cisgender people, an awful long time to get onboard with that.

The corpus of evidence is actually increasingly suggesting the opposite."

Hmmm. well "increasingly suggesting" doesn't mean "my facts". Except maybe to an optimist.

"That there are a number of physiological and biological reasons for how gender identity develops in humans."

OK, What reasons? What certainty of causality? Otherwise, you aren't entitled to infer they are facts of any kind. Not yours. not mine, not anyones' Conjecture is fine but you should really be more honest and say it is just conjecture.

"Much like so-called "ex-gay conversion therapy" the evidence shows that attempts to "fix" gender identity to conform to a badly flawed idea that humans are 100% perfectly dimorphic (we're not) causes irreparable psychological trauma."

Agreed. Most of them appear to have been religion-inspired, never a good sign.

"You can't "fix" what isn't broken"

Well, we wouldn't agree on what 'broken means' Frankly, if my car decided it wanted to drive on the right-hand side of the road in opposition to everyone else, then I would get it fixed. That kind of 'not broken'? You quite like to use loaded language I think. Transgenders are very far from being normal, that does appear to be a fact, at least the statistics say it is.

"Our sense of self, our personalities, our every existence as sentient being exists in the brain, and yet we still know very little about it."

Indeed, As my Mom used to say "If you don't know about something, you really shouldn't talk about it or else people will think you're pretending to be something you're not.

"Psychiatric professionals realise that..."

Quoting psychiatrists probably isn't the way to go. Psychologists would be better. IMHO. In any event, I question the usefulness of compulsorily familiarising university students with a disorder (yes, it's a disorder - meaning 'broken') that affects about a half of one percent of all people. Doing so is on a par with forcing a study of the conspiracy theories behind the 9/11 atrocity. There's rather more of those (estimated at 2% of people)

"Trans people are perfectly normal"

Oh please. Of course they're not unless you use a very strange survey sample. Not even close to normal but you may have a different definition of what 'normal' means.

Apart from all that, it was a good attempt at rebuttal - well, muddying the waters and peddling an agenda.

There is no body of evidence suggesting transgender people have any psychological disorder, otherwise you would have provided specifics to justify your nonsense. You then proceed to spray around your generalisations about an entire culture. This 'disorder' as you improperly and arrogantly describe it is not more prevalent in Thailand than anywhere else. Provide evidence of this or withdraw you comment.

Tell me, how did Mommy validate your 'normalcy'? By putting you in short pants? Buying you a toy dump truck for your birthday? Pity Mommy didn't teach you any manners. Your uncomfortableness with Transgender issues is no justification for vilifying them irrespective of what percentage of the population they comprise. Your analogies are specious and spurious. Left hand drive vehicles? Garbage.

A transgender person being transgender is normal for that person. You have zero right, authority or justification for saying otherwise. Your definition, or at least Mommy's definition, is entirely irrelevant to that person's life. You cite statistics? Claiming that a certain population occupies such a small proportion of the whole that this entitles you to invalidate and diminish their lives.

It would be better if you went off and dealt with your own issues and prejudices before coming amongst normal people spreading your bile. Mommy certainly would not be proud.

Tep: Simple minded? That would be logic and common sense, obviously several on here wouldn't know anything about that. And who ever told you Obamacare was humming along nicely, also probably misinformed you about the gun control situation in the U.S.

Actually the Supreme Court of the United States informed me of the situation with Obamacare when they consistently ruled in favour of the law http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-ruling-obamacare/. SCOTUS, you know that group of 5 un-elected lesbians refusing to allow Scalia's common sense to take American back to the 50's when it was 'Great Again'. Since Obamacare is off topic, then I can't really discuss it further but even though I used the most hot button issue I could think of to make a point, it piqued my interest. This site http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/ provides a bunch of statistics. Over 16 million newly insured. Impressive by any measure.

I do not argue the point about implementing gun control in the US on the constitutional, racial, socio-economic and cultural issues that fire up the Base. I do not even argue that the US is not different from Australia and Europe and those differences impact on the way in which gun control is debated and implemented. I do, however, believe that merely having a larger population that other countries does not mean that gun control measures like amnesty and buy back, and others, cannot be implemented in the US with measurable outcomes. Whether those outcomes are an indicator of success for however that is defined by either side of the debate is another issue.

Let's circle back to the OP. Averaging more than one mass shooting a day in 2015. We have gone through the semantics of the word 'mass'; we have gone through the whole mental health diversion; countless recitations of the Bill of Rights; outright racism; and a lot of general nastiness about 'stay out of our business'. Rejecting the idea that there is a connection between mass shootings and gun control is not common sense to me and many others. I think the opinions of those people are valid and earnestly expressed irrespective of their ability to know which guns have safety mechanisms, how to break down an automatic weapon, or how many times every week they shoot holes in a piece of paper with an image of a black person drawn on it. Sorry, I mean an image of a person coloured in black ink.

As I said, you have been misinformed, or, you are not properly comprehending the information on Obamacare.

As to gun control, I'm 60 years old, and have been around firearms all of my life, never personally had a problem. However, my stepfather and my mother ran a small store in a rural, small town. He carried a .38 revolver, and had positioned a .357, with the hopes he would never have to use them. Unfortunately, one day three idiots show up to rob them. He killed one, and the other two were captured and put in prison, and by the way they were all three black. The police said that they believed he saved his, and my mother's life. I suppose you think it was his fault for running an honest business, that served the community, mostly black, but he must be a racist for shooting a black man, even though he was armed with a shogun. Personally, I'm happy the 2nd Amendment permits the ownership of firearms. One person chose to do something that saved his life, and unfortunately one idiot chose to do something, that cost him his.

Sorry but you are telling me that the information on obamacarefacts.com is incorrect? You are also telling me that SCOTUS did not rule in favour of Obamacare? Or are you just calling me stupid in the absence of anything sensible to say? Ad hominen attacks are pretty useless really.

I do not think that there is anything in what I have posted on this thread that justifies your assumptions about my response to your anecdote. Anecdotes are fine. This obviously contributed to informing your point of view. It does not inform policy however. As Stalin is reputed to have said, "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic". Policy is made on the basis of statistics. The greatest good etc...

Countries with gun control do not have the incidences of mass shootings that you see in the US. The connection is quite self-evident. Pity that to a certain faction, the solution is not.

Thank you Chuck for consulting your friend Google and providing population statistics for Australia. I have lost track in the decades away form the place. Now perhaps you or your friend could provide some sensible explanation of what these numbers have to to with the issue. The US and Australia are more alike than different. No doubt you and others can spend days and weeks of fruitful banter picking all these apart and responding according to ideological alignment, although it does get old quite quickly actually. Those numbers are meaningless irrespective of what fruit you are eating at the moment.

Your first sentence is actually a key and relevant difference between the two countries that does not negate the proven effectiveness of the implementation of stricter gun control legislation with the use of tactics such as amnesty and buy back. I had to give up my guns when I became ineligible under the new legislation. Had I remained in Australia and remained eligible to retain my firearms license, then I would not have had to do this except for a few pieces that had to be disposed of quietly in the desert.

The real issues that pro-gun people want to talk about are the racial and socio-economic ones but they have to tie themselves in knots to avoid being obviously disgustingly bigoted. Even on these grounds, though, I don't think you can really discriminate much between Australia and the US. Australia may have a different coloured under-class but the same root causes and outcomes prevail there as they do in the US.

You didn't understand my "apples and oranges" reference?

I apologize for using a rather common reference to making comparisons between two objects that are not similar in any manner.

I'll try and use more flowery sentence structure in the future so you won't get confused with the common man approach.

The population figures were provided to emphasize the relative differences between undertaking anything such as the gun control instituted by the Australian government in 1996 dealing with a population of something less than 30 million as opposed to dealing with a population of some 320 million. In addition, the Australian government was dealing with six states while any attempt to control weapons in the US would be dealing with 50 states and the various laws on the books of each and every one.

And that doesn't even address the Second Amendment, does it.

Apples and oranges.

The 'common man' and his honest, down-home folksy common sense. I get your schtick. Also called simple-minded.

Just want some substance to the idea of how size matters in this case, which is about the presumptive implementation of gun controls using methods that have proven successful in other countries. The US cannot implement national legislation? Last I heard Obamacare was humming along nicely.

And I thought you used to be in management. Let's give it the 'Old College Try'. Don't let the fruit get in the way. They are meaningless non sequiturs.

The US government can't successfully implement much of anything.

Think Amtrak, US Postal Service, Veteran's Administration, US Congress, Fast & Furious, IRS, et al.

Now extrapolate that historical knowledge into a program that is attempting to get something around 100,000,000 gun owners to hand over some 300,000,000 guns willingly and I think even an Australian might have trouble with that scenario.

And in the end, all you have done is disarm the law abiding citizens of their weapons and haven't even begun to disarm the gang banger's, drug dealers or Mexican cartels.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

" Last I heard Obamacare was humming along nicely."

Sorry to bust your bubble but the premiums are going up next year some 30-50% in many states and the death spiral will begin when it does. But that is off topic so I will leave it with just a link.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-premium-hikes-for-2016-ignore-them-at-your-own-risk/article/2566556

PS: Is it acceptable for me to use the simple minded phrase "bust your bubble" in this post?

I don't really do vernacular but don't let me stop you. While I enjoyed the film, the whole Forrest Gump 'My Mamma told me...' thing didn't really resonate with me as it clearly did with a substantial number of Americans.

There is nothing US centric about inefficiencies in large bureaucracies. I have worked in and engaged with many around the World, including at the State and Federal level in the US in my career. I would say the US State Department is the most egregious example of an agency having its head up its own arse. I could also bore everyone to death about railway and postal reform around the world as that directly relates to my work experience but that would be further off topic. As for bursting my bubble on Obamacare, I am product of a nationalised health system that took care of my parents in their final years and a strong advocate of the single payer model. I have addressed my reference to Obamacare in my reply to Beechguy.

So with the off topic stuff dealt with, we are left with the original dilemma. I do not think you can reject the connection between the gun control issue and the awful statistic of mass shootings. Defending a mechanism that prevents effective gun control in favour of being prepared to defend your liberty against a future tyrannical government armed with an array of weapons the most fevered gun nut can only fantasise about makes no sense to me and many others.

Australia and other countries have address the issue and will continue to address the issue. The US is stuck in an ideological morass.

Tep: Simple minded? That would be logic and common sense, obviously several on here wouldn't know anything about that. And who ever told you Obamacare was humming along nicely, also probably misinformed you about the gun control situation in the U.S.

Actually the Supreme Court of the United States informed me of the situation with Obamacare when they consistently ruled in favour of the law http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-ruling-obamacare/. SCOTUS, you know that group of 5 un-elected lesbians refusing to allow Scalia's common sense to take American back to the 50's when it was 'Great Again'. Since Obamacare is off topic, then I can't really discuss it further but even though I used the most hot button issue I could think of to make a point, it piqued my interest. This site http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/ provides a bunch of statistics. Over 16 million newly insured. Impressive by any measure.

I do not argue the point about implementing gun control in the US on the constitutional, racial, socio-economic and cultural issues that fire up the Base. I do not even argue that the US is not different from Australia and Europe and those differences impact on the way in which gun control is debated and implemented. I do, however, believe that merely having a larger population that other countries does not mean that gun control measures like amnesty and buy back, and others, cannot be implemented in the US with measurable outcomes. Whether those outcomes are an indicator of success for however that is defined by either side of the debate is another issue.

Let's circle back to the OP. Averaging more than one mass shooting a day in 2015. We have gone through the semantics of the word 'mass'; we have gone through the whole mental health diversion; countless recitations of the Bill of Rights; outright racism; and a lot of general nastiness about 'stay out of our business'. Rejecting the idea that there is a connection between mass shootings and gun control is not common sense to me and many others. I think the opinions of those people are valid and earnestly expressed irrespective of their ability to know which guns have safety mechanisms, how to break down an automatic weapon, or how many times every week they shoot holes in a piece of paper with an image of a black person drawn on it. Sorry, I mean an image of a person coloured in black ink.

It worked in Oz regardless of the naysayers.

I thought the US was a 'can do' country. But despite its rhetoric it is a 'cannot do' country.

The US "can do" only those things that are Constitutional.

Population of Australia -- 23,888,800

Population of US -------- 321,773,000

Population of California---38,802,500

Population of Texas-------26,956,958

Apples and oranges.

Thank you Chuck for consulting your friend Google and providing population statistics for Australia. I have lost track in the decades away form the place. Now perhaps you or your friend could provide some sensible explanation of what these numbers have to to with the issue. The US and Australia are more alike than different. No doubt you and others can spend days and weeks of fruitful banter picking all these apart and responding according to ideological alignment, although it does get old quite quickly actually. Those numbers are meaningless irrespective of what fruit you are eating at the moment.

Your first sentence is actually a key and relevant difference between the two countries that does not negate the proven effectiveness of the implementation of stricter gun control legislation with the use of tactics such as amnesty and buy back. I had to give up my guns when I became ineligible under the new legislation. Had I remained in Australia and remained eligible to retain my firearms license, then I would not have had to do this except for a few pieces that had to be disposed of quietly in the desert.

The real issues that pro-gun people want to talk about are the racial and socio-economic ones but they have to tie themselves in knots to avoid being obviously disgustingly bigoted. Even on these grounds, though, I don't think you can really discriminate much between Australia and the US. Australia may have a different coloured under-class but the same root causes and outcomes prevail there as they do in the US.

You didn't understand my "apples and oranges" reference?

I apologize for using a rather common reference to making comparisons between two objects that are not similar in any manner.

I'll try and use more flowery sentence structure in the future so you won't get confused with the common man approach.

The population figures were provided to emphasize the relative differences between undertaking anything such as the gun control instituted by the Australian government in 1996 dealing with a population of something less than 30 million as opposed to dealing with a population of some 320 million. In addition, the Australian government was dealing with six states while any attempt to control weapons in the US would be dealing with 50 states and the various laws on the books of each and every one.

And that doesn't even address the Second Amendment, does it.

Apples and oranges.

The 'common man' and his honest, down-home folksy common sense. I get your schtick. Also called simple-minded.

Just want some substance to the idea of how size matters in this case, which is about the presumptive implementation of gun controls using methods that have proven successful in other countries. The US cannot implement national legislation? Last I heard Obamacare was humming along nicely.

And I thought you used to be in management. Let's give it the 'Old College Try'. Don't let the fruit get in the way. They are meaningless non sequiturs.

What all this amounts to is the vast majority of the gun control enthusiasts only have a plan for removing guns from the hands of law abiding US citizens.

One went so far as to mention amnesty, ala Australia. If one considers that any person affected by an amnesty is someone that is breaking the law, they might then realize how completely foolish that idea becomes.

Legal gun owners are exactly that...legal gun owners. They have no need for amnesty since they have broken no laws.

So, let's look at amnesty for illegal gun owners. Many of them are going to reside in high crime areas where weapons are already abundant. Why would they give up their only means of self preservation just to feel all warm and cuddly about gaining amnesty?

Amnesty is a non-starter.

How about a gun buyback program. you ask?

Because historical information is they don't really work. Google is your friend.

So now what do we do? Call up the National Guard and invade Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles et al and take the weapons away from the bad guys?

One thing to do is enforce existing laws. We don't need any more laws. There are something like 30,000 currently at work.

What we need is rigid enforcement of the laws to include mandatory prison terms for any person convicted of a crime where a weapon was involved.

That might get some of the bang banger's, drug dealers and violent illegal immigrants off the streets and send some messages to others that are contemplating a life of crime.

The other pressing problem is identifying those mentally ill individuals that might present a threat to themselves and others. Legislation could be used to require the medical profession to insure those same mental problems would be identified and treated accordingly. This particular category is where the real mass shooting are coming from.

Let's stop this ridiculous charade of disarming the legal gun owners. That isn't going anywhere.

It worked in Oz regardless of the naysayers.

I thought the US was a 'can do' country. But despite its rhetoric it is a 'cannot do' country.

The US "can do" only those things that are Constitutional.

Population of Australia -- 23,888,800

Population of US -------- 321,773,000

Population of California---38,802,500

Population of Texas-------26,956,958

Apples and oranges.

Thank you Chuck for consulting your friend Google and providing population statistics for Australia. I have lost track in the decades away form the place. Now perhaps you or your friend could provide some sensible explanation of what these numbers have to to with the issue. The US and Australia are more alike than different. No doubt you and others can spend days and weeks of fruitful banter picking all these apart and responding according to ideological alignment, although it does get old quite quickly actually. Those numbers are meaningless irrespective of what fruit you are eating at the moment.

Your first sentence is actually a key and relevant difference between the two countries that does not negate the proven effectiveness of the implementation of stricter gun control legislation with the use of tactics such as amnesty and buy back. I had to give up my guns when I became ineligible under the new legislation. Had I remained in Australia and remained eligible to retain my firearms license, then I would not have had to do this except for a few pieces that had to be disposed of quietly in the desert.

The real issues that pro-gun people want to talk about are the racial and socio-economic ones but they have to tie themselves in knots to avoid being obviously disgustingly bigoted. Even on these grounds, though, I don't think you can really discriminate much between Australia and the US. Australia may have a different coloured under-class but the same root causes and outcomes prevail there as they do in the US.

McCain's observation that Trump brings out the crazies is demonstrated time after time. His perceptiveness on this has gone a long way to restoring his credibility after the Palin mess. Let the clown car continue.

Really? When women knew their place. Old men and their fantasies for something that never existed except in their dreams.

Really junior, if you want to mix it with the grown ups here is a little bit of advice. To be sarcastic or put someone down, don't do it by ridiculing yourself by quoting someones comments incorrectly. Really, I said when women knew their place, sorry I never said it, but in an attempt to show your manhood you make a fool of yourself. As for the two clowns who liked you, I suggest you also dry behind your ears.

Clearly wisdom has not accrued with age. The answer to not being ridiculed is to not be ridiculous. I am one of those rejects that you dismiss so blithely and arrogantly. I also grew up in the period you cite. It was a time of ignorance, hypocrisy and fear. Our time is now here. It started with the sexual revolution in 1969 and has not and will not stop. Trump will revive the Camelot that never was? You and your fellow Trumpettes are a global laughing stock. In case the eyesight or the memory has gone, your exact words were 'a mother's place...' You talk about 'men with backbone'. Where's yours? Own your own words. Own your hypocrisy. And own your ignorance.

If you honestly believe wwhat you spruke, then empathy is in order as you are a sad, naive little boy who could never make it in the real world.

Two posts and the guy from the era of 'men with backbones' caves. I identified a number of issues relevant to the impact of the culture wars and you respond with puerile invective. You are a true dyed-in-the-wool Trumpette. He cannot take any critical comment without childish responses. He only speaks in hollow stereotypes to similarly inclined crazies. The last gasp of the angry old white men as the World sees the first Black President establish a world-spanning legacy on social issues and prepares to witness the first female President who will continue that social program. Current and future generations care not a jot for your grumblings. Please continue your insults. It reinforces your complete lack of rationale, reason or substance in your original statements. A true Trumpette indeed.

No, only in your little world do you conform to everything without question, those of us that grew up in better days (Kennedy's Era), remember the good times of no political correctness crap, where men with back bones stood up to be counted and a mothers place was at home caring for her husband and kids. No one says they were easy times but certainly were rewarding. There was no gender equality, just plain respect for the man and the woman and their individual roles in life. The rest, the rejects, knew there place in the equation. Russia has Putin, USA will have Trump and hopefully it will become contagious. For the last 50 years you new age thinking twerps have had your go and failed humanity miserably so it is time to turn the clock back. To all of you out there that have been wet nursed all your life, better get the change of nappies ready.

McCain's observation that Trump brings out the crazies is demonstrated time after time. His perceptiveness on this has gone a long way to restoring his credibility after the Palin mess. Let the clown car continue.

Really? When women knew their place. Old men and their fantasies for something that never existed except in their dreams.

Really junior, if you want to mix it with the grown ups here is a little bit of advice. To be sarcastic or put someone down, don't do it by ridiculing yourself by quoting someones comments incorrectly. Really, I said when women knew their place, sorry I never said it, but in an attempt to show your manhood you make a fool of yourself. As for the two clowns who liked you, I suggest you also dry behind your ears.

Clearly wisdom has not accrued with age. The answer to not being ridiculed is to not be ridiculous. I am one of those rejects that you dismiss so blithely and arrogantly. I also grew up in the period you cite. It was a time of ignorance, hypocrisy and fear. Our time is now here. It started with the sexual revolution in 1969 and has not and will not stop. Trump will revive the Camelot that never was? You and your fellow Trumpettes are a global laughing stock. In case the eyesight or the memory has gone, your exact words were 'a mother's place...' You talk about 'men with backbone'. Where's yours? Own your own words. Own your hypocrisy. And own your ignorance.

A lot of misinformed posters on this thread. Dr Ellis is not a Thai citizen. Here is what he actually relayed to the press after being arrested on Thursday at Suvannaphumi Airport.

“On presentation of my UK passport, I was told I was blacklisted as a 'danger to Thai society' . I've been detailed in a holding cell in the transit area of Suvarnabhumi since then.

“The Immigration Police showed me my file, which contained a report stating that in Dec 2009 Supachai wrote to the Immigration Department claiming that I was a forger and plagiarist, and demanding my blacklisting.

Better than a Thai prison but 'it ain't half hot in here'

“The Immigration Departtment kindly obliged without question. But I only came to know of this last Thursday.

“The NIA had written to the Immigration Chief, revoking the original complaint, so they have no grounds for retaining the blacklisting, or for denying immediate entry into Thailand. We have asked the Immigration Chief to lift the blacklisting on Monday.

The timing of Supachai’s letter suggests that the Innovation Agency Director wanted Professor Ellis to leave Thailand and not return during his cases, which he would have won by default.

British consular services have been informed.

“I haven’t heard a peep out of them, A man at the Foreign Office said nothing could be done until Monday.”

Some very clear and useful information. Dr. Ellis has been released from the detention centre and has now entered Thailand since Immigration has confirmed that he is no longer on the blacklist http://fccthai.com/items/1741.html

This was not a conspiracy involving state agencies. It was an improper use of authority by a weasel who was trying to cover his backside. As DG of NIA, the plagiarist had formal authority and use this authority to communicate officially to the Immigration Department. His agency then rescinded that communication and clearly administrative procedures at Immigration did not capture this. Once this was established, then Dr. Ellis was immediately released. Unfair? Certainly. A national conspiracy? No.

Government officials have certain authorities and powers under the law and a formal communication from one agency to another agency has the force of regulation and must be acted upon. As an example, under the old ranking system, officials of C6 and higher had the authority to provide surety for persons arrested and have them granted bail for some offences.

I am confused though about the citizenship issue. The FCCT in an earlier Tweet had referred to Dr. Ellis' dual nationality but my understanding is that naturalised Thais cannot enter the country on any passport other than their Thai passport and in this case, Immigration have no authority over a Thai citizen and certainly cannot detail or deport a Thai citizen on immigration charges. Different sources have different information on this issue.

I support most of the posters here who expressed a deep sense of unfairness about this case. I have followed Dr. Ellis' case for a number of years. There are systemic issues at play here, but essentially Dr. Ellis had the misfortune to associate with an a-hole and is having to deal with the fall out as bet he can. The system could provide more equitable assistance.

The hoary old chestnut of 'we are only guests here' has raised its pathetic head in this thread. I guess some people are too willing to trade their balls for cheap sex. The Thai constitution, or at least what-ever form of constitution is finally approved will say that everyone is equal under the law. Requiring equal protection is not whistle-blowing, it is natural justice. A 30 year resident who has contributed significantly to Thai society and national development with an international career and reputation being lectured to keep his head down and don't rock the boat is pretty gutless in my view.

^^^ Trump wants to seal the border. ^^^ Trump would never join an EU and take away his country's sovereignty. ^^^ Trump would never sell the country's natural resources to China and then go into a tailspin as a result. ^^^

Who's the stupid one?

If you are American you should know once a Pesident is in he has to do what he is told, I can see him as a war monger, he does not put his brain into opperation before he opens his mouth.

The only best one you ever had was JFK he defied the big guys and his military to prevent a 3rd WW. The big guys and military wanted to blow the Russian ships out of the water on their way to Cuba. This guy Trump would press the button. He has no political experience, the only thing good he has is a circled mouth like a gold fish.

Sorry, but you must be all mad to vote for him. If he was in negotiations with some heads of COUNTRYS he would just walk out if he did not get what he wanted.

And him wanting to throw all the Mexico type out of the country ever the ones that are there legally is a crime.

You Americans will suffer if you vote him in. God help you.

No, only in your little world do you conform to everything without question, those of us that grew up in better days (Kennedy's Era), remember the good times of no political correctness crap, where men with back bones stood up to be counted and a mothers place was at home caring for her husband and kids. No one says they were easy times but certainly were rewarding. There was no gender equality, just plain respect for the man and the woman and their individual roles in life. The rest, the rejects, knew there place in the equation. Russia has Putin, USA will have Trump and hopefully it will become contagious. For the last 50 years you new age thinking twerps have had your go and failed humanity miserably so it is time to turn the clock back. To all of you out there that have been wet nursed all your life, better get the change of nappies ready.

McCain's observation that Trump brings out the crazies is demonstrated time after time. His perceptiveness on this has gone a long way to restoring his credibility after the Palin mess. Let the clown car continue.

Really? When women knew their place. Old men and their fantasies for something that never existed except in their dreams.

Those who have declared on this forum that homosexual activities are within the penumbra of 'natural' acts need to explain where they have found this "Book of Nature". Perhaps they are prepared to explain how an Arab sheik can have a 'natural' set of 30 wives, for ex.; or why do East Indians marry 12-14 y/o girls? Also, why not indict her god, assume Jehovah, for adultery? He had unprotected sex, impregnated a human (Mary) without her consent, then refused to pay child support. Hypocrisy is rampant in religious extremism and in the case of the clerk it doesn't help to have her double-digit IQ. exposed. If she is indeed merely a 'clerk', then she prob has a supervisor who could monitor and override her decision, wouldn't you think? Now that the SCOTUS has set-up Sodomy as a legitimate, protected and sanctified act we Proles had just damn well knuckle under. Because THE LAW is always right, by definition..

Is penumbra a woman's part? I do know that straight sexual partners indulge in sodomy with both sexes giving and receiving with the use of sexual aids. Why is sodomy discussed as a gay marriage thing? Many magazines, you know, the cool ones for the younger generation that has passed you old men by, talk a lot about the joys of the prostate.

If you are not gay, you really cannot engage in any discussion about gay sex. Really. Gay sex is not relevant to non gay people. Natural? What kind of superficial nonsense is this. The animal kingdom exhibits same sex activity. Straight sex that doesn't directly produce offspring - is that unnatural? Leading people up the garden path by throwing in polygamy and bestiality and all that nonsense is meaningless. If you are not gay, you cannot claim anything about gay sex, certainly not its naturalness or otherwise.

Marriage equality is part of the developing gay culture. It is not about sodomy. Sodomy is an infinitesimal part of the GLBT experience. There is a mass of literature on GLBT culture. Many people, including noon GLBT read such literature. Just like non Black people read about the Black experience and evolution of their cultures. Information is out there for you to find. You are not entitled to demand any explanations from anyone, particularly if you are differently oriented or identify differently to those people on whom you place these demands.

Why do people that know little to nothing about firearms,self-defense and Defensive Gun Uses feel the need to bloviate and post endlessly about their lack of knowledge of firearms and debate those that have a life-long knowledge of the subject and tell them they are wrong?

You are basically embarrassing yourselves.

They are not the ones who used the word bloviate.

Gun nerds blowing each other about technical minutiae is not a very meaningful discussion. Lack of technical knowledge does not disqualify anyone from expressing an opinion on this subject. You have no authority to tell another person they are wrong no matter how many bb guns you had as a sprig.

The racism expressed by US gun proponents is now unfortunately standard fare on social media. It diminishes the user and it diminishes the argument.

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

Again, the Supreme Court does not agree with you. Courtesy of CNN this morning https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-473.ZS.html Garcetti v. Ceballos 2006 re the 1st Amendment rights of public employees.

She is depriving others of their constitutional rights as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

I'd that is OK with you Chuck, can we take another look at the 2nd Amendment?

The Second Amendment has been done to death.

I need some European and Aussie instructions on how to read the US Constitution.

Why is what she is doing any different than Obama's failure to follow various laws over the last six+ years.

How is her refusal to issue a license to a few people any more of an impact than the decision by the current Administration to smuggle illegally obtained weapons into Mexico (Fast and Furious)?

What about the San Francisco sanctuary city decision that has already resulted in the death of at least one person? Somebody is choosing not to enforce the immigration laws and a violent killer is on the streets.

So two couples are inconvenienced and might have to drive 30-40 miles to another jurisdiction until this is all settled.

I was raised in West Texas. We used to make a 150 mile round trip on Saturday night to eat the best chocolate meringue pie you ever tasted.

Frankly I see all this as much ado about nothing. You want the license (I said nothing about her performing any ceremonies) then drive to the nearest jurisdiction where you can easily obtain one...or wait until the County Commissioners can sort this out.

On the one hand you have a majority opinion of the Supreme Court and on the other hand you have the analysis of constitutional rights above. To paraphrase another ignorant dame, "Let them eat chocolate meringue". Seems like the Federal Judge also sides with the SCOTUS majority and not with you. She and not President Obama, nor the Mayor of San Francisco is now sitting in jail. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

I don't think we should take our instruction in Constitutional Law from you any more.

people discuss the various problems that result from gay marriage; but what about the problems concerning gay divorce?

what about community property? In the event of a legal dissolution of a gay marriage, who gets the drapes and the color-coded finger stalls?

Within the purview of the American (USA) system of jurisprudence, the highest court-SCOTUS-has shown itself to be an uber-progressive body, that exacerbates the century-long socio-political thrust into Communist control mechanisms..which is the overbearing tyranny coming out of a central government that seeks to control even your bodily functions.. .IMO, those three lesbian members of the court should have recused themselves from the process of determining social policy in this respect...but, my recommendation would be to go ahead and let gays marry; let them suffer for awhile just as the rest of us have done...in any event, best to go for the politically correct premise and say, the less bein' said about that the better..55555.

Why is gay divorce more problematic than straight divorce? Or is this just a vehicle for your stereotyping bon mot? Très amusing.

More seriously though, I am intrigued by your association of Communism with sexual liberalisation. As far as I am aware, Communist societies were traditionally some of the most oppressive and vindictive towards same sex relationships and activities. Perhaps you could provide some evidence of this not being the case?

Said clerk has been divorced more than once I believe, in which case her position is based on selective and hypocritical citing of a book of fiction.

Ahh yes the Liberal left attacking her for her past actions PRIOR to be becoming a Christian and at the same time the peaceful left sending her death threats, threats to set her home on fire and all the time she is a registered Democrat you could not make it up

I cant stand Democrats but have to stand up for her and her right to refuse to do something that is against her beliefs.

Hmmm, the first time I've ever been accused of being liberal-left, I guess there is a first time for anything. Of course her previous divorces were perfectly legal according to current U.S law, though the bible would have had a thing or two to say about the matter if it were the basis of current law. Likewise whatever the bible may or may not say about same sex marriage is equally irrelevant, what matters is current U.S law.

Even if the bible was a valid reason to base her appeal on it would look better if she had no dirty washing according to said bible. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone springs to mind.

This is fantastic news. Welcome to the Dark Side Steely Dan. Will you now be bookmarking Huffington Post instead of Gates of Vienna?

This is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the USA. If this county clerk feels she can't issue licenses as per the law of the land, fine. That is her choice--as a private citizen, not as a government official. She needs to be impeached immediately so someone who follows the law can fill the position.

I saw her on tv, and she told a couple that they were forcing their beliefs on her. It is more that she is forcing her beliefs on them.

No what is DISGUSTING is the fact that people are NOW FORCED to accept beliefs that are deemed offensive too others but they NOW FORCED to accept it.

For example while I dont care if gay people do their stuff behind closed doors, I do find it EXTREMELY offensive to watch 2 guys kissing an cannoodling in public be it religious belief or not it makes me wanna puke that is just the way it is but of course I am homophobic a bigot and any other names they want to call me but the truth TO ME AND MILLION OF OTHERS the thought of having sex with another man is disgusting but you expect me to be forced to accept that SORRY aint gonna happen.,

Now this lady is being forced against her beliefs to do something she does not believe in, I agree with her she has that right to refuse

These are the consequences of your kind of hate speech http://myinforms.com/en/a/16015579-students-react-to-claims-that-und-frat-assaults-a-man-because-hes-gay/ You hold a minority, marginal view which is offensive and in some parts of the world is now criminalised. I look forward to the day when that is the standard response to your particular brand of bile.

People refusing to accept the universality of human equality and rights because of their religious beliefs are and have been forcing others to accept their world view with an arrogance and narrow-mindedness that is truly disgusting.

Why do you make this issue about gay sex? It is about human equality under the law at least according to the majority opinion of SCOTUS. You ranting about your response to same sex PDA is both off topic and revealing.

It seems unlikely that EGAT would deliberately seek out an area of natural beauty and strong tourism to build a plant. Looking at a range of factors perhaps.

Smells like NIMBY to me.

I wonder if their timing is a little off?

Lets see if these 2 make it until the 22nd to actually view the plans?

EGAT plans to build the 800 MW power plant on the site of a retired oil-fired power plant that had around 300 MW capacity. The main issue EGAT and the local communities will have to deal with is the landing of the coal and its trans-shipment to the power plant site. There are significant environmental and logistical issues.