JCauto

3 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

And we know why it's stalled too, don't we? 

The Democrats consider their pet pork projects more important than the health of the citizens and the economy. 

Oh really? So a blank cheque for $500 Billion for corporations without any oversight or reporting isn't "pet pork"?

On 3/2/2020 at 7:32 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Abortions always have happened, always will happen, the only real choice is are women allowed professional medical abortions are are they going back to coat hangers and poisons.

Exactly.

Another point which the fetus fetishists will duly ignore is that when education, birth control and safe abortions are available, the abortion rate drops precipitously. 

Allow me to rephrase in a way the fetishists might understand. Making abortion illegal creates MORE abortions, not less. This is an incontrovertible fact. So do they REALLY care about abortion? If they did, then they would go for the approach that evidence has shown results in a far lower rate of abortions and far lower medical complications. But that's not the real issue.

So what is really the issue? Religious or cynical men (and women) who want to control women based on their personal beliefs.

So, given the nexus between religion and the conservative political movement, do educate us liberals by answering the following question:

"If Conservatives are for freedom and less government, why are you so keen on dictating deeply personal choices and enforcing them with criminal punishment via the State?" 

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Wonder if Truedeau will start whining about the extradition as the accused is Canadian?

No doubt he will. Canada doesn't have the Death Penalty, and would not send any of their citizens to a potential death sentence as a result as we think it is barbaric. 

Don't feel bad though, he'd do it even for you if you were Canadian. Unfortunately, you were born in a less civilized country.

13 hours ago, allen303 said:

Obama criticized the Supreme Court at his state of the union address, for a ruling against him. With them sitting in the front row.

Plus numerous other times at news conference and interviews. Did not realize he had such a hard on for the SC till I checked it on the net!

 

As for the British lad, glad you take so much interest in the US politics. How is the deal going with the EU? 

Indeed he did, which was quite a rare thing for someone who has as much knowledge of constitutional law and precedent. You might ask yourself, "what was this decision of the SC that was so egregious that it prompted direct public criticism from a President who seldom did so?" It was the Citizens United case, the one that opened up US politics to unlimited amounts of dark money.

This single decision is what has led to this point, where there's a serious chance that two Billionaires will be facing each other for the Presidency. Politics will never improve so long as money is what drives it. You need people to drive it, people who have been inspired by ideas. Without huge funding for politicians, you actually need to gain support from large numbers of people, not small groups of rich folk who are also able to amplify their messages infinitely with their unlimited access to the press and social media, which again is facilitated by unlimited amounts of money.

Or are you of the opinion that the rich should be given more rights since they've demonstrated their merit by accumulating large amounts of material wealth?

 

12 minutes ago, Tug said:

50 50 at best imo I’d rather see Biden for his experience or Bloomberg for his financial savvy I think he would do a competent job love Bernie but we can’t afford him trump has the economy going on borrowed money and giveaways to the wealthy it’s not the right time for Bernie’s ideas

Don't fall for the corporate fear-mongering. Bernie will wallop Trump in 2020. Reason #1 is the same reason Trump destroyed his Republican opposition - he's the only one who actually inspires people to get out to vote and he has a huge base of incredibly loyal voters who WILL go to the polls. This is the whole reason Hilary lost, she inspired only disgust. Not only that, the people who go to the polls for Bernie usually DON'T go to the polls, so this will be new votes on top of the anti-Trump vote. Reason #2 is that the coronavirus is going to screw the economy that was Trump's only real accomplishment other than gutting environmental, education and health care systems and stacking  the Justice system with anti-abortion judges so they can further oppress women. Oh, and guess who shut down most of the US' ability to respond to pandemics? If you guessed the same guy who's telling everyone "no problem!" then you're correct. Bernie will make Trump own that and that will be the final nail in the coffin.

And why can't the US afford health care like we poorer countries have? Are they incompetent? Trump gave away $1,000,000,000,000 to the one percent and corporations and has built the deficit to levels never seen. Can you afford more of that? What would happen if the government actually walked away from massive handouts to corporations and building even more military capability and directed some of the funds to address health care, education and climate change? That's what we're talking about. If it sounds like it makes sense, that's because it does. 

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Wondering how it will work for civilians working overseas not being able to have their own health Ins, or retired military on Tri-Care. Will be a mess if Bernie does pull it off.

The same way it works for us (Canadians). You buy overseas health insurance separately (Blue Cross, for example) and go home if you get something serious. Also depends on your status though, if you're an expatriate, then you don't get health care until after you've returned for 3 months to make sure that those who don't pay Canadian tax, don't get benefits. Of course, American expatriates are still subject to tax, unlike we Canucks. After all, freedom!

38 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

That's what you get when the Supreme Court is staffed with Afirmitive Action individuals such as Sotomeyer. 

She's clearly not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. 

So you don't believe that Sonia Sotomayor's judicial record was sufficient? On what basis? She was eminently qualified based on her judicial scholarship, experience and the weight of her opinions as considered by higher courts. 

Sorry to have to explain this to you, but political opinion does not either count as a qualification or as a disqualification. If you have a substantive reason (in other words, one that questions her legal expertise) why you believe this, then you should enlighten us!

1 hour ago, blazes said:

“Planting trees is good, of course, but it is nowhere near enough of what is needed, and it cannot replace real mitigation and rewilding nature,” Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg said in Davos last month.

 

Ah, such mature wisdom out of the mouths of babes.....let's hear it for "mitigation" and "rewilding".....

As someone working in this field (forest conservation), allow me to provide my input.

Yes, Greta is correct. We are facing several crises with respect to the environment, one of which is carbon sequestration. Another, which receives far less attention, is biodiversity conservation. I would expect that they would address the carbon issue through a technological fix - think drones dropping tree seedlings rather than people with feet on the ground. And indeed, this would be a pretty good idea as trees don't require a lot of maintenance and this would be far more efficient in terms of costs and in terms of reaching remote and difficult areas to access. 

On the other hand, you just end up with a large monoculture plantation forest, usually acacia or eucalyptus or some other fast-growing species (in the sub-tropics, that is). If you've ever been in any of these sorts of "forest", you'll already know how barren of life and lacking in ecological services these "forests" are.

The problem with biodiversity conservation is that once it's gone, it's not coming back and you can't artificially recreate it. This is a critical issue, but one that is very difficult to explain to laypeople. Why should you care if some exotic beetle dies in a rainforest? As we observe the start of the next great extinction event, this casual attitude to the environment ensures that Greta's generation is going to be deep in the stuff we've left for them.

5 hours ago, mercman24 said:

this wouild have been thrown out at a proper trial, you cannot ask for witnesses after you have presented your case, this is a total farce, TRUMP has done more for the American people in 3 years than the democrats had in 8 years of doing sfa. this lot is just as bad as the LABOUR party in the UK, its a vendetta, anyone can see this, this will hurt them big time at the ballot box, serves them right, talk about clouded judgement.

You...you mean that the previous 20 impeachment trials should have been thrown out? Including Clinton's? Because they all had witnesses after impeachment in the House. 

It must be difficult to ignore all the cognitive dissonance of Right-wing positions over the last three years. Before - Obama is turning the US into an imperial presidency! Now - Trump should be allowed to do anything he wants if he sees himself being re-elected as being in the best interests of the USA. Before - the spend spend spend Democrats are running up the deficit! Now - largest deficit spending in US history. Before - we're against big government and welfare! Now - increase government power by allowing the White House to ignore all rules and regulations and turn farmers into welfare queens. 

Let's face it - you don't care about "rule of law", and you never have. You investigated Hilary for years and spent millions doing it and nobody was convicted, yet call this impeachment investigation a vendetta when several of the co-conspirators have already been convicted of crimes and dozens are on record including under oath to what happened, yet the Republicans refuse to allow any testimony from those directly party to the events or to allow anyone to hear the so-called "perfect" phone call. This is a cover-up which is notable only for its brazenness and lack of any attempt at coherence. 

But remember - when the next Democrat President starts using these imperial powers, this is what you wanted!

5 minutes ago, hansnl said:

The result of antisemitism in the 20th century, 6 million murdered.

The result of Islamophobia?

No camps, no slaughters, nothing.

The result of Islam hundreds of thousand of Christians murdered, displaced, raped.

Rather a difference, I think.

Hence the reason for Islamophobia.

I think you might research into the plight of the Uighers before you claim there are no camps or other terrible things happening to Muslims. It is literally happening as we type.

And if you believe that the history of war between Christians and Muslims is a one-sided slaughter, then you've got very little knowledge of history.

29 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

When your buddy gets drunk does he fondle your butt?

I think there is a big difference between an affectionate hug, squeeze on the arm or shoulder, and a squeeze on the butt.

In any event, the ladyboy is not touching him to show affection, he is doing it for no other reason than to antagonize him.

 

 

First of all, the OP talked numerous times about how it's the arm grabbing that riles him, he only mentioned being touched on the butt once, and that was possibly incidental. So no, it's pretty much the same thing.

I can understand that some people are very uncomfortable about physical contact with others, even those of the opposite sex. My experience with people like this is that this is quite deep-seated. So I can sympathize in that respect. My question was more to the point of whether this was a general aversion to physical contact or whether it is connected to the sexuality of the person touching them as it narrows the issue.

In any case, I see this as more of a culture clash than anything else. I don't think he specifically intends to antagonize you, that's just his nature and I've seen it often in the way Ladyboys tend to behave. Whether this is a societal norm or one that people of that gender tend towards I don't know. But certainly his wife ought to be a bit more sensitive and should intervene if she understands how much this annoys him by taking the brother aside and letting him know how to better behave around her hubby. Perhaps there is some lack of communication in that regard such that she doesn't realize how much this is bothering him.

As to the neanderthals suggesting that he ought to play Billy Big Balls and bash the brother, I wonder how often these internet warriors act on these juvenile impulses? Getting into a physical confrontation with Thais of any stripe tends to lead one to becoming the subject of a Thai Visa thread of your own, with accompanying blood and video. And as to the mighty "my way or the highway" Alpha Males ruling their castles with an iron fist, just remember that this is merely one of the steps of a long-trodden and well-worn paths that ends with a sob story about divorce, betrayal and loss of your assets.