mikebike

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

It's a great development.  Keeps fake news and propaganda off the airwaves from hostile foreign countries.  Great move.

Don't think it will have much effect whatsoever. Unless they obliterate net neutrality anything and everything is available.

9 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

Give it a rest, please.

You sound like those Russian posters trying exacerbate divisions. Most, if not all progressives are happy with the results. The diversity and broadness of the wins is a joy to behold—share in that joy in a smug-free manner. As far as I can tell, HRC supporters see no fly in this ointment.

 

If the results can be taken as a barometer for the future, that future is Progressive (with a capital ‘p’), diverse, and inclusive, and a rejection of Trump style divisiveness. 

 

Pay homage to Bernie by rejecting divisiveness.

Wait... did you just conflate the DNC with HRC? The poster WAS talking about the DNC and his point is valid. YOU assumed DNC = HRC very telling, and exactly what progressives are pissed at the corporist DNC about. I really see no path to the inclusion of republican-flavored democrats in a movement towards a progressive DNC.

14 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

And how many died due to sinn fein's tactics? Hezbollah wants to turn Lebanon into a country like Iran. Not a good thing.

Change is rarely a walk in the park. Better than a country like SA...

5 minutes ago, Basil B said:

It indicates that they were disputing the bill, but there again it was said she offered £60 then may have dashed. police will have to look at the CCTV but highly unlikely they can hear the conversations, a criminal prosecution would need to prove intent. if they say they had just found out they had left their credit cards at home and would call by in the next few days to settle the bill then even though it is clear to us they had no intention to pay, for a court prosecution  the words "beyond reasonable doubt" come into play.

I was referring to the article which I linked. It has nothing to do with the Gloucester Thai restaurant. It is an article about the crime of dine and dash in the UK.

 
Not bad for whom and for what? The Lebanese people as a whole? For stability in the region?

7 minutes ago, Basil B said:

No, it is a civil matter, they need to make a legal claim.

 

The UK legal system is split in to many divisions, but most are either criminal where the Crown prosecutes and defendants may end up in prison or fined or civil where someone makes a claim for unpaid bills or damages.

 

Very difficult if they refused to give their names and addresses, but there again refusing or giving a false name and address is a clear intent not to pay so a criminal action.  

This article seems to indicate that "dine-n-dash" IS a CRIME in the UK.

11 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

Montclair? Sounds like quite the tony North Jersey town with a $610k median home price.

I would not have known the show is shot in NYC. I get my news from journalists not sneering comedians.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 

Never heard Letterman either I suppose....

20 hours ago, Morch said:

If Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and represents Lebanon, then Saudi Arabia's claim isn't far fetched. If, on the other hand, Hezbollah does not represent Lebanon, then the Lebanese government can certainly be said to be responsible for curbing such activities. Obviously easier said than done given prevailing conditions and balance of power.

 

Hezbollah's current status allows it to eat the cake and leave it whole. That's not necessarily a good thing, nor a state of things that must be accepted.

Hezbollah seems to have taken a good read of sinn fein's tactics. Not a bad model.

22 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Did you research that person's articles?  Read them?  I did.  As I said before, I'm not a fan of opinion pieces.

 

Agreed.  But his articles are highly critical of the US.  I detect a bias there.  That's why some like his articles. LOL

So from disparaging his credibility and challenging others to read it, you quickly backtrack to bias when it becomes obvious he is qualified to comment but you don't like his opinion. Have I got that right?

They did not even pay that.
 
The restaurant handed over CCTV footage to the police, would get better results putting it on YouTube...
 
It is only a criminal offence if it can be proven they had no intention of paying in the first place. 

41 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

 

Key diff is your average god fearing rifle toting American's intent is to defend status quo and retain existing rights.  The Jihad types want to impose their brand of change.  Subtle nuance but right, you can't help but giggle at the correlation when you start going down the list.  There's an amusing DarkMatter vid on this.   

Strangely though the status quo the gun toting christian right wishes to defend looks a lot like the theocracy the jihadist's wish to impose!! LOL!!

24 minutes ago, hansnl said:

Pardon me for bringing this up....

In my country the gun laws are very,very restrictive, private ownership is only possible under strict rule, and then only for sports hooting and hunting.

Even so, this year, many people were killed, using guns and other means.

The guns used in those killings were all illegal!

The police has not the means to control illegal ownership and use of guns, not at all.

Nowhere in the world.

Gun laws can only work if there is a means to not only control legal owned guns.

If some nutcase goes on skilling spree using guns, the problem is not the guns but the nutcase.

Something must be done about the right people owning guns while excluding existing or new nutcases.

Which of course might also do something about illegal use of guns.

That said, how many people are killed in traffic on a daily basis?

I think very many more per day as we now see in these awful incidents.

When are we going to do something about these deaths?

Hansnl - I'm gonna guess you are from the Netherlands. If the USA could get down to the Netherlands' numbers it would be an freaking miracle and no one would complain. (Although you apparently are - "many people were killed, using guns and other means.")

25 minutes ago, rosst said:

Thanks for your comments, perhaps some workable solution would be nice. 

Aaaw, isn't that cute. You think TVF is for finding solutions. Hahahaha!!

Years of debate and lightyears of copy given over to this by much better minds than we have here have found no solution yet.

If you concentrated on my post(s) rather than your gotcha you would clearly see my ideology and and the solutions I would support.

57 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said:

Nope, he could not legally buy guns, as reported by several news agencies.  The discharge was due to a violent crime which prohibits him from buying firearms.  A BCD only preserves vested pension rights, but grants no other benefits withheld by a dishonorable discharge.  Brady Act NICS disqualifier:

"Domestic Violence

• The potential buyer is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
• Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

 

http://graphics.wsj.com/gun-check-explainer/

There's some confusion in initial reporting whether it was a DD or a BCD, but that is irrelevant under 18 USC 922(g) question #6.

(6) a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

 

He was convicted of V.UCMJ Article 128 x 2.  Assault.   It was reportedly domestic violence against his then wife and daughter.   Problem is military system doesn't have a specific violation/crime code for domestic violence assault like many States have enacted in recent decades.  128 is non-specific.  The other problem is, the military system doesn't use crime categories of Infraction, Misdemeanor and Felony like the civilian system does.  You would have to query deeper to find out the details of the case, and to determine equivalent crime category, find out what his confinement sentence was.  In this case, he was apparently awarded 1 year in the brig, which is right at the top of Misdemeanor category.    If the Domestic Violence classification had been crystal clear in the NICS system during the gun seller's background check, he would have been disqualified again under 922(g), question #9.

(9) a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

 

So he either lied on the background check, or he slipped through the cracks caused by vagaries between military and civilian language and terminology.   Or both. 

18 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

How many mass shootings did Australia prevent?  How many burglaries are prevented every year in the USA because the burglars know the homeowners may be armed?

 

Answer those questions and you qualify as an expert on the topic...  But show your work.  Burglaries and home invasions that didn't happen don't get counted very well.

 

Looking specifically at mass shootings Australia has had one since 1996 - a guy killed his wife, kids and himself with a gun. Two other incidents left 2 and 3 people dead. Seems pretty good.

Regarding your argumentum ad ignorantiam no need to be an expert. Are you seriously postulating the veracity of your statements simply because they haven't be proven false? Good luck with that.

With your logic we can, with a straight face, ask, "How many deaths did the Allies winning WWII really prevent? Show your work - deaths that didn't happen don't get counted very well." Sheesh. Facepalm.

18 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And yet although the Nordic countries still 'sort of' have socialist values,  they still have to contend with 'globalism' and globalism is winning the fight as the division between rich and poor becomes ever more pronounced in those countries too.

 

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

"Globalism" is a bit of a loaded term and in 2017 no country can exist as an island. Theoretically "globalism" was practiced by the Romans.

Income disparity is not necessarily tied to today's definition of globalism.

In the most recent figures I have seen Norway's top 5% control about the same amount of relative wealth in their country as US's top 1%. Still a problem but could be seen as 5 times better...

7 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Maoism and Stalinism aren't true socialism, nor are they true communism.  They're tyrannical cronyism, with the economy dictated based on keeping themselves in power and punishing anyone who stood in their way. 

 

The fact that people confuse them with communism/ socialism is testament to the brain washing we get from the capitalist funded education system.

 

Google Schlumberger (French) and tell me how communist/socialist they are...

You are arguing my point.

19 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Very good point, but then again there are v few countries where a large (?) percentage of the population were armed, that had to defend against an obviously tyrannical govt.?

So a bit of a red herring then...

Required: 1. a country where a VERY large percentage of the population is armed; 2. a patently obvious tyrannical government; 3. citizen organization, cooperation and training; 4. the government's military is incompetent or complicit.

Question: how long do you think the Bundy militia would have lasted in Oregon if the government hadn't been so nice?

9 minutes ago, buick said:

there is no way the house and senate would work with HRC (i assume that is what you are referring to, she would be president but the election was rigged ?).  they didn't work with obama why would they work with HRC.

 

i sure hope you are right.  as we sit today, i don't see any hope on changes to gun control or immigration for many, many years.  if ever.

 

 

Ah - no. HRC bought the DNC in 2015. Without that there is every reason to believe that Bernie would've won the primary and every reason to believe he would have won the presidency. HRC's entitlement issues and the DNC's complicity are much of the reason why we now have the 45 we have.

4 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said:

He was court-martialled and dishonorably discharged from the USAF for domestic violence.  Under the gun control laws, he was prohibited from purchasing firearms.  Apparently, someone fudged his background check.  Trump blames mental health, and that was a factor, but investigating how this shooter got around the background check is what needs to be done, so those regs are better enforced.  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/devin-kelley-named-as-texas-church-shooting-suspect-was-court-martialed-by-us-air-force

He received a "bad conduct" discharge for assaulting his wife n kids, NOT a dishonorable discharge. He was still allowed to buy gun(s).

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"The right wingnuts put forth the claim that citizens are to be armed to prevent being treated roughshod by a tyrannical government."

 

I'm probably close to the opposite of a "right wingnut", and (as a Brit.) it always seemed lunacy to allow pretty much anyone and everyone to own guns - until an American pointed out the 'defending from tyrannical govt.' argument.

 

"My view is that if you are that worried about your nation's government, you have already lost your country."

 

Agree entirely.  The populace of most (every?) country has little 'control' over their govts., and they never have had 'control' - but it was easier for politicians to fool the populace previously.

 

Consequently, nowadays, I'm in two minds about Americans' attitude towards guns.

 

Clearly the laws need to be tightened - but this wouldn't have stopped many of the killings.

Not being an arse... but is there any country in the world where armed citizens defended themselves from a tyrannical government successfully?

4 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Statistically speaking, I do not question. Applying the "norm" to me, I do not accept. Hmmm, had guns in the house all the years my two Sons were growing up ... all survived nicely ... oh, and no one broke into the house when someone was home, so that test does not come into play.

Ah - individual exceptionalism. Are you applying that to the lowest common denominator?

38 minutes ago, Kasset Tak said:

The problem with hotels and hotel reviews...
 

A 4,000 Baht/night BKK hotel had mold on the sealing, broken parts/cracks around the walls and a 10 year old humming refrigerator in the room. 

A 2,000 Baht/night BKK hotel charged me 2,000 Baht extra at check-out for a blood stein on the sheets (I have psoriasis and sometimes it's itching...).
A 350 Baht/night BKK hotel let me check-in 3am, didn't count that as my first night and they even included breakfast later that morning.

Which hotel do you think I in the end gave a good review and actually returned to in the future?!

I have severe psoriasis as well. Are you suggesting the establishment should be responsible for our affliction? After the first time I was charged for bloodying the sheets I just turned the aircon down and went to bed with a long-sleeved t-shirt and sweat pants on. Problem solved.