placeholder

Who are you agreeing with. I never said Chansley was an idiot. I did say he was a criminal. Considering how badly the cops were outnumbered, what makes you think it was feasible to cuff Chansley? Did the cops in the Capitol cuff anyone that day? I don't believe anyone was arrested who was inside the Capitol on that day.

Another bank that would have been subject to FDA stress tests if the Republicans had left Dodd-Frank alone. It turns out Signature was heavily invested in cryptocurrency, Not a thing the FDA would have allowed were it subject to the rules imposed by Dodd-Frank. Maybe the minority of Democrats in the Senate who supported weakening Dodd -Frank might support a restrengthening of it. But the House looks like an unassailable obstacle.

Which, of course, is utterly irrelevant to your skepticism about the ECHRJ being Incorporated into the Good Friday agreement.

Also, your reference to the first amendment is misguided for so many reasons. For one thing, this forum operates under thai law. I don't believe that Thailand has adopted the First :Amendment into its constitution. And of course, if you aren't living in the United States, then the First Amendment doesn't protect you. Finally, aseannow.com is a privately owned venue. So even if it were under the jurisdiction of US law, the First Amendment would not apply.

Where have I questioned your right to post? Stop setting up straw men. Clearly you have no answer for the fact that I also linked to a parliamentary report on the issue.

Apparently, you don't understand what it signifies that this article dates from Mar 5, 2021. Two years ago. Clearly, the judge must have subsequently viewed the relevant video since he did issue a decision.

Even if that's the case, I notice you haven't addressed my link to the uk parliamentary report. Or is that your idea of an opinion piece, too?

The sensible question is "why make an irrelevant comment in the first place" As for replying to your comment, you think irrelevant should be immune from criticism on a forum?

I think this was the correct decision. This isn't like the banking collapse of 2008-2009 where bank asset value collapsed due to the mortgage crisis. Most likely there ultimately will be enough in assets left to repay the government. Just so long as stockholders in SVB aren't made whole. In the past, it wasn't just depositors in the major banks that were rescued, but the big banks themselves. This leads investors to believe that they are pretty much bulletproof and leads banks to make risky ventures. It's germane to note that while there was a banking crisis in the US in 2009, there was no such crisis in Canada where regulations were much stricter.

Thank you for your reply. Next time, don't bother supplying so many reasoned arguments to support your case.

Unfortunately for me, that's a fair point you are making.

Well, why wouldn't we assume your comment was were directed at the topic of this thread which is: Fauci on calls to prosecute him: ‘There’s no response to that craziness’ Apparently, your defense of your comments amounts to the fact that they were irrelevant.

Repeating yourself much? It's clear you have no answer for the point i raised. Still... The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 created a duty on the UK government to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law “with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including the power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on the grounds of inconsistency”.1 This incorporation was achieved through the HRA.2 https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/23735/pdf/ The Human Rights Act, and the European Convention on Human Rights that it incorporates, are embedded as a key pillar of devolution. Convention rights run through the Good Friday Agreement, set the framework for post-conflict policing, and restrain the Northern Ireland Assembly. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/belfast-and-beyond/human-rights-act-overhaul-could-undermine-good-friday-agreement

I should thank you for this link. Every time someone makes claims about the heavy and oppressive hand of the EU, and how the UK and other nations need to liberate themselves from it, it will use your link.

A good opinion piece uses facts to buttress its case. Are you claiming it's untrue that "the British government incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the domestic law of Northern Ireland through the Human Rights Act."?

Actually, if I'm off topic then so are you. You're the person who stated that they don't consult a certain news source. How is that relevant?

There's a saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I think the same goes for ignorance of the facts. Especially when it's willful ignorance.

But they are planning to leave.

And the UK now has a choice? "Under the Good Friday Agreement, signed 20 years ago in April 1998, the British government incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the domestic law of Northern Ireland through the Human Rights Act." https://www.lawsociety.ie/News/News/Stories/brexit-human-rights-and-the-good-friday-agreement

And unlike the Tories, they let the matter drop. Do you think that's a crucial difference?

As I pointed out, that's exactly the same claim that the denialists made in the wake of the 1997 record setting El Nino and consequent record setting average global temperature. . Now that temperature doesn't even make it into the top 10. Not even as high as years when a La Nina put downward pressures on temperature. In fact, despite a La Nina that lasted from 2020-2022, 2020 was virtually tied with 2016 as the hottest year ever.

Whatever it looks like, he's wasn't convicted for participating in that "tour".

Which is why Musk provided no evidence to back up his belief that Fauci should be prosecuted. He's a soul brother to Hawaiian.

Whatever the merits of that assertion may be, and they are dubious, do you believe it's a crime for someone to think that they are always right and claim that anyone who disagrees with them doesn't know what they are talking about? Sounds like you're unfamiliar with a little thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution.

There's a reason aseannow.com requires links to credible sources to support an assertion. You are not a credible source when it comes to defining what poverty is. Neither am I. Neither are any of the members here on aseannow.com That is why the rules require members to link a credible source to back their claims. You linked to no credible source to justify your claim that most of Lineker's salary comes from the poor. Instead you offered your own personal assessment of what income level it takes to qualify as poor in the UK. Now, if you could link to a credible source that shows yearly income under 50000 pounds qualifies as poverty, then you win. But there is no such credible source. So, instead, you make things up. Stop making things up