placeholder

Tories just got beaten in race for 2 seats. One located in the so-called Blue Wall to the LibDems and other other to Labor in the so-called Red Wall. MPs can't be too thrilled with BJ.

I have an email address reserved for cr#p like this.

Also, it should be noted that this survey was conducted from Apr 18-22 when BTC was still above US$40,000. I suspect that enthusiasm isn't nearly so high now.

Still firing blanks.

The thing is it's not a poll. It's a survey. Which means that questions were sent to x amount of people and x minus y were motivated to respond. So not a statistically valid way to actually gauge sentiment.

"I think you would find that other ethnicities are prosecuted for rape in those towns.You know, the ones where the police would not be accused of being racist." Just more proof of my contention that you think repeating something often enough makes it a fact. I got news for you: it doesn't.

Thanks.

Do you believe in magic? I'm asking because you seem to believe that repeatedly asserting something is so, makes it so. Where is your evidence that the police were motivated by racial considerations? If you can't back up your assertions with evidence, that means that all you've got is your unsupported opinion. Just because you believe something strongly that doesn't make it so. Laws just don't automatically get enforced. It takes effort, organization, and resources. Why do you think that police organize their departs by the category of crime. Robber, Fraud, Homicide, etc. The whole point of the report was to show that the police in Rotherham didn't have a clue about the laws and how to enforce them and didn't have a system in place to do that. . Repeated instances were cited where officers asserted that these girls were old enough to be responsible for the situation they found themselves in. Or that the police disregarded the situation these girls were in because they came from a strata of society that is not highly regarded. You've got nothing.

Apparently the auto spell corrector felt that I meant "fax" not "facts". Apparently it is still living in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Where I wish I could be.

Why would the entire constitution have to be written in order to change the interpretation of the right to bear arms as stated in the 2nd Amendment? That makes no sense at all. This is like saying my car needs a new tire so let's replace it with a new one. That's why I assumed you were referring to the 2nd Amendment. And it has no bearing on the assertion that disagreeing with the Supreme Court's ruling is leftist. History shows otherwise.

The documentary footage evidence just came to light. And the committee is planning to feature it somewhere down the line.

Well, I missed the double negative. So she also said in footage for a documentary that she supported her father's attempts to find proof of fraud. So she seems to have a position to suit every situation. Kind of reminds me of Groucho Marx's remarks about his principles.

She already did in her deposition to the committee where she said she accepted William Barr's characterization of the alleged evidence proving that fraud had occurred.

No one, certainly not me, is denying that the Supreme Court has recently changed the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. But it was you who claimed that the Constitution had to be changed if someone had a quarrel with the current court's decision. Clearly, there's a long history that says quite otherwise. And if the court's composition changes in the future, the current court's decision may well be reversed.

in what year was that Heller decision reached? How does it contradict the fact that for a majority of the years of judicial history that we have, the right to bear arms was considered quite differently from the way it has been recently? Was the Supreme Court in 1879 composed of leftists?

the evidence I quoted, the actual Supreme Court decision from 1879, clearly contradicts that summary. Here it is again: "In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/ clearly says differently. And there's this, too "In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

And you still have no answer for the fact that throught most of u.s. judicial history, the 2nd amendment was understood not to be absolute or anywhere near it. So your characterization of opposition to the Supreme Court decision as "leftist" is clearly nonsense.

The fact is that when I pointed out for much of US history the 2nd amendment was in now way close to absolute, you responded only with an emoji. And it wasn't just me but legal scholars who point out that the contradiction between first amendment absolutist interpretations of the 2nd amendment and the convenient exceptions that are allowed to stand.

And yet the Europeans, particularly those on the border with Russia, disagree with you. Does that tell you anything?

I guess you carefully studied the decision. So you know how Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, oddly enough carved out an exemption for such venues as courtrooms. But I guess it's okay for the courts to arbitrarily infringe upon a person's absolute constitution right to bear arms into a courtroom.

Sure. The same Donald Trump who withheld legislatively authorized arms to Ukraine for months while it was under attack in Donbas not only by ethnic Russian Ukrainians but by Russian troops. Refused to answer their queries about the whereabouts of said arms. Was extremely sympathetic to Putin on the subject of his aggressions. He railed against Ukraine because he claimed that sabotage was coming not from Russian based servers but Ukrainian ones.

Well, since presumably you're one of those people whose IQ is at least room temperature, and wouldn't make such characterizations without fax to back you up, can you please share with us the evidence that the police did not investigate these crimes because of some woke prejudice.

You sure about that? "In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/ "In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Some of this collapse is due to China which was all too willing to finance an obviously corrupt project to build a second port in Sri Lanka. Ultimately, when Sri Lanka couldn't service the debt, Chine got not only the port, but a huge expanse of land around the port on a 99 year lease. Of course, this tactic of the Chinese to exploit corrupt governments for its own benefit isn't limited only to Sri Lanka.