placeholder

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.

'Just say the election is corrupt': Justice Department rebutted Trump's 'arsenal' of election fraud claims President Trump told members of the Department of Justice to say that the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate despite a lack of evidence, former acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Richard Donoghue told the Jan. 6 committee on Thursday. "Just say the election is corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen," Trump said, according to notes Donoghue took during a December 2020 discussion with the president. https://sports.yahoo.com/just-election-corrupt-justice-department-201635741.html

Actually, if you had bothered to read the executive summary, you will note that it cited Sheffield as a place where proper procedures were followed and this problem taken seriously.

Because they foresee the possibility of a Russian attack on NATO allies?

if you had read the report, or even the executive summary, you would have learned that a phone call would probably have done no good. The police simply didn't care and weren't trained to deal with the problem.

Did you actually bother to read the report? Here's a link to the executive summary: https://policeconduct.gov.uk/operation-linden-report-executive-summary Nowhere in this report was there any mention of police sensitivity based on the ethnicity of the groomers. What stood out was their indifference to the abuse of the victims because the police refused to see them as victims but rather willing cooperators with their abusers. There simply was no coordination of programs to recognize the victims for what they were and to prosecute the perpetrators. According to the report, this contrasted sharply with how the rape and sexual abuse of minors was treated in Sheffield.

Of course, if you believe that access to decent medical care would have no effect on outcomes, then you've made a good point. Otherwise, not so much.

It's a pity that the previous president never quite managed to complete the plan he claimed was almost finished 5 days before his inauguration. Apparently, it would have provided health insurance for everybody. Also, he never quite managed to force insurance companies to negotiate prices with Medicare and Medicaid despite his promise to do just that. Such a pity. Trump vows ‘insurance for everybody’ in Obamacare replacement plan President-elect Donald Trump said in a weekend interview that he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s signature health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody,” while also vowing to force drug companies to negotiate directly with the government on prices in Medicare and Medicaid. Trump declined to reveal specifics in the telephone interview late Saturday with The Washington Post, but any proposals from the incoming president would almost certainly dominate the Republican effort to overhaul federal health policy as he prepares to work with his party’s congressional majorities. Trump’s plan is likely to face questions from the right, after years of GOP opposition to further expansion of government involvement in the health-care system, and from those on the left, who see his ideas as disruptive to changes brought by the Affordable Care Act that have extended coverage to tens of millions of Americans https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html

And as has been pointed out elsewhere, before this McCarthy also nixed holding a fullscale independent investigation.

Given that virtually no one, apart from the now suspended police chief and maybe some members of the force, are defending the police, that in fact both the left and right are blaming them, I doubt your prediction means much.

Actually the testimony to congress was most likely an attempt to massage her image and to escape sharp questioning. I wonder if she would agree to be called back for further testimony.

There was plenty of talk about protocol in a case like this from the experts including those who trained the Uvalde police. And it certainly wasn't to wait outside and do nothing.

I wish that were the case. But the electoral college means that there are 50 polls that matter.

Are there any professional knife sharpening services available in Chiang Mai. Preferably to the south of the old city or in it but anywhere fairly near is ok. And, just to forestall some advice, I'm not interested in sharpening my own knives. At least not deep sharpening. Touch-ups I do already. Thanks.

You claimed that training and protocol policies somehow interfered with the police response. I have only seen evidence to the contrary in which police trainers responsible for training police forces to reactto such incidents criticized the Uvalde police. You have yet to share any evidence that training and protocol somehow contributed to the deficient response of the Uvalde police dept.

It such a nothing burger that ... Trump criticizes McCarthy for ‘very, very foolish decision’ to shun Jan. 6 committee Former President Donald Trump has derided Rep. Kevin McCarthy for the House minority leader’s “very, very foolish decision” not to participate in the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. “Unfortunately, a bad decision was made. This committee — it was a bad decision not to have representation on this committee,” Trump told far-right-wing podcast host Wayne Allyn Root last week. https://news.yahoo.com/trump-criticizes-mccarthy-very-very-025600520.html

Well, there has been evidence. It's just really poor quality. But I know what you mean. Even Trump's advisors in the White House admitted that they didn't have the evidence to support their claims. Which didn't stop a creature like Trump from repeatedly falsely accusing by name an elections worker in Georgia of electoral fraud in his conversation with Georgia Sec. of State Raffenberger.

So you think bloviation should be immune from criticism? And this instance is so flagrant since the information is to be found in the very article that this thread is based on.