GroveHillWanderer
-
Posts
4,028 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by GroveHillWanderer
-
-
6 hours ago, JimHuaHin said:
For memory, and I maybe wrong, a person with shingles cannot be vaccinated until the outbreak clears up.
Your memory is correct.
QuoteSome people shouldn’t get the shingles vaccine. These people include those:
Who currently have shingles.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22996-shingles-vaccine
-
14 hours ago, short-Timer said:
I've haven't had it again since then, luckily. My doctor advised against getting the vaccine at this point, as he believes I’ve developed natural immunity. He also mentioned that the vaccine’s efficacy is only around 50%, which is relatively low compared to many other vaccines.
That's the older vaccine, Zostavax. For the newer Shingrix vaccine, the following is the info:
QuoteShingrix, the recombinant zoster vaccine, demonstrates high efficacy against shingles (herpes zoster). In immunocompetent individuals aged 50 and older, it shows over 90% efficacy.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, save the frogs said:
I just read the first couple of lines of the article.
The writer has worked for some NGOs in Africa.
Probably holding a grudge due to the budget cuts by DOGE.
The fact is, no matter who is in power, some people might benefit more than others.
It's only normal that one president might decide to re-allocate budget to another area, etc ...
Just because this guy lost his funding for his NGO, that's not my problem.
And speaking of corruption, I worked for a major NGO. There's a lot of graft going on, mismanaged funds.
Where on earth are you getting this from? Thom Hartmann is a "radio personality, author, businessman and progressive political commentator." He hasn't been involved with international relief work since the 1970’s and doesn't have an NGO. He used to work with Salem International which is a German charitable organisation and has nothing to do with the US government.
-
18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:
Who do you think uses the equality act in its policies?
All companies are bound by it as are schools, gov buildings. Just about every service for the public. It's highly significant and the reprocussions are huge
Totally agree that the repercussions of this ruling are highly significant. However, what this ruling doesn't do, is provide a definition of what a woman is, in a wider sense - as the court specifically pointed out.
-
1
-
-
I think this ruling has been somewhat misreported and misinterpreted. The decision does not provide a definition of a woman. It simply holds that for the purposes of the Equalities Act 2010, any reference to "woman" in the Act is a reference to a biological woman. It doesn't apply anywhere else. It is based, not on any understanding of what a woman is or isn't, but simply on the way in which, on a matter of legal interpretation, the term is to be understood when used in the Act.
The court was at some pains to emphasise this in its ruling, stating as follows:
Quote“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the [Equality Act] 2010.”
-
22 hours ago, Watawattana said:
But a massively important change that protects women from having to shower with men after a women's sports event, or women having to compete with men at those events.
This ruling doesn't actually change things in this particular regard. The Equalities Act 2010 already allowed sports bodies to exclude trans people from sports competitions.
Here is the wording from the 2010 act.
QuoteThere are a number of exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. For example, sports competition organisers are able to lawfully exclude trans people from participating in “gender-affected activity” where this is necessary to ensure fairness or the safety of other competitors.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10137/
-
On 4/14/2025 at 8:47 AM, BangkokReady said:
An interesting tactic, but let's not forget that China desperately needs to sell these products to the US, so it's really just a game of chicken.
It will be interesting to see how this affects things. Can the US find another source, will it force them to innovate, or will China cave after a short period of time?
Are you sure China desperately needs to sell these products to the US?
In 2023, China's export value of rare earth compounds, worldwide, was $763 million.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1230682/china-export-value-of-rare-earths/
In the same year, China's total exports were valued at $3.42 trillion.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/chn
So rare earth exports represent approximately 0.02% of China's total exports.
I can't find any statistics of what percentage of China's rare earth exports go to the US but even if it was 100% (which it obviously isn't) that means China could forgo the entirety of its rare earth exports to the US and still not feel the pinch .
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:
These silly word games are so tiring. This is the kind of brainwashing we have going on now.
If you have a settled population in an area and you break through the borders and have children there and start voting what do you call that?
What I would call that is abiding by the terms of the 15th amendment to the US Constitution. You know, rule of law and everything.
And it's silly word games to ask what "voting against the interests of the original population" is? You're the one who came out with such an opaque phrase - you should know what you meant by it.
-
1 minute ago, NorthernRyland said:
Anyone in the world can sneak in to America, have children and then start voting against the interests of the original population.
Not sure what you mean by "voting against the interests of the original population." (The interests of native American Indians, perhaps)?
Anyway, in elections, people vote for a candidate from one or other of the two main parties (or for an independent).
A vote for which one of the following: Democrat, Republican or Independent, is a vote against the interests of the "original population", in your opinion?
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:
That's the 14th amendment, not the constitution. I think it's cut and dry that it was never intended for the children of illegal aliens (go read it yourself).
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that it does apply to them.
As stated in the pleadings currently before the court:
QuoteFor over 100 years, this Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch have all agreed that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in this country, including those born to undocumented or non-permanent immigrants
New Jersey v. Trump - in the Supreme Court of the United States
-
14 minutes ago, save the frogs said:
So you believe that in the x number of days Trump has been in office, the country has degraded to the point where anybody and everybody can be deported to El Salvador for no apparent reason?
As I stated in a previous post, which no one replied to, how deluded are you on a scale of 1 to 10 about what's really going on?
That has nothing to do with what I said. I did not express any opinion about the state of the country, nor any belief that "anybody and everybody can be deported."
You said they would not want to deport US citizens. I provided evidence that Donald Trump has stated he would love to deport US citizens to El Salvador, and would be honored to do so. Which kind of makes it sound like he at least, does want to.
-
21 hours ago, TedG said:
European Allies Appeal to the US to avert Shock Troop Reduction.
Reading is fundamental.
Yes it is, so try reading the articles again, carefully. Neither of them states that "many people" want the US troops to remain. The first article makes it very clear that the "shock" they want to avert is a withdrawal without proper coordination - not the withdrawal itself.
It clearly states that European officials have accepted that a withdrawal is almost certain, they just want it to be coordinated properly.
And the second article is not in any way about Europeans wanting US troops to stay, instead it talks about how the US can't be trusted and Europe needs to get serious about protecting itself.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:
they are gang members
Trump's words (quoted verbatim in the article) did not say anything about the US citizens that he would love to deport to El Salvador being gang members.
-
53 minutes ago, save the frogs said:
so it's an error because she is working with immigrants.
they cannot deport citizens.
nor would they want to. they want people working and buying crap and paying taxes.
Are you sure they don't want to? Trump has stated that he'd "love that", would be "honored" and "all for it" (sending some US citizens to El Salvador).
Donald Trump Says He'd Be 'Honored' to Deport Americans to El Salvador Prison: 'I'm All for It'
https://people.com/donald-trump-honored-deport-americans-el-salvador-prison-11710177
-
2
-
-
45 minutes ago, TedG said:
Did you even read the articles you linked to? Neither of them says that many people from Europe feel the US should continue to defend them.
The first article says the Europeans, "have accepted that President Donald Trump’s administration will almost certainly withdraw some of the roughly 80,000 US troops deployed in Europe," but would like any such withdrawal to be coordinated properly.
The second article talks about the fact that Europe can no longer trust the US to protect it (that's literally the title of the article) and points out among other things that, "the Trump administration seems intent on giving the Europeans plenty of reasons to get brutally serious about taking responsibility for their own defence."
So where is the evidence of the "many people" of whom you speak? (Hint: it's not in either of those articles).
-
1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:
Nut Brown keeps cropping up in songs that are still sung today.
But, mostly Celtic folk music, it seems, or similar music.
That's right - it isn't used in literature or poetry any more these days but still exists in Scottish/Irish folk songs, some of which go back centuries. I think it's partly because of the popularity of the phrase in Gaelic.
I'm not sure if you've ever watched the Outlander TV series but the primary male protagonist (who speaks Scottish Gaelic) often refers to the main female character as, "mo nighean donn" - my brown-haired lass (or maid).
-
So maybe they're wasn't quite as much "waste and fraud" as Musk and his DOGE minions would have had us believe.
Elon Musk drastically drops DOGE’s savings goal from $2 trillion to $150 billion for the year
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:
Dear Folks,
I love Celtic Music.
Must be the Irish in me.
But, why are the Irish so fixated on NUT-brown?
"Nut brown maid" seems to have been a popular phrase in medieval times throughout the British Isles in songs, poems and folk literature.
For instance, you have the ballad "The Nut-Brown Maid" that made its first printed appearance in The Customs of London, published in 1502.
Then there is what is said to be the most popular traditional Scottish Gaelic folk song of all time, "Horo mo nighean donn boyche."
"Mo nighean donn boyche" translates as "my nut brown maid."
Ireland is probably no exception to this trend.
Incidentally, "nut brown" refers to the hair colour of the women in question, rather than their complexion.
-
On 4/1/2025 at 11:22 PM, NoDisplayName said:
The only "error" was that a judge knew he was a gangbanger but let him stay anyway. His homies back in da hood might poop a cap in his crown.
Mr. Abrego Garcia had “withholding from removal” status, which means he was the subject of a deportation order but was allowed to stay in the United States because of the likelihood that he could be harmed if he returned to El Salvador.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/01/us/politics/maryland-man-deportation-error-el-salvador.html
According to Abrego-Garcia's attorneys, in 2019, a confidential informant "had advised that Abrego Garcia was an active member" of the gang MS-13. He later filed an I-589 application for asylum and although Abrego-Garcia was found removable, an immigration judge "granted him withholding of removal to El Salvador."
You missed one important point there. As a judge has now pointed out in court, the confidential informant's information was not credible. So there's no real evidentiary basis for believing Abrego Garcia was a member of a gang.
QuoteJudge Xinis has noted that “the ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie” as well as “a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York — a place he has never lived.”
Supreme Court orders Maryland dad Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to US from El Salvador prison
-
Trump isn't even trying to hide this. He's even bragging about how much money his friends made from his actions.
QuotePresident Donald Trump gleefully recounted how much money his billionaire pals made on the stock market after he suddenly suspended most of his worldwide tariffs.
-
2
-
-
34 minutes ago, CHdiver said:
Come back when they have the charger to support this, not just one but so you can actually count on them when you travel around Thailand. Don't get me wrong, I am not against BEV's, I think they are the best thing since sliced bread. But it will take some time to get this superfast chargers installed.
I clearly stated that the Megawatt chargers are not widely available yet. And this is the ICE vs EV thread, so it's about general trends, not only what's available in Thailand. There's another thread for that and I deliberately didn't post in that thread because this info isn't really relevant to Thailand (yet).
But in any event, it's a chicken and egg situation. When there were not enough vehicles around that could take advantage of them, obviously no-one would go to the bother of installing them. Now that those vehicles are starting to appear, Megawatt chargers will gradually follow.
In addition, as the previous article alludes to and this other article makes clear, you can also 'double up' to get better speeds with existing fast chargers.
QuoteBYD recognizes that most chargers won't be able to max out the "Super E" platform's charging capabilities, too, so it includes two charging ports for simultaneous fast charging.
BYD's Five-Minute Fast-Charging EV Is Even Cheaper Than We Thought
-
1
-
-
On 4/8/2025 at 9:35 PM, lordgrinz said:
If they have already been convicted of a crime, then they have already had their "due process", right?
Fully 75% of those deported had not been convicted of a crime, but even if they had, they still must be afforded due process again, in terms of their deportation, as the recent US Supreme Court ruling clearly states.
Here's part of that ruling.
Quote“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950).
-
On 4/11/2025 at 12:30 PM, impulse said:
If you're talking about illegal immigrants, that authority is vested in the Executive Branch. Always has been.
Not without due process though, according to the US Supreme Court ruling recently handed down - so therefore not in the way the Trump administration did it.
This ruling states (inter alia):
Quote“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Renobv. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
On 4/11/2025 at 10:09 AM, ThreeCardMonte said:Impossible. Stop hallucinating
What video? You watching AI generated videos again?
Based on the recent US Supreme Court ruling, it should have been impossible to deport nearly 300 detainees to El Salvador without affording them due process first but the Trump administration just blithely went ahead and did it anyway.
What used to be or what should be impossible is no longer a reliable guide these days.
-
1
-
1
-
1
Teenage German tourists handcuffed and deported from Hawaii over ‘suspicious’ hotel booking
in Political Soapbox
Posted
The various articles about this make it clear that this not just the same as in the past and that for instance, many of the countries issuing advisories to their citizens about travelling to the US are doing so in direct response to Trump administration policies.
Here's just one such article.
Countries Are Now Issuing Advisories for Travelers Visiting the U.S.—What to Know
https://www.travelandleisure.com/countries-are-now-issuing-advisories-for-travelers-visiting-the-usa-11706306