Yeah, and yet in the industry all we need to do is look at the clusterfucks of what goes on with node.js and rust. There's a very vocal group of people pushing opportunity of outcome vs opportunity of ability, and they have no problems trying to ruin/displace/remove anyone that they think doesn't fit. They will have no code commits, but their entire history will be whining about terms like master/slave, or whatever thing triggered their neurosis.
someone reporting harassment and immediately bleat "that can't possibly be true" based on a few examples of people making false claims.
So in the absence of them actually presenting any proof at all of harassment but engaging in actual shady actions, I'm automatically in the wrong. Well fuck me for expecting the bare minimum of proof.
How's that listen and believing working out for you? Maybe some #metooing will make you feel better. Right up until you find out that the person making the claim against you is also best friends with the reporter doing the story.
Can you point out three instances where CNN lied? Be specific please.
"There are no sanctuary cities in the US." "The police are full of unstable war veterans." "Trump dumps fish food into koi pond, and will kill all the fish." "Trump sets precedent, takes no questions in China." "Nancy Sinatra is upset over Trump using her father's song"(paraphrased)
Are those good enough? Those are all lies, those were all reported as facts by CNN. I also seem to remember something about 3 reporters getting their asses tossed out as well.
No, you'll never find out because it's against the narrative. Now be a good boy and stop questioning ingsoc otherwise the police will come and have a chat with you.
But to be semi-fair and not joking on this, you only need to look at the general bias. The republicans are saying "bad actors" in general but democrats are screeching "russia" and all that. If it seems heavily slanted all in one direction and telling you that it 100% truly, absolutely, and really is this one thing. It's likely the opposite or somewhere in the middle. The state of US media though and their anti-russia hysteria? Well you take your own guess, but ask yourself when in the last 15 minutes you haven't heard about the ruskies being behind it all, and also the reason why all the failures of the democrats/hillary/on-going problems with party leadership w/people quitting, and so on is really because the russians have turned americans against the democrats.
Something else to think on, russia is this great-big-gigantic huge threat all of a sudden. But the chinese GDP wise, militarily wise, population wise(especially with their huge lopsidedness in m/f birth ratios), industrialization wise are a far greater threat. But as soon as you question this, democrats, progressives, left-leaning media and so on will jump down your throat and start saying that the chinese really aren't the problem.
It's just like that 16yr old prodigy that turned out to be a fraud and then started screeching that people were harassing her. It's almost like there's this gigantic clusterfuck of people who are nobodies and trying to get their 11.8 minutes of fame by cashing in on the latest "look at all these people harassing me..."
They still were still paying for school all through the 2008 crash. Even with the drop in rates(you could see a high as $1.10/mile in the US pre-2008, the demand for drivers was there. Right now top-rate companies are paying $0.72/mile plus layover time during dock/time down for repairs and so on.
So you're not disputing anything I've said. Brilliant.
Oh, the horror. You're required to be on your job for eight hours....and....it counts towards your work day!
No, it counts towards your *driving day* not your work day. You work day could be as much as 15hrs/day. Think of it this way, you work a 9-5 job. You get up at 6am, and the clock now starts ticking. So, by 7-7:30 you're on the road, now you get stuck in traffic and don't roll in until 10. Now you've already burned through 4hrs of work time, and you have another 4hrs of work you're allowed to do. So you only get to work until 2pm. Then you get to sit there for another 3 hours doing nothing before you're allowed to go home. Now you're not getting paid for that 3 hours, but you still have to sit there. You also weren't paid for that time you sat in traffic either.
See? This isn't rocket surgery. Maybe you should go be a driver for awhile, or actually learn what's happening.
Two fold problem: First there's more freight being shipped then before. The other problem is in the US, the previous administration stacked on so many regulations, requirements, and so on that the average person simply refuses to put up with it. Burnout is common, not from the driving, but because of the absurd amount of regulations. If you have XM radio, listen to Road Dog Trucking the people driving during the call-in segments go on quite often how these regulations hurt them.
Read this for example. Let me give an example that isn't covered. Let's say you're going to be on for 10hrs/day, you pull into the dock and for whatever reason you spent 8hrs sitting there so you simply go to sleep. Well, under the new regulations that 8hrs sitting in the dock counts towards the time you're on the road. So you can only drive 2hrs. Now if you know anyone in the industry, you'll start hearing about "dock time" pay and so on, because if your truck isn't rolling you aren't earning money even if it's a company truck.
Rail doesn't deliver to the dock like that. On top of that, you'd have to start building new massive docks to bring everything in for local hauls. Then you're also going to have to convince every business around that JiT(Just in Time) transport is economically infeasible and it's cheaper to have giant warehouses full of things instead of rolling trucks from a centralized dock to smaller warehouses, then directly out to shipping. We've been down this road before, the reason why trucks are cheaper is because they first count as a "warehouse" to store good in transport. Second it's by-far cheaper then trains, I mean really cheap. Third, trucks don't require specialized "track" to deliver into particular areas. That means you don't need to subsidize for remote communities for instance, a plain old gravel road will get things in and out.
The trucking industry doesn't get much in the way of "favor subsidizing" on top of that, it gets heavier taxes for everything from fuel(to pay for those roads), to extra taxes on tires one of the reasons retreads on trailers are popular vs new tires, is because the taxes are less. Plus massive environmental fees for maintenance and so on. On the other hand, the rail industry gets massive tax subsidies and in several cases the government have "picked up the cost" for remote communities rail link.
No, you apparently fail to understand the basic points of law. The prosecution was unable to reach the standard for a conviction. The judge(trier of fact & law) however ripped the prosecution for failing to do their due-diligence in the investigative process. Those are two fundamentally different people.
That's exactly how law works in the US, Canada and most western countries. There's a thing called "chain of evidence" it deals with the initial source, through the people who carry it, to where it ends up in court and who signs for everything. Warrants filed under false pretenses and used to gain evidence are void.
If you want to see this in action read Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. It's a very well known case where the US government seized tax records, then tried to present it as evidence before the court. There is also something called "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" in US law it boils down to this; and this is a very slim definition. There is a lot of case law on this.
n. in criminal law, the doctrine that evidence discovered due to information found through illegal search or other unconstitutional means (such as a forced confession) may not be introduced by a prosecutor. The theory is that the tree (original illegal evidence) is poisoned and thus taints what grows from it. For example, as part of a coerced admission made without giving a prime suspect the so-called "Miranda warnings" (statement of rights, including the right to remain silent and what he/she says will be used against them), the suspect tells the police the location of stolen property. Since the admission cannot be introduced as evidence in trial, neither can the stolen property.
Very. They lied to the court to get the warrants, they broke multiple laws by doing so. They cast the justice system into disrepute, this is big, very big. The warrant was basically granted under false pretenses, that nulls *everything* the judge can revoke the warrant(s) and that all the evidence in that chain. That means anything tied to those fisa warrants at any level all gone. On top of that the people who filed for the warrants can be criminally charged.
This is why you don't lie when you file for a warrant. It's why you fully state the sources. You don't smudge, you don't nudge, you don't bullshit. Democrats and progressives wanted a "true" russian investigation, and these people just fucked it all up for you - forever.
Nunes is blowing a smoke screen to hide Russian attacks on the US elections
If that was true, then the democrats wouldn't be fighting tooth and fucking nail to try and stop the memo from being released. Hell look at the democrat and media narrative over the last week. It's gone from "it's nunes so bad" to "people are too stupid to understand it(this is different then the context claim)" to "we're releasing our own memo" to "no don't release the memo at all" to "the memo was written by the russians" and on and on. The freakout by pelosi, schiff, maxine waters, and so on is both hilarious and deeply troubling.
But I guess we'll find out exactly what's in it tomorrow, and I have a feeling we're going to find out that the Obama administration broke the law. That multiple people in the FBI broke the law, that the entire basis of the russia investigation was based on false and/or fabricated political hearsay.
But from what I saw, you're a creep. Sorry about your world changing under you, creep. Get used to it.
And let's flip the genders shall we? I'd have the media lining up and screeching that nothing was being done, that there's a systemic and underlying pattern of abuse. That people did not want to address it.
And on the other hand, show exactly why MRA's exist. Because really, you're just a shitty human being that happily turns a blind eye to something, then starts screeching with the virtue signalling.
Sorry to double reply, but I've noticed something important. You don't seem to understand what something not being proven beyond a reasonable doubt means.
No, I understand exactly what it means. You on the other hand don't seem to be able to read, or understand what I'm saying.
For example, in Gomeshi's case he withdrew his lawsuit and paid CBS's legal fees, but in the later criminal trial the prosecution was unable to reach the standard of evidence required for a criminal conviction. From that you concluded that he was the victim of a lying accuser, despite there being evidence to the contrary, which is completely unjustified.
Uh no. It went to court, and that was from the judges own decision in the case. Also try to at least get the broadcaster correct. You can either read the case yourself, try canlii.org or read an article like this. Yes the women lied, repeatedly.
Mashiki really seems to think that if someone is not convicted for any reason, it means that the accuser lied.
Obviously AmiMoJo really seems to think that if someone is accused for any reason, that means they're a rapist.
On an related note Mashiki has accused me of all sorts of crazy stuff over the years, yet I have not been convicted of any of it.
On a related note, your inability to read continues to be staggering. I haven't actually accused you of anything, I simply wondered whether or not with the amount of virtue signalling you do that you're simply covering up for shitty behavior. You just didn't happen to like it when I compared the amount of virtue signalling you engaged in with the various people who also did the same and were shown to be shitty humans.
Okay, I'm sorry you had to suffer that, but that's not the question here. The question is, what should be done about it?
In a society that believes in equality, individuals would be held to account for it. That's not happening, I realize this is very difficult for you to accept but welcome to the real world.
Mashiki is advocating that people should just accept sexual assault and not complain, because he was assaulted once and unable to get it addressed. Do you agree with him, or do you think that everyone, of any gender, should be able to complain?
And...that's the exact opposite of what I said. I can't tell if you're intentionally trying to piss people off, or you fail to understand what someone says 99% of the time because you don't want to actually hear what they're saying. You simply slap your lens on something to view it and apply your own biases.
No sure where you get strange ideas like that from, but in any case the argument here is that human beings shouldn't have to put up with being grabbed by the genitalia or otherwise sexually assaulted.
That's not what the argument here is. But if you really want to make that the case, why don't you tell me why all those women when I worked a bar as a cadet, just couldn't stop grabbing my ass and dick. And I had zero recourse to do anything about it, I could not make a complaint. I could not detain, I could not tell them to stop. That's some pretty fucking exceptional leeway, now let's flip the gender and ask yourself what would happen? This happening to male police officers who work bars is so common it's stupid.
Having read about what guys like Weinstein and Nasser did, are you really saying that these complaints are without merit? Or for that matter, having read about what Bushnell admits to doing in his own autobiographical books...
You mean besides that Weinstein was basically selling roles, and women were selling themselves for roles? Nasser who actually *did* abuse trust, just like all those female teachers though right? Ever notice the sentencing disparity? I'll wait for you to look it up. Wait until you get to the cases where the women is the rapist and you see the tear works of: "that 13yr old boy I raped, ruined my life. And it's his fault I raped him."
No, they didn't. That is fake news.
Yeah, actually they did. And it's not the first time either, check your own news more often.
There have been problems with evidence that might help the defence not being turned over in good time, or at all.
aka perversion of justice. Not only did they not turn over evidence, in many cases they outright ignored evidence that showed that the defendant was not culpable. In at least 2 cases, the police hid exculpatory evidence from the court, defense, and crown in order to bolster the accusers case.
First thing to note is that it isn't evidence that the allegations were false - if it was, there would be prosecutions. The standard of proof required is "beyond reasonable doubt", and the evidence in question means that the prosecution could not reach that level. However, it also doesn't reach the standard for proving that the accuser lied, because as you know even if you agree to have sex with someone you can withdraw consent at any time.
So you're saying that a women 30 years from now who withdraws consent and then screams you raped her is acceptable?
First thing that you'd best pay attention to, women lie. Now let's look at the Jian Gomeshi case here in Canada, the women lied. The women colluded. They got together in order to fabricate evidence. Those women also *went back* for more sex with him, they bragged to each other over their S&M play, sent him photos after the alleged rape. This is not a case of he said/she said. But him? Career ruined, life ruined, end of story. Look at the last half-dozen cases in the UK that were high profile, what do we have but a pattern. How about that women in the UK who claimed she was raped by 10+ men in various different cases? Well she was eventually charged, convicted for those. But the lives she's ruined? Those men will never recover from those false allegations.
And in any case, do you know the percentage of cases that this affects? I'm guessing you don't or you wouldn't have used the adjective "rampant".
Well let's see, we can see as high as 70% of cases to turn out being false, that's here in Canada. That's cases of the accuser lied for various reasons, mad at the person, peer pressure, etc. Another 20-26% or so become "lack of sufficient evidence" the rest usually end up being convictions. Looking pretty rampant here.
On top of that, Canada, much like the UK, the standard in the case of allegations is "always believe" a
Well that neo-puritan movement has been blowing up for awhile, around a decade and it's sure not the right pushing it. It's coming directly from feminism. Considering that Feminism has been pushing for women to "do whatever they want" but have no responsibility when they fuck up, this isn't surprising. You can see this with the increasing numbers of cases coming to light of false rape allegations ruining men. Hell it's so bad in the UK that they just launched a public inquiry into the rampant number of false allegations and cases being over-turned because women are lying. They're lying either because they "regret it"(up to decades later suddenly) "are told by a friend it ruins their social standing" "as a form of revenge" "sympathy" "increasing status" or "profiting off victimhood." Stuff like MRA's, MGTOW and so on, don't exist in a vacuum despite what the "male feminist allies" believe. They exist because there is something fundamentally broken in many cases. Whether it be the "college rape epidemic" lie, or posters saying "1 in 4 women is homeless."(Just ignore those men). Or the absolute clusterfuck in family courts, where a court will award custody of children to a women who was pimping out her own daughter to feed her drug habit.
At this point I'm not sure what feminists are playing at, but it sure looks like they're trying to infantilize women. AKA you're not responsible for your own actions, it's all the patriarchy's fault, etc.
You're way off. My mom has the nerves in her feet destroyed from diabetes, she takes 50mg 3/daily of long-acting hydromorphone. On top of that she takes 325/5mg acet/oxy upto 5/day for breakthrough pain. This isn't uncommon for people who have severe nerve damage, that's even less then what most cancer patients at stage 2 or 3 take for pain control. Even in my case, I take 50-100mg of tramadol, up to 600mg/daily to control pain from when I broke my back. 600mg is where they switch you to long-acting, and then you take *more* pain meds for when the pain breaks through. If people in your family are only taking something once/week for extreme pain, then they're not really in a constant state of pain, or they're having problems paying for the medication and aren't telling you.
The whole premise of pain management is to have you at a level of pain medication where it will get you through the day at a bearable level. When you get to more specialized treatments like with pain clinics, then you move onto things like nerve blocks, localized site injections, implant pumps for constant release and so on. The amount of pain meds could be even higher then what you were originally taking, or lower. For instance, one of the other medications that I use for pain management is baclofen(muscle relaxant), the option I can have is for a line placed directly into my spine and have a steady stream of it all the time, instead of taking 20mg/2-3 daily.
I haven't even gotten to the pain medication resistance, and the requirement to switch pain medications every 5-7 years because they become less effective over time.
Yeah just wait until you see those big Hillary or Trudeau supporters, who believe things that are pumped out of sites like "natural news" and so on. The anti-vaxxer thing isn't a "right only" issue, there's plenty of very rich, successful and supposedly highly educated people on the left who are anti-vaxxers. Hell the entire sham industry built off the anti-vaccine movement started with rich idiots, and the doctors they went to who were telling them that vaccines cause autism. Those are actual doctors who have their degree to practice no less, and still have it.
Here in Canada, anti-vaccine garbage is a full-blown leftwing conspiracy theory and is *very* popular in Toronto, Ont., Ottawa, Ont., Hull, QC., and Vancouver, BC. The recent chickenpox and measles outbreak we had happened in mainly affluent areas of the country. Something similar happened in Europe with rubella and mumps again in affluent areas.
Valuation, nothing more. It also helps to bypass twitters awful anti-spam system. An account with more activity, more retweets, and so on is less likely to be autobanned by people simply trying to shut it down. Really though, Twitter is having a hard enough time staying afloat and them pissing on users isn't helping them.
Last Jedi made $1.26 BILLION at the box office alone, on a budget of $200 million. It's hardly been a failure.
They expected it to make around $2.5-3.1B, it's never going to make it. The definition of failure for a movie is just that, and someone is going to get shit canned out for it. This is no different then say Dead Space 3 needing to sell 7-8m copies to be successful, but only selling 2m. Yep it made money, yep it was successful, but it's not successful enough to justify the path it took, or anything else. Same goes for movies.
Yes. The Last Jedi failed just as badly as the Ghostbusters remake.
According to your own metrics presented, it did fail just as badly. In fact it was supposed to make twice the amount then it has. The fact that it's already been pulled from China where it was expected to have a huge income pull? You tell me, again going by your metrics.
Consider a control: Did rates in nations that didn't breakup their phone monopolies also go way down?
No, they went up. Canada didn't break up Bell Canada until several years later, nor did they go with deregulation of Bell Canada which held a defacto monopoly in most of the country until the mid-1990's. It wasn't until the marketplace was opened up that LD and local rates fell through the floor. In many parts of Canada, Bell Canada still holds the defacto monopoly on the last mile. If another company wants to sell service for that last mile to their own exchange, they usually pay around $21 of $29 directly to Bell.
Compare that with last mile access for Internet where the last mile is also deregulated. An ISP usually pays around 30-40% of what they charge the customer directly to whoevers lines they are, no matter the speed or package that the customer is paying. So if someone has 30/1Mbs service 30% of $51/mo goes directly to rogers. If the person is paying $79/mo for 75/10Mbps service 35% goes directly to rogers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and yet in the industry all we need to do is look at the clusterfucks of what goes on with node.js and rust. There's a very vocal group of people pushing opportunity of outcome vs opportunity of ability, and they have no problems trying to ruin/displace/remove anyone that they think doesn't fit. They will have no code commits, but their entire history will be whining about terms like master/slave, or whatever thing triggered their neurosis.
someone reporting harassment and immediately bleat "that can't possibly be true" based on a few examples of people making false claims.
So in the absence of them actually presenting any proof at all of harassment but engaging in actual shady actions, I'm automatically in the wrong. Well fuck me for expecting the bare minimum of proof.
How's that listen and believing working out for you? Maybe some #metooing will make you feel better. Right up until you find out that the person making the claim against you is also best friends with the reporter doing the story.
Can you point out three instances where CNN lied? Be specific please.
"There are no sanctuary cities in the US." "The police are full of unstable war veterans." "Trump dumps fish food into koi pond, and will kill all the fish." "Trump sets precedent, takes no questions in China." "Nancy Sinatra is upset over Trump using her father's song"(paraphrased)
Are those good enough? Those are all lies, those were all reported as facts by CNN. I also seem to remember something about 3 reporters getting their asses tossed out as well.
No, you'll never find out because it's against the narrative. Now be a good boy and stop questioning ingsoc otherwise the police will come and have a chat with you.
But to be semi-fair and not joking on this, you only need to look at the general bias. The republicans are saying "bad actors" in general but democrats are screeching "russia" and all that. If it seems heavily slanted all in one direction and telling you that it 100% truly, absolutely, and really is this one thing. It's likely the opposite or somewhere in the middle. The state of US media though and their anti-russia hysteria? Well you take your own guess, but ask yourself when in the last 15 minutes you haven't heard about the ruskies being behind it all, and also the reason why all the failures of the democrats/hillary/on-going problems with party leadership w/people quitting, and so on is really because the russians have turned americans against the democrats.
Something else to think on, russia is this great-big-gigantic huge threat all of a sudden. But the chinese GDP wise, militarily wise, population wise(especially with their huge lopsidedness in m/f birth ratios), industrialization wise are a far greater threat. But as soon as you question this, democrats, progressives, left-leaning media and so on will jump down your throat and start saying that the chinese really aren't the problem.
It's just like that 16yr old prodigy that turned out to be a fraud and then started screeching that people were harassing her. It's almost like there's this gigantic clusterfuck of people who are nobodies and trying to get their 11.8 minutes of fame by cashing in on the latest "look at all these people harassing me..."
They still were still paying for school all through the 2008 crash. Even with the drop in rates(you could see a high as $1.10/mile in the US pre-2008, the demand for drivers was there. Right now top-rate companies are paying $0.72/mile plus layover time during dock/time down for repairs and so on.
Corporatist whackjobbery.
So you're not disputing anything I've said. Brilliant.
Oh, the horror. You're required to be on your job for eight hours....and....it counts towards your work day!
No, it counts towards your *driving day* not your work day. You work day could be as much as 15hrs/day. Think of it this way, you work a 9-5 job. You get up at 6am, and the clock now starts ticking. So, by 7-7:30 you're on the road, now you get stuck in traffic and don't roll in until 10. Now you've already burned through 4hrs of work time, and you have another 4hrs of work you're allowed to do. So you only get to work until 2pm. Then you get to sit there for another 3 hours doing nothing before you're allowed to go home. Now you're not getting paid for that 3 hours, but you still have to sit there. You also weren't paid for that time you sat in traffic either.
See? This isn't rocket surgery. Maybe you should go be a driver for awhile, or actually learn what's happening.
And yet, not enough people want to do this job:
Two fold problem: First there's more freight being shipped then before. The other problem is in the US, the previous administration stacked on so many regulations, requirements, and so on that the average person simply refuses to put up with it. Burnout is common, not from the driving, but because of the absurd amount of regulations. If you have XM radio, listen to Road Dog Trucking the people driving during the call-in segments go on quite often how these regulations hurt them.
Read this for example. Let me give an example that isn't covered. Let's say you're going to be on for 10hrs/day, you pull into the dock and for whatever reason you spent 8hrs sitting there so you simply go to sleep. Well, under the new regulations that 8hrs sitting in the dock counts towards the time you're on the road. So you can only drive 2hrs. Now if you know anyone in the industry, you'll start hearing about "dock time" pay and so on, because if your truck isn't rolling you aren't earning money even if it's a company truck.
Rail doesn't deliver to the dock like that. On top of that, you'd have to start building new massive docks to bring everything in for local hauls. Then you're also going to have to convince every business around that JiT(Just in Time) transport is economically infeasible and it's cheaper to have giant warehouses full of things instead of rolling trucks from a centralized dock to smaller warehouses, then directly out to shipping. We've been down this road before, the reason why trucks are cheaper is because they first count as a "warehouse" to store good in transport. Second it's by-far cheaper then trains, I mean really cheap. Third, trucks don't require specialized "track" to deliver into particular areas. That means you don't need to subsidize for remote communities for instance, a plain old gravel road will get things in and out.
The trucking industry doesn't get much in the way of "favor subsidizing" on top of that, it gets heavier taxes for everything from fuel(to pay for those roads), to extra taxes on tires one of the reasons retreads on trailers are popular vs new tires, is because the taxes are less. Plus massive environmental fees for maintenance and so on. On the other hand, the rail industry gets massive tax subsidies and in several cases the government have "picked up the cost" for remote communities rail link.
That's what I said! You even quoted it!
No, you apparently fail to understand the basic points of law. The prosecution was unable to reach the standard for a conviction. The judge(trier of fact & law) however ripped the prosecution for failing to do their due-diligence in the investigative process. Those are two fundamentally different people.
That's exactly how law works in the US, Canada and most western countries. There's a thing called "chain of evidence" it deals with the initial source, through the people who carry it, to where it ends up in court and who signs for everything. Warrants filed under false pretenses and used to gain evidence are void.
If you want to see this in action read Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. It's a very well known case where the US government seized tax records, then tried to present it as evidence before the court. There is also something called "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" in US law it boils down to this; and this is a very slim definition. There is a lot of case law on this.
n. in criminal law, the doctrine that evidence discovered due to information found through illegal search or other unconstitutional means (such as a forced confession) may not be introduced by a prosecutor. The theory is that the tree (original illegal evidence) is poisoned and thus taints what grows from it. For example, as part of a coerced admission made without giving a prime suspect the so-called "Miranda warnings" (statement of rights, including the right to remain silent and what he/she says will be used against them), the suspect tells the police the location of stolen property. Since the admission cannot be introduced as evidence in trial, neither can the stolen property.
How relevant or important is that?
Very. They lied to the court to get the warrants, they broke multiple laws by doing so. They cast the justice system into disrepute, this is big, very big. The warrant was basically granted under false pretenses, that nulls *everything* the judge can revoke the warrant(s) and that all the evidence in that chain. That means anything tied to those fisa warrants at any level all gone. On top of that the people who filed for the warrants can be criminally charged.
This is why you don't lie when you file for a warrant. It's why you fully state the sources. You don't smudge, you don't nudge, you don't bullshit. Democrats and progressives wanted a "true" russian investigation, and these people just fucked it all up for you - forever.
Nunes is blowing a smoke screen to hide Russian attacks on the US elections
If that was true, then the democrats wouldn't be fighting tooth and fucking nail to try and stop the memo from being released. Hell look at the democrat and media narrative over the last week. It's gone from "it's nunes so bad" to "people are too stupid to understand it(this is different then the context claim)" to "we're releasing our own memo" to "no don't release the memo at all" to "the memo was written by the russians" and on and on. The freakout by pelosi, schiff, maxine waters, and so on is both hilarious and deeply troubling.
But I guess we'll find out exactly what's in it tomorrow, and I have a feeling we're going to find out that the Obama administration broke the law. That multiple people in the FBI broke the law, that the entire basis of the russia investigation was based on false and/or fabricated political hearsay.
TL;DR
But from what I saw, you're a creep. Sorry about your world changing under you, creep. Get used to it.
And let's flip the genders shall we? I'd have the media lining up and screeching that nothing was being done, that there's a systemic and underlying pattern of abuse. That people did not want to address it.
And on the other hand, show exactly why MRA's exist. Because really, you're just a shitty human being that happily turns a blind eye to something, then starts screeching with the virtue signalling.
Sorry to double reply, but I've noticed something important. You don't seem to understand what something not being proven beyond a reasonable doubt means.
No, I understand exactly what it means. You on the other hand don't seem to be able to read, or understand what I'm saying.
For example, in Gomeshi's case he withdrew his lawsuit and paid CBS's legal fees, but in the later criminal trial the prosecution was unable to reach the standard of evidence required for a criminal conviction. From that you concluded that he was the victim of a lying accuser, despite there being evidence to the contrary, which is completely unjustified.
Uh no. It went to court, and that was from the judges own decision in the case. Also try to at least get the broadcaster correct. You can either read the case yourself, try canlii.org or read an article like this. Yes the women lied, repeatedly.
Mashiki really seems to think that if someone is not convicted for any reason, it means that the accuser lied.
Obviously AmiMoJo really seems to think that if someone is accused for any reason, that means they're a rapist.
On an related note Mashiki has accused me of all sorts of crazy stuff over the years, yet I have not been convicted of any of it.
On a related note, your inability to read continues to be staggering. I haven't actually accused you of anything, I simply wondered whether or not with the amount of virtue signalling you do that you're simply covering up for shitty behavior. You just didn't happen to like it when I compared the amount of virtue signalling you engaged in with the various people who also did the same and were shown to be shitty humans.
Okay, I'm sorry you had to suffer that, but that's not the question here. The question is, what should be done about it?
In a society that believes in equality, individuals would be held to account for it. That's not happening, I realize this is very difficult for you to accept but welcome to the real world.
Mashiki is advocating that people should just accept sexual assault and not complain, because he was assaulted once and unable to get it addressed. Do you agree with him, or do you think that everyone, of any gender, should be able to complain?
And...that's the exact opposite of what I said. I can't tell if you're intentionally trying to piss people off, or you fail to understand what someone says 99% of the time because you don't want to actually hear what they're saying. You simply slap your lens on something to view it and apply your own biases.
No sure where you get strange ideas like that from, but in any case the argument here is that human beings shouldn't have to put up with being grabbed by the genitalia or otherwise sexually assaulted.
That's not what the argument here is. But if you really want to make that the case, why don't you tell me why all those women when I worked a bar as a cadet, just couldn't stop grabbing my ass and dick. And I had zero recourse to do anything about it, I could not make a complaint. I could not detain, I could not tell them to stop. That's some pretty fucking exceptional leeway, now let's flip the gender and ask yourself what would happen? This happening to male police officers who work bars is so common it's stupid.
Having read about what guys like Weinstein and Nasser did, are you really saying that these complaints are without merit? Or for that matter, having read about what Bushnell admits to doing in his own autobiographical books...
You mean besides that Weinstein was basically selling roles, and women were selling themselves for roles? Nasser who actually *did* abuse trust, just like all those female teachers though right? Ever notice the sentencing disparity? I'll wait for you to look it up. Wait until you get to the cases where the women is the rapist and you see the tear works of: "that 13yr old boy I raped, ruined my life. And it's his fault I raped him."
No, they didn't. That is fake news.
Yeah, actually they did. And it's not the first time either, check your own news more often.
There have been problems with evidence that might help the defence not being turned over in good time, or at all.
aka perversion of justice. Not only did they not turn over evidence, in many cases they outright ignored evidence that showed that the defendant was not culpable. In at least 2 cases, the police hid exculpatory evidence from the court, defense, and crown in order to bolster the accusers case.
First thing to note is that it isn't evidence that the allegations were false - if it was, there would be prosecutions. The standard of proof required is "beyond reasonable doubt", and the evidence in question means that the prosecution could not reach that level. However, it also doesn't reach the standard for proving that the accuser lied, because as you know even if you agree to have sex with someone you can withdraw consent at any time.
So you're saying that a women 30 years from now who withdraws consent and then screams you raped her is acceptable?
First thing that you'd best pay attention to, women lie. Now let's look at the Jian Gomeshi case here in Canada, the women lied. The women colluded. They got together in order to fabricate evidence. Those women also *went back* for more sex with him, they bragged to each other over their S&M play, sent him photos after the alleged rape. This is not a case of he said/she said. But him? Career ruined, life ruined, end of story. Look at the last half-dozen cases in the UK that were high profile, what do we have but a pattern. How about that women in the UK who claimed she was raped by 10+ men in various different cases? Well she was eventually charged, convicted for those. But the lives she's ruined? Those men will never recover from those false allegations.
And in any case, do you know the percentage of cases that this affects? I'm guessing you don't or you wouldn't have used the adjective "rampant".
Well let's see, we can see as high as 70% of cases to turn out being false, that's here in Canada. That's cases of the accuser lied for various reasons, mad at the person, peer pressure, etc. Another 20-26% or so become "lack of sufficient evidence" the rest usually end up being convictions. Looking pretty rampant here.
On top of that, Canada, much like the UK, the standard in the case of allegations is "always believe" a
Well that neo-puritan movement has been blowing up for awhile, around a decade and it's sure not the right pushing it. It's coming directly from feminism. Considering that Feminism has been pushing for women to "do whatever they want" but have no responsibility when they fuck up, this isn't surprising. You can see this with the increasing numbers of cases coming to light of false rape allegations ruining men. Hell it's so bad in the UK that they just launched a public inquiry into the rampant number of false allegations and cases being over-turned because women are lying. They're lying either because they "regret it"(up to decades later suddenly) "are told by a friend it ruins their social standing" "as a form of revenge" "sympathy" "increasing status" or "profiting off victimhood." Stuff like MRA's, MGTOW and so on, don't exist in a vacuum despite what the "male feminist allies" believe. They exist because there is something fundamentally broken in many cases. Whether it be the "college rape epidemic" lie, or posters saying "1 in 4 women is homeless."(Just ignore those men). Or the absolute clusterfuck in family courts, where a court will award custody of children to a women who was pimping out her own daughter to feed her drug habit.
At this point I'm not sure what feminists are playing at, but it sure looks like they're trying to infantilize women. AKA you're not responsible for your own actions, it's all the patriarchy's fault, etc.
You're way off. My mom has the nerves in her feet destroyed from diabetes, she takes 50mg 3/daily of long-acting hydromorphone. On top of that she takes 325/5mg acet/oxy upto 5/day for breakthrough pain. This isn't uncommon for people who have severe nerve damage, that's even less then what most cancer patients at stage 2 or 3 take for pain control. Even in my case, I take 50-100mg of tramadol, up to 600mg/daily to control pain from when I broke my back. 600mg is where they switch you to long-acting, and then you take *more* pain meds for when the pain breaks through. If people in your family are only taking something once/week for extreme pain, then they're not really in a constant state of pain, or they're having problems paying for the medication and aren't telling you.
The whole premise of pain management is to have you at a level of pain medication where it will get you through the day at a bearable level. When you get to more specialized treatments like with pain clinics, then you move onto things like nerve blocks, localized site injections, implant pumps for constant release and so on. The amount of pain meds could be even higher then what you were originally taking, or lower. For instance, one of the other medications that I use for pain management is baclofen(muscle relaxant), the option I can have is for a line placed directly into my spine and have a steady stream of it all the time, instead of taking 20mg/2-3 daily.
I haven't even gotten to the pain medication resistance, and the requirement to switch pain medications every 5-7 years because they become less effective over time.
Yeah just wait until you see those big Hillary or Trudeau supporters, who believe things that are pumped out of sites like "natural news" and so on. The anti-vaxxer thing isn't a "right only" issue, there's plenty of very rich, successful and supposedly highly educated people on the left who are anti-vaxxers. Hell the entire sham industry built off the anti-vaccine movement started with rich idiots, and the doctors they went to who were telling them that vaccines cause autism. Those are actual doctors who have their degree to practice no less, and still have it.
Here in Canada, anti-vaccine garbage is a full-blown leftwing conspiracy theory and is *very* popular in Toronto, Ont., Ottawa, Ont., Hull, QC., and Vancouver, BC. The recent chickenpox and measles outbreak we had happened in mainly affluent areas of the country. Something similar happened in Europe with rubella and mumps again in affluent areas.
What is the point of the retweet account?
Valuation, nothing more. It also helps to bypass twitters awful anti-spam system. An account with more activity, more retweets, and so on is less likely to be autobanned by people simply trying to shut it down. Really though, Twitter is having a hard enough time staying afloat and them pissing on users isn't helping them.
Last Jedi made $1.26 BILLION at the box office alone, on a budget of $200 million. It's hardly been a failure.
They expected it to make around $2.5-3.1B, it's never going to make it. The definition of failure for a movie is just that, and someone is going to get shit canned out for it. This is no different then say Dead Space 3 needing to sell 7-8m copies to be successful, but only selling 2m. Yep it made money, yep it was successful, but it's not successful enough to justify the path it took, or anything else. Same goes for movies.
Yes. The Last Jedi failed just as badly as the Ghostbusters remake.
According to your own metrics presented, it did fail just as badly. In fact it was supposed to make twice the amount then it has. The fact that it's already been pulled from China where it was expected to have a huge income pull? You tell me, again going by your metrics.
Consider a control: Did rates in nations that didn't breakup their phone monopolies also go way down?
No, they went up. Canada didn't break up Bell Canada until several years later, nor did they go with deregulation of Bell Canada which held a defacto monopoly in most of the country until the mid-1990's. It wasn't until the marketplace was opened up that LD and local rates fell through the floor. In many parts of Canada, Bell Canada still holds the defacto monopoly on the last mile. If another company wants to sell service for that last mile to their own exchange, they usually pay around $21 of $29 directly to Bell.
Compare that with last mile access for Internet where the last mile is also deregulated. An ISP usually pays around 30-40% of what they charge the customer directly to whoevers lines they are, no matter the speed or package that the customer is paying. So if someone has 30/1Mbs service 30% of $51/mo goes directly to rogers. If the person is paying $79/mo for 75/10Mbps service 35% goes directly to rogers.