I am just looking for you ideal candidate for rule of law. No one claims the west is perfect but it's a lot better than others/most. You conflate western legal system and philosophy with "western media". WTF is that?
You seem to imply that the government making, say opioids, a priority of enforcement because it is a high profile issue that affect many people in the community means that every decision by law enforcement is politically motivated. You also don't seem to understand the idea of "faithfully executing the laws".
I really do not understand your position. Should the US enforce US law or not? Should Canada uphold international treaty they sign as law or not? It sounds like you are saying "No they shouldn't' because everyone breaks the law and I don't like that they upheld the law against this particular person because China." which seems like you are advocating for corruption and poor standards of justice. Maybe that works for China but I don't like it.
I understand the sentiment. I am not so far as to say "screw the world" but I am tired of being shamed for "not trying hard enough" because I only do what I can afford or ridiculed for not having the same fervor as the AC's spamming vitriol. If that means screw the world then fuck it. Screw the world.
I find it funny you only mention Fox news as if the outlets you like are paragons of truth and fact. Meanwhile, we have had wonderfully bad examples of how bad the news and "journalists" are as they do everything to push narrative over fact.
Don't add butter or salt or else you lack basic altruism and you are part of the problem. If you already don't have butter or salt you need to forfeit popcorn or else you are a denialist and part of the problem.
There is no scientific reason to send people to Mars. It is a political stunt.
I don't think any disagrees that it is a political stunt but so was the initial moon landing. There was no scientific reason to send people to the moon. Yet, that helped spur technological and scientific advancement. I think the same could happen with a manned mission to Mars. Is it worth it? I don't know.
Good gravy man have you read any history of the US?
The US basically was on the Nazi side and a Nazi country themselves until nearly the very end
No. Roosevelt wasn't a fan of the Nazi's hence his support for the UK and the Soviet Union through supply and trade before the US entrance in the war. The US had stronger cultural and historical ties to the UK than Germany and the policy of the government reflected that.
The American people are a diverse group and part of that group includes German migrants who were sympathetic toward their Fatherland. Through WW1 to WW2 there was a stigma attached to German migrants because of the wars. Speaking German was a socially unacceptable. German cuisine and culture were shamed. Why do you think American beer is piss water compared to European beer? Because Germans brought their beer and when Germans were stigmatized during the wars so too was their beer. The beer industry suffered horribly because it was associated with Germany.
The times were different and so was the worlds understanding of race during that time. There were many new ideas being presented that the public were wrestling with. Darwin, eugenics, phrenology, etc had a role in competing on what a society should do or be and how it should handle different races co-mingling. The Nazi's took those ideas to the logical conclusion of extermination. Those ideas and the Nazi final solution are against the founding principles of the US. Remember, the civil war was fought only 40 years before WW1. The US was still trying to figure how to integrate while there were a lot of racists because the wounds of the Civil War were still fresh.
American companies did conduct business with Nazi Germany, like IBM. Just like Apple and China today. The US can recognize and acknowledge that.
promplty went on to hire as many Nazi scientists.
The US didn't want those scientists to go over to the Soviet Union because it seemed like war with the Soviets would follow after the defeat of the Nazi's and Imperial Japan.
Do you think the Soviet Union under Stalin was a better actor of morality than the US at the time? The world isn't a perfect place and you passing judgement outside of time in the comfort of hindsight without having worry about the decision you come up with is ridiculous. While the people living then making those choices understood that thousands would die to their decision and maybe millions more would die if they chose wrong.
I shouldn't have responded to an ignorant troll AC but ugh....
Hey now, I have 9 fingers just like anyone else. Fireworks are great!
On a serious note, wasn't part of the reason for changing the lifting gas was because the US had a monopoly on helium and through bans forced Germany to switch? I don't remember specifics of why but placing the blame on accountants doesn't sound accurate (though they probably contributed).
You are insane defending two completely contradictory positions. The government has limited resources and as such must apply those resources effectively. A prosecutor not following up on a weak case, understanding deterrence value, and not part of an overall government priority means "no rule of law" to you?
What is not acceptable in your definition of "rule of law"? Seriously. I have no idea what standard of law you are trying to bully for. Is it wrong to faithfullly enforce laws or not? Is it ok to ignore a law because others break the same law or not?
do you really think 13% of the population commits 50% of the crimes in the US?
I can look at the evidence and understand that the situation is more complex than those pushing narratives would believe, like you. Violent crime is disproportionately committed by a certain demographic. How you interpret those statistics is not related to your definition of "prosecutorial discretion" or your definition of "rule of law".
Let's assume that everything you say is true (it's not as others have pointed out your ignorance). How does this in anyway absolve her of criminality?
The actions taken by Canada and the US are legal under a mutual treaty against an accused. If the evidence presented to the Canadian courts do not satisfy the judge then she will be released.
What are you actually saying here? That because others might have broken a law we should have lawlessness? Is that how it works in China? Sounds like a recipe for corruption and disregard to the Rule of Law.
They don't care about the fallout this is having on Canada.
Basically, never fuck with China. Do not enforce any law or treaty with another country that may disrespect China in any way shape or form. China is above the law. China is above any international relationship or treaty. If you do China will escalate by arresting and executing your citizens.
which is why he keeps getting slapped down by the courts.
I am not sure this highlights what you think it highlights. Since the 60's the judicial branch has been overstepping their authority. Universal Injunctions are a really bad judicial practice. It doesn't make sense that one judge in one district can cripple the ability of the Federal government to perform its duty. It puts a partisan twist on the court and now judges are looked at through partisan lenses. Legal technicalities shouldn't be the concern of most people.
Since Trump there has been a surge in their use. Showcasing the use of universal injunctions against a president as controversial as Trump doesn't mean much and so far the SCOTUS has upheld Trump's decisions on several occasions (still many pending or in process). We won't know for certainty until those cases are finish.
Trump has obeyed court rulings: How does that make him authoritarian? Obama was slapped down by the courts as well for overreaching executive authority. Does that make him an authoritarian?
Personally, I like Justice Thomas opinion on the matter:
Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyonehave become increasingly common. District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system—preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
>> I suspect your support for him is based on an inability to think critically and face facts regardless of how they conflict with your worldview.
Projecting much. I think it's funny you say this when this conversation started with asking simple questions and stating simple facts. Can't have that now can we. How dare someone question the hive mind!
>> it's not clear if Trump was, in fact, "duly elected"
Yes it is. I suspect your partisan narrative is based on an inability to think critically and face facts regardless of how they conflict with your worldview.
>You may not get what you want, but it still matters.
Other people can get what they want. I'll wait for the one time it actually matters instead of buying into lies like the recent Buzzfeed "bombshell" that they refuse to retract despite Mueller saying it's bullshit.
When your wife starts in on you, do you escalate, hold firm, and make her more angry by stubborn opposition? That doesn't sound like a good idea for anyone married. I think your example highlights my point. Even if your spouse starts the fight (starts the game of chicken), sometimes its better to bite the tongue and move along (not accelerating toward a car crash). Then there isn't a big fight that blows out of proportion and then complaints from 10 years ago are brought up, your sleeping on the couch, angry unable to sleep and exhausted for work the next day (the car crash) wondering how a few dirty dishes caused all this. It takes two to fight.
I don't understand why the president is such a narcissistic moron who lies with every breath
That's his personality and has always been that way? That isn't hard to explain especially if you look at him before he entered politics. Not sure what isn't to understand.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what is going on. But I can assure you that whatever it is I AM OUTRAGED!!!
Let me inform my Twitter followers about how outraged I am. Surely we can get someone fired if we try!
*looks left, right, and behind*
*clears throat*
HAY GUESS WAT!!!!!
*Runs*
mmmmm popcorn
I am just looking for you ideal candidate for rule of law. No one claims the west is perfect but it's a lot better than others/most. You conflate western legal system and philosophy with "western media". WTF is that?
You seem to imply that the government making, say opioids, a priority of enforcement because it is a high profile issue that affect many people in the community means that every decision by law enforcement is politically motivated. You also don't seem to understand the idea of "faithfully executing the laws".
I really do not understand your position. Should the US enforce US law or not? Should Canada uphold international treaty they sign as law or not? It sounds like you are saying "No they shouldn't' because everyone breaks the law and I don't like that they upheld the law against this particular person because China." which seems like you are advocating for corruption and poor standards of justice. Maybe that works for China but I don't like it.
mmmmmm butter. *homer drool*
I understand the sentiment. I am not so far as to say "screw the world" but I am tired of being shamed for "not trying hard enough" because I only do what I can afford or ridiculed for not having the same fervor as the AC's spamming vitriol. If that means screw the world then fuck it. Screw the world.
I find it funny you only mention Fox news as if the outlets you like are paragons of truth and fact. Meanwhile, we have had wonderfully bad examples of how bad the news and "journalists" are as they do everything to push narrative over fact.
This isn't a defense of Fox news.
Don't add butter or salt or else you lack basic altruism and you are part of the problem. If you already don't have butter or salt you need to forfeit popcorn or else you are a denialist and part of the problem.
It's never enough.
Well played sir.
Jigger? Could I get that converted into Football fields please?
Name a government that doesn't do that in any regard?
shuttle program != space program
The shuttle program is one aspect of the space program. You do not need to conflate things like that in order to disprove the AC.
There is no scientific reason to send people to Mars. It is a political stunt.
I don't think any disagrees that it is a political stunt but so was the initial moon landing. There was no scientific reason to send people to the moon. Yet, that helped spur technological and scientific advancement. I think the same could happen with a manned mission to Mars. Is it worth it? I don't know.
Agree with the debt.
you've discovered a type of argument
Normally after a discovery we would name it after the one who discovered it. In that spirit we could call it, nonsensical... ... ...
I am sorry I will let myself out.
Good gravy man have you read any history of the US?
The US basically was on the Nazi side and a Nazi country themselves until nearly the very end
No. Roosevelt wasn't a fan of the Nazi's hence his support for the UK and the Soviet Union through supply and trade before the US entrance in the war. The US had stronger cultural and historical ties to the UK than Germany and the policy of the government reflected that.
The American people are a diverse group and part of that group includes German migrants who were sympathetic toward their Fatherland. Through WW1 to WW2 there was a stigma attached to German migrants because of the wars. Speaking German was a socially unacceptable. German cuisine and culture were shamed. Why do you think American beer is piss water compared to European beer? Because Germans brought their beer and when Germans were stigmatized during the wars so too was their beer. The beer industry suffered horribly because it was associated with Germany.
The times were different and so was the worlds understanding of race during that time. There were many new ideas being presented that the public were wrestling with. Darwin, eugenics, phrenology, etc had a role in competing on what a society should do or be and how it should handle different races co-mingling. The Nazi's took those ideas to the logical conclusion of extermination. Those ideas and the Nazi final solution are against the founding principles of the US. Remember, the civil war was fought only 40 years before WW1. The US was still trying to figure how to integrate while there were a lot of racists because the wounds of the Civil War were still fresh.
American companies did conduct business with Nazi Germany, like IBM. Just like Apple and China today. The US can recognize and acknowledge that.
promplty went on to hire as many Nazi scientists .
The US didn't want those scientists to go over to the Soviet Union because it seemed like war with the Soviets would follow after the defeat of the Nazi's and Imperial Japan.
Do you think the Soviet Union under Stalin was a better actor of morality than the US at the time? The world isn't a perfect place and you passing judgement outside of time in the comfort of hindsight without having worry about the decision you come up with is ridiculous. While the people living then making those choices understood that thousands would die to their decision and maybe millions more would die if they chose wrong.
I shouldn't have responded to an ignorant troll AC but ugh. ...
Hey now, I have 9 fingers just like anyone else. Fireworks are great!
On a serious note, wasn't part of the reason for changing the lifting gas was because the US had a monopoly on helium and through bans forced Germany to switch? I don't remember specifics of why but placing the blame on accountants doesn't sound accurate (though they probably contributed).
You are insane defending two completely contradictory positions. The government has limited resources and as such must apply those resources effectively. A prosecutor not following up on a weak case, understanding deterrence value, and not part of an overall government priority means "no rule of law" to you?
What is not acceptable in your definition of "rule of law"? Seriously. I have no idea what standard of law you are trying to bully for. Is it wrong to faithfullly enforce laws or not? Is it ok to ignore a law because others break the same law or not?
do you really think 13% of the population commits 50% of the crimes in the US?
I can look at the evidence and understand that the situation is more complex than those pushing narratives would believe, like you. Violent crime is disproportionately committed by a certain demographic. How you interpret those statistics is not related to your definition of "prosecutorial discretion" or your definition of "rule of law".
finally be approaching the cusp of useful applaications
30 or 20 years away?
I'm a smoker and my grandfather died on the Hindenburg. Trigger me timbers when anyone mentions hydrogen and balloons in the same sentence.
However business leaders lie all the time
Let's assume that everything you say is true (it's not as others have pointed out your ignorance). How does this in anyway absolve her of criminality?
The actions taken by Canada and the US are legal under a mutual treaty against an accused. If the evidence presented to the Canadian courts do not satisfy the judge then she will be released.
What are you actually saying here? That because others might have broken a law we should have lawlessness? Is that how it works in China? Sounds like a recipe for corruption and disregard to the Rule of Law.
"but omg, Trump, it's so unfair".
Sadly, this has been argued in court to injoin vactions of the Federal government.
"Well, it's legal for a president to do that but it's illegal for this president to do it.
I wish I were kidding.
They don't care about the fallout this is having on Canada.
Basically, never fuck with China. Do not enforce any law or treaty with another country that may disrespect China in any way shape or form. China is above the law. China is above any international relationship or treaty. If you do China will escalate by arresting and executing your citizens.
Got it.
which is why he keeps getting slapped down by the courts.
I am not sure this highlights what you think it highlights. Since the 60's the judicial branch has been overstepping their authority. Universal Injunctions are a really bad judicial practice. It doesn't make sense that one judge in one district can cripple the ability of the Federal government to perform its duty. It puts a partisan twist on the court and now judges are looked at through partisan lenses. Legal technicalities shouldn't be the concern of most people.
Since Trump there has been a surge in their use. Showcasing the use of universal injunctions against a president as controversial as Trump doesn't mean much and so far the SCOTUS has upheld Trump's decisions on several occasions (still many pending or in process). We won't know for certainty until those cases are finish.
Trump has obeyed court rulings: How does that make him authoritarian? Obama was slapped down by the courts as well for overreaching executive authority. Does that make him an authoritarian?
Personally, I like Justice Thomas opinion on the matter:
Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyonehave become increasingly common. District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system—preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
>> I suspect your support for him is based on an inability to think critically and face facts regardless of how they conflict with your worldview.
Projecting much. I think it's funny you say this when this conversation started with asking simple questions and stating simple facts. Can't have that now can we. How dare someone question the hive mind!
>> it's not clear if Trump was, in fact, "duly elected"
Yes it is. I suspect your partisan narrative is based on an inability to think critically and face facts regardless of how they conflict with your worldview.
>You may not get what you want, but it still matters.
Other people can get what they want. I'll wait for the one time it actually matters instead of buying into lies like the recent Buzzfeed "bombshell" that they refuse to retract despite Mueller saying it's bullshit.
lol, yes i am just a brainwashed incel. What does that make you? A big brain IQ alpha that's married to the queen of england. posh posh posh.
>>Is that the kind of dysfunctional asshole you want for a president?
It doesn't matter what I want. He was duly elected.
You've never been married, have you?
When your wife starts in on you, do you escalate, hold firm, and make her more angry by stubborn opposition? That doesn't sound like a good idea for anyone married. I think your example highlights my point. Even if your spouse starts the fight (starts the game of chicken), sometimes its better to bite the tongue and move along (not accelerating toward a car crash). Then there isn't a big fight that blows out of proportion and then complaints from 10 years ago are brought up, your sleeping on the couch, angry unable to sleep and exhausted for work the next day (the car crash) wondering how a few dirty dishes caused all this. It takes two to fight.
I don't understand why the president is such a narcissistic moron who lies with every breath
That's his personality and has always been that way? That isn't hard to explain especially if you look at him before he entered politics. Not sure what isn't to understand.