I don't think they did. I think Satan herself pulled the strings to make it happen. The same thing happened on the other side, except it was more public and less hypocritical.
I never liked Trump and like most people, I didn't see him coming. But now it's hard to tell if he's doing a good job or not because the big time liberal press, the leftists and the SJWs are crying wolf daily for the most mundane comment or event. It has come to a point where one has to watch Fox News and CNN, and read the NYT and Trump's twitter feed, then run all that in some kind of bullshit detector to try and get even a hint of unbiased truth.
This said, I will always consider that anyone, including Trump, was a better choice for President than Hillary "Palpatine" Clinton. And on the plus side, Trump opened the door to a whole new kind of politician. If Oprah ever makes it to the oval office it will be because of him, not because of Clinton or the Obamas.
Says you. Science, on the other hand, says otherwise.
Nicotine is a known risk factor for cancer development and has been shown to alter gene expression in cells and tissue upon exposure. [...] This study reveals previously unknown consequences of nicotine stress on the transcriptome of normal breast epithelial cells and provides insight into the underlying biological influence of nicotine on normal cells, marking the foundation for future studies.
I may be wrong, but I don't think those sexual abuse cases were about being gay. I think they were about being in proximity of vulnerable children and teenagers, most of which were males.
Look at what just came out about that Connecticut boarding school. Decades of abuse but since it was coed, many of the victims were girls.
I laugh when I hear twerps like you talking shit you absolutely do not and never will have the courage to back up. Go play some video games, you pathetic child.
Can you explain how being drafted makes you an expert about courage? You didn't enlist, you were forced to go to war. You're like a single mom or a cancer kid; you faced a challenging situation but that situation by itself doesn't grant you courage automatically.
Maybe the other guy is a twerp, and maybe you are a veteran, but in the context of this thread neither of you has provided any information that would give an edge in your pissing contest.
Cancer is a bigger health problem than hemorrhoids. Does that mean you want big pharma to stop working on hemorrhoids cream and focus all their energy on cancer?
Maybe there's room for common sense and picking low-hanging fruit is part of it.
First, they do not "dismantle" the commission, they just don't renew its mandate.
Semantics. The end result is the same: no commission.
no, the result is a misleading headline. If the title was "commission mandate will not be renewed following a vote from the commission itself" it would be easier to discuss the real matter instead of making it again about trump.
So yeah, the committee should be recommending expert witnesses to limit the amount of smoke they blow up the juries asses.
Read it again. It says expert witnesses *working for the prosecution*. It says nothing about expert witnesses working for the defense. Basically they want to shackle the prosecutors without having the same rules for the defense.
Don't try to spin this out of context. I made a point that the commission has a very low output, and someone replied that it's because scientific research takes time. Those two things are unrelated.
The commission does not engage in research and does not mandate research projects; what they're supposed to do is advise the DoJ about the best way to facilitate forensics in the context of the justice system. The fact that some (a minority) of the commission members are to some extent involved in research has nothing to do with the low output.
I agree that prosecutors have way too much power and such. All I'm saying is, not renewing this commission is not "war on science" since they don't really do science.
You can't have it both ways. Don't call it "war on science" when the commission is not renewed, while most the commission recommendations are about giving ammunition to the defense.
For instance, this one recommendation about the terms "Reasonable Scientific Certainty”:
The Attorney General should direct all forensic science service providers and forensic science medical providers employed by Department of Justice not to use such language in reports or couch their testimony in such terms unless directed to do so by judicial authority
Basically they're trying to limit what the expert witnesses for the prosecution can say. Those people are not scientists, they're defense lobbyists.
Ok. Clearly you need more evidence, so why don't you look at the webcast of their meeting.
Fast-forward to 47:22, and see the lady asking the crowd to pick which cards should be turned over, and then she gets annoyed because nobody gives a shit about her triangles.
Tell me how that helps improving forensics science. This is merely a bunch of people having their 10 minutes of babbling on the record with zero value for the taxpayers.
Somehow I suspect that if that commission had been created by Republicans you'd be the first to denounce it.
From the article: The commission jointly led by Justice and the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has prompted several changes.
You: mostly idle
Your bias is showing.
Those 30 people have made a total of 20 recommendations since 2013. Here's the latest one:
The Attorney General should direct the Bureau of Justice Statistics to create a proposal for the development of a nationally representative survey to determine forensic capabilities for those who write reports and offer testimony within federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies and for medical examiner and coroner offices. The survey instrument should be developed in collaboration with the relevant stakeholders organizations by the next commission meeting.
1/2 page.
You want more? Here's the 2nd latest recommendation, made ONE YEAR before.
Proficiency testing is required of all accredited FSSPs. As a recognized quality control tool, it is the view of the Commission that proficiency testing should also be implemented by nonaccredited FSSPs in disciplines where proficiency tests are available from external organizations.
That's it. The entire corpus of that immensely valuable recommendation spans 7 pages; of those 7 pages, 4 are an appendix describing terms like "Accreditation".
That commission is a big joke. See, there's a webcast of their meetings.
It's not evasive. When someone starts playing with words because they have no real point to make, it reminds me of Bill Clinton and his classic: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
I first had a quick look at the members of that commission. When I saw that one was in the "National College of DUI Defense" and another was on the board of a foundation that "seeks to reduce over-incarceration", I kinda suspected that the output of that commission would not be new gadgets for CSI Miami, but rather a long list of things the cops shouldn't be allowed to use in court.
Did you even read the article and the links posted by those people you bitch about? That commission was doing nothing, it was a defense lawyer gangbang, and it was started 4 years ago by Obama as a bullshit program to meet actions points identified by yet another commission. And it's not "dismantled", they just don't see a point to renew it since it's done nothing.
No this is just some biased news reporting as usual.
From the article:
In a statement Monday, Sessions said he would not renew the National Commission on Forensic Science, a roughly 30-member advisory panel of scientists, judges, crime lab leaders, prosecutors and defense lawyers chartered by the Obama administration in 2013.
First, they do not "dismantle" the commission, they just don't renew its mandate. Second, it was a mostly idle project launched 4 years ago by Obama, it's not a long-standing institution of law enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
You have fallen for lies and propoganda
Says the guy who provides a link to an e-cigarette lobbyist website
Demoncrats put up Satan as Trump's opponent.
I don't think they did. I think Satan herself pulled the strings to make it happen. The same thing happened on the other side, except it was more public and less hypocritical.
I never liked Trump and like most people, I didn't see him coming. But now it's hard to tell if he's doing a good job or not because the big time liberal press, the leftists and the SJWs are crying wolf daily for the most mundane comment or event. It has come to a point where one has to watch Fox News and CNN, and read the NYT and Trump's twitter feed, then run all that in some kind of bullshit detector to try and get even a hint of unbiased truth.
This said, I will always consider that anyone, including Trump, was a better choice for President than Hillary "Palpatine" Clinton. And on the plus side, Trump opened the door to a whole new kind of politician. If Oprah ever makes it to the oval office it will be because of him, not because of Clinton or the Obamas.
Nicotine isn't carginogenic, Einstein
Says you. Science, on the other hand, says otherwise.
Nicotine is a known risk factor for cancer development and has been shown to alter gene expression in cells and tissue upon exposure.
[...]
This study reveals previously unknown consequences of nicotine stress on the transcriptome of normal breast epithelial cells and provides insight into the underlying biological influence of nicotine on normal cells, marking the foundation for future studies.
Read the study here:
http://journals.plos.org/ploso...
as civilians we automatically outrank everyone in the military
You must be one of those "customer is always right" people
Because they aren't Catholic priests
I may be wrong, but I don't think those sexual abuse cases were about being gay. I think they were about being in proximity of vulnerable children and teenagers, most of which were males.
Look at what just came out about that Connecticut boarding school. Decades of abuse but since it was coed, many of the victims were girls.
I laugh when I hear twerps like you talking shit you absolutely do not and never will have
the courage to back up. Go play some video games, you pathetic child.
Can you explain how being drafted makes you an expert about courage? You didn't enlist, you were forced to go to war. You're like a single mom or a cancer kid; you faced a challenging situation but that situation by itself doesn't grant you courage automatically.
Maybe the other guy is a twerp, and maybe you are a veteran, but in the context of this thread neither of you has provided any information that would give an edge in your pissing contest.
Cancer is a bigger health problem than hemorrhoids. Does that mean you want big pharma to stop working on hemorrhoids cream and focus all their energy on cancer?
Maybe there's room for common sense and picking low-hanging fruit is part of it.
Herstory will prove you wrong.
Semantics. The end result is the same: no commission.
no, the result is a misleading headline. If the title was "commission mandate will not be renewed following a vote from the commission itself" it would be easier to discuss the real matter instead of making it again about trump.
So yeah, the committee should be recommending expert witnesses to limit the amount of smoke they blow up the juries asses.
Read it again. It says expert witnesses *working for the prosecution*. It says nothing about expert witnesses working for the defense. Basically they want to shackle the prosecutors without having the same rules for the defense.
Don't try to spin this out of context. I made a point that the commission has a very low output, and someone replied that it's because scientific research takes time. Those two things are unrelated.
The commission does not engage in research and does not mandate research projects; what they're supposed to do is advise the DoJ about the best way to facilitate forensics in the context of the justice system. The fact that some (a minority) of the commission members are to some extent involved in research has nothing to do with the low output.
I agree that prosecutors have way too much power and such. All I'm saying is, not renewing this commission is not "war on science" since they don't really do science.
Like most science opponents, your argument is that the research takes too long to bear fruit. Science doesn't happen overnight.
That's a commission. They don't do research.
I'm not pro-law enforcement at all. The point here is that calling the end of this commission "war on science" is, at best. dishonest.
You can't have it both ways. Don't call it "war on science" when the commission is not renewed, while most the commission recommendations are about giving ammunition to the defense.
For instance, this one recommendation about the terms "Reasonable Scientific Certainty”:
The Attorney General should direct all forensic science service providers and forensic science medical providers employed by Department of Justice not to
use such language in reports or couch their testimony in such terms unless directed to do so by judicial authority
Basically they're trying to limit what the expert witnesses for the prosecution can say. Those people are not scientists, they're defense lobbyists.
Ok. Clearly you need more evidence, so why don't you look at the webcast of their meeting.
Fast-forward to 47:22, and see the lady asking the crowd to pick which cards should be turned over, and then she gets annoyed because nobody gives a shit about her triangles.
https://www.nist.gov/topics/fo...
Tell me how that helps improving forensics science. This is merely a bunch of people having their 10 minutes of babbling on the record with zero value for the taxpayers.
Somehow I suspect that if that commission had been created by Republicans you'd be the first to denounce it.
From the article:
The commission jointly led by Justice and the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has prompted several changes.
You:
mostly idle
Your bias is showing.
Those 30 people have made a total of 20 recommendations since 2013. Here's the latest one:
The Attorney General should direct the Bureau of Justice Statistics to create a proposal for the development of a nationally representative survey to determine forensic capabilities for those who write reports and offer testimony within federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies and for medical examiner and coroner offices. The survey instrument should be developed in collaboration with the relevant stakeholders organizations by the next commission meeting.
1/2 page.
You want more? Here's the 2nd latest recommendation, made ONE YEAR before.
Proficiency testing is required of all accredited FSSPs. As a recognized quality control tool, it is the view of the Commission that proficiency testing should also be implemented by nonaccredited FSSPs in disciplines where proficiency tests are available from external organizations.
That's it. The entire corpus of that immensely valuable recommendation spans 7 pages; of those 7 pages, 4 are an appendix describing terms like "Accreditation".
That commission is a big joke. See, there's a webcast of their meetings.
https://www.nist.gov/topics/fo...
Huge waste of time.
Evasive answers do not serve you.
It's not evasive. When someone starts playing with words because they have no real point to make, it reminds me of Bill Clinton and his classic: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
I first had a quick look at the members of that commission. When I saw that one was in the "National College of DUI Defense" and another was on the board of a foundation that "seeks to reduce over-incarceration", I kinda suspected that the output of that commission would not be new gadgets for CSI Miami, but rather a long list of things the cops shouldn't be allowed to use in court.
Is that the go to talking point being spread around The Donald? I see the exact same comment made elsewhere in this thread.
I see. When two people make similar comments that do not support your preconceived opinion, it's a conspiracy.
uhm, and "not renewing its mandate" does not equal "dismantling" it how?
Because they mean different things.
I think the real lesson here is that people should avoid making dramatic statements when it's not warranted.
Did you even read the article and the links posted by those people you bitch about? That commission was doing nothing, it was a defense lawyer gangbang, and it was started 4 years ago by Obama as a bullshit program to meet actions points identified by yet another commission. And it's not "dismantled", they just don't see a point to renew it since it's done nothing.
No this is just some biased news reporting as usual.
From the article:
In a statement Monday, Sessions said he would not renew the National Commission on Forensic Science, a roughly 30-member advisory panel of scientists, judges, crime lab leaders, prosecutors and defense lawyers chartered by the Obama administration in 2013.
First, they do not "dismantle" the commission, they just don't renew its mandate. Second, it was a mostly idle project launched 4 years ago by Obama, it's not a long-standing institution of law enforcement.
I had an erotic dream and I want to make it a prophetic erotic dream by acting it out.[NSFW]
i didn't see the ending coming. Kudos to whoever made that comic!