Escape from Elba

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - NeedsAdjustments

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 83
1
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 26, 2019, 06:08:57 PM »
Here is an example from the industrial revolution, as you seem unaware of the history:

https://www.history.com/news/child-labor-lewis-hine-photos

Photos of children working in unhealthy and unsafe conditions helped lead to the most important labor regulation of the 20th century.  Did the exposure of these conditions "exploit" their situation for political gain, or was it an important catalyst to policy change that made people's lives significantly better?

I guess your answer to that would depend on where you stand on child labor laws.

2
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 26, 2019, 06:01:20 PM »
You guessed wrong. Then you wrote a lot of horseshit.

Both extreme partisans are using pictures of dead babies to advance their cause. That's disgusting on many levels. Guess you don't see it that way.

Looks like I guessed right (hint, I wasn't really guessing) and then you promptly ignored or did not understand the points that followed.

Shorter version; pointing to dead babies to advance your cause isn't disgusting (on any level) if your cause is ending policies that lead to dead babies.

Maybe what you want to argue is that family separations, metering and otherwise making border conditions appreciably crueler (such as arguing that you do not need to provide beds or soap or toothpaste) as a mater of policy does not actually lead to higher risk of death for migrants.  Then make that argument. 

Otherwise, your post is virtue signaling without merit or substance.

3
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 26, 2019, 04:50:39 PM »
Great.

So the illiberal Left and the Radical Right agree.

Dead babies can be exploited in order to advance the politics of their respective sides.

I’m guessing here that the terms “exploited” and “politics” are intended to belittle the “leftists” and point out some imagined hypocrisy, but political movements born of crisis are well ingrained in American history.  Thinking particularly of the labor and environmental reforms that came during the industrial revolution, for example.  Or New Deal programs following the Great Depression, which are often thought of in macro-economic terms but were at their first level attempts to relieve massive levels of human suffering.

If nuclear power plants were releasing radioactive water into the drinking supply and people were dying as a result and only one party was willing to get them to stop, I suppose you would say that one party was “exploiting the deaths of people due to radiation poisoning in order to advance their politics” but another way to say it is “one party is seeking to stop the avoidable deaths of innocent people through industrial regulation.”

I would say in this case that you have it doubly backwards because in fact the Trump Administration’s hyper-cruel treatment of legal asylum seekers is all about politics.  Trump canceled a pilot program started by the Obama Administration that was working ( https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/obama-era-pilot-program-kept-asylum-seeking-migrant-families-together-n885896 ) because it was Obama’s, and his base responds to theatrical cruelty at the border (see also; Wall) over policy that actually works to solve the problem. 

You could say the same in healthcare, where one party is literally creating life/death situations in rural areas just because using the ACA to expand Medicaid coverage is politically unpopular on the Right after they spent so much political capital on trashing it: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/opinion/republican-states-health-care.html

“Political” is not the same as “partisan.”  Nor should it be so given a dirty word as you try to make it.  There are some politicians who are actually trying to get elected in order to make people’s lives better.  Hope the age of Trump has not made us so cynical as to make that statement hard to believe.

4
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 26, 2019, 02:02:13 PM »
They were at the facility, waiting, since Sunday.  Not turned away.


They were in Mexico. It as 113 degrees.

THIS IS ON THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

These are consequences of a conscious decision to institute policy designed to be painful.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/07/609225537/sessions-says-zero-tolerance-for-illegal-border-crossers-vows-to-divide-families

Stop rationalizing evil...

Stop forgiving a dad got his kid killed.

They would be alive if they arrived at the border three years ago.

less crowded, eh?

Family was turned away from a legal point of entry because of “metering” a Trump Admin invention.

5
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 26, 2019, 11:58:52 AM »
They were at the facility, waiting, since Sunday.  Not turned away.


They were in Mexico. It as 113 degrees.

THIS IS ON THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

These are consequences of a conscious decision to institute policy designed to be painful.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/07/609225537/sessions-says-zero-tolerance-for-illegal-border-crossers-vows-to-divide-families

Stop rationalizing evil...

Stop forgiving a dad got his kid killed.

They would be alive if they arrived at the border three years ago.

6
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 26, 2019, 11:09:02 AM »
Thanks

If the story is true - this guy took a real risky chance with his family's lives.

But really - Trump killed them.

Family was turned away from a legal point of entry because of “metering” a Trump Admin invention.

If you are going to follow a “cruelty is the point” policy, which Trump has been openly endorsing, you can’t run away from the predictable consequences. 

There are life and death consequences at the border, especially for the lives of children.  Isn’t like anyone pointed that out before this incident...

7
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 25, 2019, 05:39:06 PM »
Out of curiosity, what would that reason be?

?
Read Kid's post above.

Sorry it wasn't clear, but my question mark was for emphasis, as in yes kiidcarter8, lets have an answer to the question.

8
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 25, 2019, 05:38:14 PM »
On the case itself Thomas seems to have the better argument.

On the argument against a Batson violation Thomas has no argument.  As said, if you don't see a violation here, he won't anywhere.  And indeed, even in a case where Thomas had the prosecutor's notes calling out the black jurors he didn't see it.

Which takes us to the real argument Thomas makes, which is that black defendants have no right to a jury pool free of discriminatory intent under the Equal Protection Clause.  Which is an argument I respect, in a way.  If you are going to be racist, do it proud, rather than hide behind technicalities.

9
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 25, 2019, 05:28:32 PM »
Out of curiosity, what would that reason be?

?

11
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 25, 2019, 10:04:07 AM »
Here is the false attribution, which Ward later further insisted was Thomas's direct quote from his dissenting opinion...


So Justice Kavanaugh was going to tilt SCOTUS to the right?
LOL

In Flowers v. Mississippi, Kavanaugh wrote a 7-2 majority opinion overturning a sixth conviction of a cold-blooded murderer who was convicted of killing four people 23 years ago. Although he was convicted with evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt, in Kavanagh’s view the jury pool was racist. Overturning state due process: This is yet another example of the growing trend of the federal courts taking over state criminal law procedures and according the worst criminals a degree of process that would confound our Founders. And it’s most often because of racial politics.

Justice Thomas in dissent from Kavanaugh’s majority opinion.

LIAR.  Watch him backpedal now.  "Hey, there was no hyphen in front of Justice Thomas..."

I missed that.  REDSTATEWARD habitually does not include the links to the quotes he posts (if he bothers to pass them off as quotes) so that the obvious bias of his sourcing doesn't come to light.  But passing off the op-ed as a direct quote from the dissent?  Wow.

12
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 25, 2019, 10:00:51 AM »
  Kav made the right call on racially biased jury selection.  Which selection violated the Constitution.  SCt did its job, ensuring that the accused will get a fair trial.   You have no real evidence or logical argument to show otherwise.  Your unattributed quote is polemical garbage.
Only because you have no knowledge of the case.

Ad hom.   That's the feeble option when you have no real evidence or logic.   I guess it's painful for you when even your handpicked Conservatives won't serve your White Supremacist agenda that Herr Trump promised you.   How horrible!  Now we have to put up with even lowlife negroes getting a jury of their peers!
Thanks for confirming your ignorance of both the case and the point of my post.

You didn't post an argument or point of your own, just ol Clarence making a vague allusion to "racial politics."  Again, no evidence or reasoned argument from you as to how Scotus did anything but affirm the constitutional right to due process and fair jury selection of one's peers.    Just you flapping your anal sphyncter.   I eat a lot of legumes, so I already know what that sounds like.

He wasn't quoting Thomas, but a remarkably bad op-ed in Conservative Review.  Racism is over now, therefore upholding any law or judicial precedent that acknowledges its continued existence is automatically "racial politics."  No further evidence need be cited.

I still have to laugh at the "evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt..." line.  No witness to the crime, no murder weapon, no physical evidence linking Flowers to the scene, only a witness to a jailhouse confession that was promised immunity to other crimes by the prosecutor (until he murdered his girlfriend, her mother, and tried to murder her 12 year old son) who has since confessed that he was lying.  Yeah, thats some overwhelmingly solid evidence.  Can't imagine why it took six trials to get a conviction.

Flowers is still locked up and the prosecutor is free to trot out that overwhelming evidence again in a seventh trial.  Except maybe without his "star witness" and without the ability to rely on the racial bias of his jurors, he might just decline that opportunity.

Also note that the op-ed also slams Roberts for employing "racial politics" in previous related decisions, which must have been referring to Foster v. Chatman, a case in which the prosecutor's notes literally highlighted the jurors who were black.

If you can't agree with the rulings in cases like this you are effectively saying Batson should not be enforced, which means you are effectively saying prosecutors should be free to use race as a basis for juror selection.

I can't accuse REDSTATEWARD of holding that racist opinion as I think he is only posting this five days after this is no longer news because he just read the op-ed and thought he had an opportunity to dunk on the libs.  But the writer of that op-ed sure does.

13
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 25, 2019, 09:51:01 AM »
  Kav made the right call on racially biased jury selection.  Which selection violated the Constitution.  SCt did its job, ensuring that the accused will get a fair trial.   You have no real evidence or logical argument to show otherwise.  Your unattributed quote is polemical garbage.
Only because you have no knowledge of the case.

Ad hom.   That's the feeble option when you have no real evidence or logic.   I guess it's painful for you when even your handpicked Conservatives won't serve your White Supremacist agenda that Herr Trump promised you.   How horrible!  Now we have to put up with even lowlife negroes getting a jury of their peers!
Thanks for confirming your ignorance of both the case and the point of my post.

You didn't post an argument or point of your own, just ol Clarence making a vague allusion to "racial politics."  Again, no evidence or reasoned argument from you as to how Scotus did anything but affirm the constitutional right to due process and fair jury selection of one's peers.    Just you flapping your anal sphyncter.   I eat a lot of legumes, so I already know what that sounds like.

He wasn't quoting Thomas, but a remarkably bad op-ed in Conservative Review.  Racism is over now, therefore upholding any law or judicial precedent that acknowledges its continued existence is automatically "racial politics."  No further evidence need be cited.

I still have to laugh at the "evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt..." line.  No witness to the crime, no murder weapon, no physical evidence linking Flowers to the scene, only a witness to a jailhouse confession that was promised immunity to other crimes by the prosecutor (until he murdered his girlfriend, her mother, and tried to murder her 12 year old son) who has since confessed that he was lying.  Yeah, thats some overwhelmingly solid evidence.  Can't imagine why it took six trials to get a conviction.

Flowers is still locked up and the prosecutor is free to trot out that overwhelming evidence again in a seventh trial.  Except maybe without his "star witness" and without the ability to rely on the racial bias of his jurors, he might just decline that opportunity.

14
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 25, 2019, 07:49:53 AM »
  Kav made the right call on racially biased jury selection.  Which selection violated the Constitution.  SCt did its job, ensuring that the accused will get a fair trial.   You have no real evidence or logical argument to show otherwise.  Your unattributed quote is polemical garbage.
Only because you have no knowledge of the case.

Anyone who would approvingly quote someone else saying Flowers was “convicted with evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt” has no knowledge of the case.

15
Basketball / Re: Knicks
« on: June 24, 2019, 06:57:16 PM »
Quote
How did the relationship go wrong?   

KZ was our ticket, all we had to do is keep him happy.  It was His Team.  The injury year allowed us to tank and add a Top 3 pick.  A This should have been fine.  How did the Knix blow the deal with KZ?  Why was he so disaffected?  How come no one has been held accountable or fired for this fiasco?


When relationships go wrong there is blame on both sides.  You lay out where the Knicks done wrong.  But you give Zaps a pass.  I think Zaps pussied out.  Saw what the org has some to past greats (Ewing, Oakley, even Melo) and decided he didn't want the responsibility because failure meant ignominy.

I said when this trade happened that I don’t know another team in the league that has ever traded a franchise all-star on his rookie contract for cap space.  To my knowledge, never happened.  And I can only imagine with the dozens and dozens of times when that has not happened that there have been plenty of asshole brothers and fathers and whomever and disgruntlement to go around that at least half-way competent franchises figured out how to deal with rather than rushing to a bad basketball decision.

The Knicks, alas, are not a half-way competent franchise.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 83