Jump to content

Ghost of LL

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    6707
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Ghost of LL

  1. 8 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

    WaterloggedFlamboyantAmericanredsquirrel

    I can draw conclusions based on evidence.  It's not exactly a superpower.

    1 minute ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:


    Where did you see that I was supporting / defending him?
    JFC



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    When you complain that this photo was published "because of who's in the white house," you adopt a right-wing meme that the media is out to get Trump.  You're certainly careful not to say it outwardly, but it is the undercurrent beneath all of your posts.

  2. 4 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:


    Negative
    I do not support Trump
    But thanks for jumping to conclusions



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    For a non-supporter, you seem very eager to defend him against the purported agendas of the media.

    Sorry, but your denial just isn't ringing true.

  3. 7 hours ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

    I don't see media running pictures of opiod deaths on the front page. I don't see DWI deaths photos. Is it an agenda? Is it because these crisis aren't as shiny as the border region because of who's in the white house? 
     

    Aaaaaaand there it is.  You don't want to see it because you view it as an implicit rebuke of this Administration's monstrous policies.

    Well, Trump--and, by extension, you--stand rebuked.

    And don't think for a minute that you can just hide your eyes and avoid culpability.  You know.  And if you didn't know, now you know.

    • Like 2
  4. 10 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

    I didn't say I didn't "want the news", I can read the article just fine.  I stand by my opinion that it's sensationalized media and the pictures didn't need to be posted.
     

    Perhaps you should focus your outrage on the governmental policies that led to the kid dying, rather than the newspaper that published a photo of the dead kid.

    I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of the photograph being "sensationalized."  That's a nonsense word that conveys no information other than your subjective judgment.  Photographs are important because of how we humans digest and internalize information.  The photograph conveys what's happening on the border in a way words never could.

    And that's precisely why you object to it.

    • Like 2
  5. 9 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

    How many pictures of a dead toddler do you need to see? I don't think there is a need to show one, much less two. 
    Are they going to show pictures of every child that dies tragically ?

    Not every picture of a child who died tragically is germane to the leading political controversy of the day.  Nor does every such picture have the potential to significantly impact that controversy.

    Is it your argument that a newspaper should not publish this photograph, knowing that it depicts the instant of death of numerous people (including children):

    e46b1627c2d57affb42fa2d0855cc1d0--americ

    Should western newspapers not have shown this photograph, relecting the Japanese atrocities in Nanking:

    Rape-of-Nanking-Massacre-Baby-Header.jpg

    • Like 1
  6. 21 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

    Said it before, but the North Carolina Supreme Court is now 6-1 in favor of Dems. It might take some time, but they are going to fix the gerrymandering bullshit, and when they do, people will be surprised at how blue the Tarheel State really is.

    Would you say that it is more of a Carolina blue or a royal blue?

  7. I think Tillis comes by unpopularity naturally.

    Honestly, North Carolina really should be a close state.  The GOP will cheat.  But that seat was held by a Democrat before Tillis took it in 2014.  It is winnable.

    I'm really torn as between MJ and Royce West.  I like MJ, and think she'd be a good candidate.  But West would also be a good candidate.  And once in office, he would know how to build a party machinery (for better and worse).

  8. 1 hour ago, Gravy Train said:

    I'd argue work isn't the primary motive for a significant number of migrants who have yet to settle here. Asylum claims have risen 1,700 percent over the last 10 years due to gang violence and worsening economic conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Those nations haven't fostered educations or skills that could translate to much useful work here anyhow, making the U.S. just a slightly-nicer destination to continue persecution.

    Where does the list of free shit conclude, since they must wait a minimum of 180 days for a work permit from USCIS, assuming their permit for residency passes at all?

    I don't think you have a very good concept of just how much low-skilled labor this economy consumes.

  9. 9 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

    Reread what it says...

    Tom Fox had just gotten to courthouse and was about to go inside to cover a trial when he saw this guy get out of a car with weapons, and ducked behind the wall 

     

    The way it reads, he saw the guy before any shooting started, so my question is did he call 911 when he saw this?  If this idiot had killed someone, and this guy saw him get out of the car with weapons and didn't instantly call 911, then there would have been blood on his hands.

    I think the point is that it wouldn't have mattered.  In the time it would take to dial 911, let it ring three times (in Dallas, probably more like ten), listen to "911, what's your emergency," and say "holy shit, there's a guy at the federal courthouse . . . ," the dispatcher doesn't have any time to put out a call before the shooting starts.  And once the shooting starts, the federal marshals are already there ready to return fire.

  10. 2 hours ago, gecko said:

    If this is some sort of a false flag it isn't intended to start a shooting war....it's intent is to further isolate Iran form the rest of humanity.

    And yes.....if it is it's pretty clumsy

    So you're saying it was definitely the CIA?

  11. 17 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

    So here's the thing--there's no "with Trump gone."  At least not until he's dead.  And that'll take a few years and a few more cheeseburgers.  

    But until then, it's not like he's going to adhere to past rules of decorum that have inhibited other former presidents.  It's not like he's going to put down the Twitter machine.  It's not like Republican voters will stop believing everything he says (no matter how stupid, racist, or immoral).  And it's not like Republican officeholders will stop being afraid of the Trumpkin masses that control their party.

    So how's it going to be different with Trump "gone"?  How are Republicans going to act any differently?

    And, in fact, aren't they going to act worse?  As it is now, they have to look like they're trying to accomplish something.  But with a Democrat in the White House, they can just focus on destruction.

    And if Joe Biden doesn't understand that, then he has no business being anywhere near Washington, much less the White House.

    And for the record, with the mindset that Joe Biden expressed, I guarantee you he would pardon Trump "for the good of the country."

    In fact--that question needs to be asked during the debates.  Because I'm not voting for any fucker who would pardon Trump.

    • Like 4
  12. 48 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

    This. Charles will be king someday, just won't be for long. Of course, there is something in the blood of that family that makes them seem to live forever. Blasted Elizabeth I lived till 101. Elizabeth II still kicking pretty strongly at 93. Her 3rd cousin/husband 98.

    For the record, Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) lived to be 101.  Queen Elizabeth was George VI's wife, and the consort of the monarch is not accorded a numeral.  

    Queen Elizabeth I reigned from 1558 to 1603 and only lived to be 69 (which, in fairness, was of pretty advanced age in the 17th Century).

    37 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

    Did you happen to catch King Charles III on either BBC or PBS a couple of years ago? It imagines a future where Charles becomes king and precipitates a constitutional crisis by refusing to give his ascent to a law he conscientiously objects to (and all in blank verse-it was pretty entertaining, I thought).

    I did, and I agree that it was entertaining.  And I could see Charles pulling something like that.

    But he's not going to abdicate because he thinks "oh, I'm too old and I need to step aside for a younger generation for the good of the monarchy."  He's been trained to be king since he was a kid--there's no way he thinks that anybody other than him would be a suitable monarch.

  13. 21 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    It works for now because the Queen is like a kindly old grandma. They hate Charles, so he'll probably abdicate to William, and that will really only work if the focus is on Kate and the kids and Harry and his wife and kids.  At least they served in the military and I think are involved in real business matters. It will need to be more of a young family institution and not one lady wearing a crown, which works for now, but nobody wants Charles or William to be the lone face of that institution.

    Charles is not going to abdicate, and he's going to be fine for the ten years or so that he's king (very Edward VII).

    • Like 1
  14. From a political science standpoint, I see real value in separating the head of state from the head of government.  So even if you think Theresa May is a fool and a failure, you don't have your patriotism questioned because you're still loyal to the queen.  There's value in having the party out of power styled "Her Majesty's loyal opposition."  Countries with unified heads of state & government encounter the trouble of having their out-of-power parties' loyalty questioned, which is ultimately harmful to democracy.

    A lot of countries--e.g., German, Israel--accomplish this by having an elected president with minimalistic powers who serves as the head of state while the prime minister is the head of government.  But those elected presidents serve fixed terms.  There's no continuity.  And there's no greater institution underlying the constitution as there is in the UK with the Crown.  The presidency in Germany is a creation of the constitution; the constitution in the UK is a creation of Parliament (of which the Crown is a part).  So in some ways, I think the elected-president model is an inferior one.

    Beyond that, as the UK marches toward a constitutional crisis, I suspect we're going to see if the Crown has any ongoing political use/relevance.  At some point, I think the Queen is going to be called upon to break a constitutional stalemate.

    As an American, though, that interests me only in a purely academic way.  She's not my queen; I'm not going to bow to her.  And when I'm in London, I'm much more interested in going to see the British Museum and eat Indian food than I am in watching the changing of the guard.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...