Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Or he might get proactive, and insist you pee on him instead of the toilet
So you're what, a machine, or an alien?
I'm still attracted to the same body types i was at 14, and, biologically speaking, there's no reason to believe everyone else isn't either (unless they started puberty later, it happens). The actual reasons you shouldn't sleep with a 14-16 year old should be pretty apparent if you remember being 14-16... and if you can't, talking to a person that age for 5 minutes should also make it pretty apparent why you shouldn't.
Also, you can't understand the one where i said it's fucked up to try to sleep with them? What?
...
But to get to the actual point, yeah, i got your point, and i was refuting it. Just because i used a topical and extreme example doesn't alter that.
I can understand them just fine and still be 110% against them.[DOUBLEPOST=1513285198,1513285154][/DOUBLEPOST]
Wasn't the actual thing about peeing on a bed Obama once slept? Which is like, 100 times sadder...
Is this what you're referring to?
DNC's new rules: cutting superdelegates from 715 to 315, making their votes reflect the wishes of their states
--Patrick
I would hope/dream the mcConnell/Bannon thing might eventually lead to a restructuring of the political landscape, with a "democratic"party that might be considered left wing elsewhere, a "conservative" party somewhere on the center-right, and a "repulsive evil" party for the rest.
Tweet won't load, what happened?
Jesus would have curb-stomped his blasphemous ass.
You know, I wonder if Roy Moore is one of those people who ascribes all his successes to basically having "Most Favored" status with God, and his stubborn refusal to acknowledge events is just a sort of "No! I can't be defeated! I'm supposed to be one of the chosen ones!" like at the end of a movie right before he realizes he's been abandoned and falls off a cliff or something.
--Patrick
--Patrick
It's video of a Republican senator asking Trump judge nominees questions and one doesn't even know the absolute basics. It's mind-boggling.
Here's a Huffpo article that has the tweet that works in it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-judicial-nominee-cant-answer_us_5a3357d2e4b01d429cc76802
Here's a Huffpo article that has the tweet that works in it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-judicial-nominee-cant-answer_us_5a3357d2e4b01d429cc76802
That seems a little off brand for Jesus.
Well, you know, whipping and kicking over tables.
I'm going to make sure I use that phrase whenever somebody mentions "Well Jesus would want... (some violent thing)". Your statement seems perfect for those circumstances.
Another well-known prophet however...
Too good for this particular douchecanoe.
Stone Cold Steve Austin
Critically ill Indigenous rights activist to be assessed by liver specialist in Toronto
Even in the USA or Canada, this smacks dead-center into "Moral Hazard vs Scarcity vs equal right to treatment". Should somebody who "doesn't live as well" as another be equally eligible for a transplant? Should the chain-smoker be as eligible for the heart transplant as the person who is a marathon runner? Alcoholic as eligible for a liver transplant as somebody who isn't?
Thoughts?
Headline is deceiving. This is really about the 6-month waiting period if you've had alcohol prior to being eligible for transplant, as I quoted out of the article.
Even in the USA or Canada, this smacks dead-center into "Moral Hazard vs Scarcity vs equal right to treatment". Should somebody who "doesn't live as well" as another be equally eligible for a transplant? Should the chain-smoker be as eligible for the heart transplant as the person who is a marathon runner? Alcoholic as eligible for a liver transplant as somebody who isn't?
Thoughts?
I want to say there's similar blockers in the US with regard to organ transplants. I don't think it's bad to say that for a resource as scare as matching organs that people who have demonstrated an inability to actively avoid actions that are known to damage said organs should not be entrusted with a new one.
I don't know that I can really debate morality here. A life is a life is a life. However, we already legally allow patients to be discriminated against in the name of "scientifically superior outcomes".
When you go to the ER for triage they discriminate based on how life threatening your condition is, but if they're slammed with multiple critical cases they do draw a line where they will not work on the worst cases because they know the chances of life saving intervention being successful are too low, and that those resources would be better spent on a patient with better chances.
They already will not perform bariatric surgery on patients that do not show an ability - not willingness, but an actual ability - to control their diet.
There are many surgeries they will not perform for patients who are too heavy.
There are many treatments they will not pursue for patients who are suffering from dementia and other diseases of old age.
Couple that with a natural scarcity of organs - rare not because people aren't dying fast enough, nor because people aren't donors, but because the major organs can't be harvested quickly enough after most deaths - and you have a legitimate precedence to deny organs to those who are too ill, or unable to demonstrate that they are able to change their life so the transplant has the best chance of success.
And the medical procedures are completely and utterly informed by established studies. So when a study shows that liver transplants are more successful when the patient hasn't had alcohol recently or gives it up altogether, then the hospitals have an excuse to create policy and procedure that follows that plan.
We are, however, entering an interesting point in US medicine where people believe health care is a right - not a right as in legally allowed, but a right as-in they should be given what they want when they want it and without burdensome cost. For instance, "Abortion - free, on demand and without apology", this type of entitlement is creeping into many aspects of our healthcare - in direct response to some of the particularly burdensome policy and procedure which shouldn't be so strict. This strict policy, however, is in response to the constant barrage of lawsuits which force hospitals to adopt policy and procedure that is legally defensible by showing research.
Basically, yes.
Wisconsin Senate threatens to remove the Government Accountabilityboard if they don't resign (they are involved with elections and ethics). Remember, this is the same state where we currently have a lawsuit over gerrymandering in the United States Supreme Court.
I know man, this is my home too. I remember when Wisconsin was a fairly reasonable place.
I wonder how many miles of lines have to be fixed. Being an island is particularly difficult not only because of exposure to the two horrific storms, but also because everything - including repair trucks - have to be shipped there.
Don't forget to vote, folks
After a recount, Virginia's house of delegates has changed from a 51-49 Republican majority to a 50-50 split. The recount found a Democratic win with a one vote difference. Surprisingly, it isn't being contested by the Republicans.
There are two other districts still undecided, so this may prove inconsequential if those tip the other way, the article's optimistic (as a left-leaning site) that the Democrats won't lose one and might just win the other one.
After a recount, Virginia's house of delegates has changed from a 51-49 Republican majority to a 50-50 split. The recount found a Democratic win with a one vote difference. Surprisingly, it isn't being contested by the Republicans.
There are two other districts still undecided, so this may prove inconsequential if those tip the other way, the article's optimistic (as a left-leaning site) that the Democrats won't lose one and might just win the other one.
GasBandit
Staff member
Federal prosecutors botch their case against Cliven Bundy, mistrial declared.
GasBandit
Staff member
New trial is set to start (over) Feb 26, 2018.
"U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro told federal prosecutors that they had willfully violated evidence rules and failed to turn over pertinent documents to the defense."
So your definition of "botch" is "fail to succeed at cheating the legal system by being caught actively denying the defendant's rights to a fair trial."
It's hard to prosecute even easy cases. But the prosecution withholding information the defendant has a right to, among other things, suggests that they don't think they have a strong enough case.
The crimes he's being charged with aren't straightforward anyway, and many are aiding and abetting, ie, committing a crime by helping others commit a crime - which requires a lot more proof than showing someone committed the crime themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliven_Bundy#2016_arrest_and_prosecution
As it is, he's been in jail for a year and a half, it'll be another 6 months at least and he's being denied bail so he has no option. By the time the case is done, chances are good he'll go free due to time served. The crimes they're charging him with don't have long sentences. The prosecutor's best chance is to convince the judge they are all separate unrelated crimes/charges that are similar enough to be dealt with in one trial, but separate enough that sentences should be served consecutively rather than concurrently.
Meh. Who knows. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I sympathize with him to some degree, but I don't side with him.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, my definition of "botch" is to attempt to cheat (and incompetently so) at what many people would consider to be an open-and-shut case. I don't think anybody would have expected Cliven Bundy to get acquitted. But a mistrial and retrial can't help but have the effect of creating bias in favor of the defendant.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah. By the definition of the law, he committed the crime. The controversy was over whether the initial act should actually be considered criminal.