@CamDawg ""The government" is not a Them. It's us. We decide. You, me, and a couple hundred million Americans. . "
Have you looked outside recently? I think this is firmly out the window.
To concede this is to admit that America is done, or at least beyond fixing--a concession I am not willing to make. It's an optimistic view, perhaps irrationally so, but I posit that boundless optimism is a quintessential American value.*
Who says it's supposed to do something for everyone?
"promote the general Welfare" is in the preamble of the constitution. Arguments about the hows and the whys are appropriate, but I think the general principle is not really up for debate.
* Well, OK, that and obesity.
I don't disagree with your 'Promote the General Welfare' statement. That's why I'm all for a flat tax. I'm convinced it will never happen due to the lawyer lobby. There's just too much money involved in our convoluted tax code...
It sounds better but there are problems with a flat tax. Rich people don't earn a salary like us poor working schlubs.
They get dividends and interest and stuff. How do you flat tax that?
Flat tax on income outside of wages. Maybe 10-15%.
Why auto insurance should be anything more than insuring the value of your car is also ridiculous in my opinion...
There's more than just your car on the road. A poor person could insure their beater for all $100 of it's value but it wouldn't cover the Ferrari or building they hit.
Sorry, I live in Michigan. No-fault insurance here...
Maybe I don't understand no fault in Michigan. If you pay pennies to insure you hypothetical cheapo car and you wreck a building, the building has to pay for it's own insurance? Isn't the damages cost supposed to be shared? You have comprehensive and stuff?
@CamDawg ""The government" is not a Them. It's us. We decide. You, me, and a couple hundred million Americans. . "
Have you looked outside recently? I think this is firmly out the window.
To concede this is to admit that America is done, or at least beyond fixing--a concession I am not willing to make. It's an optimistic view, perhaps irrationally so, but I posit that boundless optimism is a quintessential American value.*
Who says it's supposed to do something for everyone?
"promote the general Welfare" is in the preamble of the constitution. Arguments about the hows and the whys are appropriate, but I think the general principle is not really up for debate.
* Well, OK, that and obesity.
I don't disagree with your 'Promote the General Welfare' statement. That's why I'm all for a flat tax. I'm convinced it will never happen due to the lawyer lobby. There's just too much money involved in our convoluted tax code...
It sounds better but there are problems with a flat tax. Rich people don't earn a salary like us poor working schlubs.
They get dividends and interest and stuff. How do you flat tax that?
Flat tax on income outside of wages. Maybe 10-15%.
Thats way too low. If you flat taxed all earnings period somehow ~40%, you'd have the budget a first world state needs. Its not exactly a secret to the world at large that taxes are in general too low in the US, hence almost continuous structural deficit, an obviously untenable solution. If the US could half its military budget, it'd be in better shape too. Its not like its overbudget status has been working wonders in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I doubt any useful budgetary responsibility will happen during my life though. You might be able some dayt to up taxes on the rich, but true responsible budgetry is really, really unpopular.
Even if you think the Democratic Primary process was "rigged" (which it wasn't) in some obscure amorphous way, I'm FAIRLY certain that straight up replacing the candidate who got the most votes because she had pneumonia with the Vice President who wasn't even running is way, way, way worse. This entire 4-day discussion is about nothing but Donna Brazile trying to sell books. She's contradicted herself multiple times. Her description of events is hyperbolic and exaggerated (and that is being the most charitable I can be with this). The media needs to stop taking this woman seriously now. She majorly f'd up when she emailed the debate questions to the Hillary camp. This was her belated attempt to become relevant again, and it's been really pathetic.
Agreed, pathetic. One would hope that the DNC would learn from losing and put forward better candidates in the future.
I'm interested in Justice Democrats who don't take PAC money and theoretically are going to represent be""just us". We need to primary and put to pasture a lot of Conservative Democrats who care more about corporate rights than individuals. They're basically Republican-lite and no wonder a lot of them don't inspire confidence.
Agreed, pathetic. One would hope that the DNC would learn from losing and put forward better candidates in the future.
I'm interested in Justice Democrats who don't take PAC money and theoretically are going to represent be""just us". We need to primary and put to pasture a lot of Conservative Democrats who care more about corporate rights than individuals. They're basically Republican-lite and no wonder a lot of them don't inspire confidence.
I still believe that Citizens United and the gutting of McCain/Feingold, plus the theft of the Supreme Court seat and installation of Gorsuch absolutely destroyed any hope for getting money out of politics. It is now enshrined in the Constitution, and it's going nowhere for at least 20 or 30 years. I realize that there is a movement to get a Constitutional amendment about getting it out, but I seems to be about 10-20% along the line of where it needs to be.
So as for the current situation we have now.....let's say in hypothetical world the ideal game of Monopoly wouldn't allow for people to buy Boardwalk and Park Place or the Railroads, because they are too powerful and cause too much influence on the game. However, in the game of Monopoly you are playing, Boardwalk, Park Place and the Railroads ARE allowed. Do you simply make a moral stand to ignore those properties (and likely lose the game), or to you acquiesce to the rules are they currently exist??
@jjstraka34 That depends. Unlike real life, a boardgame has no real consequences, you could also just choose to not play with those people. In real life, playing along would deepen support of the undesired tactics, and if you DO get to a place a power and can change, would you change the rules that allowed you to win?
You make decisions and can ruin the lives of the peasants, but you don't have to look them in the eye directly when you do it, so who cares. Its not like they can do anything about it. It's their problem, not yours. If they really wanted things to be better they'd pick themselves up by their bootstraps and be born rich like you were.
If it helps your bottom line who cares if the Jones, Rodriguezes, and Bermans have things just a bit tougher. Why if you, rich banker guy, didn't screw them over some one else would have. You just beat that guy to the punch and that makes you smart. You are almost doing those poor schlubs a favor by not taking advantage of them more! The other banker guy could have done more!
Wait a minute, why are you letting the Jones, Rodriguezes, and Bermans off easy? The other rich guy wouldn't have done that. You gotta get more than that guy. Back to the drawing board to plan another method of attack.
27 dead. It only took 35 days to have another off the scale mass shooting. Republicans are offering thoughts and prayers per usual. Not sure that is going to cut it, since these people were LITERALLY praying when they got shot.
This also means that two of the five largest mass shootings in the history of the country have happened in the last month, and 3 of the 5 have happened in the last year. But clearly we don't have an issue with guns......
Prayers have never prevented anything, nor will they prevent anything in the future.
@jjstraka34 "But clearly we don't have an issue with guns......"
You're right. Its with the culture. Guns have existed in this country since its inception, and something of this scale has only happened now, and "assault" weapons are not anything new. What has changed? The culture, and how people view each other, as well as the role guns play. I bet that if Trump wasn't the sitting president, it wouldn't have escalated to level. Trump has set a fire under a boiling pot, and just putting a lid on it won't fix it.
In the last 12 hours, we have not only learned from NBC News that Mueller likely has enough evidence to charge Michael Flynn AND his son (thus increasing his leverage over both of them ten-fold), we now have evidence that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross failed to disclose financial ties that place him doing business with Putin's son-in-law.
We have Manafort lying about ties to pro-Russian forces in Ukraine. We have Michel Flynn lying about contacts with Russia and getting caught by the acting Attorney General. We Jeff Sessions lying to Congress on at least 3 or 4 separate occasions about his meeting with Russians during the campaign. We have Don Jr. lying about meetings with a Russian lawyer (who is likely a spy). We have Jared Kushner leaving Russian contacts off his disclosure forum. And now we have the Commerce Secretary failing to disclose business links that put him practically in Putin's inner-circle.
One person doing this is probably nothing. Two might be a coincidence. Three you are starting to see a trend. But SIX people close to the President not only lying or hiding information, but always doing so about the EXACT same subject?? As someone just mentioned on Twitter, this isn't the "Manchurian Candidate", this is "Goodfellas".
Early indications seem to be that the Texas shooter is Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, who posted a picture of an AR-15 on his Facebook page less than a week ago calling it a "bad bitch". Witnesses say he was in "full gear" when he entered the church. I wonder when we are going to start talking about white on white crime and where he was radicalized. Oh wait...........
To @ThacoBell's point....is it the culture?? At least partially yes, but it's not new. Assassinations (and assassination attempts) on American political leaders are almost commonplace through our history. American was built and expanded by violence (slavery against blacks and genocide against Native Americans). It's baked into the cake. The roots are rotten. The whole thing was always a lie. But beyond that, it's also REALLY easy to kill people with an automatic rifle.
The abuse that happened at Gitmo is continuing to haunt the Canadian Government and public, even though they had a minuscule role (turning a blind eye) as another former inmate is ready to sue the government.
Unlike the Canadian citizen Khadr, who was awarded $10.5 million out of court, this guy only lived in Canada while seeking asylum which he was denied.
If this case is settled out of court like Khadr's, expect major blowback from the Canadian public and expect more claims to be filed in Canada for violations committed by another state.
And they are going after Canada because they can not go after the United States government, who has not been held responsible for the human rights violations committed at Gitmo and other places related to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The abuse that happened at Gitmo is continuing to haunt the Canadian Government and public, even though they had a minuscule role (turning a blind eye) as another former inmate is ready to sue the government.
Unlike the Canadian citizen Khadr, who was awarded $10.5 million out of court, this guy only lived in Canada while seeking asylum which he was denied.
If this case is settled out of court like Khadr's, expect major blowback from the Canadian public and expect more claims to be filed in Canada for violations committed by another state.
And they are going after Canada because they can not go after the United States government, who has not been held responsible for the human rights violations committed at Gitmo and other places related to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Was the crux of the previous case with Khadr the fact that Canada didn't intervene and demand his release??
Has Trump gone on Twitter yet and condemned the gunman as an animal and a terrorist and demanded the death penalty? No? What about calling for extreme vetting at churches? Wait a sec, this was a white Christian he couldn't possibly be a terrorist right.
Khadr's defence attorneys claimed that the Canadian government acted illegally, sending its counsel and CSIS agents to Guantanamo Bay to interrogate Khadr and turning their findings over to the Tribunal prosecutors to help convict Khadr, and that the release of the documents might help prove Khadr's innocence. In 2007, the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian government to turn over its records related to Khadr's time in captivity, as judge Richard Mosley stated it was apparent that Canada had violated international law. The government appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2008, arguing that Khadr was just "fishing" for information and that disclosing their records, which included an initial account of the firefight that differs from all previously seen reports, could jeopardise national security. Critics alleged that the refusal to release the classified documents was due to the "embarrassment" they caused the government.
On May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the government had acted illegally, contravening s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered the videotapes of the interrogation released.
~
In 2013, Khadr filed a C$20 million civil suit against the government of Canada alleging that it had conspired with the U.S. in abusing his rights. He said he had signed the plea agreement because he believed it was the only way he could gain transfer from Guantanamo, and claimed that he had no memory of the firefight in which he was wounded.
On July 4, 2017, an unnamed government source leaked that the Canadian government would apologize and pay C$10.5 million in compensation to Khadr. At a press conference on July 7, 2017, Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale confirmed the settlement and issued a formal apology on behalf of the government. In an interview with Rosemary Barton of Power & Politics that day, Khadr said that he hoped the apology restores a little bit of his reputation. He also said that he hoped the settlement and apology would not cause the Speer family pain and said that if it does, he was sorry for that.
~~
So yes and no. It was more to do with Canada conspiring with the U.S. while knowing his human rights were being violated. Read the entire wiki to get a better grasp of the situation with Khadr. He was a child soldier who was persuaded to plead guilty so he could go back to Canada instead of staying in Gitmo.
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms read:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
"Everyone" is an important word here. This does not just apply to Canadian citizens, nor does it apply to those in Canada.
This new civil suit is hoping to take advantage of that. Since this person talked to Canadian officials while at his time in Gitmo he is hoping to use the same section against the Canadian government to win.
But he hasn't had the same legal battle that Khadr had and hasn't proven that the Canadian government conspired against him. So it should be allowed to go to court instead of being settled out of it.
The Khadr settlement opened the door a crack. If the Canadian government settles with this ex-detainee, expect the door to swing wide open for more civil cases against it.
Has Trump gone on Twitter yet and condemned the gunman as an animal and a terrorist and demanded the death penalty? No? What about calling for extreme vetting at churches? Wait a sec, this was a white Christian he couldn't possibly be a terrorist right.
Well I don't think the man can be killed twice so I doubt Trump will be calling for the death penalty. As for an animal, there's little doubt about that. A terrorist? That would depend on his motive...
Has Trump gone on Twitter yet and condemned the gunman as an animal and a terrorist and demanded the death penalty? No? What about calling for extreme vetting at churches? Wait a sec, this was a white Christian he couldn't possibly be a terrorist right.
Well I don't think the man can be killed twice so I doubt Trump will be calling for the death penalty. As for an animal, there's little doubt about that. A terrorist? That would depend on his motive...
I think the bigger juxtaposition is that within hours of the NY bike path attack he called for immediate changes to the immigration system. The chances he makes a similar demand about guns are nil.
Khadr's defence attorneys claimed that the Canadian government acted illegally, sending its counsel and CSIS agents to Guantanamo Bay to interrogate Khadr and turning their findings over to the Tribunal prosecutors to help convict Khadr, and that the release of the documents might help prove Khadr's innocence. In 2007, the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian government to turn over its records related to Khadr's time in captivity, as judge Richard Mosley stated it was apparent that Canada had violated international law. The government appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2008, arguing that Khadr was just "fishing" for information and that disclosing their records, which included an initial account of the firefight that differs from all previously seen reports, could jeopardise national security. Critics alleged that the refusal to release the classified documents was due to the "embarrassment" they caused the government.
On May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the government had acted illegally, contravening s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered the videotapes of the interrogation released.
~
In 2013, Khadr filed a C$20 million civil suit against the government of Canada alleging that it had conspired with the U.S. in abusing his rights. He said he had signed the plea agreement because he believed it was the only way he could gain transfer from Guantanamo, and claimed that he had no memory of the firefight in which he was wounded.
On July 4, 2017, an unnamed government source leaked that the Canadian government would apologize and pay C$10.5 million in compensation to Khadr. At a press conference on July 7, 2017, Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale confirmed the settlement and issued a formal apology on behalf of the government. In an interview with Rosemary Barton of Power & Politics that day, Khadr said that he hoped the apology restores a little bit of his reputation. He also said that he hoped the settlement and apology would not cause the Speer family pain and said that if it does, he was sorry for that.
~~
So yes and no. It was more to do with Canada conspiring with the U.S. while knowing his human rights were being violated. Read the entire wiki to get a better grasp of the situation with Khadr. He was a child soldier who was persuaded to plead guilty so he could go back to Canada instead of staying in Gitmo.
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms read:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
"Everyone" is an important word here. This does not just apply to Canadian citizens, nor does it apply to those in Canada.
This new civil suit is hoping to take advantage of that. Since this person talked to Canadian officials while at his time in Gitmo he is hoping to use the same section against the Canadian government to win.
But he hasn't had the same legal battle that Khadr had and hasn't proven that the Canadian government conspired against him. So it should be allowed to go to court instead of being settled out of it.
The Khadr settlement opened the door a crack. If the Canadian government settles with this ex-detainee, expect the door to swing wide open for more civil cases against it.
While everyone may indeed have the 'right' to life, liberty and security, I seriously doubt that Canada has the ability to guarantee it. Is Canada going to champion every oppressed person in the world? Does their blanket statement mean that they can be sued over it? What exactly is Canada going to do, force their will on the United States? I don't think they have that power unless I'm missing something.
I suppose they could cripple their economy if they wanted to boycott the U.S. I'm sure the Canadian citizens would reward that by voting those folks out of Parliament. Strong words wouldn't have mattered a bit and action would have had a pretty high cost.
Has Trump gone on Twitter yet and condemned the gunman as an animal and a terrorist and demanded the death penalty? No? What about calling for extreme vetting at churches? Wait a sec, this was a white Christian he couldn't possibly be a terrorist right.
Well I don't think the man can be killed twice so I doubt Trump will be calling for the death penalty. As for an animal, there's little doubt about that. A terrorist? That would depend on his motive...
He called the Muslim guy an animal, he's not going to call this guy one, his vitriol is reserved for Muslims and immigrants. Has he said anything? Maybe "thoughts and prayers" but no condemnation right?
Has Trump gone on Twitter yet and condemned the gunman as an animal and a terrorist and demanded the death penalty? No? What about calling for extreme vetting at churches? Wait a sec, this was a white Christian he couldn't possibly be a terrorist right.
Well I don't think the man can be killed twice so I doubt Trump will be calling for the death penalty. As for an animal, there's little doubt about that. A terrorist? That would depend on his motive...
I think the bigger juxtaposition is that within hours of the NY bike path attack he called for immediate changes to the immigration system. The chances he makes a similar demand about guns are nil.
I don't see how the immigration system has any bearing on this situation. This guy's family has likely been in the U.S. for generations. Unless he's a recent immigrant from Ireland, I suppose. Why exactly would Trump bring up that topic in this case?
As far as the gun situation, you know why he didn't bring that up...
Has Trump gone on Twitter yet and condemned the gunman as an animal and a terrorist and demanded the death penalty? No? What about calling for extreme vetting at churches? Wait a sec, this was a white Christian he couldn't possibly be a terrorist right.
Well I don't think the man can be killed twice so I doubt Trump will be calling for the death penalty. As for an animal, there's little doubt about that. A terrorist? That would depend on his motive...
I think the bigger juxtaposition is that within hours of the NY bike path attack he called for immediate changes to the immigration system. The chances he makes a similar demand about guns are nil.
I don't see how the immigration system has any bearing on this situation. This guy's family has likely been in the U.S. for generations. Unless he's a recent immigrant from Ireland, I suppose. Why exactly would Trump bring up that topic in this case?
As far as the gun situation, you know why he didn't bring that up...
I simply meant he will call for an immediate, knee-jerk response whenever the narrative fits, and offer platitudes in every other situation.
Khadr's defence attorneys claimed that the Canadian government acted illegally, sending its counsel and CSIS agents to Guantanamo Bay to interrogate Khadr and turning their findings over to the Tribunal prosecutors to help convict Khadr, and that the release of the documents might help prove Khadr's innocence. In 2007, the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian government to turn over its records related to Khadr's time in captivity, as judge Richard Mosley stated it was apparent that Canada had violated international law. The government appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2008, arguing that Khadr was just "fishing" for information and that disclosing their records, which included an initial account of the firefight that differs from all previously seen reports, could jeopardise national security. Critics alleged that the refusal to release the classified documents was due to the "embarrassment" they caused the government.
On May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the government had acted illegally, contravening s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered the videotapes of the interrogation released.
~
In 2013, Khadr filed a C$20 million civil suit against the government of Canada alleging that it had conspired with the U.S. in abusing his rights. He said he had signed the plea agreement because he believed it was the only way he could gain transfer from Guantanamo, and claimed that he had no memory of the firefight in which he was wounded.
On July 4, 2017, an unnamed government source leaked that the Canadian government would apologize and pay C$10.5 million in compensation to Khadr. At a press conference on July 7, 2017, Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale confirmed the settlement and issued a formal apology on behalf of the government. In an interview with Rosemary Barton of Power & Politics that day, Khadr said that he hoped the apology restores a little bit of his reputation. He also said that he hoped the settlement and apology would not cause the Speer family pain and said that if it does, he was sorry for that.
~~
So yes and no. It was more to do with Canada conspiring with the U.S. while knowing his human rights were being violated. Read the entire wiki to get a better grasp of the situation with Khadr. He was a child soldier who was persuaded to plead guilty so he could go back to Canada instead of staying in Gitmo.
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms read:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
"Everyone" is an important word here. This does not just apply to Canadian citizens, nor does it apply to those in Canada.
This new civil suit is hoping to take advantage of that. Since this person talked to Canadian officials while at his time in Gitmo he is hoping to use the same section against the Canadian government to win.
But he hasn't had the same legal battle that Khadr had and hasn't proven that the Canadian government conspired against him. So it should be allowed to go to court instead of being settled out of it.
The Khadr settlement opened the door a crack. If the Canadian government settles with this ex-detainee, expect the door to swing wide open for more civil cases against it.
While everyone may indeed have the 'right' to life, liberty and security, I seriously doubt that Canada has the ability to guarantee it. Is Canada going to champion every oppressed person in the world? Does their blanket statement mean that they can be sued over it? What exactly is Canada going to do, force their will on the United States? I don't think they have that power unless I'm missing something.
I suppose they could cripple their economy if they wanted to boycott the U.S. I'm sure the Canadian citizens would reward that by voting those folks out of Parliament. Strong words wouldn't have mattered a bit and action would have had a pretty high cost.
You are missing the conspire part. Since Canada aided the U.S. with interrogations, the right to security (after allegations of torture were made public) was infringed upon.
If Canada did not have a role in the confinement of a prisoner whose rights are being infringed, then there is no case.
But I think this new claimant has to prove: 1) Canada shared information with the U.S. after interrogating him. 2) That Canada knew that he was tortured by the U.S. 3) The information gathered helped U.S. forces instead of helping Canadian security.
That's a tall task IMO, but if the Canadian Government opts to just settle again, there maybe more claims put forth even by those who CSIS didn't identify looking for a settlement they know they can't get from the U.S.
It appears that one of the Crown Princes in Saudi Arabia is killing his main rivals and arresting everyone else, as well as closing the land and sea borders with Yemen.
It appears that one of the Crown Princes in Saudi Arabia is killing his main rivals and arresting everyone else, as well as closing the land and sea borders with Yemen.
This comes a week after a secret (unannounced) trip to Saudi by Kushner. Perhaps a green light was given?
The Texas shooter, of course, was discharged from the military a few years ago for beating his wife and child. The connection to domestic abuse is there almost every time. Is it too much to ask we don't let wife and child beaters buy an AR-15?? Because domestic assault is a theme in nearly all of these shootings.
The Texas shooter, of course, was discharged from the military a few years ago for beating his wife and child. The connection to domestic abuse is there almost every time. Is it too much to ask we don't let wife and child beaters buy an AR-15?? Because domestic assault is a theme in nearly all of these shootings.
The only thing that can stop a domestic assaulter with a gun is another domestic assaulter but perhaps with two guns.
Comments
I doubt any useful budgetary responsibility will happen during my life though. You might be able some dayt to up taxes on the rich, but true responsible budgetry is really, really unpopular.
Never thought I'd see the day!
Even if you think the Democratic Primary process was "rigged" (which it wasn't) in some obscure amorphous way, I'm FAIRLY certain that straight up replacing the candidate who got the most votes because she had pneumonia with the Vice President who wasn't even running is way, way, way worse. This entire 4-day discussion is about nothing but Donna Brazile trying to sell books. She's contradicted herself multiple times. Her description of events is hyperbolic and exaggerated (and that is being the most charitable I can be with this). The media needs to stop taking this woman seriously now. She majorly f'd up when she emailed the debate questions to the Hillary camp. This was her belated attempt to become relevant again, and it's been really pathetic.
I'm interested in Justice Democrats who don't take PAC money and theoretically are going to represent be""just us". We need to primary and put to pasture a lot of Conservative Democrats who care more about corporate rights than individuals. They're basically Republican-lite and no wonder a lot of them don't inspire confidence.
So as for the current situation we have now.....let's say in hypothetical world the ideal game of Monopoly wouldn't allow for people to buy Boardwalk and Park Place or the Railroads, because they are too powerful and cause too much influence on the game. However, in the game of Monopoly you are playing, Boardwalk, Park Place and the Railroads ARE allowed. Do you simply make a moral stand to ignore those properties (and likely lose the game), or to you acquiesce to the rules are they currently exist??
You make decisions and can ruin the lives of the peasants, but you don't have to look them in the eye directly when you do it, so who cares. Its not like they can do anything about it. It's their problem, not yours. If they really wanted things to be better they'd pick themselves up by their bootstraps and be born rich like you were.
If it helps your bottom line who cares if the Jones, Rodriguezes, and Bermans have things just a bit tougher. Why if you, rich banker guy, didn't screw them over some one else would have. You just beat that guy to the punch and that makes you smart. You are almost doing those poor schlubs a favor by not taking advantage of them more! The other banker guy could have done more!
Wait a minute, why are you letting the Jones, Rodriguezes, and Bermans off easy? The other rich guy wouldn't have done that. You gotta get more than that guy. Back to the drawing board to plan another method of attack.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41880511
This also means that two of the five largest mass shootings in the history of the country have happened in the last month, and 3 of the 5 have happened in the last year. But clearly we don't have an issue with guns......
Prayers have never prevented anything, nor will they prevent anything in the future.
You're right. Its with the culture. Guns have existed in this country since its inception, and something of this scale has only happened now, and "assault" weapons are not anything new. What has changed? The culture, and how people view each other, as well as the role guns play. I bet that if Trump wasn't the sitting president, it wouldn't have escalated to level. Trump has set a fire under a boiling pot, and just putting a lid on it won't fix it.
We have Manafort lying about ties to pro-Russian forces in Ukraine. We have Michel Flynn lying about contacts with Russia and getting caught by the acting Attorney General. We Jeff Sessions lying to Congress on at least 3 or 4 separate occasions about his meeting with Russians during the campaign. We have Don Jr. lying about meetings with a Russian lawyer (who is likely a spy). We have Jared Kushner leaving Russian contacts off his disclosure forum. And now we have the Commerce Secretary failing to disclose business links that put him practically in Putin's inner-circle.
One person doing this is probably nothing. Two might be a coincidence. Three you are starting to see a trend. But SIX people close to the President not only lying or hiding information, but always doing so about the EXACT same subject?? As someone just mentioned on Twitter, this isn't the "Manchurian Candidate", this is "Goodfellas".
To @ThacoBell's point....is it the culture?? At least partially yes, but it's not new. Assassinations (and assassination attempts) on American political leaders are almost commonplace through our history. American was built and expanded by violence (slavery against blacks and genocide against Native Americans). It's baked into the cake. The roots are rotten. The whole thing was always a lie. But beyond that, it's also REALLY easy to kill people with an automatic rifle.
The abuse that happened at Gitmo is continuing to haunt the Canadian Government and public, even though they had a minuscule role (turning a blind eye) as another former inmate is ready to sue the government.
Unlike the Canadian citizen Khadr, who was awarded $10.5 million out of court, this guy only lived in Canada while seeking asylum which he was denied.
If this case is settled out of court like Khadr's, expect major blowback from the Canadian public and expect more claims to be filed in Canada for violations committed by another state.
And they are going after Canada because they can not go after the United States government, who has not been held responsible for the human rights violations committed at Gitmo and other places related to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Khadr's defence attorneys claimed that the Canadian government acted illegally, sending its counsel and CSIS agents to Guantanamo Bay to interrogate Khadr and turning their findings over to the Tribunal prosecutors to help convict Khadr, and that the release of the documents might help prove Khadr's innocence. In 2007, the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian government to turn over its records related to Khadr's time in captivity, as judge Richard Mosley stated it was apparent that Canada had violated international law. The government appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2008, arguing that Khadr was just "fishing" for information and that disclosing their records, which included an initial account of the firefight that differs from all previously seen reports, could jeopardise national security. Critics alleged that the refusal to release the classified documents was due to the "embarrassment" they caused the government.
On May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the government had acted illegally, contravening s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered the videotapes of the interrogation released.
~
In 2013, Khadr filed a C$20 million civil suit against the government of Canada alleging that it had conspired with the U.S. in abusing his rights. He said he had signed the plea agreement because he believed it was the only way he could gain transfer from Guantanamo, and claimed that he had no memory of the firefight in which he was wounded.
On July 4, 2017, an unnamed government source leaked that the Canadian government would apologize and pay C$10.5 million in compensation to Khadr. At a press conference on July 7, 2017, Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale confirmed the settlement and issued a formal apology on behalf of the government. In an interview with Rosemary Barton of Power & Politics that day, Khadr said that he hoped the apology restores a little bit of his reputation. He also said that he hoped the settlement and apology would not cause the Speer family pain and said that if it does, he was sorry for that.
~~
So yes and no. It was more to do with Canada conspiring with the U.S. while knowing his human rights were being violated. Read the entire wiki to get a better grasp of the situation with Khadr. He was a child soldier who was persuaded to plead guilty so he could go back to Canada instead of staying in Gitmo.
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms read:
"Everyone" is an important word here. This does not just apply to Canadian citizens, nor does it apply to those in Canada.
This new civil suit is hoping to take advantage of that. Since this person talked to Canadian officials while at his time in Gitmo he is hoping to use the same section against the Canadian government to win.
But he hasn't had the same legal battle that Khadr had and hasn't proven that the Canadian government conspired against him. So it should be allowed to go to court instead of being settled out of it.
The Khadr settlement opened the door a crack. If the Canadian government settles with this ex-detainee, expect the door to swing wide open for more civil cases against it.
I suppose they could cripple their economy if they wanted to boycott the U.S. I'm sure the Canadian citizens would reward that by voting those folks out of Parliament. Strong words wouldn't have mattered a bit and action would have had a pretty high cost.
As far as the gun situation, you know why he didn't bring that up...
If Canada did not have a role in the confinement of a prisoner whose rights are being infringed, then there is no case.
But I think this new claimant has to prove: 1) Canada shared information with the U.S. after interrogating him. 2) That Canada knew that he was tortured by the U.S. 3) The information gathered helped U.S. forces instead of helping Canadian security.
That's a tall task IMO, but if the Canadian Government opts to just settle again, there maybe more claims put forth even by those who CSIS didn't identify looking for a settlement they know they can't get from the U.S.
That'll be the response.