*snip*Bolsonaro has reportedly considered eliminating the federal “National Council of the Environment,” a bureaucratic entity of more than 100 people, and replacing it with a more streamlined mechanism to achieve the same goal of protesting Brazil’s rich natural resources.”
I love that Bill DeBlasio is considered a "leftist."
He praises the cuban regime. I know that for a lot of people, anything more right wing than social democracy is "ultra far right", but someone who praises Fidel can't be right wing or centrist. I an not "pro Fulgencio Batista", but Cuba was much more stable and rich during the Fulgencio Batista government than under socialism.
380 former federal prosecutors (from Democratic and Republican Administrations) have signed a letter, based on the Mueller report, that if Trump was anyone other than the President, he would be facing facing MULTIPLE felony indictments for obstruction. Not 10, not 120, but 380 of them. This is on the same day Michael Cohen reported to prison for actions we know with 100% certainty he took for the President. So let's be clear about one thing: Donald Trump is a criminal, and his Presidency is now the only thing shielding him from facing justice for it. It's an invincibility field.
The article above confuses socialism with communism. Communism is only the most extreme variant of socialism. Socialism refers to a vast, vast array of philosophies that have developed over the past couple hundred years--it's not just the one, highly specific, highly narrow, ludicrous ideology espoused by Karl Marx. It was only during the Cold War that anti-communists started lumping all of those ideologies together in order to make the liberals of the era look like communists.
Folks like Bernie Sanders and AOC are not misusing the word socialism; they're using the historically accurate version of the term.
Yes, there are tons of type of socialism. Most countries in this world are by definition fabian socialists and the most "capitalist" ones tends to be closer to monetarism than to an completely free market. The founding fathers will be considered "radical far right" for today standards...
The founding fathers will be considered "radical far right" for today standards...
Well yeah, they owned slaves.
I an talking about their view on the role of the state, the limitation of the law and descentralization.
At the time power was not held predominantly in NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations). Corporations now hold FAR more power than they did 250 years ago.
Governments held broad, almost unlimited power. Hence their interest in restraining it.
The founding fathers will be considered "radical far right" for today standards...
They were not.
Here's a deep dive into the truth about the politics of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, who were actually progressive in just about every way
The founding fathers will be considered "radical far right" for today standards...
They were not.
Here's a deep dive into the truth about the politics of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, who were actually progressive in just about every way
1:50 - If allows private propriety but the sate can be more influential than any shareholder, then the state owns it. Doesn't matter if on the paper i own it. I need to create, operate, hire, etc as the state mandates. That is socialism. You can advocate for socialism, but don't say that "i an pro private propriety", when every propriety owner is a "state slave"
About "healthcare", one local tax that only affects sailors is completely different than an public healthcare that will affect everyone from the southern part of Florida to the northern part of Alaska.
About progressive taxation, the fact that one or two of then said that they support doesn't means that they as a "group" support it.
4:40 - yes, state and local laws. Again. If you wanna live in a city where only criminals use weapons is your right. But this law should't affect any continental country.
5:00 - And yes, he is right. But the Stand-your-ground law and castle doctrine is two examples of "TRUE" PROGRESS. Stop treating people like "livestock" that can't defend themselves is a progress. As for gun regulations, they existing in a local level and in a federal level is completely different.
6:30 - About immigration, they are talking about legal immigration. In a time without welfare and anti discrimination laws.
7:50 - Yes, separation of Church and State is a example of "progress" and secularism is good. USA was never an confessional state. Many founders was deist
yeah it doesn't really say that those are your conclusions and nitpicks of the points.
At any rate, they didn't share positions with today's right wingers like government healthcare being bad and were very much in favor of taxing the rich. They didn't treat the articles of confederation with some kind of reverence as a system of government that shall not be infringed ever.
You're missing a LOT of historical context here. You'd need to take a semester-long history class to really get it all, but some cliff notes:
Doesn't matter what is the historical context, an law that removes the control of the private propriety from his owners and gives to the sate is an socialist law. Is not i who is saying that. Even Fabian Socialists and Social democrats advocate for this. An gradual lose of right of propriety and increase of state power instead of a revolution and that is what is happening. There are almost no private propriety rights on this world.
The Founders came from a place and culture in which a single entity (the crown) owned EVERYTHING
And now politicians owns everything. Even in a absolutist monarchy(most monarchies aren't), an king can't simple decide to go to war without approval of the lords, and even if he can declare war, most of military power is "descentralized" into Lords who can easily dispose an bad king. Under modern democracy, an president can spend decades saying that is against interventions and start to use drones to bomb civilians without congress approval. The modern democracy is far worse than the worst monarchy.
The idea that regulation in general makes you a "state slave" I don't even think I should touch. Suffice to say, if that's true then any state with criminal laws on the books must be a socialist state.
And are not an form of slavery? What is the difference between be forced to fight on arenas as an slave gladiator on ancient rome and force to go to war for the politicians? You are risking your life and working to the benefit of an political elite.
If someone don't wanna do X but the state force the guy to do X, then is slavery. Note : DO X and "not do X" aka not kill is not the same thing. The state forcing me to protect someone is completely different than prohibiting me from killing. And every country on earth has some degree of socialism(socialism = state controlling private propriety), is very unlikely that we can get rid of socialism like is very unlikely that we can get rid of rape but we should aim to minimize both every time that we can.
That's all well and good if the city can control the flow of goods and people in and out
Then cities should be able to control flow of goods and people like on medieval times. Instead of try to impose the same law in completely different realities. From the southern part of Florida to the Northern part of Alaska and not allow those who disagree that people should be defenseless livestock government worshipers can't even legally move to an place who allow they to defend thenselves is awful....
Also, the countries with strictest gun control on Americas are Brazil and Mexico, both are violent hellholes. Chicago and Detroid has are the cities with strictest gun control and are violent hellholes. Is illegal to a civilian to own any cartidge stronger than .380 ACP on Mexico and Mexico is a Narco State. They illegally move to US, illegally purchase firearms and illegally bring the firearms back to Mexico and illegally modify the weapon to allow full auto fire. Do you really think that an state can prevent anyone from owning an firearm?
No, is not. Imagine an guy "Joe", Joe defendend himself with his firearm and din't retreated when he was "forced" because he was in a very stressful situation with his entire family in danger. Joe is a productive member of society. Wold you trow Joe in a superlotaded hell on earth place? Wasting tax money to prevent him to being useful to the community and punishing him by the "crime" of defending himself?
No, is not. Imagine an guy "Joe", Joe defendend himself with his firearm and din't retreated when he was "forced" because he was in a very stressful situation with his entire family in danger. Joe is a productive member of society. Wold you trow Joe in a superlotaded hell on earth place? Wasting tax money to prevent him to being useful to the community and punishing him by the "crime" of defending himself?
Stand-your-ground" laws are a joke. They are excuses people use to murder other people.
In theory, your self defense thing works, but in real life it is not that way at all. It's fantasy. But in reality you are probably going to kill yourself with it or not use it at all. Stand your ground, as exhibited by George Zimmerman, is where you can jump in someone's face and shoot them and pretend you did it in self defense. That's a pretty big loophole in the highminded fantasy intent of what the law is supposed to be.
If you ask me, private propriety is a duty, not just a right. In particular, dudes need to stop texting photos of their junk to ladies who didn't ask for it.
No, is not. Imagine an guy "Joe", Joe defendend himself with his firearm and din't retreated when he was "forced" because he was in a very stressful situation with his entire family in danger. Joe is a productive member of society. Wold you trow Joe in a superlotaded hell on earth place? Wasting tax money to prevent him to being useful to the community and punishing him by the "crime" of defending himself?
Stand-your-ground" laws are a joke. They are excuses people use to murder other people.
In theory, your self defense thing works, but in real life it is not that way at all. It's fantasy. But in reality you are probably going to kill yourself with it or not use it at all. Stand your ground, as exhibited by George Zimmerman, is where you can jump in someone's face and shoot them and pretend you did it in self defense. That's a pretty big loophole in the highminded fantasy intent of what the law is supposed to be.
I wish people would stop invoking Zimmerman whenever "stand your ground" comes up. The concept didn't apply to the Zimmerman case and neither his attorneys nor the prosecution ever brought it up. Some talking heads on TV speculated about it, but it never entered into the trial or the investigation.
The fantasy that Victor is indulging in is that SYG would be involved in a situation where an entire family was in danger. That would just be self-defense.
No, is not. Imagine an guy "Joe", Joe defendend himself with his firearm and din't retreated when he was "forced" because he was in a very stressful situation with his entire family in danger. Joe is a productive member of society. Wold you trow Joe in a superlotaded hell on earth place? Wasting tax money to prevent him to being useful to the community and punishing him by the "crime" of defending himself?
Stand-your-ground" laws are a joke. They are excuses people use to murder other people.
In theory, your self defense thing works, but in real life it is not that way at all. It's fantasy. But in reality you are probably going to kill yourself with it or not use it at all. Stand your ground, as exhibited by George Zimmerman, is where you can jump in someone's face and shoot them and pretend you did it in self defense. That's a pretty big loophole in the highminded fantasy intent of what the law is supposed to be.
I wish people would stop invoking Zimmerman whenever "stand your ground" comes up. The concept didn't apply to the Zimmerman case and neither his attorneys nor the prosecution ever brought it up. Some talking heads on TV speculated about it, but it never entered into the trial or the investigation.
The fantasy that Victor is indulging in is that SYG would be involved in a situation where an entire family was in danger. That would just be self-defense.
SYG being involved in a situation where a family was in danger that would just be self-defense, agreed. No need for SYG.
Zimmerman is the ultimate example though of the loophole with SYG and the "I had to shoot him in self defense" excuse liars are going to use. SYG is not going to be used for self defense, it will be used where you can jump in someone's face and shoot them and pretend you did it in self defense. The dead guy can't exactly argue with you.
Speaking of this very subject of fake self defense..... Trump of course is on the wrong side of it.
HE CLAIMED HE WAS ACTING IN SELF DEFENSE WHEN he (the army guy) on his own snuck in and stripped the guy naked before shooting him twice and killing him and then leaving him for dead and not saying a word until he got caught.
it was self defense right, he was standing his ground, he feared for his life from a naked prisoner locked up in prison after breaking into the inmates cell on his own. Self defense, he claimed self defense.
Stand your ground is bull, it's an excuse to kill people.
No, is not. Imagine an guy "Joe", Joe defendend himself with his firearm and din't retreated when he was "forced" because he was in a very stressful situation with his entire family in danger. Joe is a productive member of society. Wold you trow Joe in a superlotaded hell on earth place? Wasting tax money to prevent him to being useful to the community and punishing him by the "crime" of defending himself?
Stand-your-ground" laws are a joke. They are excuses people use to murder other people.
In theory, your self defense thing works, but in real life it is not that way at all. It's fantasy. But in reality you are probably going to kill yourself with it or not use it at all. Stand your ground, as exhibited by George Zimmerman, is where you can jump in someone's face and shoot them and pretend you did it in self defense. That's a pretty big loophole in the highminded fantasy intent of what the law is supposed to be.
I wish people would stop invoking Zimmerman whenever "stand your ground" comes up. The concept didn't apply to the Zimmerman case and neither his attorneys nor the prosecution ever brought it up. Some talking heads on TV speculated about it, but it never entered into the trial or the investigation.
The fantasy that Victor is indulging in is that SYG would be involved in a situation where an entire family was in danger. That would just be self-defense.
Stand your ground didn't exist for George Zimmerman because he is the one who artificially manufactured and created the "ground" to begin with. He was an adult playing make-believe cop stalking a teenager in the dark because he was convinced by looking at him he was a criminal. And when Trayvon, who was the one being stalked and the one who had every right to "stand his ground", did so, Zimmerman killed him, which is what he had likely fantasized about doing from the get-go. And the reason he got off was in no small part due to the RELENTLESS propaganda effort on his behalf in right-wing media. And as EVERY subsequent story about Zimmerman in the years since has proven, those who defended Martin were 110% correct about him all along.
In other news, the two Reuters journalists who were imprisoned for reporting on the Rohingya genocide have been released after 500 days in prison via presidential pardon. I don't know what was responsible for the change, but the important thing is that the journalists are free to go home.
In other news, the two Reuters journalists who were imprisoned for reporting on the Rohingya genocide have been released after 500 days in prison via presidential pardon. I don't know what was responsible for the change, but the important thing is that the journalists are free to go home.
Things do seem to be a bit more hopeful in Myanmar over the last year or so. The report on the Rohingya situation in Rakhine by Kofi Annan was released in August 2017 and some progress has been made in quietly implementing parts of it. The massacre in Inn Din that the Reuters journalists were jailed for reporting on was later investigated by the army and, for the first time, they actually admitted there were extra-judicial killings (and 7 people were subsequently convicted of murder for these).
I think the journalists release was part of this general improvement. The timing of the release made it part of the traditional Burmese amnesty for new year celebrations, but I suspect that was done as a face-saving measure.
No, is not. Imagine an guy "Joe", Joe defendend himself with his firearm and din't retreated when he was "forced" because he was in a very stressful situation with his entire family in danger. Joe is a productive member of society. Wold you trow Joe in a superlotaded hell on earth place? Wasting tax money to prevent him to being useful to the community and punishing him by the "crime" of defending himself?
Stand-your-ground" laws are a joke. They are excuses people use to murder other people.
In theory, your self defense thing works, but in real life it is not that way at all. It's fantasy. But in reality you are probably going to kill yourself with it or not use it at all. Stand your ground, as exhibited by George Zimmerman, is where you can jump in someone's face and shoot them and pretend you did it in self defense. That's a pretty big loophole in the highminded fantasy intent of what the law is supposed to be.
I wish people would stop invoking Zimmerman whenever "stand your ground" comes up. The concept didn't apply to the Zimmerman case and neither his attorneys nor the prosecution ever brought it up. Some talking heads on TV speculated about it, but it never entered into the trial or the investigation.
The fantasy that Victor is indulging in is that SYG would be involved in a situation where an entire family was in danger. That would just be self-defense.
It was the reason why he wasn't charged to begin with, and I always bring this up: What if Martin shot Zimmerman instead? I highly doubt he would have been released by the police for "standing his ground."
Is like i say "and democrats tell me that i an an evil nazi, who don't care about the poor if o don't vote for then"
What makes you believe that nazis didn't care about the poor?
They care about then. As longs they are "aryan" and the defenition of "aryan" for then is very silly. For example, an 1/4 Jew Pomeranian born in germany was considered "aryan" on nazi germany but an 100% Pomeranian born in Poland is "slav"... That is a problem with ALL racial ideologies. Or is self declaration and not work or will require an racial tribunal. This applies to those who demands affirmative actions on USA. There are many cases who blurs the line between "group A" and "group B". The correct is focus on the individual and don't care about gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.
About Stand your ground laws, you are using examples of cases not covered in the law. At least to my understanding. Stand your ground law just means that you are not forced to in a stress situation where you can prevent the criminal from attacking you again, you should't retreat.
You state it succinctly: "stand-your-ground" laws tend to make murder an accepted response to "stress."
Is something stressing you out? Murder it! You don't need to prove that the murder was justified by any objective criteria; you only need to claim after the fact that you subjectively felt like it was justified. Yes, it lets people defend themselves... but people could already defend themselves. "Stand-your-ground" doesn't add anything except a means for actual murderers to get away with their crime.
As I said, it is a joke - a sick joke.
As for private property: again, there is no such thing (in enlightened places, anyway) as public property being "owned by politicians." The government manages public property (plus other things like rights and privileges of citizens) as trustees. You may disagree, or you may live in a place where that's not the case, or you may not understand the law of trusts... butbthe quesrion at hand is about the Founders of the American republic. They - especially Thomas Jefferson - were experts in tbe law of trusts, and knew precisely what it meant to say a government holds power and property on behalf of its citizens. The idea is neither "radical far right" nor "socialist."
The ultimate extreme example of this "stand your ground" mindset took place in my home state a Minnesota. A guy had been having his home broken into while he was away numerous times. It turned out it was a drug-addicted couple stealing his stuff. So he literally set a trap for them, completey darkening his home to make it seem as if he was away and lying in wait in the basement. When they broke in, he pulled his gun on them and forced them into the basment. Ok, great. Time to call the cops. But no. This guy made them get down on their knees and summarily executed them AFTER they had been neutralized. Now, this guy was charged with pre-meditated murder (which is what it was), but it's impossible to see this kind of thing taking place in an environment where "stand your ground" and guns aren't viewed as the solution to any problem.
You state it succinctly: "stand-your-ground" laws tend to make murder an accepted response to "stress."
Is something stressing you out? Murder it! You don't need to prove that the murder was justified by any objective criteria; you only need to claim after the fact that you subjectively felt like it was justified. Yes, it lets people defend themselves... but people could already defend themselves. "Stand-your-ground" doesn't add anything except a means for actual murderers to get away with their crime.
As I said, it is a joke - a sick joke.
As for private property: again, there is no such thing (in enlightened places, anyway) as public property being "owned by politicians." The government manages public property (plus other things like rights and privileges of citizens) as trustees. You may disagree, or you may live in a place where that's not the case, or you may not understand the law of trusts... butbthe quesrion at hand is about the Founders of the American republic. They - especially Thomas Jefferson - were experts in tbe law of trusts, and knew precisely what it meant to say a government holds power and property on behalf of its citizens. The idea is neither "radical far right" nor "socialist."
The ultimate extreme example of this "stand your ground" mindset took place in my home state a Minnesota. A guy had been having his home broken into while he was away numerous times. It turned out it was a drug-addicted couple stealing his stuff. So he literally set a trap for them, completey darkening his home to make it seem as if he was away and lying in wait in the basement. When they broke in, he pulled his gun on them and forced them into the basment. Ok, great. Time to call the cops. But no. This guy made them get down on their knees and summarily executed them AFTER they had been neutralized. Now, this guy was charged with pre-meditated murder (which is what it was), but it's impossible to see this kind of thing taking place in an environment where "stand your ground" and guns aren't viewed as the solution to any problem.
so he probably said, when he had them on their knees with a gun pointed at them one of them twitched and he "feared for his life" right.
It's one long string of embarrassing business failures one after another, year after year. The numbers are cross-referenced and verified. He lost over one billion dollars over the course of 10 years.
It's not that surprising. Folks in the business world have long been very well aware that Trump's business ventures routinely failed and that he constantly exaggerated his gains, and this is just one more nail in the coffin.
It's just so incredibly petty. He spent decades desperately touting himself as a master businessman, and yet he was the single biggest failure in real estate in modern history. How much time did he spend trying to convince people he was smart instead of actually working on his skills and trying to understand the market? How many years of his life did he waste on preening and fussing over his appearance instead of actually competing in the business world?
This is what happens when a successful businessman, Fred Trump, gets to funnel $400 million to his son. The money is wasted, because the son is grossly incompetent--and the son is grossly incompetent because he never had to earn his keep. This is what happens to family dynasties that grow so powerful that the children are weak and coddled and helpless on their own. They disintegrate.
There are always failures in the free market. But if you fail in a business venture, at least be honest with yourself and with other people about how it went. When a man spends his entire life refusing to admit his own incompetence, and struggles to this day to convince people he's good at his job, it's just pathetic.
Comments
Also, typo or Freudian slip? Emphasis mine.
He praises the cuban regime. I know that for a lot of people, anything more right wing than social democracy is "ultra far right", but someone who praises Fidel can't be right wing or centrist. I an not "pro Fulgencio Batista", but Cuba was much more stable and rich during the Fulgencio Batista government than under socialism.
Folks like Bernie Sanders and AOC are not misusing the word socialism; they're using the historically accurate version of the term.
Well yeah, they owned slaves.
I an talking about their view on the role of the state, the limitation of the law and descentralization.
At the time power was not held predominantly in NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations). Corporations now hold FAR more power than they did 250 years ago.
Governments held broad, almost unlimited power. Hence their interest in restraining it.
They were not.
Here's a deep dive into the truth about the politics of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, who were actually progressive in just about every way
1:50 - If allows private propriety but the sate can be more influential than any shareholder, then the state owns it. Doesn't matter if on the paper i own it. I need to create, operate, hire, etc as the state mandates. That is socialism. You can advocate for socialism, but don't say that "i an pro private propriety", when every propriety owner is a "state slave"
About "healthcare", one local tax that only affects sailors is completely different than an public healthcare that will affect everyone from the southern part of Florida to the northern part of Alaska.
About progressive taxation, the fact that one or two of then said that they support doesn't means that they as a "group" support it.
4:40 - yes, state and local laws. Again. If you wanna live in a city where only criminals use weapons is your right. But this law should't affect any continental country.
5:00 - And yes, he is right. But the Stand-your-ground law and castle doctrine is two examples of "TRUE" PROGRESS. Stop treating people like "livestock" that can't defend themselves is a progress. As for gun regulations, they existing in a local level and in a federal level is completely different.
6:30 - About immigration, they are talking about legal immigration. In a time without welfare and anti discrimination laws.
7:50 - Yes, separation of Church and State is a example of "progress" and secularism is good. USA was never an confessional state. Many founders was deist
At any rate, they didn't share positions with today's right wingers like government healthcare being bad and were very much in favor of taxing the rich. They didn't treat the articles of confederation with some kind of reverence as a system of government that shall not be infringed ever.
I replied to the MAIN Points.And he nitpicked many things.
Doesn't matter what is the historical context, an law that removes the control of the private propriety from his owners and gives to the sate is an socialist law. Is not i who is saying that. Even Fabian Socialists and Social democrats advocate for this. An gradual lose of right of propriety and increase of state power instead of a revolution and that is what is happening. There are almost no private propriety rights on this world.
And now politicians owns everything. Even in a absolutist monarchy(most monarchies aren't), an king can't simple decide to go to war without approval of the lords, and even if he can declare war, most of military power is "descentralized" into Lords who can easily dispose an bad king. Under modern democracy, an president can spend decades saying that is against interventions and start to use drones to bomb civilians without congress approval. The modern democracy is far worse than the worst monarchy.
And are not an form of slavery? What is the difference between be forced to fight on arenas as an slave gladiator on ancient rome and force to go to war for the politicians? You are risking your life and working to the benefit of an political elite.
If someone don't wanna do X but the state force the guy to do X, then is slavery. Note : DO X and "not do X" aka not kill is not the same thing. The state forcing me to protect someone is completely different than prohibiting me from killing. And every country on earth has some degree of socialism(socialism = state controlling private propriety), is very unlikely that we can get rid of socialism like is very unlikely that we can get rid of rape but we should aim to minimize both every time that we can.
Then cities should be able to control flow of goods and people like on medieval times. Instead of try to impose the same law in completely different realities. From the southern part of Florida to the Northern part of Alaska and not allow those who disagree that people should be defenseless livestock government worshipers can't even legally move to an place who allow they to defend thenselves is awful....
Also, the countries with strictest gun control on Americas are Brazil and Mexico, both are violent hellholes. Chicago and Detroid has are the cities with strictest gun control and are violent hellholes. Is illegal to a civilian to own any cartidge stronger than .380 ACP on Mexico and Mexico is a Narco State. They illegally move to US, illegally purchase firearms and illegally bring the firearms back to Mexico and illegally modify the weapon to allow full auto fire. Do you really think that an state can prevent anyone from owning an firearm?
No, is not. Imagine an guy "Joe", Joe defendend himself with his firearm and din't retreated when he was "forced" because he was in a very stressful situation with his entire family in danger. Joe is a productive member of society. Wold you trow Joe in a superlotaded hell on earth place? Wasting tax money to prevent him to being useful to the community and punishing him by the "crime" of defending himself?
Stand-your-ground" laws are a joke. They are excuses people use to murder other people.
In theory, your self defense thing works, but in real life it is not that way at all. It's fantasy. But in reality you are probably going to kill yourself with it or not use it at all. Stand your ground, as exhibited by George Zimmerman, is where you can jump in someone's face and shoot them and pretend you did it in self defense. That's a pretty big loophole in the highminded fantasy intent of what the law is supposed to be.
I wish people would stop invoking Zimmerman whenever "stand your ground" comes up. The concept didn't apply to the Zimmerman case and neither his attorneys nor the prosecution ever brought it up. Some talking heads on TV speculated about it, but it never entered into the trial or the investigation.
The fantasy that Victor is indulging in is that SYG would be involved in a situation where an entire family was in danger. That would just be self-defense.
SYG being involved in a situation where a family was in danger that would just be self-defense, agreed. No need for SYG.
Zimmerman is the ultimate example though of the loophole with SYG and the "I had to shoot him in self defense" excuse liars are going to use. SYG is not going to be used for self defense, it will be used where you can jump in someone's face and shoot them and pretend you did it in self defense. The dead guy can't exactly argue with you.
Speaking of this very subject of fake self defense..... Trump of course is on the wrong side of it.
Today, Trump pardoned a first lieutenant in the US Army sentenced to prison in 2009 for killing an Iraqi detainee.
HE CLAIMED HE WAS ACTING IN SELF DEFENSE WHEN he (the army guy) on his own snuck in and stripped the guy naked before shooting him twice and killing him and then leaving him for dead and not saying a word until he got caught.
it was self defense right, he was standing his ground, he feared for his life from a naked prisoner locked up in prison after breaking into the inmates cell on his own. Self defense, he claimed self defense.
Stand your ground is bull, it's an excuse to kill people.
Stand your ground didn't exist for George Zimmerman because he is the one who artificially manufactured and created the "ground" to begin with. He was an adult playing make-believe cop stalking a teenager in the dark because he was convinced by looking at him he was a criminal. And when Trayvon, who was the one being stalked and the one who had every right to "stand his ground", did so, Zimmerman killed him, which is what he had likely fantasized about doing from the get-go. And the reason he got off was in no small part due to the RELENTLESS propaganda effort on his behalf in right-wing media. And as EVERY subsequent story about Zimmerman in the years since has proven, those who defended Martin were 110% correct about him all along.
Things do seem to be a bit more hopeful in Myanmar over the last year or so. The report on the Rohingya situation in Rakhine by Kofi Annan was released in August 2017 and some progress has been made in quietly implementing parts of it. The massacre in Inn Din that the Reuters journalists were jailed for reporting on was later investigated by the army and, for the first time, they actually admitted there were extra-judicial killings (and 7 people were subsequently convicted of murder for these).
I think the journalists release was part of this general improvement. The timing of the release made it part of the traditional Burmese amnesty for new year celebrations, but I suspect that was done as a face-saving measure.
ummm…..
The police chief said that Zimmerman was released because there was no evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim of having acted in self-defense, and that under Florida's Stand Your Ground statute, the police were prohibited by law from making an arrest
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/sanford-cops-sought-warrant-to-arrest-george-zimmerman-in-trayvon-martin/1222259
It was the reason why he wasn't charged to begin with, and I always bring this up: What if Martin shot Zimmerman instead? I highly doubt he would have been released by the police for "standing his ground."
They care about then. As longs they are "aryan" and the defenition of "aryan" for then is very silly. For example, an 1/4 Jew Pomeranian born in germany was considered "aryan" on nazi germany but an 100% Pomeranian born in Poland is "slav"... That is a problem with ALL racial ideologies. Or is self declaration and not work or will require an racial tribunal. This applies to those who demands affirmative actions on USA. There are many cases who blurs the line between "group A" and "group B". The correct is focus on the individual and don't care about gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.
About Stand your ground laws, you are using examples of cases not covered in the law. At least to my understanding. Stand your ground law just means that you are not forced to in a stress situation where you can prevent the criminal from attacking you again, you should't retreat.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/97s43p/standyourground_law/
The ultimate extreme example of this "stand your ground" mindset took place in my home state a Minnesota. A guy had been having his home broken into while he was away numerous times. It turned out it was a drug-addicted couple stealing his stuff. So he literally set a trap for them, completey darkening his home to make it seem as if he was away and lying in wait in the basement. When they broke in, he pulled his gun on them and forced them into the basment. Ok, great. Time to call the cops. But no. This guy made them get down on their knees and summarily executed them AFTER they had been neutralized. Now, this guy was charged with pre-meditated murder (which is what it was), but it's impossible to see this kind of thing taking place in an environment where "stand your ground" and guns aren't viewed as the solution to any problem.
so he probably said, when he had them on their knees with a gun pointed at them one of them twitched and he "feared for his life" right.
Either Trump really really sucks at business or he was lying on his returns to pay less. Or both.
"In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer"
Literally any other taxpayer would be a better business person.
Interesting. Where did this info come from since he won't release it to Congress?
It's not that surprising. Folks in the business world have long been very well aware that Trump's business ventures routinely failed and that he constantly exaggerated his gains, and this is just one more nail in the coffin.
It's just so incredibly petty. He spent decades desperately touting himself as a master businessman, and yet he was the single biggest failure in real estate in modern history. How much time did he spend trying to convince people he was smart instead of actually working on his skills and trying to understand the market? How many years of his life did he waste on preening and fussing over his appearance instead of actually competing in the business world?
This is what happens when a successful businessman, Fred Trump, gets to funnel $400 million to his son. The money is wasted, because the son is grossly incompetent--and the son is grossly incompetent because he never had to earn his keep. This is what happens to family dynasties that grow so powerful that the children are weak and coddled and helpless on their own. They disintegrate.
There are always failures in the free market. But if you fail in a business venture, at least be honest with yourself and with other people about how it went. When a man spends his entire life refusing to admit his own incompetence, and struggles to this day to convince people he's good at his job, it's just pathetic.
What else is there to say?