Biden came out of his basement today (Thursday) and said , "we have 120 Million deaths from Covid 19.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

I have several policy differences with Joe. However, he isn't a fetid douche like Donald so Joe has my vote. 

So, you just prefer to call Trump names and totally avoid the truth about Joe. I guess that explains your opinions. Goodbye

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

You seem to have little concern over these realities. 

ROn, I typically do not like getting into these politics debates, as they tend to get all emotional.  Since this is you calling, I shall respond briefly.  For openers, I have a huge, huge concern "over these realities."  I am appalled at Mr. Obama's busting up of migrant families from South of the Border, putting people in jails, and deporting them for the crime of wanting to better themselves and provide for their families with a few bucks picking apples, stooping for cucumbers, and chopping lettuce.  It is just appalling.  then you have the cases of the little kids, who were brought here without their consent at age 1 or 2 or 3 or 4, then grow up here and do not even speak Spanish, and the US Govt then arrests them at university level and deports them with a ten-year re-entry bar.  That is just grotesque. That is not what America is all about; we do not beat up on little children.  

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I think you are a globalist and think that the elites should run the world.

No chance.  Being a "globalist" is something I utterly repudiate.  Globalims sucks and is a curse on humanity.  Those bums at Goldman Sachs are globalists, but only as long as they can be the vampire squid on the face of humanity, thrusting its blood funnel into anything that smells of money.  

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I consider you an elitist

Of course. 

Cheers.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

So, you just prefer to call Trump names and totally avoid the truth about Joe. I guess that explains your opinions. Goodbye

Ronald, you have reacted to *many* of my comments where I give detailed criticism of Donald and link to evidence. Thus, I must conclude you are being disingenuous in your comment. Tell you what, I'm going to give your comment a participation trophy to see if that makes you feel better. Maybe if you feel good you'll be more willing to be an honest player. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

ROn, I typically do not like getting into these politics debates, as they tend to get all emotional.  Since this is you calling, I shall respond briefly.  For openers, I have a huge, huge concern "over these realities."  I am appalled at Mr. Obama's busting up of migrant families from South of the Border, putting people in jails, and deporting them for the crime of wanting to better themselves and provide for their families with a few bucks picking apples, stooping for cucumbers, and chopping lettuce.  It is just appalling.  then you have the cases of the little kids, who were brought here without their consent at age 1 or 2 or 3 or 4, then grow up here and do not even speak Spanish, and the US Govt then arrests them at university level and deports them with a ten-year re-entry bar.  That is just grotesque. That is not what America is all about; we do not beat up on little children.  

No chance.  Being a "globalist" is something I utterly repudiate.  Globalims sucks and is a curse on humanity.  Those bums at Goldman Sachs are globalists, but only as long as they can be the vampire squid on the face of humanity, thrusting its blood funnel into anything that smells of money.  

Of course. 

Cheers.

Jan, did you mean to say Obama busting up families from south of the border? He was reluctant to secure our borders and set us up for more immigration than we could handle well, especially with his "dreamers" plan which ignored immigration laws. Of course Democrats and Crony Republicans were all for more immigration. 

I really do not understand the how bankers control nations and the globe, but realize they have enormous power as do all large corporations, foundations, wealthy people, Silicon Valley etc. 

It seems that few wealthy people have much concern about building the middle class. I consider that important since they do the actual business development that keeps the country running. The less able people need to look forward to upward mobility or we will turn into a real plutocracy or socialist society and our Constitutional Rights ignored by all in power. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

It seems that few wealthy people have much concern about building the middle class. I consider that important since they do the actual business development that keeps the country running. The less able people need to look forward to upward mobility or we will turn into a real plutocracy or socialist society and our Constitutional Rights ignored by all in power. 

First, let me say that this part of your analysis is trenchantly accurate. 

"Few wealthy people have much concern about building the middle class."  I would go farther:  NO wealthy people have ANY concern about building the middle class.  The attitude of the wealthy is "I've got mine, Jack, so bugger off."  It is an attitude that will lead to societal disaster.  We had a bit of a historical taste of the upcoming, in France in their Revolution and the "Terror," in Russia with the October Revolution and the civil war between the Reds and the Whites, in France with the rise of Fascism, and so forth.  The last time this happened in the USA, ultimately a Federal Income Tax was imposed and the marginal tax rate was set at 97%.   The USA was lucky in that it escaped the depth of anarchy and revolution  (although you see bits and pieces of such anarchy today, for example in Seattle, and in other cities with "Defund the Police" movements). 

"...or we will turn into a real plutocracy or socialist society and our Constitutional Rights ignored by all in power."   In the USA, that is already the case.  The Constitutional Rights of the everyman are out the window.  To demonstrate that, all you have to do is look at the legal doctrine of "sovereign immunity" and how it has been expanded to allow stealing of money with impunity, by the Feds and the local police.  The examples at the extreme demonstrate just how far this has gone.  One notorious case was in Fresno, California, where the local cops broke into a man's business and stole a ton of cash and rare coin collections.  The cops handed him a "receipt" for $50,000, claiming it ws the proceeds of his engagement in crime  (of course!).  But the actual seizure was for $325,000.  The difference, the cops simply stole for themselves - with impunity.  When the cops and the employer City were sued, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (includes California) ruled in its Opinion:

Yes, the stealing was wrong, but there is no case law that can be pointed to that stands for the proposition that the police stealing your money and goods is a wrongful act that is compensable in damages.  Further, the Official Policy Handb ook of the City Police does not specifically state that stealing a citizen's money is wrongful and against departmental policy, so therefore the cops were not on legal notice that their actions were wrongful and would be dealt with by supporting a Judgment against them."

In other words,  since nobody has told the cops it is wrong to steal, they can steal your stuff and cash.  They have "qualified immunity."  And you can go whistle in the woods.  Or, as one commenter observed: "Jesus Christ, what assholes."

The doctrine of Qualified Immunity stems from Old English Law, where the agent, or sheriff, served at the pleasure of the King.  Since the King was appointed by God and thus could do no wrong, as God's representative on earth, therefore his agent, the Sheriff, could do no wrong also.  He had this Immunity.  And the doctrine carried over to the New World.  For exqmple, even in Canada today, if the police arrest you and fabricatge evidence and lie about it on the witness stand in order to get a conviction, you can spend 19 years in a hjail cell and assuming you ever get out, you cannot sue for damages of wrongful imprisonment, as, first, the cops have this Qualified Immunity, and second, being wrongfully imprisoned is a burden to be properly b orne by any citizen in exchange for his citizenship. Yes, a Minister in the Canadian Federal Government actually said that about some black kind in halifax, who the cops framed, and there is now no dispute that the cops framed him because they badly needed a suspect to close their case, and hey, what better defendant than some black kid of 19 who has no money and no smart lawyers to defend him?  

These abuses exist today because of the funding system of US elections, where The Rich control the candidates and the Party Platforms, themselves will never be stopped by the cops, and are social chums of various Judges. The poor take it on the chin.  There are tons of cases, in placers as diverse as Tennessee and Arkansas and Maryland, where the cops stop motorists, bust open the trunk, find a duffel bag with say $16,000 in it, and - simply steal it.  The cops declare the money "the fruit of crime" and confiscate it.  What they really are, are legalized Highwaymen, bandits and criminals.  The cops ALWAYS target the poor, because they know they can do this with impunity.  When the poor man complains that he was on his way to Texas to buy a truck and the seller would want cash, the attitude is "Too bad, we keep the cahs."  The victim is never actually charged with any crime, and there never, ever, is any showing of a tint of criminal activity. 

Yup, this is what happens when you let a nation slide to plutocracy.  Your Constitutional Rights of protection against searchs and seizures are already out the window.  I invite readers to think about this, and to thnk about the implications for society.  Does this lead to guns and bombs?  It already has:  Timothy McVeigh and the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, with 212 dead.  That is where it goes. 

Do I advocate for the total abilition of Qualified Immunity, and the abolition of the doctrine of Forfeiture?  But of course.  And those who support the Doctrines of QAualified Immunity and of Forefeiture?  Jesus Christ, what assholes. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 6/27/2020 at 2:08 PM, Enthalpic said:

Yep, the party in power has far less control than most think (at least in Canada).  The non-partisan, civil servants run the show and very little changes after an election.

The PM changes, as do the ministers, but the deputy ministers, directors, and managers generally stay the same.

Treasury board controls the money for the most part and they are stuck with long term obligations that can't just be scrapped at will..

Yup, just not gonna buy non-partisan Civil servants, in Canada or elsewhere. They turn out to be the most partisan anywhere. They support the party that supports their self interests. Period  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

21 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

First, let me say that this part of your analysis is trenchantly accurate. 

"Few wealthy people have much concern about building the middle class."  I would go farther:  NO wealthy people have ANY concern about building the middle class.  The attitude of the wealthy is "I've got mine, Jack, so bugger off."  It is an attitude that will lead to societal disaster.  We had a bit of a historical taste of the upcoming, in France in their Revolution and the "Terror," in Russia with the October Revolution and the civil war between the Reds and the Whites, in France with the rise of Fascism, and so forth.  The last time this happened in the USA, ultimately a Federal Income Tax was imposed and the marginal tax rate was set at 97%.   The USA was lucky in that it escaped the depth of anarchy and revolution  (although you see bits and pieces of such anarchy today, for example in Seattle, and in other cities with "Defund the Police" movements). 

"...or we will turn into a real plutocracy or socialist society and our Constitutional Rights ignored by all in power."   In the USA, that is already the case.  The Constitutional Rights of the everyman are out the window.  To demonstrate that, all you have to do is look at the legal doctrine of "sovereign immunity" and how it has been expanded to allow stealing of money with impunity, by the Feds and the local police.  The examples at the extreme demonstrate just how far this has gone.  One notorious case was in Fresno, California, where the local cops broke into a man's business and stole a ton of cash and rare coin collections.  The cops handed him a "receipt" for $50,000, claiming it ws the proceeds of his engagement in crime  (of course!).  But the actual seizure was for $325,000.  The difference, the cops simply stole for themselves - with impunity.  When the cops and the employer City were sued, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (includes California) ruled in its Opinion:

Yes, the stealing was wrong, but there is no case law that can be pointed to that stands for the proposition that the police stealing your money and goods is a wrongful act that is compensable in damages.  Further, the Official Policy Handb ook of the City Police does not specifically state that stealing a citizen's money is wrongful and against departmental policy, so therefore the cops were not on legal notice that their actions were wrongful and would be dealt with by supporting a Judgment against them."

In other words,  since nobody has told the cops it is wrong to steal, they can steal your stuff and cash.  They have "qualified immunity."  And you can go whistle in the woods.  Or, as one commenter observed: "Jesus Christ, what assholes."

The doctrine of Qualified Immunity stems from Old English Law, where the agent, or sheriff, served at the pleasure of the King.  Since the King was appointed by God and thus could do no wrong, as God's representative on earth, therefore his agent, the Sheriff, could do no wrong also.  He had this Immunity.  And the doctrine carried over to the New World.  For exqmple, even in Canada today, if the police arrest you and fabricatge evidence and lie about it on the witness stand in order to get a conviction, you can spend 19 years in a hjail cell and assuming you ever get out, you cannot sue for damages of wrongful imprisonment, as, first, the cops have this Qualified Immunity, and second, being wrongfully imprisoned is a burden to be properly b orne by any citizen in exchange for his citizenship. Yes, a Minister in the Canadian Federal Government actually said that about some black kind in halifax, who the cops framed, and there is now no dispute that the cops framed him because they badly needed a suspect to close their case, and hey, what better defendant than some black kid of 19 who has no money and no smart lawyers to defend him?  

These abuses exist today because of the funding system of US elections, where The Rich control the candidates and the Party Platforms, themselves will never be stopped by the cops, and are social chums of various Judges. The poor take it on the chin.  There are tons of cases, in placers as diverse as Tennessee and Arkansas and Maryland, where the cops stop motorists, bust open the trunk, find a duffel bag with say $16,000 in it, and - simply steal it.  The cops declare the money "the fruit of crime" and confiscate it.  What they really are, are legalized Highwaymen, bandits and criminals.  The cops ALWAYS target the poor, because they know they can do this with impunity.  When the poor man complains that he was on his way to Texas to buy a truck and the seller would want cash, the attitude is "Too bad, we keep the cahs."  The victim is never actually charged with any crime, and there never, ever, is any showing of a tint of criminal activity. 

Yup, this is what happens when you let a nation slide to plutocracy.  Your Constitutional Rights of protection against searchs and seizures are already out the window.  I invite readers to think about this, and to thnk about the implications for society.  Does this lead to guns and bombs?  It already has:  Timothy McVeigh and the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, with 212 dead.  That is where it goes. 

Do I advocate for the total abilition of Qualified Immunity, and the abolition of the doctrine of Forfeiture?  But of course.  And those who support the Doctrines of QAualified Immunity and of Forefeiture?  Jesus Christ, what assholes. 

Jan, I would have rated your comments higher but I have reservations about qualified immunity. Cops are bound to make some HONEST mistakes and need to be protected in some cases. I have no idea how the specifics work out but think it is a complex problem. I agree there are many areas where homeowners deserve remuneration for damage during searches etc. etc. 

I have heard of many administrative "law" overreaches that have cost landowners and businesses thousands to millions of dollars unfairly. They are probably much more common. You opened a lot of cans of worms. 

The problem with money spent on elections is also complex. From what I know it is basically Democrats getting millions from unions and rich liberals vs. Republicans getting equal money from crony businessmen and rich conservatives. Of course there is small money from many, like me, who give donations on either side.

If flagrant overspending continues we will have to tax the rich more. The middle class can barely take the taxation rates we face now. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

47 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Jan, I would have rated your comments higher but I have reservations about qualified immunity. Cops are bound to make some HONEST mistakes and need to be protected in some cases. I have no idea how the specifics work out but think it is a complex problem. I agree there are many areas where homeowners deserve remuneration for damage during searches etc. etc. 

There is Zero basis for the doctrine of "qualified immunity."  The doctrine is entirely judge-made, it does not exist in legislatioin passed by a legislative body, which would be done on the State level.  Moswt States have specific legislation that explicitly removes qualified immunity under the known-risk doctrine.  For example, the driver of a fire truck is not immune from suit if he runs a red light and T-bones an auto.  You might find this surprising but no Legislature will excues that driver.  

Now what happens in practice is that unions require, as part of the contract, that the municipality take on the financial risk by defending and compensating any tort suits that lead to Judgments.  So as a practical matter the pioliceman or firefighter being sued is off the hook financially, the municipality has to step in and accepts the risk.  In turn, the municipality simply buys liability insurance and insures itself against Judgments, so the risk transfers to insurers. 

This procedure has a certain benefit: if the insured, a municipality, county, State or whatever, simply fails to enact and maintain prudent measures to protect the public, then first the insurance rates will zoom, and eventually no insurer will write the risk, leaving the municipality "bare."   When the taxpayers are exposed to huge judgments, then you see changes in protocols. 

Coindicentally to this writing, the Connecticut Supreme Court just issued its ruling on a seminal case of police misconduct resulting in the death of a juvenile.  The case is simple enough: the policeman, working for the Town of Seymour, spotted a Ford Mustang sedan with underneath "glow lights," those little neon lights that the Spanish kids put on to make the car under-body glow.  They think that is seriously cool, so the Hispanics do that.  The cops, typically ethnic Italian, know that, and so go aftger the Spanish kids  (typically from Puerto Rico) and beat up on them with tickets, tow the cars off, that sort of nonsense. So you have these ethnic undercurrents playing out with the cops and the kids. 

The cop gives chase and the Spanish kid takes off.  It is a short chase; the car goes over an embankment, goes over onto the roof (which collapses), and the passenger, a 15-year-old, is killed.  The family sues the Seymour Police  (and, presumably, the pliceman and the Town) under the existing statutory exemptions to the Qualified-Immunity doctrine.  Oops, the judges don't like that outcome, they think, "Too bad, so sad," and toss the case on appeal, voted 8-1.    So, now by case-law precedent, there is precisely nothing that any policeman could ever do wrong that would attract money damages.  Nothing. 

What kind of cruddy policeman goes and gives high-speed chase to some teen with underbody glow lights?  What, the residents of Seymour pay taxes for that crap?  

I invite you to think about that outcome.  A policeman pulls out his gun and shoots your dog.  Too bad. 

A policeman runs a red light and T-bones and kills your wife and children coming home from school.  Too bad. 

A fireman or crew refuses to put out a grease fire in your oven and your house burns down, a total loss, because you refuse to salute the American flag.  Too bad.   And yes, this has actually happened.   Forget about the sworn oath of office.  All gone. 

None of this was ever contemplated by any Legislature, it is all "Judge-made law."  You get that resut in America.  It is lousy; it is awful.  It is also profoundly un-American.  It is done by poisonous lawyers who are in turn hired as Judges and then wreak havoc and vengeance upon society with their cruddy thinking.   And nobody does anything about it.

The above CT case was dissented vigorously by Justice Ecker  (no relation, althoug he is obviously of Dutch origin).  Justice Ecker wrote a long 69-page solo dissent.  It sets it all out, some heavy reading if you are up to it.  I have not yet studied the Dessent.  I attach it for your reading pleasure and personal enlightenment.  And it is also a big reason I will never live or set up a plant in CT again.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19O_EN73WzQ13qNoFZnk7T-lWvrmlbTyU/view

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Yup, just not gonna buy non-partisan Civil servants, in Canada or elsewhere. They turn out to be the most partisan anywhere. They support the party that supports their self interests. Period  

The E.U. and Britain seem to prove your point also! The long wait the people are still undergoing, with Brexit is my main example. With the E.U. it is the forced immigration against the will of the people. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

There is Zero basis for the doctrine of "qualified immunity."  The doctrine is entirely judge-made, it does not exist in legislatioin passed by a legislative body, which would be done on the State level.  Moswt States have specific legislation that explicitly removes qualified immunity under the known-risk doctrine.  For example, the driver of a fire truck is not immune from suit if he runs a red light and T-bones an auto.  You might find this surprising but no Legislature will excues that driver.  

Now what happens in practice is that unions require, as part of the contract, that the municipality take on the financial risk by defending and compensating any tort suits that lead to Judgments.  So as a practical matter the pioliceman or firefighter being sued is off the hook financially, the municipality has to step in and accepts the risk.  In turn, the municipality simply buys liability insurance and insures itself against Judgments, so the risk transfers to insurers. 

This procedure has a certain benefit: if the insured, a municipality, county, State or whatever, simply fails to enact and maintain prudent measures to protect the public, then first the insurance rates will zoom, and eventually no insurer will write the risk, leaving the municipality "bare."   When the taxpayers are exposed to huge judgments, then you see changes in protocols. 

Coindicentally to this writing, the Connecticut Supreme Court just issued its ruling on a seminal case of police misconduct resulting in the death of a juvenile.  The case is simple enough: the policeman, working for the Town of Seymour, spotted a Ford Mustang sedan with underneath "glow lights," those little neon lights that the Spanish kids put on to make the car under-body glow.  They think that is seriously cool, so the Hispanics do that.  The cops, typically ethnic Italian, know that, and so go aftger the Spanish kids  (typically from Puerto Rico) and beat up on them with tickets, tow the cars off, that sort of nonsense. So you have these ethnic undercurrents playing out with the cops and the kids. 

The cop gives chase and the Spanish kid takes off.  It is a short chase; the car goes over an embankment, goes over onto the roof (which collapses), and the passenger, a 15-year-old, is killed.  The family sues the Seymour Police  (and, presumably, the pliceman and the Town) under the existing statutory exemptions to the Qualified-Immunity doctrine.  Oops, the judges don't like that outcome, they think, "Too bad, so sad," and toss the case on appeal, voted 8-1.    So, now by case-law precedent, there is precisely nothing that any policeman could ever do wrong that would attract money damages.  Nothing. 

What kind of cruddy policeman goes and gives high-speed chase to some teen with underbody glow lights?  What, the residents of Seymour pay taxes for that crap?  

I invite you to think about that outcome.  A policeman pulls out his gun and shoots your dog.  Too bad. 

A policeman runs a red light and T-bones and kills your wife and children coming home from school.  Too bad. 

A fireman or crew refuses to put out a grease fire in your oven and your house burns down, a total loss, because you refuse to salute the American flag.  Too bad.   And yes, this has actually happened.   Forget about the sworn oath of office.  All gone. 

None of this was ever contemplated by any Legislature, it is all "Judge-made law."  You get that resut in America.  It is lousy; it is awful.  It is also profoundly un-American.  It is done by poisonous lawyers who are in turn hired as Judges and then wreak havoc and vengeance upon society with their cruddy thinking.   And nobody does anything about it.

The above CT case was dissented vigorously by Justice Ecker  (no relation, althoug he is obviously of Dutch origin).  Justice Ecker wrote a long 69-page solo dissent.  It sets it all out, some heavy reading if you are up to it.  I have not yet studied the Dessent.  I attach it for your reading pleasure and personal enlightenment.  And it is also a big reason I will never live or set up a plant in CT again.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19O_EN73WzQ13qNoFZnk7T-lWvrmlbTyU/view

Great points Jan. Tell me though, if you were Mayor De Blasio, what would you do about Antifa, Black Lives Matter, or rioters and terrorists? Personally, I would support the police and fire departments. Controlling the troublemakers would be my top priority, and my second priority would be firing and/or prosecuting bad cops. 

High speed chases are ridiculous unless the car has murderers in it IMHO. Just get the license plate and description of the car and call it in. I don't know all the technology in a police car, but it should include great cameras. Those on the cops should also be the best. 

As a side note. The murder of Floyd was horrific and demonic IMO. It reminds me of the killing of a very obese Black man years ago for selling individual cigarettes! 

I have mentioned this before, by I spent twenty years as charge RN on a psychiatric ward. I often dealt with agitated patients who were high or drunk, including ones that the police didn't want to put in jail but were dangerous. I never hurt one. Before I retired, I got a black eye and some stitches over my eye when a young veteran whirled around and slugged me. I was knocked over but got back up and grabbed him. We wrestled and I got control of him with him lying on top of me, on his back, and my arms around his neck. I was 65 and he was about twenty. A policeman who is not winning a tussle may need to use a neck hold of some kind. A Full Nelson, or a Half Nelson. It is not wise to try to totally eliminate neck holds. I released him as soon as a helper showed up. All the females had disappeared. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8462181/NYPD-police-commissioner-says-NYCs-criminal-justice-imploding-spike-shootings.html

Edited July 1, 2020 by ronwagn
reference

[BLA + 1,666]

On 6/29/2020 at 7:12 PM, Jan van Eck said:

ROn, I typically do not like getting into these politics debates, as they tend to get all emotional.  Since this is you calling, I shall respond briefly.  For openers, I have a huge, huge concern "over these realities."  I am appalled at Mr. Obama's busting up of migrant families from South of the Border, putting people in jails, and deporting them for the crime of wanting to better themselves and provide for their families with a few bucks picking apples, stooping for cucumbers

 

" .  .  provide for their families with a few bucks picking apples, stooping for cucumbers, chopping lettuce.

 

Jan 

MS-13 picks Apples ? I didn't know that.  How admirable of them.  

MS-13 chops lettuce ?  I always thought they chopped innocent people's heads off.

My bad.