UK scientists can not verify source of Salisbury nerve agent - www.independent.ie

#24 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2018-04-03 04:54 PM | REPLY

I am curious. How do you reconcile this comment with your post at #18? You either can't believe what is reported per your post #18, or you can believe what is reported, per your post #24. It's almost as if you have a pre-determined position that you are seeking to advance and support. Surely not.

#10 - Since he became President, we have all learned far more about Trump than most of us ever wanted to know. Based on what we've been forced to learn, what are the chances that Melania married for love? It's not impossible, but really? And if she did not marry for love, then why and what does it say about her character? Nothing good in my book.

"WOW. I suppose that means the sea level was much lower then.

#2 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-03-03 11:49 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"

Was it this statement from above that gave you a clue?

"Researchers say the water level in the Gulf of Mexico 7,000 years ago was about 30 feet below compared to today."

I took a quick look at the Broward County document that set out the details of the policy and it seems to me that it relates to misdemeanors. It specifically states that " Behavior that rises to the level of a felony.... are not included herein."

Without claiming any US legal knowledge, another quick search seems to indicate that except for a domestic violence misdemeanor, misdemeanors in general on a persons record do not prevent a gun purchase in Florida. Felony crimes are taken into account.

"..not the dangers of everyday London.
www.youtube.com

#91 | POSTED BY PEGASUS AT 2018-02-25 01:10 AM | FLAG: "

Of course London has crime - it is a major city with a population of around 9m, so it would be amazing if crime did not exist. Does it have so much crime that, as you have stated, " everyone carries a weapon"? No. Nor does anyone carry a cricket bat for self-defense, as you suggested.

Is knife crime rising? Yes. Is it a problem? Yes, but here are 3 quotes from the sources you posted to put it in perspective:

"London is one of the safest cities in the world ..." Sadiq Khan Mayor of London

"The Home Office says knife crime remains below levels in 2010 but it recognises there is more to be done. " BBC

"There were 80 fatal stabbings in London last year, the highest number for almost a decade" - Met view

If you feel you need to be armed to walk around in London, that's up to you but I assure you that you will be in a small minority. The vast majority of Londoners do not feel the need to arm themselves to deal with the "everyday dangers of London" - it's that simple.

"My co-worker carried a cricket bat. Always stopped and harassed by the bobbies till I gave him a sharpened screwdriver.
Never left the London office unless I was carrying something.

#85 | POSTED BY PEGASUS AT 2018-02-24 09:21 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I'm going to have to call b/s on the whole cricket bat thing too. You might conceivably keep a cricket bat in your car as a potential weapon ( as an American might keep a baseball bat ), but there is no way anyone carries one around. Too big, too heavy and really, just too weird.

Ice picks, sharpened screwdrivers - somehow I doubt this is true either, but if it is, it really reflects your paranoia, not the dangers of everyday London.

From the article:

"The rise of populism challenges Mr Pinker's thesis. Supporters of Donald Trump, Brexit and various authoritarian parties in Europe tend to believe that the old days were golden, that experts can't be trusted and the institutions of liberal democracy are a conspiracy to enrich the elite. Some want to tear down these institutions and start again -- which would at the very least interrupt the incremental progress that Mr Pinker champions.

Without downplaying the risks, he remains optimistic. The checks and balances that populists decry are reasonably effective in most rich countries and will outlast the current crop of demagogues. Supporters of populism will become disillusioned, or will simply die off."

So are we buying everything the author has to say, or are we being selective?

"UK is gun free as well. But everyone carries a weapon of somesort. When I was working there, I carried an ice pick.

#73 | POSTED BY PEGASUS AT 2018-02-24 03:41 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

The everyone carries a weapon part is absolute b/s.

"It's unlikely that I would run into a building where shots are being fired, but if someone were shooting at me and I had a weapon, I very likely would use it to defend myself. See the difference?

#10 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2018-02-24 10:37 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"

A somewhat random comment, but I assume you are making the point that an armed teacher facing a shooter will use a gun for defense.

It is my understanding that the suggestion is that some teachers be armed, not all teachers - I think Trump indicated 20%, so 1 in 5. Under your logic, if the shooter choses a classroom where the teacher is unarmed ( a 4:1 chance ), then you would not expect an armed teacher nearby to run into the classroom under attack. Having armed teachers under these circumstances has a limited useful outcome.

Should an armed teacher abandon his/her assigned class to protect another under attack? Some attacks have more than one culprit. What if a teacher choses to assist an unarmed teacher under attack and exposes his/her class to attack by a second individual? Should a teacher even be asked to make this decision? I've just scratched the surface with my examples - the real world problems of arming teachers are far more significant than those advocating the approach chose to acknowledge.

The whole idea arming teachers is ill-considered. There is no greater sign of America's disfunction in my eyes than an inability of it's citizens, regardless of political allegiance, to determine that the best way to protect their children is to prevent guns from getting on campus, rather than reacting with off-setting force once the gunfire starts.

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I find the idea that someone literally follows Trump everywhere carrying the means to start nuclear war absurd. A throwback to the Cold War that could do with revisiting.

^#98 - Why amazing?

I expect a memo which is designed to mislead by omission to be shorter than a memo designed to fully inform. Don't you?

#4 - Vaughan's playing had "no substance" - really?

"You rely on fake news publishing fake polls that lead to your surprise when Trump won in a landslide. You might as well link to Huff Post polls. Enjoy your daily dose of truth.

#53 | POSTED BY REX_BUYT AT 2018-02-10 07:40 PM | REPLY"

Are you seriously claiming that Trump won in a landslide? While there seems to be no generally accepted definition, this link gives guidance:

"The President understands that America needs an American 2-party system including Democratic ideals and Democratic opposition.

#23 | POSTED BY 2FRED AT 2018-02-06 08:15 AM | REPLY | FLAG"

As an outsider with a keen interest in all things American, I wish I could say that I have seen any evidence of Trump being interested in anything but his own perceived success. Trump has displayed a remarkable lack of understanding for the actual workings of the American political system and even more regrettably, absolutely no sign that he is interested in learning.

Trump does not want a functioning 2 party system - he wants a 1 man system, with 2 parties playing a support role to make him look good to his base.

"GOP mega-donor Charles Koch and his wife donated about $500,000 to Speaker Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) joint fundraising committee, just days after the GOP tax plan was passed."

Link:

#14 - I am not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but the language in your post is definitely odd. I seriously doubt English is your first language. Anyway, it was a good rant on your part - rubbish, but a good rant.

Here is a link to an article which explains how Trump lied.