"Now read this one: Finland's government resigns over failed healthcare reform www.bbc.com

But no worries as I am sure the dems have it all figured out and can do it cheaper.

#20 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2019-04-07 04:46 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

Finland has an aging population and shrinking tax base, so in common with many industrialized countries, it needs to review and possibly reform some of it's healthcare system. But then again Finland has the top ranked healthcare system in the world:

"If Trump cheats on his score, he is a piker compared to Bill Clinton.

#2 | POSTED BY DOCNJO AT 2019-03-31 11:05 AM | FLAG: "

Trump did not cheat on his score, like Clinton supposedly did. If the story is true, then he cheated on his playing partner's score by throwing his ball into a bunker. You probably don't see any difference, which would be par for the course.

Well that didn't last long.

" Alot of the time, open carry means "Leave me alone". Some people dont want to be talked to when they are in public. They dont want to be harrassed or asked questions. They dont want to be engaged. See, liberals need that. They have to have someone else to bother. Someone else to get money from. Someone else to get "support" from.

Not everyone needs that.

#6 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-03-10 11:30 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"

If I was in the presence of someone open carrying who I did not know, I would definitely feel engaged. I would probably feel harassed because I cannot know the mental state of the armed individual and whether he is simply exercising his 2nd amendment right or is mentally unstable. Their possession of a weapon would definitely bother me. Somehow I get the feeling that my rights to enjoy using a public space without fear comes second to the right of a gun owner to intimidate by open carrying.

Apart from ignoring the rights of non-open carry citizens go about their business without feeling threatened by an armed individual they don't know, your post indicates that you think the use of a gun is acceptable to deter someone from talking or asking questions. Because if you don't think this, your post makes no sense. Given that this thread is about the " stand your ground" principle, I'm half inclined to think that you believe shooting someone for persistently talking or asking questions is a legitimate response. Spoiler alert - it is not.

Curious that the gene seems to be missing around his eyes.

#271 - I have already posted that at this stage I wouldn't trust what either party said; they are both in CYA mode. If Phillips has lied, then he is stupid given the attention the incident has generated but lying after the event does not change the substance of the event. It reduces the credibility of anything he says, but does not change the images of the face off.

I have one interpretation of the images; you have another. If this wasn't the case, albeit on a larger scale, we would not be debating this issue at all

I'm about to get on a plane - I wouldn't want you to think I've fled the thread!

"Phillips walked into the crowd and stopped in front of Sandmann (by his own admission) because he didn't move. Numerous accounts in The Atlantic, Newsweek and the NYT confirm this.

Go ahead and condemn this young man for not moving out of the way if it makes you feel better about your position.

#241 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-01-29 03:39 PM | FLAG: "

So - no-where in your previous post can you point out where Phillips indicated that he approached Sandmann, rather than the crowd. As I said.

Here are Phillips own words from a CNN interview:

"I needed to retreat somehow, but the only way I could retreat at that moment, is what I see, is just to go forward, and when I started going forward and that mass of groups of people started separating and moving aside to allow me to move out of the way or to proceed, this young fellow put himself in front of me and wouldn't move."

I've acknowledged he walked into the crowd which his words support. I have not seen video of the exact moment they came face to face, but viewed other video which to me suggested Sandmann moved towards Phillips - " .. this young fellow put himself in front of me." I think we've already established that you have a comprehension issue, so maybe you don't read this as Sandmann approaching Phillips.

I do, not because I dislike red hats, but because what I've seen and read supports this view.

"I love how Foreigner has fled the thread now that his whole " What I have seen shows the Elder randomly walking surrounded by other kids but no hostility as such until the confrontation starts. Show me a video supporting your position and I'll gladly reconsider" narrative has been shown to be completely incorrect by both Nathan Phillips himself and the New York Times.

#176 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-01-29 01:49 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

Apparently I have fled the thread, as opposed to having other things to do with my day! Let's hope the rest of your assessment is more accurate.

Let's see:

"" I have seen no video which indicates that the Elder approached this particular kid."

How about Nathan Phillips himself, would you believe him?

"It was a provocative image that rocketed across social media, leading many, including the students' own school, to condemn the boys' behavior as disrespectful. But on Sunday, Mr. Phillips clarified that it was he who had approached the crowd and that he had intervened because racial tensions -- primarily between the white students and the black men -- were "coming to a boiling point."

Is the New York Times confirming this enough for you to drop your preconceived bias?

"Marcus Frejo, an Indigenous hip-hop artist who is also known as Quese Imc, said he was standing with a friend near the black men when tensions flickered. He said he was worried "something ugly" was going to happen.

Around that time, he said, Mr. Phillips approached, asking to borrow a drum. Together, they headed into the center of the students, creating a sort of prayer circle."
NYT: Fuller Picture Emerges of Viral Video of Native American Man and Catholic Students

#153 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-01-29 12:16 PM | FLAG: "

Part of my post from earlier:

" I agree that the Elder engaged the kids if you want to use that description in the broadest sense. I do not agree that the Elder approached the specific kid that we are all focused on.

#124 | POSTED BY FOREIGNER AT 2019-01-28 11:01 PM | FLAG: "

You seem to have a comprehension problem, as I have already readily agreed that the Elder approached the crowd of boys - post #124. I saw this with my own eyes.

What I have not seen with my own eyes is the Elder specifically approaching and confronting Sandmann. If you can point to any part of the text you posted which indicates that Phillips approached Sandman specifically, which is and has been the point of my focus, as opposed to the group generally, please do. Otherwise I'm going to have to conclude that the second part of your post is no more accurate than the first.

As for whether I would believe Nathan Phillips, at this point I would not believe either party, Phillips nor Sandmann, if their explanations are not supported by video, because each is now under pressure from a variety of sources to tow their respective party lines. It's CYA time all around, but particularly for the kid.

JeffJ - I just re-read my post #139. Have you misunderstood my opening line? I refer to an article but it is not the article you posted at the top.

#149 - Actually JeffJ he is a conservative, with libertarian leanings, although he holds a number of more liberal opinions on things like gay rights ( he is gay ), progressive taxation etc. He was born in the UK of British parents but is now a naturalized US citizen. He is a practicing Catholic and his religion informs his world view. He was a strong supporter of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan back in the day and has mainly supported GOP candidates since, with occasional support for democrat and independent candidates.

Not surprising then that he is worked up about the anti-gay and anti-Catholic insults of the BHI and is pissed off that they haven't come in for more criticism. He may be right, but I don't see what that has to do with the interaction which has everyone's attention.

I have been familiar with his work for many years; I do not have enough regard for him to take his word for anything. In something like this issue there is no article I have read which does not start with an agenda - some noted in this thread - so I watched the videos. How I interpret the videos is set out above. Others see things differently, but always in a way which supports their pre-existing partisan bias. That is the world we live in now.

#127 - The article you posted refers to the kid as " the smiling boy". He can be seen in some shots smiling; there even may be a brief hint of a smile during the confrontation, but if you believe that the expression on the kids face for the vast majority of the face off is a " smile", then indeed one of us is wrong and it's not me.

I have seen no video which indicates that the Elder approached this particular kid. What I have seen shows the Elder randomly walking surrounded by other kids but no hostility as such until the confrontation starts. Show me a video supporting your position and I'll gladly reconsider, but trotting out articles where the author thinks the description " smiling boy " is accurate won't cut it. It merely indicates that the author starts with an agenda and as such I give it and your rebuttal which relies on it, no weight.

#116 - JeffJ - I would be interested to see a link to any video showing the scenario you outline.

I agree that the Elder engaged the kids if you want to use that description in the broadest sense. I do not agree that the Elder approached the specific kid that we are all focused on.

I have watched the 1hr plus video and others, with particular emphasis on trying to determine how the two protagonists came face to face. In the videos I have seen, particularly the long video, the boy can clearly be seen to the left of the elder in shots just before they are shown together; as far as I can tell the elder does not move, the boy comes to him, surrounded by other boys. There is a brief period when the two are not shown and then the kid is alone and in his face.

My view is that the kid did not deserve the attention he got on a personal level, but what he represented, as I outlined above, does.

Whenever I read one of these threads I end up wondering whether the right wingers on DR can walk and chew gum at the same time.

It is quite possible for the behavior of the Hebrew Israelites to be truly objectionable and for the boys behavior to also be objectionable; maybe not as crude, nor as scatter shot, but more troubling to me for the broader implications .

I watched the video and saw a small group of obnoxious religious fanatics insulting just about anyone within earshot. This is a group with virtually zero political power and no chance of influencing the US in the future. I also saw a group of native Americans who represented a defeated people trying to hold onto their cultural heritage and who again have virtually zero political power and little chance of gaining any going forward.

Then I saw a third group made up of privately educated adolescents, mostly white and probably from wealthy backgrounds, who attend a single sex, religious school and who were taking part in what was essentially an anti-abortion rally. This is a combination of characteristics that suggests that the MAGA clothing and hats they were wearing were more than simply fashion statements; they were a statement of participation in Trump's ideology.

The kids were behaving like soccer hooligans; I recognize many of their chants from European soccer and this I can shrug off as the boisterous behavior of kids let of the leash. I can also recognize the slight change in attitude of the group as they start to surround the Indian Elder - again I have witnessed this in soccer crowds as the mood changes. The ultimate expression of the mood change is one kid standing, challenging and smirking. If you doubt the validity of this description, watch the videos. He can be seen in a number of shots actually smiling and it is not the same.

In challenging the Elder, in standing his ground and later explaining that " I have the right to be there", he represented one face of America's ruling class - the face that Trump represents with his many expressions of racial prejudice and lack of respect for just about anyone not called Trump. This is what disturbed me; the kid encapsulated much of what makes Trump unacceptable to millions of Americans and worse represented the passing of the flame to a new generation.

" - The video demonstrates that a wall alone is not a deterrent.

No one ever said it was. That's just a strawman the open borders lobby keeps regurgitating.

#11 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-01-25 10:56 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Really?

"Without the barrier they stroll across the border and are safely headed to a sanctuary city or state. Good job, CBP.

#7 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-01-25 10:08 AM | FLAG: "

Well you seem to be very complimentary about a wall just a few posts above.

" The only reason these people got caught was that the barrier slowed them down.

#12 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-01-25 11:00 AM | FLAG: "

No. The reason these people were caught was because the surveillance equipment picked them up in time for the CBP to respond. Without that notification, the CBP would not have known they were even there, except as I said before, if a CBP agent happened to come across them.

The video demonstrates that a wall alone is not a deterrent.

It was the use of electronic surveillance equipment plus appropriate man-power which lead to the apprehension; without the surveillance equipment, these guys would not have been noticed, wall or no wall, unless a CBP agent happened to stumble over them. The Yuma area is also one of the more accessible areas of terrain, with it's own CBP station, so response time is presumably relatively short.

How much would it cost to provide this level of electronic surveillance along the whole wall? How much for each section to be manned so that response times are sufficiently short everywhere to apprehend people who climb over? The CBP website explains that some areas covered by them are so inaccessible that agents on horseback are the only way to patrol. How close to a breach would a horse patrol have to be to be effective?

If you have to establish an electronic surveillance system along the whole border, plus man each section so that the response time to an electronically identified breach is short enough so that an interception can be successfully executed, why do you need a wall, except in urban or other areas where someone crossing the border can disappear too quickly to be apprehended under any reasonable circumstance?

Answer: to fulfill Trump's mindless campaign promise to his unthinking base

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Andrew Wakefield.

He is a disgraced British doctor responsible in large part for the rise of the anti-vaxxer movement in the UK and subsequently in the US. His original work was published in the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet. From the link below:

"The paper, later retracted by The Lancet, helped lead to a drop-off in vaccination rates and an increase in outbreak diseases such as measles, not only in Britain and Europe, but in the US. The doctor was subsequently found guilty by the British General Medical Council (GMC) of three-dozen charges, including dishonesty and abuse of children, and struck off the medical register.

Yet two decades later, Wakefield, unable to practice in the UK, has remade himself in Donald Trump's America, travelling the country to promote views experts say have had deadly consequences and seemingly finding an ally in the president."

Link:

#106 - I'm surprised you have no words. I thought Trumpers had all the good words.

The narrative has proven to be more complex and of course disputed, that I agree. But my original assertion is that the court of public opinion will not find in favor of the kid and rightly so in my view. You don't agree with me and that doesn't bother me in the least.

"You've seen picture with captions that confirm your bias and I've seen multi videos, some lasting over an hour, that show what happened prior to this image.

Smug white kid, insufferable smirk seeking to intimidate, you can get that from an image? If the races were reversed what would you see?
#103 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2019-01-21 12:12 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

Given that the defenses of the kid all relate to some form of " jumping to conclusions" it's interesting that you assume that all I've seen is a picture. Wrong. I've watched a number of videos, particularly once I understood there is a back story, including a group called the Hebrew Israelites.

Try as I may, I cannot see anything in the behavior and demeanor of the kid to change my opinion; I tried looking at it from his perspective but I cannot change his smile from conveying white superiority to good natured banter; I cannot change his smirk into a sign of nerves or discomfort. Like I said, the optics are just not in the kids favor and probably don't deserve to be.

"The kid stood motionless in what I would categorize as an example of remarkable restraint, lest any movement be mistaken as hostility by a possibly deranged individual beating a drum in his face.

#87 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2019-01-21 10:30 AM | FLAG: "

You may have seen this and I fully expect the DR right to support your view, but I suspect the majority of viewers without your partisan bias sees a smug white kid with a MAGA hat and an insufferable smirk seeking to intimidate an elderly Indian chief. Good luck in the court of public opinion with those optics

When your President inspires this kind of behavior, shabby is quite possibly not a strong enough word.