Thought for the day...

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
16,330
Most of the small towns out of Portland have been handling this problem much better that Portland because 'we' (I live in one of those small towns) won't allow that crap to happen here.
We see it, report it and something gets done, soon.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
16,330
A unanimous decision for a horrible abuse of power that should have never happened.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...les-nra-coercion-parkland-shooting-rcna151093
Supreme Court rules for NRA in New York government coercion battle
"Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors," liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the court in Thursday's ruling. The NRA, she added, plausibly alleges that Vullo "did just that."
...
The case saw the NRA get legal assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, which usually backs left-leaning causes. The ACLU said its decision to represent the gun rights group "reflects the importance of the First Amendment principles at stake in this case."
The brazen willingness to shred the Constitution in this case was, unfortunately typical.

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-spee...resenting-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court
Why the ACLU Represented the NRA
On March 18, the ACLU appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue another free speech case of great significance. In this case, the ACLU represented the National Rifle Association (NRA) against government overreach and censorship. Some may have wondered why the ACLU was representing the NRA, since the ACLU clearly opposes the NRA on gun control and the role of firearms in society. In fact, we abhor many of the group’s goals, strategies, and tactics. So, the reality that we have joined forces, notwithstanding those disagreements, reflects the importance of the First Amendment principles at stake in this case.

The ACLU made the decision to represent the NRA in this case because we are deeply concerned that if regulators can threaten the NRA for their political views in New York state, they can come after the ACLU and allied organizations in places where our agendas are unpopular.
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
16,330
As the flag turns.
The yellow Gadsden flag, which has a coiled rattlesnake and the words “Don’t Tread on Me,” is also displayed at the pavilion.
...
A spokesperson for Breed’s office said it was reviewing whether that flag should be removed as well.
 
Last edited:

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,762
Sad but true. I was influenced as a child by American industrial progress, speaking (more or less) the same language meant that books, movies, documentaries were all accessible to me. The Apollo moon project was a huge influence on me at the age of ten as was the general development of technology, especially computers and later electronics.

By the time I arrived here as an immigrant in 2001 at the age of 41, things had obviously changed from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, decades that formed the bulk of my image of the US. I lived initially in downtown Philadelphia and loved it, there was no trace of the homelessness and drug abuse we see there now, it was a vibrant and stimulating city, not as overwhelming as New York or London.

The first shock (if I can call it that) was that almost all cars did not look like this:

1717258861906.png

But much more like the silly little "hatchbacks" I saw in Britain, rounded bodies, all more or less clones of each other, little style and individuality, I wondered how could a country so admired for good style in cars suddenly lose interest where everyone's car was now 95% the same shape.

1717259007273.png


Since then I've watched other kinds of decline (I think the car issue above is a kind of aesthetic decline) and I see little prospect of this country ever returning to its former glory. There's far less optimism and ambition these days, people are gloomier, more angry. Behavior in general is more brittle, less tolerant, more wound up. There's a lot of truth to the adage "you don't know what you've got till it's gone".
 
Last edited:

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,762
Climate Change is a very interesting subject, an exercise in the interpretation of statistics. Some systems are too complex to model well and require empirical methods, the impact on the earth's climate by centuries of human industrial activity can really only be found by destructive testing which is pretty much what we are doing.

Too many people adopt a position based on rhetoric rather than logic, they align themselves with people rather than facts. This is clear from the way people's views on climate change are predictable from their choice of presidential candidate.

Those fearful of climate change and those dismissive of it, can each cite respectable sources and studies, every argument can be countered with some other untestable counter argument.

Getting an objective grasp of it all is not easy, taking sides based on rhetoric is much easier.
 
Top