Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

edit:why the hell do l have the US flag next to my avatar

has the USA annexed Scotland?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
edit:why the hell do l have the US flag next to my avatar

has the USA annexed Scotland?

You've been assimilated.

You'll probably start craving watery beer flavored liquids and processed cheese-like substances and fried foods on a stick.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
edit:why the hell do l have the US flag next to my avatar

has the USA annexed Scotland?

You've been assimilated.

You'll probably start craving watery beer flavored liquids and processed cheese-like substances and fried foods on a stick.

Football will begin to take on whole new meanings as well... then you'fl scoff at those "Silly F1 fans" and love NASCAR

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Allow me to jog your memory, but not so long ago, the Republican party deemed it wise to nominate one R.M.Nixon for the ticket

If not for Watergate I think Nixon might be remembered as the greatest modern president. I think he did an amazing job.

Ouze wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Allow me to jog your memory, but not so long ago, the Republican party deemed it wise to nominate one R.M.Nixon for the ticket

If not for Watergate I think Nixon might be remembered as the greatest modern president. I think he did an amazing job.

Yeah... Tricky Dicky was a very savvy statesman.

He also got the US off of the gold standard too, which spurn'ed the whole US Currancy as a global researve currency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just been catching up with the latest round of the email saga, and it only confirms what I've been saying for months: HRC is bullet proof.

The other side of the equation is that, because of her position and prominence, any case against her absolutely has to be bulletproof. The case has to be rock solid. Even a whiff of "party vs party witchhunt" means much of the public will automatically be biased in her favor. Our partisan politics are so bad that if a senator from one party punched a senator from the other party, there would be people in both parties believing the other was somehow to blame, and damn the facts.

What you're describing is that the DOJ *do* typically loathe to *investigate* political candidates during the election season.

My sense is that the Intelligence Community (IC), are the ones leaking all these tidbits of information to force the government to investigate HRC.

My guess is that they're *pissed* off that HRC flouted against the classification laws.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
edit:why the hell do l have the US flag next to my avatar

has the USA annexed Scotland?

Come over the pond my wayward child and learn how to BBQ
And impress everyone on how much American Beer you can consume.

Speaking of BBQ, I did up a 9 pound brisket on the smoker today. Damned it is TASTY!

'Murica!

Please tell me this is too good to be true...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tips-deleting-emails-email-book-hillary-clinton-wanted/story?id=33046042

 jasper76 wrote:
Yup. Trump is pretty steady at 25 or so, with the remaining going to the others. When the voters settle on their establishment candidate, whether that be a Bush or a Rubio or whatever, that 75% will likely coalesce behind him, while Trump will likely peak at 25%. That's my prediction anyways. I have to believe that the majority of Republican voters are smarter than to want to nominate a sideshow like Trump.

I agree, but I'm not sure the other 75% are looking elsewhere because Trump is lacking in substance. In terms of policy, what's being spouted by each Republican candidate is about as ridiculous as what Trump is saying.

The other candidates are more measured in their answers and they're certainly a lot more diplomatic, but that's about it. If someone decides that Trump’s angry nonsense about Mexico and China is bad, but they’re happy with Bush’s promise of 4% growth through the sheer power of Jeb!, their decision wasn’t really made based on rational political assessment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Allow me to jog your memory, but not so long ago, the Republican party deemed it wise to nominate one R.M.Nixon for the ticket

Say what you want about Nixon's morality, especially once he reached the Oval Office, but the guy was in politics for a long time, and was a serious and heavy hitter throughout. So the comparison doesn’t really work.

 whembly wrote:
Please tell me this is too good to be true...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tips-deleting-emails-email-book-hillary-clinton-wanted/story?id=33046042

Hmm, but did she get the chance to read the book?

 whembly wrote:
He also got the US off of the gold standard too, which spurn'ed the whole US Currancy as a global researve currency.

Being the global reserve is actually fairly close to meaningless. That's not a thing that really does anyone any good.

But being off the gold standard allowed for flexible money management, which after the early stagflation balls up, has been instrumental in the 'great moderation', that long period of time where the booms and busts of the economy were far more measured.

lawl

Dr. Ben Carson says we shouldn't do research with aborted fetal tissue, like Dr. Ben Carson did.

I think it's going to be pretty tough to talk his way out of this one.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
edit:why the hell do l have the US flag next to my avatar

has the USA annexed Scotland?

You've been assimilated.

You'll probably start craving watery beer flavored liquids and processed cheese-like substances and fried foods on a stick.

Never! Never! Rule Britannia!

Actually, I'm Scottish independence and trying to break away from Britain! Scratch that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
edit:why the hell do l have the US flag next to my avatar

has the USA annexed Scotland?

You've been assimilated.

You'll probably start craving watery beer flavored liquids and processed cheese-like substances and fried foods on a stick.

Football will begin to take on whole new meanings as well... then you'fl scoff at those "Silly F1 fans" and love NASCAR

I hate F1 anyway


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Allow me to jog your memory, but not so long ago, the Republican party deemed it wise to nominate one R.M.Nixon for the ticket

If not for Watergate I think Nixon might be remembered as the greatest modern president. I think he did an amazing job.

If not for Vietnam, LBJ would probably have won a second term, and we'd never have heard of Nixon, except as minor footnote of US history. If anybody was a match for Nixon, it was LBJ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Allow me to jog your memory, but not so long ago, the Republican party deemed it wise to nominate one R.M.Nixon for the ticket

If not for Watergate I think Nixon might be remembered as the greatest modern president. I think he did an amazing job.

Yeah... Tricky Dicky was a very savvy statesman.

He also got the US off of the gold standard too, which spurn'ed the whole US Currancy as a global researve currency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just been catching up with the latest round of the email saga, and it only confirms what I've been saying for months: HRC is bullet proof.

The other side of the equation is that, because of her position and prominence, any case against her absolutely has to be bulletproof. The case has to be rock solid. Even a whiff of "party vs party witchhunt" means much of the public will automatically be biased in her favor. Our partisan politics are so bad that if a senator from one party punched a senator from the other party, there would be people in both parties believing the other was somehow to blame, and damn the facts.

What you're describing is that the DOJ *do* typically loathe to *investigate* political candidates during the election season.

My sense is that the Intelligence Community (IC), are the ones leaking all these tidbits of information to force the government to investigate HRC.

My guess is that they're *pissed* off that HRC flouted against the classification laws.

The intelligence community knows where their bread is buttered. They don't want to annoy a potential new president either, as new job opportunities and promotions will be getting handed out in 2017. They have to back the right horse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
edit:why the hell do l have the US flag next to my avatar

has the USA annexed Scotland?

Come over the pond my wayward child and learn how to BBQ
And impress everyone on how much American Beer you can consume.

If I want lessons on BBQ I'll go to Australia, THE masters of BBQ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Yup. Trump is pretty steady at 25 or so, with the remaining going to the others. When the voters settle on their establishment candidate, whether that be a Bush or a Rubio or whatever, that 75% will likely coalesce behind him, while Trump will likely peak at 25%. That's my prediction anyways. I have to believe that the majority of Republican voters are smarter than to want to nominate a sideshow like Trump.

I agree, but I'm not sure the other 75% are looking elsewhere because Trump is lacking in substance. In terms of policy, what's being spouted by each Republican candidate is about as ridiculous as what Trump is saying.

The other candidates are more measured in their answers and they're certainly a lot more diplomatic, but that's about it. If someone decides that Trump’s angry nonsense about Mexico and China is bad, but they’re happy with Bush’s promise of 4% growth through the sheer power of Jeb!, their decision wasn’t really made based on rational political assessment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Allow me to jog your memory, but not so long ago, the Republican party deemed it wise to nominate one R.M.Nixon for the ticket

Say what you want about Nixon's morality, especially once he reached the Oval Office, but the guy was in politics for a long time, and was a serious and heavy hitter throughout. So the comparison doesn’t really work.

People knew full well Nixon's dark side from his California days and his campaign against Kennedy. They knew what they were buying into.

Well aren't politics weird. You've got a party leadership campaign over there with a guy ahead in the polls whom everyone else really hopes doesn't win, and we've got one over here that's almost the same.
The only differences are that yours is conservative whilst ours is labour, and yours doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell whilst ours looks like he's going to romp home.

It's an entertaining time to be a politics spectator.

 Henry wrote:
Well aren't politics weird. You've got a party leadership campaign over there with a guy ahead in the polls whom everyone else really hopes doesn't win, and we've got one over here that's almost the same.
The only differences are that yours is conservative whilst ours is labour, and yours doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell whilst ours looks like he's going to romp home.

It's an entertaining time to be a politics spectator.

I think if Corbyn gets the nod, it's likely to trigger a civil war in the Labour party.

Edit: will somebody get rid of that bloody US flag next to my avatar!!!

I think I'm being punished for starting a Confederate army last month!!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Henry wrote:
Well aren't politics weird. You've got a party leadership campaign over there with a guy ahead in the polls whom everyone else really hopes doesn't win, and we've got one over here that's almost the same.
The only differences are that yours is conservative whilst ours is labour, and yours doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell whilst ours looks like he's going to romp home.

It's an entertaining time to be a politics spectator.

I think if Corbyn gets the nod, it's likely to trigger a civil war in the Labour party.

Edit: will somebody get rid of that bloody US flag next to my avatar!!!

I think I'm being punished for starting a Confederate army last month!!

No, you are being punished for saying Australia has better BBQ! Heathen!

Ouze wrote:
lawl

Dr. Ben Carson says we shouldn't do research with aborted fetal tissue, like Dr. Ben Carson did.

I think it's going to be pretty tough to talk his way out of this one.

John Hopkins Hospital IIRC has a huge tissue bank of all stages and ages.

 Jihadin wrote:

Ouze wrote:
lawl

Dr. Ben Carson says we shouldn't do research with aborted fetal tissue, like Dr. Ben Carson did.

I think it's going to be pretty tough to talk his way out of this one.

John Hopkins Hospital IIRC has a huge tissue bank of all stages and ages.

Yeah, I think Carson's counterargument was that his source was "legit" in that the fetal tissue came from fetuses that were already dead or something, and not aborted. I can see that argument.

However, there is a failure in that logic. By extension, that also means he, and other doctors like him, should refuse to use tissue and organs from, say, murder victims. Can you just imagine a doctor telling a patient "we found a heart that matches you, but it's from a murder victim so I won't do the transplant"?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Ouze wrote:
lawl

Dr. Ben Carson says we shouldn't do research with aborted fetal tissue, like Dr. Ben Carson did.

I think it's going to be pretty tough to talk his way out of this one.

John Hopkins Hospital IIRC has a huge tissue bank of all stages and ages.

Yeah, I think Carson's counterargument was that his source was "legit" in that the fetal tissue came from fetuses that were already dead or something, and not aborted.

The samples came from aborted fetuses. And his justification is "to not use those tissues that were available would be wrong", although it appears that this is an inadequate excuse for Planned Parenthood according to him.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Ouze wrote:
lawl

Dr. Ben Carson says we shouldn't do research with aborted fetal tissue, like Dr. Ben Carson did.

I think it's going to be pretty tough to talk his way out of this one.

John Hopkins Hospital IIRC has a huge tissue bank of all stages and ages.

Yeah, I think Carson's counterargument was that his source was "legit" in that the fetal tissue came from fetuses that were already dead or something, and not aborted. I can see that argument.

However, there is a failure in that logic. By extension, that also means he, and other doctors like him, should refuse to use tissue and organs from, say, murder victims. Can you just imagine a doctor telling a patient "we found a heart that matches you, but it's from a murder victim so I won't do the transplant"?

If the murder victim was an organ donor there would not be an issue as the victim, prior to being a victim, agreed to provide organs when dead. In fact, without that consent I don't think the organs can be used.

Seeing as dakka has decided that I'm now a US citizen

I thought I'd ask a slightly OT question that will probably provoke a groan from some people, but here it is: should we have another second amendment debate on dakka?

I ask because I have been reading some fascinating articles on the 2nd, and have been watching a great documentary about it, with regard to one very simple, but complex question:

Is the 2nd amendment a collective right (militia) or an individual right?

A simple question, but I had no idea how much of an argument rages round that question.

Yeah, I know about the Heller case, but the historical content around this issue is amazing with scholars and lawyers on both sides arguing about this. James Madison, constitutional conventions in the 1780s/90s, English common law, dozens of court cases etc etc have all been mentioned.

It really got me thinking, and I'm not sure what the answer is, Does it apply only to militia? Or the individual? Or both? Or none?

Anyway, are people up for a debate on that?

Let's not do a 2nd amendment debate in this thread, please.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Let's not do a 2nd amendment debate in this thread, please.

Wasn't my intention. Just trying to gauge the mood before starting a separate thread.

I imagine if you started a thread about the Second Amendment, it would be well populated with responses, until it got locked up.b it's probably one of the most contentious and divisive political issues in the US.

Isn't the accusation against Plan Parenthood is profit (personnel?) on aborted tissue though?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Let's not do a 2nd amendment debate in this thread, please.

Wasn't my intention. Just trying to gauge the mood before starting a separate thread.

Have at it in a different thread. I'll contribute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Isn't the accusation against Plan Parenthood is profit (personnel?) on aborted tissue though?

Yes.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If I want lessons on BBQ I'll go to Australia, THE masters of BBQ

HERESY!!!


@jasper... I tend to agree with you on that one. I think that just about the only issue that can get the same kind of response from people IRL, is abortion. Here on dakka we have the triumvirate of "contentious topics" (gunz, religionz, and abortion)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


If I want lessons on BBQ I'll go to Australia, THE masters of BBQ

HERESY!!!


@jasper... I tend to agree with you on that one. I think that just about the only issue that can get the same kind of response from people IRL, is abortion. Here on dakka we have the triumvirate of "contentious topics" (gunz, religionz, and abortion)

I don't know. I've had Australian beer, and it's even worse than American beer, so it's possible their BBQ is better.

But I doubt it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It really got me thinking, and I'm not sure what the answer is, Does it apply only to militia? Or the individual? Or both? Or none?

I agree that we definitely should not do this debate here, in this thread.

That being said I'd like to address the quoted question as an extremely brief digression because I can answer it fairly quickly and definitively - "Whether or not the right to bear arms is only in furtherance of a militia in the US". This will probably surprise you but that was actually an open question for a really, really long time. It was relatively recently answered in a case called Heller vs DC. The Supreme Court unambiguously answered the question you pose, and as such, from a legal standpoint, you have your answer (it's not connected to militia service).

If you want to question whether it's a good ruling, or whether that's the way it should be, you should start a new thread, but if you just want to know the answer as asked, read the link, it answers it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Isn't the accusation against Plan Parenthood is profit (personnel?) on aborted tissue though?

Yes, and the first investigation already concluded that this didn't happen.

Going back to why Dr. Ben Carson is a huge fat lying hypocrite, he went beyond saying that we shouldn't collect aborted fetal tissue in general, and said that organs and tissue from aborted fetuses aren't needed for medical research (while doing exactly what he said is totally unnecessary). Which is, to be clear, a big, steamy load of horsecrap. And he knows it's a big, steamy pile of horsecrap, but he feels free to say it anyway because he knows perfectly well that his supporters aren't going to dig into what he says critically.

Ouze wrote:
lawl

Dr. Ben Carson says we shouldn't do research with aborted fetal tissue, like Dr. Ben Carson did.

I think it's going to be pretty tough to talk his way out of this one.

His facebook response doesn't line up with his other response.....

https://www.facebook.com/realbencarson/posts/513020902197714

I wanted to use our time tonight to directly deal with an attack launched on me today by the left and the media. A couple questions came in on this subject, so I want to address it head on.

Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true. The study they distributed by an anonymous source was done in 1992. The study was about tumors. I won’t bore you with the science. There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. I spent my life studying brain tumors and removing them. My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients. Those tissue samples were compared to other tissue samples under a microscope. Pathologists do this work to gain clues about tumors.

I, nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing. Research hospitals across the country have microscope slides of all kinds of tissue to compare and contrast. The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study.........