Planet Rugby Forum

DragonKhan wrote:

saffer13 wrote:An interesting take, especially given our "technological advancements" with things from the past being permanent now...there is almost no allowance for redemption.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/03/us/racis ... index.html

The sheer balls on CNN to publish that when they are the biggest race baiters out there

saffer13 wrote:An interesting take, especially given our "technological advancements" with things from the past being permanent now...there is almost no allowance for redemption.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/03/us/racis ... index.html

houtkabouter wrote:Let’s get back to trump though.

Laziest president ever

https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-priv ... 34255.html

saffer13 wrote:Missed it if already posted on another thread and didn't need to start another U.S. political thread so might as well use this as the catch-all, which is what it's become anyway.

Gov. Northam (D) and Virginia making a few waves lately. First with abortion, now with KKK, blackface, and sexual assault allegations.

Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax issued a forceful pre-dawn denial on Monday to an allegation of sexual assault that surfaced after 15 years, in the latest political bombshell to rock Richmond where Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam is battling resignation calls over a racist photo from his medical school yearbook.
Fairfax, who would be next in line for governor should Northam bow to pressure and resign, called the allegation “defamatory” and “false.”

The allegation was first posted by Big League Politics, the same political blog that published the now-infamous yearbook photo showing someone in blackface and someone in a KKK costume, from Northam's 1984 yearbook page. Despite initially apologizing for appearing in the photo, he now denies either of the individuals is him.

I wonder if the Kav protesters will have as much to say about these unsubstantiated allegations? For the record, I'll still assume the innocent until proven guilty stance for him as well.

The blog, in the post that prompted Fairfax's denial, claimed that a fellow at Stanford University said a man sexually assaulted her at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Mass. “Imagine you were sexually assaulted during the DNC Convention in Boston in 2004 by a campaign staffer. You spend the next 13 years trying to forget it ever happened. Until one day you find out he’s the Democratic candidate for statewide office in a state some 3000 miles away, and he wins that election in November 2017,” a post from the reported accuser said, according to the blog. “Then, by strange, horrible luck, it seems increasingly likely that he’ll get a VERY BIG promotion.”

She did not name Fairfax, but the report implied she was referring to the lieutenant governor, who then responded to it.

But in his denial, Fairfax explained that the accuser “first approached the Washington Post” over a year ago, prior to his inauguration in 2018. “The Post carefully investigated the claim for several months,” Fairfax’s office said in a statement. “After being presented with facts consistent with the Lt. Governor’s denial of the allegation, the absence of any evidence corroborating the allegation, and significant red flags and inconsistencies within the allegation, the Post made the considered decision not to publish the story.”

Fairfax’s office added: “Tellingly, not one other reputable media outlet has seen fit to air this false claim. Only now, at a time of intense media attention surrounding Virginia politics, has this false claim been raised again.” “The Lt. Governor will take appropriate legal action against those attempting to spread this defamatory and false allegation,” the statement read.

Turbogoat wrote:

houtkabouter wrote:Let’s get back to trump though.

Laziest president ever

https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-priv ... 34255.html

Thank God for that. Imagine if he had a work ethic.

houtkabouter wrote:

saffer13 wrote:An interesting take, especially given our "technological advancements" with things from the past being permanent now...there is almost no allowance for redemption.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/03/us/racis ... index.html

Hypocrisy much?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo ... 40329.html

Kiwias wrote:An official at the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the HHS, stated in an official declaration to the court admitted that there are not sufficient staff to identity, find, and return to their natural parents all of the 1,500+ (they don't know the exact number). (#18)

Not only that, he also claimed that returning them to their actual parents would be harmful and disruptive to the child, because disrupting the family relationship is not recommended child welfare practice. (#23)

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/gov ... laration-2

Shame they didn't think of this before removing the children from their parents.

Turbogoat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:An official at the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the HHS, stated in an official declaration to the court admitted that there are not sufficient staff to identity, find, and return to their natural parents all of the 1,500+ (they don't know the exact number). (#18)

Not only that, he also claimed that returning them to their actual parents would be harmful and disruptive to the child, because disrupting the family relationship is not recommended child welfare practice. (#23)

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/gov ... laration-2

Shame they didn't think of this before removing the children from their parents.

Thank Stephen Miller for much of that apparently. It's emblematic of the whole administration to be so oblivious to the consequences, responsibilities or even just logistics of such an ill thought out operation designed to look good to the Trump base and little else.
They can't even work out how many children are lost in the system? Oh well, if they can't quantify them, they can't be a real issue. I bet they don't even vote.

saffer13 wrote:

houtkabouter wrote:

saffer13 wrote:An interesting take, especially given our "technological advancements" with things from the past being permanent now...there is almost no allowance for redemption.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/03/us/racis ... index.html

Hypocrisy much?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo ... 40329.html

I think you missed the point of my post

Blake wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:An official at the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the HHS, stated in an official declaration to the court admitted that there are not sufficient staff to identity, find, and return to their natural parents all of the 1,500+ (they don't know the exact number). (#18)

Not only that, he also claimed that returning them to their actual parents would be harmful and disruptive to the child, because disrupting the family relationship is not recommended child welfare practice. (#23)

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/gov ... laration-2

Shame they didn't think of this before removing the children from their parents.

Thank Stephen Miller for much of that apparently. It's emblematic of the whole administration to be so oblivious to the consequences, responsibilities or even just logistics of such an ill thought out operation designed to look good to the Trump base and little else.
They can't even work out how many children are lost in the system? Oh well, if they can't quantify them, they can't be a real issue. I bet they don't even vote.

I don't know why they didn't just tattoo numbers on the children in order to keep track of them. Seems so simple to do it that way.

Average Joe wrote:That's a great idea. Shave them bald and tattoo a barcode on the back of their heads.

Yer Man wrote:

Average Joe wrote:That's a great idea. Shave them bald and tattoo a barcode on the back of their heads.

And if they want to be free then they'll have to work for it

ManInTheBar wrote:

Yer Man wrote:

Average Joe wrote:That's a great idea. Shave them bald and tattoo a barcode on the back of their heads.

And if they want to be free then they'll have to work for it

Taranaki Snapper wrote:

ManInTheBar wrote:

Yer Man wrote:

Average Joe wrote:That's a great idea. Shave them bald and tattoo a barcode on the back of their heads.

And if they want to be free then they'll have to work for it

Spoiler: show

ManInTheBar wrote:
Not much evidence of freedom ne?

saffer13 wrote:Missed it if already posted on another thread and didn't need to start another U.S. political thread so might as well use this as the catch-all, which is what it's become anyway.

Gov. Northam (D) and Virginia making a few waves lately. First with abortion, now with KKK, blackface, and sexual assault allegations.

I wonder if the Kav protesters will have as much to say about these unsubstantiated allegations? For the record, I'll still assume the innocent until proven guilty stance for him as well.

BokJock wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Missed it if already posted on another thread and didn't need to start another U.S. political thread so might as well use this as the catch-all, which is what it's become anyway.

Gov. Northam (D) and Virginia making a few waves lately. First with abortion, now with KKK, blackface, and sexual assault allegations.

I wonder if the Kav protesters will have as much to say about these unsubstantiated allegations? For the record, I'll still assume the innocent until proven guilty stance for him as well.

Saffer13, what has happened to the Democrats caught up in this sort of stuff so far?

Kav is busy toasting his appointment to the SC with Squi, Tobin and PJ.

Roy Moore was endorsed by the President of the USA.

Turbogoat wrote:

BokJock wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Missed it if already posted on another thread and didn't need to start another U.S. political thread so might as well use this as the catch-all, which is what it's become anyway.

Gov. Northam (D) and Virginia making a few waves lately. First with abortion, now with KKK, blackface, and sexual assault allegations.

I wonder if the Kav protesters will have as much to say about these unsubstantiated allegations? For the record, I'll still assume the innocent until proven guilty stance for him as well.

Saffer13, what has happened to the Democrats caught up in this sort of stuff so far?

Kav is busy toasting his appointment to the SC with Squi, Tobin and PJ.

Roy Moore was endorsed by the President of the USA.

I look forward to the 5 working day FBI investigation into Northam without actually speaking to Northam at any point as much as anybody.

One good thing about this and the Steve King issue is that most other elected officials from the same party as the offender have been pretty united in calling for their resignation. At least the rest of them know how bad the optics are on this sort of stuff.

Maybe at some point there can be some sort of moment where it can be decided that enough time has passed, or society has changed so much over that period that it's considered too harsh to judge/condemn someone for their actions all those years ago.
Dressing up in blackface/KKK outfits in the mid 80's though? Probably not the watershed moment that sparks that idea though. That would've been a shit idea even back then.
It's not too much to ask to hold your elected officials to a higher standard, but it's getting harder to find those people who have led a perfect life beforehand (or at least don't have any evidence to prove otherwise)

Turbogoat wrote:

ManInTheBar wrote:
Not much evidence of freedom ne?

That was always the worst thing about the Nazis, the false advertising.

Taranaki Snapper wrote:

houtkabouter wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

houtkabouter wrote:

saffer13 wrote:An interesting take, especially given our "technological advancements" with things from the past being permanent now...there is almost no allowance for redemption.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/03/us/racis ... index.html

Hypocrisy much?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo ... 40329.html

I think you missed the point of my post

Oh I didn’t miss your point. You have two fall back options bullshit or deflection, exactly like your orange hero.

slick wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:

BokJock wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Missed it if already posted on another thread and didn't need to start another U.S. political thread so might as well use this as the catch-all, which is what it's become anyway.

Gov. Northam (D) and Virginia making a few waves lately. First with abortion, now with KKK, blackface, and sexual assault allegations.

I wonder if the Kav protesters will have as much to say about these unsubstantiated allegations? For the record, I'll still assume the innocent until proven guilty stance for him as well.

Saffer13, what has happened to the Democrats caught up in this sort of stuff so far?

Kav is busy toasting his appointment to the SC with Squi, Tobin and PJ.

Roy Moore was endorsed by the President of the USA.

I look forward to the 5 working day FBI investigation into Northam without actually speaking to Northam at any point as much as anybody.

One good thing about this and the Steve King issue is that most other elected officials from the same party as the offender have been pretty united in calling for their resignation. At least the rest of them know how bad the optics are on this sort of stuff.

Maybe at some point there can be some sort of moment where it can be decided that enough time has passed, or society has changed so much over that period that it's considered too harsh to judge/condemn someone for their actions all those years ago.
Dressing up in blackface/KKK outfits in the mid 80's though? Probably not the watershed moment that sparks that idea though. That would've been a shit idea even back then.
It's not too much to ask to hold your elected officials to a higher standard, but it's getting harder to find those people who have led a perfect life beforehand (or at least don't have any evidence to prove otherwise)

And do you want people who have led a perfect life.

Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a GOP effort to introduce a billl meant to protect abortion survivors, which came in response to comments last week by Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam that seemingly endorsed post-birth abortions in certain cases.

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse sought unanimous consent to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."

The bill, which exempted the mother involved in the birth from prosecution, also would have required practitioners to "ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital."

saffer13 wrote:Since I was slammed for trying to "lord over the woman's womb" earlier...how do you lot feel about this now that it impacts a baby, born and alive outside of the womb?

Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a GOP effort to introduce a billl meant to protect abortion survivors, which came in response to comments last week by Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam that seemingly endorsed post-birth abortions in certain cases.

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse sought unanimous consent to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."

The bill, which exempted the mother involved in the birth from prosecution, also would have required practitioners to "ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital."

BokJock wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Since I was slammed for trying to "lord over the woman's womb" earlier...how do you lot feel about this now that it impacts a baby, born and alive outside of the womb?

Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a GOP effort to introduce a billl meant to protect abortion survivors, which came in response to comments last week by Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam that seemingly endorsed post-birth abortions in certain cases.

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse sought unanimous consent to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."

The bill, which exempted the mother involved in the birth from prosecution, also would have required practitioners to "ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital."

What is the point of this bill, is it currently legal to withhold medical care to newborn babies?

"When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way," Northam said. "And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable."
Northam continued: "So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion."

The Virginia governor made the remark while discussing The Repeal Act, which sought to repeal restrictions on third-trimester abortions. Virginia Democratic Del. Kathy Tran, a sponsor, was asked at a hearing if a woman about to give birth and dilating could still request an abortion.

“My bill would allow that, yes,” she said. Existing state law does not put an absolute time limit on abortions and Tran's legislation does not alter that, but it does loosen restrictions on the need to get additional certification from doctors.

saffer13 wrote:Since I was slammed for trying to "lord over the woman's womb" earlier...how do you lot feel about this now that it impacts a baby, born and alive outside of the womb?

Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a GOP effort to introduce a billl meant to protect abortion survivors, which came in response to comments last week by Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam that seemingly endorsed post-birth abortions in certain cases.

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse sought unanimous consent to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."

The bill, which exempted the mother involved in the birth from prosecution, also would have required practitioners to "ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital."

saffer13 wrote:Well done nips, you can google.

saffer13 wrote:Since I was slammed for trying to "lord over the woman's womb" earlier...how do you lot feel about this now that it impacts a baby, born and alive outside of the womb?

Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a GOP effort to introduce a billl meant to protect abortion survivors, which came in response to comments last week by Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam that seemingly endorsed post-birth abortions in certain cases.

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse sought unanimous consent to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."

The bill, which exempted the mother involved in the birth from prosecution, also would have required practitioners to "ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital."

However, Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray objected to Sasse's bill, saying the legislation was unnecessary and amounted to a political stunt.

"We have laws against infanticide in this country," Murray said. "This is a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill that is being asked to be considered and therefore, I object."

saffer13 wrote:Turbo, if you look at the proposal and example the VA Gov. gave in that article, you'll see why that bill was/needed to protect a child after "failed" abortion.

saffer13 wrote:Turbo, if you look at the proposal and example the VA Gov. gave in that article, you'll see why that bill was/needed to protect a child after "failed" abortion.

Nipper - There are two occassions where I haven't posted a link. Don't fall into DT's exaggeration of "he never posts links" crap. The reaction to my post from you lot is the same with or without a link, so get over it.

Turbogoat wrote:

saffer13 wrote:Turbo, if you look at the proposal and example the VA Gov. gave in that article, you'll see why that bill was/needed to protect a child after "failed" abortion.

There's quite a lot going on in that article, which bit in particular were you referring to?