ronjanec » February 4th, 2017, 8:36 pm wrote:Unfortunately, we can't fire this guy right? Federal judges are appointed for life unless they do something criminal?
by ronjanec on February 4th, 2017, 4:35 pm
Say what you want Dave, but Trump using 'Twitter' to have his say and then very effectively bypass a very hostile and very biased press against him(and other conservatives) is nothing short of brilliant.
"It's quite extraordinary to have the president of the United States saying publicly, repeatedly, that what we are going to try to do is to single out a constitutionally-protected group," he told Ars. "It's quite strong evidence, and it would be remarkable if the plaintiffs didn't rely on it."
"Because those are the folks that are usually saying those sorts of things that are on the public record," he said. "The president doesn’t typically say racist things out loud where everyone can see it.
Dave_C » February 5th, 2017, 3:45 pm wrote:Wouldn't that money be more effective at stopping heart disease? Cancer? Car wrecks? We'll spend billions of dollars on TSA and law enforcement to stop 100 people from being killed by terrorists every year. I want a government that recognizes the problems and spends money on the REAL issues:
Braininvat » February 6th, 2017, 12:18 am wrote:"Like" buttoned 3 posts in a row, got a bit carried away. Would add that people assess risk very poorly especially when fearful emotion is in play. They devour junk food, drive too fast, skip exercise, booze, and so on, feeling the risks to be very abstract so far as they're concerned. CNN shows bombed marketplaces, falling buildings, and other horrific scenes of terror far more than they show the interiors of sludged-up coronary arteries, growing tumors, or bodies mangled in car wrecks.
Lomax » February 5th, 2017, 5:48 pm wrote:I don't think it's good methodology to just compare death rates - the fact that terrorism doesn't kill more people might be used as an argument for spending so much money preventing it, rather than against. We do in fact spend colossal amounts on both cancer research and road safety. (Incidentally the Effective Altruism community tends to rank poverty relief as far better value-for-money than cancer research, cancer treatment or heart disease treatment, if saving lives is your aim.) It should be added that heart disease is mostly self-imposed. Wealthy democracies must defend their basic social structure if they're to remain wealthy (which they must remain, if they want to spend lots of money on medicine), and terrorism does in fact wreak havoc in countries which are unable or unwilling to spend enough money combating it. So there's two sides to this coin, so to speak.
Dave_C » February 6th, 2017, 2:03 am wrote:I think we're in agreement. Poverty - let's do something about it. The point isn't cost per unit life, it's more like cost per improvement of life, environment, etc... On one end (positive end) of the spectrum is the billions spent on health research and environment. On the other end of the spectrum are the trillions spent following 9/11 to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.
My opinion: Use research to determine the best way to spend money. I'd like a government that uses politicians to act as managers over researchers but let the researchers make the recommendations and have politicians follow through.
wolfhnd » February 6th, 2017, 7:44 am wrote:The list of countries that Trump suspended immigration from is the one Obama created to list states with high rates of terrorist.
doogles [/b]» Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:50 am wrote
I received this in an email today, but I'm not quite sure where it fits into the current legal system of the USA. My impression is that the 1952 law mentioned therein remains active and that it can be used as a precedent in law
We do not need to be protected against immigrants from these countries–on the contrary we want to stretch out a helping hand, to save those who have managed to flee into Western Europe, to succor those who are brave enough to escape from barbarism, to welcome and restore them against the day when their countries will, as we hope, be free again... These are only a few examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law.
Courts 3 - Trump 0
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests