Also In The News

[ozleicester]

 

 

"Disease risk' algorithms: Health fund nib in $20m venture that will use data to try and keep members out of hospital

 

 

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/disease-risk-assessment-nib-and-us-giant-cigna-in-20m-venture-to-keep-members-out-of-hospital-20191206-p53him.html

 

[MC Prussian]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...so these organisations and movements don't exist? I get the viewpoint re the SPLC but there are other sources with which to check the veracity of these movements.

 

That you quote that most of the 50 states do have English as the official language (true) is indicative that this isn't really a storm in a teacup and in a way (outside the federal government mandating that certain information has to be in different languages) these movements have already "won", which is rather sad, really.

 

It's like the xenophobes over here that pop up on the Internet or at protests every so often insisting that everyone must speak Korean.

 

Well, as I said to Matt above, there probably are better solutions to preventing another world war than a multinational organisation with the silhouette of a mushroom cloud behind it being ready to visit targetted violence where they wish. International solidarity is a really good thing - international solidarity based on threats to other members of the international community (who of course are threatening back) isn't so much.

Look, I'm no fan of enforcing language laws, but I do see some purpose in having an official language. It helps the adaptation and integration massively.

Minorities should adhere to majority laws and not resort to exceptions and omissions - that's democracy in a nutshell.

The creation of little "ghettos" (see the use of the term in the Denmark article) should be prevented. These people fled the poor and/or dangerous living conditions in their former home country, so why recreate it again?

 

On a sidenote, comparing US immigration laws with (South) Korean ones is slightly disingenuous, surely far-fetched.

One nation sees immigration on a constant basis, the other one has always maintained very strict policies. It's much easier to become a US citizen than it is to become a South Korean.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Look, I'm no fan of enforcing language laws, but I do see some purpose in having an official language. It helps the adaptation and integration massively.

Minorities should adhere to majority laws and not resort to exceptions and omissions - that's democracy in a nutshell.

The creation of little "ghettos" (see the use of the term in the Denmark article) should be prevented. These people fled the poor and/or dangerous living conditions in their former home country, so why recreate it again?

 

On a sidenote, comparing US immigration laws with (South) Korean ones is slightly disingenuous, surely far-fetched.

One nation sees immigration on a constant basis, the other one has always maintained very strict policies. It's much easier to become a US citizen than it is to become a South Korean.

Well, I think learning at least some of the language of the country you move to (as I have) should be encouraged as a tool for integrating better - but I certainly do not think it should be enforced via policy. The freedom of choice (as long as speaking that language allows you to be capable at maintaining a job in that country) should come first IMO.

 

I'm not comparing immigration laws per se, I'm comparing the attitudes of the Americans who insist everyone speak English in their country who have started organisations to that effect and the Koreans that insist that  everyone should speak Korean in thier country who do similar. Gaining Korean citizenship is (mostly) much more difficult, yes, but that's neither here nor there.

[Heathrow fox]

Heard on the way home that Eddie Stobbart were very close to going bust😐With debts of £200 million.Saved by a last minute takeover.How the hell has that happened🙆🏼‍♂️Have they lost ground to DPD and XPO?Proof of how brutal the haulage industry is.

[Heathrow fox]

Clinton’s also saved last minute but only temporarily.This isn’t one that shocks me as every town seems to have at least 2 outlets.With the age of the internet it was inevitable.I actually use this shop quite often aswell.Very sad and yet more empty shops for our high streets.

[WigstonWanderer]

19 hours ago, ozleicester said:

 

 

"Disease risk' algorithms: Health fund nib in $20m venture that will use data to try and keep members out of hospital

 

 

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/disease-risk-assessment-nib-and-us-giant-cigna-in-20m-venture-to-keep-members-out-of-hospital-20191206-p53him.html

 

Only a matter of time before insurance companies discriminate against people according to their genetic makeup imo. People are giving organisations like ancestry.com the opportunity to build up huge genetic databases that could easily be mined in the future to determine health risks to not only those who have voluntarily submitted their DNA, but also their relatives.

[oakman]

Elon Musk wins the defamation case - calls the cave rescuer a pedo on Twitter and calls him a child rapist to a Buzzfeed journalist -  totally beyond me how the jury only deliberated for an hour and found him innocent.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, oakman said:

Elon Musk wins the defamation case - calls the cave rescuer a pedo on Twitter and calls him a child rapist to a Buzzfeed journalist -  totally beyond me how the jury only deliberated for an hour and found him innocent.

Shocked that he hasn’t been held to account. He’s certainly gone well down in my estimation, from would-be hero of the green revolution, to narcissistic billionaire bully.

 

Coming from someone with a such a massive following, this insult is hugely damaging. Most people, including me, on hearing what he said would not think it was a joke and would think “what did the guy do?”. Instead of apologising he seems to have doubled down.

[leicsmac]

I don't really get it either - however, for the jury to only deliberate for that long before coming up with a not guilty verdict you've got to assume there was some piece of evidence or testimony that was particularly convincing.

[Mike Oxlong]

6 hours ago, oakman said:

Elon Musk wins the defamation case - calls the cave rescuer a pedo on Twitter and calls him a child rapist to a Buzzfeed journalist -  totally beyond me how the jury only deliberated for an hour and found him innocent.

I wonder if his lawyers overplayed it by asking for 190 million dollars in damages and describing the tweet as a nuclear bomb that had given Unsworth a life sentence without parole 

[oakman]

2 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I wonder if his lawyers overplayed it by asking for 190 million dollars in damages and describing the tweet as a nuclear bomb that had given Unsworth a life sentence without parole 

That's exactly what I thought. 

[LiberalFox]

most libel laws are slanted in favour of the wealthy

[LiberalFox]

His defence seems to be that as they were having an argument nobody should have taken his tweets seriously and that as he eventually deleted them he couldn't have been being serious. Be interesting if this sets a precedent or not. 

Edited 7 December 2019 by LiberalFox

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50712126

 

How about that - you say you love Big Brother and the Party, you get to spend some time "free" underneath the chestnut tree.

[Countryfox]

Blimey ...  this happened quite near to me and has made the nationals (this was in the Telegraph this morning).  Drones seem to be used more for bad/illegal purposes than good.  If one appears near your house be suspicious and try and work out where it’s come from.  Personally I’d grab my shotgun and give it both barrels. 
 

This could also go in the cvnts thread ...   stealing a support dog ffs !! ...   the dog is quite distinctive so keep em peeled ...   Lottie is distraught.   The local word is caravan dwellers may have had something to do with it ...

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Democrats going for impeachment then.

 

Surprised, no chance of success, less than a year from the election and guaranteed to rally up the Trump base.  Could be the biggest tactical blunder since the last Democrat Presidential tilt.

 

Can't help but think the Democrats are a bit like the Lib Dems here - they just can't understand that other people think about things a lot differently than they do, they are probably under the impression this will destroy his reputation when the opposite is more likely. 

[Nick]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Democrats going for impeachment then.

 

Surprised, no chance of success, less than a year from the election and guaranteed to rally up the Trump base.  Could be the biggest tactical blunder since the last Democrat Presidential tilt.

 

Can't help but think the Democrats are a bit like the Lib Dems here - they just can't understand that other people think about things a lot differently than they do, they are probably under the impression this will destroy his reputation when the opposite is more likely. 

Maybe it’s about attempting holding him to account for an alleged abuse of power more than all the other stuff you conjectured about.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Democrats going for impeachment then.

 

Surprised, no chance of success, less than a year from the election and guaranteed to rally up the Trump base.  Could be the biggest tactical blunder since the last Democrat Presidential tilt.

 

Can't help but think the Democrats are a bit like the Lib Dems here - they just can't understand that other people think about things a lot differently than they do, they are probably under the impression this will destroy his reputation when the opposite is more likely. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-50731830

 

For anyone who wants to follow.

The Senate won't vote to convict, but I honestly don't think that the Dems wouldn't have thought this through enough in the way you have Matt - do you really think that they wouldn't have considered this would stir up his base considerably and all the other stuff you put here? It's obvious, and if they did come to the conclusion you did they wouldn't have done it - Pelosi sat on impeachment ideas for a long time before proceeding, remember.

 

Evidently they consider that doing this helps them more than hinders them next year and/or they are actually acting in the name of something more important than simple political victory.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Maybe it’s about attempting holding him to account for an alleged abuse of power more than all the other stuff you conjectured about.

Maybe, but is it really worth the risk? If anything I'd be inclined to let the story roll and roll rather than go into the election next year with him being "cleared" of it. I mean we are talking a few months difference maximum.

 

I mean it's not exactly a secret they've wanted to impeach him on anything they could find ever since the election, so I doubt moral righteousness from the Democrats is going to spread across the public discourse, the witch hunt card could be one of his strongest come Nov 2020.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50740324

 

Better a "pirralha" than a morally bankrupt short-sighted nationalist Filho da mãe like yourself, Mr Bolsanaro.

[Darkon84]

23 hours ago, MattP said:

Maybe, but is it really worth the risk? If anything I'd be inclined to let the story roll and roll rather than go into the election next year with him being "cleared" of it. I mean we are talking a few months difference maximum.

 

I mean it's not exactly a secret they've wanted to impeach him on anything they could find ever since the election, so I doubt moral righteousness from the Democrats is going to spread across the public discourse, the witch hunt card could be one of his strongest come Nov 2020.

 

In the previous 60 odd years, hasn't there only been one Republican president the Dems haven't tried to impeach, or something along those lines? It's something they do every time and shouldn't be a shock to anyone. Also, It could be a very worrying turn of events to backfire on the Dems as should a full scale enquiry come forward, wouldn't it give Trump/his team full authority to bring forward ANY Dem they like to the stand and show THEM up for their lying and shady work too? I'm sure it's already been covered, but the Ukrainian President already said there was no quid pro-quo, as well as Joe Biden himself admitting on tape that he tried, and managed to bribe Ukraine to fire an attorney (could be wrong there), on the threat of withdrawing a $1billion grant/loan?

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

 

In the previous 60 odd years, hasn't there only been one Republican president the Dems haven't tried to impeach, or something along those lines? It's something they do every time and shouldn't be a shock to anyone. Also, It could be a very worrying turn of events to backfire on the Dems as should a full scale enquiry come forward, wouldn't it give Trump/his team full authority to bring forward ANY Dem they like to the stand and show THEM up for their lying and shady work too? I'm sure it's already been covered, but the Ukrainian President already said there was no quid pro-quo, as well as Joe Biden himself admitting on tape that he tried, and managed to bribe Ukraine to fire an attorney (could be wrong there), on the threat of withdrawing a $1billion grant/loan?

And yet none of such processes, even at the times under a Dem controlled House *and* Senate,  have gone this far along in that last 60 years.  I think that perhaps implies this situation is a bit different to the others,  if indeed that first sentence is correct (wouldn't mind seeing a citation).

 

As above,  you'd think that the Dems had actually considered all or most of the factors in play before going ahead with this, precisely because of the high stakes nature of what is happening, a Senate that in all likelihood will not convict and an election coming up relatively soon that should perhaps be the primary focus.

 

The Dems leadership may have its flaws,  but i don't think that they're either bereft of any kind of political acumen or politically suicidal,  which seems to be the accusation here.

[Darkon84]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And yet none of such processes, even at the times under a Dem controlled House *and* Senate,  have gone this far along in that last 60 years.  I think that perhaps implies this situation is a bit different to the others,  if indeed that first sentence is correct (wouldn't mind seeing a citation).

 

As above,  you'd think that the Dems had actually considered all or most of the factors in play before going ahead with this, precisely because of the high stakes nature of what is happening, a Senate that in all likelihood will not convict and an election coming up relatively soon that should perhaps be the primary focus.

 

The Dems leadership may have its flaws,  but i don't think that they're either bereft of any kind of political acumen or politically suicidal,  which seems to be the accusation here.

This may be the case, so you'd be thinking they're sat on a bombshell somewhere, but personally I can't see that they are. Alas, it was some time ago I read the piece regarding the attempted impeachments, hence not giving my 100% behind it in my post you quoted. I'd like to find the citation, though I can't guarantee a quick comeback on that....I'm classing myself lucky (possibly unlucky), I've found time to actually reply to anything on this place at the moment  Though I will try to look when I can sa I agree, evidence and inspection of such is important, particularly in these times.

 

You would LIKE to think the Dems have thought all this through etc, but it's seriously getting the point there, as is here, where people are just playing the man rather than the question and the point. Just the fact that Trump is the President, along with the left's own (out of hand) fixation on dangerous, identity politics has driven them to the brink of insanity and I honestly think that they are struggling to see the wood, through the trees and will do literally anything to attempt to get him out of office. The same is happening here in front of our eyes, and whether by political evolution, or by design and funding by certain powerful entities, is an awful place for politics to be in right now and the people that suffer are us, with divisions being sowed more by the day, against our will. With an election looming, you'd imagine that IF the Dems had their bombshell, they'd play it and be done with it. Their recent history of attempts wouldn't give me much confidence if i was wanting Trump impeached. 

 

As you've probably gathered from my rambling last paragraph, we might have to agree to disagree on that, I think they've lost their path and are blinded by Trump, internal rage, identity politics, funding, and internal meddling of their own.

[yorkie1999]

On 09/12/2019 at 13:41, Countryfox said:

Blimey ...  this happened quite near to me and has made the nationals (this was in the Telegraph this morning).  Drones seem to be used more for bad/illegal purposes than good.  If one appears near your house be suspicious and try and work out where it’s come from.  Personally I’d grab my shotgun and give it both barrels. 
 

This could also go in the cvnts thread ...   stealing a support dog ffs !! ...   the dog is quite distinctive so keep em peeled ...   Lottie is distraught.   The local word is caravan dwellers may have had something to do with it ...

 

 

I thought this when they started getting popular, crooks can actually check out your house on google then fly a drone round to see what youve got and if anyones in, all from the safety of a car a few hundred yards away.

[urban.spaceman]

Read this article:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comedy-stand-up-sexism-racism-metoo-free-speech-ricky-gervais-dave-chappelle-a8796341.html

 

Then wait 10 months. 
 

Then read this tweet:

My faith in humanity has been restored.