Massachusetts VS Grendle's Den - 459 US 116- 1982
A case in Massachusetts where the state deferred to the church in issuing liquor licenses, allowing them to veto any licenses they wished for their own reasons.
The supreme court voted 8-1 in favor of Grendle, stating clearly that it's extremely unconstitutional to allow a non governing body to apply the law based on their personal beliefs...and a blatant violation of the separation between church and state. This case is from 1982.
This means precedent is set, and the Texas law will be tossed....unless the new court ignores precedent and the constitution, which thanks to Trumpists is a possibility.

My two cents, the old axiom, your right to swing your first ends at my nose, seems to apply.

I think people should pay for their choices, so eating poorly, pay more for insurance....Lots more. Ignore doctors advice, lose all benefits of insurance and pay for your own care, and from the back of the line too. When that choice has a good chance of costing someone else's life or health, that's the line imo. You cannot ever repay that kind of debt, so you shouldn't be allowed to take it on, nor should people be allowed to gamble with other people's health and lives.

@bobknight33
You can do the inverse math to calculate the risk of the vaccine as well

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
(vaccine adverse event reporting system)

You can find more current numbers on the CDC site, but they're difficult to access and link directly to. This is simpler, but feel free to post more updated figures https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/

------------------

"Event Category" "Event Category Code" Events Reported
"Death" "DTH" 5378 total reported as of right now.

out of how many vaccinations?
(i took the larger number because they still did get a poke in the arm at least once)

186,474,836

soooo

5378 ÷ 186,474,836 = 0.000028840352486

0.000028840352486
move the decimal

------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
0.0028840352486% of death from the vaccine
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------

Now, Bob, please, consider this.
Is a 2% chance of death MORE? or LESS? than a 0.0028840352486% chance of death?


Lets apply the numbers to the USA population

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

332,545,571 x 0.02 =
6,650,911.42
soooo 6.65 million WOW how close to the real number of deaths in the USA this is eh? WEIRRRRRRRRRRD right? durrrrrrrrrr


332,545,571 x 0.000028840352486 = 9590.7
soooo yeah, this is pretty close to the reporting incident report also
WEIRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD eh?


------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
You know them liberals, they are so powerful they can manipulate basic multiplication and division.

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

This is why I love my 50 year old Bronco and Jeep. None of this crap applies.
Of course I don't really have secure locking doors or electric locks or windows either, but that's fine where I live.

Those are decent points, but have absolutely zero to do with the mass abandoning of their positions. It was 100% due to one of their own being charged after beating nonviolent protesters. They originally admitted exactly that, and now that they aren't being supported in their walkout, they are coming up with excuses that didn't matter to them the day before the officer was charged.

I think they should have to pay for the training and equipment they now refuse to use.

What are you talking about? You think budget cuts caused time off to be cancelled?! It costs double to not rotate in other officers, because you pay those on duty overtime, it doesn't make it cheaper. Budget cuts were not the issue when these cops were doing crowd control, only now that they're suddenly called to account for their own actions. No time off temporarily, because of extreme circumstances, was not an issue until one of their own was charged. It's certainly not abnormal, and absolutely not because of budget cuts, it costs more.

No prosecutions is the norm, if I recall, over 98% of charges levied at protesters have been dismissed nation wide, mostly because police had no evidence to back the charges they brought. You might note, as described in the article, "Mr. Schmidt immediately announced that he would focus on prosecuting cases of violence or vandalism; protesters who simply resisted arrest or refused to disperse after a police order would not necessarily be charged." They are taking a stand against anarchic violent protesters, but not the peaceful protesters with a legitimate gripe about violent, racist, deadly police acting as an anarchist gang that believes rules only apply to you, not them.

There are few prosecutions in large part because police declare riots when all participants are peaceful and not causing damage, and police are almost always the one's giving the orders to remove the people they declared "rioters", and in most cases they have zero evidence to back up their declarations, and are as violent as possible, beating peaceful videographers and reporters who were trapped and could not disperse, then charging them with refusal to disperse and resisting arrest, even violence against police for attacking police batons with their faces.
(Edit: remember the freeway shutdown when they marched on the freeway, and police blocked them from exiting or continuing while a second group of police came from behind, forcing them into a small fenced in area with no exit, then charged them all with refusal to disperse and the few that tried to disperse were charged with attacking police officers who blocked every escape route, violently attacking anyone trying to leave...all on live tv?)
Many peaceful protests became riots only after police moved in to violently disperse protests, fully 1/2 were riots because counter protesters and bad right wing actors like proud and boogaloo boys were planting bombs, shooting crowds, starting fires, driving through crowds, and murdering police in an effort to paint protesters as violent anarchists. That is verified fact directly from the DOJ investigation.

It's not a Portland only thing, police abandoning their communities because, as they indicated to the DA, "“It was like, ‘There’s our team and there’s their team, and you are on their team and you’re not on our team. And we’ve never had a D.A. not be on our team before,’” Police assume they are on a team against citizens, and won't do their jobs if, by doing them wrong with bias and malice, they might be prosecuted. They are used to immunity, and don't know how to do their jobs without it because they are abusers of power.

One day after charges were levied they quit in solidarity with the criminal abusive cop, and came up with fake excuses later.

You seem to have missed "the Justice Department said that the city’s Police Bureau was violating its own use-of-force policies during crowd-control operations, and that supervisors were not properly investigating complaints." part.

The problem is, it's complicated.

First off, is the legacy of historical damage still scarring aboriginal communities in Canada.

Even disregarding that complexity though, current structure of governance in Canada makes the problem harder to identify and resolve.

Singh's return question is what would you do if Toronto faced the same problem? The answer is the federal government would by and large do nothing, because water supply is a municipal responsibility and the Mayor and city council of Toronto are responsible for fixing it, and thus federal funds don't go in and instead municipal tax money is used to keep the water supply going. Across Canada that model is working pretty decently, by and large.

The real question then is why are reserves having a harder time? Well, afore mentioned historical trauma aside, reserves represent small communities directly comparable in size and make up as municipal communities. However, the reserves are NOT managed like municipalities. Instead Canada still has a two tiered system of governance, one for reserves and another for municipalities.

In term so governance municipalities report to the provinces and the provinces report to the federal government. Reserves report directly to the federal government.

The affects everything related to governance and is responsible for a host of confusion and difficulty.

Services: Education and Health are provincially funded, and so the federal government transfer money to the provinces and tells them to figure out education and health services. Municipalities then just get those services. Reserves however sit outside that, and get entirely different intermediaries.

Taxation and funding: municipal, provincial and federal governments all gather taxes and distribute funds up and down. Reserves only deal with funding though directly to the feds, again cutting out the provincial intermediary.

Both of the above mean making an apples to apples comparison of communities to try and ensure both are treated 'equally' is impossible. It also means that solutions that work on one side don't in the other.

It's a big mess, and just throwing money at the system and saying that will fix it is just wrong. Not only that, it's been TRIED and failed. The above mentioned differences also apply to rules surrounding transparency, accountability and fraud prevention. Meaning there are a great many more loopholes available on the reserve funding side for anyone involved or attached to providing services(be that council members on reserve, or any number of external entities hired in good faith to perform services). That in turn means the amount of money lost to direct and indirect corruption is harder to find/stop.

So fix all that is the next obvious response. The problem is still complex though because when does 'fixing' becoming simply white folks making aboriginals do things the 'right(white) way that was already the source of lingering historical damage I didn't even consider yet...

It's a hard problem to solve and Singh's just trying to score cheap political points peddling easy and false answers to a complex problem.

Lol. You don't know which jurist or alternate, or which they were, biased or afraid, but you know someone was something so toss his multiple murder convictions....and execute the Central Park Five. LMFAHS!!

The biggest charge, second degree murder, was unanimous on the first vote in under two hours of deliberation. In interviews, jurists have said there were technical questions about applying third degree murder too, that's what took them a day, getting technical answers about the law, not questions about culpability, not fear. Sorry, wrong again.

Bobski, your hammer and sickle are showing.
Juries don't declare people innocent in America.....and Americans don't speak/write like a Russian first year English-as-a-second-language student or a Nigerian Prince with amazing financial deal bank for you money wealth.

I've always wondered how much better the world would be if some of these chess geniuses applied themselves to areas other than chess. But I guess we'll never know.

My Pops had a prophet 2000 the mid 80's. The first home digital sampling synth. It had all these options and more to apply to either the basic hum or to any sample. It had reverb, attack, sustain, decay, multiple preset wave forms, speed (of the sample), pitch and tone, and probably 1/2 dozen more I can't recall, all in a keyboard size unit, not a full pipe organ size. The samples came or could be recorded on 3 1/2" floppies, and you could store a huge number of presets to modify them as you wished at the push of one button, not a complete retuning with multiple dials. I had fun remixing James Brown and Prince, but never learned to play well.
Amazing the advancements they made in just 15 years.

I mean what I said. Trump (and his subordinates at his direction) made up new regulations, New laws, New restrictions, New limits, new procedures, and new rules that combined made it not just harder but often impossible for people who, before Trump under any administration would have been quickly granted asylum in accordance with the law. He also slowed the process for legally applying, limited the number allowed to apply in a way never done before, and created new systems where instead of waiting in the country they had to wait in another country with no services in crime ridden refugee camps if they're lucky, sometimes sent south of Mexico, many instructed to go home and wait, homes they fled under direct and credible threats of death or worse....many after having their children taken.

Trump did not simply "enforce current laws". He changed them, misinterpreted them, ignored them repeatedly and flagrantly, then enforced those he liked. Consistently the intent was to minimize any immigration as much as possible from countries that aren't predominantly white. Not once was the intent to streamline the system so it would improve, every step was designed to slow the process and deny entry to as many people as possible, even those with legitimate life or death reasons for asylum. He even changed those rules to exclude narco terrorism death threats to be a reason for asylum, not because they aren't valid but because there are too many.

When you personally create the "law" you're enforcing by (often illegally) changing the rules and established interpretation of long standing law and policy to make following the law near impossible and often deadly, you don't get credit as if that's being a humanitarian just enforcing the law. Duh.

Edit: BTW Mr law and order, Trump never followed the law in his business dealings nor with his taxes or his loans (hyperexagerated his property values on loan documents, while minimizing their value on tax forms). His best excuse? His claim that he's not a real businessman and didn't even bother to read the loan and tax documents he swore were correct because he had no idea if they were.....His claim that everyone does that, everyone is a tax cheater and bank fraud perpetrator, is asinine.....but exposes him as the criminal fraud we all know he is, not a man who respects the law.

Sure, his stated policy was "come in the legal way"....but he constantly added more restrictions and insurmountable hurdles to who could even apply, when, and where, trying to stop all legal immigration a few times and succeeding at slowing the legal process to a trickle by not funding more immigration courts, even cutting some funding to the few we had. He also drastically cut the number of legal immigrants accepted, and the number of refugees was cut to near zero.
At the same time, he cut anti narco terrorism funding, making it a choice for many of stay home and die or try to get in the U.S....so he made those masses escaping serious death threats from cartels ineligible for asylum.

Yes, Obama created the temporary holding facilities, but his administration had a 72 hour limit on how long kids stayed there, not Trump, and Obama only used them for unaccompanied minors, Trump used them to separate children from their families and expelled the parents, often to Guatemala or farther away, in many cases not ever even trying to reunite families they separated, and holding the kids for months before putting them in the foster system.

There's some *specific* policies for ya.

She doesn't seem to realize she's a Karen too....assuming the rules don't apply to her and creating drama when told they do. Someone should cross out "neighborhood", "full", and "of" on her sign.
7 kids skating in the street until dark every day would be maddening. It may sound petty, but it wouldn't if she was your neighbor.
She says she doesn't know what to do....try telling your kids to skate at the skate park, or find a parking lot or alley not in a residential area. She knows they annoy the neighborhood but obviously hasn't told them to go elsewhere.
Skating in the street in California is a crime....so is denying your neighbors the peaceful enjoyment of their property. They should keep calling until she understands that, or file a lawsuit for a few thousand a month (per neighbor) until they quiet down.

I agree but you are a little harsh.

Should you logic also be applied to ANTIFA /BLM and the march on the Capitol all their burning and destruction ?