@rembrandt said in US Politics:
I found this a good read on the kids separation thing.
It is of course horrible but its a whole lot more complex than the 'Trump is literally putting kids in cages' rhetoric.https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/illegal-immigration-enforcement-separating-kids-at-border/
I am confused by that arcticle. It lays out the facts ... But Laura told me emotional moral stuff.
Oh who to believe?????
Really? Cause I think she is full of shite.
1/ That law has not been changed, EXACTLY the same thing has been happening for years, including under her husband.
2/ This is just a continuation of the 'kids in cages' narrative that was debunked. It is a left wing hit job with a compliant media aided by never Trumpers.
3/ Many people smugglers use kids as an easier entrance.
4/ Parents are separated from kids all the time. What happens when a US citizen gets arrested and goes to jail? Do males with kids get a free ticket from jail cause they have kids? It is also self evident that people should not go to jail if they have kids and the only option is state care??
5/ None of these bleeding hearts ever actually come up with a solution. Let them all in? If they have kids.. just waltz through? Trump has had a number of ideas squashed that would solve the issue. Do you know how many of these Asylum seekers end up appearing for the judgement? How many get ruled as bogus? You might be shocked. Borders need to matter.
6/ How about the parents take some responsibility and not come through the southern border. Maybe they could chose to not be separated form their children? You know that is an option they could easily choose? Stay in Mexico.. done.
It is sooooo easy for the bleeding hearts to moralise form on high, but they never ever have any solutions other than let everyone in.. or policies that would have that effect in reality. Laura Bush can shove her sermon up where the sun dont shine, I would be more interested in her opinion if she actually had some real policy and solutions.
@tim said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Not one of the loose forwards in this 23 are All Black quality.
Sam Cane bloody well is.
@mrdenmore said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@baron-silas-greenback In whose dictionary?
An English dictionary.
@mrdenmore said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@baron-silas-greenback Technical in the sense there didn’t appear to be premeditation. It was manslaughter, not murder.
That isnt what technical means.....
@mrdenmore said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@kev That’s not a bad idea. I just think reducing a team to 14 men for the entire match because of a technical infringement is just silly and wrecks the game as a spectacle. A yellow would have been enough.
Tecnical infringement??? Lol...
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@baron-silas-greenback said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Okay. That shouldn't be a red. Intent should count.
What? He didn't intend to be a fucking idiot? Too stupid to know what he was doing?
Calm the fuck down.
Eyes on the ball. Gets a shoulder from ioane just before contact. Bangs in to a guy who jumps. Never grabs. Doesn't run through him. Yellow all day. But i think a red needs a higher threshold.
I respectfully disagree. That was incredibly dangerous. He was never going to get that ball. He barely left the ground ffs. Clear red all day.
Outcome was dangerous. But i think the player needs to have some intent to injure before a red becomes an option.
I am aware i am in disagreement with the laws here, and it's just an opinion.
I don't like that the same action gets a different card if barrett doesnt land on his head.
How would you accurately judge intent? Keeping eyes on ball as you break a guys neck?
Do you think he meant to tip him on his head?
No idea. That's the point.
@tordah said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Does a HIA fail automatically mean he's concussed?
Yes. He has to pass one this week, before he can play again.
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Okay. That shouldn't be a red. Intent should count.
What? He didn't intend to be a fucking idiot? Too stupid to know what he was doing?
Calm the fuck down.
Eyes on the ball. Gets a shoulder from ioane just before contact. Bangs in to a guy who jumps. Never grabs. Doesn't run through him. Yellow all day. But i think a red needs a higher threshold.
I respectfully disagree. That was incredibly dangerous. He was never going to get that ball. He barely left the ground ffs. Clear red all day.
Outcome was dangerous. But i think the player needs to have some intent to injure before a red becomes an option.
I am aware i am in disagreement with the laws here, and it's just an opinion.
I don't like that the same action gets a different card if barrett doesnt land on his head.
How would you accurately judge intent? Keeping eyes on ball as you break a guys neck?
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Okay. That shouldn't be a red. Intent should count.
What? He didn't intend to be a fucking idiot? Too stupid to know what he was doing?
Calm the fuck down.
Eyes on the ball. Gets a shoulder from ioane just before contact. Bangs in to a guy who jumps. Never grabs. Doesn't run through him. Yellow all day. But i think a red needs a higher threshold.
Eyes on the ball ? So what? Just watching a ball doesn't mean you are seriously trying to catch it. The rules are clear. And they are there for a bloody good reason.