Venandi

Locating people in an emergency can be a challenge at the best of times. Why is this always about racism, Hitler, or some minority rights issue? If street signs are written in one of the nation's official languages, all you need to do is shout a couple of names at the dispatcher and then wave at the pretty lights... we'll find you. But.... if you look at the intersecting street signs and see: ポーテージ and メイン it becomes a bit more time consuming and problematic for most people. Big picture now, you play dispatcher.... what province is that intersection in Herb? Here, I'll help ya. And it's not just indecipherable names either, people get rattled and if you have a Maple St, Maple Ave, and Maple Lane in the same town I'd say exactly the same thing for the same reason. Never know though, I may be prejudiced against all 10 species of Maple tree's that grow in Canada... right Herb? How about some "Acer Saccharum" syrup on those pancakes?

Congrats on the down vote. 1234 Flybaby Cresent looks like this in Japanese. フライベイビー・クレセント1234 You could always walk to the end of the street, take a picture of the sign and then text it to the dispatcher... pssst walk slowly.

Think before you type... When minutes count, getting the address right is pretty important. I drove ambulances back in the day, you might be surprised at how many Maple streets there are. That's not a good idea either IMO but expecting people to call in a parking lot at C̓uumaʕas Tsuma-as on West ʕaʔuk ʔaama k̓anis Street is even worse. But you do you though... and be sure to be rude to the dispatcher when you call, looks like you have that part down already.

The 919 operator doesn't care... this serves as an additional level of complexity during stressful periods when people aren't at their best and response times are dog shi%. If cell phones hadn't been invented it might be OK, but lot's of people don't have hardline phones now so it could be a problem if your dinner guest needs to call you an ambulance at 1525 West ʕaʔuk ʔaama k̓anis Street. Chew thoroughly before swallowing...

I don't think that proverb was about seasonal moulting.

The people complaining will vary as administrations change... next time you'll be the one cheering. This whole thing was a very bad idea right from the start, but we're in it now and the amplitude of the see-saw will increase over time. Ironically (and IMO of course), how much it increases after this is up to the democrats who set the ball in play and how loudly their supporters cheer for the things they now scream Hitler and fascist over. The centre has all but evaporated now, they were the ones saying don't do this because they feared what would happen. They were the ones warning not to open this door and predicted that you wouldn't like what happens next. The door wasn't simply opened, it was an explosive breach and now there's no one left to say don't go there. What happens next is that people begin to fear election results that don't go their way and you're going to like what proceeds from that a whole lot less. I'd say don't go there, but that didn't work last time. Flank speed for the island Capt Chrissy...

I'm inclined to agree. With Hamas left intact and bolstered by prison releases from Israel we simply enter into another period of consolidation... which will be followed (in the fullness of time) by another period of fighting themselves to a standstill. There are short term benefits here for all but the ideology remains. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I see this is a pause and not an end state. I was going write something a bit longer but this article pretty much captures what I was going to say in a more articulate manner than I could muster. Here's a quote (that resonates with me) for anyone disinclined to read it: "The West, and too often Israel herself, has convinced itself that terror is a grievance to be addressed rather than an ideology to be destroyed." https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trumps-mideast-peace-deal-will-only-lead-to-more-bloodshed?itm_source=index There's an African proverb that says: "he who forgives ends the quarrel." Hamas has religious objectives instead of political ones... there is no room for forgiveness and no negotiating with the remnants of it, or any of the prisoners being released for that matter. Here's another proverb..."a bird does not change its feathers because the weather has turned bad."

Yup, I watched it in awe. The most common question at closing time is... "do you really want what you seem to be asking for? Here's one of her posts to X that hasn't aged well: "Roses are red. Violets are blue. No one is above the law. Even when you think the rules don’t apply to you. Happy Valentine’s Day!" James posted on X in February 2024, It seems pretty simple to me, she signed it or she didn't, it was her primary residence or it wasn't, and you're above the law or you ain't. Funny how opinions change when the stitches required for reality bites are being sewn into your own a$$. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/social-media-erupts-as-resurfaced-ag-james-posts-come-back-to-haunt-her

Sounds like you're suggesting that the Biden Administration (DOJ) didn't bother to look for any connections to Trump out of simple courtesy and an effort to save him any potential embarrassment. Possible I guess but I would suggest that it's unlikely based on logic, previous experience and knowledge of local waters. Since you sound pretty sure of it maybe you could prove me wrong. In the mean time, the monkey seems to think that: YOU'RE LYING. That's why you have NO SPECIFICS, just WILD GRATUITOUS ALLEGATIONS. I tried to convince him otherwise but ya know how it is with those damn monkeys... right?

Admittedly, you're probably right about it extending to more issues than I realize but it seems to me that sanctuary issues have evolved into more than a simple lack of cooperation, it's now active and deliberate obstruction that extends to areas I wouldn't have expected... like ignoring officer assistance requests in an emergency. That's breaking new ground and I'd be surprised if we don't see pushback on it from police services within the sanctuary jurisdiction itself. I don't have time to pursue this now and I'll be away for a bit but in the mean time here's a link to a "Congressional Research Service" overview that takes a condensed dive into some of the legal issues and machinations on both sides of the issue. I thought it was interesting but that might just be me. Cheers https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11321/LSB11321.1.pdf Ya... it's a naked link Robo, cover your eyes.

It's not a matter of moving on... let's get after the bad guys in a systematic manner. But while doing that, let's not throw innocent people and even victims under the bus or label associates / acquaintances as willing participants in the Epstein horror show. You may trust the left wing lunatics to apply a level of discretion that says: But I sure don't.

Sounds good yet in practice it tends to result in hiring and promotion targets that are based on ethnicity (sometimes even exclusively on ethnicity) instead of competency. In other words, whether intended or not, merit in the form of competency becomes subordinate to skin colour, language, age or whatever. The most grievous examples of that are some university offerings where white people need not apply... they aren't even embarrassed to post those job ads. In some cases, as with military, police and fire service recruiting, it's necessary to expand the normal recruiting band (that ready, willing, able thing) in order to find a sufficient number of the targeted intake group sufficient to form an quorum suitable for course serial loading. If the stated goal of military intake is 25% women by 2026, how else would you achieve a government mandated target if you happen to be in the recruiting business? Not surprisingly, when it comes to sons and daughters of serving members making component transfers to the regular force from the primary reserves, the daughters are enrolled long before their brothers are... that observation may be anecdotal but it's not without lots of examples showing it to be more than simple coincidence. There's a big difference between not excluding people based on age, sex, ethnicity, language etc. and deliberately targeting those individuals based on any parameter other than merit. If you're advocating for doing that I don't see how you can deny that meritocracy can easily become illusionary. When you ask about it you'll hear that standards are never lowered, they're either enhanced or modified to job performance criteria. Even that sounds cool until you consider a little thing called universality of service and see fat navy girls tromping through the bush to fight fires. Obesity in the military now exceeds equivalent age gender rates in civilian life... and we're just getting started here. You can get away with it for a bit but like equipment rust out, it eventually takes a toll and that toll impacts operational tempo. Venture too far into that bottle and retention becomes an issue. Keep slurping the cool aid after that and the capacity to out train personnel deficits becomes a huge challenge. We actually managed to accomplish that very thing without hiring and promoting to DEI targets... imagine the possibilities now.

Worth a listen but posted for content only... I'm not going to argue any of the points made: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-many-deceptions-of-the-liberals-gun-buyback?itm_source=top-news

Guess I won't be sending my kids to college.

Sanctuary cities exist for a single purpose and that's to systemically ignore federal immigration law and inter-agency cooperation. It's also a double edged sword IMO, if you support the idea in principle you should have no issue with other incarnations of the same thing... say second amendment sanctuaries that openly ignore (meaning defy) any future gun control efforts you might support. Like others, I may have my own views on a case by case basis but across the board I can't see it being a good thing. If nothing else, I think it makes a country difficult to govern and it might be wise to consider the unintended consequences of doing it for short term political gain. I guess we can agree to disagree here... my point stands though, don't be surprised if (actually when) that very argument gets thrown back in your face at a later date. I see nothing "fun" in this and nothing fun about the predictable future backlash (in both directions) either. I do think you're right about the gleeful aspect of it for some voters though and it speaks to my continued fear of election outcomes becoming an inducement to political violence if (when) things don't go in the direction that people prone to endorsing politically motivated violence hope for. IMO again, it's one of those "be careful what you wish for" things that people unwisely leave to the see-saw to decide... based on what I've seen of the world I think that's a bad idea because it usually comes with a laundry list of unintended consequences. You're seeing that right now and you don't like it. Just imagine how much you won't like what comes next... it's still a long voyage to Crazy Island IMO and we haven't crossed the PNR line yet. But I think we may be getting close and that gleefulness I mentioned above always adds a few shaft revolutions to the engine room telegraph.

I'm guessing you know Bill Clinton was on the "friends list" as well... does your automatic finding of guilty by association apply there? In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary It certainly doesn't for me. - How many times do you need to hear the answer? - How many times do you need to hear the answer? I see this entire thing as a case of patented "Trump bluster" biting him on his own buttocks. It looks like he now sees the potential harm any release would have on innocent people and victims alike and probably regrets saying what he did. Had the circumstance been different and it was your guy doing the same thing for the same reason, you'd be claiming the moral high gound right now. Frankly, given the expectations of his base and their strong reaction to him not publishing the names, I think it rises to a level of political courage I might have hoped for but didn't actually expect to see.

A new low made relevent by the potential for unintended consequences in the future... I never thought we'd see officer assistance requests being ignored by other agencies for purely political reasons. https://www.foxnews.com/us/national-police-union-calls-chicagos-refusal-help-ice-agents-shocking-violation-duty When considered in the context of ignoring calls for emergency assistance during the commision of felony offences, It raises a bunch of legal, moral, and interoperability questions that would require a separate thread to adequately cover. That said, I'm going to bet that Roboduh can cover the entire spectrum in a single cap locked sentence ending with Duh.

Given that Biden as his cronies went over that document with a fine tooth comb I'd actually be shocked.

Why don't you listen to the answer? I wouldn't release a naked list of people who knew him either. I'd indict the bad guys and leave innocent people and victims alone. I only got into this nonsense because of Chrissy's post on the previous page... That's why I don't think it should be released and the fact that you're drooling over this list only confirms that my concerns are valid.

Of course his name is in there, he knew Epstein as did a host of progressives and democrats that you would defend to the death. Being named as an acquaintance is not an indication of criminality. Epstein lived about two miles from Mar-a-Lago are you surprised they knew each other? Do you think for one second that anything in that file that anything to do with Trump escaped scrutiny by the Biden administration?

I'm guessing that it's because people who had nothing to do with Epstein's illegal activities would be irreparably hurt by the release... including some of the victims who never made the spotlight. Look how quickly Criissy jumped to conclusions about Trump recruiting 16 year old girls for his "massage parlour." Personally, I think total release is a bad idea for that reason (the Chrissy effect). I'd say "indict the bad guys and leave innocent people alone." Wonder why you don't want the same thing?

Actually, Virginia Giuffre worked at Mar-a-Lago as locker room attendant (in the Spa), she was hired in 2000 at the age of 16. She was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell while at work and offered a job as a masseuse for Epstein after she was seen reading a book about massage therapy during her break.. Maxwell told her that no experience was required. The only reason Trump even hired her was because her father worked as maintenance man at the estate and he pitched getting her the job. She was only there about two weeks before being approached by Maxwell. I'd love to see the quote you just credited to Trump...

An excellent point... but you're wearing it on your head. Please continue standing in the corner while adults work the issues at hand.

Huh? Read this part again:

A bit misplaced I think, I could easily say the same thing about Hamas. Either way though, this is the best deal Palestinians are going to get IMO... If you're suggesting that rogue elements of Hamas will be motivated to continue assaults on Israel once a transition force is in place then I tend to agree. Israel is unlikely to completely abdicate their right to self defence but by the same token, Gaza is one of the most surveilled patches of real estate on the planet and avoiding mutual interference with the international force isn't an insurmountable problem. That's a whole new thread though and as a teaser, I'm guessing Hamas would love nothing more than to launch attacks into Israel from the eastern Sinai in order to trigger a response that could potentially involve Egypt in their cause. All of this requires a courageous effort and the absence of the sort of rhetoric you seem prone to generating.