Tathlyn comments

Posted in: Gunman kills four, wounds 10 in northern California shooting spree See in context

California also has procedures in place to automatically track firearm owners and proactively disarm convicted criminals, people with certain mental illnesses, and others deemed dangerous. A big part of the problem with all the laws and databases is simply keeping up with the system, and doing basic administration that could really make a difference

He was prevented from buying a gun, because he was in the database. He made the gun himself.


0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Family strife, threats preceded Texas church massacre by former U.S. airman See in context

We now know how he was able to purchase a gun when he fell into a category of people not allowed to purchase nor own a gun in the US. The USAF forgot to enter his court martial conviction into the federal database.


7 ( +7 / -0 )

Posted in: St Louis protests against police officer's acquittal to continue See in context

This article is another example of why better to do a bit more research before jumping to conclusions and leaves out important background information surrounding the case. Including that after it occurred in 2011 the original St Louis prosecutor and both federal and state law enforcement agencies who investigated for potential criminal behavior of the cop chose not to prosecute this case.

At a time when Eric Holder was the US Attorney General and looked into every police related shooting, and if he didn't decide to seek prosecution against Stockley, then there likely wasn't enough evidence for a conviction of criminal activity.

In 2016, a new St Louis prosecutor claimed to have new evidence and decided to reopen the case, but didn't end up producing the new evidence at the trial.

Probably best to read the actual verdict since this story leaves out a significant amount of relevant details including step by step account of events:


I'm not a fan of CNN but even their story is a little more complete:


0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: New man on the job See in context

It took 8 months? Trump is so slow. Well,

Senate democrats are intentionally slowing the confirmation process for all appointees in various committees as they announced they would. One of the tactics is multiple use of procedural votes to use maximum time on each step of the process to with taking "breaks" to consider/confer among the fellow party members on every appointee.

Pretty much only the final vote on confirmation is required by law, the others could be denied by the committee chair, but republicans tend to not like overriding courtesy rules. A few of the chairs are starting to get annoyed with the antics and are considering denying many of these useless procedural votes by the democrats, because the longer they sit in confirmation hearings the less time they have to work on real issues.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: The racist cliche Hollywood won't drop See in context

Both Morgan Freeman and Spike Lee both repeatedly and proudly admitting over the years they are racists in interviews as well as having ties to racist organizations. Using these two for your basis of reasoning in an article loses a ton of credibility.

Never cared much for Spike Lee movies way too preachy from a black racist mentality, but no surprise seeing one of his personal heroes is Huey Newton, a Black Panthers founder and someone who Lee made a movie about.

With Morgan Freeman, I'm always conflicted about watching movies where he is an actor. Freeman is a great actor and is usually involved with good and entertaining movies.

There will probably always be a few racists from every group. However, we must counter those people and it should be the goal to make a world based on merit and where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." (Martin L. King Jr. 1963).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Grand jury subpoenas issued in relation to Trump Jr's meeting with Russian lawyer See in context

Most people here seem to be confusing the difference between a criminal grand jury and a special prosecutor appointed grand jury, and there are several key differences people need to understand.

1) To convene a criminal grand jury, a prosecutor needs to have evidence of criminal activity already gathered to present to the jurors. A special investigation doesn't need any evidence in its possession to convene a grand jury.

2) Under a criminal investigation a judge must issue the search warrants after being presented with the where and what specifically is being searched for. A special prosecutor can ask a grand jury to issue very broad warrants without specific evidence they hope to find, and the warrant has very few limits other than naming the target without having to deal with the restraints of a judge issued warrant.

3) Under a criminal grand jury, a prosecutor cannot compel a defendant or witness to testify without that person having an attorney present if they wish. A special prosecutor can compel someone to testify without the presence of an attorney.

4) In both situations, a person cannot be convicted by a grand jury. The grand jury in the end can only recommend that a case can move forward to trial. If a prosecutor doesn't agree/like the recommendation they can choose to ignore it.

There have been roughly 35 special prosecutors since the first one appointed in 1875. I usually don't like the idea of a special prosecutor. Unless the scope of the investigation is limited narrowly in scope, there is too much room for abuse of powers available and potential for violations of Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Even if someone is found guilty of something, there exists a possibility the evidence will be considered tainted and either tossed out at trial or decision reversed on appeal. Special prosecutor investigations usually appear politically motivated compared to a true law enforcement investigation.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. top court to rule on Trump's travel ban, other cases as talk about Kennedy swirls See in context

Supreme Court issued an unanimous ruling today:

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded,” the court wrote. “As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”

What the Court will consider in the Fall is how much Constitutional authority the Executive Branch has over flow of immigration to the US. Considering the prior decisions by the Supreme Court  in favor the President and the Executive Branch to make decisions relating to immigration, they will probably rule like in the past stating that non-citizens who aren't present within the borders of the US don't have US Constitutional rights and protections extended to them beyond the US borders.

It's a privilege to enter any country where a person isn't a citizen of that country, not a right.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Abused children find Japan’s shelters provide little comfort See in context

Abused, delinquent, and special needs kids are three populations which shouldn't be mixed, and each need different levels of supervision and care.

Special needs kids require specialized care with people who are trained not just some random unskilled "babysitter" to oversee them.

The children, who can be any age between 1 and 17, are usually kept indoors and away from school so that they can’t run off or abusing parents can’t grab them.

Keeping kids away from school severely limits their future job prospects and potential. If they are worried about abusive parents grabbing the kids, then have personnel take them to the school grounds and pick them up. Include orders to the school to not release the children to the parents of the abused child while the facility has custody. Abused children also need professional psychological counseling to recover and gain a sense of self worth.

Delinquents should never be mixed with either of the other two groups, and need a lot of strict oversight. Additionally, if you mix delinquents with abused or special needs children you're only fostering a situation of condoned institutional bullying.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: JR West launches new luxury train See in context

Hmmm...someone had the money to pay for all the jobs to build, maintain, and staff the train.

Building starts with including jobs for the mining, harvest, ect for raw materials. Other jobs for conversion of those raw materials into usable base components (sheet metal, cloth, wood, plastics, glass, ect). Another set of jobs for assembly of those components into intermediate and final products (train engine, cars, beds, chairs, ect ect ect). Throughout the process, multiple steps of transportation to get materials, components, and final stage products to each of their destinations. Thousands of jobs for making one final product train.

Finally, someone else willing to pay for the extra luxury as a passenger because they have the extra disposable income instead of hoarding their own money. It's not any different from any of us taking a vacation/trip at a lower level of comfort, which the vast majority of people in the world don't have as much income as anyone posting on these boards to do any kind of traveling/vacations. A matter of the looking at bigger picture and taking into account of perspective.

Besides the train does look comfortable and relaxing on the inside. You're not going to really care about that shade of green exterior when on the inside.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Ex-FBI head Comey says Trump pressured him on Russia probe See in context

Listening to the verbal under oath testimony Comey gave today before Congress was much more informative and revealing that seems to point to flaws in the written testimony from yesterday.

Senator Burr asked today, "At any point in time did the President ever request or pressure you to close the investigation?"

Comey answered: "Not to my knowledge. No."

Also, Comey also stated that Trump never asked a loyalty oath from him. Comey confirmed he told Trump that he wasn't under investigation. Like his past statements in prior testimonies before Congress, Comey reaffirmed there was no evidence of collusion with the Russians by anyone in the Trump administration.

One other piece of information, Comey admitted he unilaterally made disclosures to friends in the press about private conversations with the presidents, including some known classified information. Supposedly due to response for a tweet by Trump. However, the information which was leaked to the press was done the day before the tweet made by Trump.

I tend to believe the spoken testimony over the written testimony. It wouldn't be the first time Comey has had to issue corrections to his written statements which were submitted to Congress. It sounds too much like Comey is doing things/making statments for political decisions when not under oath.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump offers help on London attacks; repeats need for travel ban See in context

How brave of him! Any suggestions about gun violence, which kills over 50,000 in America every year?

Please don't pull numbers out of thin air, because that number isn't even close to reality, look it up for each year with the FBI national statistics. Last year it was 6,412 deaths due to guns. Total homicides from all forms of murder was at roughly 16,000 in the US, not just guns. Legally purchased guns used in crimes averages about 3% per year, and the rest come primarily from guns smuggled into the US from the cartels and other criminal organizations.

It only weakens the argument for gun control if not even using rounded up numbers close to documented information.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump's son-in-law had undisclosed contacts with Russian envoy: 7 sources See in context

Another long news story where one critical piece of information is left to the very end of all these "anonymous sources" stories:

Officials familiar with intelligence on contacts between the Russians and Trump advisers said that so far they have not seen evidence of any wrongdoing or collusion between the Trump camp and the Kremlin. Moreover, they said, nothing found so far indicates that Trump authorized, or was even aware of, the contacts.

There may not have been anything improper about the contacts, the current law enforcement official stressed.

Up until about 10 years ago, journalists in the US would only sparingly cite anonymous sources without providing having collaborating documented printed, audio, or video proof. That's just part of responsible and ethical investigative reporting. For the last 2 years this is an every day occurrence, and makes it very difficult for us to figure out what is really going on in the news and politics without sitting through entire congressional hearings on CSPAN for public hearings.

We're almost 11 months into NSA, FBI, CIA, and now for the last few months Congressional investigations into possible ties. John Brennen, Obama's appointment to head CIA, testified under oath this week that he knew of no evidence to support evidence of collusion, evidence tampering, or other illegal activities of Trump Administration in connection to the Russians. Comey, Obama's appointee to head the FBI, stated under oath the same thing days before he was fired. The same has been stated by everyone else who has testified before Congressional hearings.

A responsible journalist would start demanding hard evidence at this point, or at least lead off their article with the qualifying statement that I quoted above from this article. Doing so at the end of a news story as frequently as it has been undercuts the credibility/impartiality and makes it appear that this journalist is trying to push readers into assuming a particular conclusion without actual proof. This is very easy to do because many people won't read entire news stories carefully towards the end.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: What's known and not known about marijuana See in context

The article would have been more relevant had it covered the things research has learned over the last 5-7 years. Instead it takes a list of things we've known about for 20-30 years which was republished in January.

In a few states in the US which legalized it have been doing medical research, (even though state legalization is a violation of federal US law). Some of the more recent studies in last 2 years alone have shown:

marijuana has 77 carcinogenic toxics (same as tobacco)

vascular constriction lasts 30-35 minutes after usage (tobacco, lasts 20 minutes), causing less blood flow and oxygen to the brain as well as substantially increasing future heart disease risk

"casual" usage of just once a week increases risk of old age dementia by 87% compared with rest of general population

particulate matter from inhaling is the same as non-filtered tobacco with the same build up in the lungs and risks over time as either tobacco or coal mining

most of the beneficial effects have been available since the 1990's in pill form. It may be more expensive then buying weed, but it is available and doesn't have the deleterious effects.

These are just some of the things learned more recently.

I'm not going to bother with the non-medical related issues since the article is just focusing on the medical pro's and con's.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.