Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

But that doesn’t apply in ireland afaik. The deaths have already greatly surpassed flu. So the idea that they will be the same didn’t happen.

Some countries are possibly inflating numbers. And others countries were minimising numbers at the other end. Like somebody dying from covid while undergoing cancer treatment gets filled in the cancer column. Aside from outright lying a huge problem is countries recording data differently.

True,the above doesnt apply here[hopefully] just pointing out a reason that why everyone belives the US has such a "high" death rate.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

True,the above doesnt apply here[hopefully] just pointing out a reason that why everyone belives the US has such a "high" death rate.

Ultimately it's very hard to compare countries with different approaches and resources. Both in terms of treating and testing.

The US rate does seem high though. 18% currently.
UK and Italy are 14%. which I think reflects bad UK decisions and other factors for Italy.
Spain is 10%, which is probably normal for an overwhelming outbreak.
Ireland 6%, probably approaching normal for a more a manageable level.
Then you have Russia. Same number of cases as UK, but less that 1% record deaths. Meanwhile, instances of people falling out windows has increased.

tudderone

Mellor wrote: »

Ultimately it's very hard to compare countries with different approaches and resources. Both in terms of treating and testing.

The US rate does seem high though. 18% currently.
UK and Italy are 14%. which I think reflects bad UK decisions and other factors for Italy.
Spain is 10%, which is probably normal for an overwhelming outbreak.
Ireland 6%, probably approaching normal for a more a manageable level.
Then you have Russia. Same number of cases as UK, but less that 1% record deaths. Meanwhile, instances of people falling out windows has increased.

Odd that, i noticed it to, people who upset Mr Putin have a very high accident rate, suicide rate and disapperance rate.

Mellor

tudderone wrote: »

Odd that, i noticed it to, people who upset Mr Putin have a very high accident rate, suicide rate and disapperance rate.

Obviously just a co-relation being outspoken and being clumsy.
Good comrades do not have those characteristics.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Odd that, i noticed it to, people who upset Mr Putin have a very high accident rate, suicide rate and disapperance rate.

seems to happen quite a lot to journalists there too.But they seem to have silly accidents with firearms alot Especially ones they never owned legally in the first place and seem to magically vanish from the "sucidide" scene after use!:rolleyes:

tudderone

Trudeau talking about the dangers of gun control :rolleyes:. How things change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3Gs_mwWmTk

Grizzly 45

For John Wick fans...Or how to make sure your local cheif is taken away to the home for the bewildered when you apply for the liscenses,and your CPO cant fault the security on this.:D:D:D[

"https://blade-city.com/blogs/gun-knife-blog/continental-gun-safe-100-000-john-wick-safe-comes-with-17-guns-video-inside?aff=17&fbclid=IwAR2iUmVPOqYwGWR2Vd6AQ4uqAJgPxjCOBgOvg9DeRXRh50dt6TSUJ3dj10Y"]https://blade-city.com/blogs/gun-knife-blog/continental-gun-safe-100-000-john-wick-safe-comes-with-17-guns-video-inside?aff=17&fbclid=IwAR2iUmVPOqYwGWR2Vd6AQ4uqAJgPxjCOBgOvg9DeRXRh50dt6TSUJ3dj10Y

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

For John Wick fans...Or how to make sure your local cheif is taken away to the home for the bewildered when you apply for the liscenses,and your CPO cant fault the security on this.:D:D:D[

"https://blade-city.com/blogs/gun-knife-blog/continental-gun-safe-100-000-john-wick-safe-comes-with-17-guns-video-inside?aff=17&fbclid=IwAR2iUmVPOqYwGWR2Vd6AQ4uqAJgPxjCOBgOvg9DeRXRh50dt6TSUJ3dj10Y"]https://blade-city.com/blogs/gun-knife-blog/continental-gun-safe-100-000-john-wick-safe-comes-with-17-guns-video-inside?aff=17&fbclid=IwAR2iUmVPOqYwGWR2Vd6AQ4uqAJgPxjCOBgOvg9DeRXRh50dt6TSUJ3dj10Y

Different world over there isn't it ?

yubabill

OK bear with me on this one.

Today the HSE caved in to the Data commissioner wrt sending test results for Covid-19 to employers, rather than individuals. HSE argued this was expedient in the interests of public health but Data commissioner says that data law is data law and HSE are in breach of same.

Now, forget Gemma and John Waters - that was a kooky amateur attempt to use conspiracy theories to argue constitutional law - we have fundamental rights under Bunreacht na hEireann, including article 40.4 guaranteeing the right to liberty and freedom.

So it should follow that the Data Commissioner has set a precedent for the law of the land to supersede expedience in public safety........

Grizzly 45

Hell Yeah!! It's your private health information first and foremost.So it's your discretion as to who gets informed about its contents.
Although with judges and politicans saying our constitutional rights are not "absolutes" I'd wonder ,just what rights DO we really have here???

Mellor

yubabill wrote: »

Today the HSE caved in to the Data commissioner wrt sending test results for Covid-19 to employers, rather than individuals. HSE argued this was expedient in the interests of public health but Data commissioner says that data law is data law and HSE are in breach of same

So it should follow that the Data Commissioner has set a precedent for the law of the land to supersede expedience in public safety........

I think that was the obvious conclusion. Data laws exists, and no temporary suspension was even hinted at.

But I don't you can apply that to any notional rights without a black and wihte law underwriting it. There no law that says you can have a party with 100 people, etc.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Although with judges and politicans saying our constitutional rights are not "absolutes" I'd wonder ,just what rights DO we really have here???

Constitutional rights were never absolute rights, anywhere.
People often don't realise that because the times they are not granted are so ingrained in society, morals and/or human nature that it's obvious.

tudderone

We are living in strange times, i hope they end soon.

Mellor

tudderone wrote: »

We are living in strange times, i hope they end soon.

Yeah, the novelty and the facepalming is fast becoming frustration and concern.
It's also bringing out the very nasty side of media and social media. Which is the norm in the US, for example. But with so many eyes on the world it's happening everywhere. Post some "alternate facts" on a facebook image and people will simply believe it, if it suits them.

But I think the light is closer than people think. Australia are tracking a few weeks ahead of Ireland, and the return to normality seems to be approaching quick that forecast

tudderone

Mellor wrote: »

Yeah, the novelty and the facepalming is fast becoming frustration and concern.
It's also bringing out the very nasty side of media and social media. Which is the norm in the US, for example. But with so many eyes on the world it's happening everywhere. Post some "alternate facts" on a facebook image and people will simply believe it, if it suits them.

But I think the light is closer than people think. Australia are tracking a few weeks ahead of Ireland, and the return to normality seems to be approaching quick that forecast

Dunno, the Aussies have just entered an economic war with the Chinese, tariffs flying around like artillery shells.

yubabill

We were taught in civics class that Bunreacht na hEireann is superior to the law.

The rights given in the constitution are there in black and white and every law passed in the Dail/Seanad must not infringe the constitution.

A problem arose with the newer EU treaties, where the EU claims precedence over national law. This is being challenged as we speak in Germany in regards to ECB bond purchases (hence Angela and Macron's 500Bn new patch today (which is being acrimoniously rejected already by 4 countries that believe they are going to have to stump up))
https://www.ft.com/content/a1beda5e-5c2d-429e-a095-27728ed2d72b

Politicians and deep government will now try to convince you that the constitution is inferior to law. If this is true, then why can't they just pass laws to change the constitution?

By the way, this global lockdown is beginning to radicalise a lot of moderate people - never mind Elon Musk saying "Take the red pill" this guy I watch for legal opinions has gone from liberal Canadian to borderline Trump supporter in a few weeks, talking about a police state and referencing the Canadian gun ban, too;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oaWEIqIjYk

Mellor

tudderone wrote: »

Dunno, the Aussies have just entered an economic war with the Chinese, tariffs flying around like artillery shells.

80% Tarrif on barley and other exports. I'm sure there are plenty of other places to send it. Buying nationally and locally is getting a big push.

Convenient timing with an investigation Chinese actions around the covid outbreak. Aussies on the ground won't care about cutting ties with China.

yubabill wrote: »

We were taught in civics class that Bunreacht na hEireann is superior to the law.

The rights given in the constitution are there in black and white and every law passed in the Dail/Seanad must not infringe the constitution

The constitution is the highest law in the land. I don't think any one could ever suggested otherwise.

But to say they are black and white? History shows that to be untrue.
Interpreting the words, language and intention of the constitution is an extensive and on going body of work.

A problem arose with the newer EU treaties, where the EU claims precedence over national law. This is being challenged as we speak in Germany in regards to ECB bond purchases (hence Angela and Macron's 500Bn new patch today (which is being acrimoniously rejected already by 4 countries that believe they are going to have to stump up))

That's an issue, and probably a messy one but not really constitutional issue afaik.

Politicians and deep government will now try to convince you that the constitution is inferior to law. If this is true, then why can't they just pass laws to change the constitution?

Also bit of an out there conspiracy theory that one. The answer to the question, is simply that it's not true. A politician suggesting that would be absolutely spanked into retirement by the opposition. And rightfully so.

Although a constitution is the highest law in the land, the rights within is are not black and white absolutes absolutes, at least in the sense of people reading them in isolation thinking it overrules all other laws.

Basic example, albeit a simplification, most constitutions typically grant the population some sort of right to liberty. But at the same time governments are permitted, on behalf of the people, to put criminals in jail.
Somebody can't argue that a custodial sentence is an unconstitutional removal of the right to liberty, not successfully anyway.

Governments won't always get it right. That's why the judicial processes exists to review particular laws or applications of laws. But it's a highly complex area of law. The likes of Gemma O'Doherty waffling on twiiter thinking she's cracked it is laughable - as was the transcript of the recent court appearance. :pac:

Mellor

Joe Rogan isn't everyone's cup of tea. I recently watch this episode on a Friends recommendation and really enjoyed it.
Jack Carr, former Navy SEAL turned author.
Seal doesn't do him justice. He was a Seal sniper, sniper team leader, eventually becoming a Special Ops Task Unit Commander.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra4522ikFoU

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

Constitutional rights were never absolute rights, anywhere.
People often don't realise that because the times they are not granted are so ingrained in society, morals and/or human nature that it's obvious.

The Americans might beg to differ on that one that first sentence. The US constitution is based on the concept that Govt is there to protect inalieable,natural,or "God given" rights,not to grant or deny them on its need or whim.Here ,I bet no one could list what inalieable natural rights an Irish citizen has under our constitution?

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

80% Tarrif on barley and other exports. I'm sure there are plenty of other places to send it. Buying nationally and locally is getting a big push.

Convenient timing with an investigation Chinese actions around the covid outbreak. Aussies on the ground won't care about cutting ties with China.

They do,as China has a vast investment in Austrailias coal and bauxite mining industries in the outback,as well as being their main customer for rice and grains.There isnt really any other market for this stuff in the Antipodean areas,and the World market is dominated by US/Canada for grains and Russia for Bauxite.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The Americans might beg to differ on that one that first sentence. The US constitution is based on the concept that Govt is there to protect inalieable,natural,or "God given" rights,not to grant or deny them on its need or whim.

They might object, but they’d be wrong. Their constitution is based on the same system as ours, British common law. My example wasn’t specific to the Irish Constitution;

The US constitution includes the right to liberty, and the right to bear arms. But there’s a few million Americans current incarcerated? Their liberty taken away. Similarly, dangerous felons are excluded from owning guns. Again a right taken away.
Now, nobody suggests it’s unconstitutional for criminals to lose those rights. But if constitutional rights were absolute, neither of those things could happen. Therefore, they aren’t.
The US Supreme court has confirm they aren’t absolute.

But not being absolute, doesn’t mean or suggest they can or could be taken away on a whim. That’s a false dichotomy.
The legislature is still there to uphold those rights, absolute or otherwise. How it does that it, as you know, constantly debated.

tudderone

yubabill wrote: »

We were taught in civics class that Bunreacht na hEireann is superior to the law.

The rights given in the constitution are there in black and white and every law passed in the Dail/Seanad must not infringe the constitution.

A problem arose with the newer EU treaties, where the EU claims precedence over national law. This is being challenged as we speak in Germany in regards to ECB bond purchases (hence Angela and Macron's 500Bn new patch today (which is being acrimoniously rejected already by 4 countries that believe they are going to have to stump up))
https://www.ft.com/content/a1beda5e-5c2d-429e-a095-27728ed2d72b

Politicians and deep government will now try to convince you that the constitution is inferior to law. If this is true, then why can't they just pass laws to change the constitution?

By the way, this global lockdown is beginning to radicalise a lot of moderate people - never mind Elon Musk saying "Take the red pill" this guy I watch for legal opinions has gone from liberal Canadian to borderline Trump supporter in a few weeks, talking about a police state and referencing the Canadian gun ban, too;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oaWEIqIjYk

It seems under German laws drawn up after ww2, the German state cannot become part of any federal body. The eu is a federal body, or is trying to become one, ever closer union and all that, and thats where the poo hits the fan. The German courts say no and the eu courts say yes.

I would imagine these eurobonds will not be popular with the German and the frugal four taxpayers, seeing as they are the ones putting in most of the money.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

They do,as China has a vast investment in Austrailias coal and bauxite mining industries in the outback,as well as being their main customer for rice and grains.There isnt really any other market for this stuff in the Antipodean areas,and the World market is dominated by US/Canada for grains and Russia for Bauxite.

The farmer exporting barley is hit, obviously.
I doubt mining will be impacted, as China has a vested interest as you pointed out.
I was referring to the average Aussie though, not the farmers though. A few weeks ago there was calls to boycott China, stop trading, etc. I’m saying there could well be a sense of good riddance. I’m not saying it’s a smart attitude for the economy or the guys affected.

Australians go crazy when Chinese people buy all the baby food in supermarkets and send it overseas (still don’t know how that works tbh).

tudderone

Mellor wrote: »

The farmer exporting barley is hit, obviously.
I doubt mining will be impacted, as China has a vested interest as you pointed out.
I was referring to the average Aussie though, not the farmers though. A few weeks ago there was calls to boycott China, stop trading, etc. I’m saying there could well be a sense of good riddance. I’m not saying it’s a smart attitude for the economy or the guys affected.

Australians go crazy when Chinese people buy all the baby food in supermarkets and send it overseas (still don’t know how that works tbh).

Whats that all about ?

yubabill

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The Americans might beg to differ on that one that first sentence. The US constitution is based on the concept that Govt is there to protect inalieable,natural,or "God given" rights,not to grant or deny them on its need or whim.Here ,I bet no one could list what inalieable natural rights an Irish citizen has under our constitution?

We don't have a bill of rights here, but a thousand years of precedent since Magna Carta is a fair substitute.

I would infer from the above, while looking at Bunreacht, that we have a common law entitlement to freedom and liberty unless we break the law or are sectioned under mental health provisions. But imprisonment or section are the exceptions, liberty being the rule. Thus I'm inferring a right to freedom, which cannot be infringed without good reason - usually involving a trial in court or a personalised professional medical report.

The ST reported a barrister was looking to represent any organisation seeking to challenge the lockdown legislation, but civil liberties orgs etc. were not willing to challenge it. Nor would I have challenged it in a personal capacity back then if I had the resources, just out of common sense; it looked like the alternative to lockdown was a lot of suffering.

But it's time to open up now.

And it worries me that when they grow up, my kids could be under lockdown every time there's a heavy downpour or a fog.

Just sayin'

Mellor

tudderone wrote: »

Whats that all about ?

Personal shoppers will go into a supermarket, and fill a trolley with baby formula and buy up 24 or 36 cases tubs of brand X and the stuff is sent to china.
Basically students or whoever the service online for a premium fee.
I've never understood it, Australia isn't cheap, plus the cost of shipping and the shopper's fee. Means it has to be a wildly expensive of the end user.

Mellor

yubabill wrote: »

We don't have a bill of rights here, but a thousand years of precedent since Magna Carta is a fair substitute.

I would infer from the above, while looking at Bunreacht, that we have a common law entitlement to freedom and liberty unless we break the law or are sectioned under mental health provisions. But imprisonment or section are the exceptions, liberty being the rule. Thus I'm inferring a right to freedom, which cannot be infringed without good reason - usually involving a trial in court or a personalised professional medical report.

We don't have a statutory instrument named "the bill of rights", as in our case the bill of rights is codified as part of Bunreacht itself.
The Americans didn't intentionally create the Bill separately to award it special power. It was basically a addendum tacked on to the constitution to fix the perceived issues with the original. We were able to integrated it as they gave is 100+ notice.

But the language of each is very similar. I've never looked into it, but I imagine that DeValera took a sizeable inspiration from across the pond when drafting Bunreacht.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

But the language of each is very similar. I've never looked into it, but I imagine that DeValera took a sizeable inspiration from across the pond when drafting Bunreacht.

Err...NO.. The US constitution is readable and understandable by anyone with a 6th class primary school education and reading ability back in the 18 th century,which made you a pretty well educated person back then,and it was on 2 pages,more or less.

The Irish constitution runs to 214 pages [inc the index] and is written in a quasi legal form that you need a semi legal professional mindset to read and interpert.

The EU constitution runs to over 5THOUSAND pages ,and you need to be a professional EU constitutional lawyer to figure it out.

Dev might have written and been inspired by the US form of Govt,but once it was sent to Archbishop Mac Quaid and the Catholic mafia of the Vatican for approval.
What came back out was nothing like the US system of govt. Were it so the President and Senad would have executive power,and not be an expensive rubber stamp in the Phoenix park,or an Oligarchical rest home for has beens,also rans,and wanna be''s tacked onto side of Lenstir house.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Err...NO.. The US constitution is readable and understandable by anyone with a 6th class primary school education and reading ability back in the 18 th century,which made you a pretty well educated person back then,and it was on 2 pages,more or less.

The Irish constitution runs to 214 pages [inc the index] and is written in a quasi legal form that you need a semi legal professional mindset to read and interpert.

I was referring to the section on rights, not the entire document. It was written almost a century and a half later. It's hardly surprising that it's a more developed legal document. Certain sections are heavy on legalese. But the rights, are fairly plain english. Obviously the language on the US document is somewhat of its period. But I think you are overstating it's simplicity. Some sections are straight forward, other less so.

And you are grossly exaggerated the difference in length. "2 vrs 214 pages" is not accurate. The US document is c.7,500 words. The Irish Document is 16,000 words. Yes, its longer, not 100 times longer.

Dev might have written and been inspired by the US form of Govt,but once it was sent to Archbishop Mac Quaid and the Catholic mafia of the Vatican for approval.
What came back out was nothing like the US system of govt. Were it so the President and Senad would have executive power,and not be an expensive rubber stamp in the Phoenix park,or an Oligarchical rest home for has beens,also rans,and wanna be''s tacked onto side of Lenstir house.

Who claimed the the systems of government were the same?
The Irish President is not remotely Analogous to the POTUS.

I'm not sure what the logic was behind President and Taoiseach. But seems more Westminister than Washington.

tudderone

Mellor wrote: »

The Irish President is not remotely Analogous to the POTUS.

I'm not sure what the logic was behind President and Taoiseach. But seems more Westminister than Washington.

It was a cushy job and house for dev, in his retirement, thats all it was set up for.

tudderone

New Yorks oldest and most famous (infamous ?) gun shop, John Jovino's in Little Italy has closed up for good, after 109 years.


https://untappedcities.com/2020/05/20/john-jovino-oldest-gun-shop-in-new-york-city-closes-permanently/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jSlHWQ-iGM