the montana case enters the home stretch.
the state supreme court will hear oral arguments tomorrow, 13 september, at the northern hotel in billings during the state bar of montana’s annual meeting (announcement 1, announcement 2).
an introduction to the argument will begin at 9:30 a.m., with the argument starting at 10 a.m. (4 p.m. utc, 9 a.m. sf time, 12 a.m. ny time, 5 p.m. london time, 2 a.m. saturday sydney time).
''If I am walking down the street and see someone being raped and in fact have the ability to stop it but I don't, guess what,''..............I'm a fucking bastard.
And if I didn't even bother to report to the police that I had witnessed a rape, well, I'd rather not use the C word.
the montana case enters the home stretch.
the state supreme court will hear oral arguments tomorrow, 13 september, at the northern hotel in billings during the state bar of montana’s annual meeting (announcement 1, announcement 2).
an introduction to the argument will begin at 9:30 a.m., with the argument starting at 10 a.m. (4 p.m. utc, 9 a.m. sf time, 12 a.m. ny time, 5 p.m. london time, 2 a.m. saturday sydney time).
I've just read the transcript. Thanks for posting the links. Terrible reading.
the montana case enters the home stretch.
the state supreme court will hear oral arguments tomorrow, 13 september, at the northern hotel in billings during the state bar of montana’s annual meeting (announcement 1, announcement 2).
an introduction to the argument will begin at 9:30 a.m., with the argument starting at 10 a.m. (4 p.m. utc, 9 a.m. sf time, 12 a.m. ny time, 5 p.m. london time, 2 a.m. saturday sydney time).
''I want you to remember the testimony from local Elders talking about how in 2004, once they knew that Max Reyes was a known child molester, they could sit in the front of the local Thompson Falls church and look out on pews, much like we've got right here -- much like we have right here in similar position as you -- and they could see a little girl.
This right here (indicating), that's the little girl they could see and that's what she looked like then. They could see that little girl sitting next to a known pedophile, a pedophile that they're the only people that know the sick things he does.
They could look out and they could see her and they could know that on the weekends she's in the home with a very, very dangerous person. And those folks knew that the authorities had not been alerted and they knew the danger that that known pedophile presented to them.
At the beginning of this trial and through this trial I'm sure the question came to your mind why, why on earth would Elders refuse to follow the law?
What would make a person do such a thing? And now, through the course of this trial, we have the answer. And the answer is we showed what the policies are of the church.
We showed you what the two witness rule is and we showed you their policies on keeping secrets. And where do those policies come from?
Those policies come from the very top. And that tells you what a very powerful organization this is.
You see, this case is not about these folks over here in these pews (indicating) that attend church in Thompson Falls. This case is about the powerful organizations up here (indicating) at the top that are setting the policies, that are exercising the kind of control that would make a person know about a child molester, see him with a child and refuse to follow the law after they know that it's the law in Montana.
Everything that happened in 2004 on this chart was done by the book. Whose book? Their religious books.
It was done according to their plan. It was done exactly the way that these guys up here at the top running things -- their Elders behaved exactly like they wanted them to behave, exactly how they had been taught to behave and exactly how the fear of God had been placed in them for how they should behave.''
seriously, it’s getting to a point that you can’t make a negative comment about someone without being charged as a racist, homophobe or sexist!
if you criticize a female, you are obviously sexist.
if you criticize someone who happens to be gay, you must hate homosexuals.
''Khater is an immigrant from Sudan who was granted asylum by the UK authorities.
He has recently been found guilty of attempted murder because he deliberately drove his car at Police and pedestrians. He's been given a custodial sentence.
Am I racist if I criticise this guy?
Am I racist if I say Khater should 'go back to where he came from'?''
Well I'd guess if you were criticising him for being 'of colour' then I'd veer towards a Yes.
If you were criticising him because of his actions then I'd veer towards a No.
If you were saying he should 'go back to where he came from' because you have an aversion to people of colour who were born in Africa then I'd veer towards a Yes.
If you were saying he should 'go back to where he came from' because you think it is simply better to send all criminals back to their country of origin whether it be Ireland, France, Japan etc, with reciprocal arrangements with other countries to return all criminals back to their country of birth as a matter of state policy, then I'd veer towards a No.
seriously, it’s getting to a point that you can’t make a negative comment about someone without being charged as a racist, homophobe or sexist!
if you criticize a female, you are obviously sexist.
if you criticize someone who happens to be gay, you must hate homosexuals.
If you rail against the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses direction, go where you will be happier.
If not , then shush.
seriously, it’s getting to a point that you can’t make a negative comment about someone without being charged as a racist, homophobe or sexist!
if you criticize a female, you are obviously sexist.
if you criticize someone who happens to be gay, you must hate homosexuals.
''Regarding strive for change, it depends if the change you are looking for is a good change or not. If you want to weaken the country, flout the laws of the land etc... I’m not for that at all. If you want to save babies lives and not destroy them, I’m for that change.''
Again I get what you're saying.
But it could be interpreted, or misinterpreted, that what you are saying is as follows;
If a person is striving to change something that I don't agree with as being a good thing, then they can just leave or shush.
However, if a person is striving to change something that I do agree with as being a good thing, then they don't have to leave or shush.
I could probably see myself agreeing with that sentiment. I think it's human nature to a large degree.
seriously, it’s getting to a point that you can’t make a negative comment about someone without being charged as a racist, homophobe or sexist!
if you criticize a female, you are obviously sexist.
if you criticize someone who happens to be gay, you must hate homosexuals.
''I'm offering Option 4.........Strive for change - great.''
I'm glad we agree on that, thanks.
As regards 'these' four women , Trump, Obama etc, I wasn't commenting on that. But I take your point.
seriously, it’s getting to a point that you can’t make a negative comment about someone without being charged as a racist, homophobe or sexist!
if you criticize a female, you are obviously sexist.
if you criticize someone who happens to be gay, you must hate homosexuals.
''Pretty simple, if you live or move to a country that you pretty much hate, why stay there? If I am not happy in a situation or a place to live, I’ll do my best to get out of there. I don’t understand why you have difficulty grasping this.''
I agree with you Minimus to a degree.
What I'm commenting on is your statement, ''If you rail against the country’s direction, go where you will be happier. If not , then shush.'' I'm just wondering if you think that striving for political change of direction is not something to be pursued.
If Frenchmen of 1789 had followed the advice that could be implied in your statement then I'm guessing the French Revolution would not have taken place.
When the American colonials were railing against the direction that the British were leading the early country I suppose they could have just shushed, or left.
I don't think you mean that. But that is how it could be interpreted.
Option 1 ......Put up
Option 2 ......Shut up
Option 3 ......Leave
I'm offering Option 4.........Strive for change
seriously, it’s getting to a point that you can’t make a negative comment about someone without being charged as a racist, homophobe or sexist!
if you criticize a female, you are obviously sexist.
if you criticize someone who happens to be gay, you must hate homosexuals.
'If you choose to go to any country and you simply rail against it all the time, leave.''
Fair point, if you choose to move/emigrate to a country and then rail against it all the time.
Is that what you meant by your earlier comment, ''If you rail against the country’s direction, go where you will be happier. If not , then shush.''
I'm just clarifying if you feel feel the same way about it if you were born in a country (as opposed to moving to it) that you rail against its direction?
seriously, it’s getting to a point that you can’t make a negative comment about someone without being charged as a racist, homophobe or sexist!
if you criticize a female, you are obviously sexist.
if you criticize someone who happens to be gay, you must hate homosexuals.
My mistake. I didn't realize you were specifically talking about railing against the USA.
I took it that your advice was that, if you express disapproval of the country of your birth, for whatever reason, then your options are either leave that country, for example North Vietnam, or stop expressing your disapproval of that country.
I'm guessing there wouldn't be much change that way.
