Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

ChocolateReignRemix

Members
  • Content Count

    507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ChocolateReignRemix


  1. 30 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

    not completely correct. My FIL was German,  from Prussia, He has told me about how bad it was getting in Germany and how practically the whole population of Prussia fled before the Russian  invasions

    I am not sure how that disputes anything I said.  The U.S. was in the war and was providing significant military aid to Britain and the Soviets.  Remove the U.S. and the threat of a western front, the Italian front, and the North African campaign and the picture in the east develops very differently.


  2. 17 minutes ago, Michelle Conde said:

    But I'm curious, do you think the Allies would have won WWII without the US's involvement?

     

    Very unlikely.  Britain was hanging on by a thread in 1941 and there was no chance of them ever staging an invasion of western Europe without aid from the US.  Without the threat of a western front and the Italian front the Germans likely could have held off the Soviet advance. 

     

    • Like 2

  3. 9 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

    More like just not teaching dates at all.  I mean I knew you guys came in after pearl harbour but I had the vague idea that that was around 1943 before this thread.  So if it achieved nothing else it straightened that out.  History education here is not great and definitely not focussed on American history.  I guess much as American history classes probably don’t do a tonne of Australian history though I may be wrong.

    Which is why I wouldn't be making a comment about Australian history, especially a petty one, without making sure I had my facts straight. 

    • Like 2

  4. 58 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

     

    Probably less about being petty than poor or different history teaching. Understandably, US history doesn't feature highly in the curriculum in other places. Any US history I know I've learned in my own time.

    I can't imagine different countries are teaching different dates.  If someone is going to make a statement like that it's always best to do a quick fact check.


  5. 15 hours ago, kiwik said:

      And no you didn't ride in on a white charger in the second world war you just came in at the end when you could no longer ignore it.

    The war lasted almost 6 years and the US entered after around 2 1/3 years and had been providing significant material assistance prior.  "Came in at the end" is both petty and wrong.

    • Like 1

  6. 27 minutes ago, Katy said:

    I thought that the supreme court struck down a lot of HOA rights recently?

    Anyway my guess is that while they can send a paper warning they'd have to get a judge involved to evict anyone.  They have no rights whatsoever to evict the guardians.  My guess is at most they can levy fines against them which they will not be able to collect until both of the couple dies or the home is sold unless the fines get so massive they are able to foreclose on the home.  I'm pretty sure that would not be legal in the states I've lived, but I don't know about there.  And I don't think a judge in Arizona is likely to side with the HOA unless Arizona laws are much different than I think they are.  And because the judge would then have to get social services involved...  Maybe the HOA wants to have the precedent of declining but wants a judge to overrule them in this special circumstance.

    Apparently Arizona law says only 20% of residents must comply with age restrictions:

    https://www.azfamily.com/news/attorney-weighs-in-on-prescott-hoa-s-decision-to-force/article_f907fe00-380e-11ea-9632-6b8f788a9c55.html

    I am not aware of a SCOTUS decision that severely impacted the rights of HOAs. 

    There is a lot wrong in the rest of your post, but in general the HOA will have a process to enforce their regulations, usually via fines/liens and eventual foreclosure.  In AZ the foreclosure process can begin once the debt reaches $1200.  A judge would not grounds to get social services involved any more than in any other foreclosure case.

    • Like 2

  7. 13 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

    True, but exceptions aren't required, and I would imagine that the by-laws also state that the board has the final say.  Grandma wants to try this case in the court of public outrage.  Neighbors who may be sympathetic are staying quiet because they don't want teens hanging out in their neighborhood.

     

    Which is the correct move in their situation.  If there is no appeals process taking it to the media is their best shot at forcing the board to review its decision.

    • Like 1

  8. 20 minutes ago, EmseB said:

    I think because exceptions can be granted doesn't mean that they will be granted. That's why they are exceptions and not just the rules. I don't think one should expect to get an exception.

    If I were on the board I would vote for them to stay. I don't think, given the basis of the neighborhood, that it should be assumed he would be able to stay or that the board wouldn't have reason to vote for not granting an exception. I haven't read what the HOA is saying as to why they won't. I've only heard one side from the people who want to stay.

    The HOA stated in the letter that they "can't" let him stay, which is false.  They can, but they are choosing not to do so.  Therefore they are coming across as gaping ********.

    • Like 1

  9. 5 minutes ago, SKL said:

    Wow.  I think they should make an exception!  If necessary to preserve the rules, they could vote on it just this once.

    Exception being if the kid isn't acting in a way that is conducive to peaceful living.  Is he doing things that are really noisy, illegal, bringing disruptive friends around?

    What is the age when young people are allowed to stay?  How close is he to that age?

    I would be trying to move out of there ASAP, due to the stupid attitudes; but it isn't right for them to be forced out like that.

    The minimum age is 19. 


  10. On 11/26/2019 at 2:02 PM, teachermom2834 said:

    I was not completely honest when I said he is only bringing a pie. He typically brings 2, but only shares 1.5 pumpkin pies. Which is great. Almost everyone loves pumpkin pie and we definitely need it at Thanksgiving. 

    When it is dessert time his wife generally cuts half of one pie and wraps it up for them to take home and then shares the other 1.5. 😂

    Y'all...I swear I am not making this up.

     

    I would continue to invite them just for the stories.

    • Like 2

  11. 5 hours ago, sweet2ndchance said:

    Dh is absolutely adament that ds will not play football or other contact sports like he did as a kid. There are so many other ways for ds to get exercise and take risks without increasing his risk of multiple head injuries. He remembers all the times his coaches would tell him to "walk it off" or "get back in there" when he now knows he had just suffered a brain injury and should have been told to sit down or see a doctor. He was never knocked unconscious so it was assumed that he was fine but the cumulative affect of all the "walk it off"s are what caused his heaches that still affect him to this day.

    True, lots of kids play these sports and are fine but to dh, it is not worth the risk for his child to have to suffer and feel the pain he has to deal with everyday due to contact sports. He was so scared when I was pregnant with ds and we still didn't have anything conclusive on what was causing his headaches that it might be something genetic that he might pass to ds. Now that we know what caused his headaches, he still does not want to chance ds having the same fate as him. 

    FWIW football and other sports are now implementing a concussion protocol at a young age.  Football has moved that direction for some time but last season (at least in our state) basketball also implemented it as well.  Too late for many who were injured in the past but a step in the right direction.

    • Like 1

  12. 8 hours ago, wintermom said:

    Really depends where in the US, and what you consider "very low." You'd probably be surprised at the amount and level of athletes and leagues there are in the US if you think it's very low.

    The injury data was national so the correct comparison is national participation rates.  Hockey participation is dwarfed by other major sports.  Team swimming also has low participation rates.  To put this in perspective, most small communities in rural areas nationwide will not field a single hockey or swim team, but they usually will field multiple basketball and baseball teams at the youth level.  The comparison isn't really even close.


  13. 14 hours ago, Tap said:

    A few things I find interesting about this list. Is that it doesn't say what percentage of kids who play each sport, get injured. So, while cycling is at the top, I would assume it is because the majority of kids can ride a bike, while not every child has played football.  This is important too, because people don't typically say "don't buy your kid a bike because it is the most common cause of head injury in children under 14".  Every sport carries risks! Sometimes it is about our familiartity or percieved level of danger that guides our parenting decisions.

    This grouping cracks me up!  Again, it is about perception. Golf is less dangerous overall than gym/dance/Cheer. But both golf and gym/dance/cheer has more head injuries than hockey! My daughter was a cheerleader. It doesn't seem dangerous, but  seriously(!) you have girls throwing other girls in the air while they do flips and spins mid-air on concrete! Quite often, it wasn't even one person hitting the ground that inflicted the injury, it was heads smacking heads. At least with hockey they get pads and a helmet! LOL

    • Gymnastics/Dance/Cheerleading: 10,223
    • Golf: 10,035
    • Hockey: 8,145

    You have to compare injuries related to participation rates.  Hockey has a very low participation rate in the US. My guess is that the head injuries/participant is >>> than golf.


  14. 5 hours ago, alewife said:

    At least this move forces the NCAA's hand.  I have read reports that college sports generated over 14 billion dollars last year, with March Madness alone generating $900 million last year for the NCAA.  It is ridiculous, imo, that the athletes don't get a share of this profit.  (I don't buy into the NCAA claims that these student athletes are getting a college degree in exchange for their play because most of them are not)  

    At least now the NCAA is saying that "changes are needed".  Changes have been needed for decades.  It is unfortunate that the state and federal governments needed to get involved in order for these kids to be treated fairly... 

     

    The money does go back to the schools, and it is pumped back into athletics. And they certainly get an opportunity for a free college education (and most NCAA athletes do get a degree). 

    The reality is you will now have boosters targeting 17 year olds for "endorsement" contracts and I don't believe the end result will benefit the average athlete.


  15. On 10/7/2019 at 6:18 PM, Corraleno said:

    The vast majority of the students involved in Varsity Blues were admitted to USC, where the scam included multiple coaches as well as an Athletic Director. I do think USC should be subject to serious sanctions by NCAA, but I don't think the general admissions department, or other administrators who had no way of knowing what was happening in the athletic department, should be blamed.

    I will be interested to see if the NCAA gets involved.  It didn't give USC a competitive advantage (seems to be the opposite) so I am not sure this will be a priority with everything else they have going on.


  16. 1 hour ago, Thatboyofmine said:

    Yes, but I bet it will still influence other judges, as will the younger brother’s hug.

     

    I doubt it.  Appeals are limited in scope.  No different than when a judge makes very negative comments at a sentencing.

    • Like 1

  17. 56 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

    (popping back in as this caught my eye)
    I’m not sure it’s really showing favor when the sentence has already been handed down, impact statements have been made, and they’re just awaiting transfer. There is an ethics complaint against the judge now for this, but since she discharged her duties in the case before approaching and speaking with the convicted killer about her faith, it probably won’t fly.  Judges have a lot of latitude for pontificating and moralizing in the court room by precedent.

    Correct.  Someone above expressed concerns about any potential appeals being tainted by the judge's actions, but any appeals will go through different judges.

    • Like 3

  18. 46 minutes ago, Katy said:

    I was surprised she was convicted because it's rare to convict cops.  But it was the right thing.  Even if she HAD been in her apartment, a crazy guy who broke in and is watching TV and eating ice cream on your couch does not deserve to die. And even cops are taught to never pull a gun unless you've already ascertained that someone is going to die - you, an innocent person, or the criminal.

    I doubt she'll live long in prison though.

    Off-duty cops get convicted fairly often.  Most only make the news briefly.

    • Like 1

  19. 1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

    Oh I agree she handled it wrong.  I am still surprised by the murder charge which implies intent I think.  It seems manslaughter or some other less serious charge would have been more appropriate.  And people keep saying ‘in his own home,!’  with yes is tragic...,but if she really thought she was in her apartment it was a big accident.  

    I think when people carry guns they get weird about situations.  If I saw my apartment door ajar I would run and get help...not go on in.  

    I think she was just a very unsympathetic defendant due to the sexting with a married man.  That she admitted full affair with apparently. 

    FWIW legally "intent" can form in a moment just before the act.

    There wasn't a great case for manslaughter.  She entered his home and had no valid reason to shoot him.

    • Like 4

  20. 6 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

    I get legally prisoners have these rights. Not arguing they shouldn’t. But it seems like so many of the prisons in the US allow extremely abusive conditions that it honestly makes me 🙄 on some of the reasons why he wasn’t on watch or camera. I mean they also have a right to not be beaten or raped, but that seems to happen with a staggering amount of regularity at some prisons. So it’s hard to digest why being on camera is the line that violates anything. We’re on camera just about everywhere as free citizens. I hadn’t realized you had a right to privacy in a jail cell tbh. Aside from talking to your lawyer what other privacy do you get in prison? Phone calls and letters are screened aren’t they? 

     

    You aren't under constant 24/7 surveillance, and comparing that to being on camera in public is just silly.  And I never mentioned a right to privacy.  Prisoners do have a right to (reasonable) personal dignity.

     

    • Like 1

  21. 1 minute ago, mathnerd said:

    If he were murdered by someone inside his cell (high security room, whatever) there would be evidence had there had been a camera. It may be impossible for the camera to act as a deterrent to suicide, but, it could have showed the investigators whether he was physically attacked (a lot of conspiracy theorists are saying that he was killed to prevent truths from leaking) so they could rule out murder and move on with the investigation. El Chapo and Epstein are high profile people who have affected a lot of lives - it is in the interest of justice towards their victims to have them in a cell/room with camera surveillance at the very least. I am sure that cameras are intrusive to these prisoners, but, when weighed against the suffering of their victims, it seems a small inconvenience. An ex-jail warden says (TV news) that she has seen Epstein walk around freely (sometimes naked, as well) and getting special treatment in the prison when he was previously put under arrest. This man has used connections in the past to move around a prison and could have done so this time as well.

     

    Epstein had not yet been convicted.  Also his alleged victims have the same right to justice as all victims, regardless of the notoriety of the accused.  Being kept under 24/7 surveillance for reasons outside the usual protocol would correctly be challenged in court.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...