Done

Done. ng, ng.

start

ding

@TallMIke - it was not illegal - the UK did not even try to bring it to court. You're just stating your opinion as facts. You don't like it, thats okay but the UK knowingly agreed with it - and Norway didnt. Tht's the choice. The UK should have compensated the Scottish Fishing industry from the many benefits they had in other parts of the agreement. ,

another UR that was nice but also useless

@helenkeller - I get your point. You were raised in an environment that understands there are people, countries beyond our borders. So many here assume that if it's US vs. Rest of World, the US always has to be right. What I find appalling is that - in my experience - people from other countries know FAR more about the US, its politics, its political system, than we know about others'. I'm disturbed by the lack of interest in really understanding what's going on.

And add to US ignorance, we have a president who is playing a very dangerous game, one that even his top advisers don't agree with, regarding N. Korea. He's distracting all by condemning those who are exercising their first amendment rights. He is a sick man, a dangerous man.

done

There is no first amendment right to express political,
or any other opinion is a business environment. Businesses
have every right to restrict their employees from voicing
opinions while in the work environment. The NFL does not
require players to stand during the National Anthem so the
players are well within their rights to kneel, sit, etc. However
the NBA does requires its players to stand. To state that Trump
is restricting the First Amendment right of NFL players is
factually incorrect.

Mostly real easy. 10.

To clarify my post, Diane states, "He's distracting all by condemning those who are exercising their first amendment rights." They (the NFL players) are not exercising their First Amendment rights, they are exercising their right to kneel during the National Anthem because their collective bargaining agreement with the owners permits this. I agree that Trump

's tweets about the NFL are a distraction.

However to assume that the NFL players are representative of the US voters is dangerous. We would need statistics on the demographic breakdown of the NFL compared to the voting populace. Because they are essentially entertainers and have access to the public and cable media, they have a louder voice. This does not mean their voice is valid or consistent with the non-NFL population (which is much greater in number than the NFL players). So while Trump's NFL tweets are a "distraction" what or who is being distracted? Personally, I don't care either way what NFL players do politically or socially. However, my guess is that many fans are disturbed by their behavior, but again, I would need statistical data to back up my guess.

This highlights the validity of TallMikes comments about social media in particular and the media in general. To assume that social media is reflective of the opinions of Americans in general is asinine and short sighted. To believe that the media is objective is foolish. Modern news media is entertainment. Reporters who don't tow the company line (liberal or conservative) are silenced.

@MrOoijer: No court ever ruled on the legality of the principle of open access to the waters of all EEC members, which was the basis for the European common fisheries policy. The issue of its legality therefore remains an open question for debate by historians and legal scholars. What is certain is that the EEC countries showed no interest in sharing each other's fisheries until the UK, Ireland, Norway and Denmark were about to apply to join the EEC. At that exact moment the six existing members of the EEC invented out of thin air the principle of open access to all EEC members' waters, a highly lucrative benefit which would allow the existing EEC members free access to all the abundant fish supplies in the waters of the applicant countries. That was the momentous beginning of the era of arbitrary EEC and EU regulations which eventually led to Brexit.

KnightTime, my comments were only about social media and I made no reference at all to "the media in general." Your misquoting me severely weakens my basic point which is that the sum total of social media posts is weighted towards the views of certain kinds of people and towards ideas which can be expressed in a few words only.
On another subject, your reference to reporters being required to "tow the company line" produced a mental image of a team of writers physically struggling to install an inscribed obelisk. Too late I realized you meant "toe" the line.

Penguin: read the article I left a link to, then tell me about the lack of DNA evidence.

B.T.W. DNA evidence is circumstantial and doesn

B.T.W. DNA evidence is circumstantial and doesn't get the same weight as direct evidence such as a confession (all 5 confessed). The DNA evidence, as the prosecutor said at the time only proved that one of the rapists got away, not that the Central Park 5 were innocent. So now we know who the other rapist was. We should call them the Central Park 6.

While we're on the subject of indirect evidence; there was physical evidence tying the Central Park 5 to the rape. There was blood, hair and semen found on the perpetrators. However the DNA found on the victim was not from any of the Central Park 5. So far from exonerating the Central Park 5 the DNA evidence implicated a 6th perpetrator. Apparently Matias Reyes came upon the victim after the initial rape by the other 5 and took advantage of the unconscious victim.

done