- Quickdraw McLaw
- 50 Comments
- 274 Views
- A proposed ballot initiative would make changes to how the state senate is elected. [TNI]
- As the Las Vegas City Council gets ready to discuss the homeless ordinance, several Democratic presidential candidates have weighed in. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Here’s a FAQ on the ordinance. [RJ]
- The Cosmopolitan is suing San Jose Sharks’ Evander Kane for unpaid gambling markers. [RJ]
Deadbeat Shark doo doo doo doo dootdoot
I used to draft casino markers complaints for some of the larger gaming corporations in town. For it to have got to this point, with such a high profile client must mean he was just a disaster.
If the casino knows the guy has money (which he obviously does) they want him back and would rather even take small payments for his goodwill/publicity. This is very much a last resort or vendetta.
Or effort to generate goodwill with local patrons to be the casino that is taking a shot at the Sharks.
I agree with 10:36 as I have previously done this work as well. This is THE last thing the casino wanted to do. They are obviously just getting the middle finger when they inquire so he needs to know who the boss is. This is a crime in Nevada and he could well be arrested when the Sharks return here in a few weeks if this remains outstanding.
Who represents the casino? Who represents Kane? This is pretty amazing. I wish I could get this work.
Homeless ordinance, several Democratic candidates etc.
There is an exception in the ordinance when patronizing a business location. If the candidates are sincere, they should inviting the "campers" to patronize their campaign offices in Las Vegas (and use their toilets). Oh wait…too dirty, stinky, poopy for their office staff?
Instead of criminalizing poverty we should abolish landlords.
The people camping on the streets DID abolish landlords.
I am currently the Futurama Fry "not sure if" meme trying to decide if 10:34 is serious or trolling. Also, 10:58 is funny.
10:34, poverty has not been criminalized. The mere act of being homeless is not a crime; however, defecating in public, shooting up in public, urinating in public, trespass, possession of controlled substance, theft, vandalism, assault, burglary, and public intoxication are crimes. Would you have us, as a society, decriminalize those activities?
Compassion for the homeless and a desire for a safe, orderly and lawful society are not mutually exclusive.
One can credibly argue that (seemingly) well-meaning supporters of the homeless actually do a disservice to the homeless by perpetuating their homelessness. There is very little appreciation for that which is provided free of charge. But it is human nature to appreciate and respect that which has been earned.
11:44
Well said
Where are people without homes supposed to sleep if not in public? Where are people without bathrooms supposed to relieve themselves? It's facile to say being homeless is not a crime when acts that necessarily accompany homelessness are criminalized.
Also, the idea that arguing people who sleep in parks or on sidewalks should not be thrown in jail for doing so is "perpetuating [] homelessness" is silly. The alternative (letting the state lock those people in cages) does not make them less homeless.
12:35, if you are so woke and love the homeless so much, let them sleep in your home. I'm sure they'll be well-behaved house guests. I'm just fine with that so long as they keep their excrement and needles out of the parks where my children pay; parks, I might add, which are supported by the money I pay in taxes (by coercion of government under threat, ironically, of imprisonment).
It takes an incredible amount of entitlement to think the poorest people in society should be rounded up and caged just so you can avoid the discomfort of having to see their poverty.
Maybe the city / county should set up a "homeless park." Create a couple parks with bathrooms, washrooms, drinking fountains, etc., and make it legal to hang out and sleep there.
So 12:35 didn't read the article that clearly states where the homeless should sleep. And 1:19, get off the computer and find a better solution than San Francisco's mess. I personally don't like my window getting knocked on in the morning because I didn't donate to the homeless person's cause. Why should my rights be any less than theirs?
1:19 The "discomfort of having to see their poverty" is one thing. I would even give you the odor of their poverty. But those things are not really what people are angry about. It's the theft, the vandalism, the excrement, the physical assault, and the very real threat of infection and disease that has people concerned. Excuse us for not being so compassionate that we are willing to look the other way when we face actual physical threat to ourselves and our property.
Poverty can never be cured. It has been with us from the beginning of time and will be to the end of time. Some people are lazy, some have mental challenges and some just want to be stoned. Many don't want to be helped. If you have a practical bright idea, share it with the City. Otherwise, if your concern is genuine, offer them a camping spot on your front door or walk the streets and you try to get a homeless person into a shelter where drugs are not allowed.
Something I tell my clients is that in order for a good outcome, they must care about their case at least as much as I do. It's the same with the homeless; in general, the problem will never be reversed while we as a society care about the homeless more than they care about themselves. And choosing to not enforce our laws does not help anyone.
Yes banning people from sleeping on sidewalks is an obvious way to cut down on property crime and assault and totally not just a way to push undesirables underground so their betters don't have to look at them. Especially since we don't have laws against property crime and assault!
5:33 why should people be allowed to camp on public property? How about I just park in the middle of the street? Maybe I should set up my office in the courthouse lobby?
I spoke with the head a major homeless aid provider in Las Vegas about the situation and per their survey 66% of the homeless have the ability to work but CHOOSE to live on the street. Certainly those with mental or physical disabilities should get the help they need but this is the minority of the homeless population in Las Vegas.
Blog is dead.
Did anyone ever unmask the BK Hottie from years ago?
Fake news.
There were a number of the BK Hotties back then, in varying degrees. I was there. saw them first hand.
I think 10:34 is mostly trolling but partly sarcastic with a hint of irony. 10:58 reflects humor with a dash of satire and a scintilla of seriousness. 11:20 could be either of them … or both .. or none.
"11:25 must be a landlord." he said, with a dash of satirical irony.
Pretty sad what's happening to the whistleblower. Everything he said has been corroborated, but Trump's henchmen insist on outing him anyway for another obvious puprose: by ruining him publicly they send a very persuasive message that any other government employee thinking about stepping forward with evidence of corruption will be similarly destroyed and ruined. I have absolutely no doubt they will be successful in both destroying and ruining the whistleblower and deterring other whistleblowers in the future.
Sad day for the Republic.
Where you at GOP? You gonna defend all the statements from the Jim Jordans of the world that the whistleblower doesn't deserve anonymity even though that's exactly what whistleblower laws are supposed to provide?
This is the FISA court debacle all over again. If you can't win on the merits attack the origins of the inquiry as being biased. Forget that 45 got caught holding up Congress-approved military aid funds to a Russia enemy in exchange for them publicly saying they'd investigate the President's personal political rival. That doesn't matter. All that matters is outing the person who got the ball rolling so they can dig into his/her past to discredit them and somehow ignore everything else that came after.
And don't forget that Trump's personal attorney (you know, not ethically obligated to act in the best interest of the federal government) was basically directing federal employees to help 45 personally. Could you imaging working for a state agency and having Sisolack's personal attorney wandering around the office directing policy?
The whistleblower's identity is irrelevant at this point. The only purpose outing him would serve is retaliation. That's exactly why whistleblower protections exist.
I thought at occasional points in my life that Rand Paul was above the political gamesmanship in DC and actually cared about the law. I was dead wrong. He knows the law. He knows its against the law to out the whistleblower, yet he's up there saying "do your job and print his name"? He has forever lost all credibility. He's also too chicken shit to do it himself so he's just pushing some tabloid (or Donny Jr.) into breaking the law for him and the rest of the sycophants so they can all descend on him but hide behind the "I never outed him, it was the media who did it" defense.
Are any of you lovers of the whistleblowers going into politics soon?
Who says anybody loves the whistleblower? I don't know who the person is.
I posted one of the above comments, and reading through all of them, I don't see anybody saying how great the whistleblower is. I see people pointing out how shitty the GOP is being and how they are encouraging others to break federal law.
To answer your question, not planning on it. The money is better on this side of the dais.
Democrats need to take a marketing course and stop calling it quid pro quo. The people don't care about a quid pro quo. The people do care about elected officials using their office for their own personal gain, especially when the elected officials' actions undermine US positions.
Explain why the President's actions went against the American peoples' interests and that he only did it to help himself personally. That's how you get the people behind you.
Yep. I'm not a PR person but phrasing like "abused his office for personal gain" provides more clarity and accuracy. Blackmail is hyperbolic, but still more descriptive than quid pro quo. But the Dems are a truly incompetent bunch. They couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the directions were written on the heel. They'll not only use, but abuse, the phrase "Quid Pro Quo" in the Articles of Impeachment. America has one party that's corrupt, the other that's hopelessly incompetent. We're fucked.
Yeah agreed. My Trumper mother correctly pointed out to me that we engage in quid pro quo's all the time in foreign policy. I think framing it that way allows people to justify it as not being any different then, say, promising aid in exchange for a portion of a military base or eliminating one tariff for another. The problem is not that we were putting conditions on aid, but that those conditions were intended to benefit Trump personally rather than the country generally.
It is a problem that the aid was conditioned on providing support for Trump personally rather than the country generally. But it also a problem that Trump was imposing conditions on receipt of the aid that Congress itself did not impose when it appropriated the money. An appropriation is both an authorization to spend public money and a command to spend it. Trump had no business imposing further conditions unless Congress authorized those conditions by law. Extortion for personal political gain is certainly more straightforward a charge, but imposing spending conditions in violation of appropriations is also a problem. In this respect, what might otherwise have beeb a lawful quid pro quo–withholding money we thought might be corruptly used–became an unlawful quid pro quo because the executive doesn't get to attach strings to appropriations that Congress doesn't expressly authorize.
"The President abused his power for his own personal gain"
Not just Ukraine, but like, everything
He "violated the Constitution" is what Dems say.
As we learned in high school, the constitution gives congress the power of the purse. Trump refused to deliver money expressly appropriated by Congress (in a bipartisan vote) for military aid to an ally during a time of war unless the ally would do him a personal favor.
See, isn't that a little more persuasive than "the testimony demonstrates a clear quid pro quo?"
Trump extorted an ally the United States for his own gain. It is no different than if he had asked for a payment of $1,000,000 in small bills.
See, isn’t that a little more persuasive than “the testimony demonstrates a clear quid pro quo?”
My main vital is mind fucked.
The whistleblower is Hunter Biden.
I went to a top 30 law school, and I am on a tv show.
Which of the Simpsons are you?
The hair club for men Simpson.
Lionel Hutz at your service
When the "…hits the fan",civil unrest will promote the impoverished and homeless from prey to predator. No doubt, entitled attorneys with no real life survival skills will be top targets and we all know at some level it's coming!