Corporations have had the same rights as people. It was started in 1819 in Dartmouth College v. Woodward where corporations were held to have the same rights as people for making and enforcing contracts. In 1968 the NAACP v. Button declared that the NAACP's 1st Amendment rights were protected under the 14th's equal proection clause. The 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti said the the speech did not lose protection because its source was a corporation that could prove an effect on its business (previously a corporation was only afford speech that impacted its business). They did rule that political spending by a corporation was not permitted in 1990 and 2003 but those rulings were essentially overruled with Citizen's United because permitting press corporations while denying other corporations free speech was violating the 14th as established by earlier cases. You also can't limit it to for profit corporations since PACS would still exist and are protected from it by the non-profit news organizations.
In 1876 the court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that political spending and political speech are interrelated. Money = speech. So you can't restrict the former without restricting the latter and thus running into a free speech issue. As we know from NAACP v. Button, corporation free speech rights can't be restricted.
Thus the only logical conclusion of our laws and decisions is that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. If you want to change it you need to go back and get some of the key decisions overturned. May I suggest Buckley v. Valeo as a starting point?
I understand the reference. All three responses are valid interpretations depending on your own knowledge base and perceptions. For instance, chimp and monkey have at times been used in a derogatory manner towards black people.
There is no functional differences between the influenza and ebola as far as contamination and hardiness goes. Both virii are spread via contaminated body fluids and both can survive for up to 3-4 days outside of a host. If people maintained identical behaviors it would not be unlikely for ebola to achieve infection rates similar to influenza.
It is not the freedom of association that grants corps access to the political process. That's simply the mechanism by which corps cannot be prevented from participating. The Citizens United case was a ruling that states that all corporations must be treated equally thus if corporations like Exxon Mobile were to be prevented from free speech corporations like PETA, Sierra Club, NRA, CBS, or ABC would also need to be equally restricted. Since this restriction would serve as a restriction on the free press it was thrown out. What gives them access to political process is the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision which ruled that spending money constitutes free speech so reversing that decision by getting it overturned is the saner and more realistic choice because if money is no longer considered free speech then the corporation cannot spend money for free speech. Then it is reliant on other means such as protesters, pickets, and other demonstrations. The only way to reverse that is to have some state, or the federal government, craft legislation that would restrict money being spent as free speech, knowing full well that it is against that ruling. That would prompt a new constitutional challenge that would need to be appealed up to the Supreme Court and successfully argued that the 1976 ruling should not continue to apply. Overturning decisions is uncommon but not unheard of and it is a natural process.
There's really only two paths out. The first path is to pass a constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to regulate campaign contributions. The second path is to reverse the decision on Buckley v. Valeo. Everything else is pointless grumbling and misinformation.
Whenever a law would restrict a fundamental right of the individual, such as the freedom of speech, the state must provide compelling reason to violate right and pass the strict scrutiny test. Unders strict scrutiny the law or policy is presumed unconstitutional and the burden of proof lies on the state to show that the policy is necessary in order to achieve a state interest. If proved necessary it must demonstrate that the policy is narrow in scope and not overly broad so as to ensure minimal impact against the right.
What a lot of people, yourself include, misunderstand about Citizens United is that it was never about granting "personhood" to corporations. The ruling only showed that being a member of a group was not sufficient grounds to deny an individual their rights. It's been nearly two centuries since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in which SCOTUS first affirmed that being a member of a group was insufficient grounds to deny an individual his rights. Citizens United was a ruling that simply states that all corporations should be treated equally without exemptions. Corporations are mostly thought of as organizations like Exxon or Goldman Sachs when the reality is that it also includes organizations like CBS, NBC, the Sierra Club, and Planned Parenthood.
The outcome we currently have is pretty much the only outcome which doesn't greatly violate the 1st Amendment by violating freedom of speech, press, or association, violating the 4th's protection against unreasonable searches, or violating the 14th's equal protection clause. The only ways around this is to reverse the decision on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) divorcing speech from money or introduce a constitutional amendment that explicitly grants Congress the right to regulate campaign contributions.
On average, 12.5% of the US population will get the flu in a year. That amounts to 39,500,000 individuals getting the flu. 50,000 people means the mortality rate of flu is 0.126% of cases. We have had 1 death due to ebola with 1 case of infection that was not intentionally tranfered to the US for treatment. That's a 100% mortality rate with current non-intentional US cases. Ebola's average mortality rate is 50% though it varies between 25-90% depending on the outbreak studied.
I think a little perspective is certainly justified.
Really? God damn. I'm going to be rich selling all the unicorn farts I've been collecting from my stable full of unicorns. How much are you willing to pay for a cubic meter of the stuff at one atmosphere of pressure?
I ask you again, why do people accuse moderate Muslims on this basis but not moderate men? Why are people more comfortable with drawing an irrational dividing line based on religion than on gender? Why don't moderate men feel they need to denounce Islamic State and demonstrate that not all men are terrorists?
While it doesn't really matter to me since what I care about is that they're tossing about hollow and pointless words without ideas, suggestions, or actions, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that primary antagonist at this point, ISIS, has a goal to establish an Islamic Caliphate and enforce Sharia Law on all citizens under its rule. That's a pretty religious bent that is far more dominant compared to the gender of those involved.
That's partially the reason I brought up the Kurds the other reason being that those who are speaking without substence are themselves using their religion as the vessel by which they make their point. Thus I was comparing like to like. The other groups you mentioned don't matter because they're all kurdish fighters. What matter is that there a kurdish muslims who are fighting against ISIS. The various religious sects of kurds may be fighting ISIS individually but they're all united against it.
While I personally disagree with the approach that the US has been taking, I don't think total isolationism or full military commitment are among our best choices.
The last time the US chose full military commitment was with the Korean War and that only went south because the commanding general ignored the stop line set for him which provoked the Chinese response that led to the two state solution currently in place for Korea. Eisenhower had otherwise engaged in a policy by when he would avoid conflict although he was ready to fully unleash the US military should the need arise. Then came Kennedy and Defense Secretary McNamara and that's when the idea of flexible response took root and has since been the influence for American military involvement. Could additional air power have changed the outcome of Vietnam? Yes it could have if it were allowed to be used but it would have been pointless without the ground troops to follow up because we never put troops in Cambodia or Laos to go after Viet Cong safe havens and we never committed troops to invade North Vietnam. While we do not currently operate under a policy officially called flexible response the approach is still similar and seeks to limit involvement wherever possible. You're also mistaking my statement for saying we need a full military commitment. That is hardly the case. What we need is a military objective and then to apply all forces necessary to obtaining that objective. If the objective requires boots on the ground then we put those boots on the ground. We do not rely on forces not under our command to achieve those objectives for us. Right now, as best I can tell, our strategy appears to be to bomb ISIS and see if that helps. That's assinine.
Why are people like you expecting some sort of heroic action on the part of Muslims all over the world, simply because Islamic State is also Muslim, while not expecting any sort of heroic action on the part of men all over the world, even though Islamic State is also male?
Muslims are the ones that are denouncing them and saying that they are peaceful. They are the ones that are bringing themselves into it and consequently making their statements irrelevant. They, obviously, have some reason that they feel they should be involved, likely to distance themselves from the radicals in an attempt to stave off retaliation against themselves, but whatever that reason may be it's not addressing the problem that is causing them to become involved. They continue to remain irrelevant voices after entering the topic.
So why did I bring up the Kurds? Not only do they speak out against ISIS and distance themselves from ISIS they're also willing to back up those words with actions. Yet what happens here in America? We're presented evidence of the monstrousity of ISIS on numerous accounts yet we are perfectly willing to sit with our collective thumbs up our arses and talk and talk and talk and finally do nothing of relevance. So we don't want to put troops there. Fine. Then leave the middle east to fester in its own rot but cut out these half ass useless measures being done for the semblance of looking like you're doing something.
Yes. That's all they've been doing. Denouncing them and saying Islam is a religion of peace. It's irrelevant because it doesn't provide any sort of solution. It's just words meant to distance them from the extremists with the hope that people won't turn on them for the actions of the extremists. I already know you don't agree with their actions. I know the majority of you just want peace. You're beating a drum saying stuff I already know and have known for some time. Provide ideas on courses of action that would deal with the problem instead of distancing yourself. You know what muslims aren't irrelevant? The Kurdish fighters struggling against ISIS right now. The ones who are beset on three sides by ISIS fighters fighting to hold them back. The very ones dying to stop them while we sit mighty on our high horse making ineffectual airstrikes against ISIS when what those Kurds need is manpower to back them up. Manpower that no one will put on the ground without the US doing it first and we have a President who is conducting war by politics. They're right and proper fucked.
Thanks for playing, but this has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with dogmatic ideology. If you read any of the examples I gave, except for Islam, you would have realized that. Japan? Imperial Japan post Meiji restoration commited atrocities against civilians in Korea, Manchuria, and China. This was not driven by their Shinto belief but rather but the belief that all people besides the Japanese were inferior. China? Committed numerous atrocities in the name of its Communist government in order to suppress disent and assert control. Soviet Russia? The party would regularly purge people in and out of the party would were considered a threat to whomever held the reins. Germany? The belief in the superiority of the aryan race along with viewing others as inferior beings led to the Holocaust. Rwanda? A genocide that wiped out 20% of its population including 70% of the tutsi that lived there. No religious dogma here, just belief that the ethniticity is superior. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Again, not religious but an estimated 2-2.5 million people died from their brutality and intent to force people out of cities and back into being peasants.
Commodore Perry's black ships happened in the 19th century, almost a century prior to WW2. What Commodore Perry did was manage to kickstart the Meiji restoration and the modernization of Japan. It also certainly built the foundation for the Japanese resolve to not be technologically inferior to the western nations. The American "empire game" in the Pacific was basically Hawaii and Guam, which were of no threat and no interest to the Japanese. It was only our relationship with the Phillipines and our stationing of forces there that caused any potential tensions with Japan.
Japan never wanted war with the United States and the only threat the Phillipines posed was that it was in a prime position to interrupt supply lines from the west indies to Japan and vice versa but that only mattered if war came. War with Japan was pretty much avoidable up until we rejected the status quo antebellum Japan offered after they invaded Indochina. We rejected that and any opportunity to avoid war after issuing terms no respectable nation could accept.
Oh, so the country that attacked us and got its head handed to it as a result is upset with us — and that's your argument to support the notion of our being inherently evil somehow?
There's a credible argument to be made that the US forced Japan to attack it. We didn't utter a peep as Japan conquested about Asia. Nothing about Korea. Nothing about Manchuria. Nothing when they invaded China. When Japan invaded the European colonies in Indochina suddenly we got a still back. We issued an embargo. Japan offered a status quo ante-bellum prior to the Indochina war, meaning they would withdraw from Indochina and hand it back to the Europeans. We rejected it and demanded they gave up their conquests. That might have just been China, or maybe China and Manchuria. Hell it might have included Korea. We never elaborated it didn't matter because no country would have ever accepted those terms. They were untenable from the start because we never protested the earliest Japanese conquests.
So Japan was left in a very tough position. Give up the territories that was providing raw materials and markets for its economy. Give up the territory that was providing a buffer between her and Russia. Give up on any notions or belief of becoming an independent great power and instead forever remaining subserviant to the west. No self respecting country would have accepted those terms. The United States was demanding too much of Japan so Japan took the only reasonable course open to her and struck the US before the US struck her.
Unlike the European theater, the Pacific theater was not inevitable. Hitler was a meglomanic. Conflict between him and France, Great Britain, or Russia was a matter of time and not a matter of when. Japan did not have the same issues and we had plenty of ways to avoid the conflict but they were not taken prior to the US deciding to shut the door on peace entirely.
The silent majority of muslims is irrelevant. As long as they continue to sit by while radical muslims commit atrocities they are irrelevant. It is a pattern that has repateded itself numerous times in the past century. Japan, China, Soviet Russia, Germany, and Rwanda to name a few. A dogmatic and tyrannical minority causes acts of atrocities while the silent [b]peaceful[/b] majority sits idly by practically complicit in the atrocities commited by the minority. It is no different with Islam.
Higher end hotels charge for that crap because they're trying to keep you from holing up in your room and pushing out into their bars or hotel restaurants or even the nearby establishments.
"Miltia" means all able bodied males of a certain age range. Matter of fact such a definition exists in federal law today. And even this current definition explicitly indicates that the national guard or other military service is *not* required. Like the military reserves, the militia has an inactive component that is not required to show up anywhere and formally train. This automatically being in the "militia" seems to be the legal basis for conscription since this law allows the President to call the militia to active service under regular military command.
Militia means whatever the individual states dictate. Take Indiana for example Article 12 - Militia, Section 1 - Composition.
Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
It's not able-bodied males in Indiana. It's all people 17 or older. The only exception to it is in Section 4.
Section 4. No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia.
It was previously able-bodied white males between 18 and 45 but it was amended away to the current version in 1974.
India's independence came about as part of a large decolonization movement by Britain after having been bankrupted from WW2. It also helped hasten things that that Royal Indian Navy mutinied. They were not at all solvent enough to maintain colonies that had any sort of inclination towards independence especially with Japan having occupied many British colonies and caused anti-Japanese rebels to rise and arm themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations have had the same rights as people. It was started in 1819 in Dartmouth College v. Woodward where corporations were held to have the same rights as people for making and enforcing contracts. In 1968 the NAACP v. Button declared that the NAACP's 1st Amendment rights were protected under the 14th's equal proection clause. The 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti said the the speech did not lose protection because its source was a corporation that could prove an effect on its business (previously a corporation was only afford speech that impacted its business). They did rule that political spending by a corporation was not permitted in 1990 and 2003 but those rulings were essentially overruled with Citizen's United because permitting press corporations while denying other corporations free speech was violating the 14th as established by earlier cases. You also can't limit it to for profit corporations since PACS would still exist and are protected from it by the non-profit news organizations.
In 1876 the court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that political spending and political speech are interrelated. Money = speech. So you can't restrict the former without restricting the latter and thus running into a free speech issue. As we know from NAACP v. Button, corporation free speech rights can't be restricted.
Thus the only logical conclusion of our laws and decisions is that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. If you want to change it you need to go back and get some of the key decisions overturned. May I suggest Buckley v. Valeo as a starting point?
I understand the reference. All three responses are valid interpretations depending on your own knowledge base and perceptions. For instance, chimp and monkey have at times been used in a derogatory manner towards black people.
There is no functional differences between the influenza and ebola as far as contamination and hardiness goes. Both virii are spread via contaminated body fluids and both can survive for up to 3-4 days outside of a host. If people maintained identical behaviors it would not be unlikely for ebola to achieve infection rates similar to influenza.
It is not the freedom of association that grants corps access to the political process. That's simply the mechanism by which corps cannot be prevented from participating. The Citizens United case was a ruling that states that all corporations must be treated equally thus if corporations like Exxon Mobile were to be prevented from free speech corporations like PETA, Sierra Club, NRA, CBS, or ABC would also need to be equally restricted. Since this restriction would serve as a restriction on the free press it was thrown out. What gives them access to political process is the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision which ruled that spending money constitutes free speech so reversing that decision by getting it overturned is the saner and more realistic choice because if money is no longer considered free speech then the corporation cannot spend money for free speech. Then it is reliant on other means such as protesters, pickets, and other demonstrations. The only way to reverse that is to have some state, or the federal government, craft legislation that would restrict money being spent as free speech, knowing full well that it is against that ruling. That would prompt a new constitutional challenge that would need to be appealed up to the Supreme Court and successfully argued that the 1976 ruling should not continue to apply. Overturning decisions is uncommon but not unheard of and it is a natural process.
I'm not sure if this comment is racist, insightful, or funny....
There's really only two paths out. The first path is to pass a constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to regulate campaign contributions. The second path is to reverse the decision on Buckley v. Valeo. Everything else is pointless grumbling and misinformation.
Whenever a law would restrict a fundamental right of the individual, such as the freedom of speech, the state must provide compelling reason to violate right and pass the strict scrutiny test. Unders strict scrutiny the law or policy is presumed unconstitutional and the burden of proof lies on the state to show that the policy is necessary in order to achieve a state interest. If proved necessary it must demonstrate that the policy is narrow in scope and not overly broad so as to ensure minimal impact against the right.
What a lot of people, yourself include, misunderstand about Citizens United is that it was never about granting "personhood" to corporations. The ruling only showed that being a member of a group was not sufficient grounds to deny an individual their rights. It's been nearly two centuries since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in which SCOTUS first affirmed that being a member of a group was insufficient grounds to deny an individual his rights. Citizens United was a ruling that simply states that all corporations should be treated equally without exemptions. Corporations are mostly thought of as organizations like Exxon or Goldman Sachs when the reality is that it also includes organizations like CBS, NBC, the Sierra Club, and Planned Parenthood.
The outcome we currently have is pretty much the only outcome which doesn't greatly violate the 1st Amendment by violating freedom of speech, press, or association, violating the 4th's protection against unreasonable searches, or violating the 14th's equal protection clause. The only ways around this is to reverse the decision on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) divorcing speech from money or introduce a constitutional amendment that explicitly grants Congress the right to regulate campaign contributions.
On average, 12.5% of the US population will get the flu in a year. That amounts to 39,500,000 individuals getting the flu. 50,000 people means the mortality rate of flu is 0.126% of cases. We have had 1 death due to ebola with 1 case of infection that was not intentionally tranfered to the US for treatment. That's a 100% mortality rate with current non-intentional US cases. Ebola's average mortality rate is 50% though it varies between 25-90% depending on the outbreak studied.
I think a little perspective is certainly justified.
Really? God damn. I'm going to be rich selling all the unicorn farts I've been collecting from my stable full of unicorns. How much are you willing to pay for a cubic meter of the stuff at one atmosphere of pressure?
I ask you again, why do people accuse moderate Muslims on this basis but not moderate men? Why are people more comfortable with drawing an irrational dividing line based on religion than on gender? Why don't moderate men feel they need to denounce Islamic State and demonstrate that not all men are terrorists?
While it doesn't really matter to me since what I care about is that they're tossing about hollow and pointless words without ideas, suggestions, or actions, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that primary antagonist at this point, ISIS, has a goal to establish an Islamic Caliphate and enforce Sharia Law on all citizens under its rule. That's a pretty religious bent that is far more dominant compared to the gender of those involved.
That's partially the reason I brought up the Kurds the other reason being that those who are speaking without substence are themselves using their religion as the vessel by which they make their point. Thus I was comparing like to like. The other groups you mentioned don't matter because they're all kurdish fighters. What matter is that there a kurdish muslims who are fighting against ISIS. The various religious sects of kurds may be fighting ISIS individually but they're all united against it.
While I personally disagree with the approach that the US has been taking, I don't think total isolationism or full military commitment are among our best choices.
The last time the US chose full military commitment was with the Korean War and that only went south because the commanding general ignored the stop line set for him which provoked the Chinese response that led to the two state solution currently in place for Korea. Eisenhower had otherwise engaged in a policy by when he would avoid conflict although he was ready to fully unleash the US military should the need arise. Then came Kennedy and Defense Secretary McNamara and that's when the idea of flexible response took root and has since been the influence for American military involvement. Could additional air power have changed the outcome of Vietnam? Yes it could have if it were allowed to be used but it would have been pointless without the ground troops to follow up because we never put troops in Cambodia or Laos to go after Viet Cong safe havens and we never committed troops to invade North Vietnam. While we do not currently operate under a policy officially called flexible response the approach is still similar and seeks to limit involvement wherever possible. You're also mistaking my statement for saying we need a full military commitment. That is hardly the case. What we need is a military objective and then to apply all forces necessary to obtaining that objective. If the objective requires boots on the ground then we put those boots on the ground. We do not rely on forces not under our command to achieve those objectives for us. Right now, as best I can tell, our strategy appears to be to bomb ISIS and see if that helps. That's assinine.
Why are people like you expecting some sort of heroic action on the part of Muslims all over the world, simply because Islamic State is also Muslim, while not expecting any sort of heroic action on the part of men all over the world, even though Islamic State is also male?
Muslims are the ones that are denouncing them and saying that they are peaceful. They are the ones that are bringing themselves into it and consequently making their statements irrelevant. They, obviously, have some reason that they feel they should be involved, likely to distance themselves from the radicals in an attempt to stave off retaliation against themselves, but whatever that reason may be it's not addressing the problem that is causing them to become involved. They continue to remain irrelevant voices after entering the topic.
So why did I bring up the Kurds? Not only do they speak out against ISIS and distance themselves from ISIS they're also willing to back up those words with actions. Yet what happens here in America? We're presented evidence of the monstrousity of ISIS on numerous accounts yet we are perfectly willing to sit with our collective thumbs up our arses and talk and talk and talk and finally do nothing of relevance. So we don't want to put troops there. Fine. Then leave the middle east to fester in its own rot but cut out these half ass useless measures being done for the semblance of looking like you're doing something.
Yes. That's all they've been doing. Denouncing them and saying Islam is a religion of peace. It's irrelevant because it doesn't provide any sort of solution. It's just words meant to distance them from the extremists with the hope that people won't turn on them for the actions of the extremists. I already know you don't agree with their actions. I know the majority of you just want peace. You're beating a drum saying stuff I already know and have known for some time. Provide ideas on courses of action that would deal with the problem instead of distancing yourself. You know what muslims aren't irrelevant? The Kurdish fighters struggling against ISIS right now. The ones who are beset on three sides by ISIS fighters fighting to hold them back. The very ones dying to stop them while we sit mighty on our high horse making ineffectual airstrikes against ISIS when what those Kurds need is manpower to back them up. Manpower that no one will put on the ground without the US doing it first and we have a President who is conducting war by politics. They're right and proper fucked.
Thanks for playing, but this has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with dogmatic ideology. If you read any of the examples I gave, except for Islam, you would have realized that. Japan? Imperial Japan post Meiji restoration commited atrocities against civilians in Korea, Manchuria, and China. This was not driven by their Shinto belief but rather but the belief that all people besides the Japanese were inferior. China? Committed numerous atrocities in the name of its Communist government in order to suppress disent and assert control. Soviet Russia? The party would regularly purge people in and out of the party would were considered a threat to whomever held the reins. Germany? The belief in the superiority of the aryan race along with viewing others as inferior beings led to the Holocaust. Rwanda? A genocide that wiped out 20% of its population including 70% of the tutsi that lived there. No religious dogma here, just belief that the ethniticity is superior. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Again, not religious but an estimated 2-2.5 million people died from their brutality and intent to force people out of cities and back into being peasants.
Commodore Perry's black ships happened in the 19th century, almost a century prior to WW2. What Commodore Perry did was manage to kickstart the Meiji restoration and the modernization of Japan. It also certainly built the foundation for the Japanese resolve to not be technologically inferior to the western nations. The American "empire game" in the Pacific was basically Hawaii and Guam, which were of no threat and no interest to the Japanese. It was only our relationship with the Phillipines and our stationing of forces there that caused any potential tensions with Japan.
Japan never wanted war with the United States and the only threat the Phillipines posed was that it was in a prime position to interrupt supply lines from the west indies to Japan and vice versa but that only mattered if war came. War with Japan was pretty much avoidable up until we rejected the status quo antebellum Japan offered after they invaded Indochina. We rejected that and any opportunity to avoid war after issuing terms no respectable nation could accept.
Oh, so the country that attacked us and got its head handed to it as a result is upset with us — and that's your argument to support the notion of our being inherently evil somehow?
There's a credible argument to be made that the US forced Japan to attack it. We didn't utter a peep as Japan conquested about Asia. Nothing about Korea. Nothing about Manchuria. Nothing when they invaded China. When Japan invaded the European colonies in Indochina suddenly we got a still back. We issued an embargo. Japan offered a status quo ante-bellum prior to the Indochina war, meaning they would withdraw from Indochina and hand it back to the Europeans. We rejected it and demanded they gave up their conquests. That might have just been China, or maybe China and Manchuria. Hell it might have included Korea. We never elaborated it didn't matter because no country would have ever accepted those terms. They were untenable from the start because we never protested the earliest Japanese conquests.
So Japan was left in a very tough position. Give up the territories that was providing raw materials and markets for its economy. Give up the territory that was providing a buffer between her and Russia. Give up on any notions or belief of becoming an independent great power and instead forever remaining subserviant to the west. No self respecting country would have accepted those terms. The United States was demanding too much of Japan so Japan took the only reasonable course open to her and struck the US before the US struck her.
Unlike the European theater, the Pacific theater was not inevitable. Hitler was a meglomanic. Conflict between him and France, Great Britain, or Russia was a matter of time and not a matter of when. Japan did not have the same issues and we had plenty of ways to avoid the conflict but they were not taken prior to the US deciding to shut the door on peace entirely.
The silent majority of muslims is irrelevant. As long as they continue to sit by while radical muslims commit atrocities they are irrelevant. It is a pattern that has repateded itself numerous times in the past century. Japan, China, Soviet Russia, Germany, and Rwanda to name a few. A dogmatic and tyrannical minority causes acts of atrocities while the silent [b]peaceful[/b] majority sits idly by practically complicit in the atrocities commited by the minority. It is no different with Islam.
Wait. Are you saying the Romans invaded England because that's where the food (Picts) were?
Moral - Just behavior
Morals - Code of conduct
Morale - Confidence
Morales - A last name
Bieber is Canadian.
Higher end hotels charge for that crap because they're trying to keep you from holing up in your room and pushing out into their bars or hotel restaurants or even the nearby establishments.
Freaking cheese head.
I've never heard anyone call Tinder a dating app. It's a hookup app. It's about sex. That's it. Of course it's going to be shallow.
This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made
AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming. Anthropogenic means man-made.
"Miltia" means all able bodied males of a certain age range. Matter of fact such a definition exists in federal law today. And even this current definition explicitly indicates that the national guard or other military service is *not* required. Like the military reserves, the militia has an inactive component that is not required to show up anywhere and formally train. This automatically being in the "militia" seems to be the legal basis for conscription since this law allows the President to call the militia to active service under regular military command.
Militia means whatever the individual states dictate. Take Indiana for example Article 12 - Militia, Section 1 - Composition.
Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
It's not able-bodied males in Indiana. It's all people 17 or older. The only exception to it is in Section 4.
Section 4. No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia.
It was previously able-bodied white males between 18 and 45 but it was amended away to the current version in 1974.
India's independence came about as part of a large decolonization movement by Britain after having been bankrupted from WW2. It also helped hasten things that that Royal Indian Navy mutinied. They were not at all solvent enough to maintain colonies that had any sort of inclination towards independence especially with Japan having occupied many British colonies and caused anti-Japanese rebels to rise and arm themselves.