Ohhh, I see now. The distinction between rights and powers is pedantic and obvious, rather than a central distinction in political philosophy that has animated both theory and practice for several hundred years.
And rights are "inherently something that is limited" because you say so, are they? Glad we've cleared all that up.
Anyway, lovely to chat. Obviously and pedantically, I actually mean "pointless" when I say lovely, but to such a dedicated follower of Humpty Dumpty as yourself, I'm sure you understood correctly the first time.
You don't understand the substantive point that there is a distinction worth preserving between the term used to describe the actions the people are willing for a government to do, i.e. powers, and the freedoms a human is due by virtue of their innate worth, i.e. rights?
You are dimmer than you appear, which is quite the achievement.
When "we" use the word "rights" about governments, we are being "stupid dickheads who fail to understand basic political concepts", even if we can find "historical precedent" in the words of "slave-owning racist assholes from the Civil War era" or make spurious and completely circular distinctions between "power being about the limits of government power, whereas rights are about government powers cf another body". I hope that clears things up for you.
Terrorists are using trucks, going to concerts, *and* targeting planes. Obviously. This is a separate issue from whether the response is either proportionate or effective.
Before you go lecturing other people, you might want to be more careful with your language. Governments don't have rights, they have *powers*. It is humans that have rights.
What do you mean "stooping this low to win"... You mean, do what their electorate voted for?
No, I don't mean that.
I mean, continuing to provide air-cover to the President while he does things they ought to oppose out of concerns for good governance, and which don't have a basis in Republican ideology (or Democrat ideology, or indeed the ideology of any party committed to democratic principles). I meant the kind of things that, in lesser form, caused a previous generation of Republicans to get Nixon out.
I guess a lot depends on your view of the likely smoothness of any succession. My personal belief is that it will take six months to a year before any possible impeachment hearing in the Senate, by which time things could have become a lot more of a shitshow. So I doubt Pence would be able to simply walk in to the office and start implementing his policy agenda as though the preceding months hadn't happened. And all of this presupposes that Pence isn't politically damaged beyond repair during the impeachment. Who knows what happens if he resigns also. Does it pass to the Speaker or a new VP? Who appoints that VP?
I support a more limited, less intrusive federal government.
In my head, this fits firmly within the boundaries of normal politics: the left believes in the power of the state to do good, the right is skeptical, etc etc. Fine.
But the concerns about Trump are meta. They are about his attacks on the system of governance itself. To take just one example: attacking judges personally is attacking the rule of law. Historically, politicians of all stripes, left and right, just did not do this. Trump did.
This matters much more than what happens to politics within the bounds of normality.
There's no way this administration doesn't go down in flames. Whether it takes the GOP with it for the foreseeable future is another story, we'll just have to wait and see.
From your lips to God's ears. It would be tremendously helpful to the long-run recovery of American politics if the GOP paid a heavy price for stooping this low to win. They've drunk their own Kool-Aid for way too long and need a long spell in the wilderness to find their way back to being a recognisable centre-right Western political party again.
*You* call *me* retarded and yet you pick the edge case of having an *800 mile journey* to try to refute what I was saying, while specifically ignoring that I accounted for the edge case of longer journeys in the answer you responded to.
To spell it out for you, 85% of miles travelled by road in the US are for journeys of 100 miles or less. For obvious arithmetical reasons, the % of trips that journeys of 100 miles or less will be even higher. Well, I say obvious, but you're the kind of dumbfuck who will probably struggle to follow that kind of arithmetical reasoning.
Of trips above 100 miles, the average (arithmetical mean) distance travelled is 300 miles. A Tesla could pretty much do that as a round trip. I could do that in my Zoe as a single charge at my destination. If it was an overnight trip, then guess what, dumbfuck? I wouldn't have had to use a public charging station even on that longer trip.
Unsurprisingly, trips of 800 miles are pretty rare, with more than half of travellers who do such journeys switching to air travel.
It's just a different model. No matter how fast a filling station is, it's never as quick or convenient as plugging your car in each evening and waking up to it being fully charged in the morning. That model of charging works for many millions of people with driveways (but not everyone, of course) and would be the default mode of recharging for 90%+ of journeys (certainly the case for me with my little Renault Zoe, except the ratio is even higher -- I've used public charging stations twice in 18months).
It's not clear he is a billionaire. He has claimed to be, but he's prone to bullshit and examining what's known of his finances suggests he wasn't a billionaire before he entered the White House. I've not doubt that he will attempt to gorge himself on the riches available from his new position, though, given that he has refused to give up his assets that are causing conflicts of interest, has used his new position to promote his daughter's business, etc etc. And he's certainly not self-made: he inherited a huge amount of money.
If you're asking others to be fair, you might be fair yourself and acknowledge that the School Nutrition Association is not some dispassionate group of experts with no skin in this game, but is instead funded by corporations that can profit more from the new regime than from the old.
Despite my fond wishes that this might be a joke, my guess is it's probably meant sincerely. After all, you don't know where to put a question mark relative to speech marks. So it's clearly unreasonable to expect you to understand the differences between a greenhouse and a global runaway greenhouse effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Ohhh, I see now. The distinction between rights and powers is pedantic and obvious, rather than a central distinction in political philosophy that has animated both theory and practice for several hundred years.
And rights are "inherently something that is limited" because you say so, are they? Glad we've cleared all that up.
Anyway, lovely to chat. Obviously and pedantically, I actually mean "pointless" when I say lovely, but to such a dedicated follower of Humpty Dumpty as yourself, I'm sure you understood correctly the first time.
You don't understand the substantive point that there is a distinction worth preserving between the term used to describe the actions the people are willing for a government to do, i.e. powers, and the freedoms a human is due by virtue of their innate worth, i.e. rights?
You are dimmer than you appear, which is quite the achievement.
When "we" use the word "rights" about governments, we are being "stupid dickheads who fail to understand basic political concepts", even if we can find "historical precedent" in the words of "slave-owning racist assholes from the Civil War era" or make spurious and completely circular distinctions between "power being about the limits of government power, whereas rights are about government powers cf another body". I hope that clears things up for you.
Terrorists are using trucks, going to concerts, *and* targeting planes. Obviously. This is a separate issue from whether the response is either proportionate or effective.
Before you go lecturing other people, you might want to be more careful with your language. Governments don't have rights, they have *powers*. It is humans that have rights.
Wel, they could start with simply not defending the indefensible.
What do you mean "stooping this low to win"... You mean, do what their electorate voted for?
No, I don't mean that.
I mean, continuing to provide air-cover to the President while he does things they ought to oppose out of concerns for good governance, and which don't have a basis in Republican ideology (or Democrat ideology, or indeed the ideology of any party committed to democratic principles). I meant the kind of things that, in lesser form, caused a previous generation of Republicans to get Nixon out.
I hope that clears things up for you.
That is scary stuff.
It is entirely possible that open access points are:
a) the least of our problems
b) a massive problem
It's just the other problems are even yuger.
I guess a lot depends on your view of the likely smoothness of any succession. My personal belief is that it will take six months to a year before any possible impeachment hearing in the Senate, by which time things could have become a lot more of a shitshow. So I doubt Pence would be able to simply walk in to the office and start implementing his policy agenda as though the preceding months hadn't happened. And all of this presupposes that Pence isn't politically damaged beyond repair during the impeachment. Who knows what happens if he resigns also. Does it pass to the Speaker or a new VP? Who appoints that VP?
I support a more limited, less intrusive federal government.
In my head, this fits firmly within the boundaries of normal politics: the left believes in the power of the state to do good, the right is skeptical, etc etc. Fine.
But the concerns about Trump are meta. They are about his attacks on the system of governance itself. To take just one example: attacking judges personally is attacking the rule of law. Historically, politicians of all stripes, left and right, just did not do this. Trump did.
This matters much more than what happens to politics within the bounds of normality.
Why pose this as an either-or?
People talked incessantly about Russian-Trump collusion throughout the election process.
What the fuck are you on about? Hillary won 17m votes in the primary, vs 13m for Bernie.
There's no way this administration doesn't go down in flames. Whether it takes the GOP with it for the foreseeable future is another story, we'll just have to wait and see.
From your lips to God's ears. It would be tremendously helpful to the long-run recovery of American politics if the GOP paid a heavy price for stooping this low to win. They've drunk their own Kool-Aid for way too long and need a long spell in the wilderness to find their way back to being a recognisable centre-right Western political party again.
Most resorts and such have public WiFi.
Most resorts are not used by the President of the United States to conduct his business.
*You* call *me* retarded and yet you pick the edge case of having an *800 mile journey* to try to refute what I was saying, while specifically ignoring that I accounted for the edge case of longer journeys in the answer you responded to.
To spell it out for you, 85% of miles travelled by road in the US are for journeys of 100 miles or less. For obvious arithmetical reasons, the % of trips that journeys of 100 miles or less will be even higher. Well, I say obvious, but you're the kind of dumbfuck who will probably struggle to follow that kind of arithmetical reasoning.
Of trips above 100 miles, the average (arithmetical mean) distance travelled is 300 miles. A Tesla could pretty much do that as a round trip. I could do that in my Zoe as a single charge at my destination. If it was an overnight trip, then guess what, dumbfuck? I wouldn't have had to use a public charging station even on that longer trip.
Unsurprisingly, trips of 800 miles are pretty rare, with more than half of travellers who do such journeys switching to air travel.
Stupid fucking fuckwit, aren't you?
It's just a different model. No matter how fast a filling station is, it's never as quick or convenient as plugging your car in each evening and waking up to it being fully charged in the morning. That model of charging works for many millions of people with driveways (but not everyone, of course) and would be the default mode of recharging for 90%+ of journeys (certainly the case for me with my little Renault Zoe, except the ratio is even higher -- I've used public charging stations twice in 18months).
Much as I dislike Bannon, I do think that's a bit of an over-reaction
Is he a (mostly self-made) billionaire?
It's not clear he is a billionaire. He has claimed to be, but he's prone to bullshit and examining what's known of his finances suggests he wasn't a billionaire before he entered the White House. I've not doubt that he will attempt to gorge himself on the riches available from his new position, though, given that he has refused to give up his assets that are causing conflicts of interest, has used his new position to promote his daughter's business, etc etc.
And he's certainly not self-made: he inherited a huge amount of money.
If you're asking others to be fair, you might be fair yourself and acknowledge that the School Nutrition Association is not some dispassionate group of experts with no skin in this game, but is instead funded by corporations that can profit more from the new regime than from the old.
And as your example rightly points out, you need to think big. India's LED project has sold 500m bulbs. Not bad going.
Stylish is overrated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Actually, no. Many gig economy companies will charge their staff a fee for finding replacement cover.
https://www.theguardian.com/bu...
Despite my fond wishes that this might be a joke, my guess is it's probably meant sincerely. After all, you don't know where to put a question mark relative to speech marks. So it's clearly unreasonable to expect you to understand the differences between a greenhouse and a global runaway greenhouse effect.