True but the OP was talking about European immigrants displacing the Native American population and that was what I was referring to. Britain's actions in India was one of conquest; in North America conquest and colonization of an "unused" space.
That is not what's occurring now. Unless you are insinuating that immigrants are a hostile force attempting to conquer or colonize the countries they are entering. (By the way - that is NOT my viewpoint. My parents were immigrants. My wife is an immigrant. Most of my friends are immigrants or children of immigrants.)
You're conflating issues here and you know that. Empires expanded and contracted; wars of conquest were normal (good or bad). Agricultural people always saw uncultivated lands as unclaimed lands. This was true in China, Mesopotamia. Rome and the Americas.
We now have a DIFFERENT situation and your conflating them and coming up with a snarky is sign of your not willing to deal with the problems at hand. We have existing countries, with borders, with laws and in which the state compels it's citizens to act in a certain way. Now - what you're saying is that government can pass zoning laws to regulate density but they cannot control who comes into the country? The illogic of your position should be clear.
Now please, by pass the snarky comments, and confront the issue.
Read up on how muslim immigrant views towards sharia law. Take a look at rape statistics. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. Spend some time. This is an important issue that can't just be glossed over.
If that was your point then I agree with you. Not that I'm a neo-Nazi fucktard but that restricting access for these reasons is pathetic.
However people don't have a right to go to another country - against the wishes of those who live there - and impose their way on life on the people there. I'm an atheist. How do you think the Saudi's or Iranians would think if I went there and demanded that they respect my wishes and my way of life?
People that immigrate to another country should respect the culture of that place.
So. Who decides who enters the country? The citizens or everyone else? And what do you do with immigrants that do not want to conform to the norms of the parent country?
It's not simply a matter of calling someone a neo-na%i f**ta7d
Because it quickly devolves into sclerotic work rules (at the very best) where innovation is close to impossible. Just see what happened to the US school system.
Because the UN has no authority. Ultimately this will apply to only the entities (individual or corporate) under the jurisdiction of the US. It does not apply to China or France or Russia or Zimbabwe.
MBA/= traders. And, there is nothing wrong with derivatives. The problem is forcing an industry to sell a product they don't want (sub-primes) and then being surprised that they sold off the paper as quickly as they could.
Couldn't disagree with you more. The oil is being extracted and it will be sent to a refinery somewhere by some means. If, as you say, the price has dropped to a point where it's not worth to extract then it will not be. Why and how is building a pipeline to existing refineries harmful? How is that worse than sending the same oil by truck? It's not.
The entire argument against Keystone is built on the premise that the more difficult it is to drill and transport oil the more expensive it will be and that is (according to some) A GOOD THING.
Solar and other renewables are growing fast. (Exponentially). In 40 yrs oil and coal will not be the dominant fuel source. This pipeline is good for the now. And jobs are useful in the now.
Yeah construction and maintenance jobs are worthless.
Construction jobs are contract jobs - like building software. Here's a huge contract and saying YES to the pipeline does nothing to help the environment. The oil will be used regardless and 1000s of people lose the opportunity to work on a multi-year contract job. You wouldn't be so blase about it if it was your job no would you?
And you gave up this work for what? NOTHING. There is no saving the environment here. The oil will be used regardless.
Good job. You must be mighty f**king proud this morning.
Re the cars - take a look at the iconic Trabant (sp?). It was a disaster of a car.
Re the deaths - are you saying that is evidence of bad car design and production? How does that make any sense. The significance of total accident rates also involve other factors such as miles driven. And when we're talking about accident rates we can't forget little things such as drivers.
Wiki has interesting graphic that shows the decline of deaths and the rise of miles driven. According to your statement, if cars were faulty to the point of causing accidents the two lines would not have diverged as much as they did. As a matter of fact as miles driven have increased deaths have decreased.
I was in Beijing and Shanghai and there were more overweight people there than in NYC -by far. And the eating and smoking habits don't bode well for the future.
Of course my points of comparison are limited - NYC/= the USA and Beijing and Shanghia/= China.
The cold war fear was over a nuclear exchange. Re the military it was not an issue of 1 NATO plane/tank v 1 Warsaw Pact plane/tank. The west positioned themselves on the premise that superior technology and tactics would trump a numerical disadvantage in men and material.
Your point misses the target. The US was not scared about facing a technologically superior opponent. Only one that threatened to attack and bury the west. (And nuclear war is a scary, pant-wetting, scenario.)
You people? Which people is that? People who don't think they're part of the greater collective?
And why should anyone care, or base their opinion on what other people think?
You think individual liberty is a foolish idea; a remnant from the 18th C? OK. You think of yourself as a subject to those in political power as opposed to a citizen? OK. Have fun being part of the herd, the greater collective.
It's true that the USSR/Russia have great mathematicians and engineers but its also true that many of their mass-produced items (including cars, tanks, planes, warships, and submarines) left a lot to be desired.
Your oversight of that point plus your gratuitous "'Merica!! USA! USA! USA!!" says a lot about you.
Namely - you think Americans are stupid and uneducated (probably also fat and lazy) and forget that each of these traits applies to other countries as well. You probably think Chinese are all thin, in shape. (Which means you haven't been to China lately.)
Don't know why you think I'm interested in Marx. I'm more interested in von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Ayn Rand than I am Marx. And for each of them, including Rand, it's not their bodies I'm interested in.
What truth was stated? Are there some 100/200/300/400 pound navel-gazing white/black/red/yellow/green trash single/married/divorced mom/dad who will site around and watch sh*t and chug soda/beer and finish a cold pizza/burrito?
So what?
And there are also very fit, very educated, very well-adjusted people who also watch sh*t.
I like Game of Throne and don't like Big Bang Theory. The front-end developer to the left of me loves Big Bang Theory (loves Sheldon) and dislikes GOT.
Since it's approaching Guy Fawkes day here's a quote from wikipedia (which we all know is always true.)
Fawkes gave his name as John Johnson and was first interrogated by members of the King's Privy chamber, where he remained defiant.[37] When asked by one of the lords what he was doing in possession of so much gunpowder, Fawkes answered that his intention was "to blow you Scotch beggars back to your native mountains." [38] He identified himself as a 36-year-old Catholic from Netherdale in Yorkshire, and gave his father's name as Thomas and his mother's as Edith Jackson. Wounds on his body noted by his questioners he explained as the effects of pleurisy. Fawkes admitted his intention to blow up the House of Lords, and expressed regret at his failure to do so. His steadfast manner earned him the admiration of King James, who described Fawkes as possessing "a Roman resolution".[39]
James's admiration did not, however, prevent him from ordering on 6 November that "John Johnson" be tortured, to reveal the names of his co-conspirators.[40] He directed that the torture be light at first, referring to the use of manacles, but more severe if necessary, authorising the use of the rack: "the gentler Tortures are to be first used unto him et sic per gradus ad ima tenditur [and so by degrees proceeding to the worst]".[37][41] Fawkes was transferred to the Tower of London. The King composed a list of questions to be put to "Johnson", such as "as to what he is, For I can never yet hear of any man that knows him", "When and where he learned to speak French?", and "If he was a Papist, who brought him up in it?"[42] The room in which Fawkes was interrogated subsequently became known as the Guy Fawkes Room.[43]
Two signatures
Fawkes's signature of "Guido", made soon after his torture, is a barely evident scrawl compared to a later instance.
Sir William Waad, Lieutenant of the Tower, supervised the torture and obtained Fawkes's confession.[37] He searched his prisoner, and found a letter, addressed to Guy Fawkes. To Waad's surprise, "Johnson" remained silent, revealing nothing about the plot or its authors.[44] On the night of 6 November he spoke with Waad, who reported to Salisbury "He [Johnson] told us that since he undertook this action he did every day pray to God he might perform that which might be for the advancement of the Catholic Faith and saving his own soul". According to Waad, Fawkes managed to rest through the night, despite his being warned that he would be interrogated until "I had gotton the inwards secret of his thoughts and all his complices".[45] His composure was broken at some point during the following day.[46]
The observer Sir Edward Hoby remarked "Since Johnson's being in the Tower, he beginneth to speak English". Fawkes revealed his true identity on 7 November, and told his interrogators that there were five people involved in the plot to kill the King. He began to reveal their names on 8 November, and told how they intended to place Princess Elizabeth on the throne. His third confession, on 9 November, implicated Francis Tresham. Following the Ridolfi plot of 1571 prisoners were made to dictate their confessions, before copying and signing them, if they still could.[47] Although it is uncertain if he was tortured on the rack, Fawkes's scrawled signature bears testament to the suffering he endured at the hands of his interrogators.[48]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Good point. Still, I question the claim that torture is ineffective as a means of getting information. You know the famous XKCD panel where a 5 dollar hammer beats "unbreakable" encryption.
I object to torture as an option because I believe in limiting the power of government - not because torture in-and-of-itself is ineffective.
Slashdot Mirror
True but the OP was talking about European immigrants displacing the Native American population and that was what I was referring to. Britain's actions in India was one of conquest; in North America conquest and colonization of an "unused" space.
That is not what's occurring now. Unless you are insinuating that immigrants are a hostile force attempting to conquer or colonize the countries they are entering. (By the way - that is NOT my viewpoint. My parents were immigrants. My wife is an immigrant. Most of my friends are immigrants or children of immigrants.)
You're conflating issues here and you know that. Empires expanded and contracted; wars of conquest were normal (good or bad). Agricultural people always saw uncultivated lands as unclaimed lands. This was true in China, Mesopotamia. Rome and the Americas.
We now have a DIFFERENT situation and your conflating them and coming up with a snarky is sign of your not willing to deal with the problems at hand. We have existing countries, with borders, with laws and in which the state compels it's citizens to act in a certain way. Now - what you're saying is that government can pass zoning laws to regulate density but they cannot control who comes into the country? The illogic of your position should be clear.
Now please, by pass the snarky comments, and confront the issue.
Read up on how muslim immigrant views towards sharia law. Take a look at rape statistics. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. Spend some time. This is an important issue that can't just be glossed over.
If that was your point then I agree with you. Not that I'm a neo-Nazi fucktard but that restricting access for these reasons is pathetic.
However people don't have a right to go to another country - against the wishes of those who live there - and impose their way on life on the people there. I'm an atheist. How do you think the Saudi's or Iranians would think if I went there and demanded that they respect my wishes and my way of life? People that immigrate to another country should respect the culture of that place.
So. Who decides who enters the country? The citizens or everyone else? And what do you do with immigrants that do not want to conform to the norms of the parent country?
It's not simply a matter of calling someone a neo-na%i f**ta7d
Because it quickly devolves into sclerotic work rules (at the very best) where innovation is close to impossible. Just see what happened to the US school system.
Because the UN has no authority. Ultimately this will apply to only the entities (individual or corporate) under the jurisdiction of the US. It does not apply to China or France or Russia or Zimbabwe.
It's probably based upon where your credit card address is located. The same as for Bitcoin.
MBA /= traders. And, there is nothing wrong with derivatives. The problem is forcing an industry to sell a product they don't want (sub-primes) and then being surprised that they sold off the paper as quickly as they could.
Couldn't disagree with you more. The oil is being extracted and it will be sent to a refinery somewhere by some means. If, as you say, the price has dropped to a point where it's not worth to extract then it will not be. Why and how is building a pipeline to existing refineries harmful? How is that worse than sending the same oil by truck? It's not.
The entire argument against Keystone is built on the premise that the more difficult it is to drill and transport oil the more expensive it will be and that is (according to some) A GOOD THING.
Solar and other renewables are growing fast. (Exponentially). In 40 yrs oil and coal will not be the dominant fuel source. This pipeline is good for the now. And jobs are useful in the now.
Yeah construction and maintenance jobs are worthless.
Construction jobs are contract jobs - like building software. Here's a huge contract and saying YES to the pipeline does nothing to help the environment. The oil will be used regardless and 1000s of people lose the opportunity to work on a multi-year contract job. You wouldn't be so blase about it if it was your job no would you?
And you gave up this work for what? NOTHING. There is no saving the environment here. The oil will be used regardless.
Good job. You must be mighty f**king proud this morning.
Your comparisons don't work.
Re the cars - take a look at the iconic Trabant (sp?). It was a disaster of a car.
Re the deaths - are you saying that is evidence of bad car design and production? How does that make any sense. The significance of total accident rates also involve other factors such as miles driven. And when we're talking about accident rates we can't forget little things such as drivers.
Wiki has interesting graphic that shows the decline of deaths and the rise of miles driven. According to your statement, if cars were faulty to the point of causing accidents the two lines would not have diverged as much as they did. As a matter of fact as miles driven have increased deaths have decreased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I was in Beijing and Shanghai and there were more overweight people there than in NYC -by far. And the eating and smoking habits don't bode well for the future.
/= the USA and Beijing and Shanghia /= China.
Of course my points of comparison are limited - NYC
You're conflating many different people and many different political / philosophical subgroups over several generations.
The cold war fear was over a nuclear exchange. Re the military it was not an issue of 1 NATO plane/tank v 1 Warsaw Pact plane/tank. The west positioned themselves on the premise that superior technology and tactics would trump a numerical disadvantage in men and material.
Your point misses the target. The US was not scared about facing a technologically superior opponent. Only one that threatened to attack and bury the west. (And nuclear war is a scary, pant-wetting, scenario.)
You people? Which people is that? People who don't think they're part of the greater collective?
And why should anyone care, or base their opinion on what other people think?
You think individual liberty is a foolish idea; a remnant from the 18th C? OK. You think of yourself as a subject to those in political power as opposed to a citizen? OK. Have fun being part of the herd, the greater collective.
Thank you for being so contemptuous of America.
.... /deleted rant.
It's true that the USSR/Russia have great mathematicians and engineers but its also true that many of their mass-produced items (including cars, tanks, planes, warships, and submarines) left a lot to be desired.
Your oversight of that point plus your gratuitous "'Merica!! USA! USA! USA!!" says a lot about you.
Namely - you think Americans are stupid and uneducated (probably also fat and lazy) and forget that each of these traits applies to other countries as well. You probably think Chinese are all thin, in shape. (Which means you haven't been to China lately.)
Don't know why you think I'm interested in Marx. I'm more interested in von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Ayn Rand than I am Marx. And for each of them, including Rand, it's not their bodies I'm interested in.
What truth was stated? Are there some 100/200/300/400 pound navel-gazing white/black/red/yellow/green trash single/married/divorced mom/dad who will site around and watch sh*t and chug soda/beer and finish a cold pizza/burrito?
... ???
So what?
And there are also very fit, very educated, very well-adjusted people who also watch sh*t.
I like Game of Throne and don't like Big Bang Theory. The front-end developer to the left of me loves Big Bang Theory (loves Sheldon) and dislikes GOT.
And
Since it's approaching Guy Fawkes day here's a quote from wikipedia (which we all know is always true.)
Fawkes gave his name as John Johnson and was first interrogated by members of the King's Privy chamber, where he remained defiant.[37] When asked by one of the lords what he was doing in possession of so much gunpowder, Fawkes answered that his intention was "to blow you Scotch beggars back to your native mountains." [38] He identified himself as a 36-year-old Catholic from Netherdale in Yorkshire, and gave his father's name as Thomas and his mother's as Edith Jackson. Wounds on his body noted by his questioners he explained as the effects of pleurisy. Fawkes admitted his intention to blow up the House of Lords, and expressed regret at his failure to do so. His steadfast manner earned him the admiration of King James, who described Fawkes as possessing "a Roman resolution".[39]
James's admiration did not, however, prevent him from ordering on 6 November that "John Johnson" be tortured, to reveal the names of his co-conspirators.[40] He directed that the torture be light at first, referring to the use of manacles, but more severe if necessary, authorising the use of the rack: "the gentler Tortures are to be first used unto him et sic per gradus ad ima tenditur [and so by degrees proceeding to the worst]".[37][41] Fawkes was transferred to the Tower of London. The King composed a list of questions to be put to "Johnson", such as "as to what he is, For I can never yet hear of any man that knows him", "When and where he learned to speak French?", and "If he was a Papist, who brought him up in it?"[42] The room in which Fawkes was interrogated subsequently became known as the Guy Fawkes Room.[43] Two signatures Fawkes's signature of "Guido", made soon after his torture, is a barely evident scrawl compared to a later instance. Sir William Waad, Lieutenant of the Tower, supervised the torture and obtained Fawkes's confession.[37] He searched his prisoner, and found a letter, addressed to Guy Fawkes. To Waad's surprise, "Johnson" remained silent, revealing nothing about the plot or its authors.[44] On the night of 6 November he spoke with Waad, who reported to Salisbury "He [Johnson] told us that since he undertook this action he did every day pray to God he might perform that which might be for the advancement of the Catholic Faith and saving his own soul". According to Waad, Fawkes managed to rest through the night, despite his being warned that he would be interrogated until "I had gotton the inwards secret of his thoughts and all his complices".[45] His composure was broken at some point during the following day.[46]
The observer Sir Edward Hoby remarked "Since Johnson's being in the Tower, he beginneth to speak English". Fawkes revealed his true identity on 7 November, and told his interrogators that there were five people involved in the plot to kill the King. He began to reveal their names on 8 November, and told how they intended to place Princess Elizabeth on the throne. His third confession, on 9 November, implicated Francis Tresham. Following the Ridolfi plot of 1571 prisoners were made to dictate their confessions, before copying and signing them, if they still could.[47] Although it is uncertain if he was tortured on the rack, Fawkes's scrawled signature bears testament to the suffering he endured at the hands of his interrogators.[48] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Good point. Still, I question the claim that torture is ineffective as a means of getting information. You know the famous XKCD panel where a 5 dollar hammer beats "unbreakable" encryption.
I object to torture as an option because I believe in limiting the power of government - not because torture in-and-of-itself is ineffective.
I thought torture and threats of torture were ineffective? I know that because my professor told me that.
Just installed Vivaldi. After 15 seconds of use. ....
:-)
No trumpeting unicorns. I still have to get up to get some coffee. I don't see what's so special about it
Not only that but Black, Hispanic and South Asian Tea Party activists have been elected to congress (and the Senate).
So wanting constitutionally limited government now equals being racist KKK terrorists?