How about you let your personal morals dictate your decisions, admit that in a large society you're going to have to accept that you're side doesn't automatically win and further accept that conflicts of liberty are inevitable and complex.
As to martyrdom, spare me. They doctored their recordings. That isn't just breaking what they may feel is an unjust law, that's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments; thought shalt not bear false witness.
At any rate, you seem keen to hand wave away bastards who insist impregnated victims of incest and rape are examples of God's mysterious ways, meanwhile basically asserting anyone who is pro choice is an uninformed ignoramus.
How about this. You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.
So you don't think using fraudulent ID, secretly recording conversations in a two-party state, and then editing those recordings to make the people involved sound like their breaking the law when there's no evidence forthcoming that any law is broken is somehow an example of favoritism towards the aggrieved party?
And that, to my mind, is the real crime. By the time these people were done, the claims from the pro-life crowd almost reached the hyperbole that they were making sandwiches out of the aborted fetuses. I suppose that aspect of it could be covered under libel laws, and I certainly do hope that once the prosecutions are done, a nice batch of civil lawsuits follow, where the editing these assholes did to try to make Planned Parenthood seem like a pack of baby-eating monsters is also revealed.
That would certainly appear to be the underlying reason for the entire Pro-life movement, and often enough they don't even bother disguising it. When you have elected representatives declaring that that pregnancy produced by rape is somehow "God moving in mysterious ways", you're dealing with people who have a pretty clear idea that women's only real purpose in this world is to collect semen and pop out babies.
Of course, once the baby is born, those fine God-fearing men could care less.
Spain is not going to get Gibraltar back. There is no way that a sitting Tory Prime Minister would ever alter or abrogate the Treaty of Utrecht. Not going to happen, and it is of sufficiently small importance to the EU (technically Gibraltar isn't even part of the EU, or at least the customs union) that I can't imagine Germany even concerning itself with it.
I agree that the GE is a major push for getting Brexit completed by 2019. It's optimal, as it means the full effects, whatever they may be, won't be felt until after the 2020 election. But remember, the Tories' have their "bastards" (as John Major so infamously and yet aptly called them), the strong contingent of Eurosceptics in the Conservative Party, and while at the moment May has the chief bastards close to her (except Michael Gove, who is now sitting in a richly-earned political version of the Gulag), she has to stick to the timeline they want as well, lest the current sense of unity among the various Tory factions unravel.
You can't have any kind of customs union without some base level of standards in everything from consumer protections to national subsidies to labour rights. It just doesn't work. Like it or not, you have to create some sort of centralized regime to set and enforce such standards. Why do you think the Founding Fathers through the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution? Their experience with the brief period of the US under the Articles of Confederation showed that if you don't have a strong central government that can overawe the constituent members, you'll end up with an unbalanced and ungovernable union with races to the bottom in all sorts of economic categories.
In general, people only "forget" that principle of a Westminster parliament when it happens when the opposing party is in power. I can't recall too many Labour members decrying the undemocratic nature of Gordon Brown becoming PM after Tony Blair stepped down. It's really just an impotent taunt.
As it is, I can't imagine too many sane Labour members wanting to have had a General Election any time in the last year, Brexit or no, since every poll indicates Labour would suffer pretty catastrophic losses, and the last two byelections at Stoke and Copeland demonstrated that. Labour clung on in Stoke, but lost Copeland, a seat it has held since before the Second World War. Only the delusional Momentum types seem to be under any kind of illusion that a GE held right now wouldn't leave Labour even weaker. Like it or not, the majority of British voters may not like the Conservatives (and shouldn't, since Brexit really is the culmination of a forty year civil war among the Tories), they simply do not see anyone else as a reasonable alternative.
Essentially, it means Scotland won't be able to "remain" in the EU if it should secede during or around the time of Brexit, and that Spain might agree to "eventually" let Scotland in. In other words, it is in the Spanish government's best interests that Scotland spend some amount of time out in the cold, simply because Spain cannot afford to be seen to be rewarding any independence movement, lest it light a fire underneath Catalan independence.
Not an independent country as such, now, but then again the history of the Low Countries is an exercise in confusion, but at the end of the day the Wallonians are as distinct a community as the Scots are, and the "marriage" as it were that created the Kingdom of Belgian was one of those Great Power exercises in drawing borders, with the idea as much as anything to weaken certain nations and create semi-artificial barriers with the hope of sustained peace.
Catalonia might be a better example, as even after the union of the crowns with the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabellia, Catalonia, much like Scotland until the Act of Union, maintained its own independent political institutions, and even after Spain was more fulsomely united, the notion of Castilan/Catalan autonomy is very longstanding and of a similar historical age as Scotland's. Spain, like the UK after it, devolved powers to Catalonia and other "autonomous regions", but there remains a very strong Catalan independence movement, and this is precisely why Spain is unfriendly towards Scottish independence or any easy path to an independent Scotland's joining the EU. For Spain this represents the potential of significantly inflaming Catalan independence. If the EU were to admit Scotland quickly into the EU, that would send the message that Catalonia would expect the same quick admission.
I believe Spain at least would. It has an ongoing crisis with Catalonian independence, and for them this is an existential issue. They might, in the long run, allow Scotland in, but not after some lengthy period of time.
Haven't been able to. There ain't a lot of land in Britain, and a fairly high population, and it's been that way for over two hundred years. That's why Britain was, even in the 19th century, a big buyer of American corn (hence the grievance the Irish still hold over the Potato Famine, where the British government sat on large storehouses of US corn even as millions starved or fled Ireland).
It isn't just military guarantees. The economic ties between Britain and the Low Countries date back to the Middle Ages, and defending the Low Countries has accounted for much of Britain foreign policy for centuries. Britain is a trader nation, and since the Empire faded away after the mid-20th century, the importance of the Continent has only grown, but its importance has always been there, which is why Britain has fought every attempt at a Continental System.
The biggest issue for an independent Scotland entering the EU is that Spain and Belgium, both with fairly strong regional independence movements (Spain with the Catalan independence movement and Belgium with Wallonian independence) would likely veto Scottish entry, simply because to allow Scotland entry would send the message that breakaway regions could remain part of the larger European Union.
As it is, it's clear Theresa May is no mood to permit another independence referendum before the final deal with the EU, and while the SNP can certainly make a lot of noise, it isn't very clear that a majority of Scots even want another referendum at this point.
Britain has also not abrogated its responsibilities to the Continent in over 500 years. From Elizabeth I's reign onward, Britain has been one of the guarantors of the smaller European states against the Continental powers. It has now essentially turned its back on one of the constants of British foreign policy since Tudor times.
Twenty-odd Freedom Caucus members was all it took to send Trump packing over health care. Maybe he was a great businessman (a debatable point), but as a political negotiator, he may be the worst the US has had since James Buchanan.
I think there's an argument to be made that corporate interests saying "We shouldn't pay any taxes" is sufficiently self-serving that if it were to be carried out, there should be replacement of government revenue. I'd happily tax any executive on all remunerations at a massive rate of tax, if not at $500,000, then I'd say any remuneration as well as capital gains and the like. Quite frankly, the idea that a corporate "person" somehow gets to evade the taxes that a real "person" has to pay to me suggests that the notion of corporate personhood should be completely eliminated should corporations no longer have to pay taxes, and that shareholders should now be witness to fiduciary risks as parties to criminal acts.
Either that or corporations pay their fucking taxes and quit having their proxies go around trying to argue away their obligations to the wider society. That's exactly how I'd frame it, "Don't want to pay taxes, your shareholders will no longer have the protections of limited liability", because what's really being argued here is a "having their cake and eating it too" proposition.
Slashdot Mirror
Because telecommunications has deemed a Federal responsibility
At best it will be put back on the states, but if Gorsuch is an example of Trump's future nominees, Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere
How about you let your personal morals dictate your decisions, admit that in a large society you're going to have to accept that you're side doesn't automatically win and further accept that conflicts of liberty are inevitable and complex.
As to martyrdom, spare me. They doctored their recordings. That isn't just breaking what they may feel is an unjust law, that's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments; thought shalt not bear false witness.
At any rate, you seem keen to hand wave away bastards who insist impregnated victims of incest and rape are examples of God's mysterious ways, meanwhile basically asserting anyone who is pro choice is an uninformed ignoramus.
How about this. You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.
Well you can't, so now you have to grapple with the real issue, and not the fantasy one.
Translation: I totally buy other people's analecdotal claims that I have no intention of verifying.
There's these people I totally trust who say you eat kittens. I won review their evidence, but it's okay if I go around saying you eat kittens, okay?
So you don't think using fraudulent ID, secretly recording conversations in a two-party state, and then editing those recordings to make the people involved sound like their breaking the law when there's no evidence forthcoming that any law is broken is somehow an example of favoritism towards the aggrieved party?
And that, to my mind, is the real crime. By the time these people were done, the claims from the pro-life crowd almost reached the hyperbole that they were making sandwiches out of the aborted fetuses. I suppose that aspect of it could be covered under libel laws, and I certainly do hope that once the prosecutions are done, a nice batch of civil lawsuits follow, where the editing these assholes did to try to make Planned Parenthood seem like a pack of baby-eating monsters is also revealed.
That would certainly appear to be the underlying reason for the entire Pro-life movement, and often enough they don't even bother disguising it. When you have elected representatives declaring that that pregnancy produced by rape is somehow "God moving in mysterious ways", you're dealing with people who have a pretty clear idea that women's only real purpose in this world is to collect semen and pop out babies.
Of course, once the baby is born, those fine God-fearing men could care less.
Spain is not going to get Gibraltar back. There is no way that a sitting Tory Prime Minister would ever alter or abrogate the Treaty of Utrecht. Not going to happen, and it is of sufficiently small importance to the EU (technically Gibraltar isn't even part of the EU, or at least the customs union) that I can't imagine Germany even concerning itself with it.
I agree that the GE is a major push for getting Brexit completed by 2019. It's optimal, as it means the full effects, whatever they may be, won't be felt until after the 2020 election. But remember, the Tories' have their "bastards" (as John Major so infamously and yet aptly called them), the strong contingent of Eurosceptics in the Conservative Party, and while at the moment May has the chief bastards close to her (except Michael Gove, who is now sitting in a richly-earned political version of the Gulag), she has to stick to the timeline they want as well, lest the current sense of unity among the various Tory factions unravel.
This is a pretty good example of the basement dwelling Aspies who waste so many electrons on the Internet.
You can't have any kind of customs union without some base level of standards in everything from consumer protections to national subsidies to labour rights. It just doesn't work. Like it or not, you have to create some sort of centralized regime to set and enforce such standards. Why do you think the Founding Fathers through the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution? Their experience with the brief period of the US under the Articles of Confederation showed that if you don't have a strong central government that can overawe the constituent members, you'll end up with an unbalanced and ungovernable union with races to the bottom in all sorts of economic categories.
In general, people only "forget" that principle of a Westminster parliament when it happens when the opposing party is in power. I can't recall too many Labour members decrying the undemocratic nature of Gordon Brown becoming PM after Tony Blair stepped down. It's really just an impotent taunt.
As it is, I can't imagine too many sane Labour members wanting to have had a General Election any time in the last year, Brexit or no, since every poll indicates Labour would suffer pretty catastrophic losses, and the last two byelections at Stoke and Copeland demonstrated that. Labour clung on in Stoke, but lost Copeland, a seat it has held since before the Second World War. Only the delusional Momentum types seem to be under any kind of illusion that a GE held right now wouldn't leave Labour even weaker. Like it or not, the majority of British voters may not like the Conservatives (and shouldn't, since Brexit really is the culmination of a forty year civil war among the Tories), they simply do not see anyone else as a reasonable alternative.
So far as I'm aware, Spain has made no such statement. It's position is considerably more nuanced:
http://www.politico.eu/article...
Essentially, it means Scotland won't be able to "remain" in the EU if it should secede during or around the time of Brexit, and that Spain might agree to "eventually" let Scotland in. In other words, it is in the Spanish government's best interests that Scotland spend some amount of time out in the cold, simply because Spain cannot afford to be seen to be rewarding any independence movement, lest it light a fire underneath Catalan independence.
Not an independent country as such, now, but then again the history of the Low Countries is an exercise in confusion, but at the end of the day the Wallonians are as distinct a community as the Scots are, and the "marriage" as it were that created the Kingdom of Belgian was one of those Great Power exercises in drawing borders, with the idea as much as anything to weaken certain nations and create semi-artificial barriers with the hope of sustained peace.
Catalonia might be a better example, as even after the union of the crowns with the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabellia, Catalonia, much like Scotland until the Act of Union, maintained its own independent political institutions, and even after Spain was more fulsomely united, the notion of Castilan/Catalan autonomy is very longstanding and of a similar historical age as Scotland's. Spain, like the UK after it, devolved powers to Catalonia and other "autonomous regions", but there remains a very strong Catalan independence movement, and this is precisely why Spain is unfriendly towards Scottish independence or any easy path to an independent Scotland's joining the EU. For Spain this represents the potential of significantly inflaming Catalan independence. If the EU were to admit Scotland quickly into the EU, that would send the message that Catalonia would expect the same quick admission.
Wallonia has been a part of Belgium for less time than Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom.
I believe Spain at least would. It has an ongoing crisis with Catalonian independence, and for them this is an existential issue. They might, in the long run, allow Scotland in, but not after some lengthy period of time.
Haven't been able to. There ain't a lot of land in Britain, and a fairly high population, and it's been that way for over two hundred years. That's why Britain was, even in the 19th century, a big buyer of American corn (hence the grievance the Irish still hold over the Potato Famine, where the British government sat on large storehouses of US corn even as millions starved or fled Ireland).
It isn't just military guarantees. The economic ties between Britain and the Low Countries date back to the Middle Ages, and defending the Low Countries has accounted for much of Britain foreign policy for centuries. Britain is a trader nation, and since the Empire faded away after the mid-20th century, the importance of the Continent has only grown, but its importance has always been there, which is why Britain has fought every attempt at a Continental System.
The British Isles haven't been able to produce enough food to feed the population since the 18th century.
The biggest issue for an independent Scotland entering the EU is that Spain and Belgium, both with fairly strong regional independence movements (Spain with the Catalan independence movement and Belgium with Wallonian independence) would likely veto Scottish entry, simply because to allow Scotland entry would send the message that breakaway regions could remain part of the larger European Union.
As it is, it's clear Theresa May is no mood to permit another independence referendum before the final deal with the EU, and while the SNP can certainly make a lot of noise, it isn't very clear that a majority of Scots even want another referendum at this point.
Britain has also not abrogated its responsibilities to the Continent in over 500 years. From Elizabeth I's reign onward, Britain has been one of the guarantors of the smaller European states against the Continental powers. It has now essentially turned its back on one of the constants of British foreign policy since Tudor times.
Twenty-odd Freedom Caucus members was all it took to send Trump packing over health care. Maybe he was a great businessman (a debatable point), but as a political negotiator, he may be the worst the US has had since James Buchanan.
How cute. You actually think it's going to happen.
I think there's an argument to be made that corporate interests saying "We shouldn't pay any taxes" is sufficiently self-serving that if it were to be carried out, there should be replacement of government revenue. I'd happily tax any executive on all remunerations at a massive rate of tax, if not at $500,000, then I'd say any remuneration as well as capital gains and the like. Quite frankly, the idea that a corporate "person" somehow gets to evade the taxes that a real "person" has to pay to me suggests that the notion of corporate personhood should be completely eliminated should corporations no longer have to pay taxes, and that shareholders should now be witness to fiduciary risks as parties to criminal acts.
Either that or corporations pay their fucking taxes and quit having their proxies go around trying to argue away their obligations to the wider society. That's exactly how I'd frame it, "Don't want to pay taxes, your shareholders will no longer have the protections of limited liability", because what's really being argued here is a "having their cake and eating it too" proposition.