FireTower @ FireTower @lemmy.world

Posts

41

Comments

1,262

Joined

2 yr. ago

yet i easily did it

You did it wrongly as well. The protestants arriving was critical in establishing Massachusetts as an English stronghold. If the English never colonized MA there would be no Lexington & Concord.

Claiming that citing supporting evidence is cherry picking is ridiculous. You imply such without supporting you claim with a single point, as if there was a sea of evidence contrary.

What about the French Indian War? Is that American history under your fine line model? How about the Boston Massacre? None of the involved parties there would have even considered independence at the time.

There's multiple people on here with multiple opinions, and those opinions are subject to change as new information arises.

The history of the land is the history of America. My "cherry picking" is just pulling events that every American student gets taught in k-12 American History classes. This isn't American exceptionalism this is recognizing that "French History", "English History", and "Native American History" that happen on American soil are American history.

Trying to divide the history as being that of a government rather than a land is impossible to do as the histories of governments are interwoven.

History builds on itself. The French and Indian War (1754-63) might not be considered by you to be the history of the USA but it was George Washington that sparked off the conflict. And it would inform the relations with native nations down the line. It also created the terrible economic situation that lead the taxation of the colonies. But for that war we wouldn't have the America we have today.

And that war would have been much different if not informed by earlier conflicts like King Phillips War. There's no fine line to be drawn.

Thanks for pointing out the typo fixed it.

Only if you define American history as that of the current United States government which would exclude events most if not all would consider core events to American history. Like the Pilgrims landing, Lexington & Concord, and Bunker Hill. If you define it as the history of those who lived on the land you arrive at a different conclusion.

I think he was alluding to pre 1776 American history as well.

I absolutely agree long term with out change Florida will be submerged. I only hoped to relay that this was a "in 20 years" type deal.

For the sake of clarity is my claim is that most nations won't accept the legitimacy of any ICJ ruling against them as there is no practicable means of holding a nation to account. A judiciary without an executive is an exercise in futility.

There is no crime without a consequence.

Any nation at the point of which informed reasonable third parties declare them to have committed war crimes isn't likely to just slap their knee and say "you know what, my bad" after a ICJ ruling.

It's one thing to respect the ICJ when you are a third party. It's another when you are in the nation subject.

If the ICJ declared that many European countries violated human rights by not allowing criminals defendants to face their accusors, I doubt many of them would reform their justice system.

It looks like it might to me unless there's a quantitative, impartial, and risk based reason or a "rating, scoring, analysis, tabulation, or action that considers a social credit score" the decision to deny them credit would be illegal for my understanding. Unless there's some justifiable monetary reason for them to deny service legal sex workers should be covered.

HB 3 Florida 2023 session

It'll be some time before we see 5 m of rise.

Tldr: People were concerned that banks which are critical to most institutions could decide to deny service to those they disfavoured resulting in certain groups effectively being practically outlawed by a collective of private banks.

“the risk that international drug traffickers, transnational organized criminals, terrorists, and corrupt foreign officials will use the U.S. financial system to launder money, evade sanctions, and threaten our national security.”

Not that climate change doesn't increase the propensity of events with national security implications. But given the Treasury's examples I think the environmental policy aspects of the regulation aren't their major concern. Their ire seems to be at individuals or groups committing acts that violate established law.

From what I was able to ascertain it seems like the law still enables denial of service on risk based standards, which should enable banks the deny service to the criminal enterprises the Treasury fears.

I like the stainless steel of the DMC-12 but here orange is easily better than the stainless option, in terms of looks, IMO.

Seemingly not among the involved party. What punishment can flow for this crime and the court's finding that wouldn't be levied otherwise.

The indica of respect and legitimacy of a court is if their rulings are abided. Convince Israel a court with no Israelis should be the final arbitrator of their nations course of acts.

There's definitely a stuff in there that bucks the trend you're seeing. Curbing inflation, making tips tax free to aid waiters, not cutting social security or changing the retirement age and doubling the standard deduction. (source)

The policy stances you mention don't stem from them waking up in the morning and deciding to be a dick. They view the issues differently and are trying to solve different things in ways that end up being destructive to those of the other perspective.

A global judicial body unrecognized is effectively moot. You, me, and a few other here on Lemmy could all denounce any nation's treatment of others but that wouldn't mean much. We'd just be some random people complaining on the Internet.

Legitimacy and respect are critical to any court. Without them the courts have no merit.

I don't know why you are criticizing the supreme Court here. They sided with them too. It's the AG who should be the target of public ire.

Elections aren't just about the President. That's arguably the least impactful person on the ballot. Look at your local reps running for state positions, find ones you like, they'll have much more impact on your daily life.

Evidently not.

THE power of regulating the militia and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defence, and of watching over the internal peace of the confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defence. - Federalist 29