SaltSong @ SaltSong @startrek.website

Posts

0

Comments

365

Joined

4 mo. ago

Do you think the news just appears on webpages for us to consume?

Particularly in the case of investigative journalism, there is a skill involved in writing the stories, and it consumes the time and effort of many people.

Charging money for your work is not "gatekeeping." It's how you keep eating.

Best we keep reminding them of it.

Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.

And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren't under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.

your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say

So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?

The reason one has a constitutional monarchy is to try to split the difference, I think, and get the best parts of each system.

But I'm with you. No kings.

As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.

They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.

We have these too. Is just that they are more unofficial.

Do none of you people have clothes pins? Or does that count as Neutral Good?

Also, CG and CN need to be switched. There is no way the bottle hack counts as "good."

I wouldn't choose such a system, I think, but I can't say that there aren't at least a few half decent arguments for it.

A constitutional monarch may have a wide range of powers, depending on the constitution. It doesn't automatically mean "powerless figurehead."

Given the way the US has been recently, I'm willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.

Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a leader, but the least of which is how much you have to stretch the word "training" to make it fit that sentence above.

I've made up my mind already that if they try to take me or my wife, they are gonna have to kill me, and I'm gonna try as hard as I can not too die alone.

Of course, that's big talk from me. I'm weak, overweight, and pasty.

I think you (and everyone else) have lost the thread, mate. He was replying directly to the question "why can't they just stay in Europe." The answer is "Europe had immigration laws."

I don't see anything wrong with this exchange.

I've explained it to you twice. I'm going to use small words, this time.

"States rights," is the right of the state government to pass it's own laws.

The right to fight a law in the courts belongs to individual persons, not the state government. If the state government disliked a law, they would not go through the courts, they would just change the law.

"States rights" are for the state government, not the people of the state. Nothing the state government does to the people of that state can go against the rights of the state government, because the people do not have states rights, because they are not states.

Just so we are clear, you are not a state, are you? If you happen to be New Jersey, for example, I could understand your confusion.

Huh. TIL. I had always thought that I could get in the deep shit for that.

if i can be shown to have done so, I will. So far all I see is you misusing the phrase "states rights."

I think it's already illegal to take minors across state lines without parental consent.

Ah, right. I must have been blinded by how stupid it is to put "can't challenge this in court" into a law.

. . . What exactly do you think "starts rights" means?

Because it refers to the right of states to pass laws for their own inhabitants, and the federal government had no right to interfere except in the specific cases the constitution says that it can. In this case, Texas is trying to pass laws for its own inhabitants, and trying to keep the federal government from interfering because the constitution doesn't specifically call out this area for federal oversight.

Setting aside for a moment their specific goal, this is exactly in line with their stated value of "starts rights."

Republicans do plenty of terrible things to criticize them for, and they never miss a good chance to be hypocritical, but it's odd that you're calling them out for hypocrisy on one of the very rare cases when they are not.

I find it hard to believe that it's legal to buy a company, but not it's contractual obligations. Seems line a hell of a loophole for getting out of things you don't want to do.

This is starts rights, unless I'm misunderstanding.

If you need hard workers, I am not your man.

Was there ever any doubt?

I myself like to argue things just to argue them. It's a good way to find out if I'm right, or to learn thing I didn't know, and correct my misunderstandings.

But I know that's not everyone's idea of a good time.

I’m not a huge fan of intrinsically connecting medication for sexual function with medication for gender-affirming care.

If that were the case, then bottom-surgery wouldn't be gender affirming care either.

Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding the entire concept. To date, I've never seen a single concrete statement on the topic that doesn't upset someone (discounting bloody right-wingers for whom the entire concept is upsetting, bless their hearts) because it somehow invalidates someone else.

However, we seem to be in agreement that these people are raging assholes, and that's the important takeaway.