In the info about the situation she describes the NDA that she signed as having damages of $1 million PER OCCURANCE if she speaks out about Trump's affair with her that lasted at least a year starting just after his son was just born to melania. No wonder Stormy hasn't admitted the truth yet.
I can see why she'd want to get rid of it. I've signed a couple NDAs before, and while I would never break them for reasons besides the legal implications (not that either party would actually pursue legal action against me anyway, to be honest; the damage from breaking it would be to our friendship), it would be a very heavy burden if people kept asking me about it and I had to say I couldn't discuss it over and over. Revoking the NDA would probably feel like a huge relief for Daniels.
@semiticgod Wait what? Are NDAs a common feature in civil life in the US? None of my friendships feature NDAs. I have a couple of professional ones though.
@semiticgod Wait what? Are NDAs a common feature in civil life in the US? None of my friendships feature NDAs. I have a couple of professional ones though.
Probably NDA's related to small communities (beta testing, or say as a mod on a forum). In most cases like that, there probably wouldn't be an legal ramifications, but you tend to make friends being part of an active community.
One has to wonder how many times Trump has used an NDA like this to intimidate employees, women he had affairs with, business partners and others. Remember he had his campaign people sign NDA. Seems like something he uses against people on the regular.
People sign NDA in exchange for consideration. Agreeing not to speak about something in exchange for 150,000 dollars is not bullying, its a consensual arrangement.
In the info about the situation she describes the NDA that she signed as having damages of $1 million PER OCCURANCE if she speaks out about Trump's affair with her that lasted at least a year starting just after his son was just born to melania. No wonder Stormy hasn't admitted the truth yet.
I can see why she'd want to get rid of it. I've signed a couple NDAs before, and while I would never break them for reasons besides the legal implications (not that either party would actually pursue legal action against me anyway, to be honest; the damage from breaking it would be to our friendship), it would be a very heavy burden if people kept asking me about it and I had to say I couldn't discuss it over and over. Revoking the NDA would probably feel like a huge relief for Daniels.
Aw, come on, let's not play around here. She wants the NDA revoked for one reason: to write a book about it and make bank. Its not for relief, she doesn't need to take interviews. She just wants the $$$$$ (and good for her)
I think the interesting question is if there should be a "public policy" exemption in contractual law that allows for breaking NDAs when it comes to public officials. The basis would be the likelihood of bribery. I always said that Trump is too shamelessly and openly crass to be susceptible to blackmail. But... if he is paying for silence then there might be reason for concern, and voters should have the right to know if their elected leaders are susceptible to blackmail.
I could make some political point about blade attacks being more survivable than gun attacks as an excuse for posting it here, but actually I just wanted to share that darkly hilarious article with you guys.
I could make some political point about blade attacks being more survivable than gun attacks as an excuse for posting it here, but actually I just wanted to share that darkly hilarious article with you guys.
It's a ridiculous story on all levels, but there is also one fact that can't be ignored. If she had walked up to him when he was sleeping, put a gun to his head, and pulled the trigger, he wouldn't have been able to "wing chun" his way out of it.
My favorite quote?? “I’ve been preparing my whole life for something like this.” You've been preparing your whole life to piss off your girlfriend by playing too much Players Unknown Battleground, cheat on her, and then have her attack you with a samurai sword in bed?? To be perfectly frank, after reading it, I'm conflicted about who I should even be rooting for in this story. Sure, the girl has the attempted murder thing going against her (solid black mark on her record). But this Alex guy sounds like the biggest douchebag in America. I'm tempted to say they should let her off just so he can inevitably take her back and they can have a "Kill Bill"-style rematch when he is awake and on equal footing. Because if she learns the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique while in jail, this guy is gonna be up shit creek without a paddle.
- Ban abortion = Will not work. Any woman can move to another country or illegally abort - Ban drugs = Will only make drug lords stronger and will not prevent anyone from get drugs - Ban weapons = 300m+ weapons in USA will magically disappear and nobody will bring illegal weapons or make illegal homemade weapons.
PS : I live in a insane strict gun control country and our neighbor countries like Uruguay(most gun per capta in latin america) and Paraguay(better gun laws in latin america) are much more safer than Brazil. And Brazil was much safer before the draconian gun control law("estatuto do desarmamento") was approved.
Here is a gun store in Paraguay. I don't own any gun, legally or illegally but usually go shoot in a firing range
@semiticgod Wait what? Are NDAs a common feature in civil life in the US? None of my friendships feature NDAs. I have a couple of professional ones though.
NDAs are not common in everyday life. In both cases, the NDA I signed were unusual cases, and they were mostly just formalities for keeping sensitive information that happened to be extremely important.
Actually, there was a third NDA I signed, but that was basically just promising not to give away personal information of any of our members at the homeless shelter.
Again, we should avoid making negative generalizations about the other side.
As I've said before, what really matters is not who is right, but what is right. Trying to claim intellectual or moral superiority over the other side has never accomplished anything but convincing ourselves that we are right, they are wrong, and we have nothing to learn from those crazy idiots that happen to make up half of our country.
The moment we tell ourselves that the other side is stupid is the moment we decide we have nothing to learn from anyone. And the moment we decide we have nothing to learn is the moment we stop learning.
I could make some political point about blade attacks being more survivable than gun attacks as an excuse for posting it here, but actually I just wanted to share that darkly hilarious article with you guys.
“I was just so proud for beating this samurai wannabe crazy lady with hate in her heart” “The feeling I had when I won the fight with my bare hands is just absolutely the best feeling,” Lovell boasted this week from the hospital. “I’ve played all the sports, won big games, landed some decent tricks on my snowboard. This was better.” “I wasn’t a sweaty nerd, more of an Ethlete,” Lovell told the Oregonian/OregonLive.
Kind of funny, but also an interesting peak inside the disturbed mind of a 30 year old who spends "12 to 13 hours a day playing the videogame". This guy is amazingly arrogant.
I could make some political point about blade attacks being more survivable than gun attacks as an excuse for posting it here, but actually I just wanted to share that darkly hilarious article with you guys.
It's a ridiculous story on all levels, but there is also one fact that can't be ignored. If she had walked up to him when he was sleeping, put a gun to his head, and pulled the trigger, he wouldn't have been able to "wing chun" his way out of it.
My favorite quote?? “I’ve been preparing my whole life for something like this.” You've been preparing your whole life to piss off your girlfriend by playing too much Players Unknown Battleground, cheat on her, and then have her attack you with a samurai sword in bed?? To be perfectly frank, after reading it, I'm conflicted about who I should even be rooting for in this story. Sure, the girl has the attempted murder thing going against her (solid black mark on her record). But this Alex guy sounds like the biggest douchebag in America. I'm tempted to say they should let her off just so he can inevitably take her back and they can have a "Kill Bill"-style rematch when he is awake and on equal footing. Because if she learns the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique while in jail, this guy is gonna be up shit creek without a paddle.
I wonder if this moron is still living in his mom & dad's basement? 12-13 hours/day for video games doesn't leave a whole lot of time for a job!
The EU is such a conundrum for classical liberals. I favor free trade but I also favor political localization. I love free movement but I loathe too much bureaucracy. I generally favor the EU on the balance, but I understand the concerns. I also understand the problems that Greece has, being unable to respond to their debt through monetary means (I'm sure @screamingpalm agrees here) while the Germans are able to boost their exports by enjoying an artificially undervalued currency.
My biggest regret about Brexit was that the UK was a powerful voice against centralizing authority within the EU. The UK will no longer have that influence from the outside, and I think the remaining nations will be worse off for it. That said, I don't think that should be the focus of British voters.
The odd thing is that for the UK leaving the EU will greatly increase bureaucratic requirements for business. Reducing red tape is often code for reducing environmental and safety regulations as well (before the UK joined the EU its beaches were in a far more unpleasant state!). For all its downsides centralisation does also help us to work against global problems like climate change and disease.
I could make some political point about blade attacks being more survivable than gun attacks as an excuse for posting it here, but actually I just wanted to share that darkly hilarious article with you guys.
There is so much that is simultaneously awesome and pathetic with this news story. Truth is definitely stranger than fiction.
This is also the first time I have seen "wing chun" transformed into an action verb. Also, "ethlete"--seriously?
- Ban abortion = Will not work. Any woman can move to another country or illegally abort - Ban drugs = Will only make drug lords stronger and will not prevent anyone from get drugs - Ban weapons = 300m+ weapons in USA will magically disappear and nobody will bring illegal weapons or make illegal homemade weapons.
This is really a strawman attack and wrong but hey this might clear up things.
Most on the left don't want to ban abortion, it is the position of the right.
Drugs? The left is usually for something like treatment instead of crazy long prison sentances that we have currently. And we should remove Marijuana from the federal schedule it is on that considers it as bad as heroine and leave it up to the states like alcohol and tobacco.
Ban weapons? No, not all. Ban ASSAULT weapons sure. They had muskets when the 2nd amendment was written. Will guns dissappear? No, some insecure people, nuts, and criminals will still have them. They can go to jail when they get caught with their illegal guns.
- Ban abortion = Will not work. Any woman can move to another country or illegally abort - Ban drugs = Will only make drug lords stronger and will not prevent anyone from get drugs - Ban weapons = 300m+ weapons in USA will magically disappear and nobody will bring illegal weapons or make illegal homemade weapons.
This is really a strawman attack and wrong but hey this might clear up things.
Most on the left don't want to ban abortion, it is the position of the right.
Drugs? The left is usually for something like treatment instead of crazy long prison sentances that we have currently. And we should remove Marijuana from the federal schedule it is on that considers it as bad as heroine and leave it up to the states like alcohol and tobacco.
Ban weapons? No, not all. Ban ASSAULT weapons sure. They had muskets when the 2nd amendment was written. Will guns dissappear? No, some insecure people, nuts, and criminals will still have them. They can go to jail when they get caught with their illegal guns.
I think you are misunderstanding his point. He's talking about the effectiveness of bans.
If you use your Second Amendment logic, you'd have to ban shotguns and handguns as well. Also, they didn't even have the printing press, never mind telephones or the internet, at time the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Speech Clause and the Freedom of the Press clause still apply. They also didn't have Mormonism when the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Exercise Clause still applies. They didn't have mobile homes when the Fourth Amendment was ratified, yet they are still protected against warrantless searches and seizures. There were only thirteen states when the Tenth Amendment was ratified, yet it still protects the Texas and California state legislatures.
I'm still not sure this is the case. Societies are certainly always changing, but I don't see a clear trend towards more centralization. In relation to international affairs the modern trend has clearly been to give away or share powers - think of things like human rights agreements, NATO mutual defense, trade treaties.
The EU is a major exercise in sharing power. That of course is not always popular (and was one of the reasons for the Brexit vote, but I won't go into that now ) . The EU though has had an impact on the distribution of domestic powers, not just international ones. One of its founding principles was subsidiarity, i.e. that tasks should be performed at the most local level possible. You can see that principle has been in operation in many EU countries in recent decades. In the UK for example it's one of the reasons why we have devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are many other examples where powers have been pushed down to more local levels in the UK (police commissioners, health procurement, local enterprise partnerships, elected mayors etc). My job has been directly affected by the change a few years ago that gave local authorities the ability to borrow unlimited funds from central government. One result of that is that we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on building housing (as a commercial venture - we're not a housing authority).
Relationships between central and local government are always in a state of flux and not everything goes one way at the same time (school education for instance has become far more centrally controlled in recent years). I don't though see any tendency for the constant changes to creep towards centralization in the long term. If there were such a tendency you would expect longer established countries in the EU to all have strong centralized governments - and that is not the case at all.
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your point. You're saying the EU is an example of decentralization? (As in, the institution of the EU? Or do you mean the countries that make up the EU, and not the organization itself?). The EU is a relatively new concept (relative in that it's a product of the past century. However, if I understand it correctly - it has evolved to take on a great deal of additional power/responsibilities. In initially it was just a Coal and Steel economic partnership between ~ 5 or so European countries. I want to say spearheaded in the 1950s.
@BallpointMan I was talking about individual countries and pointing out that the EU had not only resulted in them transferring powers up to the EU, but also downwards to more local levels within their own countries.
Relating back to a more generic concept - maybe a better way to phrase what I'm saying is that over the existence of a particular type of government, that government is constantly (and largely, successfully) trying to centralize and expand its power of governance. Taking the French revolution as an example. It initially dialed back the centralization of the absolutist monarchy in place in France. However, it also very quickly began centralizing power - even before it was overthrown by Napoleon.
I would agree that, following a change in the nature of government, there is highly likely to be a period of centralization as that government tries to establish its legitimacy and prove that it can make a difference. I don't see any evidence though that process continues for longer established governments.
- Ban abortion = Will not work. Any woman can move to another country or illegally abort - Ban drugs = Will only make drug lords stronger and will not prevent anyone from get drugs - Ban weapons = 300m+ weapons in USA will magically disappear and nobody will bring illegal weapons or make illegal homemade weapons.
This is really a strawman attack and wrong but hey this might clear up things.
Most on the left don't want to ban abortion, it is the position of the right.
Drugs? The left is usually for something like treatment instead of crazy long prison sentances that we have currently. And we should remove Marijuana from the federal schedule it is on that considers it as bad as heroine and leave it up to the states like alcohol and tobacco.
Ban weapons? No, not all. Ban ASSAULT weapons sure. They had muskets when the 2nd amendment was written. Will guns dissappear? No, some insecure people, nuts, and criminals will still have them. They can go to jail when they get caught with their illegal guns.
I think you are misunderstanding his point. He's talking about the effectiveness of bans.
If you use your Second Amendment logic, you'd have to ban shotguns and handguns as well. Also, they didn't even have the printing press, never mind telephones or the internet, at time the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Speech Clause and the Freedom of the Press clause still apply. They also didn't have Mormonism when the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Exercise Clause still applies. They didn't have mobile homes when the Fourth Amendment was ratified, yet they are still protected against warrantless searches and seizures. There were only thirteen states when the Tenth Amendment was ratified, yet it still protects the Texas and California state legislatures.
- Ban abortion = Will not work. Any woman can move to another country or illegally abort - Ban drugs = Will only make drug lords stronger and will not prevent anyone from get drugs - Ban weapons = 300m+ weapons in USA will magically disappear and nobody will bring illegal weapons or make illegal homemade weapons.
This is really a strawman attack and wrong but hey this might clear up things.
Most on the left don't want to ban abortion, it is the position of the right.
Drugs? The left is usually for something like treatment instead of crazy long prison sentances that we have currently. And we should remove Marijuana from the federal schedule it is on that considers it as bad as heroine and leave it up to the states like alcohol and tobacco.
Ban weapons? No, not all. Ban ASSAULT weapons sure. They had muskets when the 2nd amendment was written. Will guns dissappear? No, some insecure people, nuts, and criminals will still have them. They can go to jail when they get caught with their illegal guns.
I think you are misunderstanding his point. He's talking about the effectiveness of bans.
If you use your Second Amendment logic, you'd have to ban shotguns and handguns as well. Also, they didn't even have the printing press, never mind telephones or the internet, at time the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Speech Clause and the Freedom of the Press clause still apply. They also didn't have Mormonism when the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Exercise Clause still applies. They didn't have mobile homes when the Fourth Amendment was ratified, yet they are still protected against warrantless searches and seizures. There were only thirteen states when the Tenth Amendment was ratified, yet it still protects the Texas and California state legislatures.
Both the printing press and newspapers predate the Revolution.
As for your other examples, they just show that there is no general rule to apply. It is almost as if you have to evaluate innovations carefully and decide how to deal with them on a case by case base instead of blindly following rules for different things from several hundred years ago.
The odd thing is that for the UK leaving the EU will greatly increase bureaucratic requirements for business. Reducing red tape is often code for reducing environmental and safety regulations as well (before the UK joined the EU its beaches were in a far more unpleasant state!). For all its downsides centralisation does also help us to work against global problems like climate change and disease.
'Reducing bureaucracy' is an easy target, but the rules of the EU are all designed for specific purposes - such as to help ensure free trade. On one of my projects at work we've been struggling for months now to find a way to get a PV / battery storage scheme going without infringing the state aid regulations. The rules around that are complex, so I could blame the problems on bureaucracy. However, the largest obstructions to free trade are non-tariff barriers and I understand the need for rules that deal with those.
There's also a need for some sort of system to adjudicate whether rules have been broken. Without such a system free trade would not be possible. Some examples of the sorts of problems in the context of USA/EU relations would include: - should banning genetically engineered products be possible? The majority of EU countries have totally banned all GM crops due to various concerns, e.g. H&S implications in the long term and environmental issues. These concerns though are not sufficient under the free trade agreement to allow the EU to stop importation from the US (in most EU states there is virtually no market for GM products aimed at people anyway as a result of customer preferences, but GM animal feed is very widely used). - chlorine washing of chickens is banned in the EU and in this case that restriction does stop the importation of US chickens. The basis for that restriction is less a specific concern about the effectiveness or the effects of the chlorine (though there are some concerns about that), but the implications for animal welfare and the ability to pass off older meat as fresh. One of the talking points in the Brexit debate I've heard on a number of occasions is that any new free trade deal between the UK and the US would almost certainly allow this practice in future (and under current labeling regulations customers would not know if it had been used). - the recent tariffs the US has imposed on steel and aluminum would in normal circumstances not be allowed under free trade rules. However, the US has declared the tariffs to be necessary for national security. I think that justification will certainly be challenged in the WTO and the US will probably lose, but that process will take a long time (bureaucracy again ).
I came across this article about teaching children to distinguish fake from real news. The style is a bit gimmicky for my taste, but the basic approach seems like a good thing to me.
- Ban abortion = Will not work. Any woman can move to another country or illegally abort - Ban drugs = Will only make drug lords stronger and will not prevent anyone from get drugs - Ban weapons = 300m+ weapons in USA will magically disappear and nobody will bring illegal weapons or make illegal homemade weapons.
This is really a strawman attack and wrong but hey this might clear up things.
Most on the left don't want to ban abortion, it is the position of the right.
Drugs? The left is usually for something like treatment instead of crazy long prison sentances that we have currently. And we should remove Marijuana from the federal schedule it is on that considers it as bad as heroine and leave it up to the states like alcohol and tobacco.
Ban weapons? No, not all. Ban ASSAULT weapons sure. They had muskets when the 2nd amendment was written. Will guns dissappear? No, some insecure people, nuts, and criminals will still have them. They can go to jail when they get caught with their illegal guns.
I think you are misunderstanding his point. He's talking about the effectiveness of bans.
If you use your Second Amendment logic, you'd have to ban shotguns and handguns as well. Also, they didn't even have the printing press, never mind telephones or the internet, at time the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Speech Clause and the Freedom of the Press clause still apply. They also didn't have Mormonism when the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Exercise Clause still applies. They didn't have mobile homes when the Fourth Amendment was ratified, yet they are still protected against warrantless searches and seizures. There were only thirteen states when the Tenth Amendment was ratified, yet it still protects the Texas and California state legislatures.
- Ban abortion = Will not work. Any woman can move to another country or illegally abort - Ban drugs = Will only make drug lords stronger and will not prevent anyone from get drugs - Ban weapons = 300m+ weapons in USA will magically disappear and nobody will bring illegal weapons or make illegal homemade weapons.
This is really a strawman attack and wrong but hey this might clear up things.
Most on the left don't want to ban abortion, it is the position of the right.
Drugs? The left is usually for something like treatment instead of crazy long prison sentances that we have currently. And we should remove Marijuana from the federal schedule it is on that considers it as bad as heroine and leave it up to the states like alcohol and tobacco.
Ban weapons? No, not all. Ban ASSAULT weapons sure. They had muskets when the 2nd amendment was written. Will guns dissappear? No, some insecure people, nuts, and criminals will still have them. They can go to jail when they get caught with their illegal guns.
I think you are misunderstanding his point. He's talking about the effectiveness of bans.
If you use your Second Amendment logic, you'd have to ban shotguns and handguns as well. Also, they didn't even have the printing press, never mind telephones or the internet, at time the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Speech Clause and the Freedom of the Press clause still apply. They also didn't have Mormonism when the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Exercise Clause still applies. They didn't have mobile homes when the Fourth Amendment was ratified, yet they are still protected against warrantless searches and seizures. There were only thirteen states when the Tenth Amendment was ratified, yet it still protects the Texas and California state legislatures.
Both the printing press and newspapers predate the Revolution.
As for your other examples, they just show that there is no general rule to apply. It is almost as if you have to evaluate innovations carefully and decide how to deal with them on a case by case base instead of blindly following rules for different things from several hundred years ago.
My mistake on the printing press. My other examples still stand, unless you believe that courts should pick and choose which rules to apply, regardless of whether or not they were adopted by a democratically elected legislature. That's a recipe for chaos.
Lots of laws are unfitting for the times. When social security was passed, there were 41 workers per beneficiary. Today there are three. Does the fact that matters on the ground have changed mean a court should allow the state to refuse without new legislation? I hope not.
It would be pretty wild if they'd codified freedom of the press before the invention of the printing press.
Freedom of the press refers to freedom publication, but that would still be pretty funny.
My apologies for the mistake. The history major in me is ashamed. Though I do think that industrial scale printing was predated by the 1st Amendment, but I'd have to check to make sure.
I came across this article about teaching children to distinguish fake from real news. The style is a bit gimmicky for my taste, but the basic approach seems like a good thing to me.
Sponsored by the Huffington Post UK? I'm sure they're fair and unbiased.
How to spot fake news: "If it's conservative it's fake!"
I came across this article about teaching children to distinguish fake from real news. The style is a bit gimmicky for my taste, but the basic approach seems like a good thing to me.
Sponsored by the Huffington Post UK? I'm sure they're fair and unbiased.
How to spot fake news: "If it's conservative it's fake!"
@Balrog99 is that just a general view on the BBC or was there something in the article you objected to?
I know the BBC is often characterized as having a left-wing bias, but personally I've never seen that. There have been just as many objections to their reporting from labour governments as conservative ones (and in both cases I think that's generally a good thing).
The BBC employs more conservative reporters than liberal ones and includes a greater proportion of conservatives on panels - that's led plenty of left-wing commentators to complain about their right-wing bias. Unlike media companies in the US though the BBC has a statutory obligation to impartiality and I think they do a pretty good job of that. My complaint would not be about a left-wing or right-wing bias, but the occasional lapse where they distort a report in the search for 'balance'. There was one famous example of that when they were doing an item on climate change and wanted to present the arguments for and against. They couldn't find any scientists willing to argue against it, so put up Nigel Lawson (ex-chancellor of the exchequer and a well-known climate change sceptic). That's fine as far as it goes, but they didn't make clear there was now a virtual consensus in scientific circles on the topic - so unless you already knew the history on this you would have got the impression the argument was still in the balance.
President Donald Trump's campaign to discredit the news media has spread to Republican officials at all levels of government, who are echoing his use of the term "fake news" as a weapon against unflattering stories, and anything that they don't like or don't want to hear.
An Idaho state lawmaker urges her constituents to submit entries for her "fake news awards." The Kentucky governor tweets #FAKENEWS to dismiss questions about his purchase of a home from a supporter. An aide to the Texas land commissioner uses the phrase to downplay the significance of his boss receiving donations from employees of a company that landed a multimillion-dollar contract.
Truth is what you say it is, that's the same notion Fox News has been promoting for a decade. Conservatives are building a huge alternative truth bubble around themselves that they are hiding in and any inconvenient truths, corruption, or other things they don't want to face, they call fake news. Orwellian stuff going on here.
"A BBC Live Lesson on sorting fact from fiction will also be streamed for schoolchildren to watch and interact with on Thursday, 22 March.
It will be presented by BBC Breakfast's Naga Munchetty, who will introduce experts from HuffPost UK and the independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact."
Huffington Post is known for being quite liberal...
- Ban abortion = Will not work. Any woman can move to another country or illegally abort - Ban drugs = Will only make drug lords stronger and will not prevent anyone from get drugs - Ban weapons = 300m+ weapons in USA will magically disappear and nobody will bring illegal weapons or make illegal homemade weapons.
This is really a strawman attack and wrong but hey this might clear up things.
Most on the left don't want to ban abortion, it is the position of the right.
Drugs? The left is usually for something like treatment instead of crazy long prison sentances that we have currently. And we should remove Marijuana from the federal schedule it is on that considers it as bad as heroine and leave it up to the states like alcohol and tobacco.
Ban weapons? No, not all. Ban ASSAULT weapons sure. They had muskets when the 2nd amendment was written. Will guns dissappear? No, some insecure people, nuts, and criminals will still have them. They can go to jail when they get caught with their illegal guns.
Yes, the right wanna ban abortion and will not work as i've said. Crimes without victim should't be crimes. But why ban "assault weapons" will work? Din't worked in municipal or in estate level, why will work in federal level?
No crime without victim should be punished and a drunk guy is much more likely to kill(intentionally or not) than a armed guy. I don't see anyone advocating to implement the failed "dry law" again, but the failed gun control... USA already have a very big prison population, of 2,220,300. A "War on guns" will probably make it around 10 millions.
PS : "Assault" weapons(aka full auto guns) are already very restricted.
This claim about dropping from 3rd to 189th place by dropping those 5 cities is so ludicrous and easy to look up as fake, that I honestly do not know how to react. This is either willful ignorance or arguing in bad faith. In either case it wastes the time of everyone here.
Comments
I think the interesting question is if there should be a "public policy" exemption in contractual law that allows for breaking NDAs when it comes to public officials. The basis would be the likelihood of bribery. I always said that Trump is too shamelessly and openly crass to be susceptible to blackmail. But... if he is paying for silence then there might be reason for concern, and voters should have the right to know if their elected leaders are susceptible to blackmail.
I could make some political point about blade attacks being more survivable than gun attacks as an excuse for posting it here, but actually I just wanted to share that darkly hilarious article with you guys.
My favorite quote?? “I’ve been preparing my whole life for something like this.” You've been preparing your whole life to piss off your girlfriend by playing too much Players Unknown Battleground, cheat on her, and then have her attack you with a samurai sword in bed?? To be perfectly frank, after reading it, I'm conflicted about who I should even be rooting for in this story. Sure, the girl has the attempted murder thing going against her (solid black mark on her record). But this Alex guy sounds like the biggest douchebag in America. I'm tempted to say they should let her off just so he can inevitably take her back and they can have a "Kill Bill"-style rematch when he is awake and on equal footing. Because if she learns the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique while in jail, this guy is gonna be up shit creek without a paddle.
- Ban abortion = Will not work. Any woman can move to another country or illegally abort
- Ban drugs = Will only make drug lords stronger and will not prevent anyone from get drugs
- Ban weapons = 300m+ weapons in USA will magically disappear and nobody will bring illegal weapons or make illegal homemade weapons.
PS : I live in a insane strict gun control country and our neighbor countries like Uruguay(most gun per capta in latin america) and Paraguay(better gun laws in latin america) are much more safer than Brazil. And Brazil was much safer before the draconian gun control law("estatuto do desarmamento") was approved.
Here is a gun store in Paraguay. I don't own any gun, legally or illegally but usually go shoot in a firing range
PS 2 : The "hand" in the image above is my hand.
Actually, there was a third NDA I signed, but that was basically just promising not to give away personal information of any of our members at the homeless shelter.
As I've said before, what really matters is not who is right, but what is right. Trying to claim intellectual or moral superiority over the other side has never accomplished anything but convincing ourselves that we are right, they are wrong, and we have nothing to learn from those crazy idiots that happen to make up half of our country.
The moment we tell ourselves that the other side is stupid is the moment we decide we have nothing to learn from anyone. And the moment we decide we have nothing to learn is the moment we stop learning.
“The feeling I had when I won the fight with my bare hands is just absolutely the best feeling,” Lovell boasted this week from the hospital. “I’ve played all the sports, won big games, landed some decent tricks on my snowboard. This was better.”
“I wasn’t a sweaty nerd, more of an Ethlete,” Lovell told the Oregonian/OregonLive.
Kind of funny, but also an interesting peak inside the disturbed mind of a 30 year old who spends "12 to 13 hours a day playing the videogame". This guy is amazingly arrogant.
This is also the first time I have seen "wing chun" transformed into an action verb. Also, "ethlete"--seriously?
Most on the left don't want to ban abortion, it is the position of the right.
Drugs? The left is usually for something like treatment instead of crazy long prison sentances that we have currently. And we should remove Marijuana from the federal schedule it is on that considers it as bad as heroine and leave it up to the states like alcohol and tobacco.
Ban weapons? No, not all. Ban ASSAULT weapons sure. They had muskets when the 2nd amendment was written. Will guns dissappear? No, some insecure people, nuts, and criminals will still have them. They can go to jail when they get caught with their illegal guns.
If you use your Second Amendment logic, you'd have to ban shotguns and handguns as well.
Also, they didn't even have the
printing press, never mind telephones or the internet, at time the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Speech Clause and the Freedom of the Press clause still apply.They also didn't have Mormonism when the First Amendment was ratified, yet the Free Exercise Clause still applies.
They didn't have mobile homes when the Fourth Amendment was ratified, yet they are still protected against warrantless searches and seizures.
There were only thirteen states when the Tenth Amendment was ratified, yet it still protects the Texas and California state legislatures.
I would agree that, following a change in the nature of government, there is highly likely to be a period of centralization as that government tries to establish its legitimacy and prove that it can make a difference. I don't see any evidence though that process continues for longer established governments.
As for your other examples, they just show that there is no general rule to apply. It is almost as if you have to evaluate innovations carefully and decide how to deal with them on a case by case base instead of blindly following rules for different things from several hundred years ago.
such as to help ensure free trade. On one of my projects at work we've been struggling for months now to find a way to get a PV / battery storage scheme going without infringing the state aid regulations. The rules around that are complex, so I could blame the problems on bureaucracy. However, the largest obstructions to free trade are non-tariff barriers and I understand the need for rules that deal with those.
There's also a need for some sort of system to adjudicate whether rules have been broken. Without such a system free trade would not be possible. Some examples of the sorts of problems in the context of USA/EU relations would include:
- should banning genetically engineered products be possible? The majority of EU countries have totally banned all GM crops due to various concerns, e.g. H&S implications in the long term and environmental issues. These concerns though are not sufficient under the free trade agreement to allow the EU to stop importation from the US (in most EU states there is virtually no market for GM products aimed at people anyway as a result of customer preferences, but GM animal feed is very widely used).
- chlorine washing of chickens is banned in the EU and in this case that restriction does stop the importation of US chickens. The basis for that restriction is less a specific concern about the effectiveness or the effects of the chlorine (though there are some concerns about that), but the implications for animal welfare and the ability to pass off older meat as fresh. One of the talking points in the Brexit debate I've heard on a number of occasions is that any new free trade deal between the UK and the US would almost certainly allow this practice in future (and under current labeling regulations customers would not know if it had been used).
- the recent tariffs the US has imposed on steel and aluminum would in normal circumstances not be allowed under free trade rules. However, the US has declared the tariffs to be necessary for national security. I think that justification will certainly be challenged in the WTO and the US will probably lose, but that process will take a long time (bureaucracy again
My mistake on the printing press. My other examples still stand, unless you believe that courts should pick and choose which rules to apply, regardless of whether or not they were adopted by a democratically elected legislature. That's a recipe for chaos.
Lots of laws are unfitting for the times. When social security was passed, there were 41 workers per beneficiary. Today there are three. Does the fact that matters on the ground have changed mean a court should allow the state to refuse without new legislation? I hope not.
My apologies for the mistake. The history major in me is ashamed. Though I do think that industrial scale printing was predated by the 1st Amendment, but I'd have to check to make sure.
How to spot fake news: "If it's conservative it's fake!"
I know the BBC is often characterized as having a left-wing bias, but personally I've never seen that. There have been just as many objections to their reporting from labour governments as conservative ones (and in both cases I think that's generally a good thing).
The BBC employs more conservative reporters than liberal ones and includes a greater proportion of conservatives on panels - that's led plenty of left-wing commentators to complain about their right-wing bias. Unlike media companies in the US though the BBC has a statutory obligation to impartiality and I think they do a pretty good job of that. My complaint would not be about a left-wing or right-wing bias, but the occasional lapse where they distort a report in the search for 'balance'. There was one famous example of that when they were doing an item on climate change and wanted to present the arguments for and against. They couldn't find any scientists willing to argue against it, so put up Nigel Lawson (ex-chancellor of the exchequer and a well-known climate change sceptic). That's fine as far as it goes, but they didn't make clear there was now a virtual consensus in scientific circles on the topic - so unless you already knew the history on this you would have got the impression the argument was still in the balance.
An Idaho state lawmaker urges her constituents to submit entries for her "fake news awards." The Kentucky governor tweets #FAKENEWS to dismiss questions about his purchase of a home from a supporter. An aide to the Texas land commissioner uses the phrase to downplay the significance of his boss receiving donations from employees of a company that landed a multimillion-dollar contract.
Truth is what you say it is, that's the same notion Fox News has been promoting for a decade. Conservatives are building a huge alternative truth bubble around themselves that they are hiding in and any inconvenient truths, corruption, or other things they don't want to face, they call fake news. Orwellian stuff going on here.
If news outlets fought back instead, suing Trump for defamation the first time he uttered the phrase towards them, we wouldn't be in this predicament.
"A BBC Live Lesson on sorting fact from fiction will also be streamed for schoolchildren to watch and interact with on Thursday, 22 March.
It will be presented by BBC Breakfast's Naga Munchetty, who will introduce experts from HuffPost UK and the independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact."
Huffington Post is known for being quite liberal...
No crime without victim should be punished and a drunk guy is much more likely to kill(intentionally or not) than a armed guy. I don't see anyone advocating to implement the failed "dry law" again, but the failed gun control... USA already have a very big prison population, of 2,220,300. A "War on guns" will probably make it around 10 millions.
PS : "Assault" weapons(aka full auto guns) are already very restricted.