I just hope they eventually cast some fully Britishized actor originally out of Hong Kong... one trained in certain things Hong Kong actors are known for. I want a kung fu Doctor. :p
This seems like a no-brainer to me... though it probably isn't. Obviously you have a constitutional right to sleep, wherever you can make space for yourself. If these cities and downs don't want people sleeping outside, they need to provide indoor space for people who haven't actually committed crimes. We treat our criminals better than we treat our homeless.
Our democracy is a great democracy the way an antique car is a great car: great in its time, but it's time for an upgrade.
All they have to do is, instead of calling it a "law", call it "militia regulation" instead. "Militia" is the entire arms bearing populace; if you own a gun, you are, by definition, part of the Militia. And the 2nd amendment doesn't merely say "everyone has a gun"; it does so in context of maintaining a "well regulated militia". All the right to "keep and bear arms" does is prevent them from requiring we store our arms in a central armory (which was one of the controversies over the matter in England when the right was in development).
I would say we also have a right to own a car. That doesn't prevent them from requiring we maintain the capacity to bear responsibility if we should accidentally exercise that right improperly.
Because I played Dragon Quest and Zelda, I developed an unfortunate predilection for walking into strangers houses and smashing pots and vases and stuff. Took years of therapy to break that habit. :(
I still can't even look at a barrel.
I'm pretty sure my brother reached numbers like this for Ghostbusters (TV edit) when he was a little kid.
More accurate than you might think.
Donald Trump and his followers look more like Doctor Who villains by the day. I half expect them to unveil a new military unit that is vaguely salt shaker shaped.
Discomfort stimulates growth, but the actual growth happens during periods of recovery. That is true of the body, and I have little doubt it is true of the mind, as well. I'm not saying people should never step out of their comfort zone. But just like we shouldn't be judging people at the gym because, from our perspective, they should be able to do more, we should be extending compassion to those of us who have difficulties in the mind, particularly considering we can only know our own perspective, not theirs. I mean, you wouldn't expect a guy in a wheel chair to be doing leg presses, would you?
"I did not have sex with that woman."
"Well, technically, college kids don't consider a blowjob to count as 'sex'."
Right. Hexbear is Russian propaganda. Got it.
WTF is up with Hexbear users?
What makes you think that's likely?
Or wait, are you just Onioning?
Or will you decide which it is later?
This is what I figured was going on when all those articles came out about Apple "changing its position" on right-to-repair. The politicians got to claim a victory, but Apple was in the details.
Never forget that if someone is lying, it's because they expect someone else to believe them. There would be no point to trying to fool the Republican rank-and-file if a majority of them weren't fools.
That said, there could be a significant amount of self-foolery going on.
Actual libertarians should take note: their right-wing allies were never pro-freedom, just antigovernment. And their opposition to government was never based on the principle of a less authoritarian society, but rather due to the government's role in restraining their own power and authority. Now that they see a path to their traditional role as society's power brokers, they have abandoned their so-called "libertarianism".
I was a Libertarian, with a capital 'L'. I was secretary in my local party. I held signs, knocked on doors, circulated petitions, and was otherwise politically active. I was never particularly comfortable with the low-key racism, patriarchism, corporatism, landlordism, and feudal and monarchial apologism, and otherwise nongovernmental forma of authoritarianism, that always seemed to be present in the movement, in one form or another. But for a long time I figured they were an anomaly in an otherwise decent movement.
But I eventually realized that they were not the anomaly that didn't belong; I was.
"Mothers for America" isn't.
It would make for an interesting lawsuit if this agreement were active and someone who was disqualified from certain state ballots nevertheless won the popular vote. I doubt that'll be Trump (he didn't even win the popular vote before he tried to steal an election). But it would be interesting.
If it were my place to rule on the matter, my take would be that because the agreement was between state governments, only states who are part of the agreement have standing to pursue the matter in court. In other words, the campaign couldn't sue over the matter, only another state government that was also part of the agreement.
In case you didn't already know, I'm pretty sure the agreement isn't active yet. It doesn't activate until there are enough states with enough electoral votes to decide the outcome. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't happened yet.
He isn't a Right Wing capitalist. He's a Left Wing capitalist. The Right is feudalist.
I generally use "anarchist" to describe my political philosophy. I'm pretty sure I'm using it correctly, but I'm not certain. I haven't had much contact with other "anarchists", just a bit of exposure through history and such.
First off, to me, "anarchism" doesn't mean "no government". Rather it means "no intrinsic authority". What I see among historical anarchists is an opposition to practices that, frankly, aren't all that often practiced any more, in the political realm. I'm referring to rule by bloodline and such, nobility and royalty. I get the impression the early anarchists wanted to do away with royal governance, in favor of a federation of voluntary governments instituted at the local level. Which is to say, they believed in government; they just wanted to do away with imposed external authority.
But I do see our current economic relations as having a great deal of externally imposed authority in it... though going into my beliefs about why, and what could be done about it, would be beyond the scope of this essay.
To me, anarchism means the following:
-
Favoring no unnecessary relationships of authority.
-
Where authority is necessary, it should be granted by those over whom the authority is exercised, directly and individually, to the greatest extent practicable. So, for example, if we have an economic system that leaves both employers and employees with the same level of market power (we do not, but if we did), the employer-employee relationship would qualify, since it commences by choice of both parties, and can end by the choice of either party.
-
Where this is impracticable, the authority in question should always be temporary, with a clearly delineated end. For example, the parent-child relationship is necessarily one of authority, since children lack the faculties to make all the decisions one needs to make. But this relationship should be premised on preparing the child to survive outside this relationship, and have a clear end point (the point of their majority). And I mainly include this but just for the parent-child relationship; I can't think of any others.
All this being said, I know there are those for whom Anarchism means "no government", usually detractors who don't actually understand the philosophy... or so I assume. Do I assume incorrectly? Is my use of the term wildly incorrect? I really don't know.