Ah hah. Ah ha hah. Em.

What difference do you suppose that would make? Would the DHS have said "aw shucks," and let OWS continue their protests if said protestors started packing? How about in Ferguson? More firearms just means more cops with more itchy trigger fingers.

so when US adversaries

The US is indisputably the biggest terrorist asshole shitbag on the face of the planet, so shouldn't your concern be for other governments trying to break the National Stazi Agency's codes?

On iPhone, you can only trust Apple's word...

As opposed to having to trust the word and the code of the third party? Distinction without much of a difference, and that's before getting to the percentage of the Android user base that is both savvy and motivated enough to do this. As opposed to being the default option once you have a passcode on the device.

That's why nearly everywhere in Africa is a shining beacon of stability, freedom, and democracy despite having had decades of independence because it's all imperialism's fault.

Yeah. It is. Victim blaming is always BS, no matter who is the victimizer or who is the victim.

That's also why you support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, because imperialism is bad.

1) Russia hasn't invaded
2) Even if they did, it would be a million more times more justified than any American intervention you can name
3) Russia are the only ones fighting the illegal coup financed, planned and supported by....western imperialists!

Wait what? you make zero sense in all your arguments. As usual.

Because you're obviously a right wing troll so divorced from reality that you could jump off a ship and insist that water is dry.

Ok, I get it. You don't know shit.

Snort. Says someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "independence". Google it and try again.

then i would tell you that you are engaging in false equivalence, and likely vote repub.

Huh? Eric Holder started pushing for fines in place of prosecution for financial crimes when he was in the Clinton Administration, and proceeded to enact that policy as AG. Banks were allowed to steal millions in homes and trillions in wealth from Joe and Jane Shmoe, who covered the bank's losses with taxpayer-funded bailouts. You can't get your head much farther up the asses of the rich than that.

Why were they not in favor of propping up the auto industry?

Of course they were. No president or party was going to sit by and watch 3 million jobs disappear in a chain reaction if GM went under.

Was it because the auto industry employed people with low incomes and had unions?

The deal was easily something President Romney could have put together with some stooges from Bain Capital. GM was forced to declare bankruptcy before they could get bailout money, and a two-tier system of wages was set up for the workers, creating resentment and undermining the union. If that wasn't enough, liability was eliminated for lawsuits on pre-bailout cars - so the families of those killed by faulty ignition switches are left with whatever GM decides to give them.

Leaving in a fit of pique is going to hurt the banks more the Scots. Does Lloyds really want all that Scottish oil drilled on someone else's credit or their own? Iceland has been able to get credit after they defaulted on debts, which an independent Scotland wont have (to start with, anyway).

Because Ireland did so well under the yoke of British Imperialism.

This is like saying someone MUST divorce their spouse because they can always just get back together.

Hardly. That some countries have done "poorly" after throwing off foreign rule is not a knock against independence. It's a knock against imperialism.

While continuing to be protected by UK's nuclear deterrent, so the principle of the stance is somewhat compromised.

That's okay, they'll just get themselves some Tiger Stones, they're about as relevant as your concerns over nuclear deterrence.

That's easy. Scotland is the last western country in existence that's arguably feudal in nature.

Hmm, citation vs empty tautology, which to choose....

No, I'm afraid you don't understand a few things. Firstly, Scotland's oil is small beer on the global stage. The North Sea produces ~1.5m bpd, OPEC alone is something like 30m.

Wait, what? Why are you comparing a single country's output to a dozen other countries combined? Any oil rich area can be hand waved away by that line of reasoning: Alaska, Kuwait, North Dakota, Louisiana....

Who's going to reject Scotland, anyway? Scotland, like California, sends in more tax money than they get back, and they're sitting on huge oil reserves in the North Sea. Or are you afraid your family is going to lose it's feudal estate with it's captive population of serfs?

Charlie Stross recently posted a very good take on this: This is a permanent change.

East and West Germany might disagree.

Any voter should consider the probable situation twenty or fourty years from now, not whatever happens in a year or two.

They're probably looking off at finally getting free from feudalism. Half the land in the country is owned by less than 500 families, which they lease out to the serfs, I mean renters, for a profit.