So, because they said, "We're going to commit treason," before they did it makes it not treason? Sorry, but allowing unilateral opt out of government by any individual or group makes government meaningless. So, saying, "You're not the boss of me!" first doesn't alleviate the charge of treason.
I've got to say, I hate the idea that if you join the US you, it's eternal on pain of death. I'm pretty much universally for the devolution of powers and rights to smaller political entity. Just look at countries ranked on the wellness and happiness scales. People have far greater trust in government institutions in smaller countries.
I believe states should be able to secede, regardless of reason. I'm not saying the southern secession followed a good protocol in deciding when to secede, but I think you would be very surprised if you actually read some of the history of how the transition took place. Think about everything that has to switch over. The federal government was far less monstrous 150 years ago, but courthouses, judges, tax officials, military installations, etc, all had a transition to go through. Many were very straightforward. Courthouse employees came to work one day as US employees, the next as Confederates. IMO, once the secession took place, the view of the north was the treason already occurred.
Short version: treason can be a justified rebellion if the state is committing crimes, it's just treason when done to continue committing crimes.
No, completely wrong. Treason can be justified IF YOU WIN, in which case, it's no longer treason.
Why do you assume that just because I did a poor job at imitating a Southern accent that it was "ebonics?" Frankly, I was trying to use the character Huckleberry Finn's dad as a reference, and apparently mixed things up *shrug*.
That's why I was confused! Perhaps you have never actually talked to someone who has a southern accent?
And why would making fun of someone crying that one state government won't be flying the symbol of those who committed treason in defense of chattel slavery cause you to support said crybaby? I, personally, think that the retailers have gone overboard. I would love for every ignorant f*ck who thinks the South rebelled for any reason other than to maintain its "peculiar institution," and wants to support that banner of savage traitors, to wear it willingly. That way they'll have a nice, big, scarlet letter that will let everyone else know that they're somewhere between ignorant fools and bigoted scum.
You know how you hate southerners and think southern culture is reprehensible? That's why. I don't support statehouses flying confederate flags, but I sure as crap support retailers, ebay sellers, etc, selling them. I remember being disgusted when I read about how Nazi memorabilia or historical items were banned from resale in Germany--history-avoiding pansies. Well, now here we are. In fact we're worse--you can still buy Nazi gear, but mention of a confederate flag is verboten!
History is written by the victors. We know who the victors in the civil war were. By the time of the civil war war, every one of my ancestors had been in the US for at least one generation. I'm fortunate enough to have the diary one of ancestor who participated in Sherman's march to the sea (he was from Ohio). Completely harrowing stuff. On another side, another ancestor fought for the south at Gettysburg (he was from the high mountains of VA/NC area). He lost six brothers in just two days at Gettysburg and was severely wounded. Interestingly enough, not a single ancestor I have tracked down who fought for the confederacy ever owned slaves (at least that I can tell). Most of them are from the mountains, where slavery was never as big. Slavery was the raison d'etre of the civil war for elite on both sides. That's not why the commoners fight. Commoners never fight for the real reason a war is being fought (or rarely, at least), they fight because they are whipped up into some kind of group-fervor. It's clear that even today the northern/southern culture divide exists and is pretty damn pungent.
That's a bad argument. The US says they annexed Hawaii and built military bases there. Nobody stopped them. Ergo, Hawaii is part of the US.
Russia says they annexed Crimea (with a popular vote even [allegedly]) and built military bases there (technically already had military bases there). Nobody stopped them. Ergo, the Crimea is part of Russia.
Actually, the Russian claim to the Crimea goes back far longer and probably has more substance.
Trees? That's nothing. In Chicago they bulldoze entire airfields at night.
If you want an omelette...
I don't understand why you're writing that in a pseudo-Ebonics dialect? Many of the dialectic features you've toss out there are really primary features of AAVE, not so much SVE (though there is of course overlap).
I've got to say, if your goal is to make Southerns--even those of us whose families are transplants, who don't fly the confederate flag, and who don't have an accent--want to stand up for southern culture--mission accomplished! And no, being a fan of southern culture does not mean you love slavery or hate black people.
The corruption and abuse in the prison system, and the collusion between the prison industry, the unions, and the police, to keep it going, does not need to be "exposed" because it is done openly, and generally with the support of the public. Any attempt to fix the prisons needs to start with a massive reduction in the number of people incarcerated. Per capita, America imprisons far more than other countries, and far more than even authoritarian countries such as China and Russia.
If you add the number of forced "stays" at mental health hospitals in other countries, the numbers are substantially equalized. This is, of course, damning on its own, as the US has defaulted to using prisons and jails to incarcerate the mentally ill. This is not ideal from a humane or a fiscal point of view.
Another counter argument is that crime rates have dramatically and universally fallen across the US during the same time period that rates of incarceration have risen.
Before election day, you will see ads, and receive mailers, from politicians promising to "get tough on crime", along with endorsements by the police chief, and the police union. Please vote for someone else.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Pretty much every organization, and certainly every union out there from the Piano Tuners 421 to the police, are going to endorse somebody. Having lived in Chicago--well-known as a union town--for several years in the 00's, and around the country, I don't recall anything like the level of organization you are claiming. I've certainly never received a mailer from a police union, nor do I think I've ever seen an ad run by the union.
True, but this has some potentially dangerous side effects.
1) You have to disable kernel extension signing (potential security risk).
2) If you lose PRAM, or if other hardware changes occur, your system might be in an unbootable state until you remove the TRIM kext.
3) On my MacPro 1,1 that is running Yosemite with a non-original graphics card, I can't risk the TRIM. If, for any reason, my system were to go non-bootable, I wouldn't be able to restore, as my current graphics cards is non-Mac EFI compatible. I don't get output until the desktop loads. There are only a tiny number of people in this situation, but it effects me!
End result, I run trim on my MBP and no trim on my MP.
Ditto. This is an awful change.
Not really trivial as of Yosemite. You have to disable kernel extension signing. Luckily, there appears to be a command line tool for force enabling TRIM in 10.11.
Let's see...the two articles are Ars Technica (US-owned, UK edition) and The Guardian (UK-owned, US edition). I think that's a fair span of opinions!
Exactly, and well said, AC.
It's shocking to me how people can buy--hook, line, and sinker--any rotten story that politicians tell, particularly if the story is "blame someone else!"
Did you even read the _summary_?
"Just weeks before the regulations were dropped there had been a barrage of lobbying from big European firms such as Dupont, Bayer and BASF over EDCs. The chemical industry association Cefic warned that the endocrines issue 'could become an issue that impairs the forthcoming EU-US trade negotiations.'"
Thanks for the reply, that makes total sense to me, and I think we're in agreement. The issue is definitely not the vulnerability of individual systems or an increasing "hackability" of software, rather, as you say, the greater accessibility that makes things more risky.