In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
That;s not what the civil war was. It's the low IQ neo confederate version of the civil war which is again totally compatible with my view of libertarianism as a low IQ movement. Geezer, who was initially confused, gets it now which is the only point being ,ade.
where did i say i agree with the draft for confederate states after they seceded?
I say i agree with a fundamental right to secession. and the draft for defensive war is complicated stuff, but i can agree with it with some caveats.
But the confederacy *attacked* the federal gvmnt (unprovoked) so theirs wasn't a defensive war.
In other news, the police commander of Washington D.C. has been suspended and accused of manipulating crime statistics to show a purported vast drop in criminality that never happened under his watch
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local...
The claim is of exceptional gravity, ofc it has to be confirmed in court.
where did i say i agree with the draft for confederate states after they seceded?
I say i agree with a fundamental right to secession. and the draft for defensive war is complicated stuff, but i can agree with it with some caveats.
But the confederacy *attacked* the federal gvmnt (unprovoked) so theirs wasn't a defensive war.
I never said you agree with the draft for the confederacy. Some libertarians defend the confederacy. The confederacy had a strict draft requirement.
oh i didn't mean a legal one under the federal constitution my bad. I meant a fundamental one in most libertarians models of morality.
Personally i think "it's complicated" in some cases (not in the case of states of the USA, those should have the right to secede). Just because being a sovereign or not isn't an obvious quality of a group of people.
oh i didn't mean a legal one under the federal constitution my bad. I meant a fundamental one in most libertarians models of morality.
Personally i think "it's complicated" in some cases (not in the case of states of the USA, those should have the right to secede). Just because being a sovereign or not isn't an obvious quality of a group of people.
So libertarian is just what you feel it should be and not what the actual constitution, laws or Supreme Court says .
You just use these arguments when they agree with you .
So libertarian is just what you feel it should be and not what the actual constitution, laws or Supreme Court says .
You just use these arguments when they agree with you .
eh? we were discussing what libertarian like or not after certitude made the bizzarre claim that they are confederates.
I said they tend to be in favor of a right to secession in general existing.
can you even read? do you think it's fascist to think Quebec has a right to secede from Canada? and it would have it regardless of what they had signed centuries ago, as that is a right that cannot be ceded, exactly like a person cannot sell himself into slavery?
I can read that your libertarian views doesn’t often agree with what the constitution says .
Republicans don't come out that much better, since only 79% know that sex is genetically determined, while 89% think that 'gender' ( a cultural and grammatical term, not a scientific one) is. Then again the inclusion of 'gender' was deliberately stupid and confusing.Still, even US Republicans in trailer parks are probably not as dumb as British Labour MP Dawn Butler, who claime
so you're one of the people that thinks that however comprehensive the changes we can make in the future you will still argue someone who has had the procedures to make them like a man in every respect, is in fact still a woman because their genes determined it?
I cant imagine you arguing for including them as women but I may be wrong.
re poll results - so much difference is down to people answering different questions (even though the text is the same) rather than answering the same question differently.
1) would never interact with any loan to private individuals or companies in the USA, no exception2) would never set any tariff or in general regulate trade in any way : caveat emptor, everything is allowed that states don't ban (and the commerce clause limits what states can ban)3) would not regulate banks, insurance companies or securities in any way, no exception4) would not
If it's such a common sense framework--rattle off like 20 or 30 examples of places that have pulled off this no-brainer.
so every company they work for or buy things from have to deal with impossibly numerous federal regulations but that layer of obfuscation makes you claim that they have 0 contact with the federal gvmnt outside of filing taxes.Now trump is setting tariffs (remember that's completly illegal for the reading of the constitution i subscribe to, and against all libertarian principles
3. Guess 2008 gfc didn’t teach u a thing .
7. Now I get why you are against vaccine and stuff like that .
I would be too with that kind of society .
Let’s go back to the dark ages of 200 yeas ago .
I mean life would be so great, that is probably why people average life expectancy was 39 years old in 1850.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040...
Yes regulations is just a life killer !
The funny thing is deep down even the confederacy knew the legal path to succession was non existent. That’s why they started attacking army bases. If they thought they could just wait and eventually be legally recognized as a separate country they would have done that.
removing a privilege isn't a punishment. A punishment is depriving you of your property or freedom. There is no freedom to live in the USA for non american citizens, it's a privilege that can be suspended at any time, for any reason the USA decide to apply to that, and it's not a punishment if that happens.Same as it is not a punishment not to qualify for any subsidy, it's a pr
No need for elaboration obviously I disagree with your main point (bolded). As I believe 99% of people would.
I guess it's not a punishment if you tell your teenager they can't use the car and have to stay home all weekend because you didn't like their behavior. Good luck convincing them of that.
I guess that explains it better, but I had never heard of any novel being part of a required curriculum in a school district. That seems like a very unusual thing, as when I was in high school the teachers didn't even assign the same books from one year to the next.
I guess that explains it better, but I had never heard of any novel being part of a required curriculum in a school district. That seems like a very unusual thing, as when I was in high school the teachers didn't even assign the same books from one year to the next.
Within your own class/age the next year or for the classes for kids in years behind you? You were keeping a real close eye on what the kids behind you were assigned?
Within your own class/age the next year or for the classes for kids in years behind you? You were keeping a real close eye on what the kids behind you were assigned?
I kept an eye on those ahead of me, not behind. For example, I knew what the seniors were reading when I was a junior from interacting with them in extracurricular activities and seeing what books they were toting.
I specifically remember reading one of the books in the summer to get a head start, and then I wasn't assigned that book, even in the same level class with the same teacher.
Of course this was a private school with no governing board, but I never would have guessed that everyone in an entire school district would be reading the same novels in a literature class.
If it gets rid of Trump I’ll accept the loss of your life as collateral damage.
You’re old and had a decent innings.
I kept an eye on those ahead of me, not behind. For example, I knew what the seniors were reading when I was a junior from interacting with them in extracurricular activities and seeing what books they were toting. I specifically remember reading one of the books in the summer to get a head start, and then I wasn't assigned that book, even in the same level class with the same
Changing books every year would get pretty expensive pretty quick.
They would hold onto the books and use them again in some future year. And they were paperback.
They would hold onto the books and use them again in some future year. And they were paperback.
Yes but there were a lot of hardcovers too. Totally normal to get a book that had several people's names/initials on the inside cover etc. For something like Catcher in the Rye I can't even remember if my copy was hard or paper at this point--leaning towards hard iirc. But the odds were pretty slim people would get a brand new copy to work with just kinda in general.
There was plenty of opportunity to read stuff 'for school' outside the required stuff though--book reports, papers etc.
I only remember not reading The Great Gatsby and reading To Kill a Mockingbird in almost one sitting.
so you're one of the people that thinks that however comprehensive the changes we can make in the future you will still argue someone who has had the procedures to make them like a man in every respect, is in fact still a woman because their genes determined it?
Yes, and the UK Supreme Court, in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers 2025, has ruled that this is a fact in law. (It is not true, as trans activists have claimed, that the ruling only applies to public boards in Scotland, since the judges' published ratio makes clear that it applies universally.) Incidentally, what you just did is known as the 'trans man gotcha', and is discredited as disingenuous because we all know that the main problem lies elsewhere, with an attack on women's spaces and rights in pursuit of a novel ideology.
Also, 'in every respect' is absurd. Cosmetic surgery is cosmetic.
