Supah_Schmendrick
No bio...
User ID: 618
The wretch who died the slave's death is venerated and remembered in the most gorgeous, opulent setting.
And where did all those riches come from? From the works of Nietzchean virtue - conquest and craft and cunning.
I think he's snarking that SCOTUS is, in fact, our highest legislative body.
So it’s not clearly the original intent to allow 8 billion people to hop a jet and give birth on the LAX tarmac.
Except that it clearly was, because there was all that wilderness to settle, and increasingly factories to staff-up. They were literally giving land away to anyone that could prove they could work it productively.
And if the answer is that it isn't, what then?
The Constitution itself provides an instrumental example - it was completely illegal under the then-extant Article of Confederation, but it turns out you can just do things if there's the political will and organization to do it.
Bondi has little-to-nothing to do with SCOTUS briefing and oral arguments. That's the province of the Solicitor General.
I haven't read Infinite Jest, or Gravity's Rainbow, or White Noise. However I adore Catch-22, and find Slaughterhouse 5 perfectly fine. YMMV.
Obviously I can't speak for the "Polish street," but their government has been unrelentingly hawkish towards Russia for over a decade.
That remains yet to be seen; this thing is still barely a month old.
I struggle to see what other kind of war could have been envisioned. Admittedly I'm not military myself, but I certainly hang out with a goodly number of current and former military personnel in various online and IRL spaces from several different branches -- they uniformly say that this is more or less a textbook example of the "American way of war." With focus on as-precise-as-technologically-possible aerial and missile strikes on political and military targets, down to the targeting of specific individuals, supported where possible by Special Forces/CIA paramilitary "dirty tricks" I don't see how this is functionally different from, e.g., the way we went into Afghanistan. The bombardment of Tehran, Isfahan, and IRGC infrastructure looks a lot like 2003 "Shock and Awe" in Iraq.
What, do you think Paul Wolfowitz was jonesing for the 82nd Airborne and 1st Infantry Division to be rolling from Turkey towards Tabriz?
France had no centuries long tradition of representative democracy and rule of law.
It did, just a much patchier one. The idea to call an Estates-General didn't come from nowhere - there was a known and remembered tradition of such assemblies. And, if anything, the ancien regime French had too much rule of law; the intransigence and excess legalisms of the various provincial parlements (a misleading name for regional judicial courts which also excercised forms of judicial review in the form of registering or declining to register royal edicts) blocked numerous attempted reforms prior to the revolution.
Masculinity and femininity as general pro-social concepts are only really useful when there is a division of gender roles.
Why would masculinity and femininity be downstream of social roles rather than biological tendencies? Regardless of social expression, there needs to have a framework for disciplining the excess physical energy of rambunctious teen boys, and the excess social power of young-adult women.
While I get that Blackstone was an Englishmen, I find it a bit rich that US legal thought should be based on him.
It was the actual choice of the founding generation, who explicitly adopted the english common law in state constitutions and statutes (see the term "reception statutes").
Foremost for Blackstone is allegiance (weirdly shortened to ligeance in a few places)
It's not a weird shortening at all; allegiance is all about who you recognize as your liege, i.e., your ruler.
The British one seems pretty batshit, what with being somehow both fanatically culturally-progressive and also Islamist.
Dizzy, do you believe that apartheid ethnostates are morally acceptable in the present age
Yes, the gulf arab states are perfectly legitimate, regardless of their appalling track record towards "migrant workers."
"Ethnic cleansing" plus 50 years is just a normal border.
Because no-one wants to get stuck in the middle of a war zone. Same reason there were refugee columns out of Belgium and northern France during the early days of WWI.
Personally, as a luke-warm supporter of the war, nos. 2-4 resonate with me, with a side-dish of "Israel probably told us their intelligence had penetrated the IRI governance and internal security structure enough to be able to achieve meaningful attrition/disorganization of regime-loyal elements."
Like, apparently things are so crazy that Mossad agents are calling individual district commanders of the Basij and warning them to stand down or get droned.
Yet the persistence of this misuse indicates (at least to me) that there's something underlaying it other than just an inability to comprehend the scope of third world squalor.
If I had to guess, I would say it's not so much with the actual harm done the worker, but instead a discomfort with the idea of a westerner exercising power and control over a racially or ethnically-othered workforce. The journalist isn't looking at the worker and seeing Kunta Kinte from Roots; he's looking at the worker's boss and seeing Simon Legree, and backfilling everything else from there in horror.
If we're going to stay faithful to actual latin pronunciation, apparently it would be "weekeh wersah" because latin "v" is pronounced like an english "u" and latin "c" is pronounced like "cat" not "cell."
Of course, as a proper anglophone of the 21st century, I find this abhorrent, and never actually use it. It's "Veni, Vidi, Vici" not "Wenny, Weedy, Weeky" damn it!
what kind of name is Markwayne anyway?
Strikes me as GenX Jimbob, personally, but YMMV.
The wiki isn't fantastically put together, but I didn't know about the conflicting sources. I've only ever seen it posited as an established fact, including by some individuals who otherwise defended Churchill. Thanks.
Churchill gassing the Iraqis just entered the chat.
The first duty of the American government is to obey the Constitution.
...and the first words of the Constitution are the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The lens through which the rest of the document must be read is one of in-group preference. In fact, just to hammer the point, home, the power (and, implicitly, the duty) to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization" - i.e., standards for who gets let into the in-group, and who has to remain on the outside - is explicitly granted to Congress by Article 1, Section 8. No need to muck around with "necessary and proper" implicit federal powers, like we do for such trivial things as setting up the Fed. No, establishing and policing the boundary between Americans and non-Americans is very much within the scope of the Constitution's mandate.
- Prev
- Next

Be very careful about who you think the communists are, and about underestimating them. Because out-and-out commies are also the organizational backbone of left protest movements here in the US (RevComs, PSL, etc.), not to mention how thoroughly the "gay-race-communism" social progressive variant has succeeded in pentrating not just politics, but culture as well. The NYT and AP still capitalize "Black" but not "white."
More options
Context Copy link