Honestly, I disagree. A stance I hold is that voters should have to see the horrors of war. You shouldn’t be allowed to elect someone who may send people off to die brutally without knowing what that looks like. By this, I don’t mean watching Band of Brothers or something. I mean actual footage of people being injured or dying in modern combat. You’re choosing that for other people, so you should have to know what it actually is.
I would love to see it, but I’d rather be rid of him. Hoping for the ideal outcome, which is unlikely, and not acting on something that’s still good is a bad idea.
Oh, good. I was thinking this was some generated bullshit.
You are overestimating how many people find it simple to find an executable online and run it.
I think you missed the point. Finding an executable and running it is harder than installing Linux, yet every Windows user does it. If they’re capable of using Windows then they’re also capable of installing Linux.
I believe last time I used it WSL only handles a terminal, but I feel like I recall seeing something about it being able to handle GUI applications now. I would suspect it can’t run games though. The calls that are needed to make games possible are probably off-limits to WSL.
I don’t know when the last time you installed Linux was, or what distros you’ve used, but it’s beyond trivial now usually. Finding an executable online and running that, as Windows users have to do, is often more difficult than installing Linux. There is almost no user who couldn’t install Linux today, but there are many who will never try.
I wouldn’t say it’s trivial. It’s just one more indication of all the rot. There is no enforcement of the laws against them, only the poor.
I’m certain that isn’t true. They are just normally done with all the shit and don’t want to deal with a lot of the same shit but with the addition of being out ruled by any of the other assholes in Congress.
I would definitely trust that the will have planted listening devices, or other mechanisms for collecting data.
This is literally 1984 shit, as in it’s actually a thing the book talks about, not hyperbole.
It’s more of a question of what they have to gain. They can instantly get a lot of money to stop the attacks. It also gives them the biggest tool they have back. If they continue to stop shipping, and require a toll, they don’t have that as leverage to use later. It’s just the standard. Think about if they were doing that before the invasion. The US would just leave and give them nothing, because it’s the status quo.
The one at the top of this chain did. The one I was responding to.
That page disagrees with you though. The thing being acted upon gets whom. That’s the rule. That entire page is just different situations where that can happen.
Disqualified by who?
Yeah, neither of these are happening. It’s a crime though. They should (not will) face criminal consequences, not just a disqualification.
(Edit: Just FYI, I originally copied your question, but “whom” is not correct here. Just use “who” if you don’t know how to use it. It doesn’t make people look smart. Anyway, “whom” is for the subject of the verb. “Who” here is performing the action of disqualification. “They disqualified whom” would be where “whom” is used. I don’t really care if people just use “who” all the time, but it really bothers me when people go out of their way to use “whom” but don’t actually know when to use it. It isn’t just for the end of the sentence.)
I don’t think that’s the appropriate action. It’s against the law. They should be tried for committing the crime. Anyone with knowledge should be held accountable.
Dude, yes, I have. Have you?
How did most nations at the time defend themselves? It wasn’t standing armies. Only the richest nations could afford those, and the US was not one of them. It was expected that militias would be risen when a threat appeared.
Ok, now how did those militias operate? Did they store weapons in their homes? Did they manufacture them? No, to both of these. Weapons were kept in armories, and the militias drilled with them. They were well regulated, not just random people with guns calling themselves a militia. They were actual organizations trained and prepared for an attack, and their weapons and ammunition were organized in armories, where you had to go to muster.
Ok, now how does any of this imply the right to manufacture? You have a right to obtain at best, though ideally, in those early days, your militia organization would be obtaining them, not you as an individual.
Please, critically read it and think about it for yourself. What does the text actually say, and what were the customs of the time?
I’m all for people having the rights to weapons. Hell, I’d even agree the right to manufacture is held, to a limited extent, by the people. However, the 2nd Amendment does not provide this. The 9th does. I’m tired of the 2nd being used by people to try to cover everything. It’s made weaker by this. The 9th does cover everything though.
That transcript says that, if it isn’t illegal to build a firearm, then it’s legal to build a firearm. No shit. Obviously. It says nothing about 2A protections.
Also, he is not a lawyer. Do you think everything the director of ICE says is supported by the law?
Again, read the second amendment. Please. It’s very short.
2A is already abused to hell, but I see no way to make an argument to say it protects manufacturing a firearm. It, at best, protects possession. There are other reasons this is illegal, but please read the second amendment before you say dumb shit about it.
The argument is that the victim is more dangerous, because “they’re a man.” This is obviously bullshit though. Either the victim was murdered or not. Their gender really shouldn’t matter, trans or otherwise. Things are fucked out here.
Maybe, but still don’t give them views.
The way this has been done by states already is passing amendments that require them to vote yes when it gets enough votes. This means it’s only a few new states that need to pass a law for this to actually happen. Previous states can’t back out.