Rivalarrival @ Rivalarrival @lemmy.today Posts 3Comments 3,573Joined 2 yr. ago
I think that's for the best.
Check out Rai stones.
Although the ownership of a particular stone might change, the stone itself is rarely moved due to its weight and risk of damage. Thus the physical location of a stone was often not significant: ownership was established by shared agreement and could be transferred even without physical access to the stone. Each large stone had an oral history that included the names of previous owners.
In one instance, a large rai being transported by canoe and outrigger was accidentally dropped and sank to the sea floor. Although it was never seen again, everyone agreed that the rai must still be there, so it continued to be transacted as any other stone.
You can't out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist.
If you're going to do something like jail subversive elements, you best make sure you can't be considered a subversive element yourself.
Correct. Orthogonal to both the prograde/retrograde and the radial/anti-radial axis.
AFAIK, "normal" follows the right-hand rule. If you point your straight index finger prograde, and your thumb points radially, your middle finger, bent perpendicular to the other two, is "normal".
I wouldn't be so quiet to discredit sacrifices
What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't discredited anybody. I'm about to start, though: That was fucking uncalled for. Pull your fucking head out of your ass.
With the exception of that last sentence, I haven't insulted or degraded anyone in the slightest, and I only used that degrading tone to get your attention. I don't intend to continue that disrespectful tone past this point.
I can't say that I would consider the National Guard to be a Civil Service
I never said the National Guard was a civil service. I never described it as a civil service. It is not at all a civil service. The National Guard is an armed service. It is Militia, not Military, and I tried to describe the difference. I hold both in high esteem. Any insult you may have perceived did not originate with me. You should examine your own prejudices.
- When an 18-year-old Texan joins the military, they can expect to be assigned to a post somewhere on the planet, per the needs of the service. He will be garrisoned wherever the military needs him, for as long as they need him there. He might remain on the same base his entire career; he might be bounced around the planet every 12-24 months.
- When an 18-year-old Texan joins the militia, they can expect to be assigned to a post somewhere in Texas, and remain assigned to that post for the duration of his career.
Yes, they can both be deployed. Yes, they can both TDY. Yes, they will both be sent for training which may not be in state. But when they come back from any of these,, the guardsman will always be sent back home, while the active duty serviceman can be sent anywhere.
In the context of this thread, mandatory military service would put the individual directly into federal service, with the implication that the conscript will be trained and sent anywhere on the planet.
Mandatory national guard service implies they will be trained, then sent home in state service, until and unless they are activated into federal service.
I think you're looking for words like:
- Prograde - In the direction of spin.
- Retrograde - Against the direction of spin.
- Nadirial or Anti-radial - Toward the center of rotation; "Up" in your centrifugal graviation model
- Radial or Anti-Nadirial - Away from the center of rotation; "Down" in your model.
Throwing a bowling ball "prograde", it will experience greater "gravity" than normal. If you throw it retrograde, it will experience less gravity than normal, unless you throw it more than twice as fast as the prograde velocity, in which case it will experience more gravity.
Not at all.
Companies shouldn't be owning stock.
Companies issue their own stock. They don't own it. The shareholders who buy it or otherwise acquire it are the owners. And if those owners have more than $10 million worth of it, they can afford to pay 1% of everything they own beyond that first $10 million.
I won't prohibit companies from owning other publicly traded companies, but they don't get special status when they do. That status is reserved for natural persons, and only $10 million of the the stock owned by such a person is exempt from taxation.
The point is the ultra-wealthy pay very smart people to work out loopholes.
Correct. The securities tax I'm talking about is not the actual solution. The loopholes they use to avoid that securities tax is the solution. The actual solution is for them to actually spend their wealth and enjoy their lives, rather than treating the economy like some idle clicker.
I served in the military from '99 through '05.
In California, the only military members I knew of who had California drivers licenses were people who had grown up in California. Nobody else in considered themselves a "resident" of California.
We were briefed on how to obtain absentee ballots from our home states, because most of us didn't qualify as residents at our post.
We were advised to file taxes in our home states, not the states where we were living and working.
The parking lots on base had more out-of-state license plates than in-state.
Military members and their dependents are guests of the local community. Visitors. Tourists. Not locals. We aren't in their communities long enough to become locals.
I'm having flashbacks to my first job in retail.
"Do you bElIeVe iN lIfe AfTeR lOve, aFtEr LoVe, AfTeR lOvE..."
But it wasn't three times in one shift. It was twice an hour, all evening long.
- If they are holding shares that can be traded in US markets, the SEC knows about those shares, and ultimately controls those shares. They don't need your Panamanian shell company to release them. You'll wake up one morning to find that a portion of the shares formerly in your shell company's portfolio are now in the IRS's portfolio. The SEC just ctrl-x'd them from your portfolio, and ctrl-v'd them to the IRS.
- Your Panamanian shell company is not a "natural person". Only "natural persons" are eligible for the $10 million dollar exemption. Your shell company pays the tax on its entire portfolio, not just the excess above $10 million.
Didn't even realize it was a Facebook link I pulled. My bad. Fixed.
A lawless president is a president for life.
There are ways to rein in the court, even with life terms. We can't get rid of the life terms without an amendment. But we could pack the court. Add 10 justices today, and it doesn't really matter what the other 9 have to say about it.
More realistically, I think we shouldn't fill empty seats on the court. I think that when a justice dies, the court should just move on without them.
A new justice should be appointed in the 11th and 35th month of each presidential term, regardless of the court's current size. That puts the the nomination as far away from an election as possible, while guaranteeing each president has some influence on the court. The average term is about 26 years; the longest term has been 36. I would expect the court size to average about 13 members, and probably not exceed 18. A single president could only appoint 4 members in two terms.
I would also establish a line of succession in the circuit courts, to automatically reconstitute a court that falls below 5 members, or to hear cases the SCOTUS is conflicted out of. Since any circuit court judge could find themselves on the supreme court, the senate's confirmation to the circuit court is also a confirmation to SCOTUS. The president has a small pool of qualified nominees that are pre-confirmed and thus can't be blocked.
Theoretically, they could. I mean, they hold the power of appellate review. They can acquit anyone for any reason. There is nothing in the constitution preventing them from announcing that they will acquit someone taking a specific action.
But shenanigans beget shenanigans, and I'm sure Congress and future presidents would have something to say about it. Impeachment and court packing are both feasible.
For instance, if someone says the words "Heil Hitler" while raising their hands in a traditional Nazi salute, there isn't exactly room for a fascist to go "weeeeelllll
Then "HH" isn't a violation. "88" isn't a violation. They avoid the specific phrases, speak their hatred in any other terms not explicitly listed.
They laugh at the pointlessness of your law, then someone - maybe you, maybe them - expands that law to cover more and more hateful words. Then one of you takes the next step, and allows the government to decide an unlisted word is hateful.
It will, however, heavily reduce the chances of them coming into power,
No, it won't. All you are doing is granting them powers to use against you when they do come into power.
Do you even understand the concept of fascism? It is an authoritarian ideal. Fascists thrive on the exercise of political power over others. They need the power to oppress, to subjugate. They need you to become oppressive. They need you to exercise your power to suppress them, so that when they do manage to get elected, you have set that precedent for them to use against you.
The way you destroy the Nazis is by ensuring your society values liberal ideals, and summarily rejects authoritarianism in all its forms. You can't out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist yourself.
That's OK, so long as you are a black man in business attire.
He did not say "my company":
BUSINESS WOMAN: ... Which... car company do you work for?
JACK: A major one.
But following your logic,
You're not following my logic.
I guess all laws shouldn't exist then.
That conclusion does not arise from my arguments.
After all, if we give the government the ability to do anything against any citizen, they might use it in a bad way!
I am saying that the law should be objective. "The speed limit is 35mph" is an objective law. Yes, it can be abusively enforced, by allowing some people to go 55, while stopping others at 36.
Contrast, "Disturbing the peace", a purely subjective law. Cops apply that law to do pretty much anything they want, to anyone they want, at any time they want, with zero consequences. The only objective factor is your presence in public: It's pretty hard to argue you were disturbing the peace from the comfort of your own home.
Concepts as nebulous and vague as the ones we are talking about here are as broadly and subjectively enforced as "disturbing the peace". The Nazis could claim you are in violation of your laws if you support "pedophiles" (by which they mean "trans"). Or supporting "enemy invaders" (by which they mean "immigrants"). Even mentioning "Luigi" could qualify as a violation.