It's worth much less now, though. Real wealth was the investment in the merchant trading fleet.
Stocks are volatile af.
Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening
- Thread starter Iron
- Start date
Recommended Videos
- Status
Stocks are volatile af.
Dude, Poland is regressive AF. I'm backing devils on this one. Hell, they still enforce goddamn blasphemy laws over there! Being non-Christian can get you arrested or dead.
Because they're based entirely on gibberish and horseshit. Still, you can't expect there to be a global pandemic and not have it fuck up international markets. If anything it's worse than in 1918 because the globe has only become more interconnected since then. There's a lot more to disrupt.
It tapered off when the new president was the old president's twin brother and the whole cabinet was killed in a plane crash. It was too unreal for me.Haven't you been paying attention to Poland?
Polish state becoming authoritarian, top judge Gersdorf says
The outgoing supreme court chief sees a government appointing political loyalists to the courts.www.bbc.com
Hungary and Poland Aren’t Democratic. They’re Authoritarian.
Don't call it a populist revolt. What's happening in Hungary and Poland is creeping authoritarianism.foreignpolicy.com
I just want to point out the inconsistency in those two posts that 4 of the top 10 in that list of best democracies took their systems from the UK.
In practice, many of them will not have inherited anything like the same class system, because the system of settlers gradually colonising the land was very different from the old aristocratic system of the UK.
Blasphemy laws? Those exist in Sweden as well, but only for Islam.
Riots In Sweden's Malmo After Activists Burn Copy Of Quran In A Rally, Anti-Muslim Danish Leader Banned For 2 Yrs
Sweden Riots: At least 300 people gathered and burned the Muslim Holy book Quran in Rosengard after which protesters came out on the streets of Malmo to throw stones and burned tyres to express anger.
news.abplive.com
USA
The US doesn't need to go all out on Drilling.. and it wouldn't help the people regardless because a few people are pocketing it all. If they had begun a " wealth fund " for the people like they did in Norway from the beginning, we still wouldn't need to go all in on drilling because that fund would have been massive by now regardless. They didn't and just allowed a few to hoard everything instead so this only hurts the people, not helps them here. Also, Trump has already been trying to sell our National parks and landmarks to private enterprise to exploit the nations resources for private gain, and will likely clean it out if he gets a second term since he has nothing to lose. But see, in the US, energy is owned by private investors so this only benefits the wealthy, not the US citizens that the lands are supposed to belong to. Instead of helping the people, this is " looting their coffers" so they will have nothing to show for it in the end.
Trump Auctions Off 150,000 Acres of Public Lands for Fracking Near Utah National Parks - EcoWatch
On Tuesday the Trump administration offered more than 150,000 acres of public lands for fossil-fuel extraction near some of Utah's most iconic landscapes, including Arches and Canyonlands national parks. Dozens of Utahns gathered at the state Capitol to protest the lease sale, which included...
www.ecowatch.com
Trump's Proposed Budget Would Devastate National Parks
A close reading of the President’s 2020 Department of the Interior budget reveals massive funding cuts for everything public-lands related—except for oil and gas
www.outsideonline.com
The Undoing Of Our Public Lands and National Parks
President Trump and the officials he appointed systematically undermined, degraded and outright attacked the laws that protect our public lands, the agencies that manage them and the irreplaceable resources these places safeguard for the American people.
Trump turns oil firms loose on the American West
As President Donald Trump opens vast swaths of the West to energy production, even...
Interesting. I didn't know Trump was pushing so hard for this. I'll give them a readThe US doesn't need to go all out on Drilling.. and it wouldn't help the people regardless because a few people are pocketing it all. If they had begun a " wealth fund " for the people like they did in Norway from the beginning, we still wouldn't need to go all in on drilling because that fund would have been massive by now regardless. They didn't and just allowed a few to hoard everything instead so this only hurts the people, not helps them here. Also, Trump has already been trying to sell our National parks and landmarks to private enterprise to exploit the nations resources for private gain, and will likely clean it out if he gets a second term since he has nothing to lose. But see, in the US, energy is owned by private investors so this only benefits the wealthy, not the US citizens that the lands are supposed to belong to. Instead of helping the people, this is " looting their coffers" so they will have nothing to show for it in the end.
Trump Auctions Off 150,000 Acres of Public Lands for Fracking Near Utah National Parks - EcoWatch
On Tuesday the Trump administration offered more than 150,000 acres of public lands for fossil-fuel extraction near some of Utah's most iconic landscapes, including Arches and Canyonlands national parks. Dozens of Utahns gathered at the state Capitol to protest the lease sale, which included...Trump's Proposed Budget Would Devastate National Parks
A close reading of the President’s 2020 Department of the Interior budget reveals massive funding cuts for everything public-lands related—except for oil and gasThe Undoing Of Our Public Lands and National Parks
President Trump and the officials he appointed systematically undermined, degraded and outright attacked the laws that protect our public lands, the agencies that manage them and the irreplaceable resources these places safeguard for the American people.www.npca.org
Trump turns oil firms loose on the American West
As President Donald Trump opens vast swaths of the West to energy production, even...www.houstonchronicle.com
That's not a blasphemy law. Blasphemy laws refer to religious doctrinal taboos being made into the law under the state. This can also include outlawing any form of criticism of a state religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other thousands out there.Blasphemy laws? Those exist in Sweden as well, but only for Islam.
It's called 'racial hatred' laws.Riots In Sweden's Malmo After Activists Burn Copy Of Quran In A Rally, Anti-Muslim Danish Leader Banned For 2 Yrs
Sweden Riots: At least 300 people gathered and burned the Muslim Holy book Quran in Rosengard after which protesters came out on the streets of Malmo to throw stones and burned tyres to express anger.
You're thinking of anti-discrimination laws which serve to protect marginalized groups from oppression, retaliation, intimidation and violence.
The settlers in the US originally set it up so only the wealthy land owners in the US had rights and no one else really mattered, and the system we have now is a direct result of that. This mindset was inherited from the society from which they came from. Now of course many of these modem governments we have now have morphed away from that over time, but that key part of land owners being above everyone else is core in a lot of these systems. Compared to where I come from, this mindset was unthinkable. Instead it is thought that everyone was born onto this earth equally and no man can " own" a piece of the earth, they can only use it for a short time and are expected to share it with all that were born onto the earth as well. No person was placed above another in importance.
It is the idea that by owning property, you should have more "power" than others rather than being their equal that is so distorted in the first place that has screwed things up for generations. That is in direct conflict with equality and democracy and is what has to be addressed to really fix it.
Which has been part of the Republican agenda for at least the last 40 years. Between this and Trump's attacks on the FDA, there's a cruel irony that the party of Teddy Roosevelt is trying to erase his legacy except for the war and the colonialism.
It's a blasphemy law, for Islam.
*looks outside at Malmo and Stockholm burning*
Yeah, marginalized, to protect them from violence, yeah, sure.
Two arrested over shocking video of Koran burning
A man from Worcestershire was arrested on suspicion of posting videos likely to cause racial hatred and a woman from Evesham was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred, police said.
It's ok to burn the bible in the UK or Sweden, but not ok to burn the quran. Ok. Only Poland has blasphemy laws. Sure.
Plato wasn't a fan of democracy. I chalk it up to his teacher getting democratically elected to kill himself. I can see he had some good points. Mob rule, etc.
Wasn't it you who brought up how obnoxious it was that people were arguing over the minutiae of Wisconsin laws? But anyway, what's funny about that image, is that yes, taken at it's (the image) face value, it would seem it was a legal open carry, because it cut around the death nail that still sinks him, which is that 29.593, which basically says that he needs to take a course and get an actual hunting certificate/license to open carry under the age of 18, even before the whole kettle of fish with felony charges to whomever gave him the gun for section 2c of 948.60.
So once again for the people in the back: he was carrying an illegal weapon and therefore self-defense is inapplicable here.
Glibness and a citation from a source with a reputation for dishonesty and right wing propaganda. On top of that, you also lied about what I actually said in addition to not understanding a word I've told you.It's a blasphemy law, for Islam.
*looks outside at Malmo and Stockholm burning*
Yeah, marginalized, to protect them from violence, yeah, sure.
"racial hatred"Two arrested over shocking video of Koran burning
A man from Worcestershire was arrested on suspicion of posting videos likely to cause racial hatred and a woman from Evesham was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred, police said.www.dailymail.co.uk
It's ok to burn the bible in the UK or Sweden, but not ok to burn the quran. Ok. Only Poland has blasphemy laws. Sure.
Would you like to try again replying to what I did say?
Last edited:
You know that Brexit was some right wingers being butt hurt many moons ago, right? That some (not all) were trying to back pedal from the start, hence the Uk only being half in?
I certainly remember the reaction to Obama’s inauguration. ’Not my president’ was very common then and I'm not surprised it was copied in 2016. I would say it was smaller in 2008.
And, if course, Trump’s election was a direct result of people being salty over Obama's election and then spending 8 years lying about him. Which is especially galling when Obama did some fucked up things but they were too busy making up lies to worry about that.
This is not to say that Lefties weren't salty. It's very common. If Biden gets voted in, except Tucker or someone similar to ’prove’ how much damage Biden does to America. If Trump gets voted in, except the same from the MSM
Repubs still can't decide on how they feel about Obama's drone strikes. On the one hand, they love drone strikes and military adventurism in the Middle East, which is why Trump is doing more of it. On the other, a black guy signed off on the orders and they've already committed the last 12 years to pretending he wasn't even a citizen.
Last edited:
Typically, if you know absolutely nothing about something it's not a good idea to use it as an example, particularly when it openly contradicts other examples you've used.
We have a European bureaucracy totally unaccountable to anybody. Powers have gone from national parliaments - they haven't gone to the European Parliament, they've gone to the Commission and to some extent the Council of Ministers. These are quite serious matters.
Who do you think this quote is from? Is it perhaps from some far-right Euroskeptic Tory, or a member of UKIP, or a right wing tabloid journalist? Have a guess, and I'll include the answer later.
The UK is a representative parliamentary democracy, which means that parliament is (in theory) the supreme source of executive power. This is great because parliament is elected. It's not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination, but the political right really has no grounds to complain about it given that they have consistently opposed any move towards electoral reform. What the UK is not and has never been is a direct democracy, or plebicite democracy.
So, problem #1. The Brexit referendum represents a complete break with the system of democracy normally used in the UK. Referenda are supposed to work within the parliamentary democratic process. What we have seen, in the wake of the Brexit referendum, has been various attempts to suspend or subvert the democratic process of the UK, or to increase executive power at the expense of parliamentary oversight on the excuse that parliament is an obstacle to delivering Brexit. This is not pro-democracy, it's a very deliberate attack on democracy by a government that, for many months after the referendum, did not even have an electoral mandate, and even after the election did not have a parliamentary majority.
Problem #2. During the referendum, the leave campaign broke the law, lied to the public and generally conducted themselves in a supremely undemocratic manner. In fact, one of the few good effects of the referendum has been a greatly renewed interest in electoral reform.
Problem #3. The referendum does not provide any clear indication of what the public actually voted for, a problem which is, once again, exacerbated by the fact the original campaign was based on overt misinformation. No deal proposed so far (including the actual no-deal option) has been able to gain either majority public support or parliamentary support. The majority of people in the UK do not want any of the deals which Boris Johnson, or Theresa May have actually been able to offer, and they don't want no deal Brexit. In this case, it is actually a small minority of extremely gammony Leavers who cannot accept the results of the democratic process, or the fact that public opinion is firmly against them and their moderate allies have mostly abandoned them at this point.
Problem #4. The leave majority died, literally or figuratively. There hasn't been a clear majority of support for Brexit for years now, despite the referendum.
Anyway, did you guess who that quote was from?
Surprise, it's former labour party leader and life long euroskeptic Jeremy Corbyn.
Euroskepticism is not a "right wing" issue. That's a stupid Americanization of British politics. Euroskepticism, broadly speaking, is associated with an opposition to centrist liberalism. The leave campaign was not a right wing campaign, although its most prominent figures and the parties that supported it were generally from the political right, it was a coalition of right and left wing politicians and attracted both left and right wing support. The same was true of the remain campaign, which was literally spearheaded by a right wing conservative government with cross-party support from both liberals and the left.
Furthermore, the idea that remainers are somehow sore losers incapable of accepting defeat is perhaps the most hilarious misunderstanding of the current political situation and climate in the UK that I can imagine. The ongoing discussion around Brexit has been, if anything, characterised by the increasingly gammony rage of right wing Brexiteers. They show up on Question Time basically every week. Their puffy middle-aged faces growing redder and redder as they ramble incoherently about world war 2 or immigrants or whatever is upsetting them this week besides the fact their children stopped liking their facebook posts 4 years ago. Sometimes the younger and more virile specimens decide to have a little march where they wave Saint George's flags to show their seething disappointment that Brexit hasn't made them noticeably poorer yet. These are the people who won, or think they won, and they can't even accept that.
Last edited:
Where are you getting that, "because he had an illegal weapon, self-defense is off the table"? Because that's not what the law says.
And it would also make it so the guy that got shot in the arm has no claims for trying to stop a gunman from hurting others since he was carrying an illegal weapon.
I don't disagree. But random guy on the street saying "I saw you threaten someone" isn't good evidence, that's all I'm saying. That doesn't make the boy innocent, not by a long shot, but people seeing a tweet where a guy accuses him of pointing at people in a car and thinking "well that's a hard fact now" is comical at best.
- Status