Total posts: 1,890
-->
@Savant
As you said, it is not a monolithic group, and preferences would vary. The trans movement basically makes… stuff up as it goes. What was the case yesterday is not the case today. What is the case today will not be the case tomorrow. If the goal is to keep pushing loudly against social norms, then normalization cannot be the goal.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
The illusion or belief in free will has been used to put moral responsibility on the shoulders of the individual. However despite the usefulness of this belief at placing blame on the individual, we can know that it's merely a convenient lie.
This dovetails nicely with your other thread about why liberals “support” criminals. Perhaps criminals are compelled to commit crimes rather than freely choosing to do so.
Created:
“Hidden Figures” was a pretty good film. Always nice to see women who can do math.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
First off, I would say that “support criminality” is too strong of a claim. Instead, I would say that liberals show almost as much/as much, if not more compassion for criminals as for the victims of crime.
I think this stems from three underlying beliefs:
1. People are basically good.
2. The world should be viewed through the lens of existing, unequal power structures.
3. “We are more advanced/enlightened than that.”
The first is a benevolent but naive form of psychological projection: “I am basically good, and I think everyone else is similarly good or potentially good.” So, when a criminal commits a crime, a liberal might think, “Why would a basically good person do such a thing? Perhaps his lived experiences and personal circumstances drove him to it. Perhaps, given the same experiences and circumstances, I would also be driven to do such a thing.”
The second belief means that people with “less power” will resent and lash out against people perceived as having “more power.” A liberal might think, “Perhaps this criminal feels powerless in his particular circumstances or group identity, and he commits crime because he resents those whom he perceives as having more power (i.e. the privileged, the wealthy, etc.).
The third comes from Enlightenment principles which value due process, the legal fiction of “innocent until proven guilty,” and avoidance of “cruel and unusual” punishment. These are, of course, admirable and important principles in our republic, but the problem is that “cruel and unusual” seems prone to goalpost creep over time. It used to be that being boiled in oil was cruel and unusual. Now, some are able to argue that having no choice between Coke and Pepsi in prison is cruel and unusual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
School of Social Justice High School
This sounds like it came from the Department of Redundancy Department.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
These guys foresaw back in 1981 exactly such a possibility in the future:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Japan increased age of consent from 13 to 16. I guess they too have fallen for the lie that writing random age barriers on paper and taking away choice somehow solves problems.
Well, there is no perfect nation on this planet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
gold behaves as any commodity so its price is based on the law of supply and demand
Yes, which can get complicated and tricky to predict. More gold can be mined, increasing supply. Stock crashes can cause investors to sell their gold to cover debts, and that selling pressure lowers the price of gold at a counterintuitive time. There are other useful precious metals in the mix, such as silver, platinum and lithium, all of which are subject to supply and demand pressures. And, of course, there is the relatively recent addition of cryptocurrencies which add yet more competition and instability to gold as a store of value. As it currently stands, world currencies are based in a system called “floating or flexible exchange rate” instead of being tied to any particular precious metal or bundle of metals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
This proves only China can be trusted.
Yes, but with what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I think the problem rests on the complex financial schemes that some bankers make up in order to get better returns. This is actually the root of all the financial crisis we've had so far, everything was about bubbles that these bankers provoked at the expense of the people.
There is a really good doc on the GFC of 2008 titled “Inside Job.” It makes one think that things could not have gone worse if it were our goal to cause a financial crisis. The Great Depression led to the Glass Steagall Act which prohibited the commingling of commercial banking with investment banking. It seemed to work. Then the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 (I think) largely undid that policy. I believe this was a pivotal cause of the GFC. The Dodd Frank Act was then enacted to make banks more conservative in their reserves, but I still think it is not as effective a preventative measure as was Glass Steagall.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Disclosure: I have yet to watch the whole doc, but I noted the year it came out— 2012– and as someone who was a homeowner attempting and failing to refinance that very year, the doom and gloom message in the doc became all too clear. The irony is that 2012 marked the beginning of the longest stretch of stock market growth, lowest interest rates, and lowest inflation in US history, despite the aggressive policy of Quantitative Easing which many incorrectly predicted would lead to massive inflation. And as bad as inflation is, deflation is actually worse as it grinds an economy to a halt.
Several reviews have dismissed the doc as one big ad for investing in gold. Sure, you can invest in gold. I do. On a risk adjusted basis, it has actually been one of my best investments. But here’s the thing: what gives gold its value? You can’t eat it, drink it, or use it to keep you warm in the winter. You can’t even use it to buy groceries! If you were selling your car, and a guy offered to pay you in gold bars, would you even know how many gold bars your car is worth, and why? Even gold isn’t a uh… “silver bullet.”
So, the central issue is and always will be: where does wealth/value come from? At its most fundamental, it comes from relative scarcity and desirability. So, invest in things which are relatively scarce and desirable or even better— companies which produce desirable things. It sounds simple, but don’t confuse simple with being easy. The best remedy of all is to develop scarce and desirable skills.
Created:
“Don’t think you can just co-opt the swastika and use it to intimidate your enemies. That is what WE do. Don’t make it symbolize your bullshit, Commie Jew agenda.”
-David Duke
Created:
-->
@Savant
I have been wondering the same thing. If they think Musk is really a closet Nazi, how would swastikas be an offense to him? Or if swastikas are offensive to him, doesn’t that mean he is decidedly not a Nazi? Isn’t this what actual Nazis do to intimidate people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah, Professor Mearshimer— I have just recently become aware of him and believe he is someone worth listening to— so far at least. He doesn’t talk about feelings; he doesn’t regurgitate talking points from any particular side; he just gives the reality of the situation as he sees it.
They are afraid of their own nations, and what they will do to them as they will be forced to defend themselves as American meddling ends.
You mean less social programs, more debt, more austerity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
a) Who has damned the USA for trying to incentivize free nations to have a bigger stake in protecting that freedom?
“Damned” was a figure of speech rather than literal. My answer is in this previous statement of mine (bolding added):
“Now that the US is trying to be less of the free world’s policeman, and trying to incentivize free nations to have a bigger stake in protecting that freedom, it gets a reaction such as yours.”
You forgot to answer my question.
I just didn’t see your question when it gets buried within multiple responses to multiple people.
I have given (named) some of those standards in post 40: decency, etiquette and politeness, maturity, veracity and diplomatic conduct.[21] Yes and no. Most people have learned how to conduct social interactions, including me. That includes how to act as guest, with some additions/modifications.
I agree that Trump and Vance were impolite; I just don’t view it in the one-sided isolation as you do. I also see where Zelenskyy was an offender regarding standards of conduct. For example, take your mention of “diplomatic conduct.” Diplomacy is about getting what you want via being agreeable. Ukraine needs more from the US, and more urgently, than the US needs from Ukraine. Therefor, the burden was on Zelenskyy to be more diplomatic toward Trump than the other way around. Zelenskyy did not meet that burden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
There are to my knowledge no existing standards (like I have given for how to behave on press conferences with a guest)…
Where have you given these standards— of how to behave with a guest? I missed that. Do you also know the standards for how to behave towards the host?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Cheers to you, Vader! You seem as though you have your shite together and have found pursuits which are fulfilling. I imagine you are lucky in the sense that you have made your own luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
feces art…
If that is a thing, I may have created a masterpiece.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
How does does me disputing that the perception of who is responsible forthe inglorious press conference depends on one’s viewpoint of Ukraine’s rights and the USA’s obligations (disputing that theyare intereconnected) exemplify what you wrote?
Because one’s point of view affects one’s perceptions. Doesn’t this basically describe your position on the matter?
“If one sees continually helping Ukraine to repel an invader as “right” and being reluctant to continue helping Ukraine do that as “wrong,” then one will likely view Zelenskyy as the victim of an ambush by two boorish American leaders.”
Iam sure there are people believing most of the blame lies with Zelenskyy, but anything can be believed. Pick some preposterous nonsense and there are people believing it. I believe there is anobjective truth and that these people are wrong.
I think that there was plenty of bad behavior to go around. Again, how one assigns the lion’s share of the blame depends on one’s point of view. You actually go even further by believing that you know what is objectively the case and that you possess the correct, objective view. To me, that is akin to saying, “I know that there are many gullible people who think milk chocolate is better, but the objective truth is that dark chocolate is clearly superior.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, and that should bother you if you're a SGC. But what you're doing here is using it to make your point which is a basic failure of logic. Two wrongs don't make a right, so if you believe in small government you can't use the wrong of the federal government involving itself in the first place to justify the federal government involving itself afterward.
Ah, here is the goalpost creep of yours I referred to earlier and why I insisted on a syllogistic argument from you. Your syllogism made no reference to this. Perhaps you should have a complete “do over” with your attempted argument which revolves around federal subsidies being a threat to state sovereignty.
Why? I've already responded to all of that and you have nothing to say in response except to repeat your original point which has been addressed multiple times already.
The good news for you is: you “made me look!” The bad news is: no, you didn’t previously address my requoted text. You never requoted and directly responded to that portion. You are engaging in thread historical revisionism. It’s not a good look.
Yet again, approving and denying a state program are two very different things. You are not inserting yourself into the process when you approve. You are asserting yourself inn the process when you deny. The latter deserves now scrutiny for obvious reasons.
Requiring approval is requiring involvement or intervention. As I have acknowledged multiple times already, there is a greater legal burden to uphold with a denial than approval, but either way federal intervention is occurring. “You are not inserting yourself in the process when you approve”? That is laughably false.
You have responded to just about all the SGC posts except for post 76. That said, none of them seem all that bothered over both your gripe and the state sovereignty issue underlying your gripe. Perhaps I should take the hint from that fact and take my leave…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That probably came on the heels of his impending impeachment by the Ukraine parliament.
I don’t think that MP is much more than an upstart in the grand scheme of things. I think it is more likely that Trump’s aid suspension provoked Zelenskyy’s change of heart. What I’m asking is: do you see Zelenskyy’s letter as pointing to a way forward toward peace?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's far more likely blaming is the only path to continue the war. And make no mistake, Zelenskyy demonstrated fully that he is determined to continue this war.
What do you make of Zelenskyy’s latest letter to the President signifying his renewed willingness to negotiate a peace settlement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Yes, but what do legal experts know? What really matters is what people opining well outside their field of expertise think about matters of interstate commerce, federal subsidies, and governmental procedure and protocol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Can Trump actually kill it?Congestion pricing was approved under the Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pricing Pilot Program, which allows transportation agencies to implement tolling programs with the goal of decreasing congestion. The federal government is arguing that the city’s congestion-pricing program should not have qualified for approval under the VPPP because it doesn’t feature a toll-free option from drivers wanting to travel in that zone. Duffy’s letter also argues that the tolling program is primarily intended to raise revenue for the MTA rather than to decrease congestion, which he claims puts it at odds with the goals of the federal program.But legal experts appear skeptical that the Trump administration has the authority to roll back the program after it was approved by the previous administration. Robert Glicksman, a law professor at George Washington University Law School, told the New York Times, “If the facts on the ground have not changed, then you have an extra high burden of justifying a reversal of position. They can’t just say: ‘Sorry. We changed our mind.’ They have to explain why.”
Thanks for your substantive and informative post. The law professor’s legal opinion here:
“If the facts on the ground have not changed, then you have an extra high burden of justifying a reversal of position.”
… sounds eerily familiar. Oh, yes— way back in my post #40:
“To be fair, I will say that there is probably a bigger legal burden to uphold with disapproval than simple approval. That will be for the courts to decide. ”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
You are confusingtwo things: Whether Trump is right to pressure Ukraine into an unfavourable and unfair deal or whether he has treated Zelensky inapropriately. To the latter the answer is clearly yes. The former is debatable.
I’m not confusing those two things; I’m actually accounting for both, and how both are interconnected. Your response actually seems to exemplify precisely what I describe.
It is clearly bad for the free world (something The USA used to care about), but Trump doesn’t care about that (unless he is even against the free world). He cares about himself and the USA and for them his rampage may be good.
When the USA “cared about the free world,” it was also lambasted as overly interventionist and perhaps even imperialist by the free world. Now that the US is trying to be less of the free world’s policeman, and trying to incentivize free nations to have a bigger stake in protecting that freedom, it gets a reaction such as yours. “Damned if you do; damned if you don’t.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
This is one of those instances where one can frame the event in two very different, even contradictory ways depending on one’s point of view. The respective framings can both be factually correct, too, but the conclusions drawn will be quite different. If one sees continually helping Ukraine to repel an invader as “right” and being reluctant to continue helping Ukraine do that as “wrong,” then one will likely view Zelenskyy as the victim of an ambush by two boorish American leaders. If one sees brokering peace sooner rather than later as “right” and allowing Ukraine to continue dying against superior forces as “wrong,” then one is more likely to view Zelenskyy as being overconfident in his position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
NY is a donor state so it doesn't need the federal government to subsidize anything, just let NY keep its own money and let them handle their own problems. That's what small federal government means.
Now it sounds like you are properly channeling the SGC mindset.
If federal subsidies are involved then it's all good.
“All good” might be an overstatement. More like it is the reality of the situation.
This is, once again, a local solution to a local problem. If you believe in small government it is not the job of the president of the United States to "save" residents of a city from the governing solutions of their local elected leaders.
I will just copy/paste what I have already written earlier:
“The Biden Administration was the first to be involved when it approved congestion tolling as you pointed out. This constitutes federal involvement in a city matter, but again, it’s because of the federal subsidies involved. To my knowledge, conservatives nationwide didn’t complain about the Biden Administration’s involvement for this reason. This should cover the Biden Administration’s involvement both in regards to P1 and P2. No violation of state sovereignty, in other words.”
SGCs didn’t cry foul then, but you believe they should cry foul now?
A few actual SGCs have chimed in on this in this thread. What is your feedback on their views?
Created:
Posted in:
The House Speaker didn’t tear up Trump’s speech this time, so that’s something…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
They gave a girl a standing ovation because she got a ball spiked on her head in waterpolo
Only along partisan lines. The Democrats remained seated and quiet. Also, the accident occurred in volleyball. I am reminded of the water volleyball incident in “Meet the Fockers” though…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
From "If we can create it" it doesn't logically follow that we can explain it.
If we can engineer consciousness, and that isn’t a small “if,” it stands to reason that we can eventually figure out where the chasm between non conscious and conscious was bridged. But I agree that just because we can combine things towards a certain result does not mean we know exactly why that is the case— which is precisely why I wrote that it will “challenge the idea of” rather than “solve” the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Literally every state constitution in the union includes a clause that says the state constitution is subject to the US constitution,…
Yes, it’s called one of the major outcomes of the Civil War.
so according to your logic the very concept of states rights and small federal government doesn't exist since it's all subject to whatever the federal government says.
Incorrect. According to my logic, or simply “logic,” a federal subsidy means that the federal government is involved by the very nature of a federal subsidy. Again, I don’t see why this is such a problem for you, both ethically and conceptually. Rather than seek to understand, you would rather presume what SGCs believe and call them hypocrites for not falling in line with your presumption.
He literally said in his tweet that "all of New York is SAVED". I don't understand why you need that in a syllogism to understand that that has absolutely nothing to do with the reason the government is in a position to deny the program.
Perhaps his tweet means something else in the TDS addled mind. Perhaps you can explain further than merely quoting his tweet? To me, that means “all of New York is saved [from the undue burden of governmental price gouging]”
You pretend you're arguing in good faith but this just isn't serious.
That’s pretty rich considering your shenanigans. If you were arguing in good faith, you would have conceded at least something by now.
Going back to my initial post to you, post 37:
the toll program is subject to federal approval because there have been a number of projects on various roads in lower Manhatten that have received federal subsidies.
“As you know and acknowledge the above to be true, I’m not sure how you can argue this is a case of federal overreach.”
As it turns out, I have indeed gotten the answer to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Matrix is both a science fiction and a fantasy movie.
Don’t even try to outdo the mind-blowing content in this thread.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lawsuits are also the weapon OF woke culture. Regarding my Atlas example, they were doomed to be sued regardless— they would have been sued for firing the pilot but instead were sued for keeping the pilot.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, this is why I found United’s stated goal of having its pilot group proportionally represent the entire US demographic so distressing. It’s fine to want to cast a wider net in recruitment but not to micromanage and predetermine what that net will ultimately catch.
Aviation has been in a high workforce demand period since the high early retirement period of the COVID pandemic. The most safety sensitive occupations are pilot, ATC, and mechanics. If there were ever positions in which DEI initiatives should be given a back seat, it would be those.
There was a fatal accident with an Atlas cargo plane several years ago. One of the accident pilots appeared to be… “artificially sustained” by Atlas. It can be tough for an airline, as fired employees almost always file lawsuits of wrongful termination— especially DEI congruent employees. In this case, the pilot’s family is suing Atlas for allowing their poor son to fly when he wasn’t a safe pilot! This is why I call DEI/antiracism/woke “the tiger which eats its own tail”— it sets up a lose/lose proposition at every turn…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
Wow, that’s impressive. This will challenge the idea of “the hard problem of consciousness.” What exactly is consciousness, what causes it, and can humans create it? If we can create it, intentionally or not, is it really that hard of a problem? I remember reading about an experiment where robots were given a program which was designed to evolve and mutate on its own. What resulted were robots which acted heroically and selflessly and others which acted selfishly out of pure self preservation. It was a mind-blower.
The movies which come to my mind which have raised and explored these concepts are 2001, AI, and The Matrix.
Created:
-->
@Vader
The NTSB as described in the post #1
Are you saying that the NTSB is claiming that federal workforce cuts are causal factors to the current accidents?
Created:
-->
@Vader
You are correct— there are actually less aviation accidents this year than the same period last year. The problem is that the recent accidents are very high profile with many more fatalities than previously. Still, the fallacious nature of said analysis you are criticizing holds true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can often tell what people arguing online do NOT do for a living. For example, one can tell that RR is not an attorney. I remember an article about a financially struggling college graduate (the all too common high debt, trouble finding a lucrative job story), and I wrote in the comments “well, I can certainly tell she didn’t major in economics!” Boy, the angry bee response I got from the abundant lefty readers!
Created:
-->
@Vader
Yes, it’s a pretty classic “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. It usually takes at least a few years for an administration’s policies to actually yield results, good or bad.
But who exactly is claiming this, and what is the relevance of your NTSB references?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As Devil's advocate: technically, choices and options nullify the standard for price gouging. For example, if somebody charged you 20 dollars for a gallon of gas, but you could get it cheaper a few miles away, it doesn't meet the standard for gouging. If you are the only station within 100 miles, that would probably meet the standard due to lack of realistic choices. The position of New York is that there is a choice, you can use the subway, or we can charge whatever we want for use of the roads. That's your choice. Now, maybe a court will look at this and declare a subway option to be separate, but NOT equal to a highway choice. Who knows?
Sure. One extenuating factor here is commerce, however. One could argue that the tolls pose an undue burden on cargo trucking which obviously cannot take the subway.
My larger point is that this is a pretty pedantic matter (very unlike abortion and homosexual marriage, which are national issues not involving federal subsidies) so the motive and procedural basis behind the DOT disapproval is obscure and esoteric and not easily examined by the layperson. But Trump tweeted about it, so it must be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Ok. I just don't take this explanation as genuine, I take it as an ad hoc. Again, Trump made clear why he was intervening and it's not for any reason that gives the federal government the power to step in.
Well, it is genuine, but your feelings about an argument outside of the strength of that argument are hardly pivotal. What is pivotal here is the presence of a federal subsidy, making the program “subject to federal approval.” If Trump’s tweet is “genuinely” pivotal to your argument, you should have incorporated it into your syllogism. If you took the views of SGCs onboard in this thread, instead of merely hurling unsubstantiated accusations of hypocrisy, you would see how pivotal a federal subsidy is to issues between the federal government and the states.
Again, this is a meaningless tautology. 'The government can step in here, so if they do there's no violation of state sovereignty'. This argument can be used to justify every federal encroachment of state sovereignty there's ever been. For decades we heard repeatedly when it came to abortion is that it should be left up to the states, that it was a violation of state sovereignty to force every state to allow it, gay marriage as well. Well the SC had the constitutional authority to decide otherwise, so no violation.
Your example doesn’t involve a federal subsidy, Mr. “These two things are not the same.” I don’t know why this concept is proving so difficult for you to grasp.
I've already explained why the price gouging argument fails.
And I provided a definition which refuted your explanation.
My accusation is mostly based on Trump's own words. That's not bias, it's basic logic.
Then you need to create a syllogism around Trump’s tweet. “I’m not biased” is merely an empty claim. Even with a syllogism it might still be an empty claim, but at least it can then be exposed to proper examination.
Created:
Posted in:
Here’s a balanced article on why Zelensky backed out of signing the peace agreement and what is at stake. For you “tl;dr” types, it isn’t even that long:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Where did you copy that summary? That seems to sum up my understanding of what’s to be gained here. I think Zelensky will return to the negotiating table, hat in hand so to speak… after he has tragically lost more of his countrymen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I've laid it out step by step multiple times in this thread. But if P's and C's is what it will take then here it is;P1: Conservatives champion the principal that the federal government should be small and allow states to figure out solutions to their own problemsP2: A president of the United States deciding that it is his role to impose his will with regards to an American city's local affairs is a blatant violation of the principal of P1C1: Conservatives should be against the actions described in P2C2: Conservatives failure to reconcile the contradiction between P1 and P2 is hypocrisy
Now, this is what I’m talking about! Thanks for laying out your argument in clear terms. I actually have an issue with both your premises. Your P1 might be true as a stand-alone claim, but not in the context of issues such as this one. That is because this issue involves a federal subsidy, and even small government conservatives, to my knowledge, don’t have a problem with federal intervention when federal subsidies are involved. Perhaps they wish for no federal subsidies in most cases?
The Biden Administration was the first to be involved when it approved congestion tolling as you pointed out. This constitutes federal involvement in a city matter, but again, it’s because of the federal subsidies involved. To my knowledge, conservatives nationwide didn’t complain about the Biden Administration’s involvement for this reason. This should cover the Biden Administration’s involvement both in regards to P1 and P2. No violation of state sovereignty, in other words.
Seeing as how the federal government does indeed have a say in a matter such as this, it is common, acceptable, and not a breach of protocol for an incoming administration to reassess the decisions of a previous administration. Therefore, it is not uncommon, unacceptable, nor a breach of protocol for the Trump Administration to reassess Biden’s approval (via his DOT). Again, no violation of state sovereignty.
The purpose of discussing issues such as this in a debate forum is to provide and defend your opinion. If all you're going to do is appeal to legal authority then you have nothing to contribute to this thread, and as far as I am concerned only further demonstrate my point. I somehow suspect that if a democratic president decided to assert himself into a red state's local affairs in this way you would have very strong opinions about it, but on this you have nothing.
Ah, there’s your dismissiveness… and your stubbornly mistaken presumption that I have BDS; it’s all part of your charm. Anyway, my point is that I can admit that I don’t know enough about the motives behind the current DOT’s disapproval other than it appearing to be over price gouging concerns, which seem valid to me. You have given me no reason to believe that you know any more about any impropriety involved than I do. You merely have speculation, extreme bias, and a Trump tweet (as shocking as that is) to motivate your accusation. THAT is why I humbly admit that that aspect of this matter is for the courts to decide. I’m trusting the relevant experts to investigate whether there is any impropriety or not.
My point remains that absent the proper authorities deciding the DOT’s disapproval being decided improperly, there is otherwise no violation of state sovereignty here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You decide who you think is in charge here.
Every airline captain has come across a copilot or (actually more common) a flight attendant who thought they were in charge. Eventually, that person comes up against something called reality.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Have a good one.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Childish
Oh, the irony. And complete confirmation of my prediction. Way too much “my people do no wrong, whereas your people do no right” cultism for me… or anyone, I would predict…
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Say, is an Iraqi whose house got destroyed by an American strike entitled to compensation from the US government? No.
Yes:
Created:
-->
@Yassine
These are not legally binding whatsoever. Yes, any organization has a guide, manual, rulebook... even the one that kills 25 million innocent people, or all those ones that killed collectively half a billion people. Say, is an Iraqi whose house got destroyed by an American strike entitled to compensation from the US government? No. There is no Human rights in the West, rather National rights promoted as Human rights... US Law does not protect the rights or provide any legal recourse to non-nationals.
But that wasn’t your original claim:
'Best' assumes a reference of conduct in war. There is none anywhere in US Law, or for any other western country.
Then you move the posts to the opposite of what you just said:
Yes, any organization has a guide, manual, rulebook
Do you not see your contradiction?
So, there IS a reference of conduct in war according to your 2nd claim. Also, the US makes efforts to follow international law, even if it isn’t “legally binding.” As for rules of engagement (ROE), a soldier can be court martialled and sent to prison for not following them. That seems pretty legally binding to me.
Suspicion doubly confirmed…
Created: