But it’s wrong. All those people were wrong. She already said that.
Insults are not permitted. I am issuing a warning and returning SarahWitch to suspension pending review of his/her posting privileges.
My dad liked to say, ‘(S)He may not always be right, but (s)he’s never wrong!’
What’s the tally now? A warning and two suspensions?
That’s enough of that sort of thing. Take it to the Pit if you must.
But, Miller locked that thread.
Once something has been approved by the government, it is no longer immoral. Cite.
I see that Sarah keeps referring to “International law”. That is, the Treaty of Paris, ending the Revolutionary War, made the states independent sovereign nations as a matter of international law.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there was no international law back then (even now, it’s more of a concept than an enforceable thing). Don’t believe me? When the Brits decided to ignore that treaty in 1812, was there some sort of international tribunal to appeal to? Nope…we had a full on war. Sorry to break it to you, but there was no tribunal that “recognized” American sovereignty and an appeal to “international law” from the 18th century is as convincing as an appeal to the Intergalactic Star Council.
It does not work that way, others that know more of history do get more respect, not you. And I’m not addressing you only either.
Who said I’m running? The reality does remain that you did not touch my point that I do not see any support of your ideas were it counts, not from historians, not from teachers of history nor historians.
All your previous points are clearly misinterpretations of what others did say. The recognized historians or academics supporting your point of view are indeed missing. And among generalists that is serous strike against you, a lack of teachable support. IOW, examples that show that even a significant number of academics do give the time of day to ideas like the ones you push.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article27527029.html
Cite, please. I’d like a proper definition of “popular vote” that includes electing delegates to a convention.
The plebiscite in Catalonia was a popular vote. The Initiatives in various U.S. states are popular votes. The selection of a party’s candidate at the party convention is not a “popular vote.”
If I’m wrong, I’d really like a cite, because I think you’re the one who is wrong here.
(If anyone else would like to help, I’d appreciate it. I would like to know the truth.)
I would note that, despite your implication that I am ignorant, the treaty to which you keep attempting to invoke notes in its preface that it is a treaty “between these two countries.” The enumeration of the various existing states (Article I) does nothing more than set forth that such locations/territories as Florida, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Jamaica, Tobago, and others are not included in the territory under discussion. The disputed land/territory/whatever of Vermont is not even mentioned in the treaty. Similarly, the description of the land involved (Article II) does nothing to set out the boundaries of each state, but only the outlying perimeter of the nation as a whole, so that Wisconsin, Southwestern Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and the portions of Alabama and Mississippi not held by Spain or France are included in the United States, despite that country having no organized governments in those lands.
Given that there were several Treaties of Paris, (signed simultaneously by separate countries), I am curious as to which one established thirteen separate sovereign nations, since the one signed by the U.S. and Britain does not even include the word sovereign in its text and I can find no reference to the United States in the separate treaties between Britain and (respectively) France, Spain, and the Netherlands. Could you indicate the precise language on which you base your odd claim?
So, according to you, the states relinquished their sovereignty to the central government, but then they did not.
This shows great imagination, but has no basis in law (and only little in history.
Vermont was originally part of New York state, up until some short while after the ratification of the Constitution. It seems likely that the AofC so preserved the rights of the individual states that the Vermonters were in no real position to make a break from New York until the Constitution provided them with the leeway to form their own state.
Though on the ground, they were functioning as a de-facto republic during much of that period, mostly ignoring any NY attempts at enforcing authority and to the contrary, imposing upon parts of NH and MA.
We have our own Sov Cits here too. I watched a fly-on-the-wall cop show recently where the boys in blue stopped a van because it had a broken tail light. Now, under most circumstances, and with the correct attitude (grovelling is good :)) this would have merited a warning/slapped wrist. This guy started off by refusing to give them his name and whether the van was his. Cops then discover that the van is untaxed, uninsured and untested, so they arrest him.
Uninsured cars/vans are taken to the pound and crushed if no one claims them. People who refuse to be identified end up in a cell. This guy actually had a driving licence in his pocket but refused to acknowledge that the name and photo was actually him. What happened if and when he got to court, I don’t know, but the movement which the barrister and law blogger Adam Wagner has called “quackery plain and simple” and says: “These ideas are most attractive to desperate, vulnerable people who are going through terrible times in their lives.”
We tend to think of the UK as genteel, and our Murrican ideas of “rough justice” as much more rough than just.
But … I have to say the policy of crushing the cars of miscreants is totally awesome.
Now all we need is something like an oversized garbage truck with a big forklift on the front. Double parked? Meter expired? In a no parking zone? Douche took two spaces for his pwecious pickup truck? Over the shoulder and into the bin you go. Crunnnnch!!! Next!
Still doesn’t match the French police for brutal efficiency:
Parisian, out on the town, leaves Porsche in no-parking zone. French police blow it up.
Uh… the war? Anyway, see you around.
“You have thirty minutes to move your smoldering debris.”
Nutters know no geographical boundaries, including the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0-Ldxdv1Wk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxJoOl8Oz0
The picture was disappointing. Just some wrinkles in the hood and probably frame and engine damage.
I was expecting something The Mythbusters (original) would leave behind.