|
Young Freud posted:Yeah, it's pretty much speculation, but, idk, 50 kids in ten years seems pretty shady. I don't know how long foster kids usually stay with their parents, but he would be averaging about five a year and the reports of his final batch suggested that they didn't stay longer than 12 months. Foster kids mostly aren't orphans: they have family, they just can't be with them for a while and have no where else to go. Not all kids are in care for years, it can be as little as a couple days. If Finicum took mostly emergency placements instead of long-term placements then 5 a year wouldn't be high at all. Heck, if they were "professional" foster parents they could have had the beds to take 6 (or more) foster kids at a time when needed, in which case it really wouldn't be odd to churn through 20 kids in a year.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
cumshitter posted:Apparently people were giving all sorts of patriotic stuff to Ammon. I'm confused by the thought process though, because I'm not sure how useful a Marines dress uniform or a flag from the same government you're fighting against, even if it was the one they draped on your brother's coffin, is useful is during an armed occupation. One thing I've noticed about a lot of the right wing is that America (the concept) and America (the government and land) are completely different things to them, so the flag represents America (concept) and the military defends America (concept) and is also cool and guns and heroes. Actually I was discussing this with my brit friend, she didn't get how we could deal with people hating on the president because she thought the president represented national image the same way the queen did, but no we have a weird separation of the two...
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:One thing I've noticed about a lot of the right wing is that America (the concept) and America (the government and land) are completely different things to them, so the flag represents America (concept) and the military defends America (concept) and is also cool and guns and heroes. Well there's a dignity in royalty. A majesty that precludes the likelihood of assassination. If you were to point a pistol at a king or a queen your hands would shakes as though palsied. ... the sight of royalty would cause you to dismiss all thoughts of bloodshed and you would stand... how shall I put it? In awe. Now, a president... well I mean...
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:Well there's a dignity in royalty. A majesty that precludes the likelihood of assassination. If you were to point a pistol at a king or a queen your hands would shakes as though palsied. I know people that believe this but unironically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:I know people that believe this but unironically. 1649 changed everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:Well there's a dignity in royalty. A majesty that precludes the likelihood of assassination. If you were to point a pistol at a king or a queen your hands would shakes as though palsied. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Dukes are fake royalty and do not count regardless of their mustache accomplishments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
would've been nice if the austrio-hungarians felt that way
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Anos posted:Dukes are fake royalty and do not count regardless of their mustache accomplishments. The finest Habsburg inbreeding insures that he is in fact the most royal of all
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:One thing I've noticed about a lot of the right wing is that America (the concept) and America (the government and land) are completely different things to them, so the flag represents America (concept) and the military defends America (concept) and is also cool and guns and heroes. Ask her what she thought of David Cameron. Just have proper ear protection
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:Ask her what she thought of David Cameron. Just have proper ear protection That's what I mean, to her the government is represented by the PM and the country is represented by the queen, and she thought that since we only have the president that he has to be both at once and insulting him becomes awkward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Mr. Pumroy posted:would've been nice if the austrio-hungarians felt that way One of histories best ironies IMO is that Franz Ferdinand was an advocate for concessions to Austria-Hungary's ethnic minorities and would likely have been favourable to them had he not been assassinated by a Serbian nationalist. As a connoisseur of irony, this is very pleasing to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:That's what I mean, to her the government is represented by the PM and the country is represented by the queen, and she thought that since we only have the president that he has to be both at once and insulting him becomes awkward. One of the best arguments against Republicanism in the UK is that the Queen acts as a functionally impartial focus for nationalism, sort of a reverse scapegoat, which prevents the PM from claiming the political benefit from association with the nation-state. We have that in Canada but it doesn't really matter because there's no such thing as 'Canadian nationalism' in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:That's what I mean, to her the government is represented by the PM and the country is represented by the queen, and she thought that since we only have the president that he has to be both at once and insulting him becomes awkward. The British are unsuited to Freedom, we fought a war about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Now I don't believe in divine right or that anyone is any better than anyone else based on birth. However I sometimes think it wouldn't be so bad if we had a constitutional monarchy with a figurehead monarch. With so much division in our government it might be kind of nice to have someone who will be there one way or another to vaguely inspire us. Of course it's going to suck if you get some royals who are embarrassing fuckups, but this is just wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
It really would be. Monarchs are poo poo and what you gain from not having them is that every person is responsible for the country. We aren't being allowed to choose our course, we severed our chains (and eventually we'll live up to that promise for all citizens), and set ourselves free. That freedom is terrifying is no reason to slip the chains back on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Now I don't believe in divine right or that anyone is any better than anyone else based on birth. However I sometimes think it wouldn't be so bad if we had a constitutional monarchy with a figurehead monarch. With so much division in our government it might be kind of nice to have someone who will be there one way or another to vaguely inspire us. Of course it's going to suck if you get some royals who are embarrassing fuckups, but this is just wishful thinking. As someone who grew up during the Bush years I still have a lingering suspicion that random chance is a better selector of head of state than the average American voter. E: Realtalk the advantage of democracy isn't that it results in better leaders, its that ideally you're almost guaranteed with a leader who has at least recently had the support of a majority of the populace, avoiding situations where a minority ruling class are able to dominate society through violence or coercion. Constant Hamprince has issued a correction as of 05:12 on Apr 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:It really would be. Monarchs are poo poo and what you gain from not having them is that every person is responsible for the country. We aren't being allowed to choose our course, we severed our chains (and eventually we'll live up to that promise for all citizens), and set ourselves free. That freedom is terrifying is no reason to slip the chains back on. Lol don't fool yourself dog, the American Revolution was a tax revolt dressed up in Enlightenment era costume. If the founding fathers were for all for real about freedom you guys wouldn't have had to fought a civil war over treating black people like cattle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Lol don't fool yourself dog, the American Revolution was a tax revolt dressed up in Enlightenment era costume. If the founding fathers were for all for real about freedom you guys wouldn't have had to fought a civil war over treating black people like cattle. Also we're totally cool with taxation w/o representation now btw
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:It really would be. Monarchs are poo poo and what you gain from not having them is that every person is responsible for the country. We aren't being allowed to choose our course, we severed our chains (and eventually we'll live up to that promise for all citizens), and set ourselves free. That freedom is terrifying is no reason to slip the chains back on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Ya'll forgetting Uncle Sam, the only symbolic figurehead we need.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:Ya'll forgetting Uncle Sam, the only symbolic figurehead we need. Your country's symbolic figurehead is a knockoff of a British propaganda poster featuring an Earl.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:Ya'll forgetting Uncle Sam, the only symbolic figurehead we need. Ahem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCGoA-dZBzo
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Lol don't fool yourself dog, the American Revolution was a tax revolt dressed up in Enlightenment era costume. If the founding fathers were for all for real about freedom you guys wouldn't have had to fought a civil war over treating black people like cattle. True. The thing is though that they hosed up and actually freed us. That we're not great at the whole being free thing has more to do with lack of practice. Casimir Radon posted:Most modern monarchs are figureheads and not much else. Compared to some of the stuff we blow tax money on they're actually pretty cheap. What price liberty? Seriously though they're only figureheads until the Queen doesn't confirm Canada's PM and then it's an international crisis. They'd be figureheads if they had no power, they're currently monarchs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Protecting the Queen's safety is a task that is gladly accepted by Police Squad. No matter how silly the idea of having a queen might be to us, as Americans, we must be gracious and considerate hosts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:True. The thing is though that they hosed up and actually freed us. That we're not great at the whole being free thing has more to do with lack of practice. I don't think you quite get how it works. They technically have the power to do something like that, but the moment that they abuse said power then it will be stripped from them. Hell, the most active the queen has been in government was in Australia in 1975 when her representative basically fired the current government for pulling the same type of poo poo that the US government was doing when it shut down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
So you're saying Australian sovereignty rests on the Queen's whim. Sure, Canadians can believe they're free, but until they actually defy the Crown they've not proved it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:So you're saying Australian sovereignty rests on the Queen's whim. Sure, Canadians can believe they're free, but until they actually defy the Crown they've not proved it. Get of your high horse for a second here. I was living in D.C. (I still am) during the shutdown and there was actual concerns about basic parts of life shutting down because the government refused to fund itself. Also a fun fact about what happened, the Australian people actually agreed with the decision. The Prime Minister who was chosen by said representative to force through the funding bill ended up taking the job after his party won the election that soon followed it all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:I don't think you quite get how it works. They technically have the power to do something like that, but the moment that they abuse said power then it will be stripped from them. Hell, the most active the queen has been in government was in Australia in 1975 when her representative basically fired the current government for pulling the same type of poo poo that the US government was doing when it shut down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:That's the kind of bitch slap this country needs. Excuse me while I go hang up a portrait of Liz. Since it couldn't be the English monarch to tell the dipshit politicians, particularly the entire Republican party, to stop being obstructionist plutocrats, we probably need to look to another authority figure to forcefully take control of this country and help make things right again. Perhaps the UN?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:Get of your high horse for a second here. I was living in D.C. (I still am) during the shutdown and there was actual concerns about basic parts of life shutting down because the government refused to fund itself. Also a fun fact about what happened, the Australian people actually agreed with the decision. The Prime Minister who was chosen by said representative to force through the funding bill ended up taking the job after his party won the election that soon followed it all. I know man, we gently caress up on the regular. We're responsible for that though, not some poo poo-rear end noble nobody. It's cool that Australians agreed with the decision, as they couldn't have done anything about it if they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:I know man, we gently caress up on the regular. We're responsible for that though, not some poo poo-rear end noble nobody. It's cool that Australians agreed with the decision, as they couldn't have done anything about it if they didn't. The Australians could have done something about it. They could have chosen to revote in the previous PM's party into power who could have then used said political power to alter the budget deal or whatever to something that they agreed with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Sure, as long as the Crown's representative cleared whoever they elected. My argument is that if you have to clear your government with another government, no matter how ceremonial you believe that clearance to be, then your sovereignty is worth whatever the Crown feels it is. *edit* Like if America had to clear each President with the Pope you'd be correct in calling us a theocracy.
Peztopiary has issued a correction as of 07:12 on Apr 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
It seems like it's more a ceremonial formality than anything and the thing with Australia was basically the queen acting on the will of the people. There's no modern example or case where a monarch from a developed nation would actually use their powers against the will of the people. Edit: technically the government is a constitutional monarchy so the UK is a monarchy, it's just that the monarchy has less power than Pez asserts or implies. Additionally, I don't think the monarchy can affect the legislative process so if the people's representatives want to toss the royal family, they can. Xelkelvos has issued a correction as of 09:04 on Apr 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:It seems like it's more a ceremonial formality than anything and the thing with Australia was basically the queen acting on the will of the people. There's no modern example or case where a people from a developed nation would actually use their powers against the will of the Crown. That the people of the Commonwealth don't acknowledge that they're cowed into submission is of little import.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Pez, could you take this republican schtick elsewhere? I'm here to read about sovcits suffering breakdowns in the justice system, not to witness one breaking down in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
I spose. Kinda breakin' kayfabe though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
 hope the Bundys are comfortable in comfortable in pre-trial detention:quote:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/new-february-trial-date-set-bunkerville-standoff-case
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:
From the article: quote:At a hearing Friday before Leen, Bundy and most of the defendants opposed continuing the trial until next year, arguing it would harm their constitutional rights to a speedy resolution of the case. In other words, "you think this is complex, then you won't mind us setting a schedule so you can get your justice right before the life imprisonment." At first glance it looks a little vengeful, but I suppose this is going to make sure that any bullshit legalese the sovcits are going to come up with is debunked. Frontloading the retardation, as it were.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
A right to a speedy trial does not prevent an extension for a few months. They really have no ground to object and I'm glad the judge is making GBS threads all over them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 13:51
|
|
