|
Starks posted:The difference in firearms laws alone makes this a nonstarter for most Canadians I think. I'm not sure what you mean there- canadians fear getting shot? There's more canadians in the US than vice versa. 5-10% are undocumeted. No border vigilantes though.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I'm not sure what you mean there- canadians fear getting shot? There's more canadians in the US than vice versa. 5-10% are undocumeted. No border vigilantes though. *kicks over maple syrup caches* GO HOME CANUCKS
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
Mano posted:Egal is not equal, more like „I don’t care (about it)“. It does mean equal, but can be used as "It makes no difference to me" (ie those options are equal)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
Space Kablooey posted:Can confirm at least for PT-BR. They went for a middle of the road rudeness, where you can say something like "I'm barely loving myself" ("Estou pouco me fodendo") for a very rude version, and "I'm not even there" (lit. of "Estou nem aí") for one of the least rude versions, but still informal. Map rings true for european portuguese as well. "Estou-me cagando p(a)ra isto/Cago nisto" Falukorv fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jan 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/matasmaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Giving Russia a land bridge to Crimea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
Bring back Międzymorze
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I'm not sure what you mean there- canadians fear getting shot? There's more canadians in the US than vice versa. 5-10% are undocumeted. No border vigilantes though. I think s/he thinks that a Schengen Agreement between the US and Canada means that laws about material goods are also harmonized and weapons will be sold en masse all over Canada. But, actually they’d still be illegal and if someone wants to obtain an illegal firearm now in Canada I imagine that free movement of people over the border wouldn’t make much difference in terms of weapon smuggling. I mean, Yugoslavian weapons got to Sweden just fine despite only Slovenia being in Schengen - since the borders are absurdly porous. I (semi?) illegally crossed about 10 years ago from Croatia to Slovenia, driving on a backways hilly countryside road that was on my GPS - turns out it didn’t have a border patrol unit, or even a hut that someone might ever staff. E: pretty sure it was here: 45.6895958 N, 15.3077343 E. I like going to weird borders, probably something I should avoid doing in many countries. Saladman fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jan 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
I've only gone to Canada by air. Do they have border stops and check what you're bringing in when you go by land? I figured that's what they were referring to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
yeti friend posted:I've only gone to Canada by air. Do they have border stops and check what you're bringing in when you go by land? I figured that's what they were referring to. Yes. My experience is that the US CBP take those checkpoints rather more seriously than their Canadian counterparts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
How seriously the guard take it depends on a bunch of factors, not just which direction you're going. Some crossing points take things more seriously than others, time of day is also a big factor, and that's before taking the usual class/race/gender/age into account. But yes, all border crossings are staffed and you have to, at the very least, stop, show your id and answer some perfunctory questions about your reason for crossing and what goods you're bringing.Saladman posted:But, actually they’d still be illegal and if someone wants to obtain an illegal firearm now in Canada I imagine that free movement of people over the border wouldn’t make much difference in terms of weapon smuggling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
The Canadian border patrol is still the only border patrol that I've ever heard actually detaining anyone i know. My friend was driving to visit his Canadian girlfriend and was detained for six hours, I got detained for a couple hours until I unlocked my phone for them, and our company has a standing policy to not let you bring company assets to Canada because they keep being confiscated and "disappearing". Mexico was super chill though. Hell even in France I only was detained for like half an hour and they had a legitimate grievance about my passport.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Australian border on TV: Asian people trying to smuggle massive amounts of food in. Or drugs. Canadian border on TV: Americans thinking they can bring guns because they're Americans. Or child porn. (I only really watch TV at night when I can't sleep and those shows are on like three channels simultaneously.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Australia has a land border? Those shows about Canadian customs agents in airports are also about asian people smuggling meat and cigarettes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
There's an American airport customs show and it is 95% asian people trying to bring in weird food.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
I probably smuggled food into China, not sure. (None of it was contraband, I think I just didn't declare it because I was really drunk.) E: like maybe 400g of chocolate and a box of instant porridge flakes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 02:19
|
|
|
Armacham posted:There's an American airport customs show and it is 95% asian people trying to bring in weird food. Or normal food. Friend's Korean in-laws got in trouble for bringing vegetables they believed to be unavailable in the US like carrots and onions. 3D Megadoodoo posted:I probably smuggled food into China, not sure. I brought a 2.5 kilo wedge of parmesan in my coat pocket once. I got pulled aside at security and wondered if they had a cheese scanner but they just inspected my actual suspicious belongings, books.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
Imagine what Metternich's system of suppression of mail and banned literature would be like if there were airplanes back in his day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 04:25
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Or normal food. Friend's Korean in-laws got in trouble for bringing vegetables they believed to be unavailable in the US like carrots and onions. Grand Fromage posted:I brought a 2.5 kilo wedge of parmesan in my coat pocket once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 09:14
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:How seriously the guard take it depends on a bunch of factors, not just which direction you're going. Some crossing points take things more seriously than others, time of day is also a big factor, and that's before taking the usual class/race/gender/age into account. But yes, all border crossings are staffed and you have to, at the very least, stop, show your id and answer some perfunctory questions about your reason for crossing and what goods you're bringing. I, as a non-American, was visiting friends in Nelson, BC, and instead of driving up the I5 from Seattle, and crossed the border somewhere around Trail. I think it was here mostly likely: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Mm7wAGKByKhk5GEA9 It was the middle of the day I was the only one there so I got the guard's full attention. Where I'm going and why, who will I be meeting, why am I crossing the border there, what's with all the electronics I bought for myself. Id there are any drugs or guns in my (rental) car. Also made me throw away an apple if I'm not misremembering anything. I drove back through the I5 crossing in the middle of the night and the guy barely looked at my foreign passport before letting me through.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 11:07
|
|
|
As someone who grew up in BC has taken a ferry or car over the CA-US border many times, yeah that's generally my experience. It makes sense when you watch that Canadian border cop show, though, and you realize how many Americans just casually drive into BC en route to Alaska assuming that they can take all their handguns and assault rifles with them; the risk for Canada of letting average Americans in is generally higher than the reverse. The opposite is true with airport security, though -- American customs agents in airports are way more consistently huge assholes than their Canadian counterparts in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 12:32
|
|
|
Props to leaving Klaipeda out of Lithuania, which only became part of it when Russia transferred it after the war. It's the little grey sliver between the modern day border of Kaliningrad and the green of Lithuania.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
 Americanexceptionalism.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
It's hard to make out but is Israel the second state that voted against this? Did this pass or the the US use it's veto power?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
Saladman posted:I think s/he thinks that a Schengen Agreement between the US and Canada means that laws about material goods are also harmonized and weapons will be sold en masse all over Canada. But, actually they’d still be illegal and if someone wants to obtain an illegal firearm now in Canada I imagine that free movement of people over the border wouldn’t make much difference in terms of weapon smuggling. I mean, Yugoslavian weapons got to Sweden just fine despite only Slovenia being in Schengen - since the borders are absurdly porous. I (semi?) illegally crossed about 10 years ago from Croatia to Slovenia, driving on a backways hilly countryside road that was on my GPS - turns out it didn’t have a border patrol unit, or even a hut that someone might ever staff. It's more just that I was thinking of the political implications of proposing no border checks between the two countries. The last mass shooting here was done with guns smuggled from the states and according to polls in the aftermath, most Canadians want to see the US land border tightened, not opened. I agree with you, our border services does such a poo poo job of keeping out firearms (and illegal goons, apparently) that it can't get much worse, but it would just be so easy to make political hay out of such a proposal. I can already see the campaign ads depicting active shooter drills in kindergartens or whatever. Though to be fair to the OP they were just talking about labour so maybe I let my imagination get carried away when I saw the word Schengen. Starks fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jan 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
The US and Israel bravely standing up for the People's God given right to starve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
Blut posted:
Who are the other four that didn't vote? And while I'm not sure of what the US's motivation is (definitely sure what Israel's is), there's a lot of voting countries on the map that don't particularly care about human rights in general, so it's no skin off their noses if another thing for them to ignore is added to the list.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Kamrat posted:It's hard to make out but is Israel the second state that voted against this? SlothfulCobra posted:Who are the other four that didn't vote? https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/482533 The official voting record seems to list it as Yes: 176, No: 1 (the USA), Abstentions: 7 (Australia, Canada, Fiji, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau) and Non-Voting 7 (Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Niger, Uzbekistan) The abstentions look distinctly like a list of countries pressured into it by close ties to the US, the non-voters probably for logistical reasons - not having a representative present or similar? Also I've no idea why Congo is marked as the sole non-voter on the map. Maybe the map maker thought it was the CAR. Looks like it was adopted despite America's strong moral stance against people having the right to not starve to death. Blut fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jan 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
When America does these weird controversial 'votes no on clearly beneficial things' do they ever offer an explanation? I mean I know it'd be bullshit but it'd be nice if they thought they were at least expected to come up with a good excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:When America does these weird controversial 'votes no on clearly beneficial things' do they ever offer an explanation? I mean I know it'd be bullshit but it'd be nice if they thought they were at least expected to come up with a good excuse. A lot of them (I don’t think this one) are because treaties have to be ratified by 2/3rds of the senate and republicans are opposed to absolutely anything involving the UN no matter what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 03:22
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:When America does these weird controversial 'votes no on clearly beneficial things' do they ever offer an explanation? I mean I know it'd be bullshit but it'd be nice if they thought they were at least expected to come up with a good excuse. America is a great satan, op. Seriouspost, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 07:32
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:When America does these weird controversial 'votes no on clearly beneficial things' do they ever offer an explanation? I mean I know it'd be bullshit but it'd be nice if they thought they were at least expected to come up with a good excuse. It seemed kind of cartoonishly evil so I looked it up, here is the explanation (assuming I found the correct item, I am not an expert, just someone with google): https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/ quote:Explanation of Vote by the United States of America
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 07:41
|
|
You are receiving this broadcast as a dream...We are transmitting from the year one nine... nine nine ...You are receiving this broadcast in order t
|
Don't know about this one, but apparently some resolutions are "trick questions" with lots of baggage or poor wording that are meant to make the US look bad. Iirc it was Russia that had proposed a resolution for "peace" that was basically saying "if we invade Ukraine you can't do nothing" and when western countries voted no, the headline was "US against UN resolution for peace!" I guess China could (or maybe already did) propose a similar resolution to annex Taiwan. In conclusion, all imperial powers bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 08:22
|
|
|
They're talking about "access to food" so it's just for the evil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 08:31
|
|
|
Yeah, sometimes these resolutions have innocuous or benign titles, but tucked in there is some objectionable bullshit meant to get some rival country to vote against it so you can say "wow, those assholes are against this obviously good thing!?" That's not always the case and sometimes a country really is voting against a good resolution, so who knows.Kamrat posted:Did this pass or the the US use it's veto power? As an aside (and to clear up a common misconception) the P5 countries can only exercise their unilateral vetos in Security Council resolutions. In General Assembly votes like this one, involving all member states, the US just gets a normal vote like anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
Chikimiki posted:Don't know about this one, but apparently some resolutions are "trick questions" with lots of baggage or poor wording that are meant to make the US look bad. Iirc it was Russia that had proposed a resolution for "peace" that was basically saying "if we invade Ukraine you can't do nothing" and when western countries voted no, the headline was "US against UN resolution for peace!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
In my opinion this fit the strategy of USA of not sign international accords because if they sign them, then other nations will ask USA to do things. USA want to be a "absolute monarch", and be the one that give other countries commands. You sign these papers between peers, and USA is not a peer, is a superior.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 08:39
|
|
|
Yo know you can look it up, right?https://geneva.usmission.gov/2015/03/26/u-s-explanation-of-position-on-resolution-on-the-right-to-food/ posted:We believe that a well-balanced text would also include references to obligations of nations receiving assistance – specifically regarding transparency, accountability, and good governance, as well as the obligation to create an environment conducive to investment in agriculture. We also underscore our view that the statements in this resolution on trade and trade negotiations and negotiations in other fields are inappropriate, as they are both beyond the subject-matter and the expertise of this Council. That is a clear cut case of "prostrate yourselves before me and beg for scraps, peasants" steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Jan 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 08:45
|
|
|
Yeah, though you could make the case that a country like North Korea or Syria might use this kind of resolution to starve it's own population to "force" food aid while using it's resources elsewhere. Just spitballing though, the whole spiel about pesticides and intellectual property may point to just intense lobbying 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 08:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Though I think being the sole dissenting voice in cases like these makes the US look worse in pure PR terms than voting for the resolution and then ignoring it like everybody else, lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 08:54
|
|