FTFY.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Caterpillar, proving yet again how much of an asshole they can be: Santa Cruz coffee shop Cat & Cloud fights Caterpillar Inc. to keep its trademark
They're not even close in appearance. At all. If somebody (even in another business type like this) was clearly trying to overlap the appearances, then OK, they have a case. This is not that.
I guess I'm projecting other assholeish stuff that companies like that do. Is Caterpillar doing the same shitty stuff as John Deere with locking out repairs via software locks? I assume they are, but I haven't looked. Thus it would be another thing, but this may be in isolation.
Either way, I hope if the little guy can stick it out long enough to win that they receive lawyer's fees, and punitive damages THE OTHER WAY. I'd like it if they were to receive all fees paid to Caterpillar's lawyers too, just as a "fuck you" to big corporations who try and do this clearly bullshit lawsuits.
They're not even close in appearance. At all. If somebody (even in another business type like this) was clearly trying to overlap the appearances, then OK, they have a case. This is not that.
I guess I'm projecting other assholeish stuff that companies like that do. Is Caterpillar doing the same shitty stuff as John Deere with locking out repairs via software locks? I assume they are, but I haven't looked. Thus it would be another thing, but this may be in isolation.
Either way, I hope if the little guy can stick it out long enough to win that they receive lawyer's fees, and punitive damages THE OTHER WAY. I'd like it if they were to receive all fees paid to Caterpillar's lawyers too, just as a "fuck you" to big corporations who try and do this clearly bullshit lawsuits.
Is Icarus working at the Louisiana Senate? Because some Senators realised that there wasn't a minimum age to get married there & tried to introduce a law setting that age at 18. They failed because apparently "a lot of 16-year-olds are very mature". Yes that's an exact quote from opposition to the bill.
What you can forget is that media, especially social media, always enlarges and focuses on negative news, and good stuff is, at most, an afterthought. I'm not saying we don't live in a crapsack world - we do - but it isn't all bad. There really are still a lot of good people doing good things. And not just small kids helping an old lady cross the street - there are big, important things moving in the right direction, too. It's just not always as visible as all the negativity.The more social media I see, the more news, the sicker to my stomach I get. Joker was right This world deserves to burn.
You, like me, and Null, and Nick, and plenty of others here, tend to let the negative overshadow the positive. We focus on it too much, and this further pushes is down. It's not easy not to let that happen.
Let me state up front that I don't believe that 16 year olds should get married.
That said, the article says:
The age of consent in Louisiana is 17. If the quoted bit is the justification, then Louisiana should either raise the age of consent, or make 17 the marriageable age, logically speaking.
This makes sense enough to me. Ontario's age of consent is 16, and so is it's marriageable age . . . although parental permission is required for those under 18 (for marriage, not sex).
Same.
If you really want to know. There’s a whole podcast series dedicated to it.
As an outsider to the USA, statehood to D.C. IMO doesn't make much sense given how it was "supposed" to be. Makes a LOT more sense to just be part of one of the states that gave up land to it. Capitals the world over are very commonly just part of one of the states/provinces/regions, and not their "own thing" like D.C. is. See Canada for an example.
Puerto Rico on the other hand, umm, yes? Either it becomes part of Florida (which would be funny, and funny (both meanings of the word)), or it becomes its own state. It has MORE than enough population to be more than a territory.
Or it could just leave an become a country. That'd also be interesting.
Oh, and now there's an announcement there's a nearby emergency situation, and the celebration has been momentarily paused.
Unrelated, and hopefully off-topic, some idiot at the bar here was joking about how someone ought to take a shot at Trudeau while he was speaking onstage.
I can...sort of see why someone would oppose DC Statehood - even if I think it's silly.
But, yeah, "allowing them dirty others to become a STATE?! We were made by God with these...errr...50?ish states, and that's all that was ever intended!"
Seriously, do these people also propose selling Louisiana back to France and Texas to Mexico? Just keep the 13 and cut off all the rest?
But, yeah, "allowing them dirty others to become a STATE?! We were made by God with these...errr...50?ish states, and that's all that was ever intended!"
Seriously, do these people also propose selling Louisiana back to France and Texas to Mexico? Just keep the 13 and cut off all the rest?
Last time I checked, Hawaii wanted to go back to being it's own nation. Probably not a kingdom like last time though. The Japanese have different ideas... they own a lot of the islands already and seem to think it belongs to them.
Puerto Rico needs to ether become a state or become it's own thing, because right now it's citizens get to enjoy citizenship with none of the responsibilities of it.
Some people suggest WV rejoin Virginia. By force, if necessary. They tried a couple of times to nullify our secession in court and lost. Nowadays I doubt they'd want to take us back.
Based on the US's treatment of them during their hurricane crisis, the US has no responsibilities either.
Their continued insistance on not becoming a state is part of what allowed that to happen. Now, they get to be used as "outsiders" by a racist Republican and denied the federal aid they would have received under a Democrat. I really can't make a better argument for them to choose one of those two options: if they were a state, they'd have the political power to punish reticent Republicans in elections, and as a country they wouldn't have to put up with it at all. They'd just ask for disaster relief from the UN and get it.
And now we have a surprisingly detailed account of what likely happened.
The writing on this is superb. It’s like watching a Jerry Bruckheimer production.
—Patrick
to THE DISCOURSE on the internet right now, they're concentration camps. They are. They are places where people are being held indefinitely in a concentrated manner. Often without access to basic human needs, like shelter or proper nutrition. They're concentration camps. Your country is a country that in the 21st century is home to concentration camps.
They're not (mostly) death camps yet. That's not the first step.
ICE and all related departments are vile.
They're not (mostly) death camps yet. That's not the first step.
ICE and all related departments are vile.
You need a history lesson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment (This is where "Concentration Camp" redirects to, and it's apparent in the text why that is) Regardless of exact terms, the first sentence helps:
You want to argue Gitmo is a concentration camp? That has basis. Places where people caught illegally crossing a border? Not the same thing in the least.
The only reason these exist is because they are waiting for trial. If not... could just deport anybody caught without papers near the border that aren't at an official crossing. Or are you an open borders advocate? If that's it, then just say it, because the alternatives here are:
1. Open borders
2. Deport anybody who doesn't enter at an official crossing without trial (it'd be faster)
3. Imprison while awaiting trial.
Pick one.
Applying for asylum isn't illegal.
If you have a claim, you'd go to a real border crossing and make said claim. That they're crossing NOT THERE shows a lot.
Right, but there's plenty of international treaties stating where, how, and when. You can claim you're just arriving and going to request asylum 5 months later and in the middle of South Dakota, and no-one can really prove otherwise.
I mean, I agree the way people are being treated is horrible and inhumane, and saying they resemble concentration camps or internment camps has some merit, but that aside, Eriol does have a point too. We (as in Belgium) is currently facing a huge transmigration issue - that is, (illegal) immigrants trying to get to the UK but not getting there. is it illegal for these people to pass through? Yes. You're legally bound to request asylum in the first safe country you enter. They all try to get to the UK because of exaggerations/lies told by traffickers - no tracking, no ID cards, no registration. Anyway, not the same issue, but why I mention it - these people get rounded up, taken to detention centers, and asked to apply for asylum or be deported. Either way, almost 95% "disappears" when they're in open centers. In closed centers, the number is far lower. You kinda do need to lock people up sometimes, even if they haven't really done a lot that registers as "illegal" yet.
Proper points of entry, proper humane conditions, a fast and fair process to determine eligibility, decent legal and medical assistance, etc etc are all important - sticking children in 2x2x2 cages isn't acceptable. But at some point, yes, you might need to temporarily confine people to help both them and society.
I mean, I agree the way people are being treated is horrible and inhumane, and saying they resemble concentration camps or internment camps has some merit, but that aside, Eriol does have a point too. We (as in Belgium) is currently facing a huge transmigration issue - that is, (illegal) immigrants trying to get to the UK but not getting there. is it illegal for these people to pass through? Yes. You're legally bound to request asylum in the first safe country you enter. They all try to get to the UK because of exaggerations/lies told by traffickers - no tracking, no ID cards, no registration. Anyway, not the same issue, but why I mention it - these people get rounded up, taken to detention centers, and asked to apply for asylum or be deported. Either way, almost 95% "disappears" when they're in open centers. In closed centers, the number is far lower. You kinda do need to lock people up sometimes, even if they haven't really done a lot that registers as "illegal" yet.
Proper points of entry, proper humane conditions, a fast and fair process to determine eligibility, decent legal and medical assistance, etc etc are all important - sticking children in 2x2x2 cages isn't acceptable. But at some point, yes, you might need to temporarily confine people to help both them and society.
We're supposed to be taking them in at the port of entries for processing and decided we aren't going to do that anymore.
We've basically decided, as a nation, that people trying to escape the political and/or criminal/economically motivated violence that we supported isn't grounds for asylum. At that point, how can they make a legal claim? We're willing to protect people from the Middle East who supported us or are otherwise fleeing political/religious violence, but we're not willing to do the same for South and Central Americans? That's kind of fucked up.
We're STILL arming the criminal organizations killing these people, BTW. That's like 90% of the problem; they are better armed than the organizations trying to fight them.
There's also this; the border is effectively shutdown because Conservatives love to point at brown people as the source of all their problems. Even people with legal reasons for entry/exit can't really do it right now.
Quite the claim. If you show up at a legal border crossing and say you're a refugee, it's denied automatically? Please link. If it's "safe 3rd country" that's yet another discussion, and relates to what @Bubble181 said above.
That bold is mine. It's NOT a basis of being a refugee according to the UN: https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/
The "I don't like how my country is, I would like to live somewhere better" makes you a regular immigrant, and the country receiving has the right to say "we would like to apply standards to whom gets in and does not." Refugees (legitimate ones, like somebody I knew from Yugoslavia when it was breaking up) are treated differently to bypass this process. Regular immigrants are not.
@Eriol I was referring to how the violence in their countries was economically motivated, not the economical conditions. People join the cartels because it pays an actual living wage in areas where such work cannot be found legitimately, but only one protection racket can only exist in a single territory before somebody, somewhere decides to get a gun and stake a claim... and the legitimate governments of these areas are powerless to stop them because they are ether being paid off (because THEY aren't doing any better economically than the rest) or are out-gunned. This results in active warzones between drug cartels, vying for territory through terror campaigns to motive the other side to back down.
In such a situation, you could call the resulting violence both a criminally AND a economically motivated action.
In such a situation, you could call the resulting violence both a criminally AND a economically motivated action.
https://theconversation.com/thousands-of-asylum-seekers-left-waiting-at-the-us-mexico-border-118367
I don't think northern Mexico is a "safe" third country.