Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

DACA was a policy position, not a law.

Felgercarb. It was an amnesty program created out of whole cloth by the L.S.o.S. using executive order.

https://undocu.berkeley.edu/legal-su.../what-is-daca/

What Is DACA?

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a kind of administrative relief from deportation. The purpose of DACA is to protect eligible immigrant youth who came to the United States when they were children from deportation. DACA gives young undocumented immigrants: 1) protection from deportation, and 2) a work permit. The program expires after two years, subject to renewal.

My, my, I made an excellent choice for an example. You'll notice the phrase "subject to renewal" there. Kinda makes it feel like a "let's try it and see how it goes" deal.
However, when the time came for renewal, and it was not going to be renewed, its advocates went whining to to the courts, and a left-leaning (Yes, until very recently I've considered SCOTUS to be left) SCOTUS forced its renewal.

See how important the courts are here?

The entire program from the start was unconstitutional, as Congress has authority over immigration, not the executive. But the court forced the continuance of an unconstitutional program.

[Chaka-Z0]

Felgercarb. It was an amnesty program created out of whole cloth by the L.S.o.S. using executive order.

https://undocu.berkeley.edu/legal-su.../what-is-daca/



My, my, I made an excellent choice for an example. You'll notice the phrase "subject to renewal" there. Kinda makes it feel like a "let's try it and see how it goes" deal.
However, when the time came for renewal, and it was not going to be renewed, its advocates went whining to to the courts, and a left-leaning (Yes, until very recently I've considered SCOTUS to be left) SCOTUS forced its renewal.

See how important the courts are here?

The entire program from the start was unconstitutional, as Congress has authority over immigration, not the executive. But the court forced the continuance of an unconstitutional program.

Good, at least some people in your country had the presence of mind to realise that an outdated constitution cannot be adapted to the reality of the 21st century?

Question for you, can you predict what the world would look like in 200-300 years from now?

[Annoyed]

Good, at least some people in your country had the presence of mind to realise that an outdated constitution cannot be adapted to the reality of the 21st century?

Question for you, can you predict what the world would look like in 200-300 years from now?

Nope. But I can still lay down a basic set of rules and ideas for running a society. And I'm a mental midget compared to the people who started this nuthouse.

But I'll let history speak for me. In approximately 200 years, a mere blink of an eye in the history of man, a small group of states broke off from what was at that time, one of the most powerful nations on earth and set up a government that rose to be the most powerful nation on the face of the planet or the planet's history* for that matter.

I will not argue or disagree with a group of men who could do that.

And don't forget, there are ways to amend the constitution if needed. Yes, it was made difficult, you don't want to change the bedrock of your country on a whim.

[aretood2]

is Myanmar a theocracy?

No. But given that the secular government is allowing/aiding/causing this...imagine a theocratic one?

I heard of the massacre of the Rohingas, their lady-president which is a total failure as a leader had her Canadian citizenship revoked for it. I heard about it over the news, but not general news, specifically on CBC. I remember thinking it was super alien to me that Buddhists would kill so many, but this particular fact didn't really stuck into my mind. CBC has at least in my opinion the merit of being the closest to a truly independent network. Now I know for a fact that not many people listen to CBC, and it is true that Muslims killings sells much more on your regular news broadcast. Point taken.



This is very well said Tood, you should write it down or something. I couldn't agree more with any statement you ever made.



We were on the topic of Islam but sure let's talk about all of them. You want my opinion? I see all religions as a double-edged sword that can do good but ultimately, is doomed to be outweighed by evil deeds due to the zeal it creates in the mind of most believers. Mix the human nature into that, and you can rest assured someone will try to play the religious card to achieve his goals. I dealt with clients that were financially scammed in every way you can possibly imagine. If there's a cheat or a breach someone will use it.

Before you call me atheist, I will say that if a God(s) could come downtown and settle religious debate right here and now, I would buy him a beer and be glad for it.

It's a fine line between saying "X religion as it stands now has these flaws that cause these issues" and simply labeling the entire religion and by extension its followers as warmongering medieval fiends. that's all I am saying. To do the former is rational and based on the current situation. To do the latter is islamophobic.

So let's follow this up with an obvious question: why do Muslim countries consistently fail to produce functioning democracies? More interestingly, are their governments a reflection of their people's will, are they less democratic than their people want - or are they MORE democratic than the majority of their populations would have it?

And only one Jewish state mand a worrisome nation state law. Should I draw any conclusions from that? I mean, what if Germany did that right now to the exclusion of Jews? My point is that it is easy to draw too simplistic of an explanation. "Islam is bad bad bad". Is it imperfect? Well, reread my previous response to Chaka before the one you quoted and you'll see what one major imperfection of Islam is that I mentioned.

Nope. But I can still lay down a basic set of rules and ideas for running a society. And I'm a mental midget compared to the people who started this nuthouse.

But I'll let history speak for me. In approximately 200 years, a mere blink of an eye in the history of man, a small group of states broke off from what was at that time, one of the most powerful nations on earth and set up a government that rose to be the most powerful nation on the face of the planet or the planet's history* for that matter.

I will not argue or disagree with a group of men who could do that.

And don't forget, there are ways to amend the constitution if needed. Yes, it was made difficult, you don't want to change the bedrock of your country on a whim.

Problem is that just about every country does that on a regular basis. This is another case of not realizing how different the rest of the world is.

[Chaka-Z0]

Well let's be real here, the US rise to power was only post-WW1. They brought mechanized war vehicles to the battlefield at a time when cavalry was still seen as the best asset in a war. Technology is the key element, not constitution.

So yeah okay the founding fathers created a great nation, but in no shape or form are they responsible for what the US is today.

[SoulReaver]

No.

so it can't be in the name of the religion then

[aretood2]

so it can't be in the name of the religion then

Medieval kingdoms weren't theocracies either, so I guess nothing they did can be considered to be done in the name of religion.

[SoulReaver]

Medieval kingdoms weren't theocracies either

which ones are you thinking of?

, so I guess nothing they did can be considered to be done in the name of religion

those non-theocratic ones you're thinking of - what were their laws based on?

[jelgate]

Well let's be real here, the US rise to power was only post-WW1. They brought mechanized war vehicles to the battlefield at a time when cavalry was still seen as the best asset in a war. Technology is the key element, not constitution.

So yeah okay the founding fathers created a great nation, but in no shape or form are they responsible for what the US is today.

Let's be honest. The founding fathers would be disgusted at what our country has become

[Annoyed]

Problem is that just about every country does that on a regular basis. This is another case of not realizing how different the rest of the world is.

What? Name ONE other country that has risen so rapidly to be the most powerful nation on the face of the earth that quickly.
And your clock stops at the 1980's, so this was within 200 and change years. And has remained so.

Whether by hook, crook, or outright blind screw-up, the founding fathers of this place hit the right combination. You can't possibly deny that unless you deny all of modern history.

[Chaka-Z0]

What? Name ONE other country that has risen so rapidly to be the most powerful nation on the face of the earth that quickly.

Canada! We got Hockey and Canadian bacon. I dare you to find something as important as this.

[aretood2]

which ones are you thinking of?

those non-theocratic ones you're thinking of - what were their laws based on?

Oh so now the basis of their laws matter? Well what do you think Myanmar's laws are based on? Nahuatl influence?

What? Name ONE other country that has risen so rapidly to be the most powerful nation on the face of the earth that quickly.
And your clock stops at the 1980's, so this was within 200 and change years. And has remained so.

Whether by hook, crook, or outright blind screw-up, the founding fathers of this place hit the right combination. You can't possibly deny that unless you deny all of modern history.

My point was that governments are changed constantly in other countries like the UK. The US became a superpower by transforming the federation style republic of the founding fathers into a highly centralized imperialistic republic whose government is beholden to the industrial military complex and stock full of regulations they would have bulked at that are enforced by a massively bloated government they never dreamed of.

France had multiple republics in the past two hundred years and still became a great world power in the 19th and 20th centuries....which happened to be the same centuries where they changed governments so many times!

Russia. China. Great Britain. Spain. Mongolian Empire, Roman Republic, Alexander's Greek Empire, Sassanid Empire. They all did it within two hundred years at different points in time throughout history. But that's not what I meant. I was talking about rewriting a nation's laws and government. For that you need only look at the British Empire and the transformation from Russian Empire to Soviet Union.

Germany went from weak third world Weimar Republic into a nation that plunged the world to war. In less than two centuries, Japan went from a hermit kingdom to a conquering world power in less than one hundred years.

Great Britain and Spain gained superpower status shockingly fast and considering the technology at their respective times...that's pretty darn impressive. Then there's France. Don't forget Charlemagne's Empire, that was within a few decades. China only took about two hundred years to come back from the hot mess that was the Qing dynasty. Don't compare apples to oranges.


Oh, let's talk about Israel. It went from a dirt poor nation of scraps and refugees into a powerful undefeated regional power within a lifetime with a tiny population, a tiny landmass, and very few natural resources....the exact opposite of the US's massive landmass, plethora of natural resources, and large population. But sure, let's pretend that constitutions are the only determining factors here...not to mention European refugees and asylum seekers, poor uneducated irish immigrants, legally shady Asian immigrants, and the contributions of blacks. To claim that somehow the way we see and have seen the US constitution since the Civil war is anything like what the founders thought of or intended is pure ludicrous nonsense based on ignorance of actual history.

[jelgate]

What? Name ONE other country that has risen so rapidly to be the most powerful nation on the face of the earth that quickly.
And your clock stops at the 1980's, so this was within 200 and change years. And has remained so.

Whether by hook, crook, or outright blind screw-up, the founding fathers of this place hit the right combination. You can't possibly deny that unless you deny all of modern history.

The Roman Empire

[aretood2]

The Roman Empire

I ninja'd you. But really, Spain is the perfect example. It didn't even take 200 hundred years. It was formed in 1469 and by 1669 it was the most powerful country in the world alongside the Chinese Empire. Great Britain was transformed from simply being the Kingdom of England to incorporating Wales, Ireland, Scotland and a growing overseas empire in around two hundred years too.

[SoulReaver]

Oh so now the basis of their laws matter?

you asking why law is mentioned on a topic about government oppression?

Well what do you think Myanmar's laws are based on? Nahuatl influence?

you tell me
aztec law at least would be more consistent with the government's actions