Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - More Than Mortal

Pages: 1 ... 678 910 ... 502
211
The Flood / Re: Confession thread
« on: February 03, 2017, 10:46:33 AM »
I want to hang out with Verb for one day and relax over something stupid like Dark Souls.
i wouldn't be opposed to that
Can I come too?
i mean sure, though you'd probably just be third wheeling it ::)
That's okay, I'll come too.

212
i mean

its super obvious

213
Serious / Re: Ricky Gervais and Stephen Colbert debate religion
« on: February 02, 2017, 11:34:31 PM »
I think it's pretty interesting how Colbert framed his faith in socio-emotional terms like wanting to express gratitude for existence rather than in metaphysical or evidential terms.

It belies the fundamental reason religion exists.

214
Serious / Re: Oy Vey: The Shoah Continues
« on: February 02, 2017, 11:18:46 PM »
Add your own comment to the story or fuck off.

215
The Flood / Re: Confession thread
« on: February 02, 2017, 08:53:42 PM »
I act stupid for attention.
The nature of a confession is that people aren't already cognisant of it.

216
The Flood / Re: sexy things to say in bed
« on: February 02, 2017, 08:25:36 PM »
"assuming direct control"

217
Serious / Re: Jeb Bush at Amherst College
« on: February 02, 2017, 08:22:34 PM »
If you guys had done the right thing and elected Romney in 2012 this shit never would've happened.

218
The Flood / sexy things to say in bed
« on: February 02, 2017, 08:20:10 PM »
"you have no idea how crazy you make me"

219
The Flood / Re: Confession thread
« on: February 02, 2017, 07:36:36 PM »
My... Oh god this is hard... m-My name really isn't Charlie
wait

really

220
The Flood / Confession thread
« on: February 02, 2017, 07:26:15 PM »
0nly r3al c0nf3ssi0ns pl0x

oth3rwis3 g0d w0nt sav3 y0u

221
Serious / Re: #MiloAtCali canceled - Violent Rioting
« on: February 02, 2017, 06:17:43 PM »
Milo's free speech isn't being violated ::)
Absolutely it is.

An institution choosing not to host an individual, or individual students choosing not to attend a talk or even to protest it, is not comparable to a few hundred Antifa and black bloc radicals rioting.

It's not unreasonable to say that platforms being blocked by coercion and violence, governmental or not, is a violation of free speech.

222
Serious / Milo Yiannopolous event cancelled at UC Berkeley following riots
« on: February 02, 2017, 11:56:49 AM »
NBC:

Quote
A scheduled speech by controversial Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley led to violent protests that caused the event to be called off, the university said.

The university said fires were set, including one caused by a firebomb that ignited a generator-powered spotlight, and commercial-grade fireworks were thrown at police. NBC Bay Area showed a group of people grab a metal barricade and smash it against a door.

"The violence was instigated by a group of about 150 masked agitators who came onto campus and interrupted an otherwise non-violent protest," UC Berkeley said in a statement. Some people were attacked and police treated six people for injuries, the university said.

Yiannopoulos said on Facebook that he was evacuated and blamed "violent left-wing protesters."

The university said the event was called off at around 6 p.m. local time "amid violence, destruction of property and out of concern for public safety," and estimated 1,500 people were outside the venue.

UC Berkeley police said multiple dispersal orders were given for the protest and people were told to leave campus or avoid the area. A campus lockdown was declared. A witness said a large crowd at Sproul Plaza yelled "No Trump, no Milo" and police used a megaphone to announce the event was called off.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer's presence and perspectives," UC Berkeley said in a statement.

Yiannopoulos' critics say he has a history of making offensive comments related to race and religion. He made headlines earlier this year after he was banned from Twitter following online harassment of "Ghostbusters" star Leslie Jones.

Berkeley announced on Twitter at around 6:20 p.m. local time (9:30 p.m. ET) that the event was canceled. Marchers moved off campus, with some chanting "open borders for us all, no bans no walls," according to NBC Bay Area.

At around 10 p.m. local time, campus officials lifted a "shelter in place" order issued during the height of the protests and said routine campus business and classes would be held as normal on Thursday, the university said.

"The Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down," Yiannopoulos said on Facebook after the Berkeley event was canceled.

UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennett said Wednesday night she wasn't aware of any arrests by the department. Officers used pepper balls and marking paint balls but no tear gas was used. "I believe our officers exercised tremendous restraint," she said.

It's the second time a planned event featuring Yiannopoulos was canceled due to protests. A Republican college group called off an event at UC Davis on Jan. 14 amid protests.

Berkeley protest organizer Ronald Cruz earlier told NBC Bay Area that demonstrations would be held to oppose what he characterized as hateful rhetoric.

"He's a neo-fascist who has notoriously fostered a lynch mob mentality in his audiences," Cruz told the station.

UC Berkeley said in a statement after the event was canceled that extra officers were deployed and "Multiple methods of crowd control were in place."

"Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, it was simply impossible to maintain order given the level of threat, disruption and violence," the college said.

Berkeley College Republicans said before the protests that a "groupthink phenomenon" has taken hold at the California university that silences conservative speech, and while it doesn't agree with everything Yiannopoulos has said or done "we saw the chance to host Milo as an opportunity that was too good to pass up."

"He is somebody who stands up for those who are too afraid or intimidated to speak out on campus, and he voraciously defends speech from all sides of the political spectrum," the group said in a statement earlier.

After the violence, the group said in a statement: "The Free Speech Movement is dead. Today, the Berkeley College Republicans' constitutional right to free speech was silenced by criminals and thugs seeking to cancel Milo Yiannopoulos' tour."

University officials had rejected prior calls to cancel the event, citing free speech.

"We regret that the threats and unlawful actions of a few have interfered with the exercise of First Amendment rights on a campus that is proud of its history and legacy as home of the Free Speech Movement," the university said.

Hundreds of peaceful protesters demonstrated for hours before the event, some with signs that read "Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech," The Associated Press reported.

President Trump on Thursday morning, tweeted about the event, and even threatened to take away funding from the school.

"If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" he posted.

223
Serious / Re: President Trump Threatens to Send Troops Into Mexico
« on: February 01, 2017, 09:54:35 PM »
Quote
"You have a bunch of bad hombres down there," Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt seen by the AP. "You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it."

MAD DOG DONALD

224
Serious / Re: President Trump Threatens to Send Troops Into Mexico
« on: February 01, 2017, 09:41:43 PM »
Best. Timeline.

225
I've never felt so empty.

226
The Flood / whats the fucking point
« on: January 29, 2017, 07:32:05 PM »
somebody tell me

227
Serious / Re: Live: Brexit Supreme Court Ruling
« on: January 28, 2017, 04:00:06 PM »
meaning that just about half of all people really didn't want out.
Eh, a substantial amount of Remain voters were marginal. No doubt some Leavers, too, but I doubt it being to the same degree as Remain.

The public and political will to just get on with Brexit is there.

228
The Flood / Re: my hometown was voted funniest in britain
« on: January 27, 2017, 09:29:12 AM »
I literally didn't even know Bromsgrove existed before I added you on Facebook fampai.
you live in scotland ffs

thats not even a real country

229
there's quite a few anti-trump people on here
Good. Trump supporters don't deserve to vote, let alone live in the united states. It's good to know that I'm not entirely surrounded with such scum on this website.
#justloafthings

230
The Flood / Re: my hometown was voted funniest in britain
« on: January 27, 2017, 07:42:13 AM »
Laugh at your boring town because everybody knows brit humor is shit.
Sure.

YouTube

231
The Flood / my hometown was voted funniest in britain
« on: January 27, 2017, 07:32:38 AM »
wtf are you gonna do about it faggot

232
you've been around long enough to understand how to be post-ironic, lofe

235
Serious / What the UK Supreme Court got wrong in the Brexit ruling
« on: January 25, 2017, 09:26:47 AM »
The Spectator:

Quote
The Supreme Court has today rejected the Government’s appeal from the High Court judgment by a majority of eight justices to three.  The decision means that a new Act of Parliament will now be required before the Government may lawfully trigger Article 50.  However, the Court has also unanimously dismissed the devolution challenges, which argued that the consent of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was a constitutional precondition to Brexit.

The judgment is obviously important, but perhaps less important than once assumed.  The litigation was launched immediately after the referendum.  While it was framed as an attempt to vindicate parliamentary sovereignty, the point of the litigation has always seemed to be to frustrate implementation of the referendum result, by delaying the process and giving MPs and Lords a chance to obstruct it.

The political subtext of the litigation was not a reason for the courts to turn the claim away.  The litigation raised an arguable point of law, but a point of law that most constitutional lawyers initially thought was ambitious at best or hopeless at worst.  It was a surprise when the claim succeeded in the High Court.  That judgment has since been subjected to robust legal and scholarly criticism, as well as giving rise to unwarranted personal attacks on the judges.

The Supreme Court should have allowed the Government’s appeal.  The High Court mishandled the relevant law, partly because the Government did not argue its case as well as it could have.  But the Supreme Court has much less excuse for going wrong.  It had the time and opportunity to consider the flaws in the High Court’s reasoning and the advantage of much better legal argument from the Government. 

The central question in the appeal was how to understand the European Communities Act 1972.  Like the High Court, the majority in the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 1972 Act, concluding that Parliament in 1972 did not envisage UK membership of the EU (then the EEC) being set aside by the executive alone, without specific parliamentary authorisation.

An important premise for this reading of the Act was the majority’s view that the Act made European law in some way a direct source of law in the UK, the bringing to an end of which would be a major constitutional change requiring express legislative authorisation.

Here the dissent is more persuasive.  Lord Reed, with whom Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes agreed (although each wrote a short judgement of their own), pointed out that EU law has effect only on the terms provided for in the 1972 Act, as the Supreme Court has made clear several times before and as the European Union Act 2011 also reiterates.

The majority conceded that the content of EU law in force in the UK changes from time to time, without any need for a new Act of Parliament.  That is, the prerogative is often lawfully used, in engaging with the EU institutions, to vary the content of resulting legal rights in the UK.  Variation in this way was in accord with the terms of the 1972 Act, which refer to obligations under the Treaties as they stand “from time to time”.  However, the majority insisted that withdrawal from the Treaties was different in kind and that the Act impliedly forbade this further step.

Lord Reed again shows how unreal this is.  In a painstaking analysis of the context of the 1972 Act and the way in which the UK came to be a member of the EEC – by way of the exercise of the prerogative to enter into the Treaties – he makes clear that Parliament did not at all intend to limit the Crown’s continuing powers in relation to foreign affairs.  Rather, it took them for granted.  The majority draws an implication from the Act, Lord Reed concludes, without foundation.

No one in the litigation questions parliamentary sovereignty and indeed one silver lining of the majority’s decision is its clear affirmation of this fundamental principle.  The dissenting judges, agreeing with the Government and with many eminent constitutional lawyers, conclude that the use of the prerogative in no way contradicts or displaces any statute.  But there are real constitutional disagreements in play between majority and minority.

The majority judgment makes a nod towards the importance of the prerogative in general but is dismissive of the significance of parliamentary accountability in particular.  It is true that the Government’s accountability to Parliament is never a reason to expand prerogative power.  But it may be highly relevant to understanding the propriety of a long-standing power, and hence a reason to be slow to conclude, in reading the 1972 legislation, that it has been set aside.

Lord Reed strongly implies, near the end of his judgment, that the majority has overlooked the constitutional importance of ministerial accountability to Parliament, that it has legalised a political issue, which is neither constitutionally appropriate nor wise.  Likewise, Lord Carnwath notes that affirming parliamentary sovereignty is not a reason to overlook parliamentary accountability. 

This legal claim should never have succeeded.  The majority judgment makes some important mistakes in its handling of the relevant constitutional principles and the legal materials.  It is unlikely to delay or obstruct Brexit if, as seems likely, the Commons and Lords support new legislation. The wider significance of the judgment – its potential to encourage other legal challenges to the use of the prerogative – remains to be seen.

But it is the Court’s unanimous dismissal of the devolution challenges that is more immediately significant for it avoids giving legal blessing to the arguments of the devolved administrations.  Those arguments can still be made in the political arena but, as the majority rightly says, judges are neither the parents nor the guardians of constitutional convention.

Richard Ekins is Head of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project, and Tutorial Fellow in Law at St John’s College, University of Oxford.

236
Serious / Re: Live: Brexit Supreme Court Ruling
« on: January 24, 2017, 07:51:25 AM »
a smoother transition is much more preferable to a slamming of the brakes.
fuck off

we're had enough of faggots like you talking down GREAT britain

237
Serious / Re: Live: Brexit Supreme Court Ruling
« on: January 24, 2017, 07:25:10 AM »
This is good. This is why I voted Leave.

238
Serious / Re: Some Photos from Yesterdays Protests
« on: January 22, 2017, 09:38:11 AM »
I know of smashed stuff from Friday, but nothing Saturday. DC police even reported 0 arrests.
Fair enough, I don't remember which day it was.

239
Serious / Re: Some Photos from Yesterdays Protests
« on: January 22, 2017, 09:35:29 AM »
They were largely peaceful gatherings.

There was some smashed corporate property.

Judging by the clothes/tactics/flags, it was black-bloc anarchists who inserted themselves into the protests.

240
The Flood / Re: post ket musicc
« on: January 20, 2017, 08:59:40 PM »
fuck off

Pages: 1 ... 678 910 ... 502