I don't see any further details, but if the divorce was due to financial difficulty, it may be purely for financial reasons (i.e. she didn't leave him, just divorced he so they can keep some stuff.)
It absolutely is. I won't say the philosophy of the Federation is without flaws, but it presents strong arguments for the effectiveness of its system of government,. In one of my favorites, one of the characters succinctly disproves the labor theory of value (the underpinning of all Marxist economic theory) with a simple analogy. I won't post it here because I feel like you should read the book and it's enhanced by the context, but I'm sure you can look it up online if you really want to.
Half-KIA and I think TIA were in the actual first group (though it's possible that I simply wasn't aware of any before Gamergate started.) Mods/admins were pissed that their communities didn't like an insignificant slut sleeping with game journalists (while in a relationship) for positive coverage of her 'game' and wanted to discuss it. So they banned discussion, deleted entire threads worth of comments (we're talking tens to hundreds of thousands of comments), and then banned people that participated in communities that allowed discussion of what was (in the grand scheme of things) relatively minor journalistic disintegrity.
The movie version of Starship Troopers is a pretty good example. I don't know what Heinlen's (author) opinion on the government and military system of the Federation is, but Verhoven (director) was openly disdainful of the book, admitted he didn't even finish reading it, and said he made the movie as an anti-fascist parody. He did such a bad job that he made a pretty decent movie that made the Federation look awesome.
Scottish
Decolonizing
There's only one acceptable response to this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqgkZDbe4Xk
I got one a couple months back and messed with it a bit, but had some issues with even the phone app. Oddly enough, I expect it would work better as a handheld computer than a phone in its current state.
I'm going to ask this just because I haven't seen this angle taken before, and it's not really relevant to whether we should be forcing experimental medical treatments on the entire population (we absolutely shouldn't, in case you're wondering). Does anyone know the prevalence of myocarditis/enlarged hearts in this age group, and whether it's possible that they're pre-existing conditions in these cases, and are either exacerbated or discovered due to the jab? Because to me, even for someone that's mildly unhealthy, like this kid clearly was from his photo, three days seems like an awful short time for a single injection to be killing a teenager.
Now even if the Kung Flu shot isn't causing the myocarditis or the deaths, we should still be exercising caution with it (which we clearly aren't if something like 40% of the US population has it ~1 year after development started on it,) We need to take a hard look at exactly why so many people in unusual age groups are dying with an enlarged heart, and not assuming out of hand that it is/isn't the shot.
Do they have gay donkey shows? Because there's no way John Flynt is conning anyone into believing they're a woman if they haven't gone through the decade+ of indoctrination most people in the west do.
Has. There's another one ongoing over a satanist or tranny or something.
I don't think you need a federal license to manufacture ammo (reloading is a thing). You may need a federal license to manufacture ammo as a business, and you definitely do to manufacture firearms as a business (which are both unconstitutional infringements) but I've definitely heard of people selling ammo they manufactured/assembled/reloaded themselves.
I like that 'poison pill' though...
[...] the EU considers itself the equivalent of the US federal government, specifically in that any time there is a conflict between national (state) and EU (federal) law, EU law takes precedent.
[...] you guys are going to have to start shooting very soon, since they’re not about to just let you be free again.
The EU isn't the US federal government though. The last time someone tried to secede from the EU, they just tried to punish them economically (unlike the last time someone tried to secede from the US. We fought a whole war over that and irrevocably changed the face of our government.)
It’s like MS gave up and just made gaming free.
Which we could afford if we didn't have a welfare state annually dumping billions down a hole.
Don't you have to get a BS or a limited selection of majors outside the sciences to be eligible for OCS?
I don't think I've seen an instance of gingercide/blackwashing in a cartoon before, so I think this one is particularly egregious, especially since he clearly has a white dude's features.
History has proved time and again that conservatism is just progressivism with a speed limit. Conservatives never knew how to stop people like Harry.
You know, I imagine it wasn't long ago that a member of the British Royal Family coming over here and telling us how to run our government/criticizing our founding principles would have been met with deportation (at the least.) I imagine it wasn't much longer ago than that when it would have been met with lynching.
Since we apparently agree on the core of this, I'll just address the couple points on which we disagree.
But the arbiter of what is in accordance with the Constitution is not the individual officer. That would be anarchy (and I agree that you already have that in practice, because the last year has not made your country look good), and it's also even more undemocratic than the current system.
Each person is individually responsible for their own actions. If one believes they have been given an order in violation of some higher law/principle, they must choose which law they violate, and will face consequences in either case.
If we're on valid legal defenses: "I believed that law is unjust" most certainly is not a valid legal defense.
But "I believed the law was unconstitutional." is (provided you can get at least one judge/judiciary to agree with you.) I'll try and find the court ruling for this, but there is legal precedent for ignoring unconstitutional laws.
The right of revolution exists not when there laws that you consider unjust (that will be true in every country, anywhere), but when peaceful means of changing that are closed off to you. Imagine if 40% of a country believes that some laws are 'unjust' and a violent attempt to overthrow the popular government is therefore justified. That's madness, right?
First, this completely misses/ignores what I said in in the post-scriptum. Second, there are non-violent means of dissolving political ties (though history shows that violent means are far more likely.) Third, it ignores the reality of the situation in America today.
If there are fundamental disagreements on core principles within a society (whether that be between the people and the law, or the people amongst themselves) it is necessary and (in my opinion) inevitable that a new government be formed (whether that 'new' government is an alteration of the existing one, or the formation of an entirely separate one alongside or to replace the existing one, will depend on the nature of the disagreement.)
Originally America was founded as a confederation, with an almost non-existent central government. Even after the adoption of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), the US was a collection of separate, independent, sovereign States who were free to govern affairs within their own borders as they chose. Were we still organized this way I doubt that formation of a new government would be necessary, as the separate States would be able to accommodate the majority of views held by the citizens of the Union.
Today, America is ruled by a strong central government that regularly enforces its will on the states. There exist irreconcilable differences in core beliefs between multiple significant groups within her borders. Something like 25-50 percent of the population believes the most recent election/government to be fraudulent, and has no reason to believe this fraud will be overturned, or prevented in the future.
America needs a new government (and probably more than one, unless some portion of the population no longer lives here) as the existing one is failing her people. The only other option is giving America a new people, and that option without question justifies violent revolution.
In America we are already functioning with a kind of anarchy/lawlessness due to selective enforcement of existing law at all levels; from individual officers up to the 'President', from municipal resolutions up to our very Constitution. The ATF is virtually entirely built on laws in direct contradiction to our Constitution. So if an individual officer is given an order (direct or standing) in contradiction to the Constitution, they should decide (individually, if necessary, but hopefully as a force) to ignore/reject that order (unless you believe that "I was just following orders" is a valid legal defense.)
Now, all that has only touched on written law, but virtually everyone is going to agree that there are certain principles which supersede written laws. In a well functioning society, everyone broadly agrees on what these principles are and they either form the basis for the written laws, or the written laws aren't needed because people follow the same core principles. But in a poorly functioning society (virtually every modern western nation) written laws exist as an attempt to enforce some homogeneity, based on (at best) 'compromise' core principles, or (more often) the core principles of the group holding the most power, or (even worse) don't exist at all/aren't enforced and everything is up to the whims of the group with the most power.
So to actually answer your question, at a functional level, society determines which laws are 'unjust', based on its core principles. In America those core principles were codified in our Constitution and other founding documents, along with commentaries from the authors and signatories of those founding documents. Unfortunately, those core principles are no longer held in common by either the government or the people, and thus are regular ignored to implement and enforce unjust laws.
(I could give an argument for inherent/natural/divine law, but from a practical perspective these either exist as the core principles on which a society is founded, or are enforced without any input from society, so I didn't feel it was worth covering when there are so many others which have already covered these concepts in more detail.)
EDIT: Also, as a further post-scriptum, the founders also gave the solution to society disagreeing on core principles, but as yet there doesn't appear to be a willingness to go down that path.
What about a Mac?
Fucking Detroit has a lower violent crime rate than London.
Black people have benefitted more from American slavery than almost any other group (just look at most of Africa if you don't believe me.)
What are their laws on public nudity? That might actually be somewhat internally consistent, even if it doesn't hold up on it's face.