About Nordstream, the swedish prosecutor investigating it has declared the investigation solely under swedish jurisdiction despite the blast sites not being in our territorial waters (they are in our economic zone though) and that foreign participation is not allowed.
That in itself is weird, since the prosecutor does not have jurisdiction outside swedish territory. Also, Gazprom who owns 51% of the pipeline has been explicitly fobidden from participating in the investigation.
The language used from the secret police and the prosecutor's office also makes it clear that the interim governement (the new cabinet is not yet finalised - there's no set limit until it must be either) is the one who's leaned on the police and prosecutors to act like this, itself a violation of procedure and praxis, not to mention possibly in violation of swedish constitutional law.
Yet our media too are quiet; not even traditional liberals or the people usually making noices about separation of political parties, state, and executory branches can be heard or seen - not even our "alternativ" media is talking about it.
Something is very wrong here, and to me it brings to mind the massive cover up of the sinking of the 'Estonia' in the early 1990s. It wasn't until recently finnish and baltic divers could show cinclusive pictures taken of the hull's ruptures it was proven that the ship was intentionally sunk. Who by is unknown as the swedish Socialist Democrats have classified as much as they can, and are blocking any attempt to uncover any leads. (The party was highly involved in smuggling weapons and high-tech equipment to the GDR in the 1970s and 1980s, using civilian ferrys as cover and to protect the cargo.)
So I'd say our major political part, at least parts thereof, are involved in helping to cover this up by way of being allowed by the greater powers to handle the "investigation" - I mean, why isn't Denmark, Germany and the US protesting Sweden shutting them out of investigating the sabotage?
Marriage is a contract, it HAS to be registered with the State, or the contract has no standing in society, otherwise, how will wealth or children be parsed up or indebted, depending on the situation?
If a large enough amount of people are actually dumb and horny enough to enter into a contract with multiple persons, the long-term result will probably be the dissolution of all binary financial bonds between marital parties, meaning you and your partners will simply be shareholders in a relationship, and all rental and purchases of large, big ticket items, such as housing, RVs, exotic cars, all dependent on the signer, the rest of the marriage shareholders don't mean squat. Good luck getting a cosigner for anything, what bank will want to entangle with a 12-person home with 45 liens against them?
There's much to like in this post, but I had to laugh because people told me I was nuts. I had the same reaction when SCOTUS "legalized" gay marriage: "I’ve always thought that it was EXTREMELY strange to say ‘People should be able to marry whoever they love’ but not to extend this to multi-partner relationships." And I'm all for gay marriage, but, no, you can't be inconsistent. You could regulate for age and incest, but among consenting adults, you can't regulate who or how many, not if you're really serious about that particular contract being open to anyone.
Well, best to deal with your post one subject at a time. I'm really surprised Tulsi Gabbard openly acknowledged that the election was stolen, but what operates in her favor in avoiding a hit job is she has been so side-lined in the political arena and perceived as an extremist, and even appears on Tucker Carlson, ergo no problem. However, I'm glad she said it!!!!!!!!!! Others know it, the media, including the left, and many in the republican party, and of cause the democrats know it. They tried their best to remove Trump from office so why would they allow him a second term?
As far as Nord Stream is concerned, if Blinken calls blowing up the pipeline a tremendous opportunity and gives it a thumbs up what difference does it make who did it?
I'm not so sure that Joe Biden, whom I consider a neocon, along with the likes of Blinken, Nuland, Rice, neocons that have assigned roles in his administration, as well as those neocons that abandoned the republicans during the Trump years and slipped on over to the democrats side. and all pushed an agenda of ousting Trump. I see them as dangerous, and the whole situation is of great concern. I very much see a nuclear war as a possibility. The neocons pushed a seven war agenda in the Middle East and said they only needed a new Pearl Harbor to carry it out. They got that on 9/11, how convenient. As far as those marriages with multiple spouses, well, I don't find it ichy, but the very thought of it gives me a terrible headache.
The libertarian part of me agrees that government should stay out of marriage/relationship issues.
But the cynical part of me knows that polygamy is a cultural value in non-Western cultures. I have seen enough of efforts to cancel Western Civilization; this feels like another step down that road.
I talked at a gathering of people who for the most part are in the "waaaaay out there" section of sexuality and asked if polyamorous relationships could extend to household appliances. The audience thought it was a serious philosophical question.
I’ve actually worried about Tulsi...her truth is hugely consequential. I wonder when her Army Reserve unit gets called up for their annual stint.......ugh.
I know several Muslims in polygamous relationships here in the US. They don't register their marriages with the state. I agree as a libertarian that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. It should be contractual between the parties and divorce should be handled per the pre-nuptial contract.
I wouldn't care about the multipartner-union decision if I didn't feel like we've now been strapped into a seat on the train to the land of polygamous marriage being a constitutional right.
Tulsi Gabbard left the Democrat party
Today = 4, 5, 7, and 9. A little more freaked out than usual.
About Nordstream, the swedish prosecutor investigating it has declared the investigation solely under swedish jurisdiction despite the blast sites not being in our territorial waters (they are in our economic zone though) and that foreign participation is not allowed.
That in itself is weird, since the prosecutor does not have jurisdiction outside swedish territory. Also, Gazprom who owns 51% of the pipeline has been explicitly fobidden from participating in the investigation.
The language used from the secret police and the prosecutor's office also makes it clear that the interim governement (the new cabinet is not yet finalised - there's no set limit until it must be either) is the one who's leaned on the police and prosecutors to act like this, itself a violation of procedure and praxis, not to mention possibly in violation of swedish constitutional law.
Yet our media too are quiet; not even traditional liberals or the people usually making noices about separation of political parties, state, and executory branches can be heard or seen - not even our "alternativ" media is talking about it.
Something is very wrong here, and to me it brings to mind the massive cover up of the sinking of the 'Estonia' in the early 1990s. It wasn't until recently finnish and baltic divers could show cinclusive pictures taken of the hull's ruptures it was proven that the ship was intentionally sunk. Who by is unknown as the swedish Socialist Democrats have classified as much as they can, and are blocking any attempt to uncover any leads. (The party was highly involved in smuggling weapons and high-tech equipment to the GDR in the 1970s and 1980s, using civilian ferrys as cover and to protect the cargo.)
So I'd say our major political part, at least parts thereof, are involved in helping to cover this up by way of being allowed by the greater powers to handle the "investigation" - I mean, why isn't Denmark, Germany and the US protesting Sweden shutting them out of investigating the sabotage?
Edit: forgot to pick a number. I'm a 3 most days.
Marriage is a contract, it HAS to be registered with the State, or the contract has no standing in society, otherwise, how will wealth or children be parsed up or indebted, depending on the situation?
If a large enough amount of people are actually dumb and horny enough to enter into a contract with multiple persons, the long-term result will probably be the dissolution of all binary financial bonds between marital parties, meaning you and your partners will simply be shareholders in a relationship, and all rental and purchases of large, big ticket items, such as housing, RVs, exotic cars, all dependent on the signer, the rest of the marriage shareholders don't mean squat. Good luck getting a cosigner for anything, what bank will want to entangle with a 12-person home with 45 liens against them?
Kids today.
Don't trust Gabbard...the white streak in her hair reminds me of Cruella.
No to poly marriage. No to divorce; marriages need expiration dates that can be renewed by both parties, if desired.
#9 staying cool, calm and collected throughout the last 2-1/2 years.
Didn’t Twitter uncancel the Surgeon General of Florida’s tweet?
There's much to like in this post, but I had to laugh because people told me I was nuts. I had the same reaction when SCOTUS "legalized" gay marriage: "I’ve always thought that it was EXTREMELY strange to say ‘People should be able to marry whoever they love’ but not to extend this to multi-partner relationships." And I'm all for gay marriage, but, no, you can't be inconsistent. You could regulate for age and incest, but among consenting adults, you can't regulate who or how many, not if you're really serious about that particular contract being open to anyone.
Well, best to deal with your post one subject at a time. I'm really surprised Tulsi Gabbard openly acknowledged that the election was stolen, but what operates in her favor in avoiding a hit job is she has been so side-lined in the political arena and perceived as an extremist, and even appears on Tucker Carlson, ergo no problem. However, I'm glad she said it!!!!!!!!!! Others know it, the media, including the left, and many in the republican party, and of cause the democrats know it. They tried their best to remove Trump from office so why would they allow him a second term?
As far as Nord Stream is concerned, if Blinken calls blowing up the pipeline a tremendous opportunity and gives it a thumbs up what difference does it make who did it?
I'm not so sure that Joe Biden, whom I consider a neocon, along with the likes of Blinken, Nuland, Rice, neocons that have assigned roles in his administration, as well as those neocons that abandoned the republicans during the Trump years and slipped on over to the democrats side. and all pushed an agenda of ousting Trump. I see them as dangerous, and the whole situation is of great concern. I very much see a nuclear war as a possibility. The neocons pushed a seven war agenda in the Middle East and said they only needed a new Pearl Harbor to carry it out. They got that on 9/11, how convenient. As far as those marriages with multiple spouses, well, I don't find it ichy, but the very thought of it gives me a terrible headache.
SimCom was bored today and wanted to ask his readers to identify themselves as "libertarian" or "conservative" without using the words.
I'm a 7. Thanks for asking 🙀
I feel #4 and #8.
The libertarian part of me agrees that government should stay out of marriage/relationship issues.
But the cynical part of me knows that polygamy is a cultural value in non-Western cultures. I have seen enough of efforts to cancel Western Civilization; this feels like another step down that road.
I talked at a gathering of people who for the most part are in the "waaaaay out there" section of sexuality and asked if polyamorous relationships could extend to household appliances. The audience thought it was a serious philosophical question.
I’ve actually worried about Tulsi...her truth is hugely consequential. I wonder when her Army Reserve unit gets called up for their annual stint.......ugh.
I know several Muslims in polygamous relationships here in the US. They don't register their marriages with the state. I agree as a libertarian that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. It should be contractual between the parties and divorce should be handled per the pre-nuptial contract.
I wouldn't care about the multipartner-union decision if I didn't feel like we've now been strapped into a seat on the train to the land of polygamous marriage being a constitutional right.