ImJamal

The majority of the voters was on his side. 52.24% voted yes and there was a 79.42% voter turn out. A huge number of Californians agreed with him at the time. This is quite a bit different than segregation today since acceptance of gay marriage was quite a bit lower and it was a newer issue than segregation.

I don't think you are listening to yourself. You are literally saying that standing on the side of the road quietly and not impeding anybody is harassment.

If you think that is harassment then this is hopeless. Have a good day.

The conversation was clearly about more modern electronics since I was talking about rare earth minerals which were not used in the devices you are talking about.

You are able to drill and burn oil along with transmit the electricity without technology that requires rare earth minerals which are the electronics I was referring to.

If Apple did not sell iPhones to Chinese consumers the Chinese government wouldn't make Apple provide a different icloud. They made that choice, not by manufacturing in China, but by selling there.

I don't care if it is against the law. The conversation was about free speech. I'll even give you that she was protesting. All that does is proves my point. If you are not allowed to protest quietly while not impeding anybody then you do not have free speech.

Second, it clearly wasn't against the law because they dropped the charges and gave her a settlement.

Third, just because something is against the law doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to say it. The law does not dictate morality.

If the parliament passed a law saying you cannot criticize them, would you say well it is the law and as such it isn't a violation of free speech? Would you call somebody doing that a criminal?

Fourth, the police literally said "You’ve said you’ve been engaging in prayer, which is the offense.". Meaning the offense was literally her thinking. If you are not allowed to have wrong think then there is clearly thought crimes.

They could manufacture them in China, but not sell the phones there?

First, she was not, at the time of arrest, holding a prayer vigil. She was by herself.

Second, if it was a legitimate arrest why was she was paid out by the government for a settlement?

Also, this has happened to multiple people who haven't organized prayer vigils in the past, not that it would matter if they had.

> Don't whitewash this shit. You know full well what we're talking about is specifically going to a place that you know you're not allowed to be in, doing a protest you're not allowed to do. Playing with the line is still taking the piss and the UK believe in the spirit of the law to avoid all this mucking about with the specification. Otherwise I can block traffic all day and make up some bullshit excuse as to how I'm somehow innocent. These are feeble excuses that Palestine in Action would be proud of.

I don't think you know what happened. At least one case was a person standing quietly outside on a public sidewalk while not impeding traffic or people walking.

At best you can say it is loitering.

It is not like their HQ is in China. They chose to enter the Chinese market.

I'm not saying they are currently sovereign, only that they could be if necessary.

We had electricity from coal and oil prior to electronics... Or do you think we had electronics in 1900?

Why do you people argue so incessantly when you clearly don't know what you're talking about?

The US, Canada, Russia and many other countries could be sovereign with oil and coal.

China, Brazil, Russia and other countries have a lot of rare earth minerals to build electronics for turbines and other sources of power.

Australia, Canada, Russia and other countries have a decent amount of uranium.

So, yes, some countries meet the definition of energy sovereignty.

> Your existing drills and pumps might work long enough for you to stand up a domestic drill manufacturing industry.

> Same for solar, except that panels and batteries operate for way longer than drills and pumps.

This is not about factories, but raw material as I said in a previous comment that you responded to. Most countries don't have uranium. A lot of countries do not have rare earth minerals for electronic chips.

> If no one is sovereign then sovereignty is meaningless. Who cares

The person I was originally responding to did and was claiming that you could achieve sovereignty with renewables.

The person I was responding to made the claim that renewables makes a country sovereign. I am saying it doesn't and it seems like you agree so I don't understand your point.

I never made the claim that nuclear would make a country sovereign. Only a small number of countries could have sovereignty with nuclear.

Every source of power has pros and cons. They all have risks and benefits.

If there is a push to do a specific clean energy I think we should go for it regardless of the cost. If you think the climate issue is going to be a very severe issue then you should take every option at our disposal and encourage every push for an alternative to fossil fuels. Since you are refusing this, then I assume you don't think it is severe.

Large countries may be able to hedge against downtime, but smaller countries can't. Also, like I said, we don't really know the impact of all of this which is why we should diversify as much as possible. One of those diversifications should be nuclear as well as solar, wind, and hydro.

They don't need to make things themselves, they just need to have the capability to make it themselves to be sovereign.

If you get cut off from global oil trade while having oil in the ground but no ability to make drills, what use is the oil? If you want sovereignty then it is critical to have the ability to make drills, tankers, etc in your country if you rely on oil.

This is no different than solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc when it comes to renewables. If you don't care about sovereignty then great, you are good to go. If you do, then you need to be able to handle everything yourself otherwise you are always going to be reliant on other countries.

> What chips are you talking about?

Electronic chips in wind turbines, hydro stations, etc.. Believe it or not but all of these use chips...

> Again, by your definition, almost no country is "sovereign" for anything. Not fossil fuels, not PV and renewables, and certainly not nuclear. It's an impossible standard but only renewables get held to it.

I am not holding renewables to it. The person I was responding to made the erroneous claim that you would be sovereign with renewables. "Renewables are cheap now and they also solve the sovereignty issue." I am just pointing out that most countries wouldn't actually have sovereignty and would still be reliant on other countries.

I am the one holding the consistent standard since I believe most countries wouldn't be sovereign regardless of them using fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.

I am not talking about manufacturing but the resources necessary to build them.

I'm not talking about manufacturing. I am talking about raw materials for chips, battery cells, etc. You can't be sovereign if you have the capability to build something but don't have the resources to build it

Sure, but when your existing ones break or you need more you can have issues.

Many crimes are committed by repeat offenders so it would eliminate a decent chunk of crime. Over 60% of violent criminals in the US get rearrested for another crime. Almost 40% of nonviolent criminals get rearrested for another crime.

If they stop committing crimes either because they are still in jail or dead, the crime rate would absolutely drop.

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-am...

I just don't get people saying how terrible climate change is going to be for the world and then refuses to support nuclear.

If climate change is such a critical problem, then let's try everything to get this solved even if it costs more to do it. If you are only willing to do some solutions because it is cheaper then I don't believe you when you say it is important to solve.

And frankly, we don't know the full impact of climate change, so having as many alternatives as possible just makes sense. Hydro can be impacted by droughts which will be more common. Solar may be impacted if there are increased storms. Wind may be impacted due to stilling (slowing of wind due to an increase in co2).

Why not throw nuclear into the mix to ensure we do not run out of power?

Many countries do not have the raw materials to build solar, wind turbines, and batteries so it doesn't solve the sovereignty issue.

The definition of native is "Being such by birth or origin.". This means that everybody born in the US are native Americans.

Are fires and earthquakes the same?

Well the girls in the school that the US bombed were innocent.

I haven't looked much into the Canadian levels, but I assume they are similar to the US. Some stats might not be quite right, but...

Something like .15% of the US population skydive a year. Almost none of them die.

I've seen estimates that over 5% of the US population gamble at a "problem" level and about 0.5% to 1% are outright addicted. About 20% of those addicted have a suicide attempt.

Americans who skydive in the US will be about the same number of Americans who attempt suicide due to gambling issues. Skydiving is quite safe so the death rate is so minimal.

The scale between the two is just so different.

Watching a TV show or a movie that you saw a commercial for isn't going to bankrupt you and cause you to lose your house.

Thanks for giving me an article of something I know about and think is terrible. That unfortunately wasn't the comparison and if it was I wouldn't have made my comment. The comparison was with removing citizenship.

Quite a few. If that was the comparison I wouldn't have mentioned anything because it would be a similar thing. Comparing murder with removing citizenship is not the same thing. Israel murdering journalists is, but not related to the conversation.