metalman
Opinionated and vulgar. Cut the bullshit and don't be a bitch.
I weld quite a bit
@me for all things metal and history
If they were fraternal Twins and one was a male, I’d assume the male would be the heir, 7 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
Which is most if not all hierarchical monarchist societies.
2
Same can be said about the entirety of the Balkans 1 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
It's honestly insane how often in the death of one person entire nations can fall. Peaceful succession of power is a rarity throughout most of history
3
Lafayette really bled Red, White, & Blue 4 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
For anyone who's interested in Lafayette Mike Duncan wrote an excellent book called "Hero Of Two Worlds". I would highly recommend as it gives a hell of a summation of his life and his views of politics.
3
Halloweenies! 4 comments
tips #68 1 comments
Now it all makes Sense 2 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
This leaves out several of the other minor nations who fought for various reasons. Which I could go into if requested. Some examples would be Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Belgium, Japan, or even Brazil.
Now it all makes Sense 2 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
Differing schools of thought, most commonly due to country of origin of said historical work, put the emphasis on different countries.
-
For example most of the English speaking world blamed Germany for the war as neither UK and her colonies nor the US would have entered the war if it weren't for German willfull hostility towards neutral nations.
-
In France the war was blamed on Germany for the German government backing the Austria in it's attempts to destroy Serbia.
-
In Russia the war is blamed more on Austria than anyone as if it weren't for the Austrian invasion of Serbia none of it would have happened.
-
As far as I'm aware Germany blames the war on France backing Russia in its claims to defend the Slav peoples.
-
Austria blames Serbia for it's involvement as they believed the Serb government was behind the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
-
Lastly the Ottomans joined the war due to a group of reformists sending warships to first strike a Russian port.
-
Slight Cont.
-
For example most of the English speaking world blamed Germany for the war as neither UK and her colonies nor the US would have entered the war if it weren't for German willfull hostility towards neutral nations.
-
In France the war was blamed on Germany for the German government backing the Austria in it's attempts to destroy Serbia.
-
In Russia the war is blamed more on Austria than anyone as if it weren't for the Austrian invasion of Serbia none of it would have happened.
-
As far as I'm aware Germany blames the war on France backing Russia in its claims to defend the Slav peoples.
-
Austria blames Serbia for it's involvement as they believed the Serb government was behind the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
-
Lastly the Ottomans joined the war due to a group of reformists sending warships to first strike a Russian port.
-
Slight Cont.
Among us among us among us among us among us among us among us Among us among us among us 4 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
sussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussussus
4
Use nothing else but cat-dna 3 comments
I've considered not posting shit, honest 8 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
Imo local parishes and smaller church groups should remain exempt to most forms of taxation but these megachurches with pseudo gym membership type donations, that have concession stands, or sell merchandise should (again imo) be taxed. They're more business than church.
2
I've considered not posting shit, honest 8 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
I was unaware of this but it does make sense that since the church and it's parishioners are using public roadways and/or services they should pay for them. My comment above was directed more in reference to federal taxes as opposed to municipal ones.
I've considered not posting shit, honest 8 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
This is, as far as I understand it, the argument used against taxing churches. As far as the law is concerned (due to the jurisprudential sentiment of the Seperation of Church and State and the founding principle of "No taxation without representation") a church cannot be taxed without being allowed representation.
-
Churches as organizations cannot legally donate, contribute, or otherwise involve themselves in the political process of the US due to their tax exempt status. Can individuals themselves involve themselves in politics? Yes. The individual priest/preacher is taxed via income and sales taxes therefore they get to vote in the electoral process as they wish.
5
-
Churches as organizations cannot legally donate, contribute, or otherwise involve themselves in the political process of the US due to their tax exempt status. Can individuals themselves involve themselves in politics? Yes. The individual priest/preacher is taxed via income and sales taxes therefore they get to vote in the electoral process as they wish.
Now thats an insurrection 24 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
No ones disagreeing with you @xdmaniac. Doing something and being convicted of something are two different things. I believe OJ killed his wife but the prosecutors couldn't prove that he did so he was found innocent. It doesn't matter what I think happened because I won't act upon it. What matters is what the court thinks happens because they have the ability to act upon it.
1
·
Edited 3 years ago
Racial segregation is back on the menu, boys 3 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
Remember young lads and ladies history doesn't repeat itself... but it does rhyme
7
Now thats an insurrection 24 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
I don't name call. Theres 0 reason for it. If at any point in a discussion it turns to insult then the discussion is mute.
1
Now thats an insurrection 24 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
We are in agreeance that law should be enforced and applied concurrently amongst the US the issue is these are 1. Different jurisdictions and 2. The Jan 6 incident was on federal property whereas say Portland was an incident on State property therefore the state of Washington not charging the rioters for their attacking of judicial buildings is solely on the state itself.
1
Now thats an insurrection 24 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
As far as weapons charges go I found thay 40 out of 643 had some form of weapon referenced in their initial charges so if something has changed since then I'm unaware of it. As far as I've read most amount to blunt force weapons such as brass knuckles, chair legs or things of the like obtained from the building, or chemical weapons such as mace or peppers pray. Most of these are charges are in conjunction with charges of assault on police officers.
Now thats an insurrection 24 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
I mean the whole point of the rally was "stop the steal". Which was in direct contention with the widely accepted election results. Having set the tone for the rally those who entered under that ideology were making a move to stop the final compiling of the states' election results. This is inherently political and against the common practices of the US political system. The people who entered the capitol building that day interrupted the proceedings used by the government to ensure the continuation of the transfer of power from one president to another.
Now thats an insurrection 24 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
Insurrection charges are significantly harder to land as compared to say treason. Treason comes from the use and/or perpetuation of a foreign governments wishes in a way to overthrow the US government. If someone is convicted of treason it means there would need to be evidence of direct foreign interference.
-
Sedition on the other hand is a rebellion against the government or authorities without foreign interference. The issue with obtaining a conviction is proving motive. If the accused is not on recording of saying something along the lines of "hang Mike Pence" then you cannot prove motivation therefore you cannot claim sedition in the courts. The only other option you have is trespassing and weapons charges which they undeniably were doing.
1
·
Edited 3 years ago
-
Sedition on the other hand is a rebellion against the government or authorities without foreign interference. The issue with obtaining a conviction is proving motive. If the accused is not on recording of saying something along the lines of "hang Mike Pence" then you cannot prove motivation therefore you cannot claim sedition in the courts. The only other option you have is trespassing and weapons charges which they undeniably were doing.
Now thats an insurrection 24 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
Innocent until proven guilty is the primary facet of US judicial system. So if you aren't convicted of a crime then yes you're automatically innocent. That is the right afforded to all peoples within the US proper. The adverse of this would be guilty until proven innocent (obviously) which at the time of the founding of the US was the most prevalent form of judicial practice in England. Whether they committed an illegal act is irrelevant if it cannot be proven in court that the unlawful act occurred. This is where double jeopardy comes in and the thread above. (Cont.)
3
Now thats an insurrection 24 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
The capital riot was an insurrection by definition: a violent uprising against an authority or government. Which is exactly what happened. Rioters forcefully entered the capitol building and assaulted various police officers and capitol personel in the process in an effort to interfere in the counting of the balots.
-
"not a single person was charged with Insurrection" correct because in law it is significantly harder to convict someone on sedition/insurrection due to first amendment protections on hyperbole. That being said prosecutors will always go for whatever will get them a conviction so 90% of charges are going to be trespassing, disorderly conduct, or weapons charges which carry the same if not similar prison/fines charges as a sedition. Why would a prosecutor levy charges against someone for a crime that is harder to prove due to first amendment restrictions over a guaranteed conviction in one of the above listed charges that yield the same punishments in the end.
1
-
"not a single person was charged with Insurrection" correct because in law it is significantly harder to convict someone on sedition/insurrection due to first amendment protections on hyperbole. That being said prosecutors will always go for whatever will get them a conviction so 90% of charges are going to be trespassing, disorderly conduct, or weapons charges which carry the same if not similar prison/fines charges as a sedition. Why would a prosecutor levy charges against someone for a crime that is harder to prove due to first amendment restrictions over a guaranteed conviction in one of the above listed charges that yield the same punishments in the end.
A hit and a miss 8 comments
metalman
· 3 years ago
Iirc the windows phone wasn't bad but it wasn't good either so no one had any incentive to switch from IPhone or the equivalent Android to it.
