BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Macbeth wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

v0v falklanders literally don't want to be argentinian. it's hypocritical if you consider N.Ire in the same argument, but if we completely ignore the entire everything of that conflict, falklands position and resources are too important to negotiate away, esp when the north sea fields will be dry soonish, and yeh we don't have functioning carriers atm.

The resources you mentioned are the exact reason why I side with the Argentinians on this. If the British (whatever companies get the contract, you know what I mean) put rigs in the area and start to pump oil, the risk to the Argentinians would far far out way the risk to the British. The British government would be taking all the profit to hold up the social services in their country and the Argentinians are one blown rig away from losing their tourism and fishing industries.

As for the will of the Falklanders- I understand they don't want to be a part but the island is way out of the British geographical range and the people on the island aren't native... I think you can understand how some people view that.

My own foreign policy views/positions are fine with the status quo in theory but it's hard to justify the British position here.

the people on the island are native as of 1830ish or so, so that's not really a point we can talk about. i'm not pro-britain in general so i'm just landing some facts. and wrt to the resources, as per any influential maritime agreement, that sea is GB, ergo the oil is GB. i do get your point that we only really care because well, it's oil and we don't have many regions left with it in abundance, but aside from that 1) we've held it for nearly 200yrs, 2) argentina already tried, and were found quite lacking and 3)the islanders do not want to be argentinian. the last point is more hypocritical than the oil considering the other countries GB (and by this we really mean england) occupy

you also have to consider though, the last massive conservative government made it quite clear, if they will lose the rest of Ireland, India, and the rest, they will definitely not lose the falklands. now following on from that, Cameron is the nearest conservative leader since to carry the image of thatcher

this is pretty rambling, havn't done an essay in a good year or so now but yeh

Spark wrote:

I'd hazard that there'd be many more openings for CS/maths majors as well. Especially the latter.

I just realized the numbers are from '09. Our economy was still falling off a cliff until midyear. Christ knows what those charts look like in the this stable new economy of ours.

agree

FatherTed wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

v0v falklanders literally don't want to be argentinian. it's hypocritical if you consider N.Ire in the same argument, but if we completely ignore the entire everything of that conflict, falklands position and resources are too important to negotiate away, esp when the north sea fields will be dry soonish, and yeh we don't have functioning carriers atm.

The resources you mentioned are the exact reason why I side with the Argentinians on this. If the British (whatever companies get the contract, you know what I mean) put rigs in the area and start to pump oil, the risk to the Argentinians would far far out way the risk to the British. The British government would be taking all the profit to hold up the social services in their country and the Argentinians are one blown rig away from losing their tourism and fishing industries.

As for the will of the Falklanders- I understand they don't want to be a part but the island is way out of the British geographical range and the people on the island aren't native... I think you can understand how some people view that.

My own foreign policy views/positions are fine with the status quo in theory but it's hard to justify the British position here.

the people on the island are native as of 1830ish or so, so that's not really a point we can talk about. i'm not pro-britain in general so i'm just landing some facts. and wrt to the resources, as per any influential maritime agreement, that sea is GB, ergo the oil is GB. i do get your point that we only really care because well, it's oil and we don't have many regions left with it in abundance, but aside from that 1) we've held it for nearly 200yrs, 2) argentina already tried, and were found quite lacking and 3)the islanders do not want to be argentinian. the last point is more hypocritical than the oil considering the other countries GB (and by this we really mean england) occupy

you also have to consider though, the last massive conservative government made it quite clear, if they will lose the rest of Ireland, India, and the rest, they will definitely not lose the falklands. now following on from that, Cameron is the nearest conservative leader since to carry the image of thatcher

this is pretty rambling, havn't done an essay in a good year or so now but yeh

I'm fairly certain Argentina was independent from Spain before 1800. At that time the Falklands would still be in Spanish control? If that's the case I can see how they have a claim to it as part of the remnants of the Spanish Empire. But it's not something I'll argue or I think valid lest your country still has a case for war against us since Britain founded us.

My point about the oil was that under international law the oil is in fact yours. It's just a bit dickish to make another country carry all the risk while you guys reap all the benefits. My hypocrisy point was more to the fact that if the U.S. did the same to other countries (like we undoubtedly do) there would be many people in your state going off about America being an empire and so on. 

The vibe I get (this being an American looking in) is that it is an issue of national pride over there. As you said the whole Conservative-Thatcher thing and how your second point is constantly invoked online whenever someone mentions the moral dubiousness of the whole thing.

On an interestingly ironic side note, your people's homeland is still consider occupied by the British and my people's homeland still a colony of the Americans and here we are debating the perspectives of both. You gotta find that funny.

Looked it up. 1818. Still within the time frame. Though cutting it pretty close.

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-02-10 19:01:00)

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I like how Rick Santorum thinks he knows better than the Pentagon with regards to women in combat roles yet he's never even served in the military.

a woman can't be engaged in combat while also being barefoot in a kitchen and perpetually pregnant.  it's just contrary to nature.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement late on Friday declaring that the small alteration President Barack Obama had announced earlier in the day to a regulation that would force all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives--including those that cause abortion--is 'unacceptable" because, among other things, it does not protect the freedom-of-conscience rights of secular for-profit employers, or secular non-profit employers, or religious insurers, or self-insured religious employers, or individual Americans.

The alteration President Obama described Friday says merely that insurance companies providing coverage to employees of religious institutions that object to sterilization, contraception or abortifacients will have to provide free coverage for these things to the employees rather than explicitly include them among the benefits covered by the premiums charged to the religious employer.

For fucks sake take your fake little victory* and move on child molesters.



*that healthcare rule they were upset about is already law in 28 states.

Macbeth wrote:

For fucks sake take your fake little victory* and move on child molesters.



*that healthcare rule they were upset about is already law in 28 states.

Isn't this a victory for Obama?

Those who wanted coverage, are now covered by the insurance company directly.

The Repubs were kicking and screaming about whether abortion is right or wrong, (guess what they think?), meanwhile Obama has completely circumvented the issue and been able to provide the coverage to women regardless of who their employer is.

He didn't placate them at all. They didn't want to provide contraceptives to employees for religious reasons. They didn't want the access available.

Obama went over their heads and made the insurance company provide the cover without consent, approval or even knowledge from the employer.

How is that folding to the small interest groups?

oh so it's just a wah wah taxes stance from you. ok

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

oh so it's just a wah wah taxes stance from you. ok

So you're cool with people whining and forcing you to pay a bigger share? He forced the insurance companies to provide coverage, ok, do you think the insurance companies will take the hit or do you think they'll pass off the costs to the rest of us? So now my insurance premiums will go up because he's a pussy.

who's whining?

you just picture those on welfare as lazy and screaming for hand outs. if you honestly still believe that bs I suggest you try some independant thought on the issue.

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

For fucks sake take your fake little victory* and move on child molesters.



*that healthcare rule they were upset about is already law in 28 states.

Isn't this a victory for Obama?

Those who wanted coverage, are now covered by the insurance company directly.

The Repubs were kicking and screaming about whether abortion is right or wrong, (guess what they think?), meanwhile Obama has completely circumvented the issue and been able to provide the coverage to women regardless of who their employer is.

It's largely irrelevant. Placating one small interest group doesn't change the fact that the mandate is unlikely to stand when the Supreme Court hears the two primary cases challenging it. If anything it makes him look weak and craven before special interest groups.

What part of the constitution does it violate? The same system was upheld at the state level. The only real difference between that and this is the that this is being done at the Federal level.