Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "LegalEagle" channel.

@SeanStrife are insane.. they're not getting Less crazy, either.
18
Apparently it's what they call themselves, so...
13
@alexsis1778 non-existance does tend to rather hamper one's ability to kill people.
10
Not that the USA has ever actually rebelled against tyranny. Taxation and abolitionism, yes. Tyranny? no.
8
Pretty sure it's referring to more practical things like food and somewhere to sleep (as opposed to actually helping commit the crimes). So... Arguably if they were staying in hotels he owned? (And he knew their plans or gave them some sort of discount or something.)
4
Well, there is the part where you can debate if that's the same category of issue, and thus relevant to the comparison, or not. It's obviously a very bad thing, mind you, just not necessarily the Same bad thing... Unless you're asserting that the USA does the same thing but its lower numbers and more accurate record keeping somehow make this better?
3
Well, there's a reason why pretty much everyone else, to varying degrees, copied the UK model and then refined it (to a more or less radical extent) to suit their needs, rather than the USA's model. America's constitution is defective by design, and even if it wasn't it's been obsolete roughly a century, if not longer. But it was never actually about freedom or justice of proper representation to start with, and it seems to have kept right on doing a great job of what it was Actually designed to do pretty much the entire time. Difference is, the current idiots have decided to stop pretending otherwise.
3
... conspirators, in fact.
3
Justa note, but while it's very difficult to argue honestly (except out of ignorance) that Trump and his lot are not facists, they're both about ninety years too late and insufficiently German/German adjacent to be Nazis. (Though some subset of their followers are apparently delusional enough to Think they're nazis... They also think the Nazis were the good guys somehow...) Much as Italian and Spanish fascists were not automatically Nazis, neither are US fascists. Also, neo-nazis, while related, are also not the same thing. ... Of course,being fascist is already bad enough, but you'll get into less, and win more, arguments about such things if you use terms correctly rather than muddling them up.
2
In some places it's held to be invalid in part because of that, to my understanding. (Well, the combination of that and the inability to negotiate it, anyway.)
2
What do you mean 'at this rate'? The ongoing refusal to actually patch the bloody thing to fix all the various bad precident attached to it in a sensible manner had it reaching that stage decades ago.
2
@Dommifax Honestly, there is very little about the entire structure of the US government that's actually a GOOD idea. Not nothing... but there's a reason no one has ever copied it wholesale... including the USA itself when forcibly setting up a new government in other countries.
2
It's almost like it's a problem pretty much everyone else noticed over a hundred years ago and avoided or did away with since. Seriously, having your elected polticians apoint your highest judges completely neuters the judciary when it comes to acting as a counter weight/control the excesses of the legislature and/or the executive.
2
Roger Loquitur ehh, arguably it was founded on plutocratic propaganda in the service of tax evasion, more than anything. So, you know, it's even more in line with tradition than you thought!
1
Turns out, they Can be protected... sort of, somewhat. Just not with copyright or trademark, but with Patents. Except D&D is old enough that if such a patent was filed it's long since expired by now. Not that any of that matters, because the way the US system is set up, all such matters would have to be resolved in Court... where Hasbro's deep pockets mean that anyone who gets to that point rather than just rolling over gets wrecked by the costs of the process even if they 'win'.
1
No, they fought for independence to get out of paying taxes and to ensure there was no one in a position of power above them who could tell them to stop making deliberately exploiting the government for their own financial gain. (seriously, when you look into the actual historical records of events rather than founding myth nationalist propaganda, the whole thing is just one giant rich person tax dodge).
1
@peterrauth118 Modern day kings in many countries actually DO have Effective immunity from prosecution, as such. It's just usually via a whole bunch of round about convolted fiddly bits... and isn't the same as being immune to being censured in various ways.
1
@rogerpalmer3723 if you succeed at overthrowing the government, you are now the government, so the legality of the matter is irrelivant. If you fail, then you caused a whole bunch of pain, suffering, missery, and death and have produced nothing of value to compensate for that. It's basically the same as regicide: Attempted regicide will get you executed. Successful regicide... well, either you become king or you become an inconvenient loose end the new king has to clean up (reasonable expectations at that point are a well paid and comfortable exile if you're lucky, and being executed (either out of paranoia or as a convenient scapegoat) if you're not.)
1
They can't protect individual words that way. Also, some of the stats are kind of badly named to begin with.
1
Well, arguably the people disagreeing with the position are still talking about it, I guess?
1
Mind you, even once you take that into account, the USA is still second, and unreasonably far ahead of everyone else even after taking population into account.
1
That and not paying taxes, yes. Seriously, when you actually look into the historical records rather than American founding myth nationalist propaganda, the whole sequence of events is one giant unjustified tax revolt, that only got as far as it did because using the army to put it down was expensive and the taxes in question came about due to a need to make up for budget shortfalls caused by a recently ended globe spanning war that was Started by (still at the time British-)American colonists illegally raiding their French-American neighbours to line their own pockets... And upon gaining independence taxes went UP (turns out the British were straight up subsidising the administration and defence of the colonies with the taxes paid by the people back in Britain) and never came back down. ... but those wealthy individuals who started the whole mess (and their families and friends) sure did do a great job of writing tax codes that left them a lot of ways to be effectively exempt from those taxes...
1
Going to be honest, the whole idiotic document needs ripping up and you need to start over from scratch, taking lessons from what Everyone Else has learned over the last, what, two hundred years? about how to make a governmental system that Doesn't Suck. ... ... ... Actually, probably best to just outsource the whole process, otherwise it'll be hijacked by either the same set of rich idiots or the lunatic radical fringe (... and yes, depressingly, those Do overlap in places, but they're not the same thing) and you won't be any better off.
1
@twincast2005 The symbol was trademarked, which was... fine-ish. I believe the problem (and the thing they didn't get away with) was the attempt to patent the act of turning the card sideways to indicate something. While I don't know about mechanics in D&D, Magic introduces new mechanics at least once a year.
1
Ahh, but you don't get in trouble for being wrong, you get in trouble for blaming the government for your nonsense.
1
@@paladinely3337 Yeah... the clearly stated part seems perfectly reasonable... Which is kind of the point, it's how such things get passed, and get past the media and the public until it all blows up. They're then Deliberately Written Badly so as to facilitate the actually intended, unpopular and harmful, purpose. It's a constant and ongoing problem with american legislation. The Republicans are usually worse in terms of what they tend to sneak in via this method, but it's far from a uniquely Republican trick (and most of the things that get snuck in are in favour of existing, overly powerful, corrupt, corporations which act against the public interest, generally intended to actively suppress any attempt by any compeitor to provide a better service, and there are Plenty of Democrat politicians who are Entirely on board with That nonsense). Frankly, no, no one other than the parents (and frankly an awful lot of parents shouldn't be either, given the idiocy that they get up to) should be discussing matters of sexuality and gender with young children. On the other hand, given how common parents being abusive of kids who in some way don't fit their particular ideal of how things should be are... rules about what teachers and school staff do and don't (and must and must not) disclose to parents about their kids really should not be "you must automatically break confidenced to inform a kid's parents about whatever the kid (especially in their mid to late teens) happens to tell you regarding their sexuality and gender"... but it's written badly enough that that is the result. ... it would probably be fine in a system and culture that didn't not only permit but franklly encourage expensive litigation over stupid things with a bad habit of stupid rulings on such matters. Good luck getting Anyone to be sensible on anything that's been set up as a matter of Radical-republican*-psychotic-nonsense vs Radical-progressive**-psychotic-nonsense though. *they're not actually conservative **they're neither liberal nor terribly lefist
1
I dunno, seems pretty in line with it's founding ideologies to me. The actual ones that are quite obvious when you look into the historical records, that is, not the nationalist propaganda of the founding myth that is apparently taught as 'history' in schools there.
1
@119beaker you're also specifically supposed to take the most direct path possible across the road. mind you, to my understanding, in this case "illegal" means "if you don't do it the way you're supposed to, you'll be the one held responsible for any resulting accident" rather than being something you get in trouble for directly. also, "marked crossing" in this case includes everything from dedicated pedestrian crossings to completely uncontrolled intersections.
1