213374U

Yes, eliminating words can change how people think. I just don't think it's the right way to go about it. 5 examples of how the languages we speak can affect the way we think. Yes dear, that's exactly the idea behind newspeak. But apparently you missed the reference.

I am not putting words into your mouth, I am simply following your logic to its end. So, to make it perfectly clear—which one is it? Was it impeachment or not? - If it was impeachment, then the procedure was not duly followed (no sufficient 3/4 majority and no Constitutional Court review) → unlawful dismissal. - If it was not impeachment, then a procedure outside of those prescribed by the Constitution for ending the mandate of the President prematurely has been followed → unlawful dismissal. Take your pick. What "any reasonable person" would consider is irrelevant when you are dealing with clear constitutional provisions. Precisely because those provisions are in place to prevent abuses and hopefully put a stop to illegitimate uses of power by alleged "reasonable persons". But this whole point is academic because the resignation resolution was passed less than 24 hours after Yanukovych left Kiev, with a Parliament under duress. Couldn't risk the President coming back, now could we? Reminder: you cannot "resign" someone. And no, a recorded phone call (to whom? Yatseniuk? Putin? His mom?) that has somehow mysteriously disappeared is not admissible as the formal resignation required by law to be presented before the Rada. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take scuttlebutt and hearsay as evidence.

No, you didn't say it wasn't lawful—but since it's an either/or situation, if you concede that the process by which he was dismissed was not impeachment, then you concede that it was unlawful, because there is no other instrument in the Ukrainian Constitution to dismiss him. QED As for whether you choose to accept any evidence that Yanukovych actually resigned as valid, well. Think what you will but again, the Constitution demands that the President tends his resignation before the Rada in session (art. 109). That has obviously not occurred because he hasn't been in Kiev since feb 21st.

No. If failure to perform his duties (in this context signing the laws passed by the Rada) was grounds for removal, it would be under the only article dealing with the dismissal of the President. The fact that the Parliament requires the President to sign laws before they go into effect is actually a safety to ensure that Parliament does not overstep its bounds and encroaches upon executive power or breach the Constitution. This is another example of the good ol' separation of powers standing in the way of would-be revolutionaries. Where exactly are you getting the idea that he can be dismissed for failing to exercise his duties? The Rada saying it's legal because they made it legal is circular logic. No bandwagon either. It's just that impeachment is the only way the Rada has to kick the President out if he's not dead or medically incapable of performing his duties. It's good that you are no longer pretending it was a lawful dismissal.

So the Rada's interpretation was that Yanukovich failed to discharge the duties of his office. His removal did not require an impeachment process. You can dispute the validity of the Rada's claims all you want. It amazes me just how badly the media misrepresented this. Damn 2133 ...you REALLY got owned there !!!!! For the nth time. Read the source material and try to produce an original thought for once. But at least we've finally shed the fake friendliness façade, that's something right?

No. The Rada does not get to dismiss the President for failing to "discharge the duties of his office" (something he is expressly forbidden from doing as per art. 106). You linked the Ukrainian Constitution yourself. Art. 108: The resolution passed by the Rada does not fall within any of the above. There are no other scenarios in which the President's mandate is liable to be interrupted before his term is up. The Rada cannot simply make up new scenarios and majorities where it can lawfully dismiss the President, regardless of the excuses they have come up with post-hoc. Well, of course they are going to justify their actions somehow. That does not change the fact that any actions taken based on reasons outside of those prescribed in the Constitution are unlawful. The Rada is not above the supreme law of the land and they cannot override it, regardless of majorities.

No. The reversion of the constitution was legal - both times actually. It required a 2/3 majority and received 90% in 2004 and 85% (380 votes) in 2014. Yanukovich approved the reversion to the 2004 constitution (although his approval was not required) when he brokered the deal with the opposition in early February and the second parliamentary vote occurred on Feb 21. Regardless of which version you believe is legal (1996, 2004 or 2010), the articles pertinent to the removal of the president are the same in all versions. See chapter 5, articles 108 thru 112. Ukrainian Impeachment follows the UK nomenclature and procedure. Impeachment refers to the entire process culminating in removal from office. But the full process requires a bill of indictment, a trial and then a vote on removal. 328 votes would have been sufficient for the indictment phase. A two-thirds constitutional majority in the Verkhovna Rada (300 ayes) must support a procedure of impeachment for it to begin. To remove the President from office, a minimum three-quarters of parliament must support the resolution. Yanukovich fled before a trial could be convened so there is a question of whether his departure is a de facto admission of guilt or an act of resignation. In either case, his departure makes him incapable of fulfilling his office and he can then be replaced. No. Yanukovych was first dismissed as President (with neither a preceptive Constitutional Court review nor a sufficient majority to do so), and then charged and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The legal procedure for removing the President from office for reasons other than explicit resignation, declaration of medical incompetence or death, was not observed. This, by definition, makes it unlawful. Exactly as unlawful as a local referendum on the independence of a territory. There is no provision in the Ukrainian Constitution allowing for the dismissal of the President if he leaves the capital for whatever reasons. The physical presence of Yanukovych is not required for the mandatory judicial review required for the impeachment process. Revolutions, aimed as they are at changing the status quo, are unlawful. The trouble starts when you demand that non-revolutionaries abide by the very laws you have ignored to take power. This is not mere hypocrisy, it's madness.

So "banning words" is going to help equality somehow? That sounds rather like crimethink. Maybe the "initiative" is about something else entirely, but after a quick glance I couldn't tell.

Yeah, I don't know what's the deal with lag. It's also inconsistent for me. And load times are pretty bad for what is basically a 2D game. I'm guessing they were really pushing the envelope with regards to what mobile platforms can handle.

Interesting. More or less illegal than the procedure by which Yanukovych was removed from office?

If you are only vaguely aware of USAPATRIOT, then you may be more qualified to speak about it that the people who voted it into law. http://books.google.com/books?id=Y_Ej_RA5Bf0C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f=false That's some healthy lawmaking, right there.

No. Go check your sources and read some actual survey statistics instead of swallowing whole the prefabricated opinions the media prepare for you. In fact, Rostere brought this up in the other thread. I already explained how far this is from the reality in the Basque country.

How does it feel, living in constant terror?

At both national and personal levels, the "I'm dirty too" approach means taking no action ever, and gradually subsiding into a puddle. Fortunately, after a bazillion arguments with you guys I've simply decided I'm British. I have a partisan national perspective. I don't pretend I'm a world citizen and am bestest friends with every half-educated funtwit out there. Now all I have to do is work out what to do with all the half-educated funtwits over here. That's a comfy perspective to settle into. It works for as long as you are on the winning side. When that changes (and it will), you'll be wishing that those who take over were a bit more morally conscious about their own actions, and a bit less about those of others. Hell, this is a perfect example of what I'm saying. If reports are true, Russia has occupied Crimea without firing a shot and the whole of the "free world" has basically soiled its collective pants. Nobody willing to actually do anything other than vigorously shake their fists. What actions are being taken? This is nothing but the latest move in the Great Game, and we just hate losing. Stop pretending it's anything else.

Fair enough although the 1 bn$ figure came from Forbes, not Jerry Brewer. That doesn't mean it is correct. I tried finding the Forbes note from where that came. Either it doesn't exist, has been taken down, or my Google-fu is weak. *shrug*

Nah, that's one of those internets myths. The original source of the "report": http://www.cjiausa.org/ http://es.scribd.com/doc/118772161/Hugo-Chavez%E2%80%99s-Mortality-and-Cuba%E2%80%99s-Deception Don't get me wrong, corruption may be a serious problem in Venezuela and Chávez may not be innocent, but the $1-2bn figures floating around just aren't supported.

Well, sure. Different strokes and stuff. I guess I just like being torn between choices. As for APEX, though:

^ That's what I was referring to. The tone of the setting is rather superficial and doesn't really reflect how quests are resolved. For instance: Again, I don't know if that's how the narrative usually goes in the Shadowrun canon, but it seems like a waste to have a setting like that and reduce storytelling within to a feel good trip.

In other news, the ECB recipe for austerity (read: economic slavery) is proceeding at full speed in Ukraine, political crisis or no. At this rate, the whole of Ukraine will be begging to join Russia by year's end. smh

That's probably easier for Canada than pretty much anyone else, given Canada's ginormous natural reserves of fossil fuels. I have no idea what % of the economy is owned by Russian capital, though. It's interesting in the article too that for some reason 10 days is not "enough" for a referendum to be "valid". Regardless, a referendum under the present circumstances is going to be a hard sell as far as legitimacy goes. They really should let int'l observers monitor that, if they are dead set on seeing it through. Also, reminder that under the agreement that allows Russia to deploy troops in Crimea, the ceiling is set at 25,000 servicemen. Last reported figure on the ground was 16,000...

I haven't actually read any of the books. My knowledge of the setting is limited to what I've read online and stuff, so I may be wrong (*GASP!*) about the general tone.

Okay. What happens if they don't leave within 24 hours? Are they declared to be illegally occupying Canada too? A pity for those who were learning Russian, though. Take your paternalistic bull**** elsewhere, m'kay? We're all grownups here, we can make up our minds without your "help". Find a way to get off that doesn't involve telling people what to think. Go read a book, for a change.

You can guess how well Lofwyr reacted to that I need to try that in my next game. I was kinda bummed out to find out that I mean, it makes perfect sense within the setting, but it was also a bit too convenient... maybe I'm just disappointed in myself for not seeing it coming. I also was under the impression that Shadowrun is supposed to be dark and gloomy and stuff. Yet for the most part, you can get relatively happy endings for pretty much everything, side missions and MQ. Kinda jarring. I'm surprised the absolutely fantastic music isn't getting more comments. This goes for the base game too.

The other thread was closed, so I figured, what better excuse to bring it back than some juicy propaganda and conspiracy theories? Estonian foreign minister and EU foreign affairs rep Catherine Ashton discuss the possibility that Kiev snipers were provocateurs Oh, wait. The call has been confirmed as genuine and it ties back to something one of our members (clearly a FSB stooge like myself) posted in the other thread: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65164-ukraine-burns/?p=1425350