seems I was right after all!

Nice try Al,but I got hip to your MO a while back!

There are two separate issues: titles and pronouns.

There is a great difference between titles such as 'His Holiness' or 'Her Majesty' which are used to make a few people seem important (whether they are or not) and terms like Mr or Mrs. Even so, they can usually be avoided by using the person's name or job title: Pope Fred and Queen Sandra seem quite respectful and clear.
I have always hated neologisms like Ms. The obvious solution there, if you really must use a title, would have been simply to follow the male interpretations, where Mr is for an adult and Master is for a child, and use Mrs for an adult and Miss for a child, irrespective of marital status.

English does have a problem in the gender-neutral third person pronoun having connotations of lack of humanity: 'it' just doesn't seem appropriate to use for people. 'If the driver wants to stop, it should press the brake' sounds terrible (but not as bad as using 'he or she'). Such cases can be avoided by rephrasing or using the plural ('If drivers want to stop, they should press the brake'). I would be happy if we could come up with a new pronoun that is both pronounceable and not just plain silly. Even though it grates to my ear, perhaps 'they' as a singular is the right answer (just as the singlular 'thee' was replaced by the plural 'you'). Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with a person's sexual identity.

washingtonpost.com

You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use
By Eugene Volokh


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/
That’s the official legal guidance from the New York City Commission on Human Rights:

The NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] requires employers[, landlords, and all businesses and professionals] to use an [employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s] preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.

Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. [Footnote: Ze and hir are popular gender-free pronouns preferred by some transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals.] …

Examples of Violations

a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses …

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.

So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie.

We have to use “ze,” a made-up word that carries an obvious political connotation (endorsement of the “non-binary” view of gender). We have to call people “him” and “her” even if we believe that people’s genders are determined by their biological sex and not by their self-perceptions — perceptions that, by the way, can rapidly change, for those who are “gender-fluid” — and that using terms tied to self-perception is basically a lie. (I myself am not sure whether people who are anatomically male, for example, but perceive themselves as female should be viewed as men or women; perhaps one day I’ll be persuaded that they should be viewed as women; my objection is to being forced to express that view.) We can’t be required to even display a license plate that says “Live Free or Die” on our car, if we object to the message; that’s what the court held in Wooley v. Maynard (1978). But New York is requiring people to actually say words that convey a message of approval of the view that gender is a matter of self-perception rather than anatomy, and that, as to “ze,” were deliberately created to convey that a message.

What’s more, according to the City, “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.” The label “harassment” is important here because harassment law requires employers and businesses to prevent harassment by co-workers and patrons and not just by themselves or their own employees; this is particularly well established for harassment by co-workers, but it has also been accepted for harassment by fellow patrons. So an employer or business that learns that its employees or patrons are “refus[ing] to use a transgender employee’s preferred” pronoun or title would have to threaten to fire or eject such people unless they comply with the City’s demands. (The logic would also apply to landlords having to threaten to eject tenants who refuse to use co-tenants’ preferred pronouns or titles, but that’s less certain.)

But of course “ze” and “Ms./Mrs.” are just examples. We have to use the person’s “preferred … pronoun and title,” whatever those preferences might be. Some people could say they prefer “glugga” just as well as saying “ze”; the whole point is that people are supposed to be free to define their own gender, and their own pronouns and titles. Seems improbable that some people would come up with new terms like that? Well, 10 or 20 years ago it would have seemed pretty improbable that today New Yorkers would be required to call some people “ze.” Check out this list, which already includes “zie,” “sie” (not the German version), “ey,” “ve,” “tey,” “e,” “(f)ae,” “per” and “xe.” Why wouldn’t some creative folks decide they want to add still more?

Or what if some people insist that their title is “Milord,” or “Your Holiness”? They may look like non-gender-related titles, but who’s to say? What if someone decides that one of the 56 genders is indeed especially noble or holy and that those really are the preferred gender terms? Or even if “Your Holiness” is understood as purely religious (again, why would that be so, given that the point is that people are supposed to be free to define their own gender self-conception and the words that go with it), presumably the same logic that applies to gender-related self-chosen titles would apply to religion-related self-chosen titles. Both sex and religious discrimination are, after all, prohibited by the same laws; by the City’s logic, if you call a Catholic priest “Father,” you’d have to use whatever other self-chosen religious titles people insist on. Nor is the mandated “ze”-talk analogous to simple requirements that people be treated the same regardless of race or religion (requirements that may themselves be constrained by the First Amendment in some situations). The analogy would be if the government demanded that people have to be addressed using their own preferred race- or religion-linked titles — hypothetically, enforcing people’s demands that “you need to use the title ‘Sun Person’ when you refer to me, because I’m black,” or “you need to use the title ‘rav’ with me because I’m Jewish,” or “you need to use the title ‘friend’ with me because I’m a Quaker,” or “you need to address me as ‘thee’ rather than ‘you’ because I’m a Quaker.” Such a requirement would be just as bad as the “ze” one.

And this isn’t just the government as employer, requiring its employees to say things that keep government patrons happy with government services. This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak. Nor is this likely to stay in New York City: The New York officials are arguing that this is just what the New York gender identity discrimination ban requires, and indeed it is part of the standard ideology expressed by many transgender rights activists; the same logic would be easily applicable by jurisdictions that have gender identity discrimination bans, or will have such bans; the federal government is taking the view that existing federal bans on sex discrimination also in effect ban gender identity discrimination, and the New York analysis would equally apply to that view; and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already taken the view that it is illegal under federal law to persistently call employees by pronouns that correspond to their anatomical sex but not their gender identity, though it has not yet had occasion to opine about “ze.”

Feel uncomfortable about being forced to use terms that express social status views (“Milord”) or religious views (“Your Holiness”) that you may not endorse? Well, you should feel uncomfortable about people being forced to use “ze,” which expresses a view about gender that they might not endorse. And, more broadly, I think we should all feel uncomfortable about government regulators forcing people to say things that convey and support the government’s ideology about gender.

Thanks to the pseudonymous Richard E. Thompson (Federalist Society Blog) for the pointer; Prof. Josh Blackman also blogged about this issue a few months ago.

Yes I do want a plea deal like that offered to Hillary. Having to pay for her actions should be the main goal. Not to mention if she pled out to a Felony she cant become President.

First, I used the Wikipedia's description (not declaration) of world wars because I think it's pretty accurate...and I cited the source rather than just posting it as being my own words.

Territorial waters or land are spaces when invaded for militarily purposes become the "theaters" of a war. The internet is considered a "space" that can be invaded for military purposes and therefore could be considered a "theater" of war.

Using viruses sent via the internet to disable the computers that control so much of the militaries ability would be an attack. An attack on the military of sovereign country is an act of war.

: the act of making an official statement about something : the act of declaring something

: something that is stated or made known in an official or public way

: a document that contains an official statement : a document that makes a declaration

still relying on Mister Peabody,hmm?
Conspiracy much?
More Insinuations you can't prove!
Playing the same old Game again?
Guess you'll blame the Illuminati next!

In the early months of 1917 [before the official declaration of war by the United States government] he had been in constant conflict with his chief, Secretary of the Navy, Joseph Daniels, over the same issues.

For Daniels, who resisted every move that might carry the United States into the war, those four months (January through April) of 1917 were the "agony of Gethsemane."

He opposed convoying [the intentional sending of American ships into the war zone in the hope that one would be sunk by the German Navy]. He opposed the arming of merchant ships [intentionally provoking the German Navy into believing that the ship was a ship of war].

Roosevelt favored both.

And when a filibuster prevented congressional authorization of the arming of merchantmen, Roosevelt was impatient with Wilson for not immediately using his executive power to arm [the ships]. He dined at the Metropolitan Club with a group of Republican "warhawks" [Roosevelt was a Democrat]. It included Theodore Roosevelt, General Wood, J.P. Morgan, and Elihu Root [one of the founders of the CFR].

The primary topic of discussion was, according to Roosevelt's diary, "how to make Administration steer a dear course to uphold rights."

This was an euphemism for an aggressive policy on the high seas that would result in indents and involve the United States in the war.

BTW, Patraeus can not become President. He has been convicted of a Felony charge.

Do you believe that Mayor Rodrigo Duterte can change the Philippines? Do you believe in his capacity in doing it? Since he will become a President on June 30, 2016, what do you expect will happen to the Philippines in the next 6 years of his term?

Think,Al,think!
Was basically the start of the last one!
Hitler and Stalin played the Ethnic Game!
Sudetenland,Poland,Danzig,eastern Poland,Karelia,Baltics,you name it!

There are few known cures for pedophilia.
A tall piece of tree, and a short piece of rope,
are on the list of cures.

you're preaching to the choir... the US does more damage to other nations than Russia or China combined...

another thing people tend to forget is that this same bill has been before congress 3 times already, and each time congress shot it down... now king obarry forces it through via other means...

playing nice, making the world a better place...

World wars are described by Wikipedia as "a war involving many or most of the world's most powerful and populous countries. World wars span multiple countries on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theatres."

If those same parameters used to categorize past conflicts as "world wars" were used to describe conflicts today WW3 may have started years ago, especially if the internet were to be considered a "theater" in which attacks are conducted.

Plenty more Ethnic Russians in the Baltics,Finland and other Independent Sovereign Countries!

Actually could see Putin pulling a Hitler and trying to retake all of the countries formerly in the USSR and more honestly.

They start it we'll end it.

It's already started. We lost our chance to end it when the US left Iraq. Now it will spread like the disease it is farther than WWII. The radical branch of Islam is on one side and the rest of the world is on the other.

This is one of those "it depends on what you mean" questions.

For the most part, I'd say no, in the sense that there's no reason to think that any of the larger countries are about to march their infantries into some one else's country.

But you can also look at the facts that China seems to be looking to expand it's military presence in the Pacific, and push back against the long standing US military presence there. And Russia under Putin certainly seems eager to overrun Ukraine and try to reestablish the old Russian Empire.

One thing that makes it extra hard to be sure of anything, is that there are a lot of heavy duty political interests here in the US, for whom the ability to scare Americans into THINKING we are about to enter a huge war, pays tremendous dividends in power and money. And of course, various "news" media outlets benefit every time we all get upset at the same time.