"When a political movement puts itself on a collision course with science, science will defend itself. When proposed policies are based on scientifically incorrect assumptions, it is nothing less than the sacred duty of media in general and science magazines in particular to call them out on it. Else democracy itself is in peril."
I repeat: I have absolutely no reason or desire to argue with you about this, because it's off-topic, and not even remotely related to what *I* was discussing.
If you want to argue about this, fine. Go start your own thread, and leave me out of it. I have no interest whatsoever in your views on this matter.
"You did, when you threw in distractors unrelated to the hints of a complicit cover-up. After looking at the original point, you were 100% wrong on that. Intelligence came in during the attack (prior to the confirmation you state was required), and she advised based on the information available at the time, which was seen by others and confirmed as on-site intelligence."
I am done here. Even now, you pretend you don't even understand what I was talking about. Or if you're not pretending, and you really are that obtuse, then I still have nothing more to say to you that would be worth anybody's while.
"Too bad we don't use that to actually produce anything. You need to drop your ideology and start looking at the world as it is. Otherwise, our politicians are just like YOU. Most of us here can say that our politicians are not US. You however, cannot, cause you sound just like them."
I don't go by "idealogy", I was citing STATISTICS. Fact: on average, the U.S. is 30% more productive per capita than other "Western" nations.
When you learn the difference between objective facts, and opinion or denial, come on back, and maybe we can have an adult discussion.
"... was the original point of contention, and this drifted way off."
And who, pray tell, drifted it? Do you deny that I have simply been answering your objections to the original point? I wouldn't be surprised. You've denied everything else.
"The Congressional hearing was solely about whether the US Government was negligent in the security provided, and unrelated to whether anyone in the US Government was involved in the attacks, as there was not then, nor is there now, any evidence at all that anyone in the US had any fore-knowledge of the attacks, or the results of the attacks."
The Congressional hearing was about whatever the Congress members involved wanted it to be about. They can ask whatever questions they want, and people who refuse to answer (unless they invoke the 5th) are breaking the law.
"The potential to potential to solve humanities ever growing ever growing energy needs is certainly is certainly something we can all can all agree is important is important."
Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department, of your Natural Guard.
"Fusion! The energy of the Future and always will be!"
Haha. That's good.
While I don't believe "It always will be", it is true that if past projections had been accurate, we would have had large-scale fusion power 30 years ago or more.
I'll believe THIS projection when they can achieve true break-even: when ELECTRICAL output exceeds all inputs (which includes all advance fuel acquisition and processing, etc.). So far nobody has come close to that. Until they do, this is still a pipe dream.
This "latest battle" started with the DMCA - which would have been a lot worse if it weren't for some CongressCritters who actually stood up for us - and those were largely Democrats, btw.
Not very damned many. Speech before the House, Rep. John Conyers [D MI], 1998, before passage (Conyers, by the way -- a Democrat -- was chairman of the committee and pushed very hard for passage):
"I think everyone has heard that we finally reached a conclusion that I think may satisfy nearly every Member in the House of Representatives...
I am proud of the product, and like all the speakers before me, I urge its favorable confirmation."
About as many Democrats spoke in favor as Republicans. There were few if any naysayers.
It passed overwhelmingly in the House, and unanimously in the Senate. EVERY Democrat in the Senate voted in favor. (Not to give the GOP a pass... they did too.)
I'm not trying to say the Republicans were any better. But stop pretending the Democrats were protecting us. Nearly all of them, on both sides, sold us out.
And it really would not have been "much worse" if it weren't for Democrats standing up for us. Conyers and friends (Democrats, remember) essentially translated the whole of the WIPO-sponsored UN treaty into the bill.
"How fortunate that you're really female, then. Otherwise you'd vastly irritate yourself all the time."
Just in case you did not understand my last reply (because in the past these things seemed to have gone over your head), I will clarify the situation for you: stalking laws are harsh. You really don't want to fall on the wrong side of that line. Which I am pretty sure you have already done, more than once.
"How fortunate that you're really female, then. Otherwise you'd vastly irritate yourself all the time."
You? Again? What part of "GO AWAY AND LEAVE ME ALONE" do you not understand? Is it really possible that you really don't understand the extent to which you're behaving like a gigantic asshole?
I got news for you, buddy. If it becomes necessary, IP addresses can be looked up.
I seem to remember the first batch of tea baggers (until they could laughingly exposed to the harsh realities of the name) pointing at the Boston Tea Party participants as being the 'original' Tea Partiers.
I wrote "modern" Tea Partiers, specifically not the ones in the 1700s.
But the rest of the comment is such a jumbled collection of weird distortions, I'm not even going to try responding to it. I don't know where to start. Except to say again that you appear to be referring to the Rupublicans who usurped the Tea Party banner, not the original, modern Tea Party.
I am making an exception, because you are so egregiously wrong, I simply can't resist proving it.
U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;"
U.S. Constitution, Article 6:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
You, who obviously either doesn't know or denies what his own Constitution says, are presuming to lecture ME about "civics"? What a laugh! "Oversimplify" my ass. It's right there in plain words. You're just ignorant of the facts but refuse to admit it.
"There are *no* problems with his birth certificate."
Hahahaha! That wasn't really my point, I just threw it in for some humor. But even so, it is PROVABLE truth, which again you deny. I'm not going to bother trying to prove that here, though. It really has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
"Yeah, if you are right, why hasn't he been arrested?"
It's an interesting attitude that I wish more companies would take. I think many of our laws would be better designed to protect "we the people".
At least SOMEBODY is on the proper side of the line here.
But make no mistake: other parts of California, like Hollywood and the music studios, have been staunchly behind Obama and the others who have been attempting to take our freedoms.
Still, it's glad to see businesses -- especially big businesses -- supporting the good causes too.
"You keep fooling yourself that your country is going to be relevant in the future. Decline... get used to it. And your hick crazy politicians are just hastening this process. You are the weakest link - goodbye."
Really? Americans are STILL 30% more productive, per person, than YOUR sorry country. Get used to THAT. When you can catch up to us, then you may be in a place to start insulting. Until then, get stuffed.
Having said all that: yes, it is appearing more and more that many of our politicians are crazy, stupid, or both.
But DO NOT make the mistake of thinking that our politicians are US. They are not.
"We haven't done much product design in the US for the past 2 decades. "
That's simply false. Most of the products manufactured in China were (and still are) designed in the U.S. or Europe.
Yes, China has been coming up with its own designs, but only for a few years now. (Which is a sign we should be pulling out.)
And the idea that America cannot replace its tech workers is a myth, started and promoted by corporations who want cheap employees. Studies have shown that on the contrary: America has NO shortage of graduates in the sciences or tech workers.
And how long are Chinese stereo-builders going to be willing to work for 25 cents an hour and all the rice you can eat?"
They haven't been, for a long time now.
This whole thing was completely predictable. China does not want the U.S. to default on its debt, because China has invested in too much of it. Any default and they lose many boatloads of money.
But the same is true of dollar devaluation. The Chinese have been threatening to devalue the dollar for a long time now, but they dare not: again, any lessening in the value of the dollar, and they lose too much money.
But the fact is: many American corporations that "offshore" work have been pulling operations back to the U.S. China and India do not save them that much money to start with because shipping, collaboration, and other costs offset much of the labor advantage, and there have been too many problems with inferior quality, and late or unfinished work. This is true of both manufacturing and IT-type work.
We have been giving to the Chinese charity for far too long. It's time we stopped. We really don't need them. They need us. If they want us, they should pay for us. Not the other way around.
You are BEING a living example of what we despise about the "new" Scientific American.
Answer: for each of them, there have been American Republicans making statements that are at odds with scientifically established observations of reality. In order.
So? What does that have to do with the point I was making? Answer: exactly nothing.
I repeat: this isn't about who is right or who is wrong, it's about the fact that politics and social policy do not belong in a science magazine, for the simple reason that they aren't science. YOU, on the other hand, are making a straw-man argument that "reality has a liberal bias", simply because SOME conservatives are idiots. Sorry, but the one does not follow from the other.
It wasn't a "WHOOSH", it was a THUD. Not because we were too stupid to understand, but because we did understand, and it's nonsense.
(Disclaimer: I am NOT a Republican. But your claim is still wrong.)
"Oh, so you are now saying you were mistaken when you asserted Obama broke "US law.""
NO, I am NOT saying any such thing. Do you know what "logic" is? Do you know how to logically put two ideas together and reach a conclusion that contradicts neither of those things? Just asking, because you haven't been demonstrating those things. So I'll spell it out for you in simple terms.
" He only broke International law, and only then with you unspeakably narrow opinion on the reading of it, agreeing with no legal scholars with any ability to enforce it."
Huh? He "ONLY" broke international law? Do you know how these treaties work?
The Constitution says treaties (like the Geneva Convention) are "the law of the land". That makes them U.S. law! As long as a treaty does not contradict the Constitution itself, it is OUR law too. U.S. law! So the Geneva Conventions are a body of U.S. law! Legally enforceable, and violators can be tried for war crimes!
Have you followed that so far? And it isn't JUST the Geneva Conventions that Obama violated, but other international treaties related to war as well. (But we need not go into those, because violating just one of these treaties is enough to make the act ILLEGAL according to U.S. law.)
THEREFORE, it was not a legitimate act of war. Because it violated international AND U.S. law.
The only legitimate and legal way for a President to have somebody killed is via an act of war. He is a citizen of the United States (presumably... there are those problems with his birth certificate, after all so we don't really know), and the laws DO apply to him. He doesn't get a pass just because he's President. Nothing in the Constitution says the President is immune from law.
Since it WAS NOT an act of war, then what could it be?
Was it the execution of a criminal under U.S. law? No. It violated U.S. law related to wartime, so it could only be under U.S. criminal code that he could be prosecuted, found guilty by a jury, and then executed. Anything else (by U.S. law) is MURDER.
Are you starting to get the point now? ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL AND U.S. LAW, OBAMA IS A WAR CRIMINAL AND A MURDERER.
And I am done here. If you don't see how this adds up you're a moron, and if you do see how it adds up but keep denying it, you're a lying asshole. I'm really not interested in finding out which it is. Don't bother replying, because I won't read it and I won't answer.
"I thought the original tea party people were all about stealing a country away from the people they originally stole it for ie ultra super massive wealth redistribution a whole bloody countries worth."
The original modern Tea Party was all about smaller government. T.E.A. stood for "Taxed Enough ALREADY". And they were a group of mostly conservatives, but there was a relatively large sprinkle of liberals there as well.
"Realistically today's modern conservative can't see anything but their own ego, greed and selfishness."
I can say exactly the same about the modern political Left. And mean it seriously, and even provide examples.
"NASA is meaningless to them if they can't earn any money out of it, roads and footpaths on the other side of the block are meaningless because they are not in front of their house and that future generations choke on pollution out of control is meaningless as long as the tea baggers of today can profit on it today."
The only recent example I can think of where "conservatives" held any money back from NASA was in the recent funding vote, and that was to keep NASA funding in keeping with the sequester. And the sequester, you may recall, was signed off on by both parties. They stated publicly that if government spending is going to be sequestered, the NASA should feel the pinch too. That seems logical to me.
Don't misunderstand me: if it were up to me, I would multiply NASA's budget by several times at least. But given that all of government was cutting back, they said "so should NASA, in proportion". And that's what they did. Makes perfect sense to me.
On the other hand, Obama gutted most of our future space plans (which wasted a HUGE amount of money) and opted for a high-profile but ultimately low-value asteroid mission instead. So in my opinion, it is Obama, not "the conservatives", who has been dismantling NASA.
"Well, if you're firing missiles from the moon, it's pretty easy to get them to collide with earth at 10 km / sec or so, and you can do it for a lot less gas than it would take from the earth's surface."
Thank you. Particularly what I had in mind, was little different than the "smart pebble" idea from... I think it was the late 70s?
When you have that much kinetic energy behind something, all you have to do is make sure it hits the target. You don't have to do much else.
The original "smart pebble" turned out to be beyond the technology of the day. But it isn't now.
As Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote (this is a paraphrase): "What do you do if you want to destroy something from high orbit? Simple. Drop a rock on it." I believe in the novel they used something more along the lines of "smart rebar". Just give it a little directional capability, put some fins in the back, and just drop it in the general direction of the target from high enough. Mission accomplished.
"Yes, there was a question at the beginning, then a rant. She began an answer and was immediately cut off."
Complete nonsense. She began to TALK. And in fact she was allowed to FINISH what she started to say, and it was NOT an answer to the question. It's right there, man. You're denying demonstrated reality that millions of people witnessed (on TV and YouTube) with their own eyes and ears. There is nothing out of context here, and she quite clearly evaded the question.
"Since you assert it is relevant, how would a phone call to the evacuees have helped prevent the attack? She didn't see how it would, and didn't want to agree with such a disagreaable man hwo was obviously trying to force a specific answer for political reasons, not gain information."
I did not claim it would have helped to stop the attack! Jesus christ, are you paying attention at all? The attack was already underway. What this whole thing relates to is not whether it would have stopped the attack, but the honesty of the Obama administration, and Hillare Clinton in particular.
Seriously... I am starting to think you're just trolling.
"Having looked back at it, I see nothing wrong."
Then there is no reason to pursue this further. If you see nothing wrong with deliberately refusing to answer questions during a Congressional hearing, then I have nothing further to say to you. You are not worth my time.
Let me answer you more specifically: under international law, and treaties like the Geneva Convention, it is illegal to kill someone who is not an enemy. An enemy is a member of the opposition in a declared war.
Obama's drone strikes meet NONE of those criteria (or any of the others that I know of). They are 100% against all conventions of warfare, according to treaties that WE are party to. (And the Constitution says treaties that do not conflict with it are "the law of the land".)
I repeat: since at least some of the known targets of drone attacks were "suspected terrorists", not "confirmed" terrorists OR confirmed members of any force we have declared war against, Obama's drone attacks were not just a little bit illegal but GROSSLY illegal, according to international laws of which we are a signatory.
Since, by international law, those attacks CANNOT BE legitimate acts of war, where does that leave you, legally? Obama did not have any trials (or even try to), the "suspects" were not convicted of any crime, yet he ordered them killed.
That is no more legal than a mob boss ordering a hit on somebody in the street. By all legal definitions, it's murder.
Slashdot Mirror
"When a political movement puts itself on a collision course with science, science will defend itself. When proposed policies are based on scientifically incorrect assumptions, it is nothing less than the sacred duty of media in general and science magazines in particular to call them out on it. Else democracy itself is in peril."
I repeat: I have absolutely no reason or desire to argue with you about this, because it's off-topic, and not even remotely related to what *I* was discussing.
If you want to argue about this, fine. Go start your own thread, and leave me out of it. I have no interest whatsoever in your views on this matter.
"You did, when you threw in distractors unrelated to the hints of a complicit cover-up. After looking at the original point, you were 100% wrong on that. Intelligence came in during the attack (prior to the confirmation you state was required), and she advised based on the information available at the time, which was seen by others and confirmed as on-site intelligence."
I am done here. Even now, you pretend you don't even understand what I was talking about. Or if you're not pretending, and you really are that obtuse, then I still have nothing more to say to you that would be worth anybody's while.
Have a nice day.
"Too bad we don't use that to actually produce anything. You need to drop your ideology and start looking at the world as it is. Otherwise, our politicians are just like YOU. Most of us here can say that our politicians are not US. You however, cannot, cause you sound just like them."
I don't go by "idealogy", I was citing STATISTICS. Fact: on average, the U.S. is 30% more productive per capita than other "Western" nations.
When you learn the difference between objective facts, and opinion or denial, come on back, and maybe we can have an adult discussion.
"Dude, you just called yourself a "flamer". That's fucking priceless! "
I did nothing of the sort, and that comment was pretty clearly flameBAIT.
"Go ahead, look up my IP address and sic the cops on me for my imaginary crimes. It was worth it."
I apologize *IF* I mistook you for someone else. But I very strongly doubt that I did.
"... was the original point of contention, and this drifted way off."
And who, pray tell, drifted it? Do you deny that I have simply been answering your objections to the original point? I wouldn't be surprised. You've denied everything else.
"The Congressional hearing was solely about whether the US Government was negligent in the security provided, and unrelated to whether anyone in the US Government was involved in the attacks, as there was not then, nor is there now, any evidence at all that anyone in the US had any fore-knowledge of the attacks, or the results of the attacks."
The Congressional hearing was about whatever the Congress members involved wanted it to be about. They can ask whatever questions they want, and people who refuse to answer (unless they invoke the 5th) are breaking the law.
"The potential to potential to solve humanities ever growing ever growing energy needs is certainly is certainly something we can all can all agree is important is important."
Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department, of your Natural Guard.
"Fusion! The energy of the Future and always will be!"
Haha. That's good.
While I don't believe "It always will be", it is true that if past projections had been accurate, we would have had large-scale fusion power 30 years ago or more.
I'll believe THIS projection when they can achieve true break-even: when ELECTRICAL output exceeds all inputs (which includes all advance fuel acquisition and processing, etc.). So far nobody has come close to that. Until they do, this is still a pipe dream.
This "latest battle" started with the DMCA - which would have been a lot worse if it weren't for some CongressCritters who actually stood up for us - and those were largely Democrats, btw.
Not very damned many. Speech before the House, Rep. John Conyers [D MI], 1998, before passage (Conyers, by the way -- a Democrat -- was chairman of the committee and pushed very hard for passage):
"I think everyone has heard that we finally reached a conclusion that I think may satisfy nearly every Member in the House of Representatives...
I am proud of the product, and like all the speakers before me, I urge its favorable confirmation."
About as many Democrats spoke in favor as Republicans. There were few if any naysayers.
It passed overwhelmingly in the House, and unanimously in the Senate. EVERY Democrat in the Senate voted in favor. (Not to give the GOP a pass... they did too.)
I'm not trying to say the Republicans were any better. But stop pretending the Democrats were protecting us. Nearly all of them, on both sides, sold us out.
And it really would not have been "much worse" if it weren't for Democrats standing up for us. Conyers and friends (Democrats, remember) essentially translated the whole of the WIPO-sponsored UN treaty into the bill.
"How fortunate that you're really female, then. Otherwise you'd vastly irritate yourself all the time."
Just in case you did not understand my last reply (because in the past these things seemed to have gone over your head), I will clarify the situation for you: stalking laws are harsh. You really don't want to fall on the wrong side of that line. Which I am pretty sure you have already done, more than once.
"How fortunate that you're really female, then. Otherwise you'd vastly irritate yourself all the time."
You? Again? What part of "GO AWAY AND LEAVE ME ALONE" do you not understand? Is it really possible that you really don't understand the extent to which you're behaving like a gigantic asshole?
I got news for you, buddy. If it becomes necessary, IP addresses can be looked up.
I seem to remember the first batch of tea baggers (until they could laughingly exposed to the harsh realities of the name) pointing at the Boston Tea Party participants as being the 'original' Tea Partiers.
I wrote "modern" Tea Partiers, specifically not the ones in the 1700s.
But the rest of the comment is such a jumbled collection of weird distortions, I'm not even going to try responding to it. I don't know where to start. Except to say again that you appear to be referring to the Rupublicans who usurped the Tea Party banner, not the original, modern Tea Party.
U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 2:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;"
U.S. Constitution, Article 6:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
You, who obviously either doesn't know or denies what his own Constitution says, are presuming to lecture ME about "civics"? What a laugh! "Oversimplify" my ass. It's right there in plain words. You're just ignorant of the facts but refuse to admit it.
"There are *no* problems with his birth certificate."
Hahahaha! That wasn't really my point, I just threw it in for some humor. But even so, it is PROVABLE truth, which again you deny. I'm not going to bother trying to prove that here, though. It really has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
"Yeah, if you are right, why hasn't he been arrested?"
Because of ignorant, knee-jerk Lefties like YOU.
It's an interesting attitude that I wish more companies would take. I think many of our laws would be better designed to protect "we the people".
At least SOMEBODY is on the proper side of the line here.
But make no mistake: other parts of California, like Hollywood and the music studios, have been staunchly behind Obama and the others who have been attempting to take our freedoms.
Still, it's glad to see businesses -- especially big businesses -- supporting the good causes too.
"You keep fooling yourself that your country is going to be relevant in the future. Decline... get used to it. And your hick crazy politicians are just hastening this process. You are the weakest link - goodbye."
Really? Americans are STILL 30% more productive, per person, than YOUR sorry country. Get used to THAT. When you can catch up to us, then you may be in a place to start insulting. Until then, get stuffed.
Having said all that: yes, it is appearing more and more that many of our politicians are crazy, stupid, or both.
But DO NOT make the mistake of thinking that our politicians are US. They are not.
"We haven't done much product design in the US for the past 2 decades. "
That's simply false. Most of the products manufactured in China were (and still are) designed in the U.S. or Europe.
Yes, China has been coming up with its own designs, but only for a few years now. (Which is a sign we should be pulling out.)
And the idea that America cannot replace its tech workers is a myth, started and promoted by corporations who want cheap employees. Studies have shown that on the contrary: America has NO shortage of graduates in the sciences or tech workers.
"How hard do you think it is to build a stereo?
And how long are Chinese stereo-builders going to be willing to work for 25 cents an hour and all the rice you can eat?"
They haven't been, for a long time now.
This whole thing was completely predictable. China does not want the U.S. to default on its debt, because China has invested in too much of it. Any default and they lose many boatloads of money.
But the same is true of dollar devaluation. The Chinese have been threatening to devalue the dollar for a long time now, but they dare not: again, any lessening in the value of the dollar, and they lose too much money.
But the fact is: many American corporations that "offshore" work have been pulling operations back to the U.S. China and India do not save them that much money to start with because shipping, collaboration, and other costs offset much of the labor advantage, and there have been too many problems with inferior quality, and late or unfinished work. This is true of both manufacturing and IT-type work.
We have been giving to the Chinese charity for far too long. It's time we stopped. We really don't need them. They need us. If they want us, they should pay for us. Not the other way around.
"Why not?"
Seriously?
Not because I have anything against gay people. I don't. But because flamers (which is NOT the same thing) irritate me vastly.
Answer: for each of them, there have been American Republicans making statements that are at odds with scientifically established observations of reality. In order.
So? What does that have to do with the point I was making? Answer: exactly nothing.
I repeat: this isn't about who is right or who is wrong, it's about the fact that politics and social policy do not belong in a science magazine, for the simple reason that they aren't science. YOU, on the other hand, are making a straw-man argument that "reality has a liberal bias", simply because SOME conservatives are idiots. Sorry, but the one does not follow from the other.
It wasn't a "WHOOSH", it was a THUD. Not because we were too stupid to understand, but because we did understand, and it's nonsense.
(Disclaimer: I am NOT a Republican. But your claim is still wrong.)
"Oh, so you are now saying you were mistaken when you asserted Obama broke "US law.""
NO, I am NOT saying any such thing. Do you know what "logic" is? Do you know how to logically put two ideas together and reach a conclusion that contradicts neither of those things? Just asking, because you haven't been demonstrating those things. So I'll spell it out for you in simple terms.
" He only broke International law, and only then with you unspeakably narrow opinion on the reading of it, agreeing with no legal scholars with any ability to enforce it."
Huh? He "ONLY" broke international law? Do you know how these treaties work?
The Constitution says treaties (like the Geneva Convention) are "the law of the land". That makes them U.S. law! As long as a treaty does not contradict the Constitution itself, it is OUR law too. U.S. law! So the Geneva Conventions are a body of U.S. law! Legally enforceable, and violators can be tried for war crimes!
Have you followed that so far? And it isn't JUST the Geneva Conventions that Obama violated, but other international treaties related to war as well. (But we need not go into those, because violating just one of these treaties is enough to make the act ILLEGAL according to U.S. law.)
THEREFORE, it was not a legitimate act of war. Because it violated international AND U.S. law.
The only legitimate and legal way for a President to have somebody killed is via an act of war. He is a citizen of the United States (presumably... there are those problems with his birth certificate, after all so we don't really know), and the laws DO apply to him. He doesn't get a pass just because he's President. Nothing in the Constitution says the President is immune from law.
Since it WAS NOT an act of war, then what could it be?
Was it the execution of a criminal under U.S. law? No. It violated U.S. law related to wartime, so it could only be under U.S. criminal code that he could be prosecuted, found guilty by a jury, and then executed. Anything else (by U.S. law) is MURDER.
Are you starting to get the point now? ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL AND U.S. LAW, OBAMA IS A WAR CRIMINAL AND A MURDERER.
And I am done here. If you don't see how this adds up you're a moron, and if you do see how it adds up but keep denying it, you're a lying asshole. I'm really not interested in finding out which it is. Don't bother replying, because I won't read it and I won't answer.
"So there is none, but you like to think there should be. Got it."
That isn't what I said. Don't be an ass. See my other reply, in which I answer you more specifically.
"No confirmations" would have been simpler and less aggressive, though."
But it would also have been totally incorrect, which is why I did not say that.
"I thought the original tea party people were all about stealing a country away from the people they originally stole it for ie ultra super massive wealth redistribution a whole bloody countries worth."
The original modern Tea Party was all about smaller government. T.E.A. stood for "Taxed Enough ALREADY". And they were a group of mostly conservatives, but there was a relatively large sprinkle of liberals there as well.
"Realistically today's modern conservative can't see anything but their own ego, greed and selfishness."
I can say exactly the same about the modern political Left. And mean it seriously, and even provide examples.
"NASA is meaningless to them if they can't earn any money out of it, roads and footpaths on the other side of the block are meaningless because they are not in front of their house and that future generations choke on pollution out of control is meaningless as long as the tea baggers of today can profit on it today."
The only recent example I can think of where "conservatives" held any money back from NASA was in the recent funding vote, and that was to keep NASA funding in keeping with the sequester. And the sequester, you may recall, was signed off on by both parties. They stated publicly that if government spending is going to be sequestered, the NASA should feel the pinch too. That seems logical to me.
Don't misunderstand me: if it were up to me, I would multiply NASA's budget by several times at least. But given that all of government was cutting back, they said "so should NASA, in proportion". And that's what they did. Makes perfect sense to me.
On the other hand, Obama gutted most of our future space plans (which wasted a HUGE amount of money) and opted for a high-profile but ultimately low-value asteroid mission instead. So in my opinion, it is Obama, not "the conservatives", who has been dismantling NASA.
"Would a guy spontaneously describe his ass using words like smooth and shapely? I think not."
Well, he might. But there isn't much chance he'd be in my particular circle of friends.
"Well, if you're firing missiles from the moon, it's pretty easy to get them to collide with earth at 10 km / sec or so, and you can do it for a lot less gas than it would take from the earth's surface."
Thank you. Particularly what I had in mind, was little different than the "smart pebble" idea from... I think it was the late 70s?
When you have that much kinetic energy behind something, all you have to do is make sure it hits the target. You don't have to do much else.
The original "smart pebble" turned out to be beyond the technology of the day. But it isn't now.
As Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote (this is a paraphrase): "What do you do if you want to destroy something from high orbit? Simple. Drop a rock on it." I believe in the novel they used something more along the lines of "smart rebar". Just give it a little directional capability, put some fins in the back, and just drop it in the general direction of the target from high enough. Mission accomplished.
"Yes, there was a question at the beginning, then a rant. She began an answer and was immediately cut off."
Complete nonsense. She began to TALK. And in fact she was allowed to FINISH what she started to say, and it was NOT an answer to the question. It's right there, man. You're denying demonstrated reality that millions of people witnessed (on TV and YouTube) with their own eyes and ears. There is nothing out of context here, and she quite clearly evaded the question.
"Since you assert it is relevant, how would a phone call to the evacuees have helped prevent the attack? She didn't see how it would, and didn't want to agree with such a disagreaable man hwo was obviously trying to force a specific answer for political reasons, not gain information."
I did not claim it would have helped to stop the attack! Jesus christ, are you paying attention at all? The attack was already underway. What this whole thing relates to is not whether it would have stopped the attack, but the honesty of the Obama administration, and Hillare Clinton in particular.
Seriously... I am starting to think you're just trolling.
"Having looked back at it, I see nothing wrong."
Then there is no reason to pursue this further. If you see nothing wrong with deliberately refusing to answer questions during a Congressional hearing, then I have nothing further to say to you. You are not worth my time.
Let me answer you more specifically: under international law, and treaties like the Geneva Convention, it is illegal to kill someone who is not an enemy. An enemy is a member of the opposition in a declared war.
Obama's drone strikes meet NONE of those criteria (or any of the others that I know of). They are 100% against all conventions of warfare, according to treaties that WE are party to. (And the Constitution says treaties that do not conflict with it are "the law of the land".)
I repeat: since at least some of the known targets of drone attacks were "suspected terrorists", not "confirmed" terrorists OR confirmed members of any force we have declared war against, Obama's drone attacks were not just a little bit illegal but GROSSLY illegal, according to international laws of which we are a signatory.
Since, by international law, those attacks CANNOT BE legitimate acts of war, where does that leave you, legally? Obama did not have any trials (or even try to), the "suspects" were not convicted of any crime, yet he ordered them killed.
That is no more legal than a mob boss ordering a hit on somebody in the street. By all legal definitions, it's murder.