We send more money to Israel every year than we spend on our own domestic affairs.
Citation please, since that is obviously not true.
The US sends about $3 billion Israel's way. Which is clearly not larger than the $1.4 trillion the US spends on just Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
So are you an idiot? Or are you really claiming that the US spends three as much money on the Israeli military than it spends on its own military?
Here's the short version: The Federal Government can do whatever the hell it wants because neither the States nor the Supreme Court give a shit.
If you can buy internet access across state lines, via say satellite then teh Federal Government can regulate whatever they like about your local internet access because it influences the interstate market. Since 1942 anyway.
You are free to renounce your citizenship and move out of the jurisdiction of the government (assuming that government is more like the US one than the North Korean one).
You could move to Canada for the DSL option equivalent, stay in the US for the cable option, or move to Somalia (a region out of government control) for the no internet option.
That would give the FCC whatever authority was assigned to it in the agreement the big ISPs signed. If Congress wants to give away wads of cash with nothing more than a "please use it for X, but no strings" that's not the ISPs problem.
Of course the government can just pass a law granting whatever authority they want to the FCC - it'll squeeze into the commerce clause just fine.
The people in the damn car and the wounded guy clearly didn't, and I already gave the evidence from the words of the gun operator in the chatter in the post above you clearly didn't bother reading.
What was the justification for firing on the clearly unarmed people and vehicle (note no mention of a weapon in the chatter at all, certainly none when requesting permission to kill 'em) assisting a clearly unarmed (as evidenced by them not shooting him as he lay on the ground wounded earlier) wounded person?
That "war zone" of yours is the place a bunch of people call home.
But I agree the initial attack, while sad and unfortunate, seems to be mistaken identity and a justifiable mistake. Bad things happen in war.
Shooting the vehicle, there's the problem. There was no mistaken identity there - they never claimed to see a weapon, etc.
And the fact that they shot up the people helping a wounded person causes most people to look at the initial attack with less benefit of the doubt being given to the soldiers.
They had no problem shooting up what were clearly unarmed people (and an unarmed wounded person). So would they have a problem with continuing claiming to see weapons even after they noticed they were cameras, etc? Would they say they saw something they didn't over the radio to get permissions to shoot at a different group of unarmed people?
The initial attack isn't the issue. That's fine, you can 100% guarantee someone had an AK47, you'd be an idiot to be doing journalism in a war zone without some security people. And mistakes happen, of course a soldier is going to see anything that looks like a weapon as a weapon - those that don't die or see their friends die.
But there was never a claim made about weapons when they opened up on the vehicle assisting the wounded guy. A "collecting weapons" throw away when they first arrived but they clearly weren't doing so and that wasn't mentioned again when asking for permission to fire.
They just shot to kill the unarmed wounded guy and the unarmed people assisting him. And no one raised a concern at all.
Just watch the damn video. They clearly shoot to try and kill the people who are in the process of assisting a wounded person.
And no one involved had a problem with that, in fact every voice we hear is itching to get permission to open up on them.
And if no one was court martialed for this, then clearly given that the military said it was investigating, there actions were acceptable to the US military higher ups. And those higher ups should be the ones taking the rap for this. As in every person who saw this video and didn't call for punishment of the shooters should be treated as being part of the shooting itself - all the way to Bush and Obama (who if the military is competent didn't see it anyway and hence it won't go that high).
That's pretty clear cut firing on people trying to assist the wounded, people who were clearly unarmed and not combatants. Note that in the video, none of the voices ever claim they are armed.
I'm not sure why they won't fire on an unarmed wounded person, but will fire on him when he is still unarmed but being carried by other unarmed people instead of just bleeding to death on the ground. That seems a strange pair of rules.
If it's > 50' under ground *AND* the explosives around the shell detonated for some unknown reason, it'd probably make a radioactive area that's already property of the US Gov't.
Plus the ground water, which I'm sure would do the right thing and not cross property lines.
The US and Indian consitutions are basically the same with respect to privacy. Neither mention it, neither declare it as a right. Both declare other rights which the "right to privacy" has been derived from by their courts.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously an internet casino would be transmitting gambling information interstate like there's no tomorrow.
Except it's been done (absolute poker) and was damn obvious.
Any poker site willing to risk the mint they make in rake to a player exodus if they are discovered cheating is worse at math than slots players.
And any cheating the do is going to be a smaller percentage than the rake at a physical casino anyway...
You are far more likely to be cheated by players communicating over IM/phone while playing at the same table against you.
So declare internet gamblinb legal in their state and tax all the companies that setup there.
Of course, the feds won't let that happen - see "medical marijuana".
Citation please, since that is obviously not true.
The US sends about $3 billion Israel's way. Which is clearly not larger than the $1.4 trillion the US spends on just Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
So are you an idiot? Or are you really claiming that the US spends three as much money on the Israeli military than it spends on its own military?
I take it you haven't been paying attention.
Here's the short version: The Federal Government can do whatever the hell it wants because neither the States nor the Supreme Court give a shit.
If you can buy internet access across state lines, via say satellite then teh Federal Government can regulate whatever they like about your local internet access because it influences the interstate market. Since 1942 anyway.
You are free to renounce your citizenship and move out of the jurisdiction of the government (assuming that government is more like the US one than the North Korean one).
You could move to Canada for the DSL option equivalent, stay in the US for the cable option, or move to Somalia (a region out of government control) for the no internet option.
Why would it?
That would give the FCC whatever authority was assigned to it in the agreement the big ISPs signed. If Congress wants to give away wads of cash with nothing more than a "please use it for X, but no strings" that's not the ISPs problem.
Of course the government can just pass a law granting whatever authority they want to the FCC - it'll squeeze into the commerce clause just fine.
No, the people they shot at initially did that.
The people in the damn car and the wounded guy clearly didn't, and I already gave the evidence from the words of the gun operator in the chatter in the post above you clearly didn't bother reading.
Are you serious?
What was the justification for firing on the clearly unarmed people and vehicle (note no mention of a weapon in the chatter at all, certainly none when requesting permission to kill 'em) assisting a clearly unarmed (as evidenced by them not shooting him as he lay on the ground wounded earlier) wounded person?
Why would you doubt it?
The press was outraged as claimed, for example.
So what was the hostile threat that led them to shooting up the people assisting a wounded person?
But apparently being assisted by other unarmed people is close enough to picking up a weapon and gives him the green light to shoot him.
That "war zone" of yours is the place a bunch of people call home.
But I agree the initial attack, while sad and unfortunate, seems to be mistaken identity and a justifiable mistake. Bad things happen in war.
Shooting the vehicle, there's the problem. There was no mistaken identity there - they never claimed to see a weapon, etc.
And the fact that they shot up the people helping a wounded person causes most people to look at the initial attack with less benefit of the doubt being given to the soldiers.
They had no problem shooting up what were clearly unarmed people (and an unarmed wounded person). So would they have a problem with continuing claiming to see weapons even after they noticed they were cameras, etc? Would they say they saw something they didn't over the radio to get permissions to shoot at a different group of unarmed people?
The initial attack isn't the issue. That's fine, you can 100% guarantee someone had an AK47, you'd be an idiot to be doing journalism in a war zone without some security people. And mistakes happen, of course a soldier is going to see anything that looks like a weapon as a weapon - those that don't die or see their friends die.
But there was never a claim made about weapons when they opened up on the vehicle assisting the wounded guy. A "collecting weapons" throw away when they first arrived but they clearly weren't doing so and that wasn't mentioned again when asking for permission to fire.
They just shot to kill the unarmed wounded guy and the unarmed people assisting him. And no one raised a concern at all.
How is this informative?
Just watch the damn video. They clearly shoot to try and kill the people who are in the process of assisting a wounded person.
And no one involved had a problem with that, in fact every voice we hear is itching to get permission to open up on them.
And if no one was court martialed for this, then clearly given that the military said it was investigating, there actions were acceptable to the US military higher ups. And those higher ups should be the ones taking the rap for this. As in every person who saw this video and didn't call for punishment of the shooters should be treated as being part of the shooting itself - all the way to Bush and Obama (who if the military is competent didn't see it anyway and hence it won't go that high).
That's pretty clear cut firing on people trying to assist the wounded, people who were clearly unarmed and not combatants. Note that in the video, none of the voices ever claim they are armed.
I'm not sure why they won't fire on an unarmed wounded person, but will fire on him when he is still unarmed but being carried by other unarmed people instead of just bleeding to death on the ground. That seems a strange pair of rules.
1. The fucking amendment in question says that the things not enumerated are reserved to the States, so you are not only wrong but retarded.
2. What does the first amendment have to do with this?
3. This isn't a state government action either.
Plus the ground water, which I'm sure would do the right thing and not cross property lines.
Or at least keep them to yourself.
over one hundred? In 30 years?
The goal was one launch a week. Getting 8% of the target is a "damn good"???
They'd have done better with standard rocket launches, since the much promised lower per launch cost via amortization was a complete joke.
What's a few orders of magnitude between friends...
That's not what he said, in fact I see no way to interpret it as such.
You can type but you can't read, I take it?
The topic isn't the federal government doing something, so that's irrelevant.
The US and Indian consitutions are basically the same with respect to privacy. Neither mention it, neither declare it as a right. Both declare other rights which the "right to privacy" has been derived from by their courts.
And for some reason they can't do an April fools joke on their closest to April 1 publication???
Of course a issue renouncing evolution and embracing creationism would be a better joke.
Nature should do that.
Well not glaciers or tropical rainforests (that would be the opposite direction), but the grasslands and so on, yes exactly that.
How do you think the current farmlands came into being? God put them there and we discovered them? Or we razed the natural resources for land?