"It's not slavery if the man allows the whipping to take place".
It is slavery, if the man can be punished (up to and including by death) for refusing to work for free.
Trump held no power over the women involved. He may have flaunted his wealth, but, unlike Clinton, he never used armed men under his command to compel his victims into sex acts. And yet, you consider Bill Clinton the best President ever (or second only to Obama), while Trump's "assaults" make him an abomination.
Your hypocrisy is not even thick — it is rock solid already...
"Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." - Abraham Lincoln
Admitting sexual assault is not "joshing around guy talk"
Is that why Bill Clinton never admitted his? His actualassaults on multiple women, not merely kissing them without a prior written and notarized permission?
Thanks to the links I offered above, you too know, she spoke an untruth.
Maybe, you are too young to have paid attention, when these facts broke out, but Hillary Clinton was already very active in politics — she can not possibly not have heard about it. Therefore, she knew. Deliberately telling an untruth is the very definition of lying.
I am reluctant to accept something from a KGB archive as fact.
Well, what would you accept as fact? There are folks, who still question Moon-landing, for example, and they too can explain in detail, why everything known about it was not "fact". In the early 1990-ies, when the archives were (briefly) made accessible, the KGB was in disarray...
KGB might have still borne some grudges against the Kennedy family.
American Left have always been good to the USSR and Russia... It was because of them, the US was humiliated in Vietnam, defeated not by military might, but by discontent back at home. Later, when the USSR collapsed, it was Bill Clinton, who didn't push for Nurneberg-style of the Communists, allowing their prosecution to fizzle — that during the time, when Moscow was barely avoiding famine thanks to America's help. Later, it were Barack and Hillary, who offered Putin a "Reset" — and poured billions of dollars into Russian scientific research — not selflessly, of course. The duo also completely forgave Putin his invasion of Georgia by ending all sanctions in 2010 (thus encouraging him to invade Ukraine, as predicted).
Why would Putin seek to undermine such an asset as Hillary — whom he could've instead controlled with a combination of continuing bribery and blackmail over the bribes already taken?
Sure enough, Democrats would like Trump to look like Putin's favorite, but history points rather strongly at them...
Julian Assange is a KGB agent, on a mission to elect Donald Trump.
Wait, Snowden — hiding in Russia is a hero for his exposes, but Assange — hiding in London — is a "KGB agent" for his?..
Only releases information that is useful to russia.
The only known instance of an American politician covertly seeking Russian help in exchange for favorable policy changes is that of Ted Kennedy (struggling against Ronald Reagan) — the Democratic "lion" and otherwise a hero of everything Progressive.
Secretary Clinton lied yesterday, when she claimed, Trump is the first to be accused of collaborating with Russia. And, while accusations against Trump are completely unsubstantiated, those against Kennedy are backed by the KGB's archives...
Except we have a militia already, under the control of district, states and territories control; it's the National Guard
This proves nothing about the original intent of the Second Amendment.
At some point, SCOTUS should recognize the well regulated militia part of the second as allowing broader Federal and State regulation of arms than is currently permitted
No, at some point we need a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the Second. SCOTUS interprets the existing law, they aren't supposed to write it — even if they've done that in the past (such as a right to an abortion).
At any rate, all of this has little to do with unwarranted searches such as the surveillance described in TFA, so I'm unlikely to continue this thread.
It's clear that the framers did not intend the 2cd [sic] to be a blanket right to own any weapon
It is not. Not to me.
even during the earliest days of our country localities controlled weapon ownership with various laws
Warrantless searches were also wide spread, as were the free speech violations.
so it's pretty clear what the intent was
It is, indeed, clear, yes. Only it is not, what you claim it to be. At any rate, the intent only needs to be examined, if the law itself is vague and unclear. Which the 2nd Amendment is not — citizens are to keep and bear arms, or else you will not be able to assemble a militia when the need arises.
I'd like to see that right returned to local citizens with respect to the 2cd [sic].
Go on, start working on the new Amendment. Sneaking in local laws on the subject remains unconstitutional until you do.
No, they haven't. It just does not mean, what you'd like to claim the Founders wanted it to mean. Unwarranted searches are illegal and unwarranted seizures are illegal — that's my reading of the law and its original intent from day one.
And I can prove it too in this case. Suppose, it were legal for the police to search any house without warrants — as long as they haven't seized anything. Then, upon finding evidence of crime, they'd be able to go to a magistrate and — in full honesty and good faith — describe, what they found and obtain a warrant to go back and seize it...
Thus, the stipulation was wrong and searches really are illegal, whether anything is seized or not.
It seems you agree that the interpretation should change with time, base on your comment.
No, I rather dislike the idea of changing the laws by changing the language.
I tend to agree as well, since that allows common sense gun restrictions to be put in place
If the restrictions really were "common sense", you would've had no problems passing a new Amendment to alter/qualify the Second.
restore the rights of local governments to decide their own restrictions
Do you really wish for the local laws to trump the Bill of Rights? Go ahead, state so for the record here...
party leaders still have time to recover some shred of dignity
Ah, that famously gallant concern Democrats have for the Republican Party...
KKK, BLM, and Westboro Church — three infamously Democratic outfits — throw urine at each other, but it is the Republicans, who need to worry about their dignity... Fabulous...
And if we are talking corruption, how about his cronyism?
As with, for example, rape, there are two sides to cronyism. Trump was never a public official before, he is a victim of cronyism. Far too much in America these days requires a government permit/license/approval — making cronyism inevitable. But Trump did not introduce it.
Whether he will happily partake of it, once he becomes a public servant himself, or not remains to be seen. But so far no such accusations against him can be made.
Unlike with Hillary Clinton, whom nobody would've paid $200K for a single speech, if she weren't a Secretary of State and an "inevitable" President. One ought to vote for Trump just to prove all of these bribes she received a bad investment...
I have private opinions that don't match my professional acts as well.
Not acts — Hillary admitted to have privately held opinions that contradict her publicly-stated opinions. Which means, she lies to the public, whenever she states them:
"If everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least," she said. "So, you need both a public and a private position."
She is as crooked as it gets — so much so, her camp's only hope is to keep talking about Trump's rudeness and imaginary racism.
See Tim Kaine's excellent explanation of his view on abortion for an example.
Yeah, ask him about his sympathies for Communism/Socialism next time you meet him — and what would he do differently from Hugo Chavez, should he ever find himself President.
Actually, the fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure
Unreasonable search is unconstitutional by itself — nothing needs to be seized to violate the Constitution.
absent a seizure as in the case of the NSA collecting records
NSA has never seized anything either.
The question is not can certain weapons be banned, but where to draw the line.
Wherever you choose to draw it, any such line will be unconstitutional — unless a new Amendment is passed to clarify the Second.
But, as I pointed out preemptively, the scale/dangerousness of a weapon is a red herring to this debate, because many locales ban not only tanks, bombers, battleships, and nukes, but brass knuckles and swords too.
Even if technically true — the best kind of correct — the same folks, who usually denounce any and all "unwarranted surveillance", are surprisingly silent about this one. Silent or even approving, thus exposing themselves as hypocrites.
But I doubt, this is even technically true — though this monitoring does not, as you say, directly violate the Second Amendment, that's not the accusation. All other objectionable surveillance and recording is usually denounced on the Fourth Amendment grounds — like NSA's snooping of your e-mails or phone-records, it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.
Moreover, the very "crime", that this effort was supposed to catch/prevent — transport of the legally purchased guns across the state-lines into areas, where they are illegal — should not be a crime to begin with (unlike the terrorism NSA is after). Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights and ought to be protested and denounced at any opportunity far more noisily than the marijuana prohibition or "gay marriage" inequality.
The purchase and sale of firearms are not protected. What is, is the right to have firearms.
Distinction without difference. You can not have a weapon without buying it first. 3D-printed guns my tail — many States ban even swords and brass-knuckles, hand-made or purchased! Were we to apply this standard to the First Amendment, for example, we'd say, you have the right to speak (to yourself in the shower), but not giving a speech, nor to sell or buy a book or a magazine.
Your really saying that 18 months of bad coverage has usurped the 25 years of shit Hillary has dealt with?
Most of it well-deserved and, unlike some decades-old name calling, substantive and pertinent to her becoming a President (or not). She's been both personally nasty and at odds with the voters on a host of major issues for a very long time. So at odds, she even admits to having "a private and a public position on some issues" — that is, to lying to the public about her convictions.
You should consider what meds you missed.
You should consider refreshing your cliché-collection, cupcake.
If, despite all these partisan efforts, the worst things they can come up with is his calling some cunt a cunt in 1988 (!), you really ought to ask yourself, how much of that negative perception you have of him is artificially planted...
Funneling money anywhere, for any reason, isn't a 'crime against all', nor 'too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage"
How about funneling money to finance genocidal gas chambers? Oops... ISIS aren't using gas chambers, but their own kind of genocide is not any better.
At any rate, it was not the much-hated US, that invented the concept of prosecuting wrongdoers abroad, so blaming us and our "twisted standards" is incorrect, however popular.
Slashdot Mirror
User mi does not think, a kiss equates to an assault. Not in English language.
Are you seriously claiming, it is your sincere belief, Bill Clinton has never sexually assaulted anyone? Please, say so.
Right now there are simply no such proven allegations against Trump. Zero — confession without hard evidence do not count. And it was investigated by the best minds in the business — the most they could find was a Florida model attending Trump's party, whom he has offered to change into a swimsuit. Wow, the nerve! It was so pathetic, it made some Democrats laugh.
His wife is — credibly — accused of suppressing his victims' accusations. That is not merely immoral, but criminal too.
It is slavery, if the man can be punished (up to and including by death) for refusing to work for free.
Trump held no power over the women involved. He may have flaunted his wealth, but, unlike Clinton, he never used armed men under his command to compel his victims into sex acts. And yet, you consider Bill Clinton the best President ever (or second only to Obama), while Trump's "assaults" make him an abomination.
Your hypocrisy is not even thick — it is rock solid already...
No, what Lincoln actually said was “Bitch nigga buy your own damn fries.”
Is that why Bill Clinton never admitted his? His actual assaults on multiple women, not merely kissing them without a prior written and notarized permission?
Thanks to the links I offered above, you too know, she spoke an untruth.
Maybe, you are too young to have paid attention, when these facts broke out, but Hillary Clinton was already very active in politics — she can not possibly not have heard about it. Therefore, she knew. Deliberately telling an untruth is the very definition of lying.
Well, what would you accept as fact? There are folks, who still question Moon-landing, for example, and they too can explain in detail, why everything known about it was not "fact". In the early 1990-ies, when the archives were (briefly) made accessible, the KGB was in disarray...
American Left have always been good to the USSR and Russia... It was because of them, the US was humiliated in Vietnam, defeated not by military might, but by discontent back at home. Later, when the USSR collapsed, it was Bill Clinton, who didn't push for Nurneberg-style of the Communists, allowing their prosecution to fizzle — that during the time, when Moscow was barely avoiding famine thanks to America's help. Later, it were Barack and Hillary, who offered Putin a "Reset" — and poured billions of dollars into Russian scientific research — not selflessly, of course. The duo also completely forgave Putin his invasion of Georgia by ending all sanctions in 2010 (thus encouraging him to invade Ukraine, as predicted).
Why would Putin seek to undermine such an asset as Hillary — whom he could've instead controlled with a combination of continuing bribery and blackmail over the bribes already taken?
Sure enough, Democrats would like Trump to look like Putin's favorite, but history points rather strongly at them...
Might was not the subject — dignity was, cupcake.
Wait, Snowden — hiding in Russia is a hero for his exposes, but Assange — hiding in London — is a "KGB agent" for his?..
The only known instance of an American politician covertly seeking Russian help in exchange for favorable policy changes is that of Ted Kennedy (struggling against Ronald Reagan) — the Democratic "lion" and otherwise a hero of everything Progressive.
Secretary Clinton lied yesterday, when she claimed, Trump is the first to be accused of collaborating with Russia. And, while accusations against Trump are completely unsubstantiated, those against Kennedy are backed by the KGB's archives...
This proves nothing about the original intent of the Second Amendment.
No, at some point we need a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the Second. SCOTUS interprets the existing law, they aren't supposed to write it — even if they've done that in the past (such as a right to an abortion).
At any rate, all of this has little to do with unwarranted searches such as the surveillance described in TFA, so I'm unlikely to continue this thread.
It is not. Not to me.
Warrantless searches were also wide spread, as were the free speech violations.
It is, indeed, clear, yes. Only it is not, what you claim it to be. At any rate, the intent only needs to be examined, if the law itself is vague and unclear. Which the 2nd Amendment is not — citizens are to keep and bear arms, or else you will not be able to assemble a militia when the need arises.
Go on, start working on the new Amendment. Sneaking in local laws on the subject remains unconstitutional until you do.
No words, however heated, compare to thrown urine-filled projectiles.
No, they haven't. It just does not mean, what you'd like to claim the Founders wanted it to mean. Unwarranted searches are illegal and unwarranted seizures are illegal — that's my reading of the law and its original intent from day one.
And I can prove it too in this case. Suppose, it were legal for the police to search any house without warrants — as long as they haven't seized anything. Then, upon finding evidence of crime, they'd be able to go to a magistrate and — in full honesty and good faith — describe, what they found and obtain a warrant to go back and seize it...
Thus, the stipulation was wrong and searches really are illegal, whether anything is seized or not.
No, I rather dislike the idea of changing the laws by changing the language.
If the restrictions really were "common sense", you would've had no problems passing a new Amendment to alter/qualify the Second.
Do you really wish for the local laws to trump the Bill of Rights? Go ahead, state so for the record here...
Ah, that famously gallant concern Democrats have for the Republican Party...
KKK, BLM, and Westboro Church — three infamously Democratic outfits — throw urine at each other, but it is the Republicans, who need to worry about their dignity... Fabulous...
As with, for example, rape, there are two sides to cronyism. Trump was never a public official before, he is a victim of cronyism. Far too much in America these days requires a government permit/license/approval — making cronyism inevitable. But Trump did not introduce it.
Whether he will happily partake of it, once he becomes a public servant himself, or not remains to be seen. But so far no such accusations against him can be made.
Unlike with Hillary Clinton, whom nobody would've paid $200K for a single speech, if she weren't a Secretary of State and an "inevitable" President. One ought to vote for Trump just to prove all of these bribes she received a bad investment...
Not by anyone with a regular English dictionary.
Not acts — Hillary admitted to have privately held opinions that contradict her publicly-stated opinions. Which means, she lies to the public, whenever she states them:
She is as crooked as it gets — so much so, her camp's only hope is to keep talking about Trump's rudeness and imaginary racism.
Yeah, ask him about his sympathies for Communism/Socialism next time you meet him — and what would he do differently from Hugo Chavez, should he ever find himself President.
Unreasonable search is unconstitutional by itself — nothing needs to be seized to violate the Constitution.
NSA has never seized anything either.
Wherever you choose to draw it, any such line will be unconstitutional — unless a new Amendment is passed to clarify the Second.
But, as I pointed out preemptively, the scale/dangerousness of a weapon is a red herring to this debate, because many locales ban not only tanks, bombers, battleships, and nukes, but brass knuckles and swords too.
Yep — as I said, that prohibition is in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Emphasis mine:
Even if technically true — the best kind of correct — the same folks, who usually denounce any and all "unwarranted surveillance", are surprisingly silent about this one. Silent or even approving, thus exposing themselves as hypocrites.
But I doubt, this is even technically true — though this monitoring does not, as you say, directly violate the Second Amendment, that's not the accusation. All other objectionable surveillance and recording is usually denounced on the Fourth Amendment grounds — like NSA's snooping of your e-mails or phone-records, it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.
Moreover, the very "crime", that this effort was supposed to catch/prevent — transport of the legally purchased guns across the state-lines into areas, where they are illegal — should not be a crime to begin with (unlike the terrorism NSA is after). Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights and ought to be protested and denounced at any opportunity far more noisily than the marijuana prohibition or "gay marriage" inequality.
Distinction without difference. You can not have a weapon without buying it first. 3D-printed guns my tail — many States ban even swords and brass-knuckles, hand-made or purchased! Were we to apply this standard to the First Amendment, for example, we'd say, you have the right to speak (to yourself in the shower), but not giving a speech, nor to sell or buy a book or a magazine.
Most of it well-deserved and, unlike some decades-old name calling, substantive and pertinent to her becoming a President (or not). She's been both personally nasty and at odds with the voters on a host of major issues for a very long time. So at odds, she even admits to having "a private and a public position on some issues" — that is, to lying to the public about her convictions.
You should consider refreshing your cliché-collection, cupcake.
The reason you even consider Hillary comparably evil to Trump is the unprecedented media campaign against him and for her.
Merely 7% of journalists are Republicans... There has not been a day in the last 6 months, when my iPhone did not have at least one link to a bad article about him, while she is mentioned either neutrally or positively. Washington Post alone has 20 journalists digging up dirt on Trump full time. In 2008, at least, the media still feigned neutrality, hiding the skew against McCain — although, it was an obvious pretense. The public was staggeringly misinformed about both sides — far more people knew all about the cost of Palin's new clothes, for example, than about Biden's past plagiarism, an objective evidence of media's failure to inform.
This time, they don't even pretend any more...
If, despite all these partisan efforts, the worst things they can come up with is his calling some cunt a cunt in 1988 (!), you really ought to ask yourself, how much of that negative perception you have of him is artificially planted...
Bernie Sanders is a bona-fide Communist, actually — a prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Complete with nationalizing means of production.
He may be talking about making America more like Scandinavia, but the end result would've been more like Venezuela.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Hillary to "disown" and reject the Communist endorsement.
I would've thought, a link to DailyKos combined with an Obama-mocking signature provides enough of a clue...
How about funneling money to finance genocidal gas chambers? Oops... ISIS aren't using gas chambers, but their own kind of genocide is not any better.
At any rate, it was not the much-hated US, that invented the concept of prosecuting wrongdoers abroad, so blaming us and our "twisted standards" is incorrect, however popular.
Even better: G.W. Bush didn't dare comming to Switzerland because he could face arrest for war crimes in a war the Swiss never participated.
Not quite true.
The story of Yahoo!'s downfall can be repeated on a much grander scale, if we elect a woman simply because she is a woman .