That argument is equivalent to looking at the part of the constitution that says, "neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years", and concluding that the president doesn't have to be thirty five years of age or older because it does not express it in the positive tense as "thirty five years or older".
Actually, that's exactly what it says. What do you think the word 'attained' means, anyway?
1) "Hard currencies" and metal only have value because people agree on it beforehand. Gold has no intrinsic value assigned to it by the universe, only by human beings. So keeping your money on a gold standard is only marginally less absurd than our current system. 2) Money is a reflection of wealth, and limiting the money supply limits wealth creation and distribution. There's a reason why there are more millionaires (and billionaires) in the US today than in the 19th century: there's more money available. With an effectively unlimited wealth base, it's easier for more people to become wealthy, not just the few misers who hoard all the gold.
Argh! I'm going to put this as simply as possible: habeas corpus is protected by the Constitution, it is not granted by the Constitution. Why is that subtle difference so difficult to grasp?
I never said or implied such a thing, and nothing the AG did or said implied that's what he was driving at. Again, the man was making a pedantic argument, that's all.
Off-topic, but these days the cheapest new 3 series is $32,400.
Wow, you must suck at negotiating.;)
As for changing out cars every couple of years, people do it for the same reason(s) that other people change out computers every couple of years, or move into a new house every few years, or buy a new wardrobe every few seasons (or years). Because having some new and flashy and "up to date" is more important than just having any old thing to get around in.
Your first paragraph is basically making the exact same argument as I, and it's also the argument I assume the AG was going to finish making before getting interrupted by grandstanding Senators. Obviously, I can't be certain of that, but I sure would like to hear the man finish his thoughts on the subject. In short, habeas corpus predates the Constitution, so if you want to see who gets its protections, you have to look at statutory precedent, not the text of the Constitution.
Secondly, the AG most certainly can be impeached, as can any and every appointed official in the Federal government, except for the White House staff, and judges. Impeachment isn't reserved for the President.
Have you ever leased a car? Do you know how it works?
Yes, and yes. And it is completely false that you usually spend more leasing than buying.
When you buy a vehicle, you pay the amount that the vehicle is worth that day. So if you're buying a BMW 3-series, it'll be somewhere in the high-20s or low-30s. When you lease, you pay what the vehicle is worth today, minus what the vehicle is projected to be worth when the lease is over. If the vehicle is projected to lose half its value, then you'll pay for half of the current value of it, spread over the next two to three years in monthly payments, plus an initial payment to get out the door.
There are three tricks here that can lead you to paying more in a lease: 1) If you want the same vehicle for more than the typical two to three years, it'll almost certainly be cheaper to buy. But most people (especially in the US) get a new vehicle every three years on average. 2) When you lease, you get a certain number of miles to use up. Usually, it's about 12 to 15 thousand per year. Go over that amount and you have to pay extra, amount a dime a mile. 3) There's always the chance that the amount of the depreciation will be miscalculated. In the above example, if the vehicle only loses 1/3 its value, then you've spent too much on it. If you walk away now, you lose the equity, and in effect pay more for the same vehicle than if you bought it. But if you buy it at this point, you keep the equity and don't lose anything.
Own it, because land generally appreciates in value.
Would you rather rent a car or own it?
Rent it (lease it) because cars do the opposite.
Those things which bring no value to the organization should be leased/outsourced, those that do should be owned/kept internal. Pretty simple concept, really.
No, I get that, which is why the illegal alien amnesty worries me (the logical progression from there is to get rid of our borders entirely). I just think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with this. There are plenty enough things the Feds do everyday (not just the executive branch, either) to worry about, why all the fuss about something so unimportant?
Since there are no other laws about it, the executive gets to make up its own rules
"No other laws"? The AG said the Constitution governs when habeas corpus can be suspended, and that's only in two instances: invasion, or civil insurrection. If they were really intent on destroying the US like you think they are, they would've declared 9/11 an "invasion" and all those protests against the war "civil insurrection" and done away with habeas corpus then. Since that didn't happen, their plans must not line up with your paranoid delusions.
So you agree with the AG's statement, then? That the words "Habeas corpus is granted" aren't in the Constitution? Because those words aren't in there, and we don't need a "Constitutional" right to habeas corpus, because habeas corpus predates the Constitution.
He never said we don't have the right, he said it's not granted by the Constitution. And so far all you've done is proven him right.
This is a very pedantic argument, but that's what lawyers do. (I'm not one, but both Gonzo and Specter are.)
The problem is that MSN isn't paying for the service, *I* am. And if they throttle back the speed for Google, that pisses me off.
And that's where your argument completely falls apart. It's not about throttling back Google, it's about speeding up MSN. What's the problem with providing high levels of service to those who pay for it?
It's one thing to nationalize the oil industry. It's stupid, but hey, he's a thug, not a Harvard MBA, so I'll cut him some slack. But he's taking the oil and giving it away to Alaskans and New Yorkers, for free or almost for free, while his people are starving. How is that helping his people?
I'd like to see this article in a Slashback in a few weeks, with an update on the number of Slashdotters who have called for the AG's death, or even just his impeachment, who have been "disappeared" to Gitmo. I'm willing to bet my next two paychecks that that number will be '0'. Which is odd, because if the administration were half as evil as some people think, the number would be a lot higher than '0'.
1) He wasn't arguing there's no right to habeas, just that the Constitution doesn't grant it. Which is correct, there's nothing in the Constitution that says "Everyone has the right of habeas corpus." 2) He was making the argument that the court was more concerned with the statutory right to habeas corpus, not the Constitutional right to it, which is probably accurate, since, as stated, there's nothing in the Constitution that says "Everyone has the right of habeas corpus." 3) Slashdotters, especially the liberal ones, are easily inflamed and lead about by the nose.
Now, if one wants to "liberally" interpret the Constitution (e.g., not use a "strict" interpretation), then you could make the argument that Gonzales is making.
Really? So habeas corpus is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution? Which section? Which clause?
It ain't there! It doesn't exist! Habeas corpus is one of those rights that supersedes the Constitution. It's not in there, because it doesn't need to be!
Yes, because bad mouthing the AG is going to get you modded as a troll in this forum. Seriously, there are posts on this article calling for the man's murder being marked 'Insightful', do you really think you'd be marked 'Troll' for calling him names?
seriously, how can you tolerate a US Attorney General who questions such a fundamental right?
Are you insane? He wasn't questioning a fundamental right, he was pointing out that it's not listed in the Constitution! That doesn't mean he was arguing it doesn't exist.
You people are scary, the way you just run off and think whatever other people tell you what to think.
the military CAN be a powerful bulwark for progressivism as demonstrated in Venezuela
Do you mean the Venezuela in South America? 'Cause the only thing that's an example of is how a thug can take over a control and rob its people of their wealth while lining his own pockets.
Except that, he's right. Habeas corpus isn't guaranteed by the Constitution. And you know what? It doesn't need to be, and it shouldn't be. We shouldn't have rights like that spelled out as us having them, because then some asshat can say our rights come from the Constitution. They don't, we have those rights because we're human beings.
I strongly suspect these quotes were taken hugely out of context. Even in the video on Colbert's site, it seems like Gonzalez is arguing a fine point of distinction in where our rights come from, not that the right doesn't exist. Of course, I can't be sure, since I didn't see the entire exchange. But that would certainly jibe with what was shown.
You need not open your mail, esp. when the subject line is something that you aren't interested;
You need not open your mail to have your resources (bandwidth, disk space, processing power) consumed by spam. I work at a major telecom company running the edge mail servers, along with another full time engineer. Of the 12 million emails we get a day, about 100,000 are legitimate mail. The rest is just spam, and it uses up the bandwidth that could've been resold to customers, it uses up the disk space on the expensive mail servers we bought a few months ago, hell it forced us to buy those expensive new servers in the first place. I figure, just in the extra salary (if not for the spam one guy would be enough to handle the load), having to upgrade perfectly adequate five year old servers, and buying licenses for anti-spam products at four different levels of mail delivery throughout the enterprise just to keep our users from being deluged with useless garbage, the company has spent about $200,000 last year, and will spend about the same amount this year. All because a bunch of asshats want to force our employees to read their idiot advertising, using our network resources to push their message.
That's not free speech, that's theft. And that's never been legal.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to vote for her (though I might, depending who the opponent is -- she'd be better than Bush, of that I'm certain)
Well, good thing for you he can't run next time, huh?
That argument is equivalent to looking at the part of the constitution that says, "neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years", and concluding that the president doesn't have to be thirty five years of age or older because it does not express it in the positive tense as "thirty five years or older".
Actually, that's exactly what it says. What do you think the word 'attained' means, anyway?
There are two problems with that:
1) "Hard currencies" and metal only have value because people agree on it beforehand. Gold has no intrinsic value assigned to it by the universe, only by human beings. So keeping your money on a gold standard is only marginally less absurd than our current system.
2) Money is a reflection of wealth, and limiting the money supply limits wealth creation and distribution. There's a reason why there are more millionaires (and billionaires) in the US today than in the 19th century: there's more money available. With an effectively unlimited wealth base, it's easier for more people to become wealthy, not just the few misers who hoard all the gold.
Go ask a lawyer.
Argh! I'm going to put this as simply as possible: habeas corpus is protected by the Constitution, it is not granted by the Constitution. Why is that subtle difference so difficult to grasp?
No need to google it, it's a pretty common term.
I never said or implied such a thing, and nothing the AG did or said implied that's what he was driving at. Again, the man was making a pedantic argument, that's all.
Off-topic, but these days the cheapest new 3 series is $32,400.
;)
Wow, you must suck at negotiating.
As for changing out cars every couple of years, people do it for the same reason(s) that other people change out computers every couple of years, or move into a new house every few years, or buy a new wardrobe every few seasons (or years). Because having some new and flashy and "up to date" is more important than just having any old thing to get around in.
You're so wrong in so many ways.
Your first paragraph is basically making the exact same argument as I, and it's also the argument I assume the AG was going to finish making before getting interrupted by grandstanding Senators. Obviously, I can't be certain of that, but I sure would like to hear the man finish his thoughts on the subject. In short, habeas corpus predates the Constitution, so if you want to see who gets its protections, you have to look at statutory precedent, not the text of the Constitution.
Secondly, the AG most certainly can be impeached, as can any and every appointed official in the Federal government, except for the White House staff, and judges. Impeachment isn't reserved for the President.
Have you ever leased a car? Do you know how it works?
Yes, and yes. And it is completely false that you usually spend more leasing than buying.
When you buy a vehicle, you pay the amount that the vehicle is worth that day. So if you're buying a BMW 3-series, it'll be somewhere in the high-20s or low-30s. When you lease, you pay what the vehicle is worth today, minus what the vehicle is projected to be worth when the lease is over. If the vehicle is projected to lose half its value, then you'll pay for half of the current value of it, spread over the next two to three years in monthly payments, plus an initial payment to get out the door.
There are three tricks here that can lead you to paying more in a lease:
1) If you want the same vehicle for more than the typical two to three years, it'll almost certainly be cheaper to buy. But most people (especially in the US) get a new vehicle every three years on average.
2) When you lease, you get a certain number of miles to use up. Usually, it's about 12 to 15 thousand per year. Go over that amount and you have to pay extra, amount a dime a mile.
3) There's always the chance that the amount of the depreciation will be miscalculated. In the above example, if the vehicle only loses 1/3 its value, then you've spent too much on it. If you walk away now, you lose the equity, and in effect pay more for the same vehicle than if you bought it. But if you buy it at this point, you keep the equity and don't lose anything.
And that's how leasing works.
My advice, support the war to the logical end which is getting rid of the radicals.
You misspelled "Muslims".
Would you rather own your home, or rent it?
Own it, because land generally appreciates in value.
Would you rather rent a car or own it?
Rent it (lease it) because cars do the opposite.
Those things which bring no value to the organization should be leased/outsourced, those that do should be owned/kept internal. Pretty simple concept, really.
No, I get that, which is why the illegal alien amnesty worries me (the logical progression from there is to get rid of our borders entirely). I just think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with this. There are plenty enough things the Feds do everyday (not just the executive branch, either) to worry about, why all the fuss about something so unimportant?
Since there are no other laws about it, the executive gets to make up its own rules
"No other laws"? The AG said the Constitution governs when habeas corpus can be suspended, and that's only in two instances: invasion, or civil insurrection. If they were really intent on destroying the US like you think they are, they would've declared 9/11 an "invasion" and all those protests against the war "civil insurrection" and done away with habeas corpus then. Since that didn't happen, their plans must not line up with your paranoid delusions.
So you agree with the AG's statement, then? That the words "Habeas corpus is granted" aren't in the Constitution? Because those words aren't in there, and we don't need a "Constitutional" right to habeas corpus, because habeas corpus predates the Constitution.
He never said we don't have the right, he said it's not granted by the Constitution. And so far all you've done is proven him right.
This is a very pedantic argument, but that's what lawyers do. (I'm not one, but both Gonzo and Specter are.)
The problem is that MSN isn't paying for the service, *I* am. And if they throttle back the speed for Google, that pisses me off.
And that's where your argument completely falls apart. It's not about throttling back Google, it's about speeding up MSN. What's the problem with providing high levels of service to those who pay for it?
It's one thing to nationalize the oil industry. It's stupid, but hey, he's a thug, not a Harvard MBA, so I'll cut him some slack. But he's taking the oil and giving it away to Alaskans and New Yorkers, for free or almost for free, while his people are starving. How is that helping his people?
I'd like to see this article in a Slashback in a few weeks, with an update on the number of Slashdotters who have called for the AG's death, or even just his impeachment, who have been "disappeared" to Gitmo. I'm willing to bet my next two paychecks that that number will be '0'. Which is odd, because if the administration were half as evil as some people think, the number would be a lot higher than '0'.
Thanks for that. It's clear from the videos that:
1) He wasn't arguing there's no right to habeas, just that the Constitution doesn't grant it. Which is correct, there's nothing in the Constitution that says "Everyone has the right of habeas corpus."
2) He was making the argument that the court was more concerned with the statutory right to habeas corpus, not the Constitutional right to it, which is probably accurate, since, as stated, there's nothing in the Constitution that says "Everyone has the right of habeas corpus."
3) Slashdotters, especially the liberal ones, are easily inflamed and lead about by the nose.
Now, if one wants to "liberally" interpret the Constitution (e.g., not use a "strict" interpretation), then you could make the argument that Gonzales is making.
Really? So habeas corpus is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution? Which section? Which clause?
It ain't there! It doesn't exist! Habeas corpus is one of those rights that supersedes the Constitution. It's not in there, because it doesn't need to be!
Yes, because bad mouthing the AG is going to get you modded as a troll in this forum. Seriously, there are posts on this article calling for the man's murder being marked 'Insightful', do you really think you'd be marked 'Troll' for calling him names?
seriously, how can you tolerate a US Attorney General who questions such a fundamental right?
Are you insane? He wasn't questioning a fundamental right, he was pointing out that it's not listed in the Constitution! That doesn't mean he was arguing it doesn't exist.
You people are scary, the way you just run off and think whatever other people tell you what to think.
the military CAN be a powerful bulwark for progressivism as demonstrated in Venezuela
Do you mean the Venezuela in South America? 'Cause the only thing that's an example of is how a thug can take over a control and rob its people of their wealth while lining his own pockets.
Oh, wait, that is progressivism. My mistake.
Except that, he's right. Habeas corpus isn't guaranteed by the Constitution. And you know what? It doesn't need to be, and it shouldn't be. We shouldn't have rights like that spelled out as us having them, because then some asshat can say our rights come from the Constitution. They don't, we have those rights because we're human beings.
I strongly suspect these quotes were taken hugely out of context. Even in the video on Colbert's site, it seems like Gonzalez is arguing a fine point of distinction in where our rights come from, not that the right doesn't exist. Of course, I can't be sure, since I didn't see the entire exchange. But that would certainly jibe with what was shown.
That would be the exact opposite of what a number of my coworkers do currently.
You need not open your mail, esp. when the subject line is something that you aren't interested;
You need not open your mail to have your resources (bandwidth, disk space, processing power) consumed by spam. I work at a major telecom company running the edge mail servers, along with another full time engineer. Of the 12 million emails we get a day, about 100,000 are legitimate mail. The rest is just spam, and it uses up the bandwidth that could've been resold to customers, it uses up the disk space on the expensive mail servers we bought a few months ago, hell it forced us to buy those expensive new servers in the first place. I figure, just in the extra salary (if not for the spam one guy would be enough to handle the load), having to upgrade perfectly adequate five year old servers, and buying licenses for anti-spam products at four different levels of mail delivery throughout the enterprise just to keep our users from being deluged with useless garbage, the company has spent about $200,000 last year, and will spend about the same amount this year. All because a bunch of asshats want to force our employees to read their idiot advertising, using our network resources to push their message.
That's not free speech, that's theft. And that's never been legal.