Well, how many chief executives before this have attempted to negotiate treaties they never intend to ratify through the senate as the constitution requires?
It is illegal to have classified information on a private e-mail server. The notion that she never sent or received classified information in six years is laughable.
One can switch insurance companies, companies who compete for business. Government's don't compete for customers. Big difference.
I never voted for a single bureaucrat at the HHS, and neither did you. Our congresscritters never read the bill before voting on it. We truly live in a post-constitutional era.
So, AC, what possible evidence do you have that confiscation of arms in America would be peaceful? Last time it was tried by one General Gage, it lead to all kinds of unpleasantries. BTW, you seem to have serious anger management issues. You should get some treatment.
Ah yes, the militia. Here is the legal definition. You are likely a member:
"United States Code
TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES
SUBTITLE A – GENERAL MILITARY LAW
PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." This is the "regulation" you are looking for. Note nothing regarding banning arms from citizens.
Thought Experiment: I don't like what you have to say, so I want jackbooted thugs to assault your home to confiscate your computer equipment and rough you up. Discuss.
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." D.C. V. Heller
I disagree. The Overton Window works both ways. I imagine you are not so squeamish about the exercise of your other civil liberties precisely because your masters haven't been as successful marginalizing them... yet.
ISIS was created when the current regime did the normal liberal cut and run leaving a massive power vacuum.
The economic crisis of '08 can be traced directly back to the community reinvestment act, where do-gooders decided that people who cannot afford to buy a house should get one just because.
The economy is not fixed, or even close. Liberals believe that trillion dollar deficits are sustainable, while everything is being done to prevent economic growth.
The white house was informed of the visit, but chose to ignore it. Even the NYT has admitted as much. Don't you think it is cute that the regime is more butt hurt about manufactured slights of protocol than the specter of the mad mullahs getting nukes? BTW, the speaker of the house does not need the Bamster's permission to invite guests to speak to congress.
And if you think this is about chest-thumping, you are insane. The regime is negotiating with the mad mullahs to allow them to develop nuclear capability, which if they do get nukes, you will see mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv and probably NYC or DC.
This is really kind of a moot point, isn't it? Only a moron would believe that correlation can prove causation. Especially when the entire data set is a blink of the eye in terms of geologic time. Even if our records back to 1900 were perfect for every square inch of the planet, and included an observation for every minute of every day (how meaningful are averages anyway?), that would represent about two ten thousands of a percent of geologic time, at least going back to the beginning of the Cambrian period, where incidentally, CO2 levels were 16X higher than "pre-industrial" levels. Who knows how long there was an atmosphere before that? The point is that our piddly data sets are utterly incapable of the task of proving AGW. Sorry.
No, it is accurate. Check out a paper by David H. Douglass posted at wattsupwiththat entitled "How IPCC Scientists interfere with publication of inconvenient scientific results"
What, you think the White House Press Agency (conglomeration of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, etc) is going to print articles pointing out these kinds of inconvenient truths? Dream on. And if you can find inaccuracies in the article cited above, feel free to point them out.
Maybe you could point out all the atheists in congress? I think there might be one. It would be fair to characterize your particular system of belief (religion) as "science".
Especially given the fact that the vast majority of government climate funding is to uncover *human* causes to the exclusion of all others. Doesn't government outspend industry in terms of climate research around 40 to 1? The government funded researchers should be required to publish disclaimers.
That was not an experiment. You are trying to prove something by correlation. I think everyone learned in high school science that correlation by itself cannot prove causation. If we shut down hydrocarbon fuels today, 90% of us would be dead within a year, and that is a fact. BTW, H2SO4 is definitely a problem, solved with smokestack scrubbers. CO2 is most definitely not a pollutant. In fact, without it, there would be no plant life on earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe this in the trunk: http://powerequipment.honda.co...
for range anxiety? VW Passat TDI. 690 miles before you have to hunt up a diesel pump.
Well, how many chief executives before this have attempted to negotiate treaties they never intend to ratify through the senate as the constitution requires?
It is illegal to have classified information on a private e-mail server. The notion that she never sent or received classified information in six years is laughable.
One can switch insurance companies, companies who compete for business. Government's don't compete for customers. Big difference. I never voted for a single bureaucrat at the HHS, and neither did you. Our congresscritters never read the bill before voting on it. We truly live in a post-constitutional era.
You forgot grifter and serial liar.
So, AC, what possible evidence do you have that confiscation of arms in America would be peaceful? Last time it was tried by one General Gage, it lead to all kinds of unpleasantries. BTW, you seem to have serious anger management issues. You should get some treatment.
You do of course understand that you can surrender whatever civil rights you want. Leave me out of it.
Ah yes, the militia. Here is the legal definition. You are likely a member: "United States Code TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES SUBTITLE A – GENERAL MILITARY LAW PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA Section 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." This is the "regulation" you are looking for. Note nothing regarding banning arms from citizens.
Thought Experiment: I don't like what you have to say, so I want jackbooted thugs to assault your home to confiscate your computer equipment and rough you up. Discuss.
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." D.C. V. Heller
I disagree. The Overton Window works both ways. I imagine you are not so squeamish about the exercise of your other civil liberties precisely because your masters haven't been as successful marginalizing them ... yet.
Nonsense. By their fruits shall ye know them. Maybe you could point out all the conflicts where Christians are hacking each other up?
ISIS was created when the current regime did the normal liberal cut and run leaving a massive power vacuum. The economic crisis of '08 can be traced directly back to the community reinvestment act, where do-gooders decided that people who cannot afford to buy a house should get one just because. The economy is not fixed, or even close. Liberals believe that trillion dollar deficits are sustainable, while everything is being done to prevent economic growth. The white house was informed of the visit, but chose to ignore it. Even the NYT has admitted as much. Don't you think it is cute that the regime is more butt hurt about manufactured slights of protocol than the specter of the mad mullahs getting nukes? BTW, the speaker of the house does not need the Bamster's permission to invite guests to speak to congress. And if you think this is about chest-thumping, you are insane. The regime is negotiating with the mad mullahs to allow them to develop nuclear capability, which if they do get nukes, you will see mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv and probably NYC or DC.
This is really kind of a moot point, isn't it? Only a moron would believe that correlation can prove causation. Especially when the entire data set is a blink of the eye in terms of geologic time. Even if our records back to 1900 were perfect for every square inch of the planet, and included an observation for every minute of every day (how meaningful are averages anyway?), that would represent about two ten thousands of a percent of geologic time, at least going back to the beginning of the Cambrian period, where incidentally, CO2 levels were 16X higher than "pre-industrial" levels. Who knows how long there was an atmosphere before that? The point is that our piddly data sets are utterly incapable of the task of proving AGW. Sorry.
No, it is accurate. Check out a paper by David H. Douglass posted at wattsupwiththat entitled "How IPCC Scientists interfere with publication of inconvenient scientific results"
What, you think the White House Press Agency (conglomeration of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, etc) is going to print articles pointing out these kinds of inconvenient truths? Dream on. And if you can find inaccuracies in the article cited above, feel free to point them out.
By no stretch of imagination can CO2 be considered pollution.
Comparing spending on climate research with revenue is hardly honest.
Maybe you could point out all the atheists in congress? I think there might be one. It would be fair to characterize your particular system of belief (religion) as "science".
Especially given the fact that the vast majority of government climate funding is to uncover *human* causes to the exclusion of all others. Doesn't government outspend industry in terms of climate research around 40 to 1? The government funded researchers should be required to publish disclaimers.
Manufacturing evidence. You mean like "adjusting" all the raw data to make it look like temperatures are rising when the raw data show no such thing?
Maybe you noticed the CRU leaks mentioning how AGW alarmists work with publishers to black ball skeptics.
That was not an experiment. You are trying to prove something by correlation. I think everyone learned in high school science that correlation by itself cannot prove causation. If we shut down hydrocarbon fuels today, 90% of us would be dead within a year, and that is a fact. BTW, H2SO4 is definitely a problem, solved with smokestack scrubbers. CO2 is most definitely not a pollutant. In fact, without it, there would be no plant life on earth.
No. just two things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.