No, they found that the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and her boss, Obama, repeatedly, deliberately, and for purely political purposes right before an election where his narrative about terrorists being "on the run" was a central campaign talking point, lied, lied, and lied some more about what happened, why it happened, and how they responded to it. Their were multiple investigations into it because Clinton herself, the State Department, and the rest of the Obama administration were deliberately non-responsive to subpoenas and other requests for information. The Obama administration foot-dragged and slow-walked at every opportunity, and Clinton herself lied and had her associated and staff lie continuosly for months. You think that's "nothing," but what it did was contribute to voters' understanding of just how corrupt she is, and in what contempt she holds the people she wanted power over. Of the many things that cost her the election, her display of deceit and obfuscation over the deaths of people under her on her watch, and her craven attempts to spin a fantasy version of events and cover up what happened was a key part of it. "Nothing," indeed.
If all that is true, you should be more upset with the republicans in Congress for not prosecuting perjury and enforcing their own subpoenas. You're upset about how Clinton lied, lied and lied some more, yet you say nothing about how the Republicans did nothing about it.
Laws barring property rental are per se illegal, as the constitution does not give the government, at any level, the explicit right to dictate what one does (or does not do) with their own property. This goes for zoning as well.
Yes, it most certainly does. The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Because there is nothing in the Constitution specifically prohibiting laws barring rental property, that power is reserved to the states or the people. So it is perfectly constitutional.
You know, I really wish you folks who are so obsessed with the constitutionality of things would actually read and understand the document. I don't blame you for posting AC; I would be embarrassed to put my name to that post too.
Further, are local municipalities or states now responsible for enforcing federal law? Do they check to make sure someone doesn't owe federal taxes? Or are there only certain federal laws they should enforce? How do we make the determination which federal laws states and cities should enforce?
Right.... AirBNB has some illegal unlicensed activity and NYC uses law to impose heavy fines.
At the left side of the argument, illegal unlicensed people in NYC get taxpayer subsidized healthcare and public services and, including cash benefits.
Can somebody explain to how to reconcile enforcement of one laws and ignoring the second laws, printed on the same paper with the same ink.
But they're not printed on the same paper with the same ink. The first is a state law and the second a federal law (I assume you mean the fact that these people are here illegally). So in the first case it is the state enforcing its own law, and in the second the state is not checking to see if enforcement of a federal law would apply to a particular person. Does that clear it up?
It's arguably an unconstitutional law, in that it takes property rights from owners without compensation.
I don't think so. The Constitution says nothing about depriving one of property rights; only property.
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Just what we need - more government telling us what to do with our own damn homes.
Reason 124,151,813,523 Trump won.
Yes, it may be reason 124,151,813,523 why Trump won. His voters, like this post, seem to think of things in very simplistic and superficial terms; not considering the wider ramifications of what they are advocating.
The purpose of the FOIA is to harass federal employees and keep us from doing our damn job
And what is that job, if not ultimately to serve the public? It sounds like y'all need some people to just reply to FOIA requests. Then it'd be their job.
And then, there's Benghazi. Clear case of treason, and no Democrat is interested.
But the Republicans were interested! How many hearings and investigations did they carry out? No, seriously, I'm asking. I lost count. And what did they find? Nothing. So what are you talking about?
No, dipshit. It goes beyond that. They aren't just happy to call a man with a mutilated penis a woman. They want to fine and imprison you if you refuse to. They aren't just living their lives -- They are trying to control and subjugate ours.
People are being fined and imprisoned for refusing to address people the way they prefer to be addressed? And I'm the dipshit...
The law I believe you are referring to applies to discrimination in housing or employment. It's not applicable to just people on the street. It covers intentionally failing to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” when she has made it clear that she prefers female pronouns and a female title. If you are a man, and I keep referring to you as "her" and "she", I'm guessing you wouldn't like it. Yet you are not interested in extending that same courtesy to others. It's not up to you to decide how other people want to be addressed.
Finally, I have to ask how you have any knowledge of the condition of anyone's penis when you are addressing them. How do you know the person you are talking to has a "mutilated penis"? Seriously, how does that enter into daily interactions with people?
Like George Soros manipulating all the lemmings on the Left through funding of anarchy, protests, BLM and the sorts? Want to talk about being manipulated, let's talk about it.
Are there any evil, rich liberals besides George Soros? Because he's the only guy I ever hear about. At least the left can complain about the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. That's three billionaires to pin all the blame on!
The difference is that the "alt-right" is not actually a political ideology.
It largely consists of 4chan anons and Twitter eggs saying outrageous things they do not necessarily fully believe in order to intentionally get a rise out of people because "fuck political correctness and fuck SJWs".
It springs from the fact that you are not allowed to question any part of the doctrines of politically correct ideology (e.g., third-wave feminism, the trans-acceptance movement) without being called a bigot by "hashtag activists" online, who may go so far as to target your real-life job just for questioning or criticizing their views. Even if you do so politely.
So if you're not even allowed to question politely, then let's just be as offensive and outrageous as we possibly can. Even if that means grossly exaggerating what we actually believe.
At its core, that's what the "alt-right" is. There are of course real bigots who have joined the movement, and there are also people who have attached their real-life names to the movement in order to make money (e.g., Milo). But at its core, the alt-right is simply a bunch of people talking shit trying to get you upset.
I see, so the Alt-right is just a temper tantrum thrown by people who disagree with the direction of mainstream culture. They get called names online? Those poor things! Guess, what: I think mainstream culture, with its consumerism and superficiality, fairly sucks. But guess what else: That doesn't give me justification for being an asshole online. And grossly exaggerating what you think or believe just hurts your credibility.
Want to know one of the secrets to having a happy life? Stop caring so much about what other people think, feel and do. Especially when those people are strangers on the Internet. Some SJW wants to rant about how trump is a Nazi online? Who cares? It only affects you if you let it affect you. Some "transgender" person wants to be called "he" instead of "she"? Who cares? Why get so hung up on how a person wants to be addressed? Can SJW's be annoying online? Absolutely! My sister-in-law has been rage posting on Facebook for the past two months. It's ridiculous. But I just chuckle, roll my eyes, and get on with my day. I don't use it as an excuse to be a dick.
You call it a Muslim ban, yet:
- It doesn't encompass all Muslims but merely 7 countries.
- Those 7 countries are precisely the ones Obama listed as a risk to the USA.
- Obama banned travel from Iraq for 6 months to reconfigure the vetting and security system because overhauling a system requires a temporary stop,
while Trump extended Obama's own system on Obama's 7 listed countries and is doing the same presently.
Did you even know of these details? I'm guessing not.
Were you present to call it a "Muslim ban" and throw shit at Obama when he did this? I'm guessing not.
Do you go online and research and validate the words of people, instead of blindly believing them just because they sound righteous or emotionally good?
I'm guessing not, because if you did, you wouldn't be calling it a "Muslim" ban, and you certainly wouldn't spew so much hypocrisy in a post for validation points.
President Obama slowed down the approval process for one type of visa from one country. He did not ban travel from Iraq for any amount of time. Kellyanne Conway is a bald faced liar. And you, sir, are misinformed.
Am I fucking missing something there?
The left have spent the last 10 years changing the meaning of words like "male" and "female" so they no longer relate to biology, trying to enforce speech codes, making use of certain words and phrases criminal and now people are buying 1984?
This is truly the most retarded thing that's happened in 2017 so far. It's only January.
What speech codes? Like treating people with respect? And which words or phrases are now criminalized?
Cute. It's like you've never paid attention to politics before now. All politicians lie. You really think Hillary keeps hot sauce in her bag? It's pandering to a base to get elected.
Now that he's elected, he keeps lying. I'm not under any illusion that politicians don't lie. Sure, they do. But they generally don't lie about things that are easily and readily confirmed. Trump and his people insisted that the inaugural crowd was the biggest in history. That's easily shown to be false. I don't know what's in Hillary Clinton's bag. So while she probably does not keep hot sauce in there, I can't really say for sure.
That's the kind of lie you can get away with. Trump just ends up looking like he's full of shit, and has no respect for his audience.
It comes as no surprise that Trump would have to do the same for the sake of his security.
This is true; it is perfectly reasonable and expected that he would get a special, locked down phone. But at the same time, any excuse to be snarky about Trump is a good excuse to be snarky about Trump.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home
or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has
the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Anything else you'd like me to Google for you?
Well done! There is also the 9th Amendment to the Constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you live that still has clean water?
Cambridge, Massachusetts. We drink it right out of the tap.
And what did they find? Nothing.
No, they found that the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and her boss, Obama, repeatedly, deliberately, and for purely political purposes right before an election where his narrative about terrorists being "on the run" was a central campaign talking point, lied, lied, and lied some more about what happened, why it happened, and how they responded to it. Their were multiple investigations into it because Clinton herself, the State Department, and the rest of the Obama administration were deliberately non-responsive to subpoenas and other requests for information. The Obama administration foot-dragged and slow-walked at every opportunity, and Clinton herself lied and had her associated and staff lie continuosly for months. You think that's "nothing," but what it did was contribute to voters' understanding of just how corrupt she is, and in what contempt she holds the people she wanted power over. Of the many things that cost her the election, her display of deceit and obfuscation over the deaths of people under her on her watch, and her craven attempts to spin a fantasy version of events and cover up what happened was a key part of it. "Nothing," indeed.
If all that is true, you should be more upset with the republicans in Congress for not prosecuting perjury and enforcing their own subpoenas. You're upset about how Clinton lied, lied and lied some more, yet you say nothing about how the Republicans did nothing about it.
Or maybe there's just not that much to it.
Laws barring property rental are per se illegal, as the constitution does not give the government, at any level, the explicit right to dictate what one does (or does not do) with their own property. This goes for zoning as well.
Yes, it most certainly does. The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Because there is nothing in the Constitution specifically prohibiting laws barring rental property, that power is reserved to the states or the people. So it is perfectly constitutional.
You know, I really wish you folks who are so obsessed with the constitutionality of things would actually read and understand the document. I don't blame you for posting AC; I would be embarrassed to put my name to that post too.
So, NYC should also enforce immigration laws?
Further, are local municipalities or states now responsible for enforcing federal law? Do they check to make sure someone doesn't owe federal taxes? Or are there only certain federal laws they should enforce? How do we make the determination which federal laws states and cities should enforce?
Right.... AirBNB has some illegal unlicensed activity and NYC uses law to impose heavy fines.
At the left side of the argument, illegal unlicensed people in NYC get taxpayer subsidized healthcare and public services and, including cash benefits.
Can somebody explain to how to reconcile enforcement of one laws and ignoring the second laws, printed on the same paper with the same ink.
But they're not printed on the same paper with the same ink. The first is a state law and the second a federal law (I assume you mean the fact that these people are here illegally). So in the first case it is the state enforcing its own law, and in the second the state is not checking to see if enforcement of a federal law would apply to a particular person. Does that clear it up?
It's arguably an unconstitutional law, in that it takes property rights from owners without compensation.
I don't think so. The Constitution says nothing about depriving one of property rights; only property.
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
We sympathize, but we can't allow you to use you own home as a bed and breakfast because it's a home and not a bed and breakfast.
FTFY
Just what we need - more government telling us what to do with our own damn homes.
Reason 124,151,813,523 Trump won.
Yes, it may be reason 124,151,813,523 why Trump won. His voters, like this post, seem to think of things in very simplistic and superficial terms; not considering the wider ramifications of what they are advocating.
An agency that no longer exists is an agency that can no longer abuse its power.
Maybe we should address the abuse of power, rather than throwing up our hands. Or don't you like having clean water to drink?
The purpose of the FOIA is to harass federal employees and keep us from doing our damn job
And what is that job, if not ultimately to serve the public? It sounds like y'all need some people to just reply to FOIA requests. Then it'd be their job.
And then, there's Benghazi. Clear case of treason, and no Democrat is interested.
But the Republicans were interested! How many hearings and investigations did they carry out? No, seriously, I'm asking. I lost count. And what did they find? Nothing. So what are you talking about?
No, dipshit. It goes beyond that. They aren't just happy to call a man with a mutilated penis a woman. They want to fine and imprison you if you refuse to. They aren't just living their lives -- They are trying to control and subjugate ours.
People are being fined and imprisoned for refusing to address people the way they prefer to be addressed? And I'm the dipshit...
The law I believe you are referring to applies to discrimination in housing or employment. It's not applicable to just people on the street. It covers intentionally failing to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” when she has made it clear that she prefers female pronouns and a female title. If you are a man, and I keep referring to you as "her" and "she", I'm guessing you wouldn't like it. Yet you are not interested in extending that same courtesy to others. It's not up to you to decide how other people want to be addressed.
Finally, I have to ask how you have any knowledge of the condition of anyone's penis when you are addressing them. How do you know the person you are talking to has a "mutilated penis"? Seriously, how does that enter into daily interactions with people?
Like George Soros manipulating all the lemmings on the Left through funding of anarchy, protests, BLM and the sorts? Want to talk about being manipulated, let's talk about it.
Are there any evil, rich liberals besides George Soros? Because he's the only guy I ever hear about. At least the left can complain about the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. That's three billionaires to pin all the blame on!
The difference is that the "alt-right" is not actually a political ideology.
It largely consists of 4chan anons and Twitter eggs saying outrageous things they do not necessarily fully believe in order to intentionally get a rise out of people because "fuck political correctness and fuck SJWs".
It springs from the fact that you are not allowed to question any part of the doctrines of politically correct ideology (e.g., third-wave feminism, the trans-acceptance movement) without being called a bigot by "hashtag activists" online, who may go so far as to target your real-life job just for questioning or criticizing their views. Even if you do so politely.
So if you're not even allowed to question politely, then let's just be as offensive and outrageous as we possibly can. Even if that means grossly exaggerating what we actually believe.
At its core, that's what the "alt-right" is. There are of course real bigots who have joined the movement, and there are also people who have attached their real-life names to the movement in order to make money (e.g., Milo). But at its core, the alt-right is simply a bunch of people talking shit trying to get you upset.
I see, so the Alt-right is just a temper tantrum thrown by people who disagree with the direction of mainstream culture. They get called names online? Those poor things! Guess, what: I think mainstream culture, with its consumerism and superficiality, fairly sucks. But guess what else: That doesn't give me justification for being an asshole online. And grossly exaggerating what you think or believe just hurts your credibility.
Want to know one of the secrets to having a happy life? Stop caring so much about what other people think, feel and do. Especially when those people are strangers on the Internet. Some SJW wants to rant about how trump is a Nazi online? Who cares? It only affects you if you let it affect you. Some "transgender" person wants to be called "he" instead of "she"? Who cares? Why get so hung up on how a person wants to be addressed? Can SJW's be annoying online? Absolutely! My sister-in-law has been rage posting on Facebook for the past two months. It's ridiculous. But I just chuckle, roll my eyes, and get on with my day. I don't use it as an excuse to be a dick.
You call it a Muslim ban, yet: - It doesn't encompass all Muslims but merely 7 countries. - Those 7 countries are precisely the ones Obama listed as a risk to the USA. - Obama banned travel from Iraq for 6 months to reconfigure the vetting and security system because overhauling a system requires a temporary stop, while Trump extended Obama's own system on Obama's 7 listed countries and is doing the same presently.
Did you even know of these details? I'm guessing not. Were you present to call it a "Muslim ban" and throw shit at Obama when he did this? I'm guessing not. Do you go online and research and validate the words of people, instead of blindly believing them just because they sound righteous or emotionally good? I'm guessing not, because if you did, you wouldn't be calling it a "Muslim" ban, and you certainly wouldn't spew so much hypocrisy in a post for validation points.
Oooh, hoisted on your own petard!
http://www.snopes.com/president-obama-ban-muslims-2011/
President Obama slowed down the approval process for one type of visa from one country. He did not ban travel from Iraq for any amount of time. Kellyanne Conway is a bald faced liar. And you, sir, are misinformed.
Am I fucking missing something there? The left have spent the last 10 years changing the meaning of words like "male" and "female" so they no longer relate to biology, trying to enforce speech codes, making use of certain words and phrases criminal and now people are buying 1984? This is truly the most retarded thing that's happened in 2017 so far. It's only January.
What speech codes? Like treating people with respect? And which words or phrases are now criminalized?
Cute. It's like you've never paid attention to politics before now. All politicians lie. You really think Hillary keeps hot sauce in her bag? It's pandering to a base to get elected.
Now that he's elected, he keeps lying. I'm not under any illusion that politicians don't lie. Sure, they do. But they generally don't lie about things that are easily and readily confirmed. Trump and his people insisted that the inaugural crowd was the biggest in history. That's easily shown to be false. I don't know what's in Hillary Clinton's bag. So while she probably does not keep hot sauce in there, I can't really say for sure.
That's the kind of lie you can get away with. Trump just ends up looking like he's full of shit, and has no respect for his audience.
Thankyou Trump and lol SJWs, turns out demonizing the average person isn't a winning strategy.
But look at the bright side. You still have your victimhood and sense of persecution.
Umm, because the electorate is more stupid?
The electorate in general is pretty stupid, yes. See my sig for more insight.
It comes as no surprise that Trump would have to do the same for the sake of his security.
This is true; it is perfectly reasonable and expected that he would get a special, locked down phone. But at the same time, any excuse to be snarky about Trump is a good excuse to be snarky about Trump.
He was not known to use it for making or receiving calls, but it was one of few devices that had access to the @POTUS Twitter account.
And really, that's the most important part for Trump.
Yeah Trump's just SO STUPID!
You are SO ORIGINAL with that zinger! Damn, are you up for a Pulitzer?
Incidentally, if he's so stupid, how come Hillary isn't being inaugurated today?
I don't think he's stupid at all. I just think he's a boor and a con man.
Statutes? Cripes, what about the Code of Federal Regulations?
I, for instance, had no idea that when I washed my fish in a national park at a faucet not provided for washing fish, I was breaking 36 CFR 261.16(c)
Thank you, that is a perfect illustration of my point.
I hope it HURTS. I hope your butthurt is so bad your great-great-great grandchildren will never be able to sit down.
You smug, close-minded, virtue-signalling progTARDS deserve it.
And I'm LAUGHING at you and your whiny petulance.
See, this is why we can't have nice things.
Since you ask:
US Constitution, Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Anything else you'd like me to Google for you?
Well done! There is also the 9th Amendment to the Constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.