"Which simply makes the "Clean Hands Doctrine" a crime since it is still a logical fallacy, additionally violates the constitution, and thereby undermines all the legal system stands for. "
You know we are talking about Australia and not the US right?
Unless you didn't have a state issued permit or said something negative about a business that cost them money (even if true). Or if an emotionally unstable did something emotionally unstable in response to your words.
It's called sarcasm. But screw it, I'll play devils advocate.
"Any time you are physically forcing someone to do something you are being violent."
That is quite a bit more inclusive than the relevant definition. "rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment"
So physically forcing someone isn't enough without it being rough or injurious. In other words, if you didn't walk away with at least bruises there was no violence. And if we are going by the street definition the bar is higher and limited to an actual physical attempt to inflict harm on you. Sex isn't harmful.
In the case of someone who is drunk or drugged you aren't likely to need to be rough or injurious because they aren't likely to resist. So you are simply having sex with them.
"And no, you do not get out on the technicality of a person not in a mental state where they can give consent."
You are trying to convict on the technicality that they aren't in a mental state where they can withdraw consent and making the assumption that it is withdrawn by default. You don't have to ask for permission to fuck her any more than you do to kiss her. You just kiss her and if she doesn't say no or pull away its consensual. And lets not forget, nobody is forcing her to drink to the point of drunken slumber when alone with a guy who has been trying to fuck her all night. She consented by choosing to do so because the outcome in inevitable.
"It's not because they're extending you credit, it's because it would be difficult to get that case prosecuted."
It's not me who is confused. The reason it would be difficult to prosecute me is that if I've reached a meeting of minds with the store, by agreeing to the implied and written terms they've offered then I am already LEGALLY in possession of the drink and snack and entitled to do with them as I please. The moment we have an agreement and I take physical possession then I also have legal possession. If I leave without paying MY DEBT for those items it demonstrates that I never intended to pay and therefore there was no meetings of minds, no agreement, and therefore when I took possession of the goods it was theft.
It's also generally out of the store and not beyond the cash registers. In fact, even if you were openly stealing you can sue the store if they injured you while attempting to detain you.
If you live in a nation with property rights derived from English common law (like the US) then you've taken legal possession when you legally take physical possession. If you picked the candle up off the shelf and did so with the intent of meeting the implied and/or written contract terms offered by the store then you already have legal possession.
If you put it down, you've returned possession back to the shop. If you can't pay or the store otherwise cancels the transaction BEFORE you've paid your debt, they can reclaim possession.
The only common exception is items kept behind the counter. But even there they will generally give you the item and then ask for the money.
Not all rape is violent... this certainly wouldn't be. Also, clearly the default condition is consent. If the young sluts didn't indicate that they didn't want sex then Its All Good(TM)
Credit is extended. Ownership is transferred on delivery of the goods or service. It is actually fairly common for the terms of credit to require immediate payment.
This is even easier to see with services. If I get a haircut and walk out without paying I can be arrested. That doesn't change the fact that the service is given first and the payment after therefore between receiving the service and paying for it I owed a debt.
I exercise my rights in this regard all the time. I can often be seen drinking a soda or munching on a snack that I will pay for on my out of the establishment.
The treasury prints cash which the Federal Reserve purchases from them (for the cost of printing, not the face value). The federal reserve does create money, in digital form, but not cash. The federal reserve does not loan the US Gov't anything. When a bank loans someone money, the bank borrows that money from the federal reserve who generally creates it out of thin air electronically but it can also be filled with cash which was purchased from the treasury. The borrowing bank is required to have a small fraction of the amount it borrows in reserves.
Actually in most cases the buyer takes possession of the item first. You fill your cart, bag, etc before walking up to the counter and settling the debt. Even if it were the other way around there would be a debt, the store would owe me a debt in exchange for my cash.
Either way, it is clearly semantics. The intention is and always was that cash could be used for transactions.
"unless those regulations enforce existing (or newly passed) laws as passed by Congress. "
Yes but the existing laws passed by congress generally give executive agencies a very generalized mandate and the authority to enforce that mandate. The entities are free to make statutes and enforce that mandate as they see fit. They don't have to wait for congress to pass a specific law for the subject at hand. Even if they step outside their authority it takes a high court to stop them and there are no real consequences.
Not anymore as they will be quick to tell you if the US starts talking about shutting them down or breaking them up. Really though, despite the BS the US is still by far the wealthiest nation in the world so it shouldn't come as a shock to find evil corps here.
Nope, he's right. School is ridiculously expensive they seem to price it based on lifetime expected earnings!
You are right too though... as an adult I realize that there are better ways to invest that kind of money than university degrees. In that sense the debt is "unnecessary."
Some of us are well aware of the overinflated ego of EU member states but fail to see any practical reason to recognize them as having more individual authority than a US state, former USSR state, or Canadian Provence. Any of which hold a level of population, economy, and military power comparable to an EU state.
Even if there is still a difference today the inevitable result is that the EU will more and more gain authority as a central government.
Actually it wouldn't. Obama is the head of the executive branch. Ordering the executive to change its policies for any reason he chooses is perfectly legit so long as he doesn't order them to do something that is in itself unconstitutional.
That's why I always find it silly during election time. We have the candidates standing on a podium talking about their stance on this law and that and making promises to reform this and that but it's almost always legislative. Screw that Mr. wannabe president. Tell me how you are going to reform the DOJ, FDA, DEA, FBI, IRS, FAA, DOE, FCC and the military. Those promises are within the direct unilateral authority of the president and he can enact them in the first week. Further, many of those executive branch entities have the authority to amend US code statutes that fall within their mandate and can be ordered to do by the president.
Yet. The only right a citizen has that a corp doesn't under the law now is the right to vote. Not that they miss it much, they have the power to influence millions of votes and/or to influence any politician who is elected. What use is a single vote?
The destruction started during the civil war when the states were stripped of their individual governing, military, and economic powers by amendments that were never ratified properly and were a bad idea even if they had been.
It did get worse later when the people were robbed of their side of the balance of power and juries were stripped of their authority to determine if a specific application of the law was just in addition to whether it was technically violated.
Slashdot Mirror
There is. But rather than silencing the existing petition you create a petition for the opposing view.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/restore-right-jurors-judge-law-itself-case-case-basis/QDyqh0Wj
"Which simply makes the "Clean Hands Doctrine" a crime since it is still a logical fallacy, additionally violates the constitution, and thereby undermines all the legal system stands for. "
You know we are talking about Australia and not the US right?
"but in the US there is freedom after speech."
Unless you didn't have a state issued permit or said something negative about a business that cost them money (even if true). Or if an emotionally unstable did something emotionally unstable in response to your words.
It's called sarcasm. But screw it, I'll play devils advocate.
"Any time you are physically forcing someone to do something you are being violent."
That is quite a bit more inclusive than the relevant definition. "rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment"
So physically forcing someone isn't enough without it being rough or injurious. In other words, if you didn't walk away with at least bruises there was no violence. And if we are going by the street definition the bar is higher and limited to an actual physical attempt to inflict harm on you. Sex isn't harmful.
In the case of someone who is drunk or drugged you aren't likely to need to be rough or injurious because they aren't likely to resist. So you are simply having sex with them.
"And no, you do not get out on the technicality of a person not in a mental state where they can give consent."
You are trying to convict on the technicality that they aren't in a mental state where they can withdraw consent and making the assumption that it is withdrawn by default. You don't have to ask for permission to fuck her any more than you do to kiss her. You just kiss her and if she doesn't say no or pull away its consensual. And lets not forget, nobody is forcing her to drink to the point of drunken slumber when alone with a guy who has been trying to fuck her all night. She consented by choosing to do so because the outcome in inevitable.
Better for whom?
"It's not because they're extending you credit, it's because it would be difficult to get that case prosecuted."
It's not me who is confused. The reason it would be difficult to prosecute me is that if I've reached a meeting of minds with the store, by agreeing to the implied and written terms they've offered then I am already LEGALLY in possession of the drink and snack and entitled to do with them as I please. The moment we have an agreement and I take physical possession then I also have legal possession. If I leave without paying MY DEBT for those items it demonstrates that I never intended to pay and therefore there was no meetings of minds, no agreement, and therefore when I took possession of the goods it was theft.
It's also generally out of the store and not beyond the cash registers. In fact, even if you were openly stealing you can sue the store if they injured you while attempting to detain you.
If you live in a nation with property rights derived from English common law (like the US) then you've taken legal possession when you legally take physical possession. If you picked the candle up off the shelf and did so with the intent of meeting the implied and/or written contract terms offered by the store then you already have legal possession.
If you put it down, you've returned possession back to the shop. If you can't pay or the store otherwise cancels the transaction BEFORE you've paid your debt, they can reclaim possession.
The only common exception is items kept behind the counter. But even there they will generally give you the item and then ask for the money.
Before the US civil war the military power was in the hands of the states and not a central standing army. Same story, different union.
That's a BS policy. Consent is the default, if she didn't withdraw consent theres nothing to see here.
Not all rape is violent... this certainly wouldn't be. Also, clearly the default condition is consent. If the young sluts didn't indicate that they didn't want sex then Its All Good(TM)
Credit is extended. Ownership is transferred on delivery of the goods or service. It is actually fairly common for the terms of credit to require immediate payment.
This is even easier to see with services. If I get a haircut and walk out without paying I can be arrested. That doesn't change the fact that the service is given first and the payment after therefore between receiving the service and paying for it I owed a debt.
I exercise my rights in this regard all the time. I can often be seen drinking a soda or munching on a snack that I will pay for on my out of the establishment.
The treasury prints cash which the Federal Reserve purchases from them (for the cost of printing, not the face value). The federal reserve does create money, in digital form, but not cash. The federal reserve does not loan the US Gov't anything. When a bank loans someone money, the bank borrows that money from the federal reserve who generally creates it out of thin air electronically but it can also be filled with cash which was purchased from the treasury. The borrowing bank is required to have a small fraction of the amount it borrows in reserves.
Actually in most cases the buyer takes possession of the item first. You fill your cart, bag, etc before walking up to the counter and settling the debt. Even if it were the other way around there would be a debt, the store would owe me a debt in exchange for my cash.
Either way, it is clearly semantics. The intention is and always was that cash could be used for transactions.
Of course its a debt, just a short lived one. They've just made the trade with terms that dictate the debt must be settled immediately.
"unless those regulations enforce existing (or newly passed) laws as passed by Congress. "
Yes but the existing laws passed by congress generally give executive agencies a very generalized mandate and the authority to enforce that mandate. The entities are free to make statutes and enforce that mandate as they see fit. They don't have to wait for congress to pass a specific law for the subject at hand. Even if they step outside their authority it takes a high court to stop them and there are no real consequences.
Not anymore as they will be quick to tell you if the US starts talking about shutting them down or breaking them up. Really though, despite the BS the US is still by far the wealthiest nation in the world so it shouldn't come as a shock to find evil corps here.
Nope, he's right. School is ridiculously expensive they seem to price it based on lifetime expected earnings!
You are right too though... as an adult I realize that there are better ways to invest that kind of money than university degrees. In that sense the debt is "unnecessary."
The US Federal Gov't didn't used to have a central standing army or police force either.
Some of us are well aware of the overinflated ego of EU member states but fail to see any practical reason to recognize them as having more individual authority than a US state, former USSR state, or Canadian Provence. Any of which hold a level of population, economy, and military power comparable to an EU state.
Even if there is still a difference today the inevitable result is that the EU will more and more gain authority as a central government.
Actually it wouldn't. Obama is the head of the executive branch. Ordering the executive to change its policies for any reason he chooses is perfectly legit so long as he doesn't order them to do something that is in itself unconstitutional.
That's why I always find it silly during election time. We have the candidates standing on a podium talking about their stance on this law and that and making promises to reform this and that but it's almost always legislative. Screw that Mr. wannabe president. Tell me how you are going to reform the DOJ, FDA, DEA, FBI, IRS, FAA, DOE, FCC and the military. Those promises are within the direct unilateral authority of the president and he can enact them in the first week. Further, many of those executive branch entities have the authority to amend US code statutes that fall within their mandate and can be ordered to do by the president.
Yet. The only right a citizen has that a corp doesn't under the law now is the right to vote. Not that they miss it much, they have the power to influence millions of votes and/or to influence any politician who is elected. What use is a single vote?
Sure there was. Unfortunately, they tend to be self interested multi-billionaires, pyschotic religious freaks, or just plain nuts (ala Ron Paul).
It's group action, the members of the MPAA and RIAA ARE billionaire big corporations.
The destruction started during the civil war when the states were stripped of their individual governing, military, and economic powers by amendments that were never ratified properly and were a bad idea even if they had been.
It did get worse later when the people were robbed of their side of the balance of power and juries were stripped of their authority to determine if a specific application of the law was just in addition to whether it was technically violated.