Do you have a mental problem or something? If you go right past that sentence you will see the ones about war and congress. For fucks sake, can't you ttake an entire statement and process it?
I've already shown where the constitution authority for the president to declare enemies comes from. If you would get past your handicap and consider all the sentences in the constitution, you could see it too.
A president can be a traitor but only in a very limited set of circumstances. Now read the damn constitution and realize that the president is the head of all military might in the US and he negotiates treaties and such. If you think otherwise, you need to think again.
If you smell something you better check your pants. I didn't say he needed the password, i said he got them. They found a list of them with him. He likely had them long before downing the server- thats just when we had to figure out what was happening. Its hard to know what he logged in to before or what he tried doing before or what systems he actually got into, or if anyone else who had the same access to the passwords and building after hours did anything- most small shops simply don't have the resources to log access on windows machines with a simple windows 2000 server.
But hey, believe whatever you want. It doesn't really matter to anyone at all. I got a bunch more stupid stories thst youvwill likely need to check your pants on because you smell something too.
I had a server at a site once that would always go down on Sunday night. Turned out that one of the cleaning crew had found a notebook with passwords in it laying on one of the PHBs desk and decided to use his spare time on the weekend playing games on one of the servers. He was sort of cleaver about it too, he rebooted the server to a live windows CD with the game already installed, played, then rebooted the server thinking everything would come up again. Except everything didn't come back up automatically because of a legacy program that would corrupt the database if you didn't run a utility on it before starting if it wasn't closed down properly. So we always just manually started the program knowing that the vast majority of the time- if it was down, stuff needed done before hand.
Of course all the logs would show was a reboot at a certain time and then coming back up a few hours later. We had to instal a camera to see why. I don't remember what game he playing but you could clearly see what was happening. Another guy I worked with walked in around that time and pretended to catch him in the act and that was the end of that. It also made the case to put a damn lock on the server closet which no one seemed to care about before. That PHB still insisted on keeping a notebook with every single password listed in his office even after that. It was their hardware, their money, and their liability.
All the security guards at any hospital I have seen has been either off duty sheriff deputies or a branch of the local police department. It's not uncommon to find police department substations inside of hospitals.
As someone else pointed out, there are liability issues with security guards but I think the reason for cops (on or off duty) in the hospitals (at least where I have seen) is mainly because of drunk driving accidents, drug overdoses, gunshot wounds or stab wounds, domestic violence, and other ER visits that might need their attention.
About two years ago at the local hospital, someone beat the crap out of another and decided to take a gun to the hospital to finish the job while he was being treated. One of the off duty sheriffs disarmed him before any shots could be fired and before he got near the patient or anyone treating him.
I think what he is saying is that children thrive better in a home with both biological parents than without one or both. This is also supported by the science too.
Whether 200 different people telling him what to do has an effect or not on them is beyond what was said. I'm also thinking that is ancillary to the point because the adverse effects of not having one or any biological parent in the home is so much worse.
Two females can most certainly create a child, thanks to the large number of college males willing to jizz in a cup for beer money. Given that scenario, the male involved is really irrelevant to the "decision" and anything thereafter. That's strong enough to say the men don't matter.
I hope you meant that as a joke. Men are not needed thanks to men jizzing in a cup. Without the man, the two females would still be lost. There are no Parthenogenesis women and there was only rumored to have been one but that wasn't even a true Parthenogenesis birth because a supernatural seed was supposedly planted.
The thing is, packet inspection can and will inform people of the throttling. However, a program may need to be created for the average user in order to figure it out. They did exactly that with bit torrent and cox.
As for bandwidth garentees. No one needs that. They just need to be assured that the ISP is not purposely restricting any of the packets to below their advertised rates. Congestion, defense against a bona fide attack on thier network, servers being slowed, hops on other networks, and stuff like that would also slow the link down but it would be legitimate because it is outside the ISPs control. But throttleing netflix because they didn't pay extra or whatever service it is, would be directly in their control, at their direction, and it would be purposely limiting the connection speeds to below what they sold. When they sell a connection up to some speed, if they limit it below that, it can never be up to that speed. That is fraud no matter how you look at it.
Why don't you go back and read what i actually said. Your answer to that was posted before you even replied. Why in the hell are you ignoring what has already been stated and trying to press those things as if it somehow negates everything that has been said altready?
Here is a hint. A country can have enemies with a war. ISIS is considered an enemy of the US and no declaration of war has happened. In fact, congress has not even authorised the war like actions we are taking against them right now. Obama is relying on the authorization to use military force granted to Bush even after he declared the war on terror over and Al Qaeda decimated.
You really need those less than lethal solutions wheee possible and this seems to fill a void where if an approaching boat doesnt stop for some reason, it can be addressed without fireing shots.
A plus side is that you could realistically determine hostility and intent by how they react to the robot boats.
Oh, and BTW, this would likely replace other manned boats already in use for existing navy vessels and make it logistically easier to add non lethal protection to high value non military vessels subject to pirates and such.
It doesn't matter if the cop thought it was right or wrong. If it is posted, you have notice of the limit. The rest of your post is exagerated hyperboly that doesn't really fit the situation.
Not only that, but existing law and regulation should already solve his concerns anyways.
Consumer protection laws should already cover having an isp slow a connection purposely. You buy a connection that is supposed to be 10meg and if they purposely slow it down for any reason they are intentionally defraudint the consumer by not delivering the services they charged for. And the up to language does not save them because you can never get up to 10megs if they are purposely limiting it to 2 megs.
Providing arms to the enemy, even through an intermediary, is treason
The president- absent an act of congress, can declare who is and is not an enemy. The president therefor cannot provide arms to an enemy unless we are in a state of war declared by congress and he has not ended the war. For instance, President Obama has provided arms to ISIS after he ended the war on terror and declared them to be a moderate force in Syria. Of course with the war on Terror still around, he would have been embargoed from doing the same because ISIS was known to support terrorism. Now the same can be said with the Muslim Brotherhood which was a terrorist group specifically outlined as a sponsor of terrorism and we gave them shit tons of arms when they overthrew the leadership in Egypt and assumed control (before the military ousted them). Same with Libya who later came around and killed an ambassador and some other people- likely with arms we provided.
It is a whitewashing when you or anyone else considered perjury in a court of law by the highest law enforcement officer in the land- a lawyer himself- is not as important as skirting a law by introducing a third party specifically for that purpose.
But there was no abuse. The fake name policy was changed after they found it impacted a set of people. It's like admonishing a cop for writing too many speeding tickets on a road before the speed limit had been raised. The only pattern that should have been recognized was a lot of speeders on that road and of course the action needed was to raise the speed limits. This is the same with facebook. The guy reporting, regardless of his motivation, was following policy and the pattern that eventually showed was that some people of a certain nature seemed to all the sudden become singled out. Of course the answer was to raise the speed limit- allow the names.
Harping on a single person reporting something that was against the rules is a bit ridiculous. The only flaw was in not having their rules already account for the groups they decided were privileged enough to not have to follow.
I see you are back to making separate posts in an attempt to drag someone out to the point of frustration and giving up. You seem to like to do that a lot when you are losing an argument. I will recombine them so save some time and effort.
Because it is equivalent to the idea that a President is above the law and has had no place in the English and US legal systems since the 1200s.
Yes it has which is why you never should have brought it up. Nothing I said even resembles that and everything I said is backed by the US constitution which describes the powers the president actually does have.
A President or King can be charged with treason if there are grounds for it.
Yes, he can. A situation this might arise in would be if we are in a declared war and the war has not ended and the president gives the enemy information on troop movement or supplies or something. But the president cannot be trialed for treason if he ends a war- Nowhere in American history has congress declared a war to be over. It's all happened by the president. You do not think Obama is treasonous for ending the war on terror or giving support to the Muslim Brotherhood who support terrorists do you?
If a President were to declare or "undeclare" an enemy due to outside inducement and enough of the rest of the State saw it as a betrayal of the country then treason would be the charge.
Possibly, but it didn't happen in this case and neither did impeachment which would likely be necessary for it to happen if a sitting president was charged otherwise he could pardon himself unilaterally and end it all before it ever happens.
If a "Manchurian Canditate" situation was possible you can bet treason would be on the table if someone under the control of another state got the top job.
Yep.. I addressed this above but seeing how you brought no connection to my original statement, I will have to reiterate Why you brought up the divine right of kings is sort of puzzling.
Initially that was before he was President so the silly "President can't be treasonous because they are the LAW" thing doesn't apply either way.
A presidential candidate cannot transfer military weapons. That is the only part that would have been illegal. Talking with foreign governments and even striking deals with them is not illegal unless you represent yourself as speaking for the US as a nation without the consent of congress or the president or do it when we are actually at war with them. Many people made deals with the Soviet Union during the cold war. Hell, we have senators and government officials making deals with Castro in Cuba before he left office and we still have an economic embargo against them.
Reality doesn't seem to be on your side here.
Nice how you sidestepped the Hezbolla thing, especially given current events. It's a testament to discipline that North and Poindexder were not murdered in a Rambo rampage by ex-Marines after they were pardoned.
First, a point of fact. North and Poindexter were never pardoned. Their convictions were overturned with the help of the ACLU. Also, non of their convictions stemmed from their actual involvement with selling arms to Iran or funding the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. They were about lying to congress, accepting illegal gratuity and destruction of evidence.
Second, I ignored the Hezbollah thing because it isn't relevant. The topic at hand was a conspiracy that happened well before this and the Iran contra thing. BTW, the hostages in the Iran contra deal were not the same hostages in Iran. The Iran contra hostages were taken in Lebanon and taken a few years after the conspiracy supposedly took place.
Once again, reality is proving to be dangerous to your worldview.
Well, not only that, I don't see where facebook should see a problem if the reports are not fraudulent. In that I mean, as long as real accounts with people using fake names were reported and that was in violation of their policies, then there should be no cause for alarm.
What there should be is an easy appeals process to reinstate an account that was disabled unjustly and possible a tag that could be added internally to stop it from happening again. So when Steve wants to be Stephenie, and it is reported, it gets ignored. But when sally creates a fake account to harass her kids enemies to the point they commit suicide, the account goes away before it happens.
The claim was that the deal happened when he was a candidate, the actual weapons transfers happened later. The latter is not in doubt, the former is more of a conspiracy theory.
But the later is documented to have happened over a completely different set of hostages.
So, you're saying providing arms to a state sponsor of terrorism in violation of an embargo is equivalent to receiving oral sex from a White House intern?
Let me fix that for you. Providing arms via an intermediate to a state sponsor of terrorism in violation of an embargo had you actually provided those arms to them directly is equivalent to perjuring yourself in a deposition in a court of law and getting away with it by insisting ambiguity of one of the most simple words in the English language.
Let's not white wash one indiscretion in order to inflame another. A violation of a law is a violation of a law except when it isn't a violation of the law.
Phelps was a smash and grab lawsuit factory. They purposely intended to incite people hiding behind religious freedom in the hopes someone would retaliate in a way they could sue and gang band big bucks. It's probably nothing like what was going through this asshats head.
Instead, it is likely more related to the why only me mentality. Many of you might have suffered it yourself. It's like in school when everyone is talking instead of reading and one person gets singled out by the teacher and that person objects because everyone else was doing it too. It's like following the flow of traffic with ten cars in front of you and ten cars behind you and the cop single you out to give a speeding ticket- why is he busting me and letting everyone else go?
This guy likely had some super cool name he had to change from and use his real name instead which was less cool and was pissed because others were getting by with using fake names. I've had that happen before in games, one game, you had to use English in your profiles or provide a translation, one kid got busted using his native Croatian and went around reporting everyone else' profile that were not in English and didn't have a translation (which took up space in the profile shortening what you could put in it). The rules stated there was an exception if the non-English phrase was common enough to be understood but "For rent, agent of death- caveat emptor" got me a 2 day ban because of him.
1) Reagan wasn't president at the time of the supposed deal that GP mentioned
Then he couldn't have made any deal in violation of any law at that time. How can a presidential candidate sell US weapons without being president?
2) Iran was subject to an arms embargo at the time the administration sold it arms
Which is likely why the US never sold weapons to Iran. Israel did and the US replenished Israel's. Splitting hairs I know, but if someone can argue the meaning of the word "is" in order to escape blame for wrong doing, certainly an actual step to isolate yourself would do the same.
3) The profits from arms sales to Iran were then funneled to the Nicaraguan Contras, further violating the law
Bzzt, you are confusing two separate incidents completely. The Iran-contra ordeal didn't start until 1985, the hostage ordeal (first one anyways) supposedly happened 1980-1981. But you are not the only one in this thread that has made that error. It is likely why the rumor has such legs- it became a partial reality later in Reagan's term.
I bring to your attention King John, Magna Carta and how it's part of the foundation of the law of the USA. In fact a US president put a major part of it in modern terms "no man is above or below the law". Since divine right of kings and later presidents got thrown out they do not have unlimited power which was why there was so much sneaking about with Iran-Contra and selling weapons to Hezbolla less than a year after they had blown up more than one hundred US marines.
Lol.. Divine right of kings has absolutely nothing to do with it. In the US, the constitutional role of the president is commander in chief and the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except for impeachment. As commander in chief, he can declare enemies and undeclare them and the power to grant reprieves and pardons reinforces the later. Why you brought up the divine right of kings is sort of puzzling unless you failed to read all the limits to this ability of the president and conditions I listed.
In Iran-Contra, the problem wasn't anything about divine right of kings, but the boland amendment which made it illegal to use certain appropriated money to fund the contras fighting the communist in Nicaragua. It was later amended to include any military support. It specifically left open the ability to find funding outside of appropriated sources like private donations and other countries. Iran contra was sneaking funding around that law which no court to date has said was illegal. But that is neither here nor there because I never mentioned funding the contras, we were talking specifically about the conspiracy about Reagan colluding with Iran in order to delay the release of hostages until after his election which was before the Iran contra BS. Way to move the goal posts. Do you think it makes the parent's claim any more correct by talking about unrelated stuff?
or they are neither utterly perfect or don't have the numbers to prevent an inquiry being a whitewash.
I think history would prove you wrong on that. There were 55 democrat senators and 270 democrat representatives. That's 58% of the senate and 62% of the house of representatives. But please, go ahead and invent history. It is not like it isn't easy to look up or anything.
lol.. Silly, He couldn't have been traitorous as president, the president himself decides who our enemies are and are not. Any new president can declare a friendly country an enemy and and enemy a friend. It is all within his power as the commander in chief. Now, he does need the congress to back in if he wants war (despite the war powers act which is somewhat unconstitutional). He does need congress to back him if he has to commit to a treaty in order to declare enemies friends again. But the simple status of friends or enemies can be decided completely by a single president when neither of those are in play. And the hostages were taken by a student group, not the replacement government (who would have a lot of sway in their actions) which sort of makes this moot as even the new government had not been hostile to us yet outside of demanding we return the Shaw for trial and execution..
Oh, and BTW, both houses of congress did separate investigations into the accusation of Reagan making deals with democrats in charge and found no supporting documentation and no creditable evidence to substantiate the claim. So either the democrats do not want anyone to know what you think you know, or what you think you know is more or less misconstruction of lies (by other people) and conspiracy surrounding real events that were completely different than you think they were. The Russian KGB used to be really good at creating fictional events around real happenings in attempts to undermine US credibility with even our own people. I really see no reason to think there is some great conspiracy involving the democrats 12 years later as apposed to this being another KGB bullshit event.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a mental problem or something? If you go right past that sentence you will see the ones about war and congress. For fucks sake, can't you ttake an entire statement and process it?
I've already shown where the constitution authority for the president to declare enemies comes from. If you would get past your handicap and consider all the sentences in the constitution, you could see it too.
A president can be a traitor but only in a very limited set of circumstances. Now read the damn constitution and realize that the president is the head of all military might in the US and he negotiates treaties and such. If you think otherwise, you need to think again.
If you smell something you better check your pants. I didn't say he needed the password, i said he got them. They found a list of them with him. He likely had them long before downing the server- thats just when we had to figure out what was happening. Its hard to know what he logged in to before or what he tried doing before or what systems he actually got into, or if anyone else who had the same access to the passwords and building after hours did anything- most small shops simply don't have the resources to log access on windows machines with a simple windows 2000 server.
But hey, believe whatever you want. It doesn't really matter to anyone at all. I got a bunch more stupid stories thst youvwill likely need to check your pants on because you smell something too.
Experimental aircraft don't get to ride on the roadways.
I think that is one of the biggest problems. In order to be street legal, it would be almost too heavy to take off.
I had a server at a site once that would always go down on Sunday night. Turned out that one of the cleaning crew had found a notebook with passwords in it laying on one of the PHBs desk and decided to use his spare time on the weekend playing games on one of the servers. He was sort of cleaver about it too, he rebooted the server to a live windows CD with the game already installed, played, then rebooted the server thinking everything would come up again. Except everything didn't come back up automatically because of a legacy program that would corrupt the database if you didn't run a utility on it before starting if it wasn't closed down properly. So we always just manually started the program knowing that the vast majority of the time- if it was down, stuff needed done before hand.
Of course all the logs would show was a reboot at a certain time and then coming back up a few hours later. We had to instal a camera to see why. I don't remember what game he playing but you could clearly see what was happening. Another guy I worked with walked in around that time and pretended to catch him in the act and that was the end of that. It also made the case to put a damn lock on the server closet which no one seemed to care about before. That PHB still insisted on keeping a notebook with every single password listed in his office even after that. It was their hardware, their money, and their liability.
All the security guards at any hospital I have seen has been either off duty sheriff deputies or a branch of the local police department. It's not uncommon to find police department substations inside of hospitals.
As someone else pointed out, there are liability issues with security guards but I think the reason for cops (on or off duty) in the hospitals (at least where I have seen) is mainly because of drunk driving accidents, drug overdoses, gunshot wounds or stab wounds, domestic violence, and other ER visits that might need their attention.
About two years ago at the local hospital, someone beat the crap out of another and decided to take a gun to the hospital to finish the job while he was being treated. One of the off duty sheriffs disarmed him before any shots could be fired and before he got near the patient or anyone treating him.
I think what he is saying is that children thrive better in a home with both biological parents than without one or both. This is also supported by the science too.
Whether 200 different people telling him what to do has an effect or not on them is beyond what was said. I'm also thinking that is ancillary to the point because the adverse effects of not having one or any biological parent in the home is so much worse.
I hope you meant that as a joke. Men are not needed thanks to men jizzing in a cup. Without the man, the two females would still be lost. There are no Parthenogenesis women and there was only rumored to have been one but that wasn't even a true Parthenogenesis birth because a supernatural seed was supposedly planted.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. In fact, I know you do not.
And you cannot make that claim from anything of empirical or should I say of scientific certainty. Should we also assume you are antiscience now too?
The thing is, packet inspection can and will inform people of the throttling. However, a program may need to be created for the average user in order to figure it out. They did exactly that with bit torrent and cox.
As for bandwidth garentees. No one needs that. They just need to be assured that the ISP is not purposely restricting any of the packets to below their advertised rates. Congestion, defense against a bona fide attack on thier network, servers being slowed, hops on other networks, and stuff like that would also slow the link down but it would be legitimate because it is outside the ISPs control. But throttleing netflix because they didn't pay extra or whatever service it is, would be directly in their control, at their direction, and it would be purposely limiting the connection speeds to below what they sold. When they sell a connection up to some speed, if they limit it below that, it can never be up to that speed. That is fraud no matter how you look at it.
Why don't you go back and read what i actually said. Your answer to that was posted before you even replied. Why in the hell are you ignoring what has already been stated and trying to press those things as if it somehow negates everything that has been said altready?
Here is a hint. A country can have enemies with a war. ISIS is considered an enemy of the US and no declaration of war has happened. In fact, congress has not even authorised the war like actions we are taking against them right now. Obama is relying on the authorization to use military force granted to Bush even after he declared the war on terror over and Al Qaeda decimated.
You really need those less than lethal solutions wheee possible and this seems to fill a void where if an approaching boat doesnt stop for some reason, it can be addressed without fireing shots.
A plus side is that you could realistically determine hostility and intent by how they react to the robot boats.
Oh, and BTW, this would likely replace other manned boats already in use for existing navy vessels and make it logistically easier to add non lethal protection to high value non military vessels subject to pirates and such.
It doesn't matter if the cop thought it was right or wrong. If it is posted, you have notice of the limit. The rest of your post is exagerated hyperboly that doesn't really fit the situation.
Not only that, but existing law and regulation should already solve his concerns anyways.
Consumer protection laws should already cover having an isp slow a connection purposely. You buy a connection that is supposed to be 10meg and if they purposely slow it down for any reason they are intentionally defraudint the consumer by not delivering the services they charged for. And the up to language does not save them because you can never get up to 10megs if they are purposely limiting it to 2 megs.
Not at all. You can have enemies without war.
You are right.. lol. evidently one of the most common latin phrases was not common enough to qualify for the exception.
Or maybe latin simply isn't common any more. I wonder how many people under 30 had to look that up?
The president- absent an act of congress, can declare who is and is not an enemy. The president therefor cannot provide arms to an enemy unless we are in a state of war declared by congress and he has not ended the war. For instance, President Obama has provided arms to ISIS after he ended the war on terror and declared them to be a moderate force in Syria. Of course with the war on Terror still around, he would have been embargoed from doing the same because ISIS was known to support terrorism. Now the same can be said with the Muslim Brotherhood which was a terrorist group specifically outlined as a sponsor of terrorism and we gave them shit tons of arms when they overthrew the leadership in Egypt and assumed control (before the military ousted them). Same with Libya who later came around and killed an ambassador and some other people- likely with arms we provided.
It is a whitewashing when you or anyone else considered perjury in a court of law by the highest law enforcement officer in the land- a lawyer himself- is not as important as skirting a law by introducing a third party specifically for that purpose.
But there was no abuse. The fake name policy was changed after they found it impacted a set of people. It's like admonishing a cop for writing too many speeding tickets on a road before the speed limit had been raised. The only pattern that should have been recognized was a lot of speeders on that road and of course the action needed was to raise the speed limits. This is the same with facebook. The guy reporting, regardless of his motivation, was following policy and the pattern that eventually showed was that some people of a certain nature seemed to all the sudden become singled out. Of course the answer was to raise the speed limit- allow the names.
Harping on a single person reporting something that was against the rules is a bit ridiculous. The only flaw was in not having their rules already account for the groups they decided were privileged enough to not have to follow.
I see you are back to making separate posts in an attempt to drag someone out to the point of frustration and giving up. You seem to like to do that a lot when you are losing an argument. I will recombine them so save some time and effort.
Yes it has which is why you never should have brought it up. Nothing I said even resembles that and everything I said is backed by the US constitution which describes the powers the president actually does have.
Yes, he can. A situation this might arise in would be if we are in a declared war and the war has not ended and the president gives the enemy information on troop movement or supplies or something. But the president cannot be trialed for treason if he ends a war- Nowhere in American history has congress declared a war to be over. It's all happened by the president. You do not think Obama is treasonous for ending the war on terror or giving support to the Muslim Brotherhood who support terrorists do you?
Possibly, but it didn't happen in this case and neither did impeachment which would likely be necessary for it to happen if a sitting president was charged otherwise he could pardon himself unilaterally and end it all before it ever happens.
Yep.. I addressed this above but seeing how you brought no connection to my original statement, I will have to reiterate Why you brought up the divine right of kings is sort of puzzling.
A presidential candidate cannot transfer military weapons. That is the only part that would have been illegal. Talking with foreign governments and even striking deals with them is not illegal unless you represent yourself as speaking for the US as a nation without the consent of congress or the president or do it when we are actually at war with them. Many people made deals with the Soviet Union during the cold war. Hell, we have senators and government officials making deals with Castro in Cuba before he left office and we still have an economic embargo against them.
Reality doesn't seem to be on your side here.
First, a point of fact. North and Poindexter were never pardoned. Their convictions were overturned with the help of the ACLU. Also, non of their convictions stemmed from their actual involvement with selling arms to Iran or funding the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. They were about lying to congress, accepting illegal gratuity and destruction of evidence.
Second, I ignored the Hezbollah thing because it isn't relevant. The topic at hand was a conspiracy that happened well before this and the Iran contra thing. BTW, the hostages in the Iran contra deal were not the same hostages in Iran. The Iran contra hostages were taken in Lebanon and taken a few years after the conspiracy supposedly took place.
Once again, reality is proving to be dangerous to your worldview.
Well, not only that, I don't see where facebook should see a problem if the reports are not fraudulent. In that I mean, as long as real accounts with people using fake names were reported and that was in violation of their policies, then there should be no cause for alarm.
What there should be is an easy appeals process to reinstate an account that was disabled unjustly and possible a tag that could be added internally to stop it from happening again. So when Steve wants to be Stephenie, and it is reported, it gets ignored. But when sally creates a fake account to harass her kids enemies to the point they commit suicide, the account goes away before it happens.
But the later is documented to have happened over a completely different set of hostages.
Let me fix that for you. Providing arms via an intermediate to a state sponsor of terrorism in violation of an embargo had you actually provided those arms to them directly is equivalent to perjuring yourself in a deposition in a court of law and getting away with it by insisting ambiguity of one of the most simple words in the English language.
Let's not white wash one indiscretion in order to inflame another. A violation of a law is a violation of a law except when it isn't a violation of the law.
Phelps was a smash and grab lawsuit factory. They purposely intended to incite people hiding behind religious freedom in the hopes someone would retaliate in a way they could sue and gang band big bucks. It's probably nothing like what was going through this asshats head.
Instead, it is likely more related to the why only me mentality.
Many of you might have suffered it yourself. It's like in school when everyone is talking instead of reading and one person gets singled out by the teacher and that person objects because everyone else was doing it too. It's like following the flow of traffic with ten cars in front of you and ten cars behind you and the cop single you out to give a speeding ticket- why is he busting me and letting everyone else go?
This guy likely had some super cool name he had to change from and use his real name instead which was less cool and was pissed because others were getting by with using fake names. I've had that happen before in games, one game, you had to use English in your profiles or provide a translation, one kid got busted using his native Croatian and went around reporting everyone else' profile that were not in English and didn't have a translation (which took up space in the profile shortening what you could put in it). The rules stated there was an exception if the non-English phrase was common enough to be understood but "For rent, agent of death- caveat emptor" got me a 2 day ban because of him.
Then he couldn't have made any deal in violation of any law at that time. How can a presidential candidate sell US weapons without being president?
Which is likely why the US never sold weapons to Iran. Israel did and the US replenished Israel's. Splitting hairs I know, but if someone can argue the meaning of the word "is" in order to escape blame for wrong doing, certainly an actual step to isolate yourself would do the same.
Bzzt, you are confusing two separate incidents completely. The Iran-contra ordeal didn't start until 1985, the hostage ordeal (first one anyways) supposedly happened 1980-1981. But you are not the only one in this thread that has made that error. It is likely why the rumor has such legs- it became a partial reality later in Reagan's term.
Lol.. Divine right of kings has absolutely nothing to do with it. In the US, the constitutional role of the president is commander in chief and the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except for impeachment. As commander in chief, he can declare enemies and undeclare them and the power to grant reprieves and pardons reinforces the later. Why you brought up the divine right of kings is sort of puzzling unless you failed to read all the limits to this ability of the president and conditions I listed.
In Iran-Contra, the problem wasn't anything about divine right of kings, but the boland amendment which made it illegal to use certain appropriated money to fund the contras fighting the communist in Nicaragua. It was later amended to include any military support. It specifically left open the ability to find funding outside of appropriated sources like private donations and other countries. Iran contra was sneaking funding around that law which no court to date has said was illegal. But that is neither here nor there because I never mentioned funding the contras, we were talking specifically about the conspiracy about Reagan colluding with Iran in order to delay the release of hostages until after his election which was before the Iran contra BS. Way to move the goal posts. Do you think it makes the parent's claim any more correct by talking about unrelated stuff?
I think history would prove you wrong on that. There were 55 democrat senators and 270 democrat representatives. That's 58% of the senate and 62% of the house of representatives. But please, go ahead and invent history. It is not like it isn't easy to look up or anything.
lol.. Silly, He couldn't have been traitorous as president, the president himself decides who our enemies are and are not. Any new president can declare a friendly country an enemy and and enemy a friend. It is all within his power as the commander in chief. Now, he does need the congress to back in if he wants war
(despite the war powers act which is somewhat unconstitutional). He does need congress to back him if he has to commit to a treaty in order to declare enemies friends again. But the simple status of friends or enemies can be decided completely by a single president when neither of those are in play. And the hostages were taken by a student group, not the replacement government (who would have a lot of sway in their actions) which sort of makes this moot as even the new government had not been hostile to us yet outside of demanding we return the Shaw for trial and execution..
Oh, and BTW, both houses of congress did separate investigations into the accusation of Reagan making deals with democrats in charge and found no supporting documentation and no creditable evidence to substantiate the claim. So either the democrats do not want anyone to know what you think you know, or what you think you know is more or less misconstruction of lies (by other people) and conspiracy surrounding real events that were completely different than you think they were. The Russian KGB used to be really good at creating fictional events around real happenings in attempts to undermine US credibility with even our own people. I really see no reason to think there is some great conspiracy involving the democrats 12 years later as apposed to this being another KGB bullshit event.
Nope, they wanted more pay, less hours (32 hour work week) and to be separated or an exception from the civil service laws/rules.
The reasons stated for busting the union was about safety.. What fantasies people invent.