And to be completely honest, Iran is not religiously more extreme than Saudi Arabia, or Israeli orthodox jews or US evangelists.
lol.... you know, that is not reassuring...
But hey, no, wait, this is a patriotic matter! I'd put our batshit-crazy, snake-waving, babble-talking, crystal-gazing, pyramid-storing, sweat-lodge having, primal screaming, colloidal silver drinkin' UFO, jebus, Jospeh Smith, Allah, and L Ron Hubbard worshiping kooks up against the furrin Muslims any day when it comes to crazy. Oh, we got crazy. In god we trustith, brudda. One nation, under god (get off, you're crushin' my cigarettes!) You ever hear about the sights for high powered rifles our soldiers were carrying in Iraq? Let me help ya out.
So even our companies are batshit crazy. So if that's a key ingredient for dropping nukes on Iran if they launch or otherwise deliver a nuke to our Sacred Shores... no worries, mate, they're toast. Well, boiling radioactive glass, but you know what I mean.
Look, I'm pro-gay issues. Seriously so. I'm for gay marriage, insofar as I'm for marriage at all (I think it's a terrible institution, made worse every day), just because I think that if I can do it as a straight (not that I would, mind you, as I said, I think it's a terrible institution) then gays should be able to also. I'm also pro-social safety nets, and particularly universal health care, which is not a good place to be re Ron Paul.
But the only time I'd let those be the *decisive* issues would be when there are no more important issues to deal with. Like wars that kill many thousands of innocents and people who, while not innocent, are not nationals we have any right to tell what to do. Like the drug war. Like the crushing of the constitution itself, the misinterpretation that gives the supreme court power it was never authorized to have, like the inversion of the commerce clause, like ex post facto laws, detention without due process or even probable cause, search without any 4th amendment protection, assassination, torture... I could really go on for quite a while.
Frankly, in an environment where all this is in an uproar, if all you can see as the decisive issue is whether you too can have the "right" to lose much more at the hands of a divorce lawyer and the taxman than you do now... then maybe you need to think things over again.
Except the Constitution expressly gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution.
No. That's a myth. The constitution says that the supreme court gets to exercise judicial power -- that is, hearing, determination of guilty, or not guilty, and consequently dispensing legislated penalties (or not) -- and appellate power -- that's the ability to review and override the decisions of lower courts, in cases involving constitutional issues. Judicial power is something your local judge has too -- same thing. And they can't change the constitution either. The very idea is ludicrous. The constitution defines their jobs. If they were empowered to change the constitution or even its interpretation, they could make themselves emperors in one move.
There is *nowhere* in the constitution where the supreme court is specifically or implicitly authorized the power to change one jot or tittle of the constitution. This is because the authors of the document weren't stupid. Consequently, rulings where they literally tell us ex post facto laws are ok, or laws that infringe on keeping or carrying arms are ok, or laws that allow the suppression of speech, are examples of them violating their oaths, not of them implementing legitimate, authorized powers. And, oh yes, the ruling where they told us they could change the constitution... that was nonsense as well.
Furthermore, as there's an entire section devoted to changing the constitution (article V), any argument that addressing changes that might be required was forgotten is utter nonsense. And no, article V doesn't mention the supreme court. At all.
Here's article III, with the relevant key points in bold; particularly note the word "under", rather than "about" or "as interpreted by":
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
...there's a little more in the 11th amendment, but it's not relevant to the question at hand.
I can't stand the Apple chiclet keyboards, and Apple is what I run. So I swap the Apple keyboard out. Simple. Just like your model M, the aftermarket is the place to go if you're a typist of any sort.
...even if it looks just like a Mac, and even if Apple sues them... without OS X, there will be zero market penetration against Apple. All these things can do is cut a slice of the PC market, and if they're underpowered, as seems likely given the indicated price... they're not going to do that very well, either.
Non Mac types can, naturally enough, miss the point: While we certainly enjoy having nice looking machines, it's how it *works* that makes us Apple customers.
Also, just BTW, N. Korea has no weapons to sell that can reach the US from Iraq. Learn your geography (and take a look at the hilarious failures of the North Korean rocketry tests.
Your premise was that Iran busts a nuke on us. That's in NO way the same, or even similar to, the complete false flag war that Bush the Moron got us into in Iraq. That was just to feed the military industrial complex. Pop a nuke here, and you won't see a bunch of ground troops arrive. It won't be "conquest." It'll be outright annihilation. Watch and see.
If iran is preparing to nuke you.. you might want to reconsider that.
Come on, that's just *stupid*.
What delivery system do you imagine this nuke to be carried to the USA by? A camel? A goat?
Do you have any idea how far away Iran is from the USA?
And, supposing that they manage to make a small enough device and get it snuck in here as if it was a tv set or something, and set it off, what do you think would be left of Iran the next day? Let me spell it out for you: A bubbling pool of molten, radioactive glass.
Iran is zero threat to us. They *are* a threat to Israel. Now, same question: They deliver a nuke to Israel; What happens? Again, it's obvious time: Israel converts them to a pool of molten glass.
And then there is Europe. Which has not one, but several nuclear armed states. You think Iran will threaten Europe? Not hardly. But, if they were completely, utterly crazy, and they decided to do that... same answer. They're toast. Allah will have to sort them out, all right, but he'll have to collect the radioactive dust first.
Iran is not a credible threat. Period. Nukes or no nukes.
On the other hand, Iran with a nuke becomes a lot more difficult to invade, for instance like Afghanistan and Iraq. Think they might have that in mind? Hmmmm. Thinking caps on!
No. Because it isn't the citizens in the airport they're protecting, and if you thought it was, you've been had.
First, they are protecting the aircraft, which represents millions of dollars as well as a portion of the transport infrastructure. Second, they are protecting anything on the ground (such as the world trade center) which might be damaged in a very costly way if a heavy aircraft plowed into it at high speed.
You, they don't give a flying fuck about. That's over. Any remarks to the contrary are propaganda, nothing else. All you need to do is look at what they've done to your rights. Even a cursory look will come to the conclusion that you now have none that aren't more than a temporary illusion maintained for no other reason than to keep you calm until the time comes when you get in the way, at which point you will be brushed aside like the fly you are to them.
13th amendment, sorry. Actual typo there, I know the difference. Anyway:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
So, you spit on the sidewalk. or pee on a bush, or drive 26 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, etc., they convict you of same, and bingo, the 13th amendment exception applies to you.
Law doesn't trump the chains on your ankles and the cell you're in, though, unless you can GET to the law, and since you let the contract holder put you in there... well, there you go. Good luck with your legal distinctions -- too late now.
...and just think how fun it will be when it is actually 3D, instead of the lame, one-angle, limited stereo-vision it is now!
(Yes, I realize the majority have been "marketed" into thinking stereo-vision is actually really 3D. But that doesn't mean they won't notice when real 3D displays replace this lame 2D hack. The first time they stand up and the POV changes so they can look down the cheerleader's cleavage will be the very last time they ever even *think* about purchasing a 2D set.)
If I present you with a contract that says I own you in every respect, and you consent in an informed manner, you are a slave. Believe me, it's 100% slavery, and has both the same worth and the same consequences for you.
Just as when someone who turns themselves in for a crime gets imprisoned; it's still imprisonment. Volunteering doesn't change the nature of the thing. It just reflects the degree of liberty you're allowed to exercise. Here, you cannot consent to such a thing; your liberty is more impaired by that than it is by the opportunity to simply say "I consent."
Hmmm..... deep vee cleavage tops for chicks.... glittery solar cell appliques for their breastesess... motorized bras that cause nipples to auto-track the sun when the sun is in front of said chick... woven golden wires leading to cellphone pocket like a necklace...
Slavery is like sex. It's perfectly fine if you've given informed consent, which, presumably, you would only do if you felt doing so was worth it. The very mention of it -- again just like sex -- terrifies the politically correct crowd, who specialize in reacting without thinking, but -- again like sex -- there's nothing wrong with the concept. It's all about implementation.
And always remember, the 14th amendment provides the government the authorized power to enslave you. Where do you think your license plates come from?
Please, please... you think facebook, of all places, is a "professional" venue? It's a big venue, but it's at the cardinal opposite end from professional. Good grief, you can't find a poorer UI, a more clueless group of users who have no idea how to use it (partly because it's poor, partly because they're clueless), or a less valuable collection of content anywhere on the net.
Hey, guess what I don't have? And don't want! A Facebook account. Did you guess? lol...
You might want to inform Facebook devs [1] that their language isn't "professional". Go on, I'll just wait here.
You infer, incorrectly, that I care what Facebook devs think. I don't. The site is a POS, designed for the least common denominator, very poorly put together, crippled by ridiculous policies, and reflecting the very worst of human nature from end to end in its mining of privacy and promotion of a false impression of importance driven by pseudo-popularity. And no, I don't think switching to a real development language would help at all. The problems are too broadly inherent to the idea. The poor choice of dev language is just a symptom of the LCD nature of the site itself.
The president could direct the treasury to not allocate funds for unconstitutional uses
No, congress (later responsible to the people for its prior actions) has absolute authority to construe and to effectuate the appropriations requirement:
See Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 272, 290-91 (1850); Hart's Case, 16 Ct. Cl. 459, 484 (1881) ("[A]bsolute control of money of the United States is in Congress, and Congress is respon- sible for its exercise of this great power only to the people."), affd, 118 U.S. 62 (1886); cf. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962) ("textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.... ").
Also, re the constitution, the president is required to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", but nowhere in the constitution is he given authority to "direct the treasury", as you put it. That power lies exclusively with congress.
You can't? Do you know there is also life outside of the United States?
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but there is also government outside the United States. And most of them are worse than the United States government in that they interfere even more in their citizen's lives and/or pursue even less palatable courses with the tax money they take from said citizens. In fact, so far, that's been my uniform experience. Thanks, but I'll stick with trying to get my own government back into compliance with its authorizing charter.
Not telling you what to do, of course. Good luck with all that.
Slashdot Mirror
lol.... you know, that is not reassuring...
But hey, no, wait, this is a patriotic matter! I'd put our batshit-crazy, snake-waving, babble-talking, crystal-gazing, pyramid-storing, sweat-lodge having, primal screaming, colloidal silver drinkin' UFO, jebus, Jospeh Smith, Allah, and L Ron Hubbard worshiping kooks up against the furrin Muslims any day when it comes to crazy. Oh, we got crazy. In god we trustith, brudda. One nation, under god (get off, you're crushin' my cigarettes!) You ever hear about the sights for high powered rifles our soldiers were carrying in Iraq? Let me help ya out.
So even our companies are batshit crazy. So if that's a key ingredient for dropping nukes on Iran if they launch or otherwise deliver a nuke to our Sacred Shores... no worries, mate, they're toast. Well, boiling radioactive glass, but you know what I mean.
Look, I'm pro-gay issues. Seriously so. I'm for gay marriage, insofar as I'm for marriage at all (I think it's a terrible institution, made worse every day), just because I think that if I can do it as a straight (not that I would, mind you, as I said, I think it's a terrible institution) then gays should be able to also. I'm also pro-social safety nets, and particularly universal health care, which is not a good place to be re Ron Paul.
But the only time I'd let those be the *decisive* issues would be when there are no more important issues to deal with. Like wars that kill many thousands of innocents and people who, while not innocent, are not nationals we have any right to tell what to do. Like the drug war. Like the crushing of the constitution itself, the misinterpretation that gives the supreme court power it was never authorized to have, like the inversion of the commerce clause, like ex post facto laws, detention without due process or even probable cause, search without any 4th amendment protection, assassination, torture... I could really go on for quite a while.
Frankly, in an environment where all this is in an uproar, if all you can see as the decisive issue is whether you too can have the "right" to lose much more at the hands of a divorce lawyer and the taxman than you do now... then maybe you need to think things over again.
Hello?
It's also only true if you voted for them.
Oh, no it doesn't.
No. That's a myth. The constitution says that the supreme court gets to exercise judicial power -- that is, hearing, determination of guilty, or not guilty, and consequently dispensing legislated penalties (or not) -- and appellate power -- that's the ability to review and override the decisions of lower courts, in cases involving constitutional issues. Judicial power is something your local judge has too -- same thing. And they can't change the constitution either. The very idea is ludicrous. The constitution defines their jobs. If they were empowered to change the constitution or even its interpretation, they could make themselves emperors in one move.
There is *nowhere* in the constitution where the supreme court is specifically or implicitly authorized the power to change one jot or tittle of the constitution. This is because the authors of the document weren't stupid. Consequently, rulings where they literally tell us ex post facto laws are ok, or laws that infringe on keeping or carrying arms are ok, or laws that allow the suppression of speech, are examples of them violating their oaths, not of them implementing legitimate, authorized powers. And, oh yes, the ruling where they told us they could change the constitution... that was nonsense as well.
Furthermore, as there's an entire section devoted to changing the constitution (article V), any argument that addressing changes that might be required was forgotten is utter nonsense. And no, article V doesn't mention the supreme court. At all.
Here's article III, with the relevant key points in bold; particularly note the word "under", rather than "about" or "as interpreted by":
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
I can't stand the Apple chiclet keyboards, and Apple is what I run. So I swap the Apple keyboard out. Simple. Just like your model M, the aftermarket is the place to go if you're a typist of any sort.
Non Mac types can, naturally enough, miss the point: While we certainly enjoy having nice looking machines, it's how it *works* that makes us Apple customers.
Also, just BTW, N. Korea has no weapons to sell that can reach the US from Iraq. Learn your geography (and take a look at the hilarious failures of the North Korean rocketry tests.
Your premise was that Iran busts a nuke on us. That's in NO way the same, or even similar to, the complete false flag war that Bush the Moron got us into in Iraq. That was just to feed the military industrial complex. Pop a nuke here, and you won't see a bunch of ground troops arrive. It won't be "conquest." It'll be outright annihilation. Watch and see.
Come on, that's just *stupid*.
What delivery system do you imagine this nuke to be carried to the USA by? A camel? A goat?
Do you have any idea how far away Iran is from the USA?
And, supposing that they manage to make a small enough device and get it snuck in here as if it was a tv set or something, and set it off, what do you think would be left of Iran the next day? Let me spell it out for you: A bubbling pool of molten, radioactive glass.
Iran is zero threat to us. They *are* a threat to Israel. Now, same question: They deliver a nuke to Israel; What happens? Again, it's obvious time: Israel converts them to a pool of molten glass.
And then there is Europe. Which has not one, but several nuclear armed states. You think Iran will threaten Europe? Not hardly. But, if they were completely, utterly crazy, and they decided to do that... same answer. They're toast. Allah will have to sort them out, all right, but he'll have to collect the radioactive dust first.
Iran is not a credible threat. Period. Nukes or no nukes.
On the other hand, Iran with a nuke becomes a lot more difficult to invade, for instance like Afghanistan and Iraq. Think they might have that in mind? Hmmmm. Thinking caps on!
No. Because it isn't the citizens in the airport they're protecting, and if you thought it was, you've been had.
First, they are protecting the aircraft, which represents millions of dollars as well as a portion of the transport infrastructure. Second, they are protecting anything on the ground (such as the world trade center) which might be damaged in a very costly way if a heavy aircraft plowed into it at high speed.
You, they don't give a flying fuck about. That's over. Any remarks to the contrary are propaganda, nothing else. All you need to do is look at what they've done to your rights. Even a cursory look will come to the conclusion that you now have none that aren't more than a temporary illusion maintained for no other reason than to keep you calm until the time comes when you get in the way, at which point you will be brushed aside like the fly you are to them.
13th amendment, sorry. Actual typo there, I know the difference. Anyway:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
So, you spit on the sidewalk. or pee on a bush, or drive 26 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, etc., they convict you of same, and bingo, the 13th amendment exception applies to you.
Not really too concerned what a book of superstitious nonsense has to say about it. If I was, I wouldn't eat crab, lol
Not if you're in chains and a cell, you can't.
Law doesn't trump the chains on your ankles and the cell you're in, though, unless you can GET to the law, and since you let the contract holder put you in there... well, there you go. Good luck with your legal distinctions -- too late now.
(Yes, I realize the majority have been "marketed" into thinking stereo-vision is actually really 3D. But that doesn't mean they won't notice when real 3D displays replace this lame 2D hack. The first time they stand up and the POV changes so they can look down the cheerleader's cleavage will be the very last time they ever even *think* about purchasing a 2D set.)
If I present you with a contract that says I own you in every respect, and you consent in an informed manner, you are a slave. Believe me, it's 100% slavery, and has both the same worth and the same consequences for you.
Just as when someone who turns themselves in for a crime gets imprisoned; it's still imprisonment. Volunteering doesn't change the nature of the thing. It just reflects the degree of liberty you're allowed to exercise. Here, you cannot consent to such a thing; your liberty is more impaired by that than it is by the opportunity to simply say "I consent."
Hmmm..... deep vee cleavage tops for chicks.... glittery solar cell appliques for their breastesess... motorized bras that cause nipples to auto-track the sun when the sun is in front of said chick... woven golden wires leading to cellphone pocket like a necklace...
PROFIT!
Wait, did I say that out loud?
Slavery is like sex. It's perfectly fine if you've given informed consent, which, presumably, you would only do if you felt doing so was worth it. The very mention of it -- again just like sex -- terrifies the politically correct crowd, who specialize in reacting without thinking, but -- again like sex -- there's nothing wrong with the concept. It's all about implementation.
And always remember, the 14th amendment provides the government the authorized power to enslave you. Where do you think your license plates come from?
"Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws"
Because history shows they consistently do it WRONG.
Please, please... you think facebook, of all places, is a "professional" venue? It's a big venue, but it's at the cardinal opposite end from professional. Good grief, you can't find a poorer UI, a more clueless group of users who have no idea how to use it (partly because it's poor, partly because they're clueless), or a less valuable collection of content anywhere on the net.
Hey, guess what I don't have? And don't want! A Facebook account. Did you guess? lol...
You infer, incorrectly, that I care what Facebook devs think. I don't. The site is a POS, designed for the least common denominator, very poorly put together, crippled by ridiculous policies, and reflecting the very worst of human nature from end to end in its mining of privacy and promotion of a false impression of importance driven by pseudo-popularity. And no, I don't think switching to a real development language would help at all. The problems are too broadly inherent to the idea. The poor choice of dev language is just a symptom of the LCD nature of the site itself.
The "serious professional" doesn't use PHP at all, lol.
But you carry on!
*for certain values of "beauty" not normally encountered in human experience, e.g., "that tangled ball of rattlesnakes is beautiful."
No, congress (later responsible to the people for its prior actions) has absolute authority to construe and to effectuate the appropriations requirement:
See Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 272, 290-91 (1850); Hart's Case, 16 Ct. Cl. 459, .... ").
484 (1881) ("[A]bsolute control of money of the United States is in Congress, and Congress is respon- sible for its exercise of this great power only to the people."), affd, 118 U.S. 62 (1886); cf. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962) ("textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
Also, re the constitution, the president is required to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", but nowhere in the constitution is he given authority to "direct the treasury", as you put it. That power lies exclusively with congress.
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but there is also government outside the United States. And most of them are worse than the United States government in that they interfere even more in their citizen's lives and/or pursue even less palatable courses with the tax money they take from said citizens. In fact, so far, that's been my uniform experience. Thanks, but I'll stick with trying to get my own government back into compliance with its authorizing charter.
Not telling you what to do, of course. Good luck with all that.