Nor (conjunction)
1. (used in negative phrases, especially after neither, to introduce the second member in a series, or any subsequent member)
2. (used to continue the force of a negative, as not, no, never, etc., occurring in a preceding clause)
3. (used after an affirmative clause, or as a continuative, in the sense of and not)
4. Older use: than
5. Archaic: (used without a preceding neither, the negative force of which is understood)
6. Archaic: (used instead of neither as correlative to a following nor)
Notice anything missing from that list? Yup, your imaginary start a sub-IF-ELSE clause usage.
Next, when searching for the antecedent that an indefinite pronoun refers to, English usage prefers that we take the obvious one before we make one up.
Let us try this again:
The powers [in the list of] (1. not delegated to the [Federal Government] by the Constitution; ["nor" means we start a new item here] 2. not prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States) are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In modern speak, it is roughly: Any power not explicitly granted to the Federal Government, and not explicitly denied to member States, belongs to either the State government, or to the people of that state.
Much more concisely: Any powers not specifically mentioned in this document are out-of-scope.
It was presumed that different States would have different opinions on which powers should be Governmental powers, and which would be People powers. By applying the 10th recursively, we determine that the Federal government has no authority to make that determination for any of the members.
1) He is not attributing it to the police, but to us, his audience. Or to "the American people" or most broadly speaking, "everyone". His intended scope is not clear here because this clause is written in the passive voice with no explicit owner. "bring attention to this issue" - Whose attention? Dunno.
2) There is no perception that black people are 'niggers' in this sentence. The perception (our perception) is that police violence isn't important (to us) because it is happening to 'niggers'.
(Note that I'm not making any claims beyond the meaning of the sentence as written.)
The SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) could have been extended. Every SOFA ever, like going back to Rome and probably earlier, has involved sabre rattling from the local politicians, and they are almost always extended after giving the local politicians either loot or something to enhance their local prestige.
There were negotiations towards extending this particular SOFA in 2010 and 2011. I don't have my references handy, but I seem to recall that they got hung up on something trivial that the Iraqis wanted, that we easily could have given them in exchange for dropping their public faux-protests against troop immunity. (Anyone remember what I'm thinking of? Drop a link, if you do.)
The failure of that negotiation is what enabled an ascendant (but still relatively minor) Jihadi group to consolidate other groups, growing into the hole we left in Iraq, eventually winning enough amr to metastasize into the Islamic State that we know today.
Obama either didn't want the SOFA extended, or wasn't competent enough to hire good negotiators. Since "colonialism" is the boogeyman he sees hiding in every shadow, my money is on "didn't want".
Yes, prior to the 30s, we took old people out back and shot them, and prior to the 60s, we did the same thing when people got sick.
If government doesn't do something, it doesn't get done. There are no communities, no families, no churches. The options are government or death. History begins at Marx.
Armies, police and courts have been around since (literally!) before the dawn of history, many thousands of years. And for nearly as long, they have been recognized as mass goods that benefit everyone in the area, with no practical way to restrict the benefits to only those that pay in.
Meanwhile, medicine and retirement have been around for just as long, but were handled privately until like 50 and 80 years ago, and benefit only the recipient. The modern "innovation" in those areas was in robbing Peter to pay for Paul, so to speak.
The landlord doesn't "jack up the rent". One potential tenant will want it more, and offer more for it. Rents rising is a natural and inavoidable consequence of more money in the system.
You haven't ever wondered why things with the fastest increasing costs are the things with the most "free" money available? (Education and medicine, in case anyone was wondering.)
After the revolution in Russia, it was expected that workers around the world would follow their lead and rise up to overthrow their governments. That mostly did not happen in the west, so a group got together to figure out why, and what they could do about it.
The "why" ended up being "western civilization", and the "what to do about it" was "destroy the institutions and traditions of the west", things like family, religion, law and order, individualism, freedom.
Since Marxism wasn't about economics, but about turning people into ants, the people who work towards that are "Cultural Marxists". You can identify them by their broad opposition to all aspects of western civilization. Honestly, most of them are "useful idiots" and don't understand the nature of the movement they are part of, but part of it they surely are.
To see it yourself, flip through his post history. For every post with a political angle, ask yourself, which opinion tears down western civilization? Then compare his opinion to the Marxist opinion.
The trolls already won, and everyone knows it. Censorship just changes you from a loser to a whiny loser. Even worse, it is an announcement to the whole world that you can't defend your ideas, which most people understand to mean that your ideas are indefensible.
Hilarious, considering your post history here. I couldn't think of a single left-wing lie that you haven't swallowed hook, line and sinker. From "Hands up, don't shoot" to global cooling er, global warming er, climate change, to the lie that gamergate was started by a lie. Congratulations, you're a Marxist!
It ain't you or me. Unfortunately, "it ain't you or me" runs out eventually, and when that day comes, it'll be you, and me, paying the bill.
I know CCR was a hippy band, and Don't Look Now was intended to be a lefty song about rich people exploiting the poor, but I always took it as being about shirking responsibility, like CCR was mocking the boomers in advance for what they would become. Granted, I missed the hippy era by like 30 years, so when I was listening to CCR, I was watching Gen X starting to get crushed under the burden of paying for the promises that the boomers made to themselves.
The boomers may have been concerned about "the poor" in the 60s, but they've been feasting on the blood of "the poor", or perhaps I should say "the young", for decades now.
Boomer 1: Who will do the hard work to feed and clothe us? Boomer 2: It ain't you or me. Gen X, Y: Don't look now, someone's done your starvin'. Millenials: Don't look now, someone's done your prayin' too
The exact mechanics of this specific incident aren't important. Moof123 is totally correct about the root problem.
The local school boards, the states, the federal government, the unions and the courts mercilessly beat down everyone working in education that made the mistake of exercising ordinary adult judgment. If you think it is bad now, just wait until the kids that we've been raising now, in an environment without adults acting like adults, are in charge.
Go back and read some of the slashdot stories that were posted after Columbine, and especially the comment threads. It has been nearly 20 years now since the schools nationwide cranked the paranoia up to batshit crazy levels.
It has nothing to do with "looks different". Has everything to do with the local school boards, the states, the federal government, the unions and the courts mercilessly beating down anyone working in education that makes the mistake of exercising ordinary adult judgment.
(I'm going to post this under every comment that I see that claims (or implies) racism as the cause. Mod me down if you are sick of reading it. I've got karma to burn.)
P.S. Trump now, or Hitler later. History strongly suggests that those are two of our three options. The third is national suicide.
Go back and read some of the slashdot stories that were posted after Columbine, and especially the comment threads. It has been nearly 20 years now since the schools nationwide cranked the paranoia up to batshit crazy levels.
It has nothing to do with "looks different". Has everything to do with the local school boards, the states, the federal government, the unions and the courts mercilessly beating down anyone working in education that makes the mistake of exercising ordinary adult judgment.
(I'm going to post this under every comment that I see that claims (or implies) racism as the cause. Mod me down if you are sick of reading it. I've got karma to burn.)
If being shot by drunken rednecks is a serious fear for you, perhaps you should consider spending your time in a different bar. Or maybe practice your manners.
H1B was intended to be a way for companies to bypass the normal immigration system to bring in star talent, people with unique skills or knowledge. It was intended to bring Linus into the country, for example. While it is still occasionally used that way, it is now mostly a way for companies to replace high paid American workers with low paid foreign workers, like Disney replacing their IT staff (and making them train their H1B replacements).
Cruz isn't proposing this because he thinks it'll be better for the economy, he's proposing this because he thinks it'll be better for the nation, and for the country. Polls suggest that a large majority of Americans agree with him.
For people that want to "run the economy", perhaps look across the aisle at the people that literally think that you are too stupid to purchase the medical coverage that meets your needs.
The only Catholics that are embarrassed by the Inquisition are the ones that never learned why there was one in the first place. In case you need a hint to get started, ask yourself what had been happening in Spain for the ~700 years prior.
The Crusades are much the same. They weren't just a random Christian rampage out of the blue, but a response to something external. In the case of the Crusades, about 400 years worth of that something.
Perhaps you've been talking to public school teachers and students, and not actual Catholics?
The A-10 isn't quite so old, having been introduced in 1977, but it too is uniquely successful at its job, with no practical replacement in sight.
Ask any Army Soldier or Marine Rifleman that has seen combat and needed close air support what their favorite jet is, and you'll hear only one name.
Rather than talking about retirement, we should be building more of these two jets. Yes, I know it would be expensive to re-create all of the tooling. In my opinion, new production lines for them should be established and maintained in perpetuity as national treasures, at least until suitable replacements are found and validated by real-world experience.
(The C-130 should probably be included too, and would be much easier, since it is still in active production.)
Erm. There certainly is a Christian nation here, and possibly a Christian state, but not a Christian government.
That won't make any sense if you think that nation, state and government are synonyms.
There is a common type of douche around that likes to imagine Christians as ignorant hicks, so that they can loudly proclaim their superiority over these straw Christians to anyone nearby. Most often, they don't understand much of anything, but they sound good because they've got a library of misquotes and snippets-taken-out-of-context in their heads. I've only read like two paragraphs that you've written, but I've got serious deja vu, like I've met many of your brothers.
While the federal government was not founded as a Christian theocracy, several of the colonies had active state religions at the time of the founding. The first clause of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", was specifically to prevent the federal government from messing with those churches.
That said, pretty much no one seriously questions that each state government and the federal government was founded by people with overwhelmingly Christian values, or that our laws and institutions reflect those values.
The Barbary Pirates were organized and controlled by the local government. Notice that they started attacking our ships when we moved outside the protection of the Treaty of Alliance, and they briefly respected the Treaty of Tripoli.
Christian pirates, however, could expect to be chased down and killed whenever they came within sight of a military vessel of any Christian country. Privateers were a slightly different matter, since they had written permission from their country to conduct war at sea, which didn't include enslaving the crews and passengers of ships they captured.
Are these girls going to develop their own scripting language? Their own interpreter? Their own language and compiler for whatever language the interpreter is written in? Their own assembler? Their own CPU and object language?
Or are they just going to sign up girls up to use a huge stack of tools built by men?
Or why do the Christians and Jews that also suffer civilian casualties, often in the same villages as the Muslims, never get around to launching a global jihad?
Slashdot Mirror
Nor (conjunction)
1. (used in negative phrases, especially after neither, to introduce the second member in a series, or any subsequent member)
2. (used to continue the force of a negative, as not, no, never, etc., occurring in a preceding clause)
3. (used after an affirmative clause, or as a continuative, in the sense of and not)
4. Older use: than
5. Archaic: (used without a preceding neither, the negative force of which is understood)
6. Archaic: (used instead of neither as correlative to a following nor)
Notice anything missing from that list? Yup, your imaginary start a sub-IF-ELSE clause usage.
Next, when searching for the antecedent that an indefinite pronoun refers to, English usage prefers that we take the obvious one before we make one up.
Let us try this again:
The powers [in the list of] (1. not delegated to the [Federal Government] by the Constitution; ["nor" means we start a new item here] 2. not prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States) are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In modern speak, it is roughly: Any power not explicitly granted to the Federal Government, and not explicitly denied to member States, belongs to either the State government, or to the people of that state.
Much more concisely: Any powers not specifically mentioned in this document are out-of-scope.
It was presumed that different States would have different opinions on which powers should be Governmental powers, and which would be People powers. By applying the 10th recursively, we determine that the Federal government has no authority to make that determination for any of the members.
Wrong on two counts.
1) He is not attributing it to the police, but to us, his audience. Or to "the American people" or most broadly speaking, "everyone". His intended scope is not clear here because this clause is written in the passive voice with no explicit owner. "bring attention to this issue" - Whose attention? Dunno.
2) There is no perception that black people are 'niggers' in this sentence. The perception (our perception) is that police violence isn't important (to us) because it is happening to 'niggers'.
(Note that I'm not making any claims beyond the meaning of the sentence as written.)
The SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) could have been extended. Every SOFA ever, like going back to Rome and probably earlier, has involved sabre rattling from the local politicians, and they are almost always extended after giving the local politicians either loot or something to enhance their local prestige.
There were negotiations towards extending this particular SOFA in 2010 and 2011. I don't have my references handy, but I seem to recall that they got hung up on something trivial that the Iraqis wanted, that we easily could have given them in exchange for dropping their public faux-protests against troop immunity. (Anyone remember what I'm thinking of? Drop a link, if you do.)
The failure of that negotiation is what enabled an ascendant (but still relatively minor) Jihadi group to consolidate other groups, growing into the hole we left in Iraq, eventually winning enough amr to metastasize into the Islamic State that we know today.
Obama either didn't want the SOFA extended, or wasn't competent enough to hire good negotiators. Since "colonialism" is the boogeyman he sees hiding in every shadow, my money is on "didn't want".
Yes, prior to the 30s, we took old people out back and shot them, and prior to the 60s, we did the same thing when people got sick.
If government doesn't do something, it doesn't get done. There are no communities, no families, no churches. The options are government or death. History begins at Marx.
Armies, police and courts have been around since (literally!) before the dawn of history, many thousands of years. And for nearly as long, they have been recognized as mass goods that benefit everyone in the area, with no practical way to restrict the benefits to only those that pay in.
Meanwhile, medicine and retirement have been around for just as long, but were handled privately until like 50 and 80 years ago, and benefit only the recipient. The modern "innovation" in those areas was in robbing Peter to pay for Paul, so to speak.
And yet, Socialism makes so much sense it must always be imposed under thread of violence.
Opt in to Social Security? No, men with guns will lock you up if you don't pay in.
Opt in to Medicare? No, men with guns will lock you up if you don't pay in.
The landlord doesn't "jack up the rent". One potential tenant will want it more, and offer more for it. Rents rising is a natural and inavoidable consequence of more money in the system.
You haven't ever wondered why things with the fastest increasing costs are the things with the most "free" money available? (Education and medicine, in case anyone was wondering.)
After the revolution in Russia, it was expected that workers around the world would follow their lead and rise up to overthrow their governments. That mostly did not happen in the west, so a group got together to figure out why, and what they could do about it.
The "why" ended up being "western civilization", and the "what to do about it" was "destroy the institutions and traditions of the west", things like family, religion, law and order, individualism, freedom.
Since Marxism wasn't about economics, but about turning people into ants, the people who work towards that are "Cultural Marxists". You can identify them by their broad opposition to all aspects of western civilization. Honestly, most of them are "useful idiots" and don't understand the nature of the movement they are part of, but part of it they surely are.
To see it yourself, flip through his post history. For every post with a political angle, ask yourself, which opinion tears down western civilization? Then compare his opinion to the Marxist opinion.
The trolls already won, and everyone knows it. Censorship just changes you from a loser to a whiny loser. Even worse, it is an announcement to the whole world that you can't defend your ideas, which most people understand to mean that your ideas are indefensible.
Hilarious, considering your post history here. I couldn't think of a single left-wing lie that you haven't swallowed hook, line and sinker. From "Hands up, don't shoot" to global cooling er, global warming er, climate change, to the lie that gamergate was started by a lie. Congratulations, you're a Marxist!
I agree. We really do need more homeless people.
It ain't you or me. Unfortunately, "it ain't you or me" runs out eventually, and when that day comes, it'll be you, and me, paying the bill.
I know CCR was a hippy band, and Don't Look Now was intended to be a lefty song about rich people exploiting the poor, but I always took it as being about shirking responsibility, like CCR was mocking the boomers in advance for what they would become. Granted, I missed the hippy era by like 30 years, so when I was listening to CCR, I was watching Gen X starting to get crushed under the burden of paying for the promises that the boomers made to themselves.
The boomers may have been concerned about "the poor" in the 60s, but they've been feasting on the blood of "the poor", or perhaps I should say "the young", for decades now.
Boomer 1: Who will do the hard work to feed and clothe us?
Boomer 2: It ain't you or me.
Gen X, Y: Don't look now, someone's done your starvin'.
Millenials: Don't look now, someone's done your prayin' too
The generational conversation in one song.
The exact mechanics of this specific incident aren't important. Moof123 is totally correct about the root problem.
The local school boards, the states, the federal government, the unions and the courts mercilessly beat down everyone working in education that made the mistake of exercising ordinary adult judgment. If you think it is bad now, just wait until the kids that we've been raising now, in an environment without adults acting like adults, are in charge.
Go back and read some of the slashdot stories that were posted after Columbine, and especially the comment threads. It has been nearly 20 years now since the schools nationwide cranked the paranoia up to batshit crazy levels.
It has nothing to do with "looks different". Has everything to do with the local school boards, the states, the federal government, the unions and the courts mercilessly beating down anyone working in education that makes the mistake of exercising ordinary adult judgment.
(I'm going to post this under every comment that I see that claims (or implies) racism as the cause. Mod me down if you are sick of reading it. I've got karma to burn.)
P.S. Trump now, or Hitler later. History strongly suggests that those are two of our three options. The third is national suicide.
Go back and read some of the slashdot stories that were posted after Columbine, and especially the comment threads. It has been nearly 20 years now since the schools nationwide cranked the paranoia up to batshit crazy levels.
It has nothing to do with "looks different". Has everything to do with the local school boards, the states, the federal government, the unions and the courts mercilessly beating down anyone working in education that makes the mistake of exercising ordinary adult judgment.
(I'm going to post this under every comment that I see that claims (or implies) racism as the cause. Mod me down if you are sick of reading it. I've got karma to burn.)
If being shot by drunken rednecks is a serious fear for you, perhaps you should consider spending your time in a different bar. Or maybe practice your manners.
Maybe we could call this new scheme "key escrow". That way we can run our side of the debate just by recycling posts from ~20 years ago.
This isn't about "running the economy".
H1B was intended to be a way for companies to bypass the normal immigration system to bring in star talent, people with unique skills or knowledge. It was intended to bring Linus into the country, for example. While it is still occasionally used that way, it is now mostly a way for companies to replace high paid American workers with low paid foreign workers, like Disney replacing their IT staff (and making them train their H1B replacements).
Cruz isn't proposing this because he thinks it'll be better for the economy, he's proposing this because he thinks it'll be better for the nation, and for the country. Polls suggest that a large majority of Americans agree with him.
For people that want to "run the economy", perhaps look across the aisle at the people that literally think that you are too stupid to purchase the medical coverage that meets your needs.
Hilarious example, given the context.
The only Catholics that are embarrassed by the Inquisition are the ones that never learned why there was one in the first place. In case you need a hint to get started, ask yourself what had been happening in Spain for the ~700 years prior.
The Crusades are much the same. They weren't just a random Christian rampage out of the blue, but a response to something external. In the case of the Crusades, about 400 years worth of that something.
Perhaps you've been talking to public school teachers and students, and not actual Catholics?
The A-10 isn't quite so old, having been introduced in 1977, but it too is uniquely successful at its job, with no practical replacement in sight.
Ask any Army Soldier or Marine Rifleman that has seen combat and needed close air support what their favorite jet is, and you'll hear only one name.
Rather than talking about retirement, we should be building more of these two jets. Yes, I know it would be expensive to re-create all of the tooling. In my opinion, new production lines for them should be established and maintained in perpetuity as national treasures, at least until suitable replacements are found and validated by real-world experience.
(The C-130 should probably be included too, and would be much easier, since it is still in active production.)
Erm. There certainly is a Christian nation here, and possibly a Christian state, but not a Christian government.
That won't make any sense if you think that nation, state and government are synonyms.
There is a common type of douche around that likes to imagine Christians as ignorant hicks, so that they can loudly proclaim their superiority over these straw Christians to anyone nearby. Most often, they don't understand much of anything, but they sound good because they've got a library of misquotes and snippets-taken-out-of-context in their heads. I've only read like two paragraphs that you've written, but I've got serious deja vu, like I've met many of your brothers.
While the federal government was not founded as a Christian theocracy, several of the colonies had active state religions at the time of the founding. The first clause of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", was specifically to prevent the federal government from messing with those churches.
That said, pretty much no one seriously questions that each state government and the federal government was founded by people with overwhelmingly Christian values, or that our laws and institutions reflect those values.
The Barbary Pirates were organized and controlled by the local government. Notice that they started attacking our ships when we moved outside the protection of the Treaty of Alliance, and they briefly respected the Treaty of Tripoli.
Christian pirates, however, could expect to be chased down and killed whenever they came within sight of a military vessel of any Christian country. Privateers were a slightly different matter, since they had written permission from their country to conduct war at sea, which didn't include enslaving the crews and passengers of ships they captured.
Are these girls going to develop their own scripting language? Their own interpreter? Their own language and compiler for whatever language the interpreter is written in? Their own assembler? Their own CPU and object language?
Or are they just going to sign up girls up to use a huge stack of tools built by men?
Or why do the Christians and Jews that also suffer civilian casualties, often in the same villages as the Muslims, never get around to launching a global jihad?