Here I sit, with little will power to plow through another 20 pages of property law reading. What shall I do... what shall I do...
I'm not wasting my time to dig up a link for you. If you don't believe me, oh well.
Nope, I don't believe you. Or the media conspiracy.
The response you quoted was me simply agreeing with your previous post, and it makes no mention of Iraq.
Clearly, you were implying Afghanistan then...
While I agree the situation has revived the argument, it's been around.
Yup. An argument has been around. Wow. Since when did the existence of an argument = complete preference for your side of the argument?
You assert the President not accepting certain forms of authorization from Congress for his own requests is to not follow the Constitution. Interesting.
Yes, I can. And do it with authority. The president does not need to accept authorization for covert action from congress - he doesn't even have to ask for it. This is called the Foreign Affairs power.
Unnecessary perpetual war is not fun. Especially when your loved ones are maimed and killed. F**k the status quo.
DOWN WITH THE MAN! FIGHT THE POWER! Let's wrap up the war (is this Iraq? Afghanistan? Lord only knows what you'll claim 3 posts from now...) and then everyone will just love us so much!
Do you honestly believe thirty-second advertising spots compare to being taken seriously in the media..?
They sure help get the name out, and with only one exception Paul has appeared in essentially every Republican debate. Once again - he's nuts. It's not that the media simply paints him as nuts, he's nuts.
If you can find me these diatribes, by all means. I've looked, and looked. Can only find one article in one newsletter, the content of which isn't what you'd expect.
Sorry, the last thing I want to do is google "Ron Paul".
I don't mind Ron appearing on a 9/11 conspiracy theorist radio show. It gave him alot of exposure back when he was a nobody. It's not like he was hollering that 9/11 was an inside job.
There's this thing called tacit approval... and this also explains a great deal of his base, who have a habit of calling up radio and television shows and making idiots of themselves.
Not sure what you're referring to with the 'discredited' foreign policy remark.
That would be the years of study on the subject of international relations. Paul's bizarre isolationist stance seems to be an ugly inbred child of Wilson and Carter - both dramatic and powerful examples of complete and utter failure.
Nice to know you're a Mormon. Have you looked into Romney? Heard he's a great Mormon.
Eh. Romney fails to inspire. Oh, but I get it - I'm a Mormon, so I should vote for the Mormon... riiight... we people do stick together, you know...
Thanks for the accusation of being racist, and of associating with anti-Semites. You have class. Lots.
Birds of a feather vote together...
I wasn't aware of the 7.5% statistic, I thought they held more of the state. Thanks for the clarification.
"Held". Yes, it's held under the ALL-POWERFUL-MORMON-CONSPIRACY!
I like your use of the term bloodbath. Certainly voting for someone like Romney to continue our persistence in Iraq will help to keep the blood flowing.
So if we left, the blood would immediately stop flowing? Of course, the trend line for both American and Iraqi casualties has shown a dramatic decrease in the past 6-8 months, associated largely with new American tactics, more troops, and various other forces. I know it hurts to think about things like that. I know you're eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
As for calling me anti-religion: I'm not sure it's quite accurate. I'd call myself more of a 'I dont give a shit about your religion as long as you dont impose it on me' kind of guy. Maybe one day I'll become more religiou
I'm fairly certain there was discussion of the War Powers clause back when the Constitution was being drafted, and the wording was specifically chosen for a reason.
Oh, so now you're fairly certain. But have nothing to back it up. At all. Other than an overly-literal interpretation of an area that has remained entirely grey for constitutional scholars for a long, long time. But hey, you've got a gut feeling. Let's base everything off that.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I claim that courts should end Iraq. The notion is ridiculous. Who the hell said that?
Yes, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act is in question. Yes, federal courts will turn a blind eye.
Ongoing military operations in Iraq are the entire reason why people are creating these magical declaration of war arguments to begin with. You lament the federal courts turning a blind eye to them (personally, I'd love to see someone actually challenge the war in federal court and be utterly destroyed there, both for fun and for scholarly interest, but I digress).
Now, on to another great highlight:
Nevertheless, your arguments about Constitutional law are side-skirting my point. I'm advocating a Presidential candidate - if he plans on demanding a declaration before going to war, the President can do that.
Oh, so you don't actually care about the constitution - you're just a populist supporting a man rather than a system of government. Thanks for clearing that up!
The POINT of the declaration is so that wars are not secretive, and not drug out.
Yeah. Totally. Because the world would have no idea that we were in Iraq right now unless there was a declaration. It would be one huge secret. Oh wait...
They are declared, the nation fights with its full force, and gets it over with.
Which falls into a classic argument in regards to Congress' ability to declare war - that it only applies to "total war" wherein full force is used, not minor actions such as Iraq. Which way is it, then? Also, as far as "get[ting] it over with", we did not turn over control of Japan and Germany until well into the fifties. It was a declared war, and we did not "get it over with" quickly at all.
It's very simple, perhaps too simple for you to believe possible?
Here's the thing - constitutional law is NOT simple. It's centuries of precedent and argument about a document made by men who were not of unanimous accord, explained their interpretation of it differently, and drew from disparate philosophical sources from Locke to Plato.
I know, you want uncle Ron to come down and wave his magic non-interventionist wand and all of a sudden everything will be just hunky dory! Sorry - we live in a real world. things aren't that simple.
Yes, second place isn't the same as first, but it's as close as it gets.
In other news, apples are fruit.
Your arguments about noone else campaigning in these states is moot. Turn on the f*****g TV, read the f*****g paper. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee get 100 times as much play in the media.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that they have platforms which a reasonable amount of the American public can get behind. Oh, and a shot at winning - that helps, too.
As to all the pissing and moaning about media bias - cry me a river. Paul has more cash on hand than McCain and around eight times as much as Huckabee, not to mention a vast network of grassroots volunteers who have nothing better to do than spend thousands of their own money on him hanging ugly signs everywhere. If Paul wants play time on TV, he can buy it.
And they don't get called a conspiracy theorist, racist, or lunatic!!
If you firmly believed in the original principles held by the founders, and you were running for office, and you wanted to proclaim that you would abide by those principles.. would saying "If you want to go to war, declare war" make you a lunatic? Or a liar? Or even ignorant of the current legal climate?
The same founders who prosecuted the First and Second Barbary wars? You know, those guys, Jefferson and Madison? I seem to recall those two having something to do with the constitution...
The "current legal climate" you allude to has been the "current legal climate" for more than TWO CENTURIES of this county's history. I know, you didn't learn history in school and you feel blindsided by this, but these are not new legal concepts, and no one is using crazy lawyer talk to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. It's a shame that approximately 4% of the people in this country woke up one day and decided to read the constitution without paying any attention whatsoever to either the history of the document or how the Supreme Court has interpreted it. It is also supremely funny to see the same people practically demanding the courts step in to stop wars (as you do above) when the constitution does not grant them that power, nor does it even explicitly grant the court the power of judicial review, the underlying power you want the court to use to act in this manner. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
As for poll numbers, he has come in second in both Nevada and Louisiana. Those numbers speak for themselves.
Now this is where it goes from funny to sad. Wow. Paul got second place - (Wow, second! That matters so much in American elections!) where NO ONE BUT THE FRONT RUNNER BOTHERED TO CAMPAIGN. And in Nevada, he managed to take a whopping 14% - less than 1/3 of the front runner and only 1% ahead of McCain, who never bothered with the state to begin with! He picked up an astounding four - yes, count 'em, 4 - delegates - One NINTH of what any of the serious candidates has! Clearly, his campaign is a steamroller, filled with such power that it cannot be stopped! Oh, no, wait - he's dead in the water and hanging on to make himself feel important, as he hasn't a chance to win any appreciable and significant number of delegates come Super Tuesday. You're right on one matter, though: those numbers do speak for themselves, and they do not speak in favor of Ron Paul. A bunch of people voting over and over again on internet polls does not a viable candidate make.
Also, I love how you claim a vote for Paul is against common sense. The media has done well to brainwash those of you unable to perform independent analysis (and don't call me a conspiracy theorist - it takes but one google search to find heaps of evidence of media bias against Ron Paul).
"Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you're an idiot and you've been brainwashed by the vast media bias against this man." Oh, but it is to laugh. You're right - I've done no independent analysis. Just posted rebuttals to his main points. With sources. Nope, no research or thought here, no siree Bob. Oh, and conspiracy theorists totally don't believe things like The Man brainwashing the ignorant masses - because all reasonable people must believe what Ron Paul says, this means that everyone is either too stupid or too brainwashed to vote for him!
Here's a quick hint - it's not media bias. It's not that everyone but you can't figure out the grand gnosis of Ron Paul. It's not that you're the only ones defending the Constitution. It's that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and the vast majority of the population has more than enough reason to both disbelieve and disregard your arguments. Now, if you get warm fuzzies being a martyr for a wacko, then by all means do so.
Just because the constitutionality of something is questioned does not mean it is, in fact, unconstitutional. Such a difficult concept, I know.
Also, the Political Question Doctrine is one of the oldest standards of our Supreme Court, arguably having its roots in Marbury v. Madison if one reads the opinion. And, of course, Marbury v. Madison is the case that introduces the very idea of judicial review, the idea you depend upon for the courts to intervene, and an idea spelled out nowhere in the constitution. It is an implied power. It is not in "THE CONSTITUTION!1!" The people who best know "THE CONSTITUTION!1!" do not interpret it as being in there.
If all this is a bit much for you, then here is the gist - the court essentially decided that, if there's a war and the people don't like it, then the people should be responsible for electing to the legislative and executive branch people who would stop it immediately. The Supreme Court, through its own decision - and it is an undeniably reasonable decision that has stood for well over a century - thus removed itself from much (though certainly not all) of the foreign affairs issues of government, leaving them to the executive and legislative branches, to whom the constitution actually gives those powers.
I would point you to Mr. Paul's national poll numbers - which have never exceeded single digits - to know the people's opinion on the matter. I know, I know: you're the only enlightened ones, and you can't possibly be wrong on this. It's just those darn sheeple that keep getting in your way: and, of course, the doctrine of stare decisis, public opinion, and that all-time favorite, common sense. If it makes you better to feel that way, then please do. After all, I'm just a law school student with a political science and international relations background - what could I possibly know that an obstetrician who receives the enthusiastic support of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists doesn't?
Congress authorized the executive to commit military forces without its approval for up to 60 days with the 1973 War Powers Act. The constitutionality of the act is in question, but don't expect a court to actually address this due to the Political Question Doctrine.
The U.S. has only declared war 5 times in its history - the rest have generally been authorized by congress. The precedent already exists, and it is strong.
So sorry to Ron Paul supporters, but it appears that once again you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Opinion poll leadership has more than its fair share of additional faults:
1) Who is conducting these polls? Who is collecting the numbers to call? Who does the calling? Who gets to design the questions?
2) Do we really want people who are too lazy to get off the couch every 2 years and vote to have that much of a say in government?
3) How are we to know if the people polled are of eligible voting age? Or that they are even permitted by law to vote (they could be convicted felons, incompetent, etc.)? Or even citizens of the U.S.?
4) How much public policy do we want to actually entrust in the hands of a highly opinionated but entirely ignorant populace? Should foreign affairs with Burkina Faso be a subject of polling? Or how about complex economic matters? Again, who decides on what issues we poll on? Does the public's knowledge - or complete lack thereof - play a role in what we ask? How do we determine public knowledge? I can't go a day without hearing a Ron Paul supporter, for example, inventing from whole cloth some magical constitutional requirement for this or that. (All while inexplicably shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!")
5) As to questions of "war and peace", do keep in mind that public opinion polls tend to support war at the moment - and it's not all because the evil corporations you demonize so much are responsible for it, either.
6) Countries need to depend on each other in the long-run: how will this work if a country is commanded at its core by a very, very fickle public?
Clearly, the present republican form of government suffers from all of the above to lesser degrees.
As to the rest of your fascinating arguments, *YAWN*. If you honestly believe - as you clearly imply - that the U.S. is heading down the path to becoming like North Korea, then you either lack knowledge of the U.S., North Korea, or both - or you choose to engage in the same sort of hyperbolic, poorly-reasoned thinking that steers me away from rule by public opinion poll in the first place.
As for wealth and power coming from freedom, I couldn't agree more. I'm an American. My wife and I both come from lower-class to very lower-class backgrounds. My mom (single divorced parent, 4 kids) was a frequently unemployed elementary school teacher. My wife's father has held a variety of odd jobs. We both worked hard, and we're both now in law school. Within a few years - practically upon graduation - our combined income will be well over six times what either of our parents brings home right now. There are very, very few places in the world where a person can make that kind of socioeconomic jump in one generation without criminal/political connections. America is one of those places.
If you're unhappy where you're at, here's a tip - work harder and work smarter. Whining will get you nowhere.
The NSA as initially instituted was a cold-war shop with the sole purpose of tapping and securing communications abroad
Close, but not quite, if memory serves.
The NSA's limits were not so much geographical as they were national. The limits are more on foreign targets - whether or not those targets happen to be in the U.S. This would include foreign embassies and consulates on U.S. soil and foreign intelligence agents operating on U.S. soil as well, if memory serves (although much of this falls under the FBI, of course).
The CIA - another agency with a foreign focus - does much the same. It has numerous intelligence officers who interview U.S. citizens who travel to foreign countries of interest when that citizen allows it, run recruiting, and work with their own officers in the UN and in other places. The difference is not so much where the CIA and NSA operate as against whom they operate.
Terrorism throws a big kink in this, as some of the terrorist/terror supporters are U.S. citizens who, however, are acting under the power or inspiration of an ideology that knows no legal boundaries. Have these people given up U.S. citizenship, in a manner of speaking, by pledging their allegiance to a "foreign military"? (look at your passport for how to give up your citizenship) But are terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, truly a military? Can terrorists - who act with very different motives, generally have different goals, and who often present a greater risk to life and limb - be treated as mere criminals?
It's a big area of debate at the moment and, unlike many on the web who would come down hard for one side or another, it's not entirely clear what the proper legal or policy answers are to these questions. Most law - international and otherwise - still assumes a type of war that will be increasingly rare for the U.S.; nations facing off against each other with well-identified armies. The simple fact is that war has changed, but the laws and policies are not keeping up with it - and it's doubtful they will be able to adapt with required speed.
Journalsim, noun 1) the ill-advised idea that someone with half an English degree and an ethics course can accurately and authoritatively report on highly technical fields with which he or she has absolutely no practical experience and whose understanding is likely more influenced by personal experience and/or bias than objective research. 2) Modern interpretation - brief incomplete statement of fact taken out of context combined with opinionated rambling.
Ask any lawyer. Doctor. Engineer. ANYONE. They will all say the same thing - journalists get it wrong more often than right.
How on earth we as a society have allowed these people to become the gatekeepers to knowledge is beyond me.
As noted above, these lasers are designed to defeat IR missiles, not radar guided missiles.
The range of an AMRAAM is 45 miles and, presumably, would also work considerably closer as well. This laser lacks the power to melt the missile, so the commonly deployed AMRAAM will work just fine, as would any of a host of radar-guided SAMs.
I worked for a summer as an intern at a U.S. Embassy, so when it comes to your plan to run to the embassy if you're in trouble, consider the following:
1. If the trouble is criminal in nature, and you're accused of the crime, the embassy will probably just hand you over to local police. True, you can receive visits from your consular officer after you've been put in jail, but that's after the fact. Everything you've seen in Hollywood on this subject is 100% incorrect. An American Citizen Services officer I spoke with jokingly told me that his job consisted of calling parents and telling them, "yes, I know Johnny's a good boy, but he did something really stupid here, and now he's in jail. No, we can't actually do anything for him other than visit him. Sorry."
2. The consulate is used to dealing with American citizens without passports - it replaces lost/stolen ones all the time. A photocopy won't hurt you at all in that respect - just tell them your passport is lost, but present a photocopy. They may want to know more personal information, and you'll have to pay a fee, but you'll be fine.
3. If you believe the embassy will provide you great protection, think again. It's not like the movies - there is no company of Marines there to defend all the Americans in the gates. An embassy generally depends on local police for security and its small (quite small) contingent of Marine Security Guards (MSGs) for the last line of defense. Even then, their primary concern is the classified material. That said, there is nothing in this world like walking into your office and seeing a big MSG at the door. You know that, as an employee of the US Government, it'll take something approaching an army to get past that man so long as he's got breath in him and Rules of Engagement that allow him to fight. I've never been in the military, but God bless the USMC. That said, as a mere citizen, I wouldn't depend on the embassy to provide you any great protection and, if it comes down to that, do keep in mind that the embassy will likely be a big target for angry mobs.
Personally, I would recommend waiting out any big disturbance and, if things appear to only be getting worse, getting to the airport ASAP with your passport - and you'll have a much better chance of not getting your passport stolen if it was in a safe in a location you can access when everything hit the fan. And trust me, huge riots can pop up at any time, without much warning. I was in Argentina in December in 2001... what a month. I felt good knowing that my passport was in a safe, across town in a quiet part of the city, in a locked building, behind a gate, with a security guard, rather than on my person in the middle of a riot.
4. As far as hotels, at least in some European countries, it's my understanding that registering your location is a basic part of life. I believe that in Italy (could be totally off) that people are required to register (in theory) with the local police. Hotels register their clients with the police as well (I think... once again, don't take this as hard and fast truth). Your documents are generally held for this purpose. But, as this isn't too big a deal, most hotels don't push you on it.
Long story short, I'd think twice about keeping a passport on me 24/7 if I don't absolutely need to do so (as in the Russia example cited above).
Might I recommend highly the Newshour with Jim Lehrer to all readers?
The program features actual experts. That don't yell over each other. Each has time to form a response to questions. It's amazing, astounding, the best TV news available, period.
When rehashing a poll, showing a live feed from a local station, or summarizing whatever happens to be in the latest tabloid can make the money?
Seriously, folks. Think about it.
There could be dozens of reporters, embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Long-term. Providing up-to-date information, first-hand insight, and actually getting to know the areas they are in.
But, sadly, this would cost actual money (one could make various political arguments on each side of this as to why it is or is not covered, but let's focus on the bottom-line here). So, instead of, you know, covering these things in an in-depth fashion, the media might, every once in a while, drop in a guy for a 24-48 hour stint with the primary purpose of getting a nice quick video snap of something interesting. Whooptey-freakin'-doo. They'll spend the rest of the time sitting in hotels, out-sourcing reporting to heaven only knows who (and sometimes it appears the reporter doesn't even know). So rather than getting the look from someone who could have some expertise in the area, we get something filtered through Lord only knows who that's working as a stringer.
Then, instead of more reports, or an in-depth report, we get a short report followed by commentary from someone whose whole qualification on this matter - and all others - is the fact that he/she has an opinion on the matter. It's the same on all the networks, every last one of them. Why pay for reporters to go out and do expensive foot work when you can get short snippets from outsourced reports and then fill air time with someone blathering on about them?
There are a few good reporters on the ground in Iraq - they're called bloggers, and the reader automatically understands and accepts there's a bias to their reports. But for the most part, the mainstream television media has become a sick joke - whether it's CNN, Fox or MSNBC.
I don't know about others, but the first thing I do when I get to my hotel/apartment/wherever I'm staying overseas is stick my passport in a safe and leave it there until I head home or absolutely have to use it for something. Most everybody accepts a photocopy anyways.
I understand your concern, but seriously - get that thing off your person ASAP unless you absolutely must have it on you.
Then little errands. Get the professor a coke, pick up his stuff.
Then acting as tech support.
Then doing all the prof's work for him.
And now... running the system by the sweat of your brow.
We must draw the line somewhere, folks. Free labor has its limits!
This cannot bode well for graduate students... well... maybe for the chunky among us... but let's hope this doesn't catch on. I can already see profs carried about on the shoulders to and from meetings...
This room made possible by Federally funded abstinence education programs:
Remember, kids. A condom is only 95% effective. The pill, a mere 99% effective. Even abstinence - at 100% - may not be enough.
The only certain way to avoid the risks of STD's, pregnancy, and interpersonal relationships with members of the opposite sex is to devote a sizable portion of your home to your sci fi fantasy.
Be safe. Be sure. Build a bridge to yourself - in the safety of your own home.
It's the HDTV you have to hook the player up to that keeps a lot of people out of the market. With the price of a decent HDTV still out of the reach of so many, it will slow things down even more.
Great post, though. I hadn't realized just how cheap those HD players were getting... it's going to be a lot harder to talk the wife into an XBox 360 now... dang it...
That way, you can afford to hire an accountant...;-)
In all seriousness, I was a geek in high school and did well in every subject except math. I aced AP Computer Science and, yes, received full credit. I aced Geometry without any real effort - it made sense to me, and I could apply it to a real object. But when it came to algebra or any form of math I could not immediately apply to something that mattered to me I simply could not get my head around it. I just didn't care unless I could actually use it.
I realized this was a weakness of mine, and shifted away from computer work to other areas. If math is your weakness, but you have strengths in other areas, you may want to consider doing the same. I'm sure I could be good at math if I really put my mind to it, but I just don't find it enjoyable - why kill myself when I can make a living at something I enjoy more?
The "but in the past, everything was grand!" argument.
U.S. global activity was previously limited by only two things - lack of a need to do it and a lack of ability. Both exist now.
For more than two centuries, what many people have loved most about the United States is that the rule of law was strong here, and applied to presidents and poor people alike.
Wow.
You're beyond ignorant. Now you've entered the realm of plain stupid.
Here's a few words for you:
Jim Crow Little Big Horn Rosa Parks Martin Luther King Extermination Order Manifest Destiny Slavery Japanese internment
Not to mention previous U.S. efforts in espionage. George Washington himself was heavily involved in U.S. intelligence gathering, and the grand idealist Woodrow Wilson adopted the use of signals intelligence during the negotiations for the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Ah, that grand period of the rule of law, applied to rich and poor alike! So long as they were, you know, white. And not too poor.
Countries lie, cheat, and steal all the time. Also, neither Santa Claus nor the Easter Bunny are real.
You don't love the U.S. You love a land that never has - and never will - exist. A land created by your 3rd grade teacher. A land you read about in a book by some author as daft as yourself.
Silence is, in fact, unpatriotic. So is your willful stupidity and ignorance of America's past and the world it lives in.
Slashdot Mirror
Here I sit, with little will power to plow through another 20 pages of property law reading. What shall I do... what shall I do...
I'm not wasting my time to dig up a link for you. If you don't believe me, oh well.
Nope, I don't believe you. Or the media conspiracy.
The response you quoted was me simply agreeing with your previous post, and it makes no mention of Iraq.
Clearly, you were implying Afghanistan then...
While I agree the situation has revived the argument, it's been around.
Yup. An argument has been around. Wow. Since when did the existence of an argument = complete preference for your side of the argument?
You assert the President not accepting certain forms of authorization from Congress for his own requests is to not follow the Constitution. Interesting.
Yes, I can. And do it with authority. The president does not need to accept authorization for covert action from congress - he doesn't even have to ask for it. This is called the Foreign Affairs power.
Unnecessary perpetual war is not fun. Especially when your loved ones are maimed and killed. F**k the status quo.
DOWN WITH THE MAN! FIGHT THE POWER! Let's wrap up the war (is this Iraq? Afghanistan? Lord only knows what you'll claim 3 posts from now...) and then everyone will just love us so much!
Do you honestly believe thirty-second advertising spots compare to being taken seriously in the media..?
They sure help get the name out, and with only one exception Paul has appeared in essentially every Republican debate. Once again - he's nuts. It's not that the media simply paints him as nuts, he's nuts.
If you can find me these diatribes, by all means. I've looked, and looked. Can only find one article in one newsletter, the content of which isn't what you'd expect.
Sorry, the last thing I want to do is google "Ron Paul".
I don't mind Ron appearing on a 9/11 conspiracy theorist radio show. It gave him alot of exposure back when he was a nobody. It's not like he was hollering that 9/11 was an inside job.
There's this thing called tacit approval... and this also explains a great deal of his base, who have a habit of calling up radio and television shows and making idiots of themselves.
Not sure what you're referring to with the 'discredited' foreign policy remark.
That would be the years of study on the subject of international relations. Paul's bizarre isolationist stance seems to be an ugly inbred child of Wilson and Carter - both dramatic and powerful examples of complete and utter failure.
Nice to know you're a Mormon. Have you looked into Romney? Heard he's a great Mormon.
Eh. Romney fails to inspire. Oh, but I get it - I'm a Mormon, so I should vote for the Mormon... riiight... we people do stick together, you know...
Thanks for the accusation of being racist, and of associating with anti-Semites. You have class. Lots.
Birds of a feather vote together...
I wasn't aware of the 7.5% statistic, I thought they held more of the state. Thanks for the clarification.
"Held". Yes, it's held under the ALL-POWERFUL-MORMON-CONSPIRACY!
I like your use of the term bloodbath. Certainly voting for someone like Romney to continue our persistence in Iraq will help to keep the blood flowing.
So if we left, the blood would immediately stop flowing? Of course, the trend line for both American and Iraqi casualties has shown a dramatic decrease in the past 6-8 months, associated largely with new American tactics, more troops, and various other forces. I know it hurts to think about things like that. I know you're eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
As for calling me anti-religion: I'm not sure it's quite accurate. I'd call myself more of a 'I dont give a shit about your religion as long as you dont impose it on me' kind of guy. Maybe one day I'll become more religiou
This is good. Life has been a bit boring of late.
I'm fairly certain there was discussion of the War Powers clause back when the Constitution was being drafted, and the wording was specifically chosen for a reason.
Oh, so now you're fairly certain. But have nothing to back it up. At all. Other than an overly-literal interpretation of an area that has remained entirely grey for constitutional scholars for a long, long time. But hey, you've got a gut feeling. Let's base everything off that.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I claim that courts should end Iraq. The notion is ridiculous. Who the hell said that?
Oh man. This is great.
I posted this, to which you responded:
Yes, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act is in question. Yes, federal courts will turn a blind eye.
Ongoing military operations in Iraq are the entire reason why people are creating these magical declaration of war arguments to begin with. You lament the federal courts turning a blind eye to them (personally, I'd love to see someone actually challenge the war in federal court and be utterly destroyed there, both for fun and for scholarly interest, but I digress).
Now, on to another great highlight:
Nevertheless, your arguments about Constitutional law are side-skirting my point. I'm advocating a Presidential candidate - if he plans on demanding a declaration before going to war, the President can do that.
Oh, so you don't actually care about the constitution - you're just a populist supporting a man rather than a system of government. Thanks for clearing that up!
The POINT of the declaration is so that wars are not secretive, and not drug out.
Yeah. Totally. Because the world would have no idea that we were in Iraq right now unless there was a declaration. It would be one huge secret. Oh wait...
They are declared, the nation fights with its full force, and gets it over with.
Which falls into a classic argument in regards to Congress' ability to declare war - that it only applies to "total war" wherein full force is used, not minor actions such as Iraq. Which way is it, then? Also, as far as "get[ting] it over with", we did not turn over control of Japan and Germany until well into the fifties. It was a declared war, and we did not "get it over with" quickly at all.
It's very simple, perhaps too simple for you to believe possible?
Here's the thing - constitutional law is NOT simple. It's centuries of precedent and argument about a document made by men who were not of unanimous accord, explained their interpretation of it differently, and drew from disparate philosophical sources from Locke to Plato.
I know, you want uncle Ron to come down and wave his magic non-interventionist wand and all of a sudden everything will be just hunky dory! Sorry - we live in a real world. things aren't that simple.
Yes, second place isn't the same as first, but it's as close as it gets.
In other news, apples are fruit.
Your arguments about noone else campaigning in these states is moot. Turn on the f*****g TV, read the f*****g paper. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee get 100 times as much play in the media.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that they have platforms which a reasonable amount of the American public can get behind. Oh, and a shot at winning - that helps, too.
As to all the pissing and moaning about media bias - cry me a river. Paul has more cash on hand than McCain and around eight times as much as Huckabee, not to mention a vast network of grassroots volunteers who have nothing better to do than spend thousands of their own money on him hanging ugly signs everywhere. If Paul wants play time on TV, he can buy it.
And they don't get called a conspiracy theorist, racist, or lunatic!!
If you firmly believed in the original principles held by the founders, and you were running for office, and you wanted to proclaim that you would abide by those principles.. would saying "If you want to go to war, declare war" make you a lunatic? Or a liar? Or even ignorant of the current legal climate?
The same founders who prosecuted the First and Second Barbary wars? You know, those guys, Jefferson and Madison? I seem to recall those two having something to do with the constitution...
The "current legal climate" you allude to has been the "current legal climate" for more than TWO CENTURIES of this county's history. I know, you didn't learn history in school and you feel blindsided by this, but these are not new legal concepts, and no one is using crazy lawyer talk to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. It's a shame that approximately 4% of the people in this country woke up one day and decided to read the constitution without paying any attention whatsoever to either the history of the document or how the Supreme Court has interpreted it. It is also supremely funny to see the same people practically demanding the courts step in to stop wars (as you do above) when the constitution does not grant them that power, nor does it even explicitly grant the court the power of judicial review, the underlying power you want the court to use to act in this manner. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
As for poll numbers, he has come in second in both Nevada and Louisiana. Those numbers speak for themselves.
Now this is where it goes from funny to sad. Wow. Paul got second place - (Wow, second! That matters so much in American elections!) where NO ONE BUT THE FRONT RUNNER BOTHERED TO CAMPAIGN. And in Nevada, he managed to take a whopping 14% - less than 1/3 of the front runner and only 1% ahead of McCain, who never bothered with the state to begin with! He picked up an astounding four - yes, count 'em, 4 - delegates - One NINTH of what any of the serious candidates has! Clearly, his campaign is a steamroller, filled with such power that it cannot be stopped! Oh, no, wait - he's dead in the water and hanging on to make himself feel important, as he hasn't a chance to win any appreciable and significant number of delegates come Super Tuesday. You're right on one matter, though: those numbers do speak for themselves, and they do not speak in favor of Ron Paul. A bunch of people voting over and over again on internet polls does not a viable candidate make.
Also, I love how you claim a vote for Paul is against common sense. The media has done well to brainwash those of you unable to perform independent analysis (and don't call me a conspiracy theorist - it takes but one google search to find heaps of evidence of media bias against Ron Paul).
"Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you're an idiot and you've been brainwashed by the vast media bias against this man." Oh, but it is to laugh. You're right - I've done no independent analysis. Just posted rebuttals to his main points. With sources. Nope, no research or thought here, no siree Bob. Oh, and conspiracy theorists totally don't believe things like The Man brainwashing the ignorant masses - because all reasonable people must believe what Ron Paul says, this means that everyone is either too stupid or too brainwashed to vote for him!
Here's a quick hint - it's not media bias. It's not that everyone but you can't figure out the grand gnosis of Ron Paul. It's not that you're the only ones defending the Constitution. It's that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and the vast majority of the population has more than enough reason to both disbelieve and disregard your arguments. Now, if you get warm fuzzies being a martyr for a wacko, then by all means do so.
He's the only Republican claiming
... than yours for a Ron Paul supporter.
Just because the constitutionality of something is questioned does not mean it is, in fact, unconstitutional. Such a difficult concept, I know.
Also, the Political Question Doctrine is one of the oldest standards of our Supreme Court, arguably having its roots in Marbury v. Madison if one reads the opinion. And, of course, Marbury v. Madison is the case that introduces the very idea of judicial review, the idea you depend upon for the courts to intervene, and an idea spelled out nowhere in the constitution. It is an implied power. It is not in "THE CONSTITUTION!1!" The people who best know "THE CONSTITUTION!1!" do not interpret it as being in there.
If all this is a bit much for you, then here is the gist - the court essentially decided that, if there's a war and the people don't like it, then the people should be responsible for electing to the legislative and executive branch people who would stop it immediately. The Supreme Court, through its own decision - and it is an undeniably reasonable decision that has stood for well over a century - thus removed itself from much (though certainly not all) of the foreign affairs issues of government, leaving them to the executive and legislative branches, to whom the constitution actually gives those powers.
I would point you to Mr. Paul's national poll numbers - which have never exceeded single digits - to know the people's opinion on the matter. I know, I know: you're the only enlightened ones, and you can't possibly be wrong on this. It's just those darn sheeple that keep getting in your way: and, of course, the doctrine of stare decisis, public opinion, and that all-time favorite, common sense. If it makes you better to feel that way, then please do. After all, I'm just a law school student with a political science and international relations background - what could I possibly know that an obstetrician who receives the enthusiastic support of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists doesn't?
Congress authorized the executive to commit military forces without its approval for up to 60 days with the 1973 War Powers Act. The constitutionality of the act is in question, but don't expect a court to actually address this due to the Political Question Doctrine.
The U.S. has only declared war 5 times in its history - the rest have generally been authorized by congress. The precedent already exists, and it is strong.
So sorry to Ron Paul supporters, but it appears that once again you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Opinion poll leadership has more than its fair share of additional faults:
1) Who is conducting these polls? Who is collecting the numbers to call? Who does the calling? Who gets to design the questions?
2) Do we really want people who are too lazy to get off the couch every 2 years and vote to have that much of a say in government?
3) How are we to know if the people polled are of eligible voting age? Or that they are even permitted by law to vote (they could be convicted felons, incompetent, etc.)? Or even citizens of the U.S.?
4) How much public policy do we want to actually entrust in the hands of a highly opinionated but entirely ignorant populace? Should foreign affairs with Burkina Faso be a subject of polling? Or how about complex economic matters? Again, who decides on what issues we poll on? Does the public's knowledge - or complete lack thereof - play a role in what we ask? How do we determine public knowledge? I can't go a day without hearing a Ron Paul supporter, for example, inventing from whole cloth some magical constitutional requirement for this or that. (All while inexplicably shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!")
5) As to questions of "war and peace", do keep in mind that public opinion polls tend to support war at the moment - and it's not all because the evil corporations you demonize so much are responsible for it, either.
6) Countries need to depend on each other in the long-run: how will this work if a country is commanded at its core by a very, very fickle public?
Clearly, the present republican form of government suffers from all of the above to lesser degrees.
As to the rest of your fascinating arguments, *YAWN*. If you honestly believe - as you clearly imply - that the U.S. is heading down the path to becoming like North Korea, then you either lack knowledge of the U.S., North Korea, or both - or you choose to engage in the same sort of hyperbolic, poorly-reasoned thinking that steers me away from rule by public opinion poll in the first place.
As for wealth and power coming from freedom, I couldn't agree more. I'm an American. My wife and I both come from lower-class to very lower-class backgrounds. My mom (single divorced parent, 4 kids) was a frequently unemployed elementary school teacher. My wife's father has held a variety of odd jobs. We both worked hard, and we're both now in law school. Within a few years - practically upon graduation - our combined income will be well over six times what either of our parents brings home right now. There are very, very few places in the world where a person can make that kind of socioeconomic jump in one generation without criminal/political connections. America is one of those places.
If you're unhappy where you're at, here's a tip - work harder and work smarter. Whining will get you nowhere.
Great post, thanks!
The NSA as initially instituted was a cold-war shop with the sole purpose of tapping and securing communications abroad
Close, but not quite, if memory serves.
The NSA's limits were not so much geographical as they were national. The limits are more on foreign targets - whether or not those targets happen to be in the U.S. This would include foreign embassies and consulates on U.S. soil and foreign intelligence agents operating on U.S. soil as well, if memory serves (although much of this falls under the FBI, of course).
The CIA - another agency with a foreign focus - does much the same. It has numerous intelligence officers who interview U.S. citizens who travel to foreign countries of interest when that citizen allows it, run recruiting, and work with their own officers in the UN and in other places. The difference is not so much where the CIA and NSA operate as against whom they operate.
Terrorism throws a big kink in this, as some of the terrorist/terror supporters are U.S. citizens who, however, are acting under the power or inspiration of an ideology that knows no legal boundaries. Have these people given up U.S. citizenship, in a manner of speaking, by pledging their allegiance to a "foreign military"? (look at your passport for how to give up your citizenship) But are terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, truly a military? Can terrorists - who act with very different motives, generally have different goals, and who often present a greater risk to life and limb - be treated as mere criminals?
It's a big area of debate at the moment and, unlike many on the web who would come down hard for one side or another, it's not entirely clear what the proper legal or policy answers are to these questions. Most law - international and otherwise - still assumes a type of war that will be increasingly rare for the U.S.; nations facing off against each other with well-identified armies. The simple fact is that war has changed, but the laws and policies are not keeping up with it - and it's doubtful they will be able to adapt with required speed.
Is the argument then that military recruiting is a detriment to society? Would you prefer conscription?
Journalsim, noun 1) the ill-advised idea that someone with half an English degree and an ethics course can accurately and authoritatively report on highly technical fields with which he or she has absolutely no practical experience and whose understanding is likely more influenced by personal experience and/or bias than objective research.
2) Modern interpretation - brief incomplete statement of fact taken out of context combined with opinionated rambling.
Ask any lawyer. Doctor. Engineer. ANYONE. They will all say the same thing - journalists get it wrong more often than right.
How on earth we as a society have allowed these people to become the gatekeepers to knowledge is beyond me.
As noted above, these lasers are designed to defeat IR missiles, not radar guided missiles.
The range of an AMRAAM is 45 miles and, presumably, would also work considerably closer as well. This laser lacks the power to melt the missile, so the commonly deployed AMRAAM will work just fine, as would any of a host of radar-guided SAMs.
It would be better if it detected winces of pain and vomiting motions...
I worked for a summer as an intern at a U.S. Embassy, so when it comes to your plan to run to the embassy if you're in trouble, consider the following:
1. If the trouble is criminal in nature, and you're accused of the crime, the embassy will probably just hand you over to local police. True, you can receive visits from your consular officer after you've been put in jail, but that's after the fact. Everything you've seen in Hollywood on this subject is 100% incorrect. An American Citizen Services officer I spoke with jokingly told me that his job consisted of calling parents and telling them, "yes, I know Johnny's a good boy, but he did something really stupid here, and now he's in jail. No, we can't actually do anything for him other than visit him. Sorry."
2. The consulate is used to dealing with American citizens without passports - it replaces lost/stolen ones all the time. A photocopy won't hurt you at all in that respect - just tell them your passport is lost, but present a photocopy. They may want to know more personal information, and you'll have to pay a fee, but you'll be fine.
3. If you believe the embassy will provide you great protection, think again. It's not like the movies - there is no company of Marines there to defend all the Americans in the gates. An embassy generally depends on local police for security and its small (quite small) contingent of Marine Security Guards (MSGs) for the last line of defense. Even then, their primary concern is the classified material. That said, there is nothing in this world like walking into your office and seeing a big MSG at the door. You know that, as an employee of the US Government, it'll take something approaching an army to get past that man so long as he's got breath in him and Rules of Engagement that allow him to fight. I've never been in the military, but God bless the USMC. That said, as a mere citizen, I wouldn't depend on the embassy to provide you any great protection and, if it comes down to that, do keep in mind that the embassy will likely be a big target for angry mobs.
Personally, I would recommend waiting out any big disturbance and, if things appear to only be getting worse, getting to the airport ASAP with your passport - and you'll have a much better chance of not getting your passport stolen if it was in a safe in a location you can access when everything hit the fan. And trust me, huge riots can pop up at any time, without much warning. I was in Argentina in December in 2001... what a month. I felt good knowing that my passport was in a safe, across town in a quiet part of the city, in a locked building, behind a gate, with a security guard, rather than on my person in the middle of a riot.
4. As far as hotels, at least in some European countries, it's my understanding that registering your location is a basic part of life. I believe that in Italy (could be totally off) that people are required to register (in theory) with the local police. Hotels register their clients with the police as well (I think... once again, don't take this as hard and fast truth). Your documents are generally held for this purpose. But, as this isn't too big a deal, most hotels don't push you on it.
Long story short, I'd think twice about keeping a passport on me 24/7 if I don't absolutely need to do so (as in the Russia example cited above).
Might I recommend highly the Newshour with Jim Lehrer to all readers?
The program features actual experts. That don't yell over each other. Each has time to form a response to questions. It's amazing, astounding, the best TV news available, period.
When rehashing a poll, showing a live feed from a local station, or summarizing whatever happens to be in the latest tabloid can make the money?
Seriously, folks. Think about it.
There could be dozens of reporters, embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Long-term. Providing up-to-date information, first-hand insight, and actually getting to know the areas they are in.
But, sadly, this would cost actual money (one could make various political arguments on each side of this as to why it is or is not covered, but let's focus on the bottom-line here). So, instead of, you know, covering these things in an in-depth fashion, the media might, every once in a while, drop in a guy for a 24-48 hour stint with the primary purpose of getting a nice quick video snap of something interesting. Whooptey-freakin'-doo. They'll spend the rest of the time sitting in hotels, out-sourcing reporting to heaven only knows who (and sometimes it appears the reporter doesn't even know). So rather than getting the look from someone who could have some expertise in the area, we get something filtered through Lord only knows who that's working as a stringer.
Then, instead of more reports, or an in-depth report, we get a short report followed by commentary from someone whose whole qualification on this matter - and all others - is the fact that he/she has an opinion on the matter. It's the same on all the networks, every last one of them. Why pay for reporters to go out and do expensive foot work when you can get short snippets from outsourced reports and then fill air time with someone blathering on about them?
There are a few good reporters on the ground in Iraq - they're called bloggers, and the reader automatically understands and accepts there's a bias to their reports. But for the most part, the mainstream television media has become a sick joke - whether it's CNN, Fox or MSNBC.
I don't know about others, but the first thing I do when I get to my hotel/apartment/wherever I'm staying overseas is stick my passport in a safe and leave it there until I head home or absolutely have to use it for something. Most everybody accepts a photocopy anyways.
I understand your concern, but seriously - get that thing off your person ASAP unless you absolutely must have it on you.
This reminds me of a question posed in Middle School during our discussion of absolute cold.
So... is there an absolute... toasty?
Ah, the sound of 30 7th graders sputtering with laughter.
Mmm... toasty.
It used to be research.
Then little errands. Get the professor a coke, pick up his stuff.
Then acting as tech support.
Then doing all the prof's work for him.
And now... running the system by the sweat of your brow.
We must draw the line somewhere, folks. Free labor has its limits!
This cannot bode well for graduate students... well... maybe for the chunky among us... but let's hope this doesn't catch on. I can already see profs carried about on the shoulders to and from meetings...
This room made possible by Federally funded abstinence education programs:
Remember, kids. A condom is only 95% effective. The pill, a mere 99% effective. Even abstinence - at 100% - may not be enough.
The only certain way to avoid the risks of STD's, pregnancy, and interpersonal relationships with members of the opposite sex is to devote a sizable portion of your home to your sci fi fantasy.
Be safe. Be sure. Build a bridge to yourself - in the safety of your own home.
It's the HDTV you have to hook the player up to that keeps a lot of people out of the market. With the price of a decent HDTV still out of the reach of so many, it will slow things down even more.
Great post, though. I hadn't realized just how cheap those HD players were getting... it's going to be a lot harder to talk the wife into an XBox 360 now... dang it...
"The Tsar Bomba qualifies as the single most powerful device ever utilized throughout the history of humanity."
I believe my wife would argue that the cheap freezer chili burritos occasionally eaten by her husband would easily defeat any such device.
And I'm pretty sure the cats agree, too... how my wife puts up with me, I shall never understand.
Clearly you have never been audited.
Hell hath no fury like a government accountant making $13/hour.
None.
I have not yet been audited... and I will now go offer a ritual animal sacrifice of some sort to ensure it stays that way...
Go to law school!
;-)
That way, you can afford to hire an accountant...
In all seriousness, I was a geek in high school and did well in every subject except math. I aced AP Computer Science and, yes, received full credit. I aced Geometry without any real effort - it made sense to me, and I could apply it to a real object. But when it came to algebra or any form of math I could not immediately apply to something that mattered to me I simply could not get my head around it. I just didn't care unless I could actually use it.
I realized this was a weakness of mine, and shifted away from computer work to other areas. If math is your weakness, but you have strengths in other areas, you may want to consider doing the same. I'm sure I could be good at math if I really put my mind to it, but I just don't find it enjoyable - why kill myself when I can make a living at something I enjoy more?
The "but in the past, everything was grand!" argument.
U.S. global activity was previously limited by only two things - lack of a need to do it and a lack of ability. Both exist now.
For more than two centuries, what many people have loved most about the United States is that the rule of law was strong here, and applied to presidents and poor people alike.
Wow.
You're beyond ignorant. Now you've entered the realm of plain stupid.
Here's a few words for you:
Jim Crow
Little Big Horn
Rosa Parks
Martin Luther King
Extermination Order
Manifest Destiny
Slavery
Japanese internment
Not to mention previous U.S. efforts in espionage. George Washington himself was heavily involved in U.S. intelligence gathering, and the grand idealist Woodrow Wilson adopted the use of signals intelligence during the negotiations for the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Ah, that grand period of the rule of law, applied to rich and poor alike! So long as they were, you know, white. And not too poor.
Countries lie, cheat, and steal all the time. Also, neither Santa Claus nor the Easter Bunny are real.
You don't love the U.S. You love a land that never has - and never will - exist. A land created by your 3rd grade teacher. A land you read about in a book by some author as daft as yourself.
Silence is, in fact, unpatriotic. So is your willful stupidity and ignorance of America's past and the world it lives in.
You know, changing the question isn't answering the question.