Feb. 28th, 2008 01:00 pm
(no subject)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
razorjakSo Chimpy McFuckstick doesn't think we're heading into a recession.
He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.
...
I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.
He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.
...
I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Lessee:
1. Increase in taxes for funding of UN programs
2. Federal Ban on assault weapons
3. Federal Ban on concealed carry
4. State level bans on handguns is fine because the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to those bodies (DC is apparently a state to him)
5. Wants to eschew the multilateral actions in Iraq and with regards to Syria
6. Wants to implement nationalized health care
7. wants to curtail free trade. Cause we know a tariff war with Canada will help the economy.
8. Wants to invade Pakistan.
9. Wants to cut back and close down the ABM programs. You know the 'un -ested' ones like SM3 which just shot down a satellite.
What did I miss?
Oh yeah, wants to cut and run from Iraq.
no subject
Extraordinary rendition to secret foreign prisons
Torture
Secret wholesale warrant less surveillance on U.S. Citizens
"Free Speech Zones"
No declaration of war, and no foreign body that could ever surrender to end that "war."
It's a good thing the party out to defend the principles of The Constitution is in power, and not those filthy liberals! < /sarcasm >
no subject
no subject
So, by my count the following have been undermined in the last 8 years:
- The basis of Common Law dating from the Magna Carta
- The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, The Powers of Congress
- The U.S. Constitution, The first Amendment - freedom of speech, assembly, and separation of church and state (the third being inextricably implied by freedom of religion. It keeps religion free)
- The U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Secret warrant-less surveillance.
- The U.S. Constitution, Article 8, Cruel and Unusual punishment.
- The Geneva Conventions
no subject
Since you're so certain on that Habeus corpus and search issue.
Japanese troops land in the US on the west coast.
Can the US army Listen in on their:
1. Radio Communications?
2. Local captured telephone communications?
3. Dispatch Rider messages in envelopes (Their mail as it were).
Second question.
Foreign Soldiers, captured on US or not US soil Get a trial when? What habeus Corpus right do they have?
no subject
Are "terrorists" soldiers, or not?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:continued
From:no subject
(no subject)
From:no subject
I've got 2 Inches of complex, contradictory and confusing legal code from the state State and Federal level on a shelf in arm's reach. How much law is there which prevents me from worshiping as I please? Is there a National Agency which enforces your religious beliefs?
I'm a hell of a lot more worried about the Gun control factions on the left than the religious right. Even Christopher Hitchens who is NO friend of the religious right has stated similarly where the Religious right's power actually has little net effect.
And I'm an Atheist.
no subject
You are prioritizing the Amendments to the Constitution?
Is that what we are doing?
no subject
(no subject)
From:no subject
no subject
no subject
The way it works is, if you say something bad and discrediting about Conservatives, you must immediately say something shitty (even if it is irrelevant) about a Democrat, or you are biased.
On the other hand, if you call anyone who disagrees with you a filthy "Liberal" and say that Liberals are traitors, that's totally okay.
Facts don't enter in to the discussion, unless they are copious, irrelevant, and presented with a vague implication that you must be a complete idiot for not knowing it.
(no subject)
From:no subject
I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.
He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind.
Make sure you finish that.... "At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month."
This is the the total ban which in effect said, you had a right to read books, but only if you NEVER opened it and you violated the law if you carried the book from one room to another, never mind that there were NO legally operating Book stores in the District due to their legal interventions AND you were NEVER granted a permit to obtain books in the first place. What amazing support of such rights.
Further, DC is not a state. DC is a creature of the federal government which is, if you except 14th amendment inclusion of the 2nd amendment, STILL bound by the Bill of rights and thus the 2nd Amendment DOES Apply to the Laws in DC directly.
"As a state senator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms. He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month. He also voted against a 2004 measure allowing a self-defense exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. Although out of line with most of his anti-gun voting history, in 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds.
"Obama was also a board member of the Joyce Foundation which funds and maintains several gun control organizations in the United States.
"He supported several gun control measures, including restricting the purchase of firearms at gun shows and the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban." (Source: wikipedia)
He comes from a state where the Gun laws are about as unfair as you can get and the largest city in that state is a virtual desert of the right that he supposedly supports.
He admittedly sought a ban on the sale of semi-automatic firearms back in
1998. However, people's opinions about things do change.
Only because he didn't get a chance to vote for it because it died in the Judiciary committee. I trust Obama's new leaf on gun rights as much as I trust Giuliani's. Which is NOT AT ALL. The launch window had 10s of seconds of duration and the maneuver time of the kinetic kill vehicle was in the order of
RE #6. If he wants to reform the tort laws that'd be a good start to lowering the cost of insurance for the medical institutions. If it means he dictates what the prices can be then he's going to destroy the system.
Re 5 and 8.
<a h reaf="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/2392>This isn't hearsay, it's good analysis of what Obama said. Obama's words: "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." That is a call to invade. Unilaterally (I thought Bush lost points for being unilateral). Perhaps its ok because it's more "change!"
no subject
Not really but it's useful because presumptive limits on access to books would be grounds for screaming by the ACLU and a lot of other people. I'd be screaming with them, but I find the crickets we hear from the left on 'common sense' gun control measures to be decidedly wrong.
While I have not read the entire text of the Parker vs DC case, I have followed it and I have watched it closely. One of the arguments that the DC attorneys made was that you could possess a firearm in the home but just in an unassembled form. However looking back through the citations. The DC position and law was that Handguns were illegal and that rifles and shotguns must be disassembled. There was no exceptions for self-defense. They stated that that made their 'ban'.
So that basically equates to a book, never to be opened but you could own it. Never mind all book stores had been forced to be closed. You cannot buy handguns out of state. Long arms may be purchased in the next state over. So even IF there was an allowance for handgun ownership IT was still restricted to so much that it was functionally nonexistent as a right.
And looking at the actual court decision by the District Court it's pretty clear that the court felt that 22-4504 prohibited the carry of a firearm even within the home because the code in fact does NOT qualify it as in public. Carrying around your own property is not excepted. No license, you can't carry it.
7-2507.02 required long arms to be disassembled or locked up.
From the decision: "Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a
handgun. The District, in refusing his request, explicitly relied
on D.C. Code ยง 7-2502.02(a)(4)."
A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers.
What he means is that he doesn't think he CAN get a gun ban passed. But what does a trace system over and above what's already in place vis a vis 4473s? Ballistic finger printing? That's unworkable. Taggants? Also technologically and logistically unworkable. What other forms? Requirements that ALL firearms sales be taxed and registered? The ATF can't keep the NFA registry straight. There's an infinitesimally small proportion of NFA weapons in the NFA registry as compared to the total number of firearms in circulation. Canada can't even get ITS guns registered accurately. How's that going to work in the US?
We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets."
There's two realities. One where you have to ask permission of the government and where your rights are closely controlled and restricted and one where you have a right to defend yourself with out the government exerting truckloads of prior restraint. He patently endorses the former and I challenge you to establish otherwise.
(no subject)
From:Obama on Guns and Pakistan part II
Hd can't even get the prime purpose of the 2nd Amendment in his statements. It's not about teaching your kids to shoot or hunting. It's about self defense from tyrants foreign and domestic. Since he wants to restrict us to single shot or bolt action weapons ONLY for hunting he clearly doesn't support the prime basis for the 2nd Amendment or it's exercise.
He wants to crack down on the abuses in the streets of chicago? Fine, make sure the violent offenders STAY in jail. Clean up the Chicago PD, take the fiefdom away from the Daley family. Make it so if I come for a visit, My State issued firearms license is valid there just like my state issued Drivers license is.
If Georgia stopped accepting New York or Illinois Drivers licenses and started arresting people from those states what drove through because we don't recognize their licenses, you'd have people coming out of the wood work screaming about violations of rights. I'd agree, but why does the Full Faith and Credit Clause NOT apply to CCW permits issued by states?
Do you honestly think you'll ever hear Obama defend your right to purchase ammo, a handgun or your legal ability to carry a firearm?
He also voted in 2004 on a law allowing retired law enforcement to carry concealed weapons.
Great. So the agents of the state get a pass while the rest of us have to stay in our place. Gotta love equal protection under the law as exacted from a supposed liberal.
Your link does not provide the quote you show. Your analysis of his statement though is faulty. He is calling for a surgical strike against these targets, not rolling in with the 7th Cavalry. Kind of like this attack on Thursday. Just a note from the article, "The United States is officially barred from conducting operations in Pakistan, but it has launched several aerial attacks in the country's tribal areas, including the one that killed Libi, according to U.S. intelligence sources."
Well, I can't know exactly what he means because he's not really giving solid intentions.
My understanding is that we get approval from the Pakistani government for the air-strikes either before or after while we're working with them. Of course if we're already performing specific strikes with Manned and UnManned fighters, and Obama thinks we need change and wants MORE action, presumably he does mean ground forces forcing the border with out Pakistani permission.
Between his stance on Lebanan, Iraq, Afghanistan and his inability to tell the difference between US troops vs Brits and who leads a platoon, Obama doesn't really strike me as a very good choice for president.
So it's okay if we do it under Bush, but not if a democrat does it?
If the Left gets to pillory President Bush as dangerous and a terrorist because of unilateral action and the left at the same time endorses a candidate who has called for it on multiple times I get to point out the utter inconsistencies of the candidates position vis a vis the complaints with George Bush as President.
Re: Obama on Guns and Pakistan part II
From:no subject
As regards 9, shooting down a satellite is pretty fucking easy. It's path doesn't change and it keeps doing the same thing over and over. A missile doesn't.
A Ballistic missile warhead does not necessarily maneuver so it's not quite as difficult or easy as you portray both. Further, the interception was a hit to kill, not a proximity warhead function (closing speeds make reliable fuze function difficult). The hit required less than a meter's precision at over 17,000 miles per hour of the target and a closing speed of 24,000 mph.
Moreover, SM3 is an expansion of a proven system, Standard Missile which has had decades of development, testing and operational use. That program is a further growth of an even older set of systems which were also largely successful. SM-3 has had 12 operational tests and 11 successful intercepts in those test. We now have a 12th' successful intercept of an unusual target which it was not designed to hit and which involved modification of three production missiles/warhead combinations to adjust for the target parameters (hit the fuel tank and not the 'warhead').
no subject
They just need to sell off their US denominated currency reserves, resulting in instant global economic chaos, with the US as the center. They'd be more prepared to weather it than the US, that's for certain.
no subject
North Korea is a serious issue. A 3 Tier system with limited interceptors is ideal in such a scenario. The Japanese seem to think so as well considering they have purchased SM-3 for their Kongos. I also mistrust the Missiles extant in Pakistan but to a much lesser degree. Syria, Iran and other nations also have extant Ballistic Missile systems that have some significant ranges (able to reach Europe in some cases) which means that a mix of SM3 and ABL to defend ourselves and our allies is a good thing.
China, to my knowledge, were it to do that would face starvation on it's own side of the pacifica and a great deal of unrest were it to screw over it's biggest customer. The waves that have been made from the quality of chinese products with lead or other toxins in them has had them seriously scrambling to maintain those trade ties.
Obama and the Assault Weapons Ban.
He admittedly sought a ban on the sale of semi-automatic firearms back in
1998. However, people's opinions about things do change.
Still think he changed his opinion or do you think he was just telling people what they thought they wanted to hear? AG Holder just announced plans to re-introduce the Assault Weapons Ban. I'm pretty darn certain we'll see MORE types of weapons included in what's banned. Down to things with enbloc clips like Garands and weapons like the M1 Carbine classified as assault weapons. The versions I've seen floated around for the past year or so are FAR more intrusive and FAR more expansive.
We're also hearing rumblings of plans to close down exports of ammunition to countries like Canada and other State department level controls on the import of firearms parts to pretty much close down inexpensive soviet block parts for AK and SKS type weapons. Barrels, magazines, etc
Consider this the "I bloody well told you so." comment.
Re: Obama and the Assault Weapons Ban.
I couldn't' give a fetid pair of dingo's kidneys where you 'are'. I just had to see whether you could honestly stand your ground or not. Clearly you cannot.
2. Holder said that they wanted to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.. He didn't say anything about adding new weapons to the ban or anything else.
Keep whistling past the graveyard. Nice that you CANNOT be intellectually honest though. Though, I think if you look at the various versions of AWB II that have floated around over the past few years, you'll find the scope and depth of the ban has been expanded. I'm pretty sure they'll try some confiscatory language in the proposed bill, at least early on, until the FBI shits a brick, again.
3. I couldn't give two shits if they did stop exporting ammunition to Canada or stopped the import of parts for AK and SKS type weapons.
Or I guess raise FFL fees or change interpretations that gun-smithing is manufacturing a new firearm. No infringement of our rights there right?
4.Grow the fuck up.
I am. Have you?
Your contention was that Obama was NOT anti-gun 'any more'. You can't even admit your contention was utterly wrong. Show some honesty like an adult instead of shifting your position or prevaricating.
Re: Obama and the Assault Weapons Ban.
From: