Rand0m her0

Welp that didn't last very long... cause there's no chance there was a reason the constitution was drafted in such a way to prevent the government from declaring any citizen an undesirable and removing the protection of the constitution at whim and with no regard for due process. But you know, whatever. You've demonstrated zero idea of what the ACLU does, were willing to declare their actions frivolous without even doing a cursory amount of research and were perfectly happy to present your willful ignorance of such as if it was some sort of achievement. Now your perfectly willing to throw out sections dating back to the founding of american and written by those great and wise thinkers who you spent three posts venerating purely to fit your political goals while complaining about others attacking the constitution with the next breath. My point's made. We're done here.

That's unfortunately pretty much entirely wrong. So to begin with that aid had been approved and set aside by Congress some time in 2016. It had been held up by a couple Republicans on the committee with political axes to grind over the Palestinian government seeking greater recognition and participation in international organizations. They basically kept insisting on a hold on distribution of the aid. Traditionally such requests are accepted, because it's not worth the slap fight ignoring it would cause, however they're not binding on the executive office. Once congress approves the funds for something, the executive is littrealy required to see it done. it was done "last minute" (in so much as anything that should have been done two years prior can be said to be last minute) because at that point the threat of Ed Royce and Kay Granger throwing a shitfit no longer existed. At no point in time were funds released to the Palestine Authority. They were earmarked for building infrastructure, providing clean water, electricity, education etc, as well as spending on security in the West Bank, and as always there are a ton of safeguards put in place. Also some portion of it went to israel do to work in the area as well, although I don't want to go look up the details at the moment. If your not familiar with the situation over there, Palestine is...sort of split at the moment between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Hamas has control of the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian government over the West Bank, and this has been the case for more than a decade now. Technically there has been some steps towards reconciliation, but right now that mostly means they probably won't start shooting at each other tomorrow. That aid was approved in an attempt to undercut Hamas's attempts to gain support in the West Bank and help prop the Palestine Government back up. As you may recall, they managed to gain a bunch of their support in the Gaza Strip by exploiting the poor conditions and providing basic services to the people there; by ensuring those services are provided in the West Bank it stops hamas from gaining support and helps create support for the government that isn't lobbing missiles over the border with Israel on a semi regular basis. While i'm not exactly qualified to weigh in on the outcome of foreign policy, the concessious seems to be that aid went a significant way to ensuring the stability of the West Bank. And yea, while Obama authorized the state department to distribute the aid, he did so late enough into his administration that it was left up to the Trump administration to actually distribute it. Signing off on it stopped the aforementioned congressmen from seeing the issue buried in the administration change. (Also it was maybe something of a middle finger to the two of them for fucking around for two years.) Which is why the Trump admin, after making a fuck ton of pointless noise about it and freezing the release of the aid immediately after taking office, quietly released the funds shortly after the news cycled stopped giving a shit. (yea, that means it the money was acctually released by Trump.) I'd hit the rest of your post, but Betsy kinda got most of it, and I've already turned 4 sentences into 5 paragraphs which means this is long enough, especially since the whole NK thing is something littreal dissertations have been written about.

Comic book universe. Betting on people walking back out the Pearly Revolving Door is usually good one.

that virtue signalling tho

Wrong and wrong. One: Citizenship in the USA is borderline impossible to revoke and can not be done without legal process. There are a very very limited number of cases where the constitution allows for the revocation of citizenship and almost all of them have to do with fraud (bascily, if you lie to get citizenship in the first place). They also literally cannot revoke the citizenship of Natural-born citizens. Literally forbidden. If the US government can revoke citizenship at all, let alone without due, it could at will, remove any and all rights granted to you under the constitution. Two: The constitution has two different types of phrasing. The first details rights granted to citizens. The second details things the US government can or cannot do period. The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment is a solid example of both: The red part applies to citizens of the united states. The green part outright forbids the government from taking that action period. For example the state can prevent non citizens from voting because that's not a right non citizens have (duh), but cannot randomly arrest a non citizen. Pretty much all of the bill of rights uses the latter language. The second and the tenth are about the only ones that don't. For example: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. And your opinion is contrary to about two centuries of established understanding of the constitution, and is in direct opposition to some of the oldest and most fundamental sections of it. Which is funny coming from a guy so concerned about the US constitution being disregarded.

uh huh. So you think the US military should be allowed to detain any american citizen overseas, produce no information about if they are an enemy combatant and then shoot them without benefit of legal counsel or trial. But the ""progressives"" are attacking the constitution. Unless you've got something a lot better than that lys, I think i've made my point.

Sure. I know nothing about this case, but Doe vs. Mattis sounds like John Doe vs. The Secretary of Defense. In other words, it's based on a "hypothetical anyone" who may run into a hypothetical situation, and receive a hypothetical outcome, of an undetermined scenario. The very definition of "frivolous" in my book. If an American Citizen runs afoul of the U.S. Military in a foreign country... which sounds like a matter of National Security to me... I would expect them to be captured or killed. The courts can sort it out back home. Easy. So you know *nothing* about the case, but you're going to declare it frivolous. That's a brave move. Have some context. So bit of information you don't seem to understand. In order to launch a suit in the USA, it requires standing. The short of this being that it must be launched by a person or organization or on behalf of such who has been actively harmed. Your proposed hypothetical would be thrown out instantly. Your correct on John Doe. t's John Doe because the US military has ordered public records redacted. The short and uncontested fact is that the US military captured an American citizen in Syria in september of 2017. They have decided that this person was engaged as a combatant for ISIS, and have detained them in Iraq for the last 8 months without charge, trial, or access to legal council. After the ACLU filed for a writ of habeas corpus, it took till january for the US military to accede to the court order for contact with legal council, which was only allowed via videoconference. There is no particular reason to believe attorney–client privilege was preserved in this process. You would I imagine, expect this person to have been returned to the USA to be charged and tried, and given the full benefit of every single protection in the US constitution including access to legal council. Assuming the charge is accurate and founded, they'd then get to spend a significant period of time in prison. Instead the US military has fought, and is still fighting against something as utterly basic as a writ of habeas corpus. Most recently the courts needed to hand down an order preventing the US military from transferring this person into another country in order to "remove them from US custody", in what is an specuatarly fuckheaded attempt to do an end run around the Constitution.

So which one is frivolous? The one where the US military thinks it can detain US citizens overseas without due process or trial perhaps?

The ACLU. It's a conglomerate of Progressive lawyers assembled for the sole purpose of using the US Constitution as a weapon against itself. One of those Progressive lawyers made it all the way to the highest court, dispensing her own ideals, with her very own interpretations, and condemning us all with her poisonous opinions. Her name is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Lets see: ACLU cases. Jennings v. Rodriguez Which is a case regarding: "Whether it violates the Constitution and the immigration laws to subject immigrants in deportation proceedings to long-term detention without individualized bond hearings." The current ruling in the Ninth Circuit is that the government is not allowed to detain someone for period of time exceeding 6 months without giving them a bond hearing. Not doing so violates the 4th through 8th amendments, all of which prohibit the US government from engaging in arbitrary detainment. Benisek v. Lamone Which has to do with if the redistricting of maryland's congressional map by the democrats overly favours the democrats and if by doing so they've violated the 1st amendment. To quote the ACLU: DOE V. MATTIS Which is another arbitrary detention case, specifically if the US military is allowed to hold and detain an american citizen while overseas without trial or due process. Xi v. Haugen On if the US government (under the obama admin) violated Xiaoxing Xi's civil rights during it's now abandoned investigation into him, specifically in regard to the FBI's use of warrantless surveillance. Stone v. Trump Whether or not the trump admins ban on transgender persons in the US military violate the equation protection clause of the constitution, particularly following the Defense Department's own determination that there is no basis for refusing to allow transgender persons to serve International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump Whether or not the latest incarnation of the travel ban, by specifically targeting out religious groups (ie muslims) violates the equal protection clause, as well as the first amendment prohibition of government establishment of religion and the 5th amendment requirement for equal protection under the law. So, where are they undermining the US constitution here Lys? Or is undermining the constitution just code for "v. Trump" I guess the shots they took at and are still taking at the obama admin are also just ""progressive"" plots right?

> It all happened circa 2009 when the Democrat party went from semi moderate to far left. ​The democrats are literally a center right party. They're only slightly further to the left than the littreal conservative parties of many other countries. America littrealy does not have a left wing party at all. Not only that but the democrats have swung further right over the last couple elections. Hillary literally ran a campaign to the right of bush senior on several topics. They're left only in comparison to the republican party. The last time the democrats ran on a truly leftist platform was sometime in the 70s, back before nixon and the republican hissy fit about the civil rights act dismantled the new deal coalition. And it was that era and those policies that the american golden age was built on. @lys. Still avoiding the question. Provide a single example of a non fringe group working to dismantle the US constitution.

250 words of not answering the question. Spectacular. This is only getting off topic because you refuse to support your point. And no, you're the one floating the "the constitution is under attack!" argument. I'm recommending avoiding the 2nd because the Heller decision and much of what the 2nd amendment represents in the USA today does not date back to the "wisdom" of the founding fathers, but instead dates back to 2008 Even if you agree with and like the Heller decision, basing an argument in support of that quote there (especially the bit bit i've emphasized) on something that happened all of 9 years ago would be something of a poor rhetorical choice. Also any topic in which common talking points can be refuted by quoting Scalia of all people may not be a good one for you. Bonus points for the second not even arising out of wisdom for the common man but out of Madison looking to appease states worried that congress would nationalize state militias and then invade them. Anyways, you're the one floating such ridiculous theories. Leave the waffling to the belgian and start giving examples of non fringe groups. Cause at this point I'm not sure you can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sRS1dwCotw

A "Communist Monarchy"? How does that work? Idk, I distinctly recall the same wing nuts flipping out about how Obama was a communist out to destroy America and that he was going to take over the military some how and appoint himself king. Logically that means they were concerned about the implementation of a communist monarchy. I'm certain Glenn Beck had an argument that involved circling words or something. I haven't the slightest clue how that would work, but then neither did they. Rage bait about Obama and his family was something of a cottage industry for a while. And this is more of the same.

Ahaha, was wondering if this sort of thread existed. Unfortunately it's dead. Lets try and fix that. Ever sat there with a rock or metal song or whatever going run dun dun dun dun diddle dun dun dun to the guitar. Yea so did Van Canto. And then they turned it into a band. Have some Metal Acapella, for it is glorious cheese. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiESgYr35gA

ABBA is fucking awesome and the yard stick by which all other pop groups after them must be judged and found wanting. fite me .

it's a phrase other have used before her and similar ones applied to other people in the past. Regardless of what hyperbolic wtfery some people here like to spout (hi bewers!) , Michelle Obama in her turn as first lady was monumentally influential on an entire generation of young americans. In many ways she will always be their first lady because she was that during their formative years. And i guarantee you have some major figure who played a similar role for you, and who similarly acknowledged that position. The quote is her acknowledging the position she has in the conscious of an entire generation (ie, the one she was speaking to at that point), using a phase they've applied to her and one that others used prior to her. Which is why the quote your flipping your collective shits about because "OMG SHE'S WANT TO ESTABLISH A MONARCHY!" or whatever was met with applause. It's no different than the bush family acknowledging outpouring of grief for Barbara Bush recently, because for an entire generation of americans, she was *their* first lady and always was. You don't have to like the woman, but denying the influence she's had on people, and the esteem they hold her in, as part of an attempt to contort this into some hand wringing moralising about her borders on delusional. It's Michelle Obama saying "If I can end up here, you can do it too!" in a way that references and acknowledges the respect the people she's speaking to have for her. Of course the best bit is the folks flipping their lids over *this* of all things, while whining about "snowflakes" in the next breath. cause talk about your fragile and easily offended

Sorry, thought I used the words "be specific". Go on, list some specific examples. Cause if we wanted to listen to broad an unsupported assertions about "THE CONSTITUTION IS UNDER ATTACK" we could go listen to alex jones. At least then we might find out what's really making the frogs gay. I'd recommend staying away from the 2nd though if you want to build an argument off the supposed immutable and perfect nature to the US constitution. There's kinda been some widely diverging interpretations of that in the past, and whatever position you care to take, we can find older precedent that disagrees. Gun Control in the 18th century USA is a really fun topic, and the heller decision was a dramatic departure from the historical interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Also it's the free space on a lot of this bingo cards.... " Little Kimmy" is a mass murdering fuck. he's not some teenager, dudes nearly fucking 40. He's a beneficiary and prime contributor to north korea's bullshit and he's been it's leader for more than half a decade. Do not even attempt to minimize his role in that shit. NK doesn't even need that to deter the south (and it's question if they can even make that deterrent work). NKs military exists because it's a way to maintain local control, and a fantastic source of grift for political elites to enrich themselves, not to deter the south. NK is an unstable shitshow of a country only held together by force of arms. If anyone kicks over the political leadership there, the entire region implodes into a massive humanitarian and economic crisis. SK has zero interest in military action against the north outside of self defense. Taking any aggressive action would to the political and economic equivalent of shooting themselves in the dick...with the main gun of one of their K2s.

Daily Caller by way of Washington Examiner. because neither of those rags have a history of making shit up, taking stuff out of context and publishing ragebait about the obamas or anything . Oh look a quick bit of googling says the quote comes from a speech at a high school to the effect of "you can be anything you want to be and no one can take away your achivements". Good freaking grief you lot, looking to take any fucking excuse to shit on someone. Was the "OBAMA GONNA TURN THE USA INTO A COMMUNIST MONARCHY" not enough stupid for everyone? Gotta keep beating that drum? JFC.

Oh goody, we've got a game of bingo! Alright I'm in a good mood and i need to figure out which bingo card to break out for you so...elaborate I guess? What "politics" out there is erasing the constitution. Be specific North korea has a very long history of pulling similar shit. Going to the south is new, but everything else we've seen? This isn't the first time the topic of inter-korean reconciliation has come up. It's not even the first time in either of our lifetimes. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it happens but north korea has a history of being the international diplomacy equivalent to someone's cheating asshole ex asking to get back together but only if *you* promise to change. North korea has reneged on almost every single agreement made, and it's leadership has more in common with organized crime than a functioning government. I'll be surprised if NK actually agrees to denuclearize on any reasonable terms. I'll be even more surprised if it sticks with it any longer than it takes for whatever initial concessions it gets to expire. Also the fact you seem to think NK finding an ally in America is...honestly disturbing. The only thing the NK government deserves to find is a long rope and a short drop.

@lys, the semi hypocritical paternalism in your political ideals is kinda luzly. "protecting people from themselves" like *really* that's how you want to justify imposing your ideals?. Also it's entirely fucking halarious that you're complaining to a Belgian about identity politics. Although frankly describing the US political divide as identity politics is hilarious in it's own right, in so much as the current US political structure dates back to a political divide created in reaction to the civil rights movement and the end to segregation along with the moral majority coalition in the 80s. The divide exists and continues to exit entirely because the Republican party in the US strongly favors a section of the religious right as the central pole for the big tent along with a handful of lunatic raw capitalists opposed to the very idea of a federal government. Until the Republicans cease to cater to that 10%-20% of the population to the exclusion of the remaining 80%-90%, the divide will continue. On topic: the North Korea meeting is boring. while this is the first time this has happened in a while, it's not the first time this has happened. North Korea will demand as bunch of language that the south will never agree too, there will be a release of a bunch of non binding non enforceable mutually signed statements and then we go right back to where we are with north korea trumpeting political nonsense about how the south and the west couldn't agree to "reasonable" terms. Unless something has occurred that already ends NKs nuclear program for the next several years, NK will not denuclearize. If such an event has occurred, that denuclearized state will last exactly as long as it takes them to get the program back up and running. NK is a totalitarian regime kept in power pretty much entirely as a proxy for China and continues to exist on their sufferance. In that regard, NK has little reason to accept long term denuclearization absent an entirely unlikely event such as joint US and China military action in order to force it.

Well I'm not even thinking a forum RP persay. I could literally run a campaign. Would need to handle a few things differently to save sanity (Roll initiative for the players and maybe some saving throws and checks) but between online battle maps and dice roll recording tools (invisible castle seems to be gone but i'm sure there's something) we might acctualy be able to get a fulll play by post campaign working. Might be a little slow, but as said PbP mafia is a thing and it's not like that's overly speedy.

So I can't actually promise to follow through on this since I could easily lose the motivation before I get the free time to do this but right now I'm halfway tempted to run a play by post campaign.But we've got the whole PbP mafia thing, so might work out? It's been a long ass time since I've done this, so it'll probably be a straight forward premade (thinking sunless citadel since it's short and can lead into other stuff and 3.5 since that's A what I have stuff for and B I know a guy with a concerningly large library of 3.5 material if I need this. If I do follow through, probably looking at 3-6 players? 6 might get a little squirrely since sunless citadel is designed around 4 players but whatever, worst case some of the encounters are a little on the easy side. Anyone game if i do go for it? Edit: deacronymed title

It's not a problem with education. We're not talking about replacing analog with digital because that's already happened. Like atm in the building I'm in, telling time vs a sun dial or a focults pendulum is more useful than on an analog clock, because those are actually in th building. It doesn't matter what you teach, learning requires regular renforcement. Theach kids how to tell time on an alalog clock in first grade? That's not going to stick after 9-10 years of rarely even seeing one. You spent basically the first decade of your life in elementary school. How much of that do you remember? How much of first grade do you even remember period? It's no more pathetic than most people not knowing how to tend to a coal furnace, or cook on a hearth or make rope, or use a slide rule or make a bow and arrow, or basic cobbling and any number of skills your great great grandparents have that you don't.

Not surprising. Analog clocks are not exactly common any more and when they do exist they're usually skeuomorphs. When buildings are built, they're done with digital clocks. If someone has a portable time piece, it's probably their phone. Time on any device in your home? probably digital. If you need to synchronize them, digital makes that easier. Unless a skill it used, it atrophies, and even if you teach kids how to read them, if they never see one 99% of the time, they'll retain that skill about as well as most people do their ability to prove trig identities or the exact correct usage of a semi colon. If you're in a building built any time after the late 90s, it probably doesn't have an analog clock in it unless you work in a clock tower or someone brought one in as a desk clock Congrats folks. This is what old feels like. registration for GOM 203 Intermediate Cane Shaking and CAB 102 Kids And Your Lawn opens in May.

on the left hand side of that screen there's the menu where you can select what you want it to display. When you pick one, it preserves your selection and defaults to that the next time go go there.

Sure it's not defaulting to only displaying content you haven't read? If so you won't see your own posts.