Viewing profile — jwkpiano1

Let me state this very simply: executive agencies have only the power granted to them by Congress. So yes, all actions taken by an executive agencies are bound by the law. Anything…

That’s not what the law is. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/111

Executive orders aren’t laws. This is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/111 .

This isn’t how this works. Laws don’t change just because the executive decides it’s going to ignore them. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/111

The executive doesn’t pass laws. Congress created the Department of Defense. Only Congress can rename it. The executive being elected is irrelevant to this point. The Constitution …

You are. Congress could stop this right now if they wanted. That they aren’t is of course a problem, but that’s very different than saying the system of checks and balances doesn’t…

The problem with this argument is that the _original_ Department of War is now called the Department of the Army, which existed alongside the Department of the Navy. Besides, it’s …

It very much still exists, and statements like this are what’s called “obeying in advance.” Don’t do it.

This is indeed happening, but note that PC is not required for a Terry stop, only reasonable suspicion, which is a lower bar.

We sure as shit are or there will be civil conflict. Period.

That’s for _Congress_ to decide, not the executive. That’s the issue here.

Indeed, California has 52 times the representation but about 80 times the people. That disconnect is why the cap on the size of the House needs to be lifted.

He has zero experience running a large organization. The Secretary of Defense, while a political appointee, also requires some ability to manage a large organization, which again, …

Dude, none of that has _anything_ to do with being able to run a huge organization. Nothing. It’s undeniable that Hegseth, even if you ignore all of the white supremacist shit, is …

He’s made that pretty clear to us Angelenos too.

I’m sorry you’re offended by people trying to be nice to others by avoiding language they don’t appreciate. I promise nobody is gonna force you to do the same.

It’s funny how you think you’re not doing the exact same thing you’re accusing others of doing: policing language.

Come on. You can’t honestly tell me that “folks” or “y’all” are signs of language policing. I think many Southerners would vehemently disagree with you.

I mean, if that’s true I imagine they also don’t have much to do with the colors “black” or “white” either, right? Language changes all the time. I think for most software folks, w…

“That said, the article would have been a lot better without moralizing about harmful colonialism,” Your bias towards flippantly dismissing colonialism is insulting to those groups…

You’re dead wrong, I do care. It does matter. I disagree with the comment but I would not have responded this way if it hadn’t made such a blatant factual error. If we’re going to …

In my experience y’all works as a perfect alternative to “you guys”, even as a non-Southerner myself. After my initial discomfort using it it became quite natural.

I think it is strongly indicative that your underlying bias so colored your reading of the article that you made a very basic factual error. I would encourage you to read it again …

What’s really ironic is that your language purported to make decisions for others more than the article itself did.

The fact that you have equated Polynesians and Melanesians here, two completely disparate groups of people, does not help your point whatsoever.