131–140 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't understand. You must always respect authority. Trump is the highest authority in the land, put there by God.
This is the real danger of religion. When you train people from birth to turn off their brains and submit to authority without question, this is what happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if it ever was labeled a genocide, but Sri Lanka has a long history of Buddhist lead attacks against Tamils and other minorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
Fair enough. Seems like the common thread is religion + government = atrocities
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.
> Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. Just to be clear: you are disagreeing with a dissenting Supreme Court justice on how much the law protects the president. Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?
Bubble of protection is 3000 feet laterally and 1000 feet vertically. From the article: “Unlike traditional Temporary Flight Restrictions, the NOTAM does not provide geographic coordinates, activation times, or public notification when the restriction is in effect near a specific location. Instead, the restricted airspace moves with DHS assets, meaning the no-fly zone can appear wherever ICE or other DHS units operat…
One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism is to have laws that are virtually impossible to not break. I hope this gets tested in court and declared unconstitutional for being overly vague and arbitrary. For example, Montana used to have some maximum speed limits that were just "reasonable and prudent", but they were eventually rejected by courts as being too vague (what's prudent to you may not be prudent to someone e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IDK, it's probably more a matter where they don't want people to be flying RPGs into their windscreens and this is the first step for them to carry around frequency jammers. The last time I was in Iraq they used them to stop the cellphone detonated IEDs and all the convoys has one or two. Coincidentally, folks won't be able to live stream their encounters but I'm sure that's totally unrelated...
Yes, because the USA is totally undistinguishable from an active war zone...
Trump has ordered troops to be ready deploy, pretending lines exist is silly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. Just to be clear: you are disagreeing with a dissenting Supreme Court justice on how much the law protects the president. Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?
If you think Roberts, Alito, and especially Thomas have actually been following the law as it was intended, then I have a beautiful bridge in New York to sell to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People believing the president of the United States has been ordained by God, and can therefore do no wrong, should be extremely concerning to EVERYONE, no matter what team your rooting for.
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. Barry Goldwater He had a few more pertinent quo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you will be labeled a terrorist for doing so, regardless of intent.
I don't mind being labeled a terrorist. Fortunately I'm not in the USA. But you couldn't pay me to go there. One man's terrorist...
You should. It's not meant for your vanity and it represents and extreme overreach by the government. It doesn't make you "cool."
> But you couldn't pay me to go there.
Of course we could. Aside from that this mentality always shocks me. There are more civilians in the US than government agents. What were you expecting when you got here? It's madness..
> One man's terrorist...
Is another mans freedom fighter. Sure, fine, if you want a civil war. Perhaps a more civilized approach is called for? Unless you particularly enjoy digging graves for your friends.
I wonder if these vessels, convoys, etc. are going to jam drones or use some other anti-drone weapon and this NOTAM allows that by saying "we can intercept or destroy it if it comes too close". That way they don't have to identify how much of a threat each individual drone is.
Loudly broadcasting electronic signals out of something you’re trying to keep hidden seems like a tactical error, but these cats aren’t the best trained, are they?