|
Luigi Thirty posted:An anonymous source told People Magazine the shooter's manifesto is all about serving Satan and shooting Christians in the name of Satan. Uh... I'm sure this is actually what it said. I hope we get another round of Satanic panic videotapes out of it. I'd rather avoid another West Memphis Three because Judges would rather believe that Satan killed a child than the creepy step parent that was the last witness of the child and no real alibi for where he was.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
who physically adds amendments to the constitution? like do they have a calligrapher on retainer in case a constitutional amendment gets passed or what
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
or is it even physically written or wtf
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
baw posted:who physically adds amendments to the constitution? like do they have a calligrapher on retainer in case a constitutional amendment gets passed or what Actually, yes! They have an entire office dedicated to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
awesome thanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
In March 2013, Blair's over $96,000 annual salary, and the salary of her two deputy calligraphers, became a source of debate when published by the White House and reported online.[1][2] the GOP shoulda gone after this instead of benghazi
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
edit:no gun chat here
Dilkington fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Oct 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
baw posted:In March 2013, Blair's over $96,000 annual salary, and the salary of her two deputy calligraphers, became a source of debate when published by the White House and reported online.[1][2] Maybe its just me, but I feel like a decent salary for the person who's job basically entails SCREWING WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES is an extravgance that taxpayers can well afford.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
edit: no more gun chat- and a doublepost no less!
Dilkington fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Oct 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Maybe its just me, but I feel like a decent salary for the person who's job basically entails SCREWING WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES is an extravgance that taxpayers can well afford. also invitations for the arugula-filled galas at the white house
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_NEW_TERMquote:Abortion, birth control and race are among the most divisive issues the Supreme Court will confront over the next nine months, amid a presidential election campaign in which some candidates are talking pointedly about the justices and the prospect of replacing some of them in the next few years. Cool, I guess next year will look alot like the last few years at SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Actually, yes! They have an entire office dedicated to it. That doesn't have anything to do with the constitution though. That's just for White House social functions. Amendments are taken care of by the Archivist of the United States and the Director of the Federal Register.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_NEW_TERM Nothing is ever resolved, not even for a single second
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:That doesn't have anything to do with the constitution though. That's just for White House social functions. Amendments are taken care of by the Archivist of the United States and the Director of the Federal Register. Oh no, I goofed.  I thought they did official documents too, not just social ones. baw posted:In March 2013, Blair's over $96,000 annual salary, and the salary of her two deputy calligraphers, became a source of debate when published by the White House and reported online.[1][2] To be fair those are extremely specialized positions, and the amount of poo poo they put out of that office is crazy. Grapplejack fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Oct 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:That doesn't have anything to do with the constitution though. That's just for White House social functions. Amendments are taken care of by the Archivist of the United States and the Director of the Federal Register. ok so the Archivist certifies an amendment after it has been ratified, then it is published in the Federal Register and added to the United States Statute at Large but who writes on the constitution!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:To be fair those are extremely specialized positions, and the amount of poo poo they put out of that office is crazy. Yeah I'm sure it's a busy office, and that amount of money doesn't go very far in DC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
baw posted:ok so the Archivist certifies an amendment after it has been ratified, then it is published in the Federal Register and added to the United States Statute at Large Well no one writes on the constitution itself. The finished amendment looks like this: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
OK i guess i can go to sleep now. thank you
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Speaking of the Supreme Court, what ever happened to that 3rd Amendment case from a year or two back, where the guy was claiming that police snipers setting up in his house was a violation of his 3rd Amendment rights?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Nicholas Cage writes on the constitution
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Speaking of the Supreme Court, what ever happened to that 3rd Amendment case from a year or two back, where the guy was claiming that police snipers setting up in his house was a violation of his 3rd Amendment rights? Supreme court ruled against him because police arent' soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Well no one writes on the constitution itself. The finished amendment looks like this: They couldn't print out another page? They just crossed out part of it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
BUBBA GAY DUDLEY posted:They couldn't print out another page? They just crossed out part of it? If that bothers you, definitely don't read up on the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_NEW_TERM Any case involving race or unions is destined for the worst possible outcome with this court. Next year's docket looks pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The U.S. hasn't finished the investigation yet, but ABC says an anonymous official claims there was an AC-130 in the area, firing on Taliban fighters who were engaged with U.S. Special Forces. If that's the case, immediate self-defense more or less supersedes any protection the hospital would normally receive under LOAC. Several pages back, but this smells like bullshit to me. If Taliban fighters were using the hospital as cover, MSF would have said something about it. Also, they weren't using MSF as cover, because MSF always makes contact with all belligerents, and lets them know who they are, what they are for, and that they don't even want weapons anywhere near them. If one of the belligerents can't deal with that, MSF pulls out. And MSF has been there longer than we have. That hospital attack didn't happen by mistake. AC-130's don't scatter rounds all over the place. It doesn't work unless the flight crew and gunners are on the same page and know exactly what they are shooting at. I don't know what the hell make them think it was OK to shoot at a building with a red crescent on it (MSF operational security requires them to ALWAYS mark their facilities,) but they loving knew better than to to commit a no poo poo war crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Several pages back, but this smells like bullshit to me. If Taliban fighters were using the hospital as cover, MSF would have said something about it. Also, they weren't using MSF as cover, because MSF always makes contact with all belligerents, and lets them know who they are, what they are for, and that they don't even want weapons anywhere near them. If one of the belligerents can't deal with that, MSF pulls out. And MSF has been there longer than we have. We shoot or blow up our own forces in the exact same way all the drat time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Republicans posted:We shoot or blow up our own forces in the exact same way all the drat time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:But it isn't a loving war crime against one of the few no-poo poo unconditionally good organizations left on this loving planet when we blow up our own forces. We shoot classrooms full of first graders in our country and do nothing about it but fret and counter-fret. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Fix posted:We shoot classrooms full of first graders in our country and do nothing about it but fret and counter-fret. They should have been given guns for self defence by their parents talk about negligence. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:If that bothers you, definitely don't read up on the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. Canadians, man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Supreme court ruled against him because police arent' soldiers. Heh oh really
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:Heh oh really Nah it died at the district court level, but relevant portion: quote:I hold that a municipal police officer is not a soldier for purposes of the Third Amendment. This squares with the purpose of the Third Amendment because this was not a military intrusion into a private home, and thus the intrusion is more effectively protected by the Fourth Amendment. Because I hold that municipal officers are not soldiers for the purposes of this question, I need not reach the question of whether the occupation at issue in this case constitutes quartering, though I suspect it would not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:I don't know what the hell make them think it was OK to shoot at a building with a red crescent on it (MSF operational security requires them to ALWAYS mark their facilities,) but they loving knew better than to to commit a no poo poo war crime. I'm going to guess that had something to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Several pages back, but this smells like bullshit to me. If Taliban fighters were using the hospital as cover, MSF would have said something about it. Also, they weren't using MSF as cover, because MSF always makes contact with all belligerents, and lets them know who they are, what they are for, and that they don't even want weapons anywhere near them. If one of the belligerents can't deal with that, MSF pulls out. And MSF has been there longer than we have. You're making a couple of big assumptions here. You're assuming that if they told the Taliban about the hospital that the Taliban would have been able to tell individual militants about it. The whole point of the Taliban is that they're decentralized. You're also assuming that individual militants would have cared to follow instructions concerning the hospital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Several pages back, but this smells like bullshit to me. If Taliban fighters were using the hospital as cover, MSF would have said something about it. Also, they weren't using MSF as cover, because MSF always makes contact with all belligerents, and lets them know who they are, what they are for, and that they don't even want weapons anywhere near them. If one of the belligerents can't deal with that, MSF pulls out. And MSF has been there longer than we have. Here are a few possibilities: 1. The military hosed up bad. 2. Some type of force engaged US forces from close enough to the MSF hospital to result in US forces either intentionally or unintentionally attacking the hospital. 3. The US military deliberately flew out and just blew up a bunch of doctors and patients for fun, knowing full well that it would hit international news, for no reason whatsoever and with full knowledge that it was a war crime. If your first pick is option 3, you might also think jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
But jet fuel can't melt steel beams, it weakens them to the point they lose their structural strength.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:But jet fuel can't melt steel beams, it weakens them to the point they lose their structural strength. That quote has layers, you see
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:But jet fuel can't melt steel beams, it weakens them to the point they lose their structural strength.  Think about it for a bit
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
Boon posted:That quote has layers, you see So it's like a parfait? Everyone likes parfaits. You ever ask anyone "your want a parfait" and they're like "no I don't want no drat parfait I don't like parfaits"
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 15:05
|
|
