Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What else would you have them do? (Score 1) 529

You're citing a truther page? As I said, not interested in discussing your crazy.

I don't really give a damn what you call it. I cited a website which has been signed off by over 2400 professional architects and engineers as being factually accurate.

That *IS* the expert scientific consensus on the matter. You have now confirmed your hypocrisy, and demonstrated that you don't care what the evidence is: if you don't like it you just put a pejorative label on it and deny it.

I knew that before, because I've seen you do it many times. But it's nice to have such crystal clear confirmation.

And why do you feel it necessary to lie? You still haven't answered that question.

Strange, isn't it? 4 years ago someone else accused you of lying by "quote-mining" out of context. It is very clear that is exactly what you did. And there is no doubt it was you, because it's the same Blogger account and others referred to your account here on Slashdot by name.

Isn't it interesting that I pointed out exactly the same behavior here, long before I knew that page existed? I wonder. Is it just some bizarre coincidence? Or a pattern? Maybe we should ask others to vote on it.

Comment Re:What else would you have them do? (Score 1) 529

I hope that it's clear that I have no interest in carrying on a 'conversation' with a birther and truther. That way leads to madness.

Since I have made it abundantly clear, more than once, that I am not even remotely a "birther", and those you call "truthers" are on the side of overwhelming evidence and the professional consensus, I am curious to know what your real reason is. After all, I thought you supported expert consensus views.

Comment Re:File a Complaint (Score 1) 124

Yep. The option the poll didn't have was "Put me on your do-not-call list" then hang up.

You forgot the other one: "I'm on the Federal do-not call list. This call is illegal. Call again and it could cost you $2500."

That usually shuts them up. If they're American, anyway.

Comment Re:What else would you have them do? (Score 1) 529

You also think that Obama faked his birth certificate and that 911 was an inside job. I've learned not to put too much stock in what you think.

Pure libel. I never wrote either of those things. In fact, I straightened you out on BOTH of those issues, right here on Slashdot, just a short time ago. So there is absolutely no excuse for your libel. You knew, or should have known, those statements were false when you made them just now.

For the sake of others, not you, I will repeat what I told you earlier: I have no idea where Barack Obama was born. The document on the White House website IS an altered graphic, which anyone with good graphics skills can download and check for themselves. They hardly need to take my word for it. However, as I also clearly told you before, there could be a number of legitimate reasons for that.

Second, I did not claim 9/11 "was an inside job". That's a blatant lie. My only claim was that we were not told the whole truth about it. and there are more than 2400 professional architects and engineers who agree with me.

Neither I or they did claim or now claim it was "an inside job". That's a deliberate lie. I.e., libel.

Now I have some questions for YOU. Please do be a good boy and try to answer them honestly:

(A) Why did you respond to a perfectly civil comment with insults and deliberate lies?

(B) Why do you quote "Khayman80" so much? No "conspiracy theory" here, just an honest question. I am not claiming you are the same people, but they way you write and the way you behave are remarkably similar, and you even quote each other rather surprisingly consistently and often.

Submission + - Supreme Court Puts EPA Regulations On Hold (foxnews.com)

Jane Q. Public writes: (I would have linked to the Wall Street Journal version but it's paywalled):

A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Obama's sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved.

The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations "an unprecedented power grab."

By temporarily freezing the rule the high court's order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.

Comment Re:What else would you have them do? (Score 1) 529

Australians have a choice to either pay more for adaptation or further reduce uncertainty.

False dichotomy. For the most part, they have chosen a third option: ignore the issue and expect it won't be much of a problem.

My money is on the third option. I don't think a lot of "adaptation" will be necessary.

Comment Re:It's official, you all live in a Dictatorship (Score 1) 186

A treaty supersedes all of the laws of the land, which is why it requires Congress to sign off on it, instead of a President's signature.

False. The Constitution is vague on the issue, saying that both treaties and the Constitution are "the law of the land". However, it's pretty clear that the Constitution only intended for treaties to deal with issues external to the United States (such as foreign trade).

In its only (to my knowledge) ruling which dealt with this issue, in regard to internal U.S. affairs, Reid v. Covert, SCOTUS ruled that the U.S. Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

The actual "supremacy clause" in the Constitution reads thus:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

The phrases in pursuance thereof and under the authority of the United States clearly indicate that treaties may NOT supersede the Constitution. Because any such treaty, to be lawful, must be in pursuance of implementing the Constitution, and treaties must be made under the authority of the United States government, which is bound to uphold the Constitution.

So, NO. Claiming that a treaty supersedes internal U.S. laws or the Constitution is just false. It stems from a gross min-reading of the Supremacy Clause, and ignores past Supreme Court ruling on this issue.

The exception is when a State deals directly with foreign interests (such as international trade). In those cases, treaties do indeed supersede State laws on the matter, because the Federal government has all authority to deal with foreign governments and foreign trade. But that's a very narrow area.

Slashdot Top Deals

The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the fabricator and impossible for the serviceman.

Working...