Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 109 109

Horse shit.

Iran was a pro-Western, pro-American country until we sent the CIA to overthrow their government in 1953 and installed the Shah. If you're going to quote an Israeli PJMedia/Fox News propagandist, you might want to find one with more credibility than Barry Rubin.

The "Horse shit" prefix wasn't needed, at least some of us could identify the content of your post without it.

The government of Iran had been overthrown by the Prime Minister who faked an election, dissolved parliament, and was ruling by decree while ignoring the Shah as constitutional monarch. (You know, the traditional head of government being responsible to head of state?) Not even Stalin faked elections as brazenly as the Iranian PM. The Shah fled for his own safety. The US and UK helped restore the Shah to power, not install him.

Iran was also an ally of Israel but that changed with the Islamic revolution and Iran's turning on the Jewish state as well as the US. The bad blood between Iran and Israel is Iran's doing.

Comment: Re:Knew it was too good to be true. (Score 1) 97 97

... considering that every Chief Justice since the act of Congress that created it in 1978 has been a conservative (Republican), that may tell you something about the mindset of the FISC. It's certainly not a place to find diverse opinions.

So in your mental map of the universe you wouldn't find a justice appointed by a Republican president voting for something like ... say .. "gay marriage" or Obamacare? Perhaps even casting the deciding vote? There may be a gap between your thinking and current events / history.

...it really should come as no surprise that the Court continues to rubberstamp the same stuff they approved before.

If the court found it legal before what would have changed? Nothing. Easy decision for them.

You should probably look into the question of the court forcing the Justice Department to alter applications for warrants. That is far more common than outright rejection. Applications for those warrants are inches thick. Do you think they like to redo them? Do you think they'll just slap some nonsense together just to see if they can slip by? If you think that you probably don't have any insight into the legal system, or the professionalism of judges and lawyers as officers of the court. Why would those jobs be highly competitive and credentialed if you can just slap some nonsense crap together and get by?

Comment: Re:The founding documents present a path... (Score 1, Troll) 97 97

So are you thinking constitutional amendment, constitutional convention, a vigorous letter writing / lobbying campaign, or ... cough *armed insurrection* cough?

Is the straw that broke the camel's back for you Citizens United, Obamacare, gay marriage, NSA collecting phone records, or warm beer?

Comment: Re: Above Congress? (Score 1, Interesting) 97 97

... CIA people ... spy on Congress ... secret kangaroo courts ... overseas executions ... behind closed doors ... spies ... blackmailing ... Congress or other high elected office ... military-industrial complex ... secretly ruled by spooks ... banksters.

BINGO!!

Comment: Re:FISA court (Score 0, Troll) 97 97

Who are these judges appointed to the FISA court? Is a prerequisite a hatred for America, or is this something they develop once on the bench?

They are ordinary judges that serve on a rotating basis on that court. They are selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The judges who preside over America's secret court

Hatred for America? How do you think that plays out between findings for gay marriage versus findings that allow continued surveillance against terrorism?

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1069 1069

It would be great if that were true, but it probably isn't in the long run. Children don't have to consent to lots of things that happen to them now. There are other societies that have or have had child brides, so there are obviously social mechanisms to enable that. With diversity and immigration policies brining in more and more people from those societies I wouldn't be surprised if they considerably outnumber the gay population now. That is before you even consider traditional pedophiles. Over time advocates for minor-adult sex will have more political power. Speaking of political power, I hear there is a former Speaker of the House paying millions in hush money over sex with a minor decades ago. Besides, there are 50 years of prep coming to enable it, academicians working on normalizing minor-adult sex now, just as there were people doing that for homosexuality decades ago. In some parts of society, such as Hollywood, powerful people are known as child abusers, and nothing is said. Fifty years ago homosexual marriage couldn't happen. Today child marriage "can't happen," but that isn't likely to remain true as things stand. Standards were destroyed to enable homosexual marriage, they won't magically reappear when needed to stop child marriages.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1069 1069

Hardly activism to support the equal protection clause.

It's activism if you are distorting the meaning and intent of the amendment to reach a desired end by illegitimate means, by intellectually dishonest means.

The Supreme Court did something similar regarding the understanding of the amendment intended to define slaves as full citizens of the US. They stretched that so that anyone born inside the US now is automatically a citizen, even today, so the US is practically unable to control its citizenship that unlike (IIRC) pretty much every other country. Congress's intent was clear, but that didn't stop them.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1069 1069

All forms of group marriage should be legal as well, as should time limited marriages and any other variants people want to come up with. The governments only legitimate role in marriage is as the enforcer of contracts.

So are you in for child brides too? There are people in the US that want that. Actually we'll probably end up fighting that battle in 50 years or less.

Comment: Re:Zero respect for SCOTUS (Score 1) 1069 1069

it's a process of refinement to get closer to the original intent: maximization of freedom

The phase you are looking for is Liberty, which had a constraints to it. The US is heading further along the road of license, something abhorred by the Founders. You should really look into the distinction.

Comment: Re:The Right should be happy (Score 1) 1069 1069

But right now we have a serious dearth of serious contenders on the right.

The problem is a lack of serious commentary about the right, not a lack of serious contenders. Pretty much any of the many governors running would be a better overall choice than either Clinton or Sanders. Some of them would be far better.

Comment: Re:Assuming you're not a troll (Score 1) 1069 1069

You might want to read some history.

The states have a poor record on the subject of minority rights. Such as slavery. And segregation. And so forth.

Might I suggest the same to you? The Federal government hasn't exactly always been a shining light itself. How many states waged Indian Wars? Any thoughts about the existence of black regiments in the Army? There may be a few more examples....

You need to read about Westboro Baptist Church. They've already proven the you are wrong. And they did it at the Supreme Court.

I'm pretty sure that 10-20 people doesn't constitute a meaningful portion of the religious experience of the US. And not all government officials are all sweetness and light in their treatment of members of America's religious communities.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...