Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

Which you already admitted, happened after an investigation.

And I also already proved no investigation here is necessary. There's nothing in the Constitution requiring it, obviously; and if the House feels that we know what we need to, then no investigation needs to be done. It's that simple.

No investigation will even start until the middle of 2015 at the earliest

You're a liar. Even if an investigation were done, it could start immediately in January. Actually, it could start this November, after the results of the Senate election are known. But it would likely begin in January.

Two, however, is the bigger problem you have. No president has ever been removed by impeachment.

That is not a problem with anything I said, no.

It is reasonable to expect it would take at least as long as the impeachment itself, if not longer.

You're a liar. No such thing is reasonable to expect. In fact, the only evidence we have is that removals are not complicated and do not take a long time. Granted, a President is not a Judge, but you've offered zero evidence backing up your assertion that it would take a long time. None at all.

And to compound your dishonesty, you did not admit you were wrong about removal taking much more time and being a separate process, when I proved it doesn't and isn't. You stopped asserting it, which is fine, but maybe you should at least admit you were lying when you said it?

assuming of course that your fantasy of a conviction

You're a liar. I never said I hoped for that, and, in fact, I do not.

You have no evidence to support a.

I have evidence that it does not need to take that long, which is more than your nonexistent evidence for your claim that it does need to take that long.

If b is true then why are you supporting impeachment?

You're a liar. I am not. I've said from the beginning of this thread that I oppose impeachment ("Impeachment is a stupid idea ...").

Not that I don't expect you to not lie, but still, that one was beneath even you. Which is saying something.

That is your opinion.

That is your opinion.

That is your opinion.

That is your opinion.

I am not going to cast pearls here and go over all the cases, but one of these in particular is very funny, because it just shows how completely ignorant you are. Not that we didn't already know, with your idiotic claims of impeachment taking years, of removal being a separate more lengthy process, and so on.

But you just said it is merely my opinion that Obama has refused to enforce the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

This fact is seriously not in dispute by anyone. It's a simple statement of fact. The law says it begins in 2014, and he signed an executive order pushing it to 2015. No one denies this.

Now, on this point I am actually on Obama's side, in that I think the President has the legitimate authority to not enforce punishments, as long as he does it without violating equal protection. So he cannot say, "I won't enforce the mandate against liberal companies," but he can say he won't enforce it against all companies. He can further take it on a case-by-case basis, if he chooses. It's basically prosecutorial discretion. The President can, and does, choose all the time which laws he will and will not enforce prosecution or punishment of. Suing the President for exercising his authority here, as Boehner is threatening, is legal nonsense.

Of course, you can impeach the President for anything you want to.

But, none of this takes away from the fact that Obama has refused to enforce the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Everyone knows it.

Similarly, it's in my view a proven fact that Obama has given subsidies to people in violation of the law, and Obama's own advisor said this is the case. The law does not allow subsidies for the federal exchange. The wording of the law is absolutely clear, the intent of the law is very well-established, and Obama knew all this and did it anyway. But Obama denies this; he does not, however, deny that he has refused to enforce the employer mandates, though he wouldn't use those exact words to characterize it.

You're just full of shit, as usual, at every turn.

Comment Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

There is absolutely no precedent for it having ever taken a short amount of time.

You're a liar. Clinton: five months. Johnson: 3.5 months. Yes, he was not removed, but that would not take an additional year or more.

Hence you need to look at the time between next February and January 2017, which is not enough time to impeach and remove the POTUS.

You're a liar. Even if we said it took a year to impeach Clinton (including investigations etc.), that would still leave about a year to remove him.

Anyone with even a slight grasp of reality knows this, which is why your dear representatives and senators have all but given up on it.

You're a liar. The length of time pretty much has nothing to do with why they won't impeach him, because a. it wouldn't take that long, and b. it's a bad idea regardless of the length of time.

It is an additional process and there is nothing quick about it.

You're a liar, on both counts. For example, when Judge Alcee Hastings (currently in the House of Representatives, D-FL) was tried by the Senate, he was removed as soon as the voting on the impeachment articles was concluded. They voted on 17 articles, each of which read, "Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office." And upon being found guilty on several of those articles, the judgment read "It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Alcee L. Hastings be, and is hereby, removed from office." The end. They summarized the vote on the last article, summarized all the votes on all the articles, and then removed him from office, all within a few minutes. The end.

It can be as quick as the Senate wants it to be, and does not need to be a separate process.

You're lying. I explicitly addressed what makes this different in the Obama case: we don't need further investigation for Obama.

Except that you didn't.

You're a liar. I clearly wrote: "Clinton's impeachment -- which took longer than necessary -- took a mere five months from beginning of Starr's submission of data ... We don't need to go through lots of information for Obama; most of his "crimes and misdemeanors" are well-known."

So now bloggers are sufficient for "investigating"? I haven't seen a congressional investigation find anything impeachable.

"Impeachable" means whatever the House wants, and the very fact that Obama said the IRS was not corrupt, but it was ... that is impeachable. And we know he has broken the law (federal exchange subsidies), we know he's refused to enforce the law (employer mandate), we know he lied about Benghazi, we know he lied about the IRS not being corrupt. We know all of this.

But they could also impeach him for being black, or for being a lousy basketball player. They can impeach him for anything they want; they get to define what a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" is in this context. They won't, of course, but that's a separate point, since they never would anyway, not for any of these things. But they could, and that's the point, that you dishonestly deny.

Comment Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

Why are you accusing the AC of lying when you dislike what they say?

You're a liar. I didn't say you were lying because I dislike what you say; I say you were lying because you lied. You either know it can take less than two years, or you said it with reckless disregard for truth or falsity (which is also lying).

If you knew anything at all you would know that even once the house and senate convict the president, a new process has to begin in order to remove the president.

And that can happen in mere days.

None of this is quick.

It might be; it might not be. You're lying. Again.

Furthermore, you very casually glossed over the "submission of data" part. Starr actually did an investigation, and interviewed meaningful witnesses.

You're lying. I explicitly addressed what makes this different in the Obama case: we don't need further investigation for Obama.

It's similar to the Clinton situation, in that when Janet Reno and the federal court started the investigation process by asking Ken Starr to investigate what happened with Lewinsky, the point was not to impeach Clinton. They were just investigating what happened. Only after the facts came out did they decide to impeach. Similarly, we've been investigating -- formally through Congress some, but mostly just by watching what he actually does -- Obama for years now. As I already said, there's no need for an investigation of Obama.

Currently the GOP has a bunch of wild accusations against Obama and no meaningful evidence of any sort.

You're lying. In fact, every allegation the House has offered of Obama has been proven true. He has offered subsidies, in direct contravention of the law. He has refused to enforce mandates, in direct contravention of the law. His IRS has been targetting conservatives in particular, in direct contravention of the law. He lied about "the video" causing the Benghazi murders. All of this is proven true. None of it is seriously controversial at this point.

This means an investigation needs to be conducted (and funded) before an impeachment can even begin.

You're lying. Even if these things were not proven, no investigation would have to be done: the House could put it to a vote any time they wanted to.

You are also overlooking the fact that impeachment begins not with a trial in the house, but with a grand jury

I hope you're lying, because if you really believe that, it's pretty sad. It's simply untrue.

Interesting that you didn't give any examples.

Because I assume you're not a fucking moron. Should I? Boehner is threatening a lawsuit over Obama's nonenforcement of the employer mandate, and there's an existing lawsuit likely to be heard by SCOTUS over Obama's blatantly illegal subsidies to people in the federal exchange. There's more, but I assume you know at least some of the obvious ones.

Of course, I listed some above, and there's more.

It could not be a quick process

You're a liar. I already proved it.

Why do you so dislike the rule of law?

You're a liar. Nothing in the law -- in any law we have -- says impeachment should take a certain amount of time, or that it shouldn't be done quickly.

Would you have supported a "quick process" if the democrats had found the stones to try to impeach Bush when he was president?

Absolutely, yes. I would want it to take about one month, maybe two, tops. There's no reason for it to take longer. With Bush -- and there was no serious case against Bush, not like there could be against Clinton or Obama -- we already knew everything we needed to know. We knew there was no serious evidence of deception about the WMD. We knew the Congress backed Bush in invading Iraq. The House impeaching and the Senate convicting Bush for what they said he could do, or for things they spent years trying to prove but never could, would have been idiotic.

I've seen other possible articles against Bush, and all of them are stupid. For example, "suspension of the constitutional right of habeas corpus," which a. never happened and b. what did happen -- restrictions on statutory habeas corpus rights, not constitutional ones -- was passed by Congress.

But even if they had a case to make, fine. Make it quickly and Move On. It drags on the whole country, and whether you remove him or not, I want it to happen quickly, not slowly.

(which would be more than twice as long as the ordeal Clinton put on this nation).

How, exactly, were you personally hurt by his blowjob?

You're a liar: I didn't say i was personally hurt, and I didn't say "his blowjob" hurt the country. I said Clinton hurt the country, and he obviously did. He even admitted he did. And the way he did it -- obviously -- is through his lying under oath.

Comment Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

Of course, this is just an academic exercise. The funny thing is that no federal legislators are publicly talking about actually impeaching Obama. None. The only people talking this up are a tiny number of non-legislators on the right ... and pretty much all of the Democrats.

It's sheer dishonesty (though not unusual, especially on the left).

Comment Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

Impeachment is a stupid idea.

In the current situation, yes.

Right, that's what I meant.

It will likely give the country little benefit to shave a mere year or so off his presidency


First of all, it will give the country no benefit at all.

Second of all, it won't shave a year off the presidency.

It could, obviously.

In fact it is pretty much certain at this point that even if your heroes ...

You're lying. No federal legislator is my hero.

... began impeachment tomorrow morning, they wouldn't be able to get the process all the way through to removal before January of 2017, it simply takes that long.

False. You're lying. The question is: why are you lying, when the evidence is so clear?

Clinton's impeachment -- which took longer than necessary -- took a mere five months from beginning of Starr's submission of data to the House (1998-09-08), to the Senate's acquittal (1999-02-12). We don't need to go through lots of information for Obama; most of his "crimes and misdemeanors" are well-known. It could very well be a pretty quick process, though it could also take up to a year (which would be more than twice as long as the ordeal Clinton put on this nation).

Actually, it takes about that long with a congress that does its job and does actual work. We have instead right now arguably the most dysfunctional congress in the history of our country, and they certainly aren't going to be able to pull this off any faster.

It's true that Harry Reid is the most obstructionist Senate Majority Leader in my lifetime, but any potential impeachment assumes that the GOP takes over the Senate and keeps the House, so that's quite obviously a nonissue.

Comment Re:Switzerland (Score 1) 98

In Switzerland the slowest speeds you commonly get are about 15 Mbits/s...

And yet the report cited shows that only 45% have access to speeds above 10Mbps and 23% of access to speeds above 15Mbps.

Five US states have more people above 10Mbps than Switzerland.

And one of those states by itself, New Jersey, has almost a million more people.

Comment How big is it? (Score 5, Insightful) 184

To put this in perspective, 5,000 sq. mi. is a square about 71 miles on a side. Compare this to the total area of the Gulf (615,000 sq. mi) and you'll see this "dead zone" occupies just 0.8% of the Gulf. Is this something that needs addressing? Absolutely. But it's not some horrific cauldron of death like the headline tries to make it out to be.

Submission + - New way for Spys to listen in on us (

gurps_npc writes: Sound is just vibrating air. When it hits glass, it vibrates the glass and it is well established that a laser aimed at the glass can detect those vibrations and computers can turn it back into sound. Now, we don't need the glass or the laser. Researchers at MIT, Microsoft and Adobe have shown that by analyzing a video that contains something vibrating — say a bag of chips — a computer program can work figure out what noise caused those vibrations, even to the point of reconstructing speech.

Submission + - HP gives OpenVMS new life and path to x86 port (

dcblogs writes: Hewlett-Packard has changed its direction on OpenVMS. Instead of pushing its users off the system, it has licensed OpenVMS to a new firm that plans to develop ports to the latest Itanium chips and is promising eventual support for x86 processors. Last year, HP put OpenVMS on the path to extinction. It said it would not validate the operating system to its latest hardware or produce new versions of it. The move to license the OpenVMS source code to a new entity, VMS Software Inc. (VSI), amounts to a reversal of that earlier decision. VSI plans to validate the operating system on Intel's Itanium eight-core Poulson chips by early 2015, as well as support for HP hardware running the upcoming "Kittson" chip. It will also develop an x86 port, although it isn't specifying a timeframe. And it plans to develop new versions of OpenVMS

Comment Re:It's worse than that, it's physics, Jim (Score 1) 49

I don't see it. I see the article as saying more that Hitler was horrible, and Bush is even worse than that.

The reason why Bush is worse is because Hitler meant well. That's what it says. That's what I am talking about.

It's a false dilemma to assume this means the writer thinks Hitler's dishonorable acts were ok

I never said that. I said that in comparison to Bush, he's not as bad, which is what you agree he said.

Of course, as pointed out by both smitty and I, the writer is factually wrong that Hitler meant well.

And I agree with that.

I find your mockery wanting

I find your understanding of it to be wanting.

and it is more likely to backfire and make the left stronger.

No, it's not.

Taking weak and cheap shots makes your side appear petty and unable to field a better argument.

Mocking the left for taking cheap shots, by pretending to take a cheap shot, is an actual cheap shot?

Comment Rule of law (Score 1) 58

I've been saying for years, leftists generally hate the rule of law. They just do. The rule of law means they are restrained from doing what they think is best. Therefore, they hate it. There is infinite evidence of this. They openly question whether we should follow the law at every turn, from the top (Justice Breyer and President Obama) to the bottom (pretty much every "occupy" protestor).

We actually had a majority of the federal legislature decry a Supreme Court decision that merely said -- in reference to Lily Ledbetter -- that you cannot punish a company under the law, unless it actually breaks the law. Not to mention the case that said the federal legislature cannot restrict political speech by a person or group of persons, just because they are organized a certain way under the law, that also got massive opposition from liberals.

Time and again, the left just demonstrates a very clear and palpable hatred for the rule of law. They would have us ruled by enlightened people who would be free to make up rules as they went along.

Impeachment is a stupid idea. It will likely give the country little benefit to shave a mere year or so off his presidency, and generate massive animosity that will increase the liklihood of another law-hater being elected.

Slashdot Top Deals

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759