U.S. Law and Policy

[windwalker]

3 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

Behind every successful man is a good woman, there is fact to that saying.

 

The Chinese have a saying 

 

" A man is the face of the woman"

Edited December 9, 2018 by windwalker

[windwalker]

@Pilgrim

 

You might want to check out what's going on with the 5G,

conversion

 

China, Taiwan, USA, very interesting.

Edited December 9, 2018 by windwalker

[Pilgrim]

46 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

The Chinese have a saying 

 

" A man is the face of the woman"

The Chinease are wise.

 

Tonight my woman was displeased I grew militant she smacked me, told me to behave. God I love her!

[Pilgrim]

36 minutes ago, windwalker said:

@Pilgrim

 

You might want to check out what's going on with the 5G,

conversion

 

China, Taiwan, USA, very interesting.

A link please.

[windwalker]

17 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

The Chinease are wise.

 

Tonight my woman was displeased I grew militant she smacked me, told me to behave. God I love her!

 

You should tell her it's her face she's smacking. 

 

There is another saying

 

"You can choose to be right or  be happy but you cannot be happy and right at the same time"

 

The link

https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-tells-canada-to-release-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-or-face-severe-consequences

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by windwalker

[windwalker]

16 hours ago, Aetherous said:

 

I dig the quote, but what's the solution?

 

gives some solutions and outlines the problem

 

 

[Pilgrim]

On 12/8/2018 at 11:05 PM, windwalker said:

 

You should tell her it's her face she's smacking. 

 

There is another saying

 

"You can choose to be right or  be happy but you cannot be happy and right at the same time"

 

The link

https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-tells-canada-to-release-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou-or-face-severe-consequences

 

No it was our souls, waking me to be a better man. She is so much better than I at being a human being, I need more time in the oven of compassion and tolerance. She is more fully baked and very good bread.

[ilumairen]

On 12/8/2018 at 2:18 PM, ralis said:

In response to Trump’s incessant need for a wall in which there will be no funding beginning 1-3-19. 

 

Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man. ~ Gen. George S. Patton

 

Perhaps this illustrates the point of the quote?

 

https://apnews.com/d4defb351a1e4b5982688b07d8bb9958

 

The wall seems little more than a hindrance that can be circumvented.

[ilumairen]

As campaign finance law is pertinent to the recent plea made by Michael Cohen, it would be appropriate to discuss here. 

 

Personally, I've done little to no research on the subject, and it isn't where my interests lie.

Edited December 10, 2018 by ilumairen

[dawei]

9 hours ago, ilumairen said:

As campaign finance law is pertinent to the recent plea made by Michael Cohen, it would be appropriate to discuss here. 

 

Personally, I've done little to no research on the subject, and it isn't where my interests lie.

 

There is a simple comparison:

 

Obama 2008 Campaign violation fine due to $1.8 billion... one of the high civil fines assessed of $375,000

Biden 2008 Campaign violation fine due to $2 million.   Required to pay civil fines of $219,000

Trump 2016 pays hush money of $130,000...  Screams that this is criminal and requires jail time.

 

 

 

[Apech]

On 12/9/2018 at 2:05 AM, Pilgrim said:

Great points Apple with there banning causing issues with tumbler causing tumbler to ban sexualy related material in order to remain in their App Store.

 

The thing that gets me here is Cook Apples CEO’s Abject Hypocracy an Open LGBT proponent of the 🏳️‍🌈 community and now  Q whatever that is,  and a self proclaimed homosexual man himself.

 

Makes me think he is a hypocrite satisfying his conservative stock holders.

 

Google working with the chinease govt on censorship, Facebook a complete farce with its privacy buttons etc... all of this stuff will come under regulation as these tech giants are like and nigh into sovereign nation states now affecting everyone’s lives in ways that were never imagined by the founding fathers and mothers of any nation.

 

Apple has always been 'pure' if you stay within its own online 'world'.  So I'm not shocked that Apple banned Tumblr for having porn etc.  What has that got to do with Tim Cook being gay?  (Q stands for queer I think).

 

It seems that some of the payment providers like Visa and Mastercard are insisting on this 'ethical' stuff - as in Patreon and also Paypal banning Milo, McGinnis and others - which is a political move of course - but at the same time they got rid of porn providers.

 

On the face of it some of this may seem ok - not wanting kids to see porn for instance - but the problem underlying it is the question of who decides what is ok and what is not.  There are only three choices as far as I can see.  The tech companies, the individual or the government.  Most people I think would favour individual responsibility - and for kids parental control of some kind.  Government regulation could be objective (?) but probably not and only increases the level of control by the 'elite'.  Tech companies deciding what you can and can't see and hear is in my opinion the worst choice.  They are unaccountable, work as a cartel, biased and more importantly can be co-opted by government towards particular aims.  Corporations under the heel of government is actually a core definition of fascism!

 

It seems with its legislation the US has opted for making social media sites responsible for content which makes them de facto censors.  Now you can argue that they are private corporations and can do what they want - but that only works in a free market where there are competitors.  Where there is a virtual monopoly then it doesn't work - because people have no choice.  Google particularly and to a slightly lesser extent FB and Twitter are monopolies.  But when Patreon, Apple, Google and so on conspire to act together as they did with Alex Jones then users have no choice but to protest and abandon using their stuff.

[Pilgrim]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

What has that got to do with Tim Cook being gay? 

Oh nothing other than abject hypocrisy,  when Cook and Apple made the decision to make a big deal out of it years ago. Honestly I could care less and do not understand why they had to spew their opinions in the first place. I mean really who cares anymore anyway?  

 

The problem with it is Mega Corps deciding what is politically correct and what is acceptable, what is moral, what is forbidden.

 

Let us not forget it was not so terribly long ago that the entire LGBT and now Q ( I looked it up and was shocked that a derogatory term was now ok)   would have been considered an abomination and forbidden. 

 

 It is the parents job to watch over their children and all Apple products have the ability to limit what children can do and there have been net nanny programs for other platforms as well  for the last 15 years.

 

We must never cede our rights to the mega corps nor allow them to dictate our morality let alone raise our children. 

 

So hypocrisy and mega corp social interference / engineering is what I am against.

 

Besides that since Steve Jobs passed away his successor has constantly raised prices and cut features making the products more cheaply built and have purposely made them difficult to service as well,  to the point where the value is no longer what it once was.

 

I work in the industry and have done so for a very long time now and have seen many Apple hardware failures. There is nothing special about Apple Hardware whatsoever at all nor is their operating system as secure as they would have people believe. As a matter of fact getting ready to reload MAC OS today for a client, Their iMac is chock full of Malware.

 

As a further aside do not rely on Solid State Hard Drives as being more bullet proof than the older mechanical counterparts I am seeing more and more failures as they become more and more in use. Backup, Backup, Backup and pray you do not have to replace on in an overpriced Apple Product.

[dawei]

Stumbled across this list, reviewing the year of Laws and E.O.'s signed.  In chronology order starting from the bottom:

 

All the Laws and Executive Orders Trump Has Signed So Far

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pggbpz/all-the-laws-and-executive-orders-trump-has-signed-so-far

 

 

[dawei]

Mueller rebukes Flynn, who 'chose' to make false statements to FBI

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/421448-mueller-rebukes-flynn-who-chose-to-make-false-statements-to-fbi

 

They wrote that the agents “did not provide General Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement” under federal law and cited an FBI report stating the agents did so "because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport." The attorneys also noted an agent described Flynn as “unguarded” and viewing “the FBI agents as allies" in the interview...."He does not need to be warned it is a crime to lie to federal agents to know the importance of telling them the truth.”

 

Memo: FBI recommended Michael Flynn not have lawyer present during interview, did not warn of false statement consequences

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/memo-fbi-recommended-michael-flynn-not-have-lawyer-present-during-interview-did-not-warn-of-false-statement-consequences

 

McCabe, by his own account, urged Flynn to talk to the agents alone, without a lawyer present.

 

[dawei]

Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/texas-aca-lawsuit/index.html

 

Quote

A federal judge in Texas said on Friday that the Affordable Care Act's individual coverage mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the law must also fall.

 

"The Court ... declares the Individual Mandate ... unconstitutional," District Judge Reed O'Connor wrote in his decision. "Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA ... are inseverable and therefore invalid."  

 

 

In 2012:

 

Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law, 5-4, in Victory for Obama
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html

 

Quote

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

At the same time, the court rejected the argument that the administration had pressed most vigorously in support of the law, that its individual mandate was justified by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The vote was again 5 to 4, but in this instance Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s four more conservative members were in agreement. 

and in 2015:

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-upholds-obamacare-subsidies#57928

 

Quote

In a major victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the 6.4 million people who receive health insurance through the federal government’s exchange are still legally eligible for tax subsidies to help pay for the insurance, in effect saving the law. 

maybe 3 times the charm... or not...

[ilumairen]

13 hours ago, dawei said:

Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/texas-aca-lawsuit/index.html

 

 

From the linked article:

 

Quote

The Republican coalition, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, is arguing that the change rendered the mandate itself unconstitutional. The states say that the voiding of the penalty, which takes effect next year, removes the legal underpinning the Supreme Court relied upon when it upheld the law in 2012 under Congress' tax power.

 

This answers my curiosity about how a federal judge could rule against what was upheld by the Supreme Court. 

 

It's interesting that simply removing the penalty for not having insurance is enough to possibly render the ACA unconstitutional. 

[dawei]

23 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

From the linked article:

 

 

This answers my curiosity about how a federal judge could rule against what was upheld by the Supreme Court. 

 

It's interesting that simply removing the penalty for not having insurance is enough to possibly render the ACA unconstitutional. 

 

It will be curious where this goes.  Their entire basis for doing this was flawed yet they forced it on the entire population.    Had they really thought this through, they would of realized they are only helping the poor and should of created a program specifically for that, based on income levels.  They would still be some fraud going on but it would be better than the "lie of the year". 

[Pilgrim]

1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

 

From the linked article:

 

 

This answers my curiosity about how a federal judge could rule against what was upheld by the Supreme Court. 

 

It's interesting that simply removing the penalty for not having insurance is enough to possibly render the ACA unconstitutional. 

The whole thing was pushed through to satisfy the Insurance companies, Mandating citizens buy health insurance or the IRS will charge you is a mafia strong arm tactic. 

 

They used to call it a protection racket, where a shop keeper got a visit from the enforcers (IRS) and you either coughed up the dough or got beat up.

 

For that matter income tax is not constitutional either so here we have a really fouled up thing.

[dawei]

Comey is railing on Flynn that 'he lied'... and he didn't need his miranda rights read to him... he didn't need a lawyer.  Compare to how they questioned H.C.  She was armed with lawyers. 

 

He is incredibly deceitful to suggest all of that.   The FBI said he did not lie.  Only the special prosecutor got him to make a plea agreement to plead guilty to lie to something [that he did not lie about].  Comey knows this game and is playing everyone. 

[windwalker]

On 12/16/2018 at 1:09 AM, dawei said:

Had they really thought this through, they would of realized they are only helping the poor and should of created a program specifically for that, based on income levels.

 

 

most programs for the poor, only help keep the poor, poor..dependent on more government programs...

Its the way gov. controls the voting blocks that vote for it.....

 

people like free stuff, as long as they dont understand who is really paying for it.

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by windwalker

[redcairo]

On 12/8/2018 at 1:18 PM, ralis said:

In response to Trump’s incessant need for a wall in which there will be no funding beginning 1-3-19. 

 

Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man. ~ Gen. George S. Patton

 

Are you sure Patton was not referring to active COMBAT fortifications as opposed to national borders?

 

Edited: I hadn't yet seen all the posts that followed, so, never mind. :-)

 

RC

 

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by redcairo

[redcairo]

Illegal immigrants: using ICE's own numbers, reading the government docs a couple years ago it might have been, I had to conclude that there were probably more like 40 million illegals in country. That does NOT count that there would also have been at least ten million of their children(sss) and grandchildren(sssss), but they would be legal.

 

Ann Coulter who is obsessed with the topic believes there's about 50 million. She's an attorney with a good brain and a lot of study on it so I'm tempted to think she's right-er than me. (Literally and figuratively lol.)

 

So PragerU's video talking about dealing with the 11 million illegals might seem a bit different when the number is basically 1/6 to 1/8 your entire population. However, his point that you can't just get rid of 11 million people, is 5x as true for 50 million. He's right about what has to be done except I would add "and voter ID" to his list.

 

RC

[dawei]

1 hour ago, redcairo said:

Illegal immigrants: using ICE's own numbers, reading the government docs a couple years ago it might have been, I had to conclude that there were probably more like 40 million illegals in country. That does NOT count that there would also have been at least ten million of their children(sss) and grandchildren(sssss), but they would be legal.

 

Ann Coulter who is obsessed with the topic believes there's about 50 million. She's an attorney with a good brain and a lot of study on it so I'm tempted to think she's right-er than me. (Literally and figuratively lol.)

 

So PragerU's video talking about dealing with the 11 million illegals might seem a bit different when the number is basically 1/6 to 1/8 your entire population. However, his point that you can't just get rid of 11 million people, is 5x as true for 50 million. He's right about what has to be done except I would add "and voter ID" to his list.

 

RC

 

This and so many others issues have had a blind eye turned to them for such a long time... budgets come to mind too...  Its reckless to run a country without knowing that cutbacks are required; you cannot just run in a straight line of spending and ignoring.   

[dawei]

I kind of wonder if the Syria draw down means pilots are on notice ?  

[redcairo]

Well, I'm hoping "better late than never" on this one -- and maybe this is not the best or only approach -- but it's a start. This should have happened two years ago.

Spoiler

https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398676

 

Gohmert Introduces Bill That Removes Liability Protections for Social Media Companies That Use Algorithms to Hide, Promote, or Filter User Content

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) released the following statement regarding the introduction his bill, H.R.7363, that amends section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934:  

 

“Social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google are now among the largest and most powerful companies in the world. More and more people are turning to a social media platform for news than ever before, arguably making these companies more powerful than traditional media outlets. Yet, social media companies enjoy special legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, protections not shared by other media. Instead of acting like the neutral platforms they claim to be in order obtain their immunity, these companies have turned Section 230 into a license to potentially defraud and defame with impunity.”

 

“Representatives of social media companies have testified in Congressional hearings that they do not discriminate against or filter out conservative voices on their platforms. But for all their reassurances, the disturbing trend continues unabated. Employees from some of these companies have communicated their disgust for conservatives and discussed ways to use social media platforms and algorithms to silence and prevent income to conservatives.”

 

“In one hearing, one of the internet social media executives indicated a desire to be treated like Fox News. Fox News does not have their immunity and this bill will fulfill that unwitting request. Since there still appears to be no sincere effort to stop this disconcerting behavior, it is time for social media companies to be liable for any biased and unethical impropriety of their employees as any other media company. If these companies want to continue to act like a biased medium and publish their own agendas to the detriment of others, they need to be held accountable.” 

 

 

Tort lawyers: a whole new world is about to open up

 

RC