Recent Posts

Show posts from buddies only

Kansas remains one of the saner safe R states, somehow.

Kansas and much of the plains states has had a longer, and more " respected " republican tradition going back to the 1930s. They didn't become republican suddenly after 1964 like the South.

But remember, they still had segregation throughout much of the state: Brown vs. Board of Education was a case from Topeka.  Even "integrated" public schools, like the one the famous photographer Gordon Parks went to in the 1920's, did not let Blacks participate in sports or take advanced academic classes.

Are you planning on letting Casey Anthony babysit your kids?

Are you planning on making a relevant point?

I don't know, you seem to think anyone the court doesn't find guilty is innocent, like Casey.

Casey, like OJ Simpson, disputes the actual facts that the prosecution alleged in her case. Rittenhouse did not dispute any of the facts the prosecution in his case alleged. He merely asserted an affirmative defense (a legal term that you can google if you want to learn more). This is difficult to explain to a layperson, but it essentially means that the facts of Rittenhouse's conduct were never in question; what was in question was whether his response was reasonable in that context to defend himself. So again, the comparison makes no sense.

Again: Would you like to address the actual subject of this conversation, or would you rather bring up whataboutisms that aren't even applicable to this case?

Does Israel have the ability to intercept anything that could be a nuclear weapon? Or a nearby ally like Saudi?

Israeli missile defense is pretty clearly the best in the world, but they cannot intercept with a 100% guaranteed success rate currently - if ever.

And even if they thought they could intercept with 100% success rate, a single error could mean that a hypothetical nuke could get through. 0 errors, ever, is a tall ask.

An additional thing to consider is that the missiles Iran fired at Israel a week or so ago were shorter range/intermediate range ballistic missiles. Those have relatively low flight trajectories (not going as far into space) and fly relatively slowly compared to intercontinental ballistic missiles, or hypersonic missiles, so that also means they are easier to intercept. If Iran had the same ICBMs that the USA or Russia have for example, and fired those at Israel, the interception rate would have been lower.

Also, if Iran were to fire a large enough number of missiles, they could simply overwhelm the missile defense in numerical terms. This is the main problem with missile defense in general.

And again, remember that 10 of the relatively worse missiles that Iran did fire at Israel did not in fact get intercepted.

I’m at very least hopeful that Iran cares enough about self-preservation to not use nuclear weapons. If they do that then they’re just inviting a nuclear attack on them whether from Israel or another ally.

Good, terrorism shouldn’t be rewarded with statehood. They can wait longer until everyone understands terrorism isn’t acceptable.

Frankly, there should never be Palestinian statehood. Palestinians should accept equal rights under Israeli sovereignty, excluding Gaza, which can be an independent city-state after it promises not to attack Israel.

Thankfully, the people of Palestine, and the rest of world, don't care for the opinions of some bloodthirsty teenager, and will continue the struggle for self-determination.

This is a great example of one reason why I am so extremely proud to be an American. This vote reminds me of the vote against declaring food a right, in that the US and Israel stood together both then and now against an evil but (in that body) popular cause for the benefit of humanity.

Astaghfirallah, do you even hear the nonsense coming out your mouth?

Does Israel have the ability to intercept anything that could be a nuclear weapon? Or a nearby ally like Saudi?

Israeli missile defense is pretty clearly the best in the world, but they cannot intercept with a 100% guaranteed success rate currently - if ever.

And even if they thought they could intercept with 100% success rate, a single error could mean that a hypothetical nuke could get through. 0 errors, ever, is a tall ask.

An additional thing to consider is that the missiles Iran fired at Israel a week or so ago were shorter range/intermediate range ballistic missiles. Those have relatively low flight trajectories (not going as far into space) and fly relatively slowly compared to intercontinental ballistic missiles, or hypersonic missiles, so that also means they are easier to intercept. If Iran had the same ICBMs that the USA or Russia have for example, and fired those at Israel, the interception rate would have been lower.

Also, if Iran were to fire a large enough number of missiles, they could simply overwhelm the missile defense in numerical terms. This is the main problem with missile defense in general.

And again, remember that 10 of the relatively worse missiles that Iran did fire at Israel did not in fact get intercepted.

Remember, New Guinea was Dutch:

https://allthatsinteresting.com/johan-de-witt

"The Brutal End Of Dutchman Johan de Witt, Who Was Torn Apart And Eaten By His Own People"

How is it Protestantism they don't hold to Sola fide or Sola scriptura, They belive there the one true church.
Talked to some mormons last month and they say that the apostles in salt lake city have the ability to change doctirens, like the belief that the decendents of jews made it to amerika before columbus. They don't hold to that anymore. They them self did not identify as Protestant.
Neither are there Christians even tho they claim it. As they belive that one self can become God and that God and man are of the same essens.

Yeah, absolutely nobody with any knowledge of denominations considers Mormons to be Protestants, period.

Biden did in 2020, Trump does this time around

How legal is it even?

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

What this means is in addition to hitting 270 Congress would need to approve it. If Congress did though I don't see any problems. Plenty of interstate compacts already exist.

Is it just a simple majority? If a Dem congress approves it could an R one undo that?

Not sure if there's any precedent here, the article doesn't state if it can be repealed and I don't know if any such compact has been attempted to by Congress.

Current precedential situation is pretty much this:

Yes, obviously [the NPVIC is constitutional]. The Electors Clause very clearly permits the states to award their EVs "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," & under the Virginia v. Tennessee precedent, Congress' approval of the compact wouldn't even be required because awarding EVs is a power that's expressly & exclusively granted solely to the states under the Constitution (but of course, that still won't stop Republicans with ulterior motives & incentive to block the NPVIC from arguing in bad-faith that Congress' approval is required anyway).

Except it isn’t quite that simple.  A state can only choose electors in a way that also complies with all other provisions of the US Constitution.  Some of these are obvious, like a state couldn’t choose electors based on an election in which only men could vote. 

But in this case, I think the biggest potential barrier would be the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted in Bush v. Gore.  The precedential value of Bush v. Gore is pretty murky, but it could definitely be interpreted as saying that electors could only be chosen based on a national election if every state used an essentially identical election process.

Pancreatic cancer is a bitch. Rest in Peace.