Previous 21 - 30 Next
The implication of the column is missing. At least 1 currently sitting supreme court justice buy's into this silliness as does the entire democratic party. I want a law or constitutional amendment prohibiting further promelgation of this nonsense.
In response to:

Net Neutrality

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Sep 15, 2014 1:49 PM
Government, with it's typical lack of technical understanding, also threaten the viability of ISPs by inadvertently prohibiting traffic shaping by service. The explosion in volume of video threatens to squeeze out lower bandwidth traffic. Prohibiting providers from assigning (and protecting) differenty flavors of data bits ... potentially against the law of any Net Neutrality legislation ... can have catastrophic unintended consequences.
In response to:

Net Neutrality

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Sep 15, 2014 1:34 PM
It's all about free market billing practices and no business of government. Providers had transitioned to flat rate billing, internet as well as telecommunications, as capacity expanded to meet expected public demand. Video (and similarly torrenting) has blown the lid off consumer traffic profiles. The results in providers imposing capacity quotas. A transition away from flat rate billing would do the same. Let the free market deal with it and lawmakers are not welcome.
If we declare war, we could arrest any citizens trying to return from working with isis on charges of treason. They won't need passports if executed as traitors.
But words DO have legal meaning. If we go to war I'd presume any Americans fighting for the enemy would be subject to arrest and charged with treason should they ever attempt returning to the USA. These are the questions that are left hanging when they decline to be specific about the use of the word. The question must be answered.
In the name of our armed forces we cannot permit this man to be their commander in chief.
I strongly believe that a president that cannot recognize who our enemy is cannot be PERMITTED to be commander of our armed forces. Our fight against our enemies will only begin when we have a qualified commander.
In response to:

Favors and Loot for Sale

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 3:50 PM
Between the passage of the Terms of Nobility amendment and it's ratification (should you suggest no expiration on the ratification process), what DOES change is the number of states required for ratification. While the US Constitution originally comprised only 13, today there are 50. It'd take a lot more than VA's ratification today ... unless one tried to claim that VA's original ratification during the War of 1812 can be substantiated ... back when VA's vote would have been sufficient.
In response to:

Favors and Loot for Sale

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 3:43 PM
Almost correct ... there ARE actually TWO 13th Amendments. The original was called the TERMS OF NOBILITY amendment. But it wasn't lost during the Civil War ... it was the War of 1812. It wasn't actually lost ... it was actually the ratification results that are disputed to have been lost. Both sides have evidence suggesting it was, or was not ratified. The government says it wasn't, so during Civil War reconstruction they counted the reconstruction era amendments as starting at 13.
In response to:

Favors and Loot for Sale

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 3:39 PM
"Of course, a better solution is for Congress to obey our Constitution." So, essentially there is NO solution.
In response to:

Things I Don't Understand

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Sep 03, 2014 1:32 AM
The explanation of these mysteries is quite simple -- catch 22
Previous 21 - 30 Next