Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7168

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Fuck the Supreme Court.
Democracy does suck.
Supreme court is more of a political stance than a legal stance, as the justices are picked for a life tenure by the executive office.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7127|Canberra, AUS
Yeah that I find pretty bad. Sort of undermines the whole concept of the judicial arm of govt imo but what do I know
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7168

Spark wrote:

Yeah that I find pretty bad. Sort of undermines the whole concept of the judicial arm of govt imo but what do I know
In Brazil they have the same system, and the court is completely on the executive's side. FDR attempted "court packing" and selected judges who only agreed who supported his policies.

US supreme court system is extremely politically biased.

Last edited by Cybargs (2012-06-29 09:33:41)

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|6038

FDR wasn't able to pack the court. I think you should reread your intro to American politics textbook again.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7168

Macbeth wrote:

FDR wasn't able to pack the court. I think you should reread your intro to American politics textbook again.
attempted. bill was struck down in the senate.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|6038

Great googling skills.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7168

Macbeth wrote:

Great googling skills.
indeed
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,824|6558|eXtreme to the maX

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Fuck the Supreme Court.
Democracy does suck.
Supreme court is more of a political stance than a legal stance, as the justices are picked for a life tenure by the executive office.
But it shouldn't be.

In theory they just applied the law, It not my fault it fails.
Fuck Israel
rdx-fx
...
+955|7044
In theory, the Supreme Court applies logic and reason to determine if a case or law is within the boundaries of US Constitutional Law.

In practice, it's a bunch of old Executive Branch appointees voting according to their personal belief structure.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7142|Tampa Bay Florida
You can go back and forth until the end of time about how "politicized" the Supreme Court is.  It's the ultimate equalizer on the other two branchs and it's the legal nerve center required for democracy to function. 

What if the SCOTUS freed the slaves before Congress passed the amendments?  They'd have been responsible for starting a war.

It's simply impossible to separate "politics" from the equation when they're dealing with such fundamentally philosophical issues.  Conservatives think they just ruined the Constitution?  Oh, boo fucking hoo, they already ruled its legal for you to murder your baby and they single handedly picked the President in the 2000 election. 

Ya its not perfect but none of you could fix it for the better.  What Roberts did was the only thing he could do, tell people that it's not his courts job to determine policy and that they should elect different people if they think it's so horrible.  There was no way he would undo the most massive healthcare bill ever passed after it was already signed into law. 

Of course, maybe if you people want a "principled" court so much, you'd like Pakistan.  Their leaders can't even finish a term in office without getting ejected.

Last edited by Spearhead (2012-06-30 17:30:19)

Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7127|Canberra, AUS
yes because those are clearly the only two options
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,824|6558|eXtreme to the maX

rdx-fx wrote:

In practice, it's a bunch of old Executive Branch appointees voting according to their personal belief structure which political organisation they're part of and its dogma regardless of anything else.
There we go. You were nearly there.
Fuck Israel
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|7145
Anyone else upset about Timbuktu? I know there are more important things to  care about, but the destruction of ancient and sacred monuments and artifacts is particularly displeasing to me.    The world becomes less cool everyday.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6451|...
Yeah it sucks.
inane little opines
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7142|Tampa Bay Florida


Last edited by Spearhead (2012-07-02 08:57:33)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,824|6558|eXtreme to the maX
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon, trying to create a formal strategy to deter cyberattacks on the United States, plans to issue a new strategy soon declaring that a computer attack from a foreign nation can be considered an act of war that may result in a military response.

Several administration officials, in comments over the past two years, have suggested publicly that any American president could consider a variety of responses - economic sanctions, retaliatory cyberattacks or a military strike - if critical American computer systems were ever attacked.

The new military strategy, which emerged from several years of debate modeled on the 1950s effort in Washington to come up with a plan for deterring nuclear attacks, makes explicit that a cyberattack could be considered equivalent to a more traditional act of war. The Pentagon is declaring that any computer attack that threatens widespread civilian casualties - for example, by cutting off power supplies or bringing down hospitals and emergency-responder networks - could be treated as an act of aggression.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/us/po … cyber.html

Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

WASHINGTON - From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.

Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks - begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games - even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.

At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm's "escape," Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, considered whether America's most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran's nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised.

"Should we shut this thing down?" Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president's national security team who were in the room.

Told it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code, and offered evidence that it was still causing havoc, Mr. Obama decided that the cyberattacks should proceed. In the following weeks, the Natanz plant was hit by a newer version of the computer worm, and then another after that. The last of that series of attacks, a few weeks after Stuxnet was detected around the world, temporarily took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had spinning at the time to purify uranium.

This account of the American and Israeli effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear program is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world … wanted=all

So we're already in another US/Israeli-initiated war?

Great.

Or is it only an act of war to launch cyber-attacks against white countries?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-07-03 03:25:40)

Fuck Israel
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5841|Fuck this.
We've been prepping to attack Iran for months now. They just need an excuse.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,824|6558|eXtreme to the maX
Which is odd because they haven't made any moves to attack us.
Fuck Israel
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6451|...
You really are just taking the piss all the time aren't you?

Anyway I don't think a conventional war against Iran is the best of ideas.
inane little opines
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6863|'Murka

Nonsense...both articles.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|6038

I suddenly remember why I hate 4th of July so much. This white trash family was shooting off large fireworks in the street. I called the police since shooting large fireworks all over the place is fucking dangerous. The 911 operator told me people shooting fireworks isn't an emergency. After she hung up they shot another firework that went across the avenue towards the bar and hit the people there as well as a little Hispanic girl and her mother. I called the police again and they decided it was then an emergency.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5711|foggy bottom
snitch
Tu Stultus Es
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,824|6558|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Nonsense...both articles.
Nonsense
Fuck Israel
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5631|Sydney
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6897|The Land of Scott Walker
Misinterpretation of the proposal, but still silly idea that accomplishes nothing.  Wouldn't be a stretch, though, to say that some single parents may be more likely to freak out and abuse their children.  As a parent of two I know I'd definitely have more stress if I was single.  Just look at how some parents act towards their kids in public, in the grocery store for instance.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard