Posts by OneWingedShark

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Solar power is growing so fast that older energy companies are trying to stop it

    09/30/2014 11:33:46 PM PDT · 58 of 62
    OneWingedShark to RightOnTheBorder
    The government and greens are happy to push solar precisely because it doesn’t work (at least not cost effectively).

    I did some napkin calculations years back and came to the conclusion that solar cells would have to be about 80% efficient to really be cost-effective. (Initial price, maintenance, cell-lifetime, etc.)
    It's probably a little on the high side.

    The funny thing is that if “everyone” starts installing solar power the pricing will come down on everything related including batteries. Once that happens solar could actually be a viable replacement for grid power. What then would the fedscum and greens do to stop it?

    The same thing they always do: add more regulations.
    Probably requiring certified technicians to do any work at all on them, at the very least.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 11:13:59 PM PDT · 115 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ansel12
    So you are going to get on Cruz threads to promote him as the right choice for our presidential candidate?

    Let me put it for you clearly:
    (1) If he's constitutionally ineligible, then he's not the right choice for presidential candidate — regardless of his ability or virtue.
    (2) I'm not convinced that he is Constitutionally eligible.
    (3) Therefore I cannot, in good conscience, promote him for president.

    This says nothing about his ability, virtue, competency or anything else. It is solely a matter of the Constitution.
    In any case, I think he'd be better on the Supreme Court than in the White House.

  • These may be the only F-22’s Achilles’ heels in a dogfight against 4th gen fighter jets

    09/30/2014 11:04:03 PM PDT · 34 of 34
    OneWingedShark to laplata
    We need to build many more.

    Exactly — but as another poster said, the F-22 was iced because the F-35 was more profitable… and I would be surprised if the F-35 wasn't planned obsolescence. (After all, how much will the government pay to 'update' the F-35 so that it works?)

  • Ted Cruz finds a core of support among social conservatives frustrated with GOP

    09/30/2014 10:40:40 PM PDT · 48 of 49
    OneWingedShark to DoughtyOne

    Possibly; though I do hate pushing things into the federal arena when it is properly handled at the State level.
    (I think that THAT is what has contributed to the idea of the federal government being superior to the States [in all things].)

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 10:37:57 PM PDT · 114 of 116
    OneWingedShark to csivils; rxsid
    If you are going through logic 101, then he who asserts must prove. You raised the concern about Ted’s eligibility... but have no proof. The burden is on you.

    I raised concerns; I did not assert.
    Therefore, I may not have to prove. (That is if P -> Q and ~P, then Q may or may not be true; ex: If it rains, then you are wet. It did not rain. [You could still be wet from, say, sprinklers.] )

    The quote you provided did not support your stance, and in fact wasn’t even the current version of the law (which also does not support your stance).
    So again... what support do you offer for your position?

    My personal position, right now, is that legally-speaking Natural Born Citizen is, at this point, essentially undefined. I think that legally-speaking we cannot get a clear answer form the courts, in part because to do so would damage the position of the elites. (I'm fairly sure Obama isn't a NBC, I strongly suspect McCain isn't, and I have some doubts as to Romney — in short, I think the `08 and `12 presidential elections were engineered to give precedent to ignoring/destroying the NBC requirement.) As I've said, repeatedly, the definition I proffered is the strictest [reasonable] one I've found, not necessarily what I think is the correct definition. (It would, for example, disqualify children of ambassadors — obviously absurd.)

    As for support of the strict definition, how about John Bingham, the Father of the 14th Amendment?

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 9:28:54 PM PDT · 109 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ansel12
    Like I said, we breathlessly await your brilliant legal arguments against Cruz.

    I hope they are better than this petty nonsense you are posting today.

    Do you even listen to what people say to you?
    None of my "arguments" have been against Cruz.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 8:58:10 PM PDT · 107 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ansel12
    Well, we breathlessly await your brilliant legal arguments against Cruz.

    Pull your head out of your ass — I respect and like Mr. Cruz, but that is no cause for me to abandon concern that the Constitution be followed.
    Besides, you yourself have shown that you are immune to brilliant legal argument as you dismiss anything that doesn't 100% agree with you (we've all seen you on War on Drugs threads).

  • Ebola May Infect Earth's Entire Population by December 1, 2015; 50-75% Fatal

    09/30/2014 8:04:49 PM PDT · 28 of 77
    OneWingedShark to JennysCool

    Exactly the point I was driving at.

  • Ebola May Infect Earth's Entire Population by December 1, 2015; 50-75% Fatal

    09/30/2014 7:57:31 PM PDT · 23 of 77
    OneWingedShark to UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
    …so why aren't the Oh, no! The Earth is overpopulated!-types dancing with joy?
  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 7:56:20 PM PDT · 104 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ansel12
    You do respect private ownership don’t you?

    I do.

    JR doesn’t want you to troll it here but I think he is OK with you doing it elsewhere.

    Who's trolling -- I'm not, I think it's a valid concern.
    And who says that I have to agree with everything that the proprietor/authority thinks… isn't that rather frowned on here when a teacher does it WRT anthropogenic global warming, evolution, or any number of topics? — Or do you mean to imply that Mr. Robinson is intolerant on differences of opinion in the realm of civics?

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 7:33:39 PM PDT · 102 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ansel12
    Yes, I have narrowed it down to a single individual on freerepublic, Jim Robinson, he considers it already resolved.

    From appeal to popularity to appeal to authority in one move.

  • Do you pack weeks ahead for a long trip.. Or wait until the last minute?

    09/30/2014 7:26:24 PM PDT · 65 of 96
    OneWingedShark to NormsRevenge

    I’d recommend travel light.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 7:19:03 PM PDT · 99 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ansel12
    I didn’t say anything about popular acceptance, I said freerepublic.

    It's still an appeal to popularity, you are merely restricting the population you are considering.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 7:18:16 PM PDT · 98 of 116
    OneWingedShark to csivils
    Cruz is eligible, If you don’t want to vote for him.... well, bye.

    I didn't say I didn't want to vote for him, I said that I want to be sure he is eligible.

    The law and decisions were made pretty clear over the last several years. I may not agree with how the courts landed on the issue, but I’m not going to hold to some mythical standard just because.

    No, they weren't; courts punting all cases regarding the question out because of lack of standing offers no resolution, even if you accept the courts as non-corrupt (which evidence like NSA and ObamaCare rulings distinctly point against) — There are a few USSC cases that have some relevance, but I've not examined them closely.

    If you are going to get high and mighty and invoke the rule of law, then you need to back it up with equally lofty sources such as law or court decisions.

    How about The Naturalization Act of 1790, which says:

    children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.
    The pluralization of "parent" indicates two parents, not one; though there is the problem that this is a normal act of congress, not a constitutional amendment and cannot therefore [re]define the terms in the Constitution.
  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 6:01:19 PM PDT · 96 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ansel12
    Popular acceptance does not indicate the right of the thing.

    A bad idea embraced by thousands is still a bad idea.
    — Chinese proverb.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 5:03:01 PM PDT · 93 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ansel12
    I don’t remember obamacare passing muster at freerepublic., Cruz has.

    Obamacare was deemed to have passed in Congress; many people here were upset about it.
    If you fail to see the similarity in the we deem-arguments, that's your problem.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 4:48:57 PM PDT · 90 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ansel12
    Well keep it to yourself, it is already decided here and we have other aspects of the Cruz candidacy and the republican primary to discuss and analyze.

    Ah, so it's been deemed to pass muster?
    Kinda like Obamacare was deemed passed?

    I'm sorry, but if the law means anything it must apply especially when it is inconvenient.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 3:20:19 PM PDT · 80 of 116
    OneWingedShark to DoodleDawg

    >> Which is why I gave you that info-link.
    >
    > All of which I’ve seen before.

    It’s an interesting argument.

    >> Well, there’s a third state here: “Not a Citizen”.
    >
    > Are you suggesting Cruz is not a citizen? If not, then on what basis is he a naturalized citizen?

    No; don’t be an idiot — I was remarking that there’s more than just “naturalized citizen” and “natural born citizen” that has to be considered.

    >> The fourteenth amendment clearly muddies the water: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
    >
    > True, but irrelevant. If Cruz had been born in the U.S. then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    Probably.

    >> This is an act of the legislature, and therefore confers/institutes citizenship — which can only be done to naturalized citizens.
    >
    > So then everyone born in the U.S. since the ratification of the 14th Amendment is a naturalized citizen? Who knew?

    There’s interesting legal consequences if that is answered ‘yes’.
    I’m not entirely certain — especially since the 14th Amendment wasn’t properly/Constitutionally ratified:
    http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html
    http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

    >> At the “crazy end” of reasoning this obliterates Natural Born citizenship, making all naturalized citizens; but it certainly isn’t unreasonable to examine the issue — especially since the elites are working so hard on destroying the requirements set forth in the Constitution.
    >
    > Nobody is disuputing the requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen. What is in dispute is this crazy concept that the definition of natural-born citizen is some sort of unwritten law. It is entirely the province of Congress to determine who is a natural born citizen. Since they are empowered by the Constitution with creating uniform laws of naturalization it stands to reason that they need to define who needs to be naturalized and who does not.

    But if Congress gets to decide who is natural-born and who is not, what’s to stop them from declaring that only them and their elite families are natural born citizens? — Such a power would utterly undermine the intent of the founders to keep from having a nobility.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 3:09:26 PM PDT · 79 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ansel12
    I hope you are not going to waste our time trolling on all of the Cruz threads.

    I certainly don't intend to; I really like Cruz, but the issue is not "settled beyond question" in my mind -- I have no intention of voting in a manner that would undermine the Constitution (if I had really known about McCain's situation in 2008, I likely would not have voted for him).

    In short, I want to have a clear conscience rather than beating myself up about contributing to its degradation.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 10:32:49 AM PDT · 70 of 116
    OneWingedShark to DoodleDawg

    >> Given the Constitution IS the highest law, itself.
    >
    > But the Constitution does not define what a natural born citizen is.

    Which is why I gave you that info-link.

    > The Constitution also identifies only two forms of citizenship; natural born and naturalized. If you are not one then obviously you are the other.

    Well, there’s a third state here: “Not a Citizen”.

    > Ted Cruz is not a naturalized citizen so therefore he is a natural born citizen.

    The fourteenth amendment clearly muddies the water:
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    This is an act of the legislature, and therefore confers/institutes citizenship — which can only be done to naturalized citizens.
    At the “crazy end” of reasoning this obliterates Natural Born citizenship, making all naturalized citizens; but it certainly isn’t unreasonable to examine the issue — especially since the elites are working so hard on destroying the requirements set forth in the Constitution.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 10:24:35 AM PDT · 69 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ObozoMustGo2012; ansel12

    Yeah, I was looking up Mitt Romney, not George. My mistake.

  • Ted Cruz finds a core of support among social conservatives frustrated with GOP

    09/30/2014 9:55:45 AM PDT · 39 of 49
    OneWingedShark to DoughtyOne
    Is it possible to be a ‘fiscal only’ Conservative?

    Yes, in the Federal arena, at least.
    You see, if the federal government were to stick to the Constitution there'd only be like five or six federal agencies (Army, Navy, Post Office, State dept., Dept. of Transportation, and the IRS.)

    Virtually all the social issues are properly the purview of the States under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 9:42:12 AM PDT · 63 of 116
    OneWingedShark to DoodleDawg

    >> ... so I don’t think he does qualify with the NBC-clause.
    >
    > Based on what law?

    Given the Constitution IS the highest law, itself.

    The strictest definition I’ve seen is “Born to two US Citizens in the US” — I’m not sure that the “in the US” is a good qualifier, as that would exclude, say, children of Ambassadors if their kids are born in that foreign country, and the Constitution’s residency requirement could be taken in support of that being an excessive/extraneous requirement, but [as stated] that’s the strictest definition I’ve seen. (The two US citizen parentage is, IMO, perfectly reasonable and seems in-line with the concerns of the Presidency falling to someone with foreign allegiances.)

    Info Link: http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 9:27:32 AM PDT · 61 of 116
    OneWingedShark to ansel12

    > John McCain was born in Panama,

    And given some of the resolutions that congress put forth, I’m pretty sure that the McCain/Obama election was put in place to set up a precedent against the Natural Born Citizen requirement.

    > George Romney was born in Mexico.

    I checked Wikipedia, it says that he was born in Detroit, but his father was born in Mexico (and that might have consequences for the strictest definition of NBC that I’ve seen: born in the US to two US citizens)... so that might have been setting up more precedent.

    From what we’ve seen with Fast & Furious, the NSA’s domestic espionage, the IRS’s political targeting, the War on Drugs, and much more it is fair to say that the Republican party has as vested an interest in destroying the Constitution as does the Democrat party... and, in fact, things become a LOT clearer when you disregard the parties and look at it in terms of privileged-elite and peons.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 9:20:49 AM PDT · 57 of 116
    OneWingedShark to kevkrom

    >> 1) He wasn’t born in this country.
    >
    > But he is still a citizen by birth, which is the only definition of “natural born citizen” that has any legal weight.

    He was born in Canada and his father became a naturalized citizen in 2005... so I don’t think he does qualify with the NBC-clause.

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 9:18:53 AM PDT · 55 of 116
    OneWingedShark to SoConPubbie
    >> 1) He wasn’t born in this country.
    >> 2) He is only a freshman senator.
    >
    > Neither of which have anything to do with him having the capability of being a great President.

    The Natural Born Citizen Clause?

  • Why Ted Cruz Could Win in 2016

    09/30/2014 9:17:33 AM PDT · 54 of 116
    OneWingedShark to LUV W
    I pray that he does win!!

    He hasn't announced his bid for president, has he? And if he did, I'm not sure that it'd be a good thing; according to the info I've seen he was born in Canada and his father didn't become a naturalized citizen until 2005 — so I don't think that Mr. Cruz qualifies under the Natural Born Citizen clause. (I think the McCain/Obama election was put forward to establish precedent for ignoring the NBC-clause; Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico [to American citizens] so I'm unsure of his [and therefore Mitt's] status under the strictest NBC definitions I've seen.)

    We need him so badly!

    I agree; but, honestly, I think he'd do better on the USSC — I have virtually no respect for that institution because of the people and decisions it's put forth, and that needs to change. (GONZALES V. RAICH, KELO V. NEW LONDON, and KENTUCKY v. KING spring immediately to mind.)

  • A rare Second Amendment exemption from federal ban on felons possessing guns

    09/29/2014 9:36:48 PM PDT · 12 of 14
    OneWingedShark to yefragetuwrabrumuy
    1) If someone committed a federal felony, at least on the surface it is clear cut that they could be denied their rights as a natural extension of their conviction.

    I would argue that it does not — for if one is to serve one's sentence, then one has paid their debt to the law. To have a perpetual debt (that of firearms, voting, etc) is to assert that the person can never pay that debt and institutes a second class of citizen: one's whose rights have been converted to privileges, granted by the magnanimosity of the state.

  • A rare Second Amendment exemption from federal ban on felons possessing guns

    09/29/2014 9:27:00 PM PDT · 11 of 14
    OneWingedShark to Smokin' Joe
    Just because something has been around a "long" time, does not mean it is right.
    It hasn't been so long that the rear pickup windows at the local high schools were adorned with rifle racks, generally full.

    Or, we could go the other way: slavery has been the rule, not the exception, for the vast majority of human civilization over its recorded history — if it's been around a long time is an adequate justification then it justifies the [re]institution of slavery.

  • Republicans do conservatism a disservice by running on nothing

    09/29/2014 8:33:35 PM PDT · 26 of 33
    OneWingedShark to rockinqsranch

    One of the problems, besides the redefining, is that you can legitimately use it to refer to keeping the status quo.

  • Back to the Source: Why FOSS is More Important Than Ever

    09/29/2014 7:18:01 AM PDT · 12 of 14
    OneWingedShark to Wyrd bið ful aræd
    >> "The Oatmeal has the best take on this in I Tried To Watch the Game of Thrones and This is What Happened."

    > Some people get it in their heads that they're somehow entitled to watch "Game of Thrones." If the distributors only make it available on one platform, one that you don't want to use, that's their purview.

    > Nobody has the right to watch "Game of Thrones," and not being able to find it on a platform you prefer to use is not a valid excuse to steal it.

    The item used as an example (I Tried To Watch the Game of Thrones and This is What Happened) is about how none of the sources/distributors were making it available even when the person was ready, willing and able to pay for it. (And from the context of the pictures he would have been content to do streaming or DVD/BluRay Disc — he wanted to buy the show itself, not have to but a subscription to HBO [and get cable, too]; so I don't think it's quite fair to say that the platform was the issue.)

    I'm not saying that stealing is ok, but it's a good illustration of how easy it is for a company/producer to shoot themselves in the foot with DRM (or, more generally, by making it impossible to legitimately get ahold of the desired product).

  • GOP cautions that Senate control would have limits

    09/28/2014 9:15:37 PM PDT · 115 of 132
    OneWingedShark to Dave W
    Silly response, but the I expected that.

    Howso?

    That is how Obama sold himself. One of constitutional government, transparency and fiscal responsibility. Therefore, if you take him at his word, Obama meets your criteria.

    I never said I took him at his word; that's your own assumption.

    Hold your head in shame and I am serious about that. You owe all of us an apology for voting for Obama in 2012 and that is the effect of not voting for Romney.

    I will not apologize; I did not vote for Obama by not voting Romney.
    To claim that is to assert that my vote only counts when I give it in an approved manner.

    Don't you ever complain about anything Obama has done since 2012 because you are a direct cause of that. Voting for Obama has consequences.

    No!
    You are wrong.
    My not voting for Romney is not the same as voting for Obama — if you claim that it is so then you need to explain/prove why. Is it because the guy I voted for (Gary Johnson, my state's former gov) lost? If that's the case then everyone who voted Romney can't complain either because he lost too.

    You are so high and mighty. You should wear a button that reads "I am pure, so please congratulate me."

    That's funny.
    You're the one making claims about "purity" and about how people should just get over it and vote for people they loathe because they have the GOP stamp of approval. Funny how you go from Your "requirements" are so general almost anyone can win your vote to You are so high and mighty. You should wear a button that reads "I am pure, so please congratulate me." so quickly [two posts].

    So, which is it: am I too accepting [which disregards purity]? Or am I too demanding of purity?
    Make up your mind.

  • America’s Singleness Problem

    09/28/2014 9:01:24 PM PDT · 32 of 63
    OneWingedShark to freedumb2003
    I think married couples who both work is a cultural and societal aberration that should never be celebrated.
    Such couples sacrifice their children on the altar of selfishness.
    IOW: No surprise given such destructive “ideals” as “gay marriage” (which will soon translate to polygamy and polyandry).
    Thanks Gen Y and Millenials.

    Shouldn't you be thanking their parents who sacrificed them on that alter of selfishness?

  • America’s Singleness Problem

    09/28/2014 8:57:00 PM PDT · 31 of 63
    OneWingedShark to SeekAndFind
    One problem is how much misandry is in our society; if you're a man you can expect that the "male qualities" of jobs will be undervalued (which is where men tend to identify: with their job), it also shows how weighted the system is against them (think about divorce settlements), and lastly consider how it is when simply being a man is cause for concern (e.g. contrast your gut reaction on these two phrases: there's a strange man in the park watching the children and there's a strange woman in the park watching the children).
  • Microsoft Exec: Windows 9 to be Free for Windows 8 Users

    09/28/2014 8:19:51 PM PDT · 5 of 111
    OneWingedShark to dayglored

    Unless it’s a formally verified OS, I’m fine w/ 7.

  • GOP cautions that Senate control would have limits

    09/28/2014 4:52:34 PM PDT · 100 of 132
    OneWingedShark to Dave W
    Well. Your "requirements" are so general almost anyone can win your vote, so I have to assume you voted for Obama in 2008.

    Does he honor the Constitution? Does he espouse financial responsibility and accountability?
    No.

    But it's funny you bring 2008 up; to my shame I voted for McCain — at the time, though, I promised myself it would be the last time I ever "voted against" somebody. And you know what? In 2012 that promise kept me from pulling the lever for Romney (who is Obama's political clone).

    After all, he was all about following the law, being transparent and cutting our deficit in half. He came across as responsible, an expert on the constitution since he was a constitutional law professor (to this day, I get responses from two different folks, "Well, it must be OK since Obama taught the constitution.")

    Hey, given that (and what I now know about McCain) voting Obama in 2008 doesn't sound like too bad a deal. Sure, people were suckered, but [in hindsight] it's better than McCain's projected image.

    Try again.

    You know, I don't have to.
    You're the one saying that people are purists for not voting for the lesser of two evils (still an evil) — and then you dismiss my [reasonable] requirements as too general.

  • GOP cautions that Senate control would have limits

    09/28/2014 3:44:01 PM PDT · 88 of 132
    OneWingedShark to Dave W; Maceman; Olog-hai
    You know, it's funny that people who refuse to vote "against someone" are called purists; as if that's at all as comparable to desiring a candidate you can vote for.

    In my case the requirements are very few: honor and follow the Constitution, destroy (clean out) corruption, and push for responsible finances.
    Is that too much for a candidate? Does that make me a purist?

  • GOP cautions that Senate control would have limits

    09/28/2014 3:31:06 PM PDT · 83 of 132
    OneWingedShark to what's up; EricT.
    >>They didn’t do anything of lasting value back then, either
    >
    >Bush tax cuts?

    One huge problem with the tax cuts is that they were not due to reform, they were essentially the government "letting slide" a portion of the tax.
    This mentality is eerily close to that that considers all money [wealth] to be property of the government and you have the privileged of using it; also note that because the tax system wasn't changed they can at-will change it back — it is a gift.

    >Successful funding for WOT to keep us on offense?

    The War on Terror is terrible for the military; here's why: There is no Victory Condition.
    It is, however, a masterful work of propaganda — who wants to sit back when there's terrorism going on?

    >Partial birth abortion ban?

    IIUC, considering that all they have to do is not wait until the kid's being born to comply with it… yes.
    Little more than feel good legislation; that there was no further push for more restrictions on abortions you can't claim it was incrementalism.

    >No value?

    The GOP is all talk and no action; so, no, they are of no value.

  • American Legion demands name be removed from veterans park

    09/28/2014 2:09:12 PM PDT · 10 of 11
    OneWingedShark to Balding_Eagle
    Is that the problem here, or are you just trying to muddy the waters?

    I don't know — the article didn't mention it, but the guy's assertion for the qualifications certainly excludes KIA and MIA.

  • American Legion demands name be removed from veterans park

    09/28/2014 10:35:07 AM PDT · 3 of 11
    OneWingedShark to GrootheWanderer
    Only those who had served in the military and were honorably discharged were supposed to have a brick in the park. But at least one of the bricks contains the name of a man who was not honorably discharged, says Kendrick.

    What about KIA and MIA?
    Technically they weren't honorably discharged.

  • GOP Congressman Warns Of The Real Social Ill Destroying American Values: Marijuana

    09/26/2014 6:36:57 PM PDT · 8 of 163
    OneWingedShark to Mariner
    But let there be NO DOUBT, politically it's a losing issue. Marijuana will be legal nationwide within 10 years, or so many states will make it legal as to make any laws against unnoticed and unenforced.

    It should be a losing issue: you cannot support the war on drugs and honor the Constitution. Period.

  • Why We’re Talking About Mitt Romney

    09/26/2014 2:13:26 PM PDT · 11 of 91
    OneWingedShark to 2ndDivisionVet
    Why We’re Talking About Mitt Romney

    Because he's such a winner!
    (Just like 2012 showed.)

  • Dashboard video shows shooting of unarmed driver

    09/25/2014 10:48:54 AM PDT · 7 of 287
    OneWingedShark to redreno

    At the end of the vid: “seatbelt violation”

    :/

  • American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money

    09/24/2014 7:30:47 PM PDT · 26 of 39
    OneWingedShark to Fungi
    I often query my friends asking “name one thing that has gotten better during his presidency?” They cannot name one, but then again I must be talking to the wrong people.

    People have become more sensitive to [and aware of] the overreaches of the government (NSA, IRS, this confiscation).
    That is one thing that has gotten better.

  • Why 25% of Millennials Will Never Get Married

    09/24/2014 7:24:39 PM PDT · 6 of 45
    OneWingedShark to CodeToad

    I think the big one is feminism — nothing has destroyed femininity [or even the quality of graciousness] quite so well.

  • Hedge Fund Manager Kyle Bass: Unemployment Rate Is 'Rigged', Closer to 11%

    09/24/2014 3:01:41 PM PDT · 8 of 11
    OneWingedShark to MrB

    Really?
    I would have guessed it was closer to 25% than 11%.

  • Why I Want to Be Left Behind

    09/23/2014 1:15:13 PM PDT · 16 of 138
    OneWingedShark to fhayek
    There are a lot of mysteries here that need to be answered. The biggest one is why does Nicolas Cage continue to get starring roles in movies?

    So that Nostalgia Critic can do another Nicolas Cage Month.

  • Ben Carson: ‘Likelihood is strong’ I am running for president

    09/23/2014 9:31:09 AM PDT · 36 of 83
    OneWingedShark to Excellence

    > Personally, I’d rather see him at the Department of Education.

    Personally, I’d rather see the Department of Education utterly destroyed.

  • 500 Days After IRS Scandal Broke, Reporter Still Refuses To Pay His Taxes

    09/22/2014 8:04:28 PM PDT · 12 of 26
    OneWingedShark to markomalley

    Interesting.
    Another thing to consider is that Fast and Furious is technically state-sponsored terrorism... and there’s federal law prohibiting providing finances to such.
    Yet another, is that the NSA (and DOJ/FBI) are ignoring the 4th (and 5th, and possibly 6th) amendment; by rejecting the constraints that the Constitution places on the government, they reject the authority of the Constitution, and in so doing they also reject the very authority that gives them the power tax at all — IOW, there is some legal justification to saying “F—— Y—” when the government refuses to abide by the Constitution.

  • This Ted Cruz bill gives shocking new powers to ... Barack Obama?

    09/22/2014 5:14:36 PM PDT · 34 of 34
    OneWingedShark to Lazamataz
    Should this pass, the unintended consequences will be horrific. Democrats will quickly abuse this law. Soon, any crime the Democrats don't like (such as owning the wrong firearm) could make you an UnPerson. Remember, once you are no longer a citizen, you have no protection under the Bill of Rights.

    You, sir, are absolutely correct in this — except you are constraining the propensity to mischief too much: the Republicans would do the same.
    Once the elite have the ability to revoke your citizenship, and therefore exclude your vote, why should they continue their pretense of caring about you?