terminalshort

My "plan" is don't make big long term plans

The doesn't cause acid rain version is called "clean" and that seems pretty fair to me when the other version causes acid rain.

Smart people know that you can't predict or plan for anything on anywhere close to that time horizon. The only plan is be adaptable.

Depends on the mutation, but it could be as little as 1. A single mutation could turn the virus inert, therefore making it legal.

So you agree that you should also not ever benefit from anything that a president you didn't vote for did, right?

Nobody at any serious company asks retarded questions like that or expects retarded answers like that.

Because it's the government they voted in. Typical American take. Wanting no responsibility for the adverse effects of your decision.

Didn't happen

The fact that Iran has now launched missiles at civilian areas in a dozen or so countries unrelated to the war shows that this is clearly false.

Yeah, things change. What do you propose to do about that? The only people who lose are the ones who can't accept that they may need to change careers to make more money.

To use your example of someone working on the plumbing of an accounts payable system, who is passionate about that? The supply is near zero. That, like most jobs, is going to need to be done entirely by people who are just doing it for the money, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Your example runs counter to the laws of supply and demand too. You understand that wages will rise when supply is restricted, but you don't want to accept that supply will respond to the price signal in the form of more people entering that job market.

The mall cop much more so than the ICC

Yes, the US and not just the presidency. If it was just the presidency then he would have been impeached by congress for usurping their constitutional authority.

They have the power to enforce laws

If you and I, the president, congress, and the judiciary agree, then yes, and that's kind of the situation regarding the laws around starting a war.

No it's not and neither is Afroman's statement. But the comment I was replying to said it was a fair statement, not merely that it is not defamatory.

That's exactly correct. Laws are not a physical entity and therefore their existence is predicated entirely on collective agreement.

Of course it's not defamation. But that's not what you said. You said "seems fair"

Of course I can. He even uses the same trick of not calling it a "war"

Congress made its mistake a long time ago. Power is very difficult to reclaim once it has been relinquished. And it didn't even take a Caesar crossing the Rubicon in our case.

It isn't obeyed or enforced and, therefore, is not the law. I won't read it as there is no point in doing so because it is not the law.

It's been the established president since the Korean War when the US began ignoring the constitutional provision that gave congress the power to declare war. Additional examples are the Vietnam War, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq I & II, the Libyan regime change, and the current Iran conflict, and there are plenty more. The written law still states that the president does not have this power, but the actual unwritten law has been that he can. And that is the only law that matters.

Add what you like. I can't possibly take anyone who uses the term "climate denier" seriously.

You can't be an agent without realizing it and you don't get to call me silly when you list having a foreign wife as evidence that someone is a foreign agent.

You are naive for assuming that the government aren't the bad guys with guns. Just ask the 30,000 Iranian protesters that were slaughtered if you don't believe me.

US law, which is the only relevant law to discuss the actions of the president of the US.

I care less about what the UN says is legal than I do the local traffic cop

Sounds kinda like why they founded the League of Nations

That sounds great! In the US the phrase you used "mailed to my sthlm address" would never mean anything other than physically sending a paper bill to your house.

The laws of human behavior are certainly less fundamental to the iniverse than the laws of physics, but, since we are humans, they are equally as binding on us.