Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 464  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 05, 2022, 07:06:52 PM »
this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie.

Did you even bother to read through your link?

The author says that the matter is unclear. The author only points out that the law on nuclear secrets doesn't specifically give the president blanket power to declassify. The law does not specifically prohibit the existing declassification powers of the president. The law doesn't talk about it.

"there are shitloads of regulations regarding declassification that ostensibly apply to everybody, but the degree to which executive authority mitigates this has yet to be tested in court" is a very far cry from your false assertion that "the courts can't convict trump because there are no declassification standards that bind the president."

maybe you should have bothered to read the next paragraph:

Unlike National Defense Information, the procedures for identifying and declassifying Restricted Data are defined in statute, not in executive order.

Yes, and in regards to Restricted Data that document also says:

For Restricted Data, the power of the president to declassify is even less clear.

It goes on to say that the Atomic Energy statute neither grants or prohibits the president from using his powers to declassify but the author thinks it prohibits it because of an unsaid "Congressional intent".

This is not a "easily falsifiable lie"; the material you quoted says that the matter is vague and unclear and relies on a specious legal argument on what the author thinks Congress intended.

If it is not spelled out that the president is prohibited from using his declassification powers on certain material it is a bad argument which does not clearly determine the matter.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 04, 2022, 03:08:29 PM »
this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie.

Did you even bother to read through your link?

The author says that the matter is unclear. The author only points out that the law on nuclear secrets doesn't specifically give the president blanket power to declassify. The law does not specifically prohibit the existing declassification powers of the president. The law doesn't talk about it.

So can Trump declassify nuclear secrets?


For Restricted Data, the power of the president to declassify is even less clear. The updated version of the Atomic Energy Act that is currently on the books has detailed descriptions of how to remove information from the Restricted Data category. That process is initiated by the Department of Energy (as successor to the Atomic Energy Commission), not the president. The only explicit role the president has in this process is that if the Department of Energy and Department of Defense disagree on whether something should be declassified, the president acts as the tie-breaker. The president is given other explicit powers regarding Restricted Data, like the ability to direct the Department of Defense to share it with allied nations under certain circumstances (like planning for mutual defense, such as with NATO), but not declassification. The fact that the law does not explicitly give presidents the power to blanket declassify things, but does give them a role in declassification and other matters regarding Restricted Data, suggests that Congress’s intent was not to allow the president to declassify Restricted Data at will.

The author speculates on what "Congress's intent" was in the law not giving or specifically spelling out prohibitions on the president's power to declassify. The author admits that the law does not impose any specific inhabitation on presidential powers.

The author says that the law specifies a role for the president on acting as a tie breaker between two agencies when one of those agencies want to declassify something, but this is not a prohibition on existing presidential powers to say that the president's powers are otherwise limited.

The argument that because the president's existing declassification powers are not mentioned or controlled, that they must be because  of an unsaid intent, is pure speculation based on what a law does not bother to prohibit. This is an incredibly weak argument to say the least, and the author concedes that the matter is not clear.

An argument based on what a law does not prohibit isn't going to go anywhere. Laws must be specific. That argument would likely be thrown out for a number of reasons, such the Supreme Court's void-for-vagueness doctrine:

    "The void-for-vagueness doctrine dictates that unduly vague penal statutes will be considered void based on due process principles. The U.S. Supreme Court has grounded the doctrine in two rationales. First, vague penal statutes fail to inform the ordinary person of what is proscribed, thereby violating an essential aspect of due process: the requirement of fair notice. Second, vague penal statutes violate separation-of-powers and rule-of-law principles inherent in due process by delegating legislative authority to other actors in the criminal justice system: police, prosecutors, judges, and juries."

Since the author admits that the matter is unclear, the author therefore thinks the matter is vague.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 04, 2022, 08:28:29 AM »
The difference between Hillary and Trump is that Hillary wasn't President and couldn't declassify documents with a word or a thought like the President could. There are no written checks or procedures on the President's power to declassify. This is why the courts will never convict Trump of this. There are no written presidential regulations and no standard to follow.

Hillary, on the other hand, knew that she had classified documents on her private server and knew that she was breaking the law.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 04, 2022, 02:38:09 AM »
"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government, '' Trump said in August 2016. "In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information," he said in September 2016.
Speaking in July of that year, Trump said Clinton's mishandling "disqualifies" her from public service.

"Any government employee who engaged in this kind of behavior would be barred from handling classified information," Trump said. "Again, that alone disqualifies her."

"That is the most confidential stuff," Trump said. "Classified. That's classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that."

"He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted," one Trump tweet in April 2018 said, with another saying Comey should be in jail.

And on, and on, and on.

But yeah, you can't really go to jail for being a hypocrite. Like everything else, I agree, he'll slither out of this, a few patsies will take the fall and we'll be back to business as usual with a run-up to his 2024 nomination.

All of those quotes are dependent of of these materials being classified and the something improper being done here. Those materials may not be classified.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 03, 2022, 05:37:25 PM »
Again, rather than speculating about what was and wasn't unclassified, and how it was secured, and what you think is and is not legal, how about you simply refrain from speaking on this topic until something actually happens.

Since you know that the situation isn't that you haven't just been ignorant of laws and repeatedly wrong for the last seven years you have been predicting his demise, and since you know that he is obviously done for this time, you clearly just need to wait for it to happen and for your superior intellect to be proven true.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 02, 2022, 06:23:15 AM »
According to the leftist narrative this is over the 100th time Trump was supposed to have been sentenced to years of prison since 2016. Every couple of weeks there has been a declaration by the left that Trump is done for. How about you stop embarrassing yourselves and only post again when it actually happens.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 01, 2022, 01:52:11 PM »
There's a reason why.

Yes, and the reason is that it is a waste of time to talk about this because it is clear that that none of this is going anywhere.

    Donald Trump's office told Just the News on Friday that the classified materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate were declassified under a "standing order" while he was president that allowed him to take sensitive materials to the White House residence at night to keep working.

    The official statement is likely to become the focus of the president's legal defense as the FBI and Biden Justice Department investigate whether he stole records covered under the Presidential Records Act or mishandled classified materials under the Espionage Act, allegations included in a search warrant released by a federal court in Florida on Friday.

    The president's defense is rooted in the legal principal that the president and vice president are the ultimate declassifying authority of the U.S. government and through executive orders most recently issued in 2003 by George W. Bush and Barack Obama in 2009 that specifically exempt the president and vice president from having to follow the stringent declassification procedures every other federal agency and official must follow.

    Trump has maintained for weeks that any documents still containing classified markings in his possession after he left office were previously declassified. On Friday night, the statement issued to Just the News explained exactly how that declassification occurred in his mind.

    The very fact that these documents were present at Mar-a-Lago means they couldn’t have been classified," the former president's office stated. "As we can all relate to, everyone ends up having to bring home their work from time to time. American presidents are no different. President Trump, in order to prepare for work the next day, often took documents including classified documents from the Oval Office to the residence.

    "He had a standing order that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken into the residence were deemed to be declassified," the statement added. "The power to classify and declassify documents rests solely with the President of the United States. The idea that some paper-pushing bureaucrat, with classification authority delegated BY THE PRESIDENT, needs to approve of declassification is absurd."

    Two former senior aides who worked for Trump in the latter half of his term said they were aware that Trump routinely took documents to the residence rather than return them to the Staff Secretary or the intelligence official who provided them. Asked whether there was a standing order, one former official "I don't know anyone or anything that disputes that."

    Ordinarily, documents declassified by a president are later retrieved and marked declassified, usually by crossing a line through the prior classification markings. But former top aides to prior presidents acknowledged the president's power to declassify was absolute and at times resulted in instant declassification decisions.

    One prior administration official related an instance where his boss, while talking to a foreign leader, gave top-secret information to the leader, declassifying simply by sharing what he had seen in a top-secret marked document. Another official related an instance he witnessed in which a president, during a meeting, received a top secret document  and one official got up to leave because his clearance was only at the secret level.

    "The president instantly approved that staffer to stay and consume the top-secret intelligence because it benefited the president's work at that moment," the person told Just the News.

    The president's detractors in Congress, the DOJ, and the intelligence community are likely to contest the president's arguments. But officials familiar with national security law said courts generally have held the president's power to declassify is far-reaching and that the process for how that happens can be more happenstance, something the Bush and Obama executive orders from 2003 and 2009 made clear.

    Obama's executive order no. 13526, issued in 2009, laid out the stringent process all federal officials and agencies needed to follow for declassification, but explicitly exempted the sitting president and vice president from having to follow those procedures.

     "Information originated by the incumbent President or the incumbent Vice President; the incumbent President’s White House Staff or the incumbent Vice President’s Staff; committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section," the Obama order stated.

    Officials said it is likely the FBI will seek to find any officials or witnesses who knew or can confirm there was a "standing order" as described by the Trump statement. But in the end, officials said the president's declassification powers were sweeping and likely would be viewed as such by the courts.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 01, 2022, 12:50:00 AM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 26, 2022, 07:02:36 PM »
It sounds more like the leftists in the government are trying to cover up their crimes:

    When news of the Mar-a-Lago documents began heating up in May 2022, Patel spoke with right-wing media outlets about Trump’s objectives in retaining these documents. He began laying out the defense that the documents had been “declassified,” and specifically identified Trump’s goal to release the information publicly. He described the content of the documents to include matters related to the FBI’s Russia investigation (Crossfire Hurricane), but also a much broader range of issues.

    “It’s information that Trump felt spoke to matters regarding everything from Russiagate to the Ukraine impeachment fiasco to major national security matters of great public importance — anything the president felt the American people had a right to know is in there and more,” Patel told Breitbart on May 5. He also said, “Trump declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government that he thought the American public should have the right to read themselves.”

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: August 26, 2022, 05:00:19 PM »

Quote from: stack
How do you think that's enforced? How do you think that is punished?

Yes, because all women in history have refrained from impropriety due to criminal punishment and not because they were raised with certain standards.  ::)

Define "whorish" behavior. Wearing hi-heels and nail polish? (Btw, punishment for those "violations" is anywhere from a public beating to stoning...Apparently, you seem ok with that)

What sort of public display of sexualization are you referring to?

If you want to talk about something off topic to Monkeypox I would recommend taking it to the appropriate thread.

Quote from: stack
Not so fast, the same magazine you cited has an opposing article:

Yet they also published an article calling HIV a gay disease. They clearly don't think that concept is absolutely homophobic if they are publishing that.

Quote from: stack
And here's the point you're missing, which the quote above from your HIV magazine points out: Anyone can get MP, not just gay people. Monkey Pox is agnostic to race, creed, and sexual orientation.

Incorrect. It is clearly not agnostic because 98% are homosexual. If it affected everyone equally it would be distributed differently among homosexual and heterosexual alike.

Quote from: stack
98% is certainly a high percentage. But 2% are not gay.

2% is also a pretty common error rate. Those people may have had sexual interactions with people who were bisexual, despite considering themselves as straight, or they were just one of the rare people with low immunity or functional differences who received transmission elsewise. It is clear that homosexual activity the primary vector of this disease and the primary way it is spread.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: August 25, 2022, 08:48:06 AM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: August 25, 2022, 08:45:34 AM »

Apparently just calling Monkeypox a disease that primarily affects gay men is "homophobia":

    "When the WHO published a Twitter thread which stated that the virus is mostly affecting men who have sex with men (MSM – an umbrella term designed to include people who don’t identify as gay or bisexual), this prompted an immediate, widespread and furious backlash. Thousands of people chimed in to accuse the organisation of homophobia, suggesting that its efforts to name the most at-risk group constituted an effort to “blame” gay men, in line with a rising tide of anti-LGBTQ+ violence."

It is pretty sad that radicalists like Rama Set and stack are unable to accept reality and can't have a rational discussion without decrying every perceived statement as homophobia, and can't discuss the content of a Monkeypox video without bringing up irrelevant statements like the video author has said positive statements in favor of nationalism in the past - the promotion of their country. 

This was stack's ridiculous defense, and why he doesn't want to discuss the content of the Monkeypox video.

Quote from: stack
So you’re for the Taliban’s criminalization of homosexuality? As well as the punishment? No fault with that?

Did I say that specifically? No. I also said that I saw a benefit to the lack of whorish behavior by women in Taliban culture but also saw a problem with the abuse of women. It is pretty absurd to read that and assume that I would approve of all kinds of abuse because I saw positives elsewhere of a society which doesn't openly promote or display sexualiztion to the public. That also has nothing to do with Monkeypox.

Quote from: ohplease
You brought up the morals of the Taliban.

Yes, in the Taliban thread.

What percent would it take for you to no longer consider it a gay disease?

If HIV Magazine considers HIV a gay disease because places in America have 65 or 75% of HIV cases involving homosexuals, Monkeypox is certainly a gay disease at 98%.

I would consider it not to be a gay disease if it affected that community more along line with their distribution by percentage among the public and wasn't wildly disproportional.

"was wrong"?  We're talking about what is going on NOW in Afghanistan.  It also is not just "some things are bad" but it is EXTREMELY bad for HALF the population.  So much so that they are killing themselves in record numbers.  Even if things were great for the other half (men), which they are not, nothing can counter the horror show the Taliban have inflicted on women.

The same could be said about American prisons or many other places abuse occurs. But both the abuse of women in Afghanistan and the abuse of prisoners in America are irrelevant to the thread topic of Monkeypox.

Quote from:  ohplease
How can allowing all the points that have been well documented be described as "strong morals"?  That's rather like saying that besides the fact that the patient died, the operation was a success.

I agreed that abuse of women was wrong. It is wrong to say that an entire culture has no other possible redeeming qualities because some things are bad, however.

Quote from: stack
The Taliban is not ok with this, but are you ok with this?:

Image Title - Two Gay Men Kissing

I don't care if they kiss.

That might not fly in Muslim countries though, for reasons other than or in addition to having to do with homosexuality specifically.

    Can I kiss my wife in public Islam?

    No because Islam does not allow to kiss your wives in public because Islam is neat and clean religion and it stops from every wrong work even then it is drinking, drugs and trying abusive language e.t.c. And Islam invites people to itselves and displays a right way.

Egregious kissing in public is already considered improper.

Quote from: ohplease
I wonder if you really think that represents what is going on today in Afghanistan or if this is just more trolling.  There are numerous reports on this, here is one (emphasis mine):

You cited a bunch of things about the abuse of women. That's literally the first criticism I had:

"Aside from the treatment of women as a culture, I don't see many faults with them otherwise."

The abuse isn't good. But they do appear to have strong morals. You have failed to show how the things I mentioned in the positive are actually bad.

Quote from: stack
I really don't give a shit about the video. Some alt-right nationalist nazi saying we must label moneybox as a "gay disease" means nothing and is pointless and certainly divisive for no logical reason. It's just a dog whistle for the likes of you.

Actually she shows how and why it is a gay disease. You have so far avoided discussion of the video content.

Quote from: stack
So gays shouldn't be allowed to hold hands in public? Can breeders hold hands in public? What about kiss or hug?

Brothers hug and there are situations where men do kiss outside of homosexuality. A father might kiss his son. Men also kiss in some cultures as a form of handshake. I don't see why those acts alone would be a flagrant assault on the public.

There is quite a difference between that and a concerted effort to influence other people, such as a teacher having young children read books which advocate that crossdressing is fabulous.

That just says that they don't openly display it. That is not a statement that I believe that being gay is immoral or should be hated. Asking you to keep your sexual desires and bedroom preferences to yourself is not bigotry. Many cultures keep their sexuality to themselves and go as far as to regard any type of flagrant sexual advocacy as improper. A number of cultures eschew displays of heterosexual female sexuality that is prevalent in western culture. I also mentioned the absence of overt female sluttiness as a benefit in Taliban culture in that bullet list.

In China it is legal to be gay, but illegal to promote homosexual ideology in popular entertainment. This is because they believe that people have the right to avoid it. As well, there are strict limits on sexualization in media, heterosexuality included. Religion is also treated this way. Religion is allowed in religious venues but banned elsewhere. In China people have a right to avoid religion.

While these ideals and rights are admirable, none of this has anything to do with Monkeypox or the question of whether Monkeypox is a gay disease. You have abandoned discussion of the video we were talking about.

You linked me to an amateur leftist website. It's not neutral.

You linked me to an amateur alt-right nationalist video. It's not neutral.

The Monkeypox video isn't about nationalism. Nationalism is also irrelevant to the question of whether Monkeypox is a gay disease. It appears that you have no argument against the video content and have to argue reasons for why you don't need to address it. If you have to argue for why you don't need to argue it is a sign that you lost the argument.

You are unable to address the content and must argue about things other than the video. This is an amazingly clear demonstration that you have no defense at all.

Not falsities. Intentional deceptions.

You have been unable to demonstrate any deceptions which were made in the Monkeypox video.

Quote from: Rama Set
No one here said that they thought that gays should be "hated", or were "the enemy" or were "immoral".

You haven’t in this thread, true. Just other threads.

Wrong. I have never said that gays should be hated or were the enemy or were immoral. It is apparent that you have to argue by lying, as you have little else.

Quote from: Rama Set
You are making up your own arguments and insults because you lack the capacity for a legitimate argument on this topic Incorrect. I am basing my arguements on directly observing your bigotry. Look out your window, etc… I then went on to criticize “gay disease” for not being a medical term and not useful because it is a poor description of the disease’s scope. Please, try and keep up and ask questions if you don’t understand. It’s how you improve yourself.

You were forced to call the medical community homophobic because they originally named AIDS the “Gay-Related Infectious Disease”. You were also forced to praise homosexual advocates for calling HIV a gay disease while simultaneously claiming that it's a homophobic slur. In this conversation it is clear that you are arguing based on your personal feelings and not much else. Your arguments have flopped like a dying fish on concrete.

I did have something to say about it: it’s creator is a known liar, a shitty “journalist” and not a medical expert. It’s not worth the bytes it’s encoded on.

The creator has hundreds of videos. It is possible that there could be falsities in there somewhere. But this would be irrelevant to whether there are falsities in the Monkeypox video. You were asked to talk about the content of the Monkeypox video and you, again, want to talk about some other video. This once again shows your position to be unsatisfactory.

Quote from: Rama Set
If a known liar tells me something is true, I am justifiably skeptical and do not need to engage with them.

I don't see that she is a "known liar". You have failed to demonstrate that at all. You are refusing to even address the content of the Monkeypox video or to point out its lies.

Quote from: Rama Set
They are advocating, in a utilitarian way, for a strategy that will force people, bigots like you, to pay attention to the health issues facing the community affected most by Monkeypox. How does that mean that bigots aren’t using it to minimize the same community?

We can see by your continuous insults that you do not have a legitimate argument. It appears that your main argument is insults and accusations, which is particularly poor of you.

The article itself does not argue that people merely need to pay more attention, it argues that the strategy of denying that HIV was a gay disease did not work and as a consequence the gay community is still the primary vector of the disease.

    “Unfortunately, the unexpected impact or effect of that de-gaying strategy was that the federal government was very happy to pay attention and focus resources on women and kids,” he says. “But the attitude was still that gay men could sort of fend for themselves.”

    At that point, he says, the national LGBT organizations which participated in the NORA coalition, felt their part in addressing the epidemic was over, and could “move on to issues that affect the rest of us, marriage equality in particular, and that just dominated the political discourse for quite some time. Until today I would say.”

    This happened at time when two-thirds of people living with HIV in the U.S. were gay or bisexual men; just as it is today, he points out.

    Despite AIDS having “built” the movement, Androite argues, the movement stopped working on HIV.

    “But the organized movement kind of strayed away from the very thing that had built them to use their new resources and clout to push a really different agenda that served the needs of — I would argue — a sliver of the community they purport to represent,” he says. “And they didn’t really do anything helpful for the gay men and bisexual men…of color who are now most impacted by HIV but who also are not big contributors of these organizations.”

    Androite argues that his reporting finds that LGBT organizations have surrendered the fight against HIV. He notes that it is no longer on the national agenda.  He points to the 2006 controversial publicity move by the LA Gay and Lesbian Community Center to draw attention to the crisis. They put up billboards declaring “HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it.” The backlash from the community was fierce, The Los Angeles Times reported.

    Despite the statistical reality that 75 percent of the cases in Los Angeles county at the time were in men who have sex with men, various HIV organizations condemned the campaign as getting in the way of getting various risk groups tested.

    “There is a level of ignorance about the impact of the epidemic in our own community,” he says. “I would blame the LGBT organizations for that ignorance. It’s kind of like they don’t have it on their agenda: Why? It affects their constituency."

Quote from: Rama Set
It’s still absolutely telling that instead of wanting the most accurate and helpful description of the disease you have instead chosen to label it using a group that you have in the past labeled as immoral and disgusting.

But you don’t care because you hate gay people and want to alienate them and make them the enemy.

No one here said that they thought that gays should be "hated", or were "the enemy" or were "immoral". You are making up your own arguments and insults because you lack the capacity for a legitimate argument on this topic and tend to base your political and societal positions on emotion.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 464  Next >