Buelldozer

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

They aren't imbeciles. They are pursuing their objectives in ways that are inconsistent with US Law and tradition and when they run into trouble they obfuscate as much as possible to forestall the consequences.

As an example read the court filing from Joshua Fisher (pdf warning). If you read 3 & 4 carefully you'll come to the understanding that Musk is a SGE of the WHO with the Job Title "Senior Advisor".

Then you run into #6 where the text turns itself inside out trying to explain that the US DOGE Service Temporary Organization is under the umbrella of the US DOGE Service which is separate from the White House Office (that employs Musk) but the US DOGE Service is still a component of the Executive...which Musk works for.

Once you are done bending your noggin' around all of that you are probably too tired and confused to ask the most important question. If Musk isn't in charge of DOGE then who is?

We all know it's Musk but they can't say that nor can answer the question with someone else's name because then the jig would be up and they'd be hosed. They need it to be Musk for popularity reasons but they also need it to not be anyone at all so that no one can be held responsible.

They know what they're doing. Don't assume for a single second that they don't. You aren't seeing stupidity, at least not on this, you are seeing methodical, planned, and deliberate attempts to confuse the issue in order to escape consequences and oversight.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 28 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Religious nuts.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 67 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Whelp, he's toast. The last Prez to threaten that got domed while visiting Texas.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

“Outlawry” was applied to people who refused to submit to the legal process in the US.

The concept of an "outlaw" goes at least as far back as ancient Rome and was used in England until something like 1869. It held on in Scotland as part of Civil Law until somewhere in the 1940s. It was also present in France, Germany, and several Nordic countries.

This isn't just a US thing.

there is no legal process to submit to because they aren’t subject to US law to begin with.

Yes...because they are "Outside the Law". An Outlaw is neither subject to nor protected by the law.

It's that last part that so many people in here are missing. If the Elongated Muskrat were declared an "outlaw" you could kick in his front door, drag him out of bed, load him onto a catapult and fire him into the sun and the legal apparatus would not, nay could not, do anything about it.

People need to understand how deeply that "no legal process to submit to" goes. The "outlaw" isn't subject to the law but neither is anyone else as it relates to them.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

My understanding is that outlaws were still subject to the law in the UK ...

English Common Law had the "writ of outlawry" and the subject was deprived of all legal rights, being outside the "law", but others could kill him on sight as if he were a wolf or other wild animal.

There's a pretty good Wikipedia Article for this.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago

If so, any white supremacist or government agency could commit any atrocity and not get convicted, because the victim wasn’t protected by any laws.

Ding ding ding! You got it!

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago

Sure, and also no one to protect them if / when they're caught.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

If these people are not under the jurisdiction of the US then we have no legal right to deport them as they aren’t subject to our laws.

No.

Outlaws, people literally outside the law, have no legal protections at all. Taken to its limit this means that deportation is not necessary as they could simply be executed where they are found.

This is why being declared an outlaw was such a big fucking deal back when that word wasn't just a synonym for "criminal". You could be executed in broad daylight by the first person that found you and there would be no repercussions.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 15 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Well then by that logic all illegal immigrants arent under any US jurisdiction.

Honestly that is the original meaning of the word "outlaw"; iIt literally meant someone who was outside the law. Today we most use it as a synonym for "criminal" or "law breaker" but at the time the Constitution was written or at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified most people would have understood it with its original meaning.

"Outlaws" were neither subject to nor protected by the law. They had no legal status nor standing in the law.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

will straight up admit I didn’t understand a fuckin word Lamar said on stage

Closed Captions are your friend. KL writes excellent lyrics that are relevant to who he is and where he comes from.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It denotes me as an admin. I wish it wouldn't.

 

The U.S. House of Representatives has one voting member for every 747,000 or so Americans. That’s by far the highest population-to-representative ratio among a peer group of industrialized democracies, and the highest it’s been in U.S. history.

 

Radically expanding the House of Representatives would help solve some of the biggest problems facing Congress and, by extension, the country.

 

The next step in my HA journey is adding cameras; indoor, outdoor, and doorbell so I've been exploring my options. I had originally intended to do a Frigate setup, I even have a Coral module and PC to do it with, but then I discovered Reolink.

Without having any experience with them they look nearly ideal. They seem to have tight integration with HA 2023.3 or later and their pricing and functionality look good.

They seem like a no brainer but I've noticed that they're often NOT the first recommendation in the HA Community. Why is that and why shouldn't I use them?

 

UDMP is running UniFi OS 3.1.16 and I need a specific VPN configuration that StrongSwan supports but isn't possible to do in the GUI. Three years ago the files I need were located in /run/strongswan/ipsec.d/tunnels/ but they are no longer there. Does anyone know where they live now -or- how to edit a VPN config outside of the GUI?

view more: ‹ prev next ›