Which brings me back to the point that it wasn't a generational thing at all. It was an ideological thing. No generation lacks these bad examples.
The Organic Act of 1871 establishes the municipality of Washington DC as "part of the territory of the United States." It has no other meaning, and you haven't shown any.
So they reaffirmed the border. So what? They did award the San Juan islands to the U.S., which didn't happen in 1818, Since I happen to live here, it has meaning for me.
The 43 articles of the Washington Treaty of 1871 had nothing to do with the U.S. as a corporation (in the business sense of the word) and did not itself deal with resolution of border questions.
I can feel your huffing and puffing from here. Drink some cold water or something. You don't have a speck of evidence to support your brain fever. I almost expect you to claim the negotiators were reptillians.
Nothing to prove, especially by you, since you must not have read it.
What are you talking about? There is no reference to the United States being or declaring itself a "corporation." There is no reference to "renegotiate everything." This had to do with tidying up a number of things that had been left hanging in abeyance (there was no original negotiation). This was a pretty common necessity ever since the U.S. won its independence. (One of the outcomes of the subsequent negotiations was the adoption of the 49th parallel as the border between the U.S. and Canada, westward of a certain known point, and the determination of the ownership of the San Juan islands. This resulted in the unforeseen anomaly of Point Roberts, accessible only through Canada.)
This treaty only set up the framework for negotiations to occur in the future. No settlement negotiation occurred in this treaty, and it is NOT "proof that the renegotiation happened." You are so far off base, it is clear you don't understand it at all.
Any third party involved in the negotiations was part of a forthcoming event. This treaty only specified that there would be one, a supposedly neutral party acceptable to both the U.S. and Great Britain. Do you have any evidence that it was a representative of the Vatican? And what difference did it make to the matters to be discussed?
A "corporation" is any collective body having identity as a legal entity. The U.S., by virtue of its constitution is a "corporation" in that general sense. When municipalities are formed, they are "incorporated" as the City of Federal Way, or the City of Auburn. It has nothing in common with commercial corporations, which are creatures of government permission.
I didn't miss a damn thing, and I notice you have nothing to say about what I supposedly missed.
You have to realize that if any troops are sent by Biden, who have other things to do than be killed by Russians, their job will be to cover up these crimes and keep their lips zipped.
I have no doubt Russia is documenting all this and will provide it to the world when the smoke clears. Then the world can make up its own minds. I don't see any reason to indulge in anti-Russian prejudice at this point. So far, they have been reliable sources of information. The Ukrainians (and their U.S. handlers) have been nothing but a pack of liars and fraudsters. The trope of "Ukraine is winning!" is flagrant gaslighting.
Excellent analysis. It goes even deeper than race, however. There is a considerable tribal prejudice that enters the picture. My wife is Zambian, Zambia is starved for capital, and many Zambians have gone to South Africa to find work. They are willing to work, where the native South African blacks are not. And as a result, they progress and prosper...to the irritation and envy of the SA blacks, who are now including Zambians and other black "foreigners" in their Circle of Hate, as "taking away jobs that are ours." Well, the jobs would have been yours if you had hired up and worked at them, but the professor shows why this is not the case.
Somebody in another comment demurred from the hatred being self-hatred. "How can that be?" is the thought. But when you have an ALL-CONSUMING hatred, you lose all grip on reality, and do the things that also consume your own life (destroy surroundings, infrastructure, markets, and society). It is similar to the self-destruction of addiction, but people destroy themselves BECAUSE THEY WANT TO. This is psychological reality, and we don't make any progress in the matter if we don't recognize it.
No gaslight. You are doing just fine, dreaming up stuff. The strategy I was discussing was how to conduct nuclear war. You have now dragged in the notion of "deterrence," to which I can only repeat the saying of my mentor in the strategic defense business: "Deterrence works...until it doesn't." If deterrence does not work, you are left with the strategy of nuclear combat. And part of that is strategic defense. Deterrence no longer applies to a scenario where it fails, and you have to launch ICBMs, etc.
A technical strategy would be which, of several ways to do something, would be the "best" way...according to strictly technical performance measures. An operational strategy would be to rule out certain technical options as being characteristically unable to fulfill an operational requirement. That was the case in deciding to abandon radio command guidance (which worked just fine) for inertial guidance. Why allow any exterior signal into the system?
You are straining hard to separate alcohol and water. Just give it up. The amusing thing about all this is that if your fantasy came true and we had the putative ability to abort an ICBM flight, you run the interesting risk that it would not work. Reliability is an important operational characteristic. Are you aware that we typically assign two weapons to a strategic target, against the event that one weapon failed to reach it? So, your idea of a "precipice" entails a betting game that you can hit the "off" switch and that it would work.
Did you read the treaty? Prove me wrong. Distressingly typical response of a know-nothing: avoid the actual issue and cast an imprecation against the speaker.
Bad advice. You don't want that declared policy to show up in a court setting; it could seal your fate. It is also beside the point. Competent gun shooting instruction always advises to shoot and continue shooting until the perpetrator is on the ground. You don't need more than that. You don't actually need him dead; just incapable of any further threat.
Dragging a body inside is another bit of bad advice. You don't think the police can determine this has been done? It would be circumstantial evidence of pre-meditated alteration of the crime scene, another bad courtroom optic. Which would also make your wife an accomplice.
Get clarity on the grounds for lethal defense. One of which is that a known deadline is 10 feet from you---if the perp attempts to rush you (after being warned to stay away and that you are armed), it is a demonstrated fact that, at 10 feet, they can reach you faster than you can react to their rush. That is last ditch personal defense. Defense with a firearm is NOT a contact sport. Distance is your friend.
Depends on the pistol and the proficiency of the shooter. I was hesitant to try a .357 Magnum and went to the range, selecting a Ruger GP100 revolver. I was astonished at how tolerable the recoil was (having had prior experience with 9mm).
No such provision in the Washington Treaty of 1871. It's just a framework for how to negotiate settlement of outstanding disagreements regarding financial obligations and territorial claims.
In plain English, it is typical legal enumeration of "anyone covered by this agreement." If you are not part of the enumerated classes, you have no standing to make claims. No surprise.
There are two documents. The "Washington" Treaty of 1871, which this addresses. And the Organic Act of 1871 that deals with the formation of the present municipality of Washington D.C. They both occurred in 1871...and coincidences are a fact of life.
I scanned all 43 articles. You are correct. There is no sauce here for the whole subject of a "U.S. corporation" or any subjugation to the English crown or the Vatican. This is a closet that contains only bats and cobwebs.
No special twists of meaning when the entire subject matter of the treaty concerns debts, territory boundaries, and the appointment of commissioners to determine details. (I went through all 43 articles.)
I was going to say that, in the context of the Biden administration and the perversions of Hunter Biden, there was an ambiguity about the notion of "dealing blows."
Their favorite celebration day is Overween.
You may be right, though it would seem to me the evidence would be in plain language in the Act itself. Various "Organic Acts" had been passed in order to sort out the status, administration, and boundaries of new possessions, and territories such as Kentucky and Tennessee, and their statehood, and the secession of West Virginia, and the separation of Maine from Massachusetts. I suppose similar legislation would have been needed to accept Alaska and Hawaii as states, events which I remember from my childhood.
There may be more sauce in the Treaty of 1871. I am interested in finding the language of that treaty.
I don't follow how the 13th Amendment could be a conspiracy theory. The principle seems pretty straightforward (prevention of dual loyalty or subservience).
Don't be absurd. I have said it is an impossibility from a doctrinal (another word for strategic policy) point of view. No one is going to implement such a feature. This has been doctrine for 60 years and there is nothing to suggest it will ever change---because it is not arbitrary. There are supremely life-and-death reasons for it being the way it is. You don't understand that. You don't want to understand that. You want to think it is a matter of "probability"? You literally don't know what you are talking about.
What makes you think we will hear "the news that missiles are on the way to destroy us"? Can you disseminate the news in 30 minutes to a whole nation, while you have your hands full trying to cope with the immediate military situation? That is about how much time we would have from launch to impact. Unless we had a well-developed and well-trained civil defense response, there would be little point in spreading such news. There would be no safety for anyone to find in 30 minutes...or they would already be outside the blast and radiation effects. You are an example of someone who gets his ideas about nuclear war from sensationalist movies. (The short timeline of a space-based boost-phase-intercept system made it mandatory, in our estimation, to provide a default autonomous activation capability. It's like a fire extinguishing system: it is supposed to activate when there is a fire, not wait for someone to turn it on. When you have maybe an engagement window of a few hundred seconds, you can't afford for the duty officer to track down and wake up the Colonel in command. And then you have to provide a system battle management solution for the intercept of maybe a thousand missiles in that time frame. We found one. Rather clever, and very simple. This is by way of illustrating the nature of the strategic combat problem.)
I have never made any points on information that is not openly available. I have merely shown you that you cannot estimate what I know or do not know, since I am not discussing classified information. All my points are based on history and doctrine that has been in place for a very long time, across multiple strategic weapon systems. You don't have any basis for suggesting or expecting that there is anything to overturn this situation---or, more importantly, that it has changed to support your fantasy.
You don't seem to understand that "policy" is involved in many levels of organization. They are otherwise understood as "groundrules," decisions on principles or constraints that are established at a level that governs all subsidiary decisions. I have consistently said that the decision to change guidance methods was on such a basis. If you want to twirl around the parsing of whether this is "strategy" or "policy," be advised that it is both.
Unfortunately, this is conspiracy theory stuff. All the Organic Act of 1871 accomplished was the reorganization of the federal districts that had been formed for the establishment of a federal capital. Not a "foreign entity." You are holding your breath for things not in evidence.
You are just dreaming up a very complex system to do something that is not desired at a policy and strategic level. You simply introduce more uncertainties into the total mission. For example, one way of hacking GPS would be to modify the signal code to include a timing error. That would throw off the accuracy to an indeterminable amount, and a dumb PBV or RV would not know what to believe, GPS or its own inertial system.
As for the discontinuance of radio guidance, it was done as a matter of policy (no vulnerability to ECM). I explained that. You have a hard time believing it.
You don't have any arguments for the present existence of any such capability. You admit you are only talking about your (uninformed) belief. Since what you are hoping for would exist only in some other reality where we would not have a policy against it, you will have a very long wait.
I'm not bothering to itemize anything. When someone has an inability to stick to a main point, the alternative is to wander all over the map. The only thing left is to quibble over punctuation.
You think your rhetorical maneuvers will get my goat and expose my "wrong." It doesn't work that way. I've worked in the environment of strategic delivery systems---B-52, Minuteman, SRAM, ALCM---and helped design kinetic energy weapons to intercept them after launch, as well as directed energy weapons to do other things. I've breathed this stuff for decades. You don't know how it works (or doesn't work) and you think you can teach me about "possibility." It seems I can't teach you about reality, more's the pity.
You keep on tripping over your ignorance of this field. Radio guidance presupposes a radio LINK, which is the point of relevance. How do you propose to shut down an ICBM without a link? Some other link? Now you are the one getting wrapped up in minutiae.
The whole point of inertial guidance is that it is totally independent of GPS and satellite communication. When the GPS signal is there, it may be helpful, but not necessary. The missile would get through. You simply don't understand the priorities of the mission.
At the beginning I explained that replacement of radio guidance with inertial navigation was a decision based on the desire not to be subject to electronic warfare (or hacking). You sometimes act as though you understand, and then you want to take the posture that I didn't explain it. Do you, or don't you?
You don't have a counter-argument. All you have is wishful thinking. There are no precedents. There are no programs. There is no demonstrated capability (except for range safety purposes when conducting training launches and vulnerability is not a consideration). You have no special knowledge. I do. And you don't know what I am not discussing. All you have is some vaporous "it may be possible." Just as it is possible to transport Mt. Everest to Australia by the tablespoon full (schedule no object).
"Pettifogging," by the way, dates back to 1570. So much for new words.
Look, I did the research to find that his reference was logically to the New Jersey dunes not far from Bedminster. No one else has addressed this point. You are pretty cheeky to remind me that the point is research, when my first comment was the result of my research. You just blew it off from the outset.
Then you send me cryptic Q messages, as though they had a bearing on the subject---and failed to explain any plausible connection. I asked you again and you reply with this arch message---and no explanation. You are not conducting research, you are just messing around. I may sound irritated because I expect common courtesy would entail straightforward answers to straightforward questions, and no cute code messages that mean nothing.
Go advise someone else. I typically expect this to be the domain of adults, but you help me revise that expectation.
She won't accept a drink.
Great to know you rely on the fact check---which dismisses any silly notion that the U.S. was other than what it is, a republic. (Think of a Venn diagram with a balloon labeled "corporation". Think of other balloons within that balloon, labeled "republic", "city", "business enterprise." A republic is not a business enterprise, just like an elephant is not an alligator.)
Actually you were wrong on the 49th parallel. The Convention of 1818 provided for the 49th parallel as a boundary, yes, but also for joint administration of the area called Oregon territory by the U.S. and the Columbia Department of Canada by the British, for a period of 10 years. There was a falling out between the U.S. and Great Britain which made joint administration untenable. This was resolved by the treaty of Oregon in 1846, which separated the claims consistent with the 49th parallel boundary. But the question of who had the San Juan islands was still open, to be resolved the the process of the 1871 treaty (not by the treaty itself). The existence of Point Roberts is a testament to the scrupulous adherence to the final terms of the border resolution. The world of international politics is seldom tidy, especially when it comes to borders.
If you would actually do some research instead of confirmation bias, you might have more understanding. Your uninformed and knee-jerk reaction discredits your argument.