Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 5921
Posted: November 13 2018 at 07:49
War is ugly. Recording reveals the last minute of WW-ll The guns kept firing till the last second of the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month. War kept killing till the last second and then the birds started tweeting. Peace is beautiful!
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10344
Posted: November 13 2018 at 08:31
Well I'm sure trump's russian pals don't want us to trust the Germans. Good job comrade, russian propaganda is working like a charm, for the under educated at least.
As a long life student in ecological sciences, i have to agree with his analysis that constantly bailing people out who choose to live in fire prone areas is like constantly giving the keys to a drunk driver. The US has suppressed natural fires for over 150 years and this whole mess is from complete mismanagement and an arrogance of humans believing they can perfect natural processes. Trump has said plenty of stupid things agreed but when it comes to this issue he's right on (if he even actually said this, keep in mind that the Democrats under Obama passed The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act in 2012 as a tag on bill that effectively legalized perjury and domestic proganda under the guise of national security which these days pretty much means EVERYTHING.) I'm saying this as i'm sitting here tonight with my air purifier cranking so i don't choke on the smoke from the Chico fires. Apocalypse now. Ho hum.
Bull. Just today experts said it's temperatures, dryness and climate change that is causing the fires, not Forest management. Further, 60% of forest is Federally owned ... and California pays out more to the government in taxes than it is given. Much more.
So take your "constantly bailing out people who choose to live in fire prone areas is like giving the keys to a drunk driver" and shove it.
Edited by Atavachron - November 13 2018 at 14:50
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 5921
Posted: November 13 2018 at 13:39
IVNORD wrote:
omphaloskepsis wrote:
Just like I predicted at beginning of October. Oil prices fall down.
OK, and if you're so good at predicting things.... where are oil prices headed? what will be the low this time?
I closed my commodity oil short an hour ago, after 12 strait days down to a yearly low below $55. Down over $21 dollars since my prediction. I look for a dead cat bounce before the market continues down. I see at least one more leg down after the dead cat bounce.
I don't predict price. I predict direction and then I flow with the market. The trend is your friend.
Edited by omphaloskepsis - November 13 2018 at 13:49
Joined: December 15 2012
Location: abroad
Status: Offline
Points: 22767
Posted: November 13 2018 at 14:38
omphaloskepsis wrote:
Been reading about EU creating an EU army outside of nation states.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46108633
I don't know if you guys are history buffs or not, but didn't the rest of the World go to war with Germany twice in the 20th century? And which country is the most powerful EU country again?
This is just obnoxious, what are you even implying here?
So unless this thread will continue, which seems unlikely from the pace at which it has fluctuated before, this isn't that significant in the greater trend of the current presidency as a whole (regardless of what Obama did with it).
As a long life student in ecological sciences, i have to agree with his analysis that constantly bailing people out who choose to live in fire prone areas is like constantly giving the keys to a drunk driver. The US has suppressed natural fires for over 150 years and this whole mess is from complete mismanagement and an arrogance of humans believing they can perfect natural processes. Trump has said plenty of stupid things agreed but when it comes to this issue he's right on (if he even actually said this, keep in mind that the Democrats under Obama passed The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act in 2012 as a tag on bill that effectively legalized perjury and domestic proganda under the guise of national security which these days pretty much means EVERYTHING.) I'm saying this as i'm sitting here tonight with my air purifier cranking so i don't choke on the smoke from the Chico fires. Apocalypse now. Ho hum.
Bull. Just today experts said it's temperatures, dryness and climate change that is causing the fires, not Forest management. Further, 60% of forest is Federally owned ... and California pays out more to the government in taxes than it is given. Much more.
So take your "constantly bailing out people who choose to live in fire prone areas is like giving the keys to a drunk driver" and shove it.
You bail them out then. They can all move to Pearland and you can take care of them. How's that for an idea? Everybody's an expert out there.
So of course climate change is exacerbating the problem by drying things out. Forests have been fire suppressed for over 150 years where all the fuel has nicely built up to create apocalyptic conditions.
So by your logic, that's all the more reason to dish out public doles so that the same people who willingly chose to live in these environments can do it all over again and again and again! Yeah, keep the cycle churnin!
And you are correct that most public lands ARE federally owned but guess what. Fires don't recognize these arbitrary boundaries and lack of proper management has been a significant aspect of these conditions.
I've engaged in EXTENSIVE debates with REAL forest rangers over this very topic as i used to be uninformed about it myself. I suggest you talk with real people and not just take a few so-called "expert's" opinion on this. Better yet, take an ecological course in forest management and it will shed some light on the reality of the situation.
Special Collaborator
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic
Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 14734
Posted: November 13 2018 at 15:29
rogerthat wrote:
siLLy puPPy wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
siLLy puPPy wrote:
^ In respect for the thread and those who don't want this to carry on into infinity i'll be brief.
It's not about what YOU interpret the text as. It's what the courts do. First you say above Maritime law doesn't exist and now you do. Whatever. Don't take my word for it. Dig deeper. It makes much more sense.
I've merely presented some info that i find fascinating and has a high probability of truthfulness. You can take it any way you want. If you don't like then just move on. Poof. It doesn't exist! For those who do want to pursue this further, they've already taken it in and done so. Peace out.
Not only are you rotating in a vigorous circle motion on your little conspiracy wheel, you evidently lack the ability to comprehend what was typed. Please, show me where I ever stated Maritime law doesn't exist. Quote the precise passage, please. I even pointed out where you misidentified the actual term Maritime Admiralty Law, whereas you were saying <span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;">"</span><span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;">Maritime Admiral Law". Then you conflate one conspiracy theory with an older one about the Vatican, and you don't understand that this is ground that's been gone over thoroughly and debunked before you were even born.</span>
<span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;"> </span>
<span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;">I find Greek and Norse mythology fascinating, but I am quite sure Thor won't be riding in on Pegasus anytime soon. Hi-yo Peggie! </span>
Ah, you're right. My apologies. You did NOT say it doesn't exist. I shouldn't respoond when i wake up. Excuse the typos and auto correct blunders. Typed much of that on phone. Never bother to correct for errors in that format. Nor have i presented my disparite findings in a cohesive manner. So i concur that it all sounds a little kooky, granted. My bad.
You don't seem to understand what a conspiracy is though.
It's a fun little word but learn how to use it. Interpretations of laws are not tantamount to a conspiracy.
As for Maritime Admiralty Law, you seem to know very little about it or how it's been applied to modern times. A dictionary definition is only a rough guide to its overall meaning. The real extent of its usage is quite broad and yes it does tie into ancient Babylonians, Egyptians and Romans via the Vatican. There is absolutely nothing controversial or untrue about those claims. How Martime Law has been applied through various court cases and the like is a matter of public records, not the product of a fertile mind that has nothing better to do than conjecture possibiliites for the sake of mental masturbation.
Just one example cited from a law website. Conspiracy? Me no thinka so
<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">[URL=https://www.labovick.com/maritime-law/" rel="nofollow]<em style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;]<span style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;]Maritime law</span>[/URL] is the law of the sea. It can apply to a whole host of different scenarios such as contracts for passage, salvage claims, injuries, etc. For the purposes of this writing, I will limit my discussion of the applicability of maritime law to injury cases.<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><span id="more-4439" style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></span><p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">When people ask me, “when does maritime law apply?” they are essentially asking a question of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a fancy legal term that essentially means a courts power to decide a case or issue a decree. Now throughout this piece, I will likely be interchanging maritime and admiralty. While today the words are synonymous, originally admiralty was used in jurisdictional issues and maritime was used in issues with shipping and commerce.<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In order for a court to hear a maritime case, the initial complaint must allege that admiralty law presides over the case. Now for a history lesson on how the courts of this country developed the ability to hear maritime cases. Originally, the US Constitution only allowed admiralty cases to be heard by the Supreme Court. However, the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed the Congress to confer maritime jurisdiction to inferior US Federal Courts (like the Southern District of Florida where most cruise cases must be heard). Another later piece of legislation allowed admiralty cases to be heard in state courts as well.<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Admiralty law is old, REALLY old. Admiralty laws and codes were some of the first governing rules to be written down. The ancient Babylonians, Egyptians and Romans all had admiralty laws on their clay tablets. As the US was founded by Great Britain, generally, we inherited the admiralty law at the time of the Revolution. In England, admiralty law applied to anything that happened on the ocean and the tidal waters of its rivers (basically, if the river rose and sank with the tide, it was covered by admiralty). However, once our young country and its Courts started to hear admiralty cases, we adapted new requirements to fit our country’s needs.<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In 1857 a seminal US Supreme Court case was decided that switched our definition of admiralty jurisdiction. In <em style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Jackson et al. v. Steamboat Magnolia, the Court eliminated the “tidal” requirement for jurisdiction and created a necessity for the water in which the accident occurred to support international and interstate commerce. What this did was allow for the large rivers and lakes of this country to now be under admiralty jurisdiction. For example, under the old English view, only a small portion of the Mississippi River (not to mention all the large rivers that feed into it) would have been under admiralty jurisdiction. Over the years, this too has changed into the new standard. The modern standard of maritime jurisdiction for accidents that occur on events on the high seas, territorial seas and the inland waters of the US so long as they satisfy the requirement of being “navigable waters.” Generally, inland water of the US is “navigable” if:<ol style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px 20px; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><li style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">It is capable of supporting maritime commerce;<li style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">It runs through two states or empties into the sea; and<li style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">It is presently sustaining maritime commerce.
<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In other words, you are correct in how you are reading the dictionary definition but my argument is that it isn't necessarily interpreted in an identicle manner in practice which creates unforeseen precedence that takes new forms in various jurisdictions. The loosely defined "originating on navagable waters" pretty much offers a lot of wiggle room as to exactly constitutes jurisdiction. OK, i shouldn't have brought the Vatican part into it. You are correct that modern day institution is morally decrepit and reaching its ultimate downfall. My point was focused on where the laws ORIGINATED from therefore having virtually nothing to do with the modern day state of the church. Once again, i realize that my nebulous impulsive posts were not as thoughfully crafted as they should've been considering the range of subject matter presented within them. Once again, my bad. This all erupted in spurts during periods of distraction. As i stated prior, this was all explained to me in a much more cohesive manner by legal experts who have practiced law for decades and when presented properly gives a more tangible understanding. I also presented this as to find out if anyone else has heard of any of these because i'm quite curious who else has brushed up with these sorts of things.
I infer from the above explanation (presumably an extract from the link which is not working) that the scope of maritime law was extended from navigation through the sea to inland navigation under certain conditions. Which is again very reasonable. From there to extend it to the notion of birth involving passage through a canal is, well, metaphorical. And while the law can often be vague and subject to multiple interpretations, it is not metaphorical. In the physical realm, no possible similarity exists between the act of being born and the passage of a vessel through water. I believe USA is a liberal democracy and not a theocracy, hence applying religious or poetic metaphors to sweepingly widen the scope of a law would not ordinarily apply. I am open to being persuaded otherwise if you produce a legal commentary which actually says what you did. The one you did above does not for instance mean what you think it does.
You are correct in a sense however the metaphorical extensions of these laws have been vastly overplayed. Maritime Law in effect applies to any body of water and since the human body is roughly 70% water they have taken the liberty to apply those terms to our physical beings.
You are mistaken that the US is a democracy, it was set up as a Constitutional Republic but even that has been eroded since the advent of the Federal Reserve and more importantly the CIA and i could go on for hours on this since i've studied probably hundreds of hours at least on the subject.
Instead of trying decipher everything i've posted on this topic, watch this video instead. This guy is the best at explaining this stuff in video form. My mere posts were only teasers and 1% of a much larger iceberg. This dude has scoured the law books and puts together lectures that connect the dots. This interview is one of many that gets into the true nitty gritty of what i'm talking about and how it is connected to religion. Believe it or not, many things go on behind the scenes. Conspiracies do indeed occur but this doesn't apply to that term since this is merely understanding HOW THE LAWS ARE SET UP AND HOW THEY ARE EXPRESSED.
I'm not really interested in anyone's opinions about this video unless they can comprehend its totality and have relevant commentary that either confirms or completely debunks its veracity. That doesn't mean the first Google search with someone bitching about that it's a nazi jew hating rant. Gimme a friggin break.
As a long life student in ecological sciences, i have to agree with his analysis that constantly bailing people out who choose to live in fire prone areas is like constantly giving the keys to a drunk driver. The US has suppressed natural fires for over 150 years and this whole mess is from complete mismanagement and an arrogance of humans believing they can perfect natural processes. Trump has said plenty of stupid things agreed but when it comes to this issue he's right on (if he even actually said this, keep in mind that the Democrats under Obama passed The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act in 2012 as a tag on bill that effectively legalized perjury and domestic proganda under the guise of national security which these days pretty much means EVERYTHING.) I'm saying this as i'm sitting here tonight with my air purifier cranking so i don't choke on the smoke from the Chico fires. Apocalypse now. Ho hum.
Bull. Just today experts said it's temperatures, dryness and climate change that is causing the fires, not Forest management. Further, 60% of forest is Federally owned ... and California pays out more to the government in taxes than it is given. Much more.
So take your "constantly bailing out people who choose to live in fire prone areas is like giving the keys to a drunk driver" and shove it.
You bail them out then. They can all move to Pearland and you can take care of them. How's that for an idea? Everybody's an expert out there.
So of course climate change is exacerbating the problem by drying things out. Forests have been fire suppressed for over 150 years where all the fuel has nicely built up to create apocalyptic conditions.
So by your logic, that's all the more reason to dish out public doles so that the same people who willingly chose to live in these environments can do it all over again and again and again! Yeah, keep the cycle churnin!
And you are correct that most public lands ARE federally owned but guess what. Fires don't recognize these arbitrary boundaries and lack of proper management has been a significant aspect of these conditions.
I've engaged in EXTENSIVE debates with REAL forest rangers over this very topic as i used to be uninformed about it myself. I suggest you talk with real people and not just take a few so-called "expert's" opinion on this. Better yet, take an ecological course in forest management and it will shed some light on the reality of the situation.
Hmm, your response is unconvincing. But that's okay, maybe we will bail them out. Who knows, maybe we'll bail the White House out, we certainly have the cash thanks to Jerry Brown's superb management. And frankly I wouldn't mind at all talking to a few rangers about it.
Edited by Atavachron - November 13 2018 at 15:44
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
Special Collaborator
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic
Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 14734
Posted: November 13 2018 at 16:26
QUOTE
Hmm, your response is unconvincing. But that's okay, maybe we will bail them out. Who knows, maybe we'll bail the White House out, we certainly have the cash thanks to Jerry Brown's superb management. And frankly I wouldn't mind at all talking to a few rangers about it.
QUOTE
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for giving aid and help as long as it isn't contributing to repeating a dead end cycle. Urban and rural development are quite sporadic in the US with no regards to ecological harmony. Countries like New Zealand are decades ahead of us in that regard and implement policies that actually MAKE SENSE. For example, they readjusted all their poltical boundaries to coinicide with the watersheds! I'm not sure exactly how they did this but sounds good to me.
I like Jerry Brown too, but a governor's hands are tied when it comes to federal policies. California would be much better off as an independent republic than a host that is being parasiticly drained by moocher states. (did you hear that Mississippi?) As far as the whitehouse goes, i'd prefer a bulldozer not a bailout
Special Collaborator
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic
Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 14734
Posted: November 13 2018 at 18:00
^ yeah, i've seen several maps including annexes with Oregon, Nevada and even the whole west coast with Canada! I think if it happened (which it won't unless the nation collapses), it should just stay the way it is now at least geographically speaking UNLESS of course other states want to join the part.
A succession attempt did occur in the 1800s as the proposed state of Jefferson which would've been made up of Southern Oregon and Northern California but it was utterly squashed. Would it have been better off now? Probably not. The world economy is so utterly intertwined that geographical boundaries are becoming less relevant by the day. It would be interesting though :)
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Posted: November 13 2018 at 18:25
omphaloskepsis wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
omphaloskepsis wrote:
Just like I predicted at beginning of October. Oil prices fall down.
OK, and if you're so good at predicting things.... where are oil prices headed? what will be the low this time?
I closed my commodity oil short an hour ago, after 12 strait days down to a yearly low below $55. Down over $21 dollars since my prediction. I look for a dead cat bounce before the market continues down. I see at least one more leg down after the dead cat bounce.
I don't predict price. I predict direction and then I flow with the market. The trend is your friend.
Was it oil stocks or "commodity oil" you've shorted? And what do you mean by commodity oil? Pretty strange terminology
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: November 13 2018 at 23:13
siLLy puPPy wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
siLLy puPPy wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
siLLy puPPy wrote:
^ In respect for the thread and those who don't want this to carry on into infinity i'll be brief.
It's not about what YOU interpret the text as. It's what the courts do. First you say above Maritime law doesn't exist and now you do. Whatever. Don't take my word for it. Dig deeper. It makes much more sense.
I've merely presented some info that i find fascinating and has a high probability of truthfulness. You can take it any way you want. If you don't like then just move on. Poof. It doesn't exist! For those who do want to pursue this further, they've already taken it in and done so. Peace out.
Not only are you rotating in a vigorous circle motion on your little conspiracy wheel, you evidently lack the ability to comprehend what was typed. Please, show me where I ever stated Maritime law doesn't exist. Quote the precise passage, please. I even pointed out where you misidentified the actual term Maritime Admiralty Law, whereas you were saying <span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;">"</span><span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;">Maritime Admiral Law". Then you conflate one conspiracy theory with an older one about the Vatican, and you don't understand that this is ground that's been gone over thoroughly and debunked before you were even born.</span>
<span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;"> </span>
<span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;">I find Greek and Norse mythology fascinating, but I am quite sure Thor won't be riding in on Pegasus anytime soon. Hi-yo Peggie! </span>
Ah, you're right. My apologies. You did NOT say it doesn't exist. I shouldn't respoond when i wake up. Excuse the typos and auto correct blunders. Typed much of that on phone. Never bother to correct for errors in that format. Nor have i presented my disparite findings in a cohesive manner. So i concur that it all sounds a little kooky, granted. My bad.
You don't seem to understand what a conspiracy is though.
It's a fun little word but learn how to use it. Interpretations of laws are not tantamount to a conspiracy.
As for Maritime Admiralty Law, you seem to know very little about it or how it's been applied to modern times. A dictionary definition is only a rough guide to its overall meaning. The real extent of its usage is quite broad and yes it does tie into ancient Babylonians, Egyptians and Romans via the Vatican. There is absolutely nothing controversial or untrue about those claims. How Martime Law has been applied through various court cases and the like is a matter of public records, not the product of a fertile mind that has nothing better to do than conjecture possibiliites for the sake of mental masturbation.
Just one example cited from a law website. Conspiracy? Me no thinka so
<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">[URL=https://www.labovick.com/maritime-law/" rel="nofollow]<em style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;]<span style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;]Maritime law</span>[/URL] is the law of the sea. It can apply to a whole host of different scenarios such as contracts for passage, salvage claims, injuries, etc. For the purposes of this writing, I will limit my discussion of the applicability of maritime law to injury cases.<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><span id="more-4439" style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></span><p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">When people ask me, “when does maritime law apply?” they are essentially asking a question of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a fancy legal term that essentially means a courts power to decide a case or issue a decree. Now throughout this piece, I will likely be interchanging maritime and admiralty. While today the words are synonymous, originally admiralty was used in jurisdictional issues and maritime was used in issues with shipping and commerce.<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In order for a court to hear a maritime case, the initial complaint must allege that admiralty law presides over the case. Now for a history lesson on how the courts of this country developed the ability to hear maritime cases. Originally, the US Constitution only allowed admiralty cases to be heard by the Supreme Court. However, the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed the Congress to confer maritime jurisdiction to inferior US Federal Courts (like the Southern District of Florida where most cruise cases must be heard). Another later piece of legislation allowed admiralty cases to be heard in state courts as well.<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Admiralty law is old, REALLY old. Admiralty laws and codes were some of the first governing rules to be written down. The ancient Babylonians, Egyptians and Romans all had admiralty laws on their clay tablets. As the US was founded by Great Britain, generally, we inherited the admiralty law at the time of the Revolution. In England, admiralty law applied to anything that happened on the ocean and the tidal waters of its rivers (basically, if the river rose and sank with the tide, it was covered by admiralty). However, once our young country and its Courts started to hear admiralty cases, we adapted new requirements to fit our country’s needs.<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In 1857 a seminal US Supreme Court case was decided that switched our definition of admiralty jurisdiction. In <em style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Jackson et al. v. Steamboat Magnolia, the Court eliminated the “tidal” requirement for jurisdiction and created a necessity for the water in which the accident occurred to support international and interstate commerce. What this did was allow for the large rivers and lakes of this country to now be under admiralty jurisdiction. For example, under the old English view, only a small portion of the Mississippi River (not to mention all the large rivers that feed into it) would have been under admiralty jurisdiction. Over the years, this too has changed into the new standard. The modern standard of maritime jurisdiction for accidents that occur on events on the high seas, territorial seas and the inland waters of the US so long as they satisfy the requirement of being “navigable waters.” Generally, inland water of the US is “navigable” if:<ol style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px 20px; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><li style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">It is capable of supporting maritime commerce;<li style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">It runs through two states or empties into the sea; and<li style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px;">It is presently sustaining maritime commerce.
<p style="-sizing: border-; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In other words, you are correct in how you are reading the dictionary definition but my argument is that it isn't necessarily interpreted in an identicle manner in practice which creates unforeseen precedence that takes new forms in various jurisdictions. The loosely defined "originating on navagable waters" pretty much offers a lot of wiggle room as to exactly constitutes jurisdiction. OK, i shouldn't have brought the Vatican part into it. You are correct that modern day institution is morally decrepit and reaching its ultimate downfall. My point was focused on where the laws ORIGINATED from therefore having virtually nothing to do with the modern day state of the church. Once again, i realize that my nebulous impulsive posts were not as thoughfully crafted as they should've been considering the range of subject matter presented within them. Once again, my bad. This all erupted in spurts during periods of distraction. As i stated prior, this was all explained to me in a much more cohesive manner by legal experts who have practiced law for decades and when presented properly gives a more tangible understanding. I also presented this as to find out if anyone else has heard of any of these because i'm quite curious who else has brushed up with these sorts of things.
I infer from the above explanation (presumably an extract from the link which is not working) that the scope of maritime law was extended from navigation through the sea to inland navigation under certain conditions. Which is again very reasonable. From there to extend it to the notion of birth involving passage through a canal is, well, metaphorical. And while the law can often be vague and subject to multiple interpretations, it is not metaphorical. In the physical realm, no possible similarity exists between the act of being born and the passage of a vessel through water. I believe USA is a liberal democracy and not a theocracy, hence applying religious or poetic metaphors to sweepingly widen the scope of a law would not ordinarily apply. I am open to being persuaded otherwise if you produce a legal commentary which actually says what you did. The one you did above does not for instance mean what you think it does.
You are correct in a sense however the metaphorical extensions of these laws have been vastly overplayed. Maritime Law in effect applies to any body of water and since the human body is roughly 70% water they have taken the liberty to apply those terms to our physical beings.
You are mistaken that the US is a democracy, it was set up as a Constitutional Republic but even that has been eroded since the advent of the Federal Reserve and more importantly the CIA and i could go on for hours on this since i've studied probably hundreds of hours at least on the subject.
Instead of trying decipher everything i've posted on this topic, watch this video instead. This guy is the best at explaining this stuff in video form. My mere posts were only teasers and 1% of a much larger iceberg. This dude has scoured the law books and puts together lectures that connect the dots. This interview is one of many that gets into the true nitty gritty of what i'm talking about and how it is connected to religion. Believe it or not, many things go on behind the scenes. Conspiracies do indeed occur but this doesn't apply to that term since this is merely understanding HOW THE LAWS ARE SET UP AND HOW THEY ARE EXPRESSED.
I'm not really interested in anyone's opinions about this video unless they can comprehend its totality and have relevant commentary that either confirms or completely debunks its veracity. That doesn't mean the first Google search with someone bitching about that it's a nazi jew hating rant. Gimme a friggin break.
I am not deciphering your words but the words presented in a legal summary posted by Cornell (was it?). I can and will listen to what the YouTube link says but I distrust any analysis that relies on such videos and not an assidious textual analysis alone because it is from the text that we learn what the law does and does not allow. Again, the construction of the human body as a sort of water body is creative and ingenious. And sorry to say it is metaphorical because no ship can pass through this water body. Unless you believe the new born baby is also a vessel. In which case the question arises if vessels are actually living things. I wish law was this exciting but it's not. It's a pretty dry subject and loopholes where derived rely on missing prepositions or commas (to give one example), not a left field understanding of plain English words. I can allow that the way law is practiced here may be different from how it is in USA. But we copied your and the British model so I have little reason to believe a trip into the world or USA would be like Alice in Wonderland.
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
Posted: November 14 2018 at 04:28
^ but think of the possible campaign slogans...
and is it me... or are we just getting old. Harder looks like he isn't even old enough to shave yet. I'd card him if he entered my bar for sure haha.
fun times politically...
watching the machiations of the anti-Pelosi forces. No dog in that fight, I think they need some new blood at the top but she is probably the single most gifted and talented politician as well as in D.C. Yeah she is click bait for Democrat haters.. but she gets things done knows how to bring left and center together and highly experienced. The question being asked? Is this really the time to break in an inexperienced Speaker of the House.
personally I think Hoyer goes and compromise blue dog.. fresh blood gets the #2 job.
then there are the court cases.
Nice to see the courts in Florida reign in the stampede to force a quick result. Funny how 'every vote counts' only matters when expedient.
Then there is Georgia .. surprise surprise there were civil rights violations in the handling of ballots there. I do wonder if that will indeed go to a runoff.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
Posted: November 14 2018 at 04:46
Easy Money wrote:
Well I'm sure trump's russian pals don't want us to trust the Germans. Good job comrade, russian propaganda is working like a charm, for the under educated at least.
too funny. I'm almost of a mind to drop our friendly admins a PM and have them check the IP of dear Ompha.
I had half joked about Ompha being some Russian agent... oh how the dark side of my imagination runs ever time I see 'her' post.. imagining her sitting at her desk with a nice view of the Kremlin from her window. Naked as the day she was born posted garbage like those anti-German posts whose ONLY POSSIBLE motive is to instill distrust being us and our long time allies.
why? What possibly would some twit in Texas care and want to sow distrust being our two countries... oh.. I might have been half joking at first.. but those posts recently have more convinced me Ompha is some boxum smoking hot Russian agent of Putin who gets their kicks trolling Prog Archives when not hitting more mainstream social media sites.
As if she was shown to be not from where she clains to be.. does the site have any precedence to to 86 her. Not sure but I'd be sure to make sure the admins know that other social media sites have been zapping such propaganda
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
The above linked post is a clear example of trolling or a prime example of the failure of the American education system. Take your pick.
---------- i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag that's a happy bag of lettuce this car smells like cartilage nothing beats a good video about fractions
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 2.757 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Posted: November 13 2018 at 07:49
I wish law was this exciting but it's not. It's a pretty dry subject and loopholes where derived rely on missing prepositions or commas (to give one example), not a left field understanding of plain English words. I can allow that the way law is practiced here may be different from how it is in USA. But we copied your and the British model so I have little reason to believe a trip into the world or USA would be like Alice in Wonderland.
The American Politics Thread
Topic Options
omphaloskepsis wrote:
</span>