If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Today the US Supreme Court hears the ultimate "don't stick your dick in crazy" case   (npr.org) divider line 137
    More: Scary, U.S. Supreme Court, Chemical Weapons Convention, Articles of Confederation  
•       •       •

23753 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Nov 2013 at 10:29 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-05 12:09:47 PM
Wow.

I've stuck my dick in a lot of crazy over the years, but never "violated the Hague Convention" crazy.  She must be a demon in the sack.  Or the guy is hung like a sperm whale.
 
2013-11-05 12:10:53 PM
I'd really like to know why the local PD refused to charge her despite video evidence of her applying toxic chemicals to attack a romantic rival 24 farking times... Is she the sister or daughter of someone powerful and influential or something?
 
2013-11-05 12:14:15 PM
FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?

Having said that, this does seem to be an overreach on the part of the federal govt. Seems like stealing from your employer and dispensing chemicals in an unsafe manner on publicly accessible things like a mailbox is something that is actionable at the state level.
 
2013-11-05 12:17:39 PM

aevorea: thisisyourbrainonFark: macadamnut: Vietnam?

This is not 'Nam, this is the high court, there are rules.

So what you're saying regarding her six year sentence that they should instead mark it [to] zero [years]?


Marking a bright orange line in the sand
 
2013-11-05 12:18:29 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?

Having said that, this does seem to be an overreach on the part of the federal govt. Seems like stealing from your employer and dispensing chemicals in an unsafe manner on publicly accessible things like a mailbox is something that is actionable at the state level.


It's a food product, basically.
 
2013-11-05 12:21:30 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?


You would seriously say that "she deployed a chemical weapon", rather than that "she tried to poison her neighbor"? Not "was it a chemical" and "was it intended as a weapon", but if someone didn't ask a bunch of leading questions and asked you, personally, to state in your own words what she did, you would say that she "deployed a chemical weapon"?
 
2013-11-05 12:26:52 PM

Inflatable Rhetoric: Why is this necessary?

If your spouse, or gf, bf, etc, "cheats on you," what are you cheated out of?
What did you have before that you don't still have?
Get over it.


And she was 34 at the time. If she had just called it a lesson and gone on with her life, she might be remarried by now, to someone who wouldn't fark her best friend. Now she's a crazy biatch in jail (I assume she's in jail).

I'm sure that will keep her warm at night while her ex and his 2nd wife (I assume they're married) are enjoying whatever marital bliss they have, free from the nutjob (until she's paroled).
 
2013-11-05 12:31:32 PM

Theaetetus: Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?

You would seriously say that "she deployed a chemical weapon", rather than that "she tried to poison her neighbor"? Not "was it a chemical" and "was it intended as a weapon", but if someone didn't ask a bunch of leading questions and asked you, personally, to state in your own words what she did, you would say that she "deployed a chemical weapon"?


I probably wouldn't say "deployed." I'd say she "used" chemicals as a weapon against another person.

What if she threw battery acid in the face of the girlfriend? Would that be a "chemical weapon" being used? I would think so.

I wouldn't classify it as a "poisoning." NPR used that verbiage, I wouldn't.

I already said the feds overreached. So we appear to agree on that point.
 
2013-11-05 12:40:12 PM

Yugoboy: Sybarite: phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?


It's being presented as a 10th Amendment issue, so her case is getting support from the Cato Institute, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the attorneys general from six states that are suing to repeal the ACA, etc. I haven't really delved into where the money is coming from, but the case seems to have a lot of support among the Tea Party crowd.

This is why she will lose. The 10th amendment hasn't meant squat since 1861.

Not that the Civil War wasn't worth it, don't get me wrong [slavery is bad], but the 10th Amendment was a dead letter almost since the moment of its ratification. If only for the principal of strengthening at least one of the first 10 Amendments, I'd like to see her win. The 5th is limp and useless (Kelo v. New London), the 4th is dying a slow death (Patriot Act, TSA, NSA), the 2nd is under assault (NY's SAFE Act), the 8th is pointless with mandatory minimums and the only reason the 1st is still around is because free speech is all well and good when the government can continuously ignore it.

At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).


She already won the 10th Amendment argument in front of the Supreme Court once.   The SCOTUS agreed that any citizen can challenge a conviction under Federal Law as exceeding the 10th Amendment.

After it went back to District Court, the Government Started arguing that the Treaty Power gives the Federal government the power to make new laws, that would be unconstitutional otherwise.   So we are back for round 2.
 
2013-11-05 12:40:44 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Theaetetus: Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?

You would seriously say that "she deployed a chemical weapon", rather than that "she tried to poison her neighbor"? Not "was it a chemical" and "was it intended as a weapon", but if someone didn't ask a bunch of leading questions and asked you, personally, to state in your own words what she did, you would say that she "deployed a chemical weapon"?

I probably wouldn't say "deployed." I'd say she "used" chemicals as a weapon against another person.

What if she threw battery acid in the face of the girlfriend? Would that be a "chemical weapon" being used? I would think so.

I wouldn't classify it as a "poisoning." NPR used that verbiage, I wouldn't.

I already said the feds overreached. So we appear to agree on that point.


I disagree. If I mix two chemicals together, I've "used chemicals". If I take a chemical and put it in public somewhere without any further supervision --

"Bond spread the toxic material on her rival's mail, mailbox, front doorknob, car door and other surfaces."

-- I have damn well deployed it.
 
2013-11-05 12:42:00 PM

devildog123: Yugoboy: Sybarite: phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?


It's being presented as a 10th Amendment issue, so her case is getting support from the Cato Institute, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the attorneys general from six states that are suing to repeal the ACA, etc. I haven't really delved into where the money is coming from, but the case seems to have a lot of support among the Tea Party crowd.

This is why she will lose. The 10th amendment hasn't meant squat since 1861.

Not that the Civil War wasn't worth it, don't get me wrong [slavery is bad], but the 10th Amendment was a dead letter almost since the moment of its ratification. If only for the principal of strengthening at least one of the first 10 Amendments, I'd like to see her win. The 5th is limp and useless (Kelo v. New London), the 4th is dying a slow death (Patriot Act, TSA, NSA), the 2nd is under assault (NY's SAFE Act), the 8th is pointless with mandatory minimums and the only reason the 1st is still around is because free speech is all well and good when the government can continuously ignore it.

At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).

I don't know about that... I have ...


There is a 3rd Amendment case working it's way through the Courts right now.   Las Vegas police basically arrested a family, because they wouldn't allow the Police to use their home to spy on a neighbor.
 
2013-11-05 12:43:41 PM
Sticking your dick in crazy is always a good idea. Letting crazy have any way of finding you after the fact and by extension marrying crazy is the problem.
 
2013-11-05 12:46:26 PM

Stile4aly: dittybopper: It's farking scary, though, because of the rather loose definition of "chemical weapon":

The definition you cite states that chemicals which are toxic but used for a non-prohibited purpose would not be treated as a chemical weapon under the treaty. So, something like pesticides or bleach wouldn't count.

That being said, if you write a book claiming that Obama is trying to criminalize pesticides you could make a few bucks.


You didn't read the whole thing:

(1) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), provided that the type and quantity are consistent with such purposes;

So let's say you have something like an Easy Set swimming pool, but you got a really good deal on carboys of Chlorine, or maybe you used to run a pool business, or whatever, so you've got couple of those, more Chlorine than you could possibly use in several years.  That's not in a "quantity consistent with" the use you are putting it to.

Not that I think that would happen just out of the blue, but given the habit of prosecutors to over-charge defendants in the hope that some charges would stick, I could see that happening.
 
2013-11-05 12:52:59 PM

dittybopper: Stile4aly: dittybopper: It's farking scary, though, because of the rather loose definition of "chemical weapon":

The definition you cite states that chemicals which are toxic but used for a non-prohibited purpose would not be treated as a chemical weapon under the treaty. So, something like pesticides or bleach wouldn't count.

That being said, if you write a book claiming that Obama is trying to criminalize pesticides you could make a few bucks.

You didn't read the whole thing:

(1) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), provided that the type and quantity are consistent with such purposes;

So let's say you have something like an Easy Set swimming pool, but you got a really good deal on carboys of Chlorine, or maybe you used to run a pool business, or whatever, so you've got couple of those, more Chlorine than you could possibly use in several years.  That's not in a "quantity consistent with" the use you are putting it to.

Not that I think that would happen just out of the blue, but given the habit of prosecutors to over-charge defendants in the hope that some charges would stick, I could see that happening.


In fact, as noted by the court during the oral argument for this case the first time it went up, the statute criminalizes possession of vinegar if you intend to poison a goldfish with it.
 
2013-11-05 12:56:57 PM

weiserfireman: the Government Started arguing that the Treaty Power gives the Federal government the power to make new laws, that would be unconstitutional otherwise


This is why everybody should really hope that the government loses the case. Otherwise it means future President Rick Santorum could sign a treaty with a couple of African basket case states banning homosexuality and just have to convince a few Senators to go along with it.
 
2013-11-05 12:58:43 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?

Having said that, this does seem to be an overreach on the part of the federal govt. Seems like stealing from your employer and dispensing chemicals in an unsafe manner on publicly accessible things like a mailbox is something that is actionable at the state level.


The mailbox makes it federal. Don't f*ck with the mail.
 
2013-11-05 01:02:01 PM

vernonFL: Why wasn't she charged with attempted murder? Also sending toxic materials through the us mail is a federal offense? Right?

This woman should consider herself lucky she was only given 6 years. Jeez.


THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
 
2013-11-05 01:03:46 PM

mongbiohazard: I'd really like to know why the local PD refused to charge her despite video evidence of her applying toxic chemicals to attack a romantic rival 24 farking times... Is she the sister or daughter of someone powerful and influential or something?


arrest the cops
charge them with wreckless endangerment

I hope the woman who was attacked sues them in civil court and wins millions. it is the only hope to change and fix a broken system.

Or were the cops busy writing revenue tickets? harrassing herb smokers and ...
 
2013-11-05 01:35:23 PM
♫ ♪ Now I got my own mustard gas in my pocket
Climb on a tree on a branch and drop it
On a country club full of Saturday golfers... ♪ ♫

sloes78.files.wordpress.com

/hot & oblig
 
2013-11-05 01:44:35 PM
Holy crap, people are just stupid and easily misled. Do you really think it's a good idea to allow treaties to completely override State and Federal law???

Let's look at one treaty in the works right now.

Each industry group has a list of regulations that it finds troublesome, which it has been unable to eliminate or weaken at the national or sub-national level. An EU-US trade agreement provides these industry groups with an opportunity to do an end-run around such regulation.

For example, several countries in Europe and many state and county governments in the United States impose restrictions that make fracking difficult or impossible. In their dream agreement, the oil and gas industries will have a set of minimal restrictions on fracking. The deal will then define anything more stringent as a restraint on trade subject to penalties.

There are likely to be similar effects on food regulation. Europe has far more restrictions on genetically modified foods and crops than the United States. Since it is not possible, given current European politics, for the industry to get these restrictions eliminated, it will be looking to include provisions in a trade deal that define limits on genetically modified foods and crops as trade barriers.

Millions of people took part in the efforts last year to defeat Sopa and Pipa, two bills that would require individuals and internet intermediaries to proactively work to stop the transmission of unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted material. The entertainment industry would very much like to include comparable provisions in a trade agreement, so that it can avoid having to have another fight over this issue in Congress.

The financial industry will also be at the table trying to include language that limits the ability of governments to impose regulations. It is likely that it will try to include wording that would make it impossible to enforce a financial transactions tax like the one now being considered by the European Union. Although the industry may not be able to sway enough votes in European parliaments to prevent them from supporting a tax, they can use an EU-US trade deal to make that fact irrelevant.

And just as has been the case with every other trade agreement over the past quarter century, the pharmaceutical industry is looking to this trade deal as an opportunity to enhance its patent monopolies. It will likely push for restrictions on price controls and probably also ways to extend the length and scope of their patent monopolies. The CEPR study does not include any projection of the economic losses that would result if the pharmaceutical industry is successful in increasing protection and pushing up drug prices.

The list of industry special interest groups that hope to gain from this deal could be extended at some length, but the point should be clear. This deal is first and foremost about providing powerful industry lobbies with an opportunity to circumvent the normal political process.


Allowing Corporations to bypass State and Federal laws and regulations is NOT a good idea, people.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-11-05 01:54:12 PM

cowsspinach: This is why you should never sleep with a married man.


Unfortunately, my wife has already heeded this advice. Badum-tish!
 
2013-11-05 02:24:57 PM
Either I missed it or farkers are slacking
http://youtu.be/iuVmKam3m34
 
2013-11-05 02:55:45 PM

Lord Dimwit: The thing about the Third Amendment is that if there's ever a clear cut violation of it, it won't be going to the Supreme Court because we'd already be pretty boned.


National Guard in Federal-subsidized housing to restore order.
 
2013-11-05 02:59:55 PM

UsikFark: So, what's this orange stuff?


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-11-05 03:18:02 PM

OtherLittleGuy: Lord Dimwit: The thing about the Third Amendment is that if there's ever a clear cut violation of it, it won't be going to the Supreme Court because we'd already be pretty boned.

National Guard in Federal-subsidized housing to restore order.


Hm. Good example.
 
2013-11-05 03:35:36 PM

UsikFark: So, what's this orange stuff?


images2.wikia.nocookie.net

We haven't entirely nailed down what element it is yet, but I'll tell you this: it's a lively one and it does not like the human skeleton.
 
2013-11-05 03:49:18 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: phaseolus: I know it sounds funny saying this, but this would have been a hell of a lot more productive discussion had it been posted to the Politics Tab...

Be careful what you wish for.



Hey, since you're here -- if the Supreme Court decides that individual U.S. states can do whatever the hell they feel like it even though international treaties say they can't, what could this do to the Great Lakes Compact?
 
2013-11-05 03:50:48 PM

BullBearMS: Holy crap, people are just stupid and easily misled. Do you really think it's a good idea to allow treaties to completely override State and Federal law???


Ultimately, no treaty can abrogate the Constitution.

So, say for instance the US signed a treaty that says all signatory nations have to ban handguns.  Because that's illegal under the Second Amendment, the treaty would be null and void.  Even if ratified by the Senate, it would still not become law because it's superseded by the Constitution, which is the ultimate law of the land.  You'd have to amend the Constitution before that would become law.
 
2013-11-05 03:51:27 PM

vudukungfu: If she had been a male who was angry at a senator's penis, he'd be in GITMO.
She should STFU and thank krist she's not a toy for Muslim terrorists in a sekrit muslin prizon.




Alex Jones, is that you?
 
2013-11-05 03:54:46 PM

RobSeace: UsikFark: So, what's this orange stuff?

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 850x478]

We haven't entirely nailed down what element it is yet, but I'll tell you this: it's a lively one and it does not like the human skeleton.


media.desura.com
 
2013-11-05 04:19:16 PM
She should have put the orange stuff on his penis.
 
2013-11-05 07:20:37 PM

Haplo127x: If my husband got my best friend pregnant, you'd see a whole lot of crazy from me as well.


That. Shiat not given for whorebag friend, or scumfarking husband.
 
2013-11-06 12:25:39 AM
The US gov't is trying to honor a treaty? Since when?
 
2013-11-06 12:34:50 AM

dittybopper: BullBearMS: Holy crap, people are just stupid and easily misled. Do you really think it's a good idea to allow treaties to completely override State and Federal law???

Ultimately, no treaty can abrogate the Constitution.


I didn't say it did. I said this is a case about a treaty overriding laws inside the US.

For instance, under the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement currently being negotiated:

foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

This is a terrible, terrible idea.
 
2013-11-06 12:38:27 AM

Terrible Old Man: The US gov't is trying to honor a treaty? Since when?


Terrible Old Man: The US gov't is trying to honor a treaty? Since when?


Since pushing this allows them to hand Corporations unlimited power to ignore US law and regulation?

It's not like this is about something silly like honoring our promises to native Americans.
 
2013-11-06 06:24:59 AM

BullBearMS: Terrible Old Man: The US gov't is trying to honor a treaty? Since when?

Terrible Old Man: The US gov't is trying to honor a treaty? Since when?

Since pushing this allows them to hand Corporations unlimited power to ignore US law and regulation?

It's not like this is about something silly like honoring our promises to native Americans.


I think we probably disagree about nearly everything, but we agree about this.
 
2013-11-06 03:32:54 PM
We're all missing the important thing here: Is she hot?
 
Displayed 37 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report