Why does her statement void her 5th?  That doesn't make any sense to me.

"Ul7im@teP8r1ot5RAWR!!!1111"?

Ted Cruz is nuts.  In politics, you get what you want by getting people to agree with you.  And getting up there on stage and saying you don't trust anyone with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders isn't the way to go.  The road to a more responsible and appropriate government must run through a gauntlet of burning bridges.

Here's my stab at the problem.  Just ask yourself, if you were a judge, how would you rule on it?

Either you agree with PJ's premise and you say that random audits are illegal or you say that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.  If you were to ban random audits, you'd essentially make the income tax work on some sort of honor system (more than it is now).  There would be a lot of cheating and the government wouldn't be able to feed itself -- death by 320 million cuts.  I'm sure there are a lot of you who are enamored with that notion, but I think in real life, it probably wouldn't work out so well for us.

You know, that's a good question.  I've honestly never thought of that before.  And I can't think of any reason it wouldn't.

Social conservatives are on their way out? 

Shocker.

Here's a link to the warrant application.

Here is a link to the article in question.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the government has a legitimate case.

Would he be wrong about that?  He seems to take heat for the fact that he's talking about getting ready for alien invasions, and not for the idea that government spending will solve our woes.  

The two that come to mind was the inflation fears that Joseph was talking about and the bond vigilantism from a couple years back (presumably the ones that Marco Rubio alludes to whenever he talks about our creditors putting the clamps on our spending).  There is/was no runaway inflation, and there are/were no bond vigilantes.  

Touche.

s/Congress/government

Sabrdance, what's to stop Congress from issuing lower and lower rate bonds, as they have been doing?

Better yet, what to stop them from issuing zero rate debt that never matures?  Sell that for $100 to banks on the Fed's promise to buy them for $100.25?  If no commercial bank would take such a sweet deal, then might Congress establish a bank that would?

Maybe.  But not on this one.

We read it in high school.  I thought it was a good read.  I recommend it generally.  I would recommend it specifically if you needed an American play.

I'll go ahead and present the simplest answer.  We don't know what we're talking about.

Hate to say it, but on matters of the economy, Ricochet's economic arch-nemesis, Paul Krugman, has been more right than he has been wrong.  He'd been calling inflation hawks wackos for the past few years now.

I'll step out of meta-trolling for a little bit to speak to this.  Parts of Relativity are derived from simple 'Galilean' kinematics.  In fact, if one (I presume that Larry is not interested) is focused on time dilation, which seems to be the focus of this conversation, the derivation of how a person on the ground will observe a person in a light speed spaceship (and vice versa) is very simple.  The same can be said of length contraction.  The only thing that you need to accept is that the speed of light is invariant with respect to reference frames of different speeds.  It's actually pretty cool.  

Greatest Ricochet Troll, ever.

Why are you asking questions that you already know the answer to?  You're trying to talk to a person who doesn't understand the relationship between math and the physical world, or the relationship between hypothesis, experiments, prediction and observation.  And you expect him to argue intelligently against special relativity?

To me, his issue is not any definition of time, or else he would have found one by now.  His problem is that the conclusions of modern physics bother him at an emotional level caused by the cognitive dissonance that we all went through when we first learned about it.  The only difference between him and us is that we got over it.  He never did, and it would seem that nothing on this message board is going to change that.

It's also why this is such an awesome thread.  Watching a guy attack extensively validated ideas from a position of profound ignorance soaked in sophomoric scholarship and sprinkled with disdain for the people his is arguing with is more fun than it should be.  For that, I apologize.

Coco Solo was a US naval base, and would be considered US soil.  McCain's natural born-ness would not have been in question.

Edit:  Check that.  Coco Solo was not considered US soil until 1937, when this was passed, retroactively granting McCain natural born citizen status.  McCain was born in 1936.  

Kinda takes the meaning out of the words, doesn't it?  But I suppose, as the term is undefined by the Constitution, that is is Congress's job to determine who is and is not a natural born citizen.  They did vote in favor of McCain in 2008 on this issue in a nonbinding resolution.