We all are a bit off. Anyhow, if you wish to read my take on it, I posted about what the constitution has to say about t6his, and why the Republicans ignored the order.

Nullification of States Rights by presidential edict, and placed in a spending bill removes a tool the Republicans have used for many years.

But let us not believe that insanity is limited to Republicans, or Americans. The world shows that in a world full of Kooks, the USA isn't even remotely the worst. The world has a lot of latter day Visigoths. They are always at the gates, and we must decide if we let them in or not.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

A lot of reading to catch up on what powers are delegated to the federal government, and plenty of interpretation has happened along the way.

Now, the legal question is why have Republicans ignored this order? It sets a real precedent, that's why. It nullifies States Rights. Republicans have long used states rights, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, to do things like nullify restrictions on gun ownership, immigration, and Devil's lettuce. States rights have been used to modify discrimination against the elderly and disabled, and limited the ability of rape victims to sue in federal courts.

States Rights is also used as a Dog Whistle for a number of other things, like desegregation, same sex marriage, and reproductive rights. A lot other this rhetoric was used by the Dixiecrats, who en masse moved to the Republican Party when the Democrats became too liberal on segregation.

So to the issue at hand, States Rights is an important tool in the Republican Party's toolbox. One they wish to not have nullified. And a lot of states rights ideology makes sense no matter what party you are in. After all, the tenth amendment was put in there for a reason.

And despite the years of obsequious Marching to Trump's demands, at least some Republicans understand that Trump won't be in office forever, and a Democrat will eventually land in the office, with all the powers Trump declared as his own.

Wikipedia has a nice writeup, https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

Some of us are weird.

Then again, there is something a little off about a person who. determines Americans are universally "weird" based on a rando posting on Slashdot who might be from anywhere on this globe.

If you wish to decent your universal condemnation that's a bit strange as well, shows some fascinating prejudices, and zero critical thinking.

The autopen has been around longer old sleepy Joe, and has been used by various presidents. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.msn.com%2Fen-us%2Fpoli...

Thomas Jefferson used Autopen.

I am surprised how many people seem to think it is something new. There was a brief kerfuffle on the early 2000's when Democrats were angry because G W Bush used Autopen. The administration at that time declared a statement that intent was the metric, not the specific signature. Which makes sense to me.

As opposed to an award wing researcher such as yourself.

The article isn't about every single possible ink or combination. It is about the results of subcutaneous injection of various chemicals or substances. Where Macrophages transport those chemicals to the lymph nodes. Here's your challenge. Show point by point the inaccuracies in their work - you make the claim of scientific fraud - prove it. I'll even provide web space and will publish your analysis. You can end up on retraction watch, the researcher who pointed out actual fraud.

You mad bro? Or is this sarcastic?

She's well within her rights. I'm a big fan of the Wiccan Rede: "An' ye harm none, do what ye will." Now some might find that she is harming herself - especially in the context of the issues in this topic, that is a her decision to make. If she is comfortable with what many find intentional disfigurement, I'm fine with it as far as having the right.

But if I find it repulsive, I have the right as well. You might find my right as me being a piece of shit and disgusting. You have that right. I might note that your over the top reaction says more about you than me.

That is, if you are serious. If not, I'll take my whoosh and move on, considering the source.

It's the wrong question. Obviously you can set a barge out on the ocean and land a rocket on that. But the idea that you cn launch and land anywhere is a non-starter.

The landing spot must be related to the launch location, and where in orbit you are sending the payload. Sometimes the first stage has to be discarded. In principle, you could guide the first stage back to anywhere if you had enough fuel and ability to maneuver. Of course, that would make the booster much heavier and complex. In reality, not happening.

All related to orbital mechanics and the so-called "rocket problem" https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... or https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.astronomicalreturn...

And that is why even Spacex discards their boosters at times. No practical place to land them. Boosters not having the fuel and maneuverability to get them to a place where they can land.

I knew her sister, nice lady.

Whoosh! My point is Starship seems to be really good at rapid unplanned disassembly, so maybe the Chinese are using Starship technology secrets.

That is just bizarre. But before we go further - it's a flat-8, not a straight 8. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cycleworld.com%2Fmot...

This "years ahead" motorcycle is just a Honda Goldwing type motorcycle with a couple extra cylinders. Meh. No thanks. I'll settle for my big-twin Honda Shadow Spirit 1100 cc. It looks like a classic Fatboy Motorcycle. Stump pulling torque, gets 50 mpg, and comfortable enough I can ride 150 miles at a stretch, which is handy since it has a 3 gallon tank and is ready for fuel at that point.

Burgundy Chameleon paint. Un-branded, no rear seat.

Which is, good technology, by the way. Even Honda uses some of that olde stuff. My first motorcycle, a 60's era Honda trail 90, is remarkably similar to the Trail 125 they sell today.

In many countries, the paradigm is different.

Do you think they's stolen Starship technology?

Yeah, Landing rockets is old hat by now - Indeed, while Spacex is the ones we always think of, New Glenn is a lot better. Hovering, fixing itself to the deck. I have no doubt that the Chinese will succeed in landing their rockets.

New Glenn has one other very important advantage while we are at it. It's ability to hover, and fixing itself to the deck allows for a much expanded launch envelope. Easier to put that barge where you need it. Spacex doesn't seem to care for doing this all that often any more. Severely limiting the launch profile when you have to return to the launch site.

So give the Chinese time, they'll stick the landings soon.

You appear to be making a statement that sounds like "Until every combination of tattoo inks is proven to cause problems, none do." I'm sure you aren't saying that, right?

What this study has said is that the ink migrates within the body to lymph nodes causes inflammation, and oddly enough, causes different reactions to different vaccines. Also an induction of apoptosis in cells, including macrophages. The macrophages see the ink as an infection, and do what macrophages do.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fdoi%2F10.10... I reposted the study and experiments. If anyone thinks this is an okay thing, they need to research further,

Maoris's are susceptible to diabetes. I only mention that because I had a friend who developed an allergic reaction to a tattoo (the gold color in it specifically) and soon after came down with insulin dependent diabetes.

That's pure speculation at this point, the standard reason is that they eat the same food we do now.