Slashdot Mirror

On a per kWh produced basis the subsidies for solar power is far greater.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

The thing you are missing is that the allocations are from the tax code and if you follow the chain of documents of where that is defined it leads back to SEC.1703 of 2005 US Energy Policy Act">2005 US Energy Policy Act. That made the provision for the ARRA Act that provided the additional subsidies not provided for in the Energy Policy ACT. A program that created a lot of jobs around the US for electricians and tradesmen. Subsidies that have already ended in 2016.

Also what is not mentioned is that Solar and Wind had 10 times the growth of Nuclear power. It also fails to mention - if you hadn't gone through the Policy act *BEFORE* reading the EIA report that Nuclear Power gets an input tax credit per kilowatt hour. NP also gets another source of funding that is not in the criteria of the EIA document in the form of contract construction delay subsidies.

So the Forbes article is based on an obsolete notion because the subsides ended 2 years ago and aren't part of core Energy policy according to the Act.

Look at the pie chart here on where the USA gets it's electricity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

.

What is missing here is the mass of concrete used in base of the wind generators will be reused for the next generation of wind technology as they are being set up where the wind is. The Nacelle will be upgraded and the base re-used. The up front establishment of a new industry will have those costs the same way Nuclear Power does.

What differs is that the steel in the Nuclear plant can't be re-used as it is radio-activated. The concrete can't be used without a massive energetic cost.

Come to think of it using Uranium mine tailings as concrete bases for Wind Turbines might be a really good way of disposing of the Uranium mine tailings in a constructive way. Build more wind to clean up the nuclear industry.

I'll also say, I don't object to funding the research of nuclear reactors, what I object to is the flat out raiding of the ratepayers to keep the current failing nuclear power industry as a means for oil and coal interests to further rob taxpayers. At least the limited solar and wind subsidies are ending up in the pockets of ordinary people.

For people interested in the facts that support the numbers in my previous post 2005 US Energy Policy Act.

You may find more Nuclear subsidies in SEC 600. onwards because I haven't included all of them. There is just enough references to make the point.

But nuclear plants can't compete with the subsidies that wind and solar receive in the form of exemptions from onerous environmental regulations.

Please find the The 2005 US Energy Policy Act, Sec. 600 onwards show how ridiculous what you are saying truly is in comparison to the funding Nuclear power gets.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control:

Where in the above quote does it say the CDC cannot research gun violence? How would any of that text describe a ban on "research on gun violence". Note, the same kind of restriction is put on other hot-button topics, like abortion.

That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion.

This Notion that NASA is a science agency needs to stop now. It is an Engineering agency. Of course there is science in NASA, but that Science should be focused on engineering the satellites and equipment we need in conjunction with the established science and research bodies such as NOAA, NWS, EPA, Various Colleges and Universities, etc so that they have the tools they need to do their scientific studies.

FALSE.

Quoting from the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which defines NASA's mission:

(c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;
(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes;
(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere;
(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by
  such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;
(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof; and
(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.

and

SEC.
203. (a) The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this Act, shall—
(1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;
(2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations; and
(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof

(see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-72/pdf/STATUTE-72-Pg426-2.pdf for an authoritative copy from the Gov't Printing Office).

Science is an explicit primary objective of NASA.

They are more likely to lose their 501(c)3 status if the do not run an affirmative action program. See the relevant language in the Civil Rights act here.

Note that the US Government's directions on how to operate an affirmative action program are here. People who tell you it's prohibited are distorting a little snippet of the law to deceive you.

You're looking for this: Part 1608 - Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

To say that this is a pretty well known piece of employment law would be an understatement.

Actually, I don't believe that's true. Read this.

I get it. You're a fucking idiot. You don't know what you're talking about, and refuse to learn about it. You are making stupid people embarrassed because they're now associated with you. It's been explained to you why you are wrong. If you continue to intentionally be wrong and lie about it, then you are no long simply wrong.. you're a lying sack of shit. That's probably an upgrade from what you normally are, but you should still strive to be better.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008...

https://www.thebalance.com/us-...

https://www.thoughtco.com/hist...

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10...

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

So, who, exactly, is "the enemy"? Are we at war with someone? Did I miss the declaration of war while I was in the shower?

Popular Arab and Islamic Congress, also known as the organization that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

This matters because in many cases current law is an enabling framework that establishes an agency and leaves the reality of the law to rule and regulation process. The ACA was short but the regulations behind it had a ten fold page count. i.e. the Regulations are ten times bigger.

You consider something that is 906 pages of fairly dense text as Short

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I would hate to see what you consider substantial. I do agree with you that the following regulations are probably an order of magnitude longer and more complicated

In what way does fighting in Afghanistan give us freedom?

Initially it would have been to go after Osama Bin Laden, the guy who planned the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

However, when, for two days, Bush refused every single request by troops on the ground for more troops to block Bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora because troops weren't available as he was preparing to invade Iraq, that issue went by the wayside.

I now nobody likes nuclear, and nobody likes consumerism, and we all want a quiet life in the countryside, until we need a hospital and emergency chopper ride, but essentially, there seems to be only one choice, between two kinds of energy:

1. coal, oil, gas, wind, solar

2. nuclear

The oil and coal industry hold significant patents on the devices that make competing energy systems viable. Even the darling of Nuclear power technology, the Integral Fast Reactor has been destroyed by oil and coal industry lobbying. Nuclear power is used by the oil and coal industry as a way to extract taxation credits from the taxpayer, [citation] Section 600-657 US Energy Policy Act.

Oil and Coal own the energy market and that is the way it will remain whilst they own the patents, the market and the politicians that regulate it.

It's 1000, not 2900 per the FAR:

121.471 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: All flight crewmembers.

(a) No certificate holder conducting domestic operations may schedule any flight crewmember and no flight crew-member may accept an assignment for flight time in scheduled air transportation or in other commercial flying if that crewmember’s total flight time in all commercial flying will exceed—

(1) 1,000 hours in any calendar year;

(2) 100 hours in any calendar month;

(3) 30 hours in any 7 consecutive days;

(4) 8 hours between required rest periods.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

Fixed your shoddy misquote. Kinda obvious that you'd prefer to misleadingly edit a post, instead of honestly and affirmatively address it, but no reason to let it slide:

Which home culture is that ScentCone? Your only specific example is DC, a jurisdiction under the explicit control of Congress, which is made up of individuals across the nation, so why are they failing to act to ensure DC schools are performing well? Were so many Congressional members subjected to this culture you castigate? Did you mean to say American culture is the problem?

No, congress does not run the DC school board or the DC school system. Which you know, though you're implying they do so you can cravenly dodge the substance of the matter. Nice attempt to avoid the reality of the situation.

Nope, Congress does have authority over DC, including the school board, as the Constitution explicitly states:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.

You know this, and can't argue it, but want to cravenly deflect the issue and avoid the reality of the situation. Congress could fix any problems in DC schools, if they wanted. They have the legal authority to do so. Your precious GOP has a majority in both houses, and the presidency. Why aren't they fixing it?

I cite DC because YOU, along with me, get to pay for a large portion of that very high per-student expense and its historically awful per-student results.

Nope, you didn't cite that as your reason, and it's not true, since DC actually pays more in federal taxes than 22 states, and a higher per capita rate, and receives less federal funding for its schools than many states.

Oh sure, you could argue that all DC taxes are federal taxes, but that's due to it being a federal entity empowered by the US Constitution. No escaping that one.

Shall we examine the exact same problem in Baltimore, or Detroit, or Chicago?All cities run for decades, of course, by liberal Democrats.

You may forget, but as I asked, what local culture does DC have, and how does it compare to the failing schools in Alabama, California, Texas, Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, New York and elsewhere? They have failing schools, and no, they aren't universally run by liberal Democrats. For example, try this information. And in fact, in many states, like Tennessee, the schools are ultimately under state supervision, not a city government, so focusing on the city itself can be misleading.

In fact, as you've claimed in your posts, Republicans are in charge all over the place. So why haven't they fixed anything yet? Why can't they managed to be the shining city on the hill that's inspiring to us all? Did Ronald Reagan rest on his laurels and ignore the report? Was George W. Bush unable to handle the problem with his "compassionate conservativism" as he claimed?? Have the Republicans elected across the country been unable to come up with solutions?

Ah, but all you can do is blame the dreaded "liberal Democrats" the scourge you assert is what ails us, and you don't even have to use a thinly veiled dog-whistle for that, do you? You're allowed, ev

The DREAM Act was first introduced in Congress in

You mean 2001. And nope, it has passed several times. The impediment was the filibuster, not a majority in Congress.

You know, an entirely non-Constitutional restriction by the Senate, on itself, not actual binding law.

ignores *multiple* votes in Congress that said "no we're not going to do that", including two such votes while his own party controlled Congress and the Presidency.

I notice you saying this sort of thing a lot, but Congress *NEVER* voted "not to do that" at any time. You're confusing a failure to pass a law with necessitating the opposite. That is an error of logic, and a falsehood on your part. I suggest you desist.

Now certainly Congress could vote to forbid such action. They could even vote to impeach the President.

They made no such vote. Never. Not once. They let Obama do it, and their only action? A token gesture that meant nothing since the USCIS was established by them, as a self-funding entity, which meant they never appropriated funding for it anyway. Now the states that filed a lawsuit are another matter, but WAIT, several states have sued over the rescinding.

Net result? LITIGATION. Yay?

Sorry, but either way, Congress has dropped the ball, and no, the Trump administration did not improve the situation. They just punted it. And tried to get idiots like you to think it was a Hail Mary touchdown.

Those laws left virtually all implementation details up to the Executive branch

The immigration law is actually quite specific about most relevant details -- such as what constitutes an "immediate relative". Such laws do leave little details to the Administration to determine. For example, a law would rarely specify exactly what needs to be on every form so the Administration likely has a great deal of latitude in designing the forms an applicant must submit for a particular visa type as long as those forms collected the information necessary to implement the law.

Take a look at Public Law 89-236 if you think that Congress gives the Administration a lot of latitude on relevant matters in immigration law (yes, of course, this has been amended many times since it was enacted).

US code 441 e https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for— (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make— (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

OK, So we are talking about something valuable and tangible, money, donations a roll of film, something you can point to or hold in your hand or a service you can identify and say "Here, this is the item(s) given that has value". Correct?

Now, I assume you already have an idea what item(s) of value where given or received. Tell us what that was.

Now, if you are talking about items in paragraph C, it's not Trump's issue if the Russians did any of these things. Reading paragraph (2) clearly excepts the stuff in "C". The only way Trump (or an associate being directed by him) can violate this law is by accepting anything in paragraph A or B, which basically boils down to money or things of value (such as office space, office machines, long distance phone service and such). So is your item in that list? If not, we are done.. If so, then what evidence do you have that it was solicited or accepted?

BTW... Don Jr's meeting with a Russian lawyer does not constitute evidence of this. Everyone at the meeting agrees that nothing changed hands, no information was given no promises made by either side. Unless you have some kind of proof that they are lying or something that shows something changed hands, it's a wild theory and nothing more...

Also, by this statute, Trump is only at risk if he asked for, received a donation of a service, money or item that has tangible value to his campaign. Trump (or his campaign) had to know about it. If a foreign national does stuff in paragraph C, Trump (or his associates) didn't break the law.

US code 441 e
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

    441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful forâ"
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly,
to makeâ"
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,
or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution
or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

If there were financial records to prove this it would have been plastered on every network and all over the 'net by now and you know it.

I'm no fan of Trump. IMO he has no real and solid ideological nor political beliefs or principles, beyond those of a rich NYC real estate developer.

He may be dirty, he may not. But what's happening is not an impartial look at facts & law. In fact, the shitstorm of obvious bullshit and false accusations that are being detonated about every single thing Trump says or does, or hell, anything anyone dreams up that he maybe might do/have done will actually *HELP TRUMP GET AWAY WITH IT IF HE **IS** GUILTY*, FFS!

If he's broken the law, you're damned straight I want his ass prosecuted! Don't go fucking it up with all this bullshit, you idiots! Think beyond your nose!

Strat

US code 441 e
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

  441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly,
to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,
or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution
or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

How is this something that Clinton didn't do, with the Clinton foundation? I find it questionable if any president in the last 2 decades hasn't accepted donations by foreign nationals...

US code 441 e
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

  441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly,
to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,
or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution
or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

As I replied to your original post but you're still asking questions I'll link it here as well:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...
Section e Paragraph a

Quoted above but the basics are that it's illegal to solicit, offer, or accept anything of value by a foreign national to help an election.

So there's the law.

It's also been cited in previous court cases in case you're wondering. And the judges summarized it pretty well in those cases as well. Just look online.
http://www.politico.com/static...

is a good example of a 2002 case.

You are not even trying here. It took all of 1 minute to track down the actual law. And if I can do that without too much effort with just a single google search you might want to go back to the Fox News forums and let them know not to go to Tech websites where we can actually RTFM when asked.

The law you're "looking" for is US Code 441 section e paragraph a. Abbreviated in many places online as: U.S.C. 441e(a)
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

Which states the same thing that has been repeated many times on actual fact based news channels and websites:

  441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly,
to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,
or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution
or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

So the parts you want to re-read are where they mention the illegality of giving, receiving, or asking for things of value from foreign nationals to aid in the election.

If you wanted to improve broadband speeds in the U.S. the best solution would be to make it illegal for states or cities to sell monopoly rights to various cable companies

You mean like 47 CFR 5, which says in part:

(a) Authority to award franchises; public rights-of-way and easements; equal access to service; time for provision of service; assurances
(1) A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise.

You mean like that law, which was enacted in 1992, and makes it illegal for states or cities to sell monopoly rights to any cable company?

and to allow for cities to form their own municipal providers or networks if they want to.

There is no law that prohibits this. Some cities have. The challenges occur when the cities try to form their own cable companies in direct competition with an incumbent to whom they have awarded a franchise and which rules they wish to ignore. In other words, the cities are trying to operate without the same restrictions they have put upon the company they want to compete with. I think any company that has to make a profit to stay in business and has had specific requirements for service put upon them by the local government would be a bit miffed when that government that can operate on the public dime at a loss wants to cherry-pick away the most profitable services without having to provide the rest. Do you expect them to be altruistic in the face of non-profit taxpayer-backed competition for the prime services?

A creditor can't refuse cash for a debt though prior to creating a debt they may require it be payed a certain way like a gas station that won't except large bills and requires you to pay before you pump your gas.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

Actually there is Section 5103 of title 31. I had to look it up but already knew it existed. When I was in college a very long time ago I worked in convenience store people would come in late and pump a few dollars in gas so they could break 100s. Now they make you prepay so that you don't drive off with out paying or pump gas and have a bill that they don't have the cash to break.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

Read the regulation: 81 Fed. Reg. 35,824. Page 35,838.

Methane from oil and natural gas leaks is the largest source of methane emission. It accounts for 32% of all anthropogenic methane emission.
Hydroelectric dams emit only 1.3% of anthropogenic methane emission.

Regardless of whether they are larger per unit of energy consumed, it is in the collection process that they are released.

The ONLY 'Constitutional Crisis' has been over the travel restrictions. That is only a crisis because of activist judges. Judges who in even recent times would have been hound (rightly so) from the bench for even suggesting that the President's personal prejudices should have any bearing whatsoever on the plain meaning of the law.

You misspelled "executive order". Executive orders are not laws

You conveniently neglected, like every other citizen who has been brainwashed by the liberal-infiltrated MSM, that established federal law (specifically Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182(f)) grants the authority to the POTUS to suspend the entry of aliens deemed detrimental to the interests of the US.

The specific law reads:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

The activist judges completely ignored this law - which was also quoted in the EO - to justify their flawed judgment. When judges or executives or representatives ignore codified law spelled out in front of them simply because it conflicts with their personal agenda, a constitutional crisis exists.

The 535 members of Congress are to blame too for not pointing the error out.

Have you seen the budget?
It's a 182-page book.

You're forgetting the other other big one: interest payments on national debt.

But even all of the "small beans" items are larger than they look... for example, the federal spending on education contributes only about 7% of the actual operating costs for a K-12 school, the majority of which is typically paid by State, County, City, and local taxes. But the feds make schools really work and jump through lots of hoops and administer tests to tick off the boxes that allows them to tap into that 7% of funding.

Anyway, http://www.usgovernmentspendin... does a better job including some of these other tax revenue streams into the total picture.

If anyone is interested in one-upping Steve Ballmer, have at it. Lots of source data from the White House Office of Management and Budget:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/brow...
All the raw data is there in lots and lots of Excel spreadsheets. Not very well organized or visualized, but it's there.

I got interested in doing something like this after an engineering accounting class I took a decade ago:
http://hairball.mine.nu/~rwa2/...

You should Bing

Well there's your problem, and no thanks.

Apparently it'd help you. See below. Must be your Googling is leading you astray. The Machine has turned on oy. But I'm only being jocular, at the tendency of people to use that word as a verb, as if it were the default.

the literal text of the Constitution.

Yep, and what part of "Congress shall make no law" did you miss?

The part where it's not in Amendments 2-10. Well, actually, I didn't miss it. Not only did I specifically spot the absence, I'm quite glad they're not present. But you missed that that phrase simply isn't there.

Did you miss where I said this:

and so it's only the First that says "Congress shall make no law" which makes your claim applicable.?

I meant it. It's only in the First. Not the others.

Try a look yourself, I'll even include the two orphan Amendments (one since ratified, the other, however impractical, still pending)::

Article the first. .... After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
-
Article the second. .... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. see Amendment XXVII

Article [I] (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion) 13
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article [III] (Amendment 3 - Quartering Soldiers)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV] (Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the

I don't believe that any one really expected the repeal to get through on the first try. The ACA is 3500 pages that no one person really understands. It honestly wouldn't surprised if it took years to unravel that mess.

There are two bills in what is called Obamacare, what some people call the ACA, but is actually the
PPACA = ‘‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’’ and that's a 906 pages long pdf.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/P...
Try reading it.
HCERA is ‘‘Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010’’. It's a 55 pages pdf.
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ152/pdf/PLAW-111publ152.pdf

It's not at all hard to understand, it's just more than anyone would memorize in entirety.
It covers a lot of ground and many topics unrelated to each other such as, "nursing student loan program, "protections for frontier states", and fingerprinting long-term care workers. The people who have an interest in those would find it easy to understand their part of it, but have no reason to investigate the other.

I suppose where the numerous page numbers come from is the regulations associated with the PPACA and HCERA. These regulations are written to address specific situations and are often requested by healthcare vendors and insurance companies to address clarification or details of implementation. Those may be another 10,000 or so pages. That sound like a lot, but it isn't unusual for complex areas of regulation. Many were pre-existing situations for Medicare, Medicaid and other entities associated with healthcare. Most will remain for whatever the next bill is passed unless they also end Medicare and Medicaid.

For the kneejerks, I humbly offer the original document this Senate resolution references:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

I wonder if the Senate overturned this regulation because they hate privacy or because of the fact these are "legislature level" rules being enacted by unelected bureaucrats in the last days of an administration that did everything it could to control its citizenry without the approval of Congress.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that Google and their ilk shouldn't be allowed to indulge in their raging data collection fetishes without letting the big telcoms and isp's wet their beaks. Right?

And let's dispense with this "bipartisan bill" bullshit.

This bill was authored by Democrats, and one republican helped sponsor it. That does not make it a "bipartisan effort" in any real sense of the word.

Just so you know, you're actually wrong...though I wouldn't think that'll stop you from your nonsensical crusade.

(Credit an AC who's not being upvoted for whatever reason):
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 14, 2011

Mr. Chaffetz (for himself and Mr. Goodlatte) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

The Senate bill, S.1212, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Wyden a day later -- basically a carbon copy of the House bill. Also:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 2168 ...
"Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
all of the witnesses for making their statements within the
time limit, that is not what usually happens around here. The
Chair will defer asking questions and will begin by recognizing
the author of this bill, the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz.'

FCC regulations state the opposite. Regulation in question

When Clinton did the same she probably thought she was telling the truth.

So, the she's-an-incompetent-moron defense used for the "smartest person in the room". Sounds like Catholic hospitals who suddenly start arguing that a fetus isn't a person the second they are sued for a preventable miscarriage.

She took bribes from Russia for selling them US uranium.

False

I trust you're calling bullshit when Democrats talk about Trump's business ties to Russia then, yes?

She failed to follow government guidelines for record retention.

True, but very common.

Very much horseshit, to be technical. She is the only SoS to use a private email server exclusively. And starting a mere two years after she publicly blasted the Bush Administration for their private servers. She also deleted tens of thousands of emails with the same authorization she had in setting up her server (none) which would have had her serving a few decades in prison for obstruction of justice, if her name was Hillary Smith.

That only refers to information you know you have, she didn't realized classified info was on the server.

Pure sophistry. Hillary knew full well that the information she was dealing in was born classified. Think about it for two seconds: if the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan sends an email about the state of nuclear tensions between that country and India, does it have to be marked classified before it is treated as such? You might not know the answer, but Hillary did as an Original Classification Authority, a high-level official who was given extensive training and responsibility over classified materials.

Hillary Clinton did not use Anthony Weiner's laptop, her aid Huma Abedin did, likely with her official State Dept email address.

Her agency, her responsibility. Ask any military base commander that's been sacked after some grunt screws something up with security or nuclear weapons.

The reason why the GOP focused so much on the private email server is because it was a legit Clinton scandal, one they didn't have to invent

FTFY. Hillary Clinton ran her own unsecured, unauthorized server and deliberately deleted evidence before an investigation. Other people have been sent to prison for far less - just ask the Navy man serving time for taking a few selfies on an unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.

> For example, they don't care whether it's a 1.6-2.0 liter 4 cylinder in a 3000lb car that gets 50mpg or a 7 liter V8 in a 7000lb package that gets 15-20mpg.

Not sure who the "they" you refer to is. In the US EPA cares, the have CAFE standards, and the Estimated fuel economy is used to calculate the allowed CO2 emissions per mile. Other emissions are not directly tied to fuel economy, but hitting the above standard closes the loop.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...
  These standards
apply to model years 2009 through 2016
and require CO2 emissions for passenger
cars and the smallest light trucks of 323
g/mi in 2009 and 205 g/mi in 2016, and
for the remaining light trucks of 439 g/
mi in 2009 and 332 g/mi in 2016

Did you even read the article you linked to? It ended with a solution to the nuclear waste problem, building more nuclear reactors.

Yes I did, several times over the years. I think to evolve NP you have to have an understanding of the reality. You said it's a small problem, well it isn't - it's a big problem. You said it's fixed but it isn't, you think the answer is simple, it isn't and you don't seem prepared to try to understand.

I'm not saying it's easy to understand either, I started from a position of supporting the Nuclear Industry decades ago and I'm still learning. The more I learned the more issues I uncovered to the point of being criticized for asking hard questions to answer or countering fiction with the facts and reality of the situation.

Yes, it really sucks that people made a mess with radioactive stuff, but scooping it up and dropping it in a hole doesn't make it go away.

If you design it right then it eliminates the real and justified concerns anti-nuke folk have and still allows advancement in reactor technology, i.e, you know where your transuranics are stored to use in your new reactor technology one day.

Most pro-nuke folk get fixated on idealism instead of reality and are blind to goals that are actually complementary because they seem to be unable to step out of the polarization of the argument or their own prejudices. You yourself politicized the issue and I just can't take that seriously.

To get rid of it requires nuclear reactors. While we're running those reactors to destroy this waste we can get power from it too.

I agree AND disagree with you. The technology of BURNER reactors already exists that resolves U283 and pu-239 stocks but requires material technology advancements to evolve the technology.

BOTH SIDES of the political debate have nailed the coffin into the nuclear industry so that the oil and coal industry can plunder it fro revenue. I (again) refer you to the 2005 US energy policy act where you will find that it is the oil and coal industry that is preventing the development of these reactors because a reactor that replaced coal and produces hydrogen to replace oil for the vehicle fleet is against their commercial interests. In fact the technology is being dismantled so it can't be studied by nuclear technologists. You say you are free because you are armed but do you have the courage to stand up to oil and coal interests?

Even if you do develop those reactors, you need a place to put them so why not put them in the same place you have stored all of the spent fuel so you can fully contain fuel reprocessing and reactor disposal as well? Do you understand how and why the return on reactor energy investment is so important and how that ties into material technology advances?

If the "pro-nuke" actually understood the situation you would understand that spent fuel storage is the way forward for the industry whilst giving us time to clean up the radiological mess this fucked up rushed prototype nuclear industry has left. But no you always think that it can be fixed with some new reactor with unknown basis design issues whilst making excuses for the failures of the existing technology and it's implementation. That's why normal people don't trust you and why people who have studied the industry think you are lunatics.

The problem is that nutty nukkers are so intent on blaming NIMBYS and hippies that they are too mentally lazy to go and figure out what the real issues are even when someone sticks it right in their face, instead they choose to cherry picking the knowledge communicated to reinforce their deeply flawed arguments. Because of that the nuclear industry never evolves because nukkers believe it is without flaws. They don't respect the power of the elements that are in reactors and therefore they make excuses for the stupid things the nuclear

Even with an antenna, in the US you'll still likely need a digital decoder for the signal; the analog signal has been mostly converted to digital in the US, despite delays.

FWIW, if you bought a TV in the last decade, it already should have an ATSC decoder built in. This is required by federal law for all TV sets sold in the USA that also have an NTSC analog tuner.

The digital decoder to analog converter is only needed for older TVs bought in prior decades. Because of this requirement, the USA government used to give out coupons so you could get such a ATSC->NTSC converter for free (they allowed each household to get a $40 coupon and many companies made converter boxes you could by for $40 making them effectively free).

Trump might actually submit a budget to the congress (as Obama has never done),

... Are you high? Obama submitted budget proposals every year he was in office, just like every President before him since 1924.

If you're looking for the law I discuss, it's 17 USC 102(b), not "CFR". It's here, second paragraph.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

8 USC 1182(f)

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants”

Actually, Obama got rid of the prohibition on propaganda aimed at Americans then by "modernizing" the act that prohibited it, as you can see here:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

You can read more about it here:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/...

And it also prohibits the use of "defeat devices" that reduce emission control effectiveness during normal operation and use: "(f) Defeat devices. You may not equip your locomotives with a defeat device. A defeat device is an auxiliary emission control device (AECD) that reduces the effectiveness of emission controls under conditions that the locomotive may reasonably be expected to encounter during normal operation and use."

Have you actually read the authorization to use force?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That's it in a nut shell. Nowhere does it state that Iraq was behind 9/11. It does state that some terrorist involved were known to be in Iraq as well as others who were against the US and that due to 9/11, the threat of terrorist getting WMDs that Iraq was believed to still be in possession of and working on was a direct threat to the United States.

Here is the full version in PDF

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

This entire Iraq was behind 9/11 is just a rumor from people with short attention spans who are too lazy to pay attention to detains. Bush did go around and say 9/11 changes everything and the threat Iraq imposed needed to be taken seriously but he wasn't saying Iraq was behind 9/11

Have you actually read the authorization to use force?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That's it in a nut shell. Nowhere does it state that Iraq was behind 9/11. It does state that some terrorist involved were known to be in Iraq as well as others who were against the US and that due to 9/11, the threat of terrorist getting WMDs that Iraq was believed to still be in possession of and working on was a direct threat to the United States.

Here is the full version in PDF

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

This entire Iraq was behind 9/11 is just a rumor from people with short attention spans who are too lazy to pay attention to detains. Bush did go around and say 9/11 changes everything and the threat Iraq imposed needed to be taken seriously but he wasn't saying Iraq was behind 9/11

The relevant law is: 18 U.S. Code 1924

Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material (18 USC 1924) is something that Hillary would likely have been charged with if she had not been protected by her cronies. The fact is, they allowed her claim that she didn't know what she was doing was illegal to stand in as absence of a clear motive. I find it really hard to believe that someone who has spent 30 years in the Federal Government has no knowledge of Section 18 of the criminal code! David Petraeus plead guilty to that charge and got a little probation and a $100,000 fine. For one count. However, Hillary (and others on her staff) might be guilty lots and lots of instances.

She and some staffers may also be guilty of 18 USC 1623, False Declarations Before a grand jury or court--which carries up to 5 years--for lying under oath about said intent to commit the crime of removing classified documents and storing them. There is also 18 USC 1001, Fraud and False Statements which might come into play if she lied. Really, I think it's quite embarrassing as a citizen to live in a country that claims to practice justice in the court, but clearly does not. When you get passed all the political spin and commentary and drill down to the actual criminal code, it is hard to imagine a reality in which Hillary and her staff did not get convicted of SOMETHING. Let alone not even indicted! It just goes to show how deep the corruption goes.

Here's TFL (the fucking law)

18 USC 1924
18 USC 1623
18 USC 1001

The relevant law is: 18 U.S. Code 1924

Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material (18 USC 1924) is something that Hillary would likely have been charged with if she had not been protected by her cronies. The fact is, they allowed her claim that she didn't know what she was doing was illegal to stand in as absence of a clear motive. I find it really hard to believe that someone who has spent 30 years in the Federal Government has no knowledge of Section 18 of the criminal code! David Petraeus plead guilty to that charge and got a little probation and a $100,000 fine. For one count. However, Hillary (and others on her staff) might be guilty lots and lots of instances.

She and some staffers may also be guilty of 18 USC 1623, False Declarations Before a grand jury or court--which carries up to 5 years--for lying under oath about said intent to commit the crime of removing classified documents and storing them. There is also 18 USC 1001, Fraud and False Statements which might come into play if she lied. Really, I think it's quite embarrassing as a citizen to live in a country that claims to practice justice in the court, but clearly does not. When you get passed all the political spin and commentary and drill down to the actual criminal code, it is hard to imagine a reality in which Hillary and her staff did not get convicted of SOMETHING. Let alone not even indicted! It just goes to show how deep the corruption goes.

Here's TFL (the fucking law)

18 USC 1924
18 USC 1623
18 USC 1001

The relevant law is: 18 U.S. Code 1924

Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material (18 USC 1924) is something that Hillary would likely have been charged with if she had not been protected by her cronies. The fact is, they allowed her claim that she didn't know what she was doing was illegal to stand in as absence of a clear motive. I find it really hard to believe that someone who has spent 30 years in the Federal Government has no knowledge of Section 18 of the criminal code! David Petraeus plead guilty to that charge and got a little probation and a $100,000 fine. For one count. However, Hillary (and others on her staff) might be guilty lots and lots of instances.

She and some staffers may also be guilty of 18 USC 1623, False Declarations Before a grand jury or court--which carries up to 5 years--for lying under oath about said intent to commit the crime of removing classified documents and storing them. There is also 18 USC 1001, Fraud and False Statements which might come into play if she lied. Really, I think it's quite embarrassing as a citizen to live in a country that claims to practice justice in the court, but clearly does not. When you get passed all the political spin and commentary and drill down to the actual criminal code, it is hard to imagine a reality in which Hillary and her staff did not get convicted of SOMETHING. Let alone not even indicted! It just goes to show how deep the corruption goes.

Here's TFL (the fucking law)

18 USC 1924
18 USC 1623
18 USC 1001