Slashdot Mirror
Court: NRC In Violation For Not Ruling On Yucca Mountain
schwit1 sends this quote from an AP report: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] to complete the licensing process and approve or reject the Energy Department's application for a never-completed waste storage site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. In a sharply worded opinion, the court said the nuclear agency was 'simply flouting the law' when it allowed the Obama administration to continue plans to close the proposed waste site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The action goes against a federal law designating Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository. 'The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,' Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion (PDF), which was joined Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland dissented. The appeals court said the case has important implications for the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. 'It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,' Kavanaugh wrote. 'The commission is simply defying a law enacted by Congress ... without any legal basis.'"
If the supreme court wants to keep Yucca Mountain running, they can head out to Nevada and run it themselves!
Speaking to State Department personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia, Brazil, on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that "this little thing called the Internet ... makes it much harder to govern."
Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard. And actually, that is the sum total of the story; everything else is just details. In this case, some people at the NRC (and the President) decided that the only way this was ever going to happen is if they take unilateral action, say fuck you to the NIMBYs, and move forward. Obviously, the courts are butthurt by this, because they want the chance to let every significant government action get bogged down in the quagmire that is our endless appeals process.
Ta da. The end. If you ask me... Bravo NRC, bravo Mr. President. Not because I agree with how they're doing it, but because it's probably the only way it'll ever get done... and this does need to get done. We can't wait another 10, 20, or 50 years while the government and the general public pulls its head out of its ass. Our planet is heating up. Fast. Fossil fuels are not sustainable. Period. This is scientific fact. We need nuclear power, and we need it now. Which means, we also need storage facilities. And we actually needed those storage facilities about 15 years ago... because right now, there is a lot of nuclear waste piling up in our major cities because they can't ship them anywhere due to this kind of regulatory bullshit. And guess what: The interim storage containers are starting to fail. Everywhere.
If someone doesn't step in and squash the NIMBYs (and ride rough-shod over the courts and their affinity for endless delays and accomodation for them), we will eventually have a major public health crisis on our hands. So again... I don't agree with how they did it, but the lack of effective alternatives weighed against the consequences makes this a no-brainer for me.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The checks and balances in our government are what stands between a successful government of the people and a dictatorship. What powers you give Obama today, or gave Bush yesterday, may be in the hands of a form of Hitler tomorrow.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Yucca Mountain has been the Hot Potato of American politics since it was proposed. If anything was going to be done, it'll be too late.
I didn't even know it was open and processing/storing waste. A friend worked at Hanford and told me how grim things where there and it would need to be relieved of storing any additional waste as it was over capacity and having great difficulty with what it had, something to do with putting leaking vaults into bigger vaults because some old contractor had mixed concrete wrong or the spec was wrong or both (not really too surprising, considering the massive tomes which must be making up 'regulations' these days.)
Effectively this is the SCOTUS telling the NRC to read, rubber-stamp, shuffle, rubber-stamp, collate, file, retrieve, shuffle, rubber-stamp and push pencils much faster. A bureaucrat's nightmare!
"who took my left-handed, Thursday, month-without-an-R-in-it, special issue Red Tape Cutting scissors?!?"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Because the alternative was Mitt Romney?
They shouldn't have taken money...
Here's a thought... If they don't want the waste site then Nevada needs to repay all of the federal money that has been spent on the project... Also, since they clearly acted in bad faith, they also get to temporarily store all of the nuclear waste until a waste repository is built.
Those fuckers took the money... Now it is time to take the waste!!!
No,
I think it has broader application.
Such as the potential court rulings in the future regarding certain patriotic network connectivity and the collection of data, which were a result from a flouting of the law by various branches of power.
This is an example to use in order to keep the powers that be, to be beholdened to the powers they were granted.
This is an assertion of an important check, to balance the power as it should be.
It does not matter if it is Obama or someone else -- this can set a precedent that the courts will hold those responsible... responsible.\
Captcha: suckling
What makes you think they were wrong? The choice offered us by the political machine was between an obvious sellout, and an obvious sellout who's also a raving misogynistic looney that's utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living. I've met very few people who voted for Obama the second time around, but many, many who voted against Romney. When I'm feeling cynical it almost looks like the Republican party intentionally took a dive. And who could blame them - lots of old vultures coming home to roost - it looks much better for the Rs if a D happens to be in the oval office at the time.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
'The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,' Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion (PDF), which was joined Judge A. Raymond Randolph.
That's all this president has been doing since he's been in office. He ignores the parts of the law he doesn't agree with and rigorously enforces the parts he does agree with. That's why nobody will trust him on comprehensive immigration reform -- he'll just waive the parts of the law he doesn't like. You can't deal with a man like that. Imagine that! An un-American, law-breaking, lying president. Ah, ye fools!
One thing that people aren't really thinking about when they read this is the bigger picture of certain things like his failure to uphold DoMA, or failure to properly enforce the federal immigration laws by letting illegal aliens out of the jails and back onto the streets instead of shipping them back to their countries of origin, or the most recent debaucle about Obamacare business mandate being delayed a year but individual not.
Obama and his administration does not have the right or the authority to selectively enforce the law. He is the chief executive officer, the top "lawman" of the country, and he is bound by the law as much as anyone else is, he's not above it.
So that means, Obamacare must be enforced AS IT IS WRITTEN, the government cannot ignore laws that are inconvenient to the agenda. The government has laws and regulations they must follow as they are enacted.
Are we a nation of men or are we a nation of laws?
Or the Obama administration could you know, follow the law.
I couldn't believe he unilaterally decided to ignore Obamacare, the law named after him!
Please spend your last $11.1 million on a facility that is never going to become operational. Make sure the money goes to companies financing political lobbysts.
Fact Sheet on Licensing Yucca Mountain
AccountKiller
In the past couple of years we've seen the administration declare loudly that they'll refuse to enforce other laws, including immigration laws and the Obamacare employer mandate. Meanwhile, any court challenge to a law the administration doesn't particularly like is sure to succeed, since the administration will refuse to defend it.
Unless something turns around, the rule of law and the separation of powers are on their way out in this country, to be supplanted by the decisions of a dictator and of unelected officials he appoints.
Are we a nation of men or are we a nation of laws?
Ford's words said "laws", his actions said "men" and we've been going downhill since.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Here are some laws that the administration has famously ignored, instead of pursuing a repeal through the democratic process. There are probably more.
Again, I'm not saying any one of these laws is a wise law, but they are (or were in the case of DOMA until overturned) duly legislated, therefore the executive had a constitutional duty to enforce them until such time the laws are repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts. Where is the Republic going when the executive branch no longer feels constrained by the law or the democracy?
Nuclear waste? Is Yucca Mountain pronounced "yucky?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(BTW, if I had points you'd get one. +5, nail on head)
Free Martian Whores!
It always surprises me that people forget - if you allow the president a power grab, you're giving that power to a future President Palin or whoever. Don't want Palin making your healthcare choices, including contraceptives? Keep the federal government out of health care.
How much more NIMBY can you get? Just build it already!
What's really fascinating is how much crap has already been detonated in the name of research in the Nevada desert and yet this can't seem to move forward, decade upon decade. Not like the place has more faults than California and yet this happened. But anything with desert all over the top is wasteland and ideal, right? Rather than some immensely stable place like in the Dakotas. Makes for good popcorn-munching drama after all these years.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The law (passed in 1983) said that once a location is chosen, the agency is allowed 3 years to make a yes or no determination, with one-year extensions if they become necessary.
All that is required is a simple "Yes" or "No", within three years.
The 3-year clock started ticking in 2002.
Since 2002 over $100M has been spent simply waiting for the yes or no answer.
Both the original court order and this appeals court order are repeating: The law says you must give a yes or no answer within three years. The time is expired, you must give your answer.
The problem is entirely political. They cannot answer either way and still expect to get votes, so they bury their heads in the sand and refuse to do anything other than cash the checks.
In some ways I am jealous; how many jobs can you do nothing for a decade and still collect a tithe of a billion dollars for it? Are they accepting new hires? It seems like a bureaucrat's dream.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
that is what is happening.
over the last dozen or so administrations each has taken a little more power and then a little more. frequently flouting the law and not caring about conseqnuesnces unless it blows up in their faces, and then they do the absolutely least amount to make it go away.
For obama it is the NSA spying program. Obama wants to add checks and balances by letting the NSA monitor themselves monitoring every citizen without warrant or reason.
Bush said torture was not only legal, but expanded Gitmo to house people who he thought didn't deserve the rule of law.
Clinton, created and pushed through the DCMA.
Bush senoir basically covered his tracks while he was VP.
Reagan sold chemical weapons to Saddam. Who used them.
Carter was just a pussy.
Ford was a fill in
Nixon um watergate anyone
Johnson, Vietnam isn't a war it was never declared as such by Congress. Vietnam was a police action.
Kennedy? well he slept with more women(and better looking ones) than clinton did.
Eisnhowser? probably the last decent president we had. it is too bad no bothered listening to his warnings on military industrial complex taking over.
Truman? he nuked a country twice.(for a good reason Japan would not have go down easily)
Roosevelt? he was the first and only president to be elected 3 times breaking the tradition since Washington of only two terms. and he created the Executive office of the Presidency.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
You do realize that the head of the Senate is from Nevada right?
Yucca Mountain has had every possible hurdle placed in it's way to gum up the project- all that is left is for officials fighting NIMBY forces to start having accidents... Different stall tactics are tried by everybody who gets into this mess. It's a politically toxic issue.
As for Obama, he isn't simple to follow. He says one thing and then does something "pragmatic" to get along with as many of the powerful forces as possible - it is as if the 2 year long healthcare battle took away his spine completely. Ever since he hasn't really gone up against the system - which likes to go almost nowhere new. Remember, nobody anywhere wanted healthcare to change...except the public and Obama. What we got wasn't so great - but it isn't that bad either - given that nobody has done jack since Nixon fucked it all up says a lot... and it was during probably the most corrupt dysfunctional time in the nation's history. Don't know why people expect so much when they encourage this farce democracy to continue. I don't know the motives, but forcing this legal battle which should have been obviously a loser seems to eliminate more stalling.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Requiem for the American Dream
I don't think, either of the major candidates last year were misogynists. Both had lovely families — and full backing of their wives. Romney's wife, in particular, did not even have her own political ambition as an incentive to appear backing her husband.
There was nothing "loony" about either candidate, but Mitt Romney would've followed the law in question — and done a number of other things right by now...
I'm confused here... I thought, your wrath was directed at Romney — who did work for his living before becoming a politician — but now you appear to be angry at Obama, who moved into politics straight out of college and whose biggest Executive position before Presidency was running a (failed) small-time charity...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Some people just don't get that concept. Some people do get that concept but just don't care. Some people get that concept and care but feel helpless to do anything about it. Some people get that concept, care, feel capable of doing something about it but become part of the problem. I hope that we don't give away so much that we cannot bring back the balance peacefully.
I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act [wikipedia.org] I'm pretty sure this is over. The US was to of had
a permanent storage area for nuclear waste long ago.
This area (East Washington State) would liked to of had the waste and was working on a repository (testing). West Washington State
and the political power didn't; work was stopped and Nevada's Yucca Mountain became the designated (and only)
high level nuclear waste burial site.
Something does need to be done with the nuclear waste, other than storage pools at each nuclear plant.
Thank you so much for teaching me to think for myself. As a result, I will always follow your words and never stray.
Besides, you are so correct, oh wise Internet sage. Who cares that we are talking about a potential madman controlling the most powerful nation in the history of the world. I should never compare such a thing to Hitler.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
There are only two alternatives to detaining prisoners in Gitmo:
Guess, which of the two Obama has chosen to expedite closing of the camp? All things considered, I prefer Bush's approach — it is far less bloody.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I chose my words wisely. You quoted my words wrongly.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Four times (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944). He died early in his fourth term, leaving Truman (whom he disliked so much that the existence of the A-Bomb came as a surprise to Truman after he became President) in charge.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
In what sense do you have a democracy?
We have a democracy in the sense that we hold elections to choose our leaders. Just because you don't like the outcome of those elections doesn't make them invalid. I voted for Gary Johnson. He didn't win. That isn't because the "system is rigged", but rather because very few people share my viewpoint. You should get out of the basement and talk to real people. Most of them are pretty happy with Obama.
I'm pretty sure one could try them in civilian courts, considering 'terrorism' is a criminal act, not an act of war. But that would be hideously inconvenient, considering how many of them ended up there.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
I'd love to see the corollary to Godwin's Law that says anything about "You're stupid and you lose all debates for ever."
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Not just inconvenient — impossible: we don't even have jurisdiction in most of those cases. Consider pirates for another — less politically-charged — example... Whenever NATO captures them — off the coast of Somalia, primarily — they are let go...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That's only true about Prisoners of War — and we did release all of the captured Iraqi soldiers shortly after the invasion succeeded in 2003, for example. The detainees in Gitmo don't qualify as Prisoners of War however:
.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Maybe you should step off your partisan rant and realize GW Bush started the whole signing statement craze where he would basically rewrite the law with his signing statement. Obama is continuing his tradition just as every president continues the expansion of powers of the previous administration even if they campaigned against said powers.
So the question is when Bush was signing bills and saying he interpreted the law to mean exactly the opposite of what the law said were you as up in arms about it as you are with Obama? Because from what I've seen, while I abhor what Obama is doing by ignoring these laws, he's not doing it nearly as often as Bush and almost everyone I met railing against Obama fully supported Bush when he did exactly the same thing. Personally I think they are both full of shit.
Erhm, uhm...Presidents have the power to ignore laws they...find unconstitutional. Of course to Obama that means "anything that doesn't accord with my form of relatively-recent progressivism", so he hasn't a leg to stand upon.
Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
In theory, Gitmo is for enemy combatants, not terrorists. Or at least that's how it started.
You really don't want to go down the path of civil trials for enemy combatants. Being an enemy soldier and firing at US troops is not illegal, nor is flying a bomber over a US city and dropping bombs on civilians. Doing so without being in uniform violates every treaty governing war for the past 400 year or so, but it's only the "not in uniform" part that's illegal. A downed enemy bomber pilot should be released at the end of the war, not executed for mass murder.
But in 2011 yet another incremental power grab (Obama's in this case, but it's not like the pattern is new) extended "covered persons" (those for which military justice is appropriate) to members of terrorist groups and people giving assistance to them. That crosses the bright line separation between "enemy soldier (in uniform or otherwise)" and "just some guy opposed to the US". For the former to apply to a US citizen, he has to fly to Afghanistan and point a rifle at a US uniform - really hard to abuse to go after local political opponents. The later can be stretched to apply to just about anyone, by submitting "evidence" to the secret courts where there's no defense present.
I have no problem with having P.O.W. camps when we're fighting, whether or not war was officially declared. But to effectively convict someone who clearly isn't an enemy soldier of treason without a trial? That's Star Chamber nonsense right there, the exact sort of thing we had a revolution to get away from.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
a person who cannot construct a thought without referencing Hitler is seriously deficient.
I'd argue that anyone who immediately eschews tools that are available to them based on the opinions of someone on the Internet is "seriously deficient". I can couch my meaning in more obscure references...but why bother? Doing unnecessary work is counter-productive.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Is because no president has ever made a judge disappear in modern times. Abraham Lincoln was able to declare war on citizens just think if Obama did that to a state that wanted to separate today. For Obama to have been able to do everything they lay at his feet it would take a man 700 years if he never slept.
...supreme court...can head out to Nevada and run it themselves!
Not their job. The Administration, as the Executive Branch, of the Gov., needs to, you know, do their job of EXECUTING law that the Legislative branch, you know, Congress, the people who MAKE THE LAW, create.
We've never been any further from a representitive government and closer to rule by decree than now.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
"We've never been any further from a representitive government and closer to rule by decree than now."
1863
I have a hard time seeing your logic. If we don't have universal healthcare, somehow you think that will prevent anti-abortion laws? I don't think that's right. You know that all 50 states used to ban contraceptives, right? Way way back before Obama was even born?
Bush's foreign policy resulted in a quarter million dead Iraqis, plus a rounding error of Americans. Obama isn't exactly a pacifist, but he is compared to Bush. It's untenable to say that Bush's approach was less bloody.
Soldiers get put in prisoner of war camps till the end of fighting, if they do illegal stuff they get a military trial. Civilians get arrested by police and tried by a civilian court. Now Obama just has to choose what side of that line to put the Gitmo detainees on. Or he could just make up some crazy new status called unlawful combatant and make up new rules for them. But that would be illegal.
Yes, you explain exactly why, if a person can only think in broad strokes, without any deep understanding, they use Hitler as an example.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The difference between 1863 and now: Obama has actually tried to rule by decree 4 times, and each time was slapped down by the supreme court as in each instance they were "a clear abuse of power."
Om, nomnomnom...
There's a reason Godwin's law exists, a person who cannot construct a thought without referencing Hitler is seriously deficient.
But that's not what Goodwin's Law says. As originally formulated, it only said that if a discussion went on long enough, somebody would mention Hitler or the nazis. Now, of course, there's a corollary that says that anybody who makes a gratuitous mention of them or calls their opponent a nazi has lost the argument. However, simply mentioning him, especially in a context where such a mention is relevant as it was here, doesn't invoke Godwin.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
"this little thing called the Internet ... makes it much harder to govern."
My heart feels for the poor politicians that are having so much of a problem with people having a medium that provides them a voice.
Or maybe it could be that they're doing their "governing" wrong....
Do you think having Palin or Jeb Bush running the healthcare system, making health decisions for you, would be a good idea? How about Chris Christie? Ron Paul? Do you want them tracking your emails and phone calls?
;)
One of them, or someone like them, will be president.
If you decide to give the feds power over your life, you are deciding to let Palin, Christie, or Paul make those decisions.
Ron Paul might issue an executive order that condoms have to have aluminum tips - your little head needs a tinfoil hat too.
If you're referring to the emancipation proclamation that was passed by a slim margin in congress. Now lets's examine the "Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2012"...
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I think Obama would have to change his stance on pandering to unions.
But outside of that, I think you really might have a point.
The checks and balances in our government are what stands between a successful government of the people and a dictatorship. What powers you give Obama today, or gave Bush yesterday, may be in the hands of a form of Hitler tomorrow.
The checks are what the taxpayers write against hard earned money and the balance is so out of control brought to you by your local CONgressMAN.
As for tomorrow's Hitler, vote for Jeb Bush and get what you deserve.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Roosevelt? he was the first and only president to be elected 3 times
He was also the only president to be elected 4 times. He died early in his fourth term as president. He also imprisoned more than 100,000 Japanese Americans by executive order. Showed a complete disregard for the Constitution with his handling of the supreme court when it struck down several New Deal programs.
Truman? he nuked a country twice.(for a good reason Japan would not have go down easily)
Don't forget the Korean War.
Eisnhowser? probably the last decent president we had. it is too bad no bothered listening to his warnings on military industrial complex taking over.
Agreed. My only issue with Ike was his handling of Iran. Putting the Shah back in power over the democratically elected government was the only issue I have with his presidency.
Kennedy? well he slept with more women(and better looking ones) than clinton did.
I find that trivial compared to almost starting a nuclear war.
Nixon um watergate anyone
Would he even have been in any real trouble today over that? Hell, we probably would have had universal healthcare if Watergate hadn't happened. He was still a batshit crazy person though.
Ford was a fill in
Sort of. I've always admired him for basically throwing away his political career for the good of the country. We were so bogged down with Watergate that the country was practically paralyzed. by pardoning Nixon we were able to move on with life. But it flushed his chance to be elected.
FDR was probably the biggest single power grab in recent history until Bush Jr. But there were others before that too. It's just that in the past there have been presidents that at least tried to set things right. That doesn't seem to be happening right now though.
In what sense do you have a democracy?
You should get out of the basement and talk to real people. Most of them are pretty happy with Obama.
Most people I speak to that are outside the US see to agree with you. However I've found very few in the US who are happy with him these days.
Citation
Clone Hitler!
Neo-Nazi embryologist found the piece of his skull.
Or
Actual Hitler!
His suicide before the battle of Berlin was a ruse, and VonBraun actually had a pact with aliens (like that Star Trek) which ferried Hitler, Eva and some other Aryan women to make a Nazi Hitler army! The first global television broadcast was Hitler's speech at the Berlin Olympics, maybe they liked what they saw?
I call them Obushma, because for the life of me I can't see any significant difference between them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
That is not even slightly true; John Huntsman was way more moderate than Romney was. In fact, I believe Huntsman would have been capable of attracting enough liberal votes to win the general election (which was, of course, exactly why he was incapable of winning the primary).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The Obama campaign had to win Reno. In order to win Reno, they had to promise to do everything in their power to keep Yucca mountain closed. This is just a politician trying to keep peace. Reno's residents don't want Yucca open because they don't want nuclear waste trucked through their city. Unfortunately, nothing will convince them that it's safe.
No, I will not work for your startup
"Wasteland and ideal" is right, I think. Presumably, seismic stability is less important than keeping it away from farmland.
By the way, you should have zoomed in a little more on your map link; it would make the craters more obvious.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
hes already hated more than bush by many so probably he will be labeled one of the worst if not the worst president of the first 50 presidents.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
exactly. To put it another way, If we count all the "dead afghans and iraqis" as bushes deaths, then we need to count all the dead libyans, syrians, and egyptians as obama deaths (on top of the iraqi and afghan and american deaths at his hands)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
bush jr powergrab was huge, but obama was bigger. in no time in history were americans MANDATED to buy a product until obama. What if we had a republican president who said all americans MUST buy a pistol and get training to use it? most democrats would be going apeshit,
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
clearly you (and a large majority of posters all over the net) seem to not understand godwins law. To be clear godwin only means the longer a conversation goes, the more likely a hitler reference will be used.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
thank you for the trout reference. I havent used an IRC script in forever that brought back memories
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I dont think its because most people dont share your viewpoint, i think it has more to do with media manipulation that tells the uneducated people that they have to choose between a giant doushe and a turd sandwhich, while laughing at anyone else who tries to run.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
how does obama know what its like to work for a living? he never heald a real job in his life, he was senator for 7 months before he became president.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
not the other poster but yes! I hated bush with a passion while he was president, I never thought we would see a president as bad and within 6 months i was proven not only wrong but we were stuck with a worse president.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
They went after other groups as well, including liberal and progressive groups
Thanks for the liberal spin Mr Curiously AC.
In reality those documents released by your fellow liberals don't mean what you think they mean - they do not refer to the targeting that conservative groups undergo (not even past tense, the targeting continues to this day)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not exactly difficult. Unless of course you're getting your news from the major networks.
Om, nomnomnom...
he never heald a real job in his life, he was senator for 7 months before he became president.
Was that right after he emerged fully formed from his birthing pod?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
"An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian or military personnel who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action; subject of course to international treaties on justice and human rights such as everyones right to a fair trial"
Unless your domnestic law states that people can lose all their rights(which is a slippery slope) then they have rights. By demonstration of several government organs, the US either can either convert any of their citizens to a rightless husk by law, or they simple ignore the law, neither of these are a very charming concept.
You can't deal with a man like that. Imagine that! An un-American, law-breaking, lying president. Ah, ye fools!
Since when is a law-breaking, lying president un-American?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Many of them at gitmo were captured in the vicinity of someone who was committing a crime, or cooking food for someone committing a crime, or providing shelter for them. That is not the same thing.
This space intentionally left blank
Yes, funnily enough, some of them didn't even carry arms at all. Which makes you correct in stating that they don't qualify as PoWs – they're *kidnapping victims*.
And then there is of course the whole matter of allegations vs something that might hold up a court of law (whether you're going to use one or not), and terrorism vs resistance.
Only countries can wage wars. Since the alleged terrorists are not part of any state military they are not soldiers.
Enemy combatant is a bullshit term invented by the US. Either they are criminals and should be tried in civilian courts, or they are a prisoners of war and should be treated as such (no torture, negotiation with the country whose military they are part of).
Since the latter option is obviously impossible, since they are not part of any military, only the former is available. The US doesn't want to go that route because it would reveal things about the US in court. Officially it is security related stuff that is supposed to be secret, but in reality it is evidence of torture and other human rights violations. The US is now in an almost impossible situation where if it releases anyone they will take legal action against them and publicize the ill treatment and injustice, so the only option is to detain them forever until they die. Or, in Obama's case, until the election when it becomes somebody else's problem.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
But I can vote a future President Palin out of office.
Right now, a lot of healthcare choices are coerced by health insurance - which doctors I can visit, where I can go, what is covered. The decisions are made by people I don't know, people I have no control over, people I can't remove from their position.
As someone who lives in a country with universal health care (albeit I'm male, so the right to choose doesn't directly effect me), I can say that while I don't agree with a lot of what our current Prime Minister's views are, the PM hasn't tried to change the mandate of universal healthcare since coming to power ~7 years ago.
Socialized medicine will not inherently lead to the federal government making decisions for you, it's leaders who come into office with the goal of dictating health decisions to the electorate who will. The problem isn't socialized medicine, it's the person/party that Americans elect as president.
Yes, let's let the insurance companies run health care. Prior condition? Sorry, you're SOL because here at Medical Decision Are Us, we only insure healthy people. Get a really costly disease? Sorry, we only cover you until you die or we've spent $100,000, which ever comes first, we aren't particular.
I'm not convinced government run health care is better, but I think it is clear that insurance company run health care is failing. Something must change. And the Affordable Care Act is government run health care light, the insurance companies still exist. And we still spend more per capita on health care than other Western countries. And yes we do have the best health care money can provide, and if you don't have the money...well...it's still the best health care money can provide, it just won't be provided to you.
and pretend that there is no nuclear waste to worry about, in which case closing Yucca Mountain makes perfect sense
> but Mitt Romney would've followed the law in question — and done a number of other things right by now...
[citation needed] Every candidate promises whatever his constituency wants to hear in order to get elected, but recent history suggests that while they will bang the drums for their "causes" so long as they're blocked by the "opposition" or are inconsequential to the machinations of the political machine, but suddenly have more important things to do if there's a chance they'll actually accomplish something actually meaningful for the populace.
>utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living.
Yes, Romney - the fellow who "knows what hard times are like" because he had to live off his stock dividends in college or whatever it was - the closest he's ever been to real work is executive positions where he tells others what to do. That in no way gives him a perspective on what it means to be a normal citizen of this country - hell he could have retired straight out of high school and still lived better than the vast majority of this nation's population.
As for misogynistic - I suppose I was referring mostly to his utterly one-dimensional perspective on abortions and female reproductive health.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I currently work at a university, and must use the university health plan, or pay for another health plan entirely by myself. That's hardly a choice.
So, you are perfectly happy that the rules are whatever the people in charge say they are today...and subject to change when that suits the interests of those in charge. I much prefer a nation of laws, where the rules are the same for everyone and change only when a process is followed that most people agree upon and that we can see the change coming.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I'm extremely conservative. Don't confuse that with Republican.
In the last election, I voted for Obama. I firmly believed, and still do that both candidates would follow approximately the same course in office. I disagree with that course, and realize that if a labeled "Republican" were in office doing what Obama is doing now, the Republican party would take the blame for it.
If either candidate is going to pursue an evil agenda, I would choose to put a Democrat into office to pursue it, in hopes that his evil agenda will push future opinion towards bringing a conservative candidate to the forefront.
every other candidate self-destructed as an actual looney or otherwise unsuited to lead.
Disagree. Our extremely liberal media worked hard to discredit conservative candidates to turn the race into Obama vs. a middling flip-flopper. Don't forget that Obama is a flip-flopper too. Look at his senatorial run - his votes primarily consisted of "present." He didn't vote "yes" or "no" to anything for fear of taking the side of anything that might later be construed as the wrong side. Even during his campaign, his affected opinions were presented to him by his staff, and changed enough that "Hot and Cold" by Katy Perry could have been his theme song.
Exactly.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
How about the following powers?
Note that it doesn't say "he shall choose which Laws shall be faithfully executed." Those are legislative, not administrative, powers; when legislation and administration are vested in the same individual it's a dictatorship.
If you think the president should have other powers, go ahead and try to build national consensus around an amendment.
(The Constitution was made to be amended, but since the FDR era, rather than even trying to build real national consensus around constitutional changes, people have simply pretended the Constitution said what they wanted it to say. This is true of people in both parties and in all three branches of government, regardless of how narrow their election victory or how dubious their appointment. There are good reasons why the Constitution requires such a supermajority for amendments- see Morsi in Egypt for an example of what happens when a slim majority can simply rewrite the constitution to fit its whims.)
That is not even slightly true; John Huntsman was way more moderate than Romney was. In fact, I believe Huntsman would have been capable of attracting enough liberal votes to win the general election (which was, of course, exactly why he was incapable of winning the primary).
Oh, man. How could I forget Huntsman? You are right, and I am deeply embarrassed to have made that error.
Huntsman was a pretty solid moderate, and I think I would have had a much harder time voting for Obama if he'd been up for the general election. That said, I think he had a snowball's chance in hell because of his moderation. Romney was cynical enough to play to the base; Huntsman considered some of his more moderate positions on immigration and welfare to be a matter of his religious values and was unlikely to flex on them as easily.
I honestly liked Huntsman a good bit. I feel like crap for forgetting him.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You are absolutely right. Which brings us right back to where I pointed out, that the only two alternatives to detaining such alleged terrorists, are to either shoot them on the spot, or release them. And Obama — the Nobel Peace Prize winner — has picked the former option years ago.
If you were honest with yourself, you would've written a personal apology letter to George W. Bush by now...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Maybe try reading the post you're replying to next time? You seem to be using very harsh language in agreeing with me, and that adds little to the discussion.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Huntsman was the only candidate in the entire race (perhaps aside from some minor third-parties) that I felt like I could actually vote for, rather than "against the alternative."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Only countries can wage wars. Since the alleged terrorists are not part of any state military they are not soldiers.
Enemy combatant is a bullshit term invented by the US. Either they are criminals and should be tried in civilian courts, or they are a prisoners of war and should be treated as such (no torture, negotiation with the country whose military they are part of).
Not to sound insulting, but you're simply ignorant of centuries of treaty law, tradition, and general agreement on how to fight wars as morally as it is practical to do.
There are three categories, not two. There have been for many, many centuries. There are soldiers, there are civilians, and there are brigands and pirates. There is no legal tolerance for brigands and pirates: those who wage war without ties to a civil state, current, former, or wannabe, are the worst sort of menace, and it has always been acceptable to kill captured brigands and pirates out of hand, or do whatever you want with them as an object lesson to others.
There is very good reason for this historically. But what really matters here is the single most important military invention is history for the protection of civilians: the uniform. Since the concept of the military uniform became widely accepted a few hundred years ago, it became a key part of not being a brigand. You have to distinguish yourselves from civilians, not hide behind them. You have to have a recognized chain of command up to some civil authority who can stop the violence, either by surrender or by accepting the surrender of his opponents. Heck, there are historical cases of groups that started as brigands or pirates who became accepted as political powers by following those rules.
There's obviously a downside to wearing a uniform, and so there this very strong incentive to do so: if you want to be treated as a P.O. W. when captured, not as a dangerous animal, you follow the most basic rules that protect civilians.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Only countries can wage wars.
that is a truly ignorant statement.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
ignorance. you has it.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
to be fair jfk didnt almost start a nuclear war, even though that could have resulted fromt eh confrontation. if it had started, the blame would lie with the cubans and soviets. sending a bunch of missiles to cuba and pointing them at the US kinda puts the blame for any conflict on them. when a guy is on your doorstep threatening you, you dont generally get hte blame for the ensuing fight when you tell him to backoff.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Until it is later mandated that their way is the right way, and they regulate what insurance is allowed to cover, and that isn't part of it. And then mandated that you have to use their insurance only. And then that only procedures that are covered are allowed.
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
First off: bulls*it. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/O000167/votes/page129/
Secondly, even if we accept it as true, when the party puts forth people like Bachmann or Perry as major candidates that we're expected to take seriously, the media certainly didnt have to work very hard to "taint" them. those two did most of the work themselves.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
One thing that people aren't really thinking about when they read this is the bigger picture of certain things like his failure to uphold DoMA,
the president is not required to uphold an unconstitutional law, especially while that law is currently under judicial review. in fact its quite illegal to do so, and any such enforcement is typically postponed until the legal question is settled.
or failure to properly enforce the federal immigration laws by letting illegal aliens out of the jails and back onto the streets instead of shipping them back to their countries of origin,
actually he's deported more illegal aliens in his first four years of office than any other president in history, including all 2 term presidents, and continues to do so at the same rate. soon he'll have deported more than any 2 other president's combined, or more than in the past 20 years. choosing to prioritize enforcement (ie: criminals and people deported 1 or more times previously get higher priority than kids born here living normal lives) is not illegal and actually makes quite a lot of sense.
So that means, Obamacare must be enforced AS IT IS WRITTEN, the government cannot ignore laws that are inconvenient to the agenda. The government has laws and regulations they must follow as they are enacted.
if something isnt ready, it isnt ready. its like legistlating PI to be 3.14....you can "law" all you want, but you legislate reality into being. and the president does actually have the ability to selectively enforce the law, due to the simple fact that resources are limited, and by their very nature some things are more important than others, and thus prioritizing those things about others is perfectly rational.
what isnt rational is ignoring reality and facts which is what you are doing.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
George W: "if this were a dictatorship it'd be a hell of a lot easier, as long as I'm the dictator"
I don't begrudge him saying that as I understand the spirit it in which was said. Same for Kerry's quote you have there. I'm pretty sure both realize that the way it is now is the best way.
McCain: "If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently."
simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
Well a lot of people can't switch (it's linked to their employment and the only affordable option) or they actually can't get it at all (though that's changing for the better). I guess you don't have any pre-existing conditions.
It is a matter of public good vs individualism here and the balance between the two is shifting a little for health care. There are lots of other things the government does for the public good that affect you as well. Would you rather pay for your own security force vs have the government require you to pay for their police? I'm sure you can think of other examples. The deal is that they have decided the public good issue relating to health care is important enough at this time that things need to change. I think they're probably correct, and that in the long run pretty much everyone will benefit.
simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
to be fair jfk didnt almost start a nuclear war, even though that could have resulted fromt eh confrontation. if it had started, the blame would lie with the cubans and soviets. sending a bunch of missiles to cuba and pointing them at the US kinda puts the blame for any conflict on them. when a guy is on your doorstep threatening you, you dont generally get hte blame for the ensuing fight when you tell him to backoff.
You mean like the 15 Jupiter missiles that went active in November 1961 in Turkey? Perhaps if he had made a real effort to take over Cuba during the Bay of Pigs fiasco (in April 1961) instead of a half-assed attempt; or didn't invade at all it wouldn't have happened. Or not tried to kill Castro. Yeah, I'd say he deserves plenty of blame.
you dont know what youre talking about, no wonder you're AC.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Disagree. Supreme Court said it's effectively a tax. We're "mandated" to pay tax for lots of things that we either consume individually and/or help the public good.
simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
> As someone who lives in a country with universal health care (albeit I'm male, so the right to choose doesn't directly effect me),
I've always thought that was the strangest statement. Killing your son wouldn't affect you? It would affect me deeply, permanently.
As a guy who is sterile through no choice of his own(congenital defect + rare condition), I can only agree.
I had always expected to have a large family, and it hit me hard to find out that I couldn't.
If I was ever with someone who willingly and permanently took my child away from me before I could even meet them, I do not think I could ever stand to look that person in the face again.
Posting AC because those that rated the parent used -1 troll = I disagree
Where's that link go, goatse? This isn't twitter, you twit.
There is nothing more common on Slashdot today than someone misinterpreting Godwin's Law.
ok so...then obama lied about not hitting people with new taxes. (he calls it a fee still)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Obama has even less of such perspective. Born in Hawaii (if not Kenya :), growing up in Indonesia, going from law-school to work for a charity and then into politics.
But he did not retire. By the time he inherited his father's wealth, he was had enough of his own to donate the entire inheritance to charity... That's quite remarkable — Joe Biden's father, for example, pissed his inheritance. And Joe Biden himself is worth less today, than he owes to various creditors.
Your disdain for managers is quite telling — and stupid. "Tells others what to do" is a very good description of what a President is doing every day — and Romney has a pretty good resume showing, he can do that rather well. Both as a head of private companies and of Executive government. Obama, on the other hand, had not been an executive of anything until becoming President. No, scratch that, he did run a small charity in Chicago — which failed.
That is, what's making me state, that Romney would've been far more likely to accomplish, what he wanted and promised to accomplish by now.
Abortions are a red-herring. They really don't matter. Much as I don't want it to become illegal, even if it ever does, I'll be able to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure. Unless, that is, obamas and pelosis are allowed to keep running the country into ground (under NSA's careful oversight), in which case, having a 24x7 abortion clinic (free — just bring your own blanket) next door will be of very little consolation.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yeah.
Well that seems to be because Obama keeps arguing crazy shit:
http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2013/07/obama-overreach-slapped-down-by-9-0.html
Oh I have no problem with managers per-se, - I just believe they should have some experience working on the factory floor so they know what they're actually asking of people. I just don't trust someone who has never in their life experienced even a hint of poverty to run a country with consideration for a population where roughly 1 in 4 people is unemployed or underemployed. Romney is modern nobility through and through, and history strongly reinforces the idea that the nobility run things for the benefit of the nobility - "they wouldn't call them human resources if they weren't meant to be strip-mined."
As for abortions - that's great for your daughter. But a massive slice of the population is struggling just to get by, and a trip to Canada will be phenomenally difficult if not impossible for them - but hey, you got yours so who cares about them?. Never mind that it's the same portion of the population that has the least access to other recreational activities, and will be hurt the worst by having an unwanted child. And that those children will mostly grow up to expand the ranks of the next generation of people who are basically a burden upon the social system.
That is exactly the mentality that makes me deeply suspicious of any leader who has never in his life even been friends with people who earn their living by the sweat of their brow and know what it's like to make painful sacrifices on a regular basis for the sake of their future and/or their children.
> By the time he inherited his father's wealth, he was had enough of his own to donate the entire inheritance to charity
Yes, that's nothing to sneeze at, but lets not pretend he didn't leverage his father's wealth and connections to get started. And IIRC he made most of his money by leaving a trail of gutted and collapsing companies behind him - definitely *not* what I want for my nation.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
There is a good reason, most of the military officers have never been enlisted men. Being a good worker and a good manager are completely different things...
Trust? If anything, I'd trust a politician like Romney or Bloomberg — who became independently wealthy before entering politics — than the guys like Obama, who became rich as a result of being politicians. Do you honestly and sincerely believe, Michelle Obama would've obtained the position with $273k annual salary in Chicago hospitals-system, if her husband weren't a US Senator by then?
Just what makes you trust Obama? He never worked on a factory floor either, nor successfully managed anything of note, nor ever created anything other people were willing to pay their own money for.
His governing for four years was a nightmare — or should've been, if you were paying attention. He turned Bush's detentions of alleged terrorists into killings of the same people. TSA's abuse of travelers blossomed, as did NSA's surveillance. IRS is used to suppress oppostion — under Obama's direction. You may not consider Obamacare to be bad, but it is poised to fail — was designed to fail — which is very likely to lead to a renewed push for "single-payer" setup giving the government complete and utter control of our health. Whereas calls to kill Bush were brushed off as an exercise of free speech (though such calls are felonies, strictly speaking), mere mocking of the President today can cost a person their career and livelihood. Foreigners still dislike us, while the unemployment figures remain far above, what Democrats themselves condemned as "jobless recovery" only a few years earlier.
And you willingly ignored all of that because of Romney's personal views (which he was not even promising his supporters to turn into policy) on a freaking abortion? Wow...
I bet, you supported Al Gore despite these reasons... I have no problems with nobility rising from the merchant and industrialist class. Their ancestors made their wealth be creating and selling things, that other people wanted to buy — not through warfare or even politics. I'll take that nobility over a fatherless child of an ignoble philanderer, who traveled around the world "marrying" local comfort women and siring children with them only to divorce them a few years later without bothering about the kids' welfare or upbringing.
And that is exactly my point. Personal wealth — which Romney's government would've be
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm not exactly a student of history, but I would focus more on the suspension of habeas corpus. But yeah, "taking the property" of slave owners counts, too. Sometimes the world is made better when Presidents lead with strength against bad laws -- but not always.
You're not going to stop me from supporting a good law by inventing hypothetical situations about bad laws. I'm not quite stupid enough to fall for that.
I agree. The USA has had socialized health care since before anyone alive today was old enough to vote. To say that federal health systems lead to tyranny is evidently wrong.
Anyone who kills a baby gets prosecuted for murder. An no woman has ever said she had an abortion in order to not be fat.
Good straw men, though. A fetus born brain dead might be stupid enough to agree with those arguments.
Only four times? It's a lot more than four times, man. Presidents "rule by decree" all the time! This President is no different than others in that regard. And Lincoln certainly made more, more important, more egregious decrees than Obama.
What makes you think I trust Obama? I'm absolutely certain he's sold out. I'm also absolutely certain Romney has. They both made it into and past the primaries, you don't do that without heavy backing from all the wrong people. So the question is who do I want in the oval office - a lapdog to the rich and powerful whose actions may be moderated by memories of family hardships, or a petty noble that apparently has aspirations of joining the ranks of the truly powerful himself?
As for the debacle of the last several years - I suspect most of them would have happened regardless. These stink of actions of powerful people making a grab for power - short of declaring himself emperor the presidency itself is a fairly castrated position without lots of backing from lots of corners. Bush Jr. spearheaded a major play in that direction - Obama kept following the same script, and I fully expect whoever comes next to keep right on going. If they aren't trusted to follow the script then we'll never even hear of them come primary season.
> Personal wealth — which Romney's government would've been far more likely to ensure to a larger number of people
I call bullshit on this. That may have been his talking point, but the sustained attack on the middle and lower classes has been growing more aggressive for decades, and the Republicans have been spearheading it even more strongly than the democrats. Lower taxes on corporations and the rich, and fewer regulations to limit the ways in which they can externalize their expenses. Every plan I've heard out of Rs has been "get government out of the way and the corporations will get on with the business of making America rich". And they will - but they will do so with absolutely no regard for Americans. Per-capita GDP has been climbing for decades, meanwhile real income has been falling almost as fast for everyone but the top 20%.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Indeed. I'm rather in favor of fiscal conservatism, and have no great argument against social conservatism, except where the fringe elements try to use it to spread hate and intolerance. It infuriates me to no end that the Republican Party has somehow convinced so may conservatives that it actually cares about traditional/religious values to get their vote, and then beats the war drums just loud enough to keep people riled up while handing out corporate welfare at every opportunity. Not that the Ds are much better, but they occasionally at least throw a bone to the populace. At least they used to. Give me some real, honest conseratives on the ticket and I'd vote for them over any Democrat. In fact I would have done so on several occasions, except they were actually running with a D after their name.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
WARNING: The above link starts blabbing some audio recording with no apparent way to shut it up.
in America where people live! This could harm people's livelihood. Can't we just offshore the waste like we do everything else?