Of course they could, and will. They will get Barney Frank to introduce some law to "protect the consumer" more and low and behold there will be all kinds of regulations on Credit Unions that will force many of them out of business (or at least drive up their costs so that they are not competitive with BofA).
Then how come every time things go wrong because of regulations that those politicians implemented, people call for those politicians to pass more regulations?
As far as I know, the destruction of Israel is not enshrined in the Iranian constitution. It is enshrined in the founding documents of Hamas and the PLO(or whatever it is calling itseld now). These are the two Parties which are running the Palestinian "state".
Isn't there bigger fish to fry than this petty bickering between these parties?
Absolutely, except I do not see how it helps U.S. interests to support the side that has as one of its founding principles the complete elimination of the other side.
...peace is far cheaper than war.
But peace is not one of the options on the table in the Middle East. The U.S. has two reasonable choices in the Middle East. One, pick a side and help them convince the other side to give up. Or, two, ignore the whole situation and hope the side that wins will be friendly to us.
If the U.S. goes with option one they then have two choices. One, side with the group that has demonstrated that it shares at least some of the values of the U.S.. Or, two, side with the group that has made it clear that when they are finished here, the U.S. is next on the list (although they would probably go after Europe first, just for convenience).
The situation in the Middle East is divided between two groups. On one side we have the Israelis, who the most militant faction of would like to take complete control of the area now controlled by Israel plus perhaps Jordan and the Sinai. On the other side we have the Arabs, who have for centuries had it as a goal to take control of the entire planet.
It sounds like the administration of George H W Bush was the cause.
You need to do a little bit of study on U.S. history. George H.W. Bush lost the 1992 election to Bill Clinton. Which means that Bill Clinton was the President in 1994. Additionally, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress in 1994 (they lost control in the election of 1994 for the first time in over a generation that the Democrats did not control the House). This law was passed by Democrats and signed by a Democratic President.
I do not believe the majority of U.S. citizens would have a problem with UN organizations following that strategy, since the bulk of the funding of most UN organizations comes from the U.S.. Which is the point of this law, many times UN organizations have been used to promote interests at odds with those of the U.S. while those organizations have received a large portion of their funding from the U.S..
You quoted him from earlier this year, I pointed out that in 2008 and before he was a true believer. I have no idea the context of your quotes. However, Muller is not a "turncoat and a traitor" because the beliefs he expressed in this study are the one's he has held since the 1980s. In order to be a turncoat and/or traitor you need to switch sides in a debate, Muller has not done this. He has come out with a new study which supports Global Warming Alarmism, which is the position he had as early as the 1980s. Before this year, he never showed any sign of being skeptical of the theory of man-made global warming.
I do not believe that you are correct. While it would have taken longer, the schools in Alabama would still be desegregated by now.
However, on a more basic level, I would argue that segregation is not an education issue, even when it takes place in the schools. Government ordered segregation is a violation of the equal protection clause and of the freedom of assembly clause.
That's nice, except that he published a book in 2008 that suggested that one of the challenges facing the next President was to confront global warming and in the 1980s he resigned from the Sierra Club because they opposed what he viewed as the only energy option available to fight man-made global warming, nuclear power.
So, in 2011 he started giving out quotes to sound like he was not a true believer, after close to 3 decades of being a promoter of the theory.
If they don't understand it, why are they passing laws on the subject? I would be willing to consider a system whereby they hired experts to write the laws they vote on. Those "experts", however, should work for the Congressperson, if an when the Congressperson gets voted out of office, those "experts" would be out of work.
There are some basic rules that I think people need to keep in mind for making a democratic government work. The first is that all issues should be decided at the most local level of government that can conceivably address the issue (for example, all education issues should be resolved at the local school board level). The second is the First Rule of Voting, "When in doubt, vote the Ins out." That means that voters should vote against the incumbent unless there is some very specific reason to return them to office. There are very few reasons to vote against the challenger. One should instead either vote for or against the incumbent (and only for if there is some very special circumstance).
I have not seen you post that before, but I agree whole-heartedly. I believe that a large part of what is wrong with modern politics is that Congress delegates too much of its authority to unelected bureaucrats.
The other problem with software patents vs hardware patents is that if I design a circuit board that is physically different, but generates the same output, the patent on the original does not apply. With software, if the software generates the same output with the same input, it will generally be considered to be infringing on the patent.
The amount of money the Koch's spend on global warming research is dwarfed by the amount of money that governments spend attempting to get evidence to justify expanding their control over people's lives.
Except that there is no evidence that Muller was skeptical about "steadily increasing temperatures" before he did the study. Actually, there is evidence that he was a true believer in man-made global warming before he did the study. While the links may give evidence that what he said was legitimate, he is being presented as a converted skeptic. He has been a believer in man-made global warming since the 1980s, when he resigned from the Sierra Club because they opposed nuclear energy, which he believed was the only way to avoid a catastrophe from man-made global warming.
No, I blame Medicare and Medicaid for that. Obamacare will just make medical care inflation worse. If you look at the cost of medical care over time you discover that the cost of medical care rose at basically the same rate as inflation until the year after both Medicare and Medicaid were in force. At which point, the cost of medical care began rising much faster than inflation.
Bzzt, reading comprehension fail.
The U.S. generally has the best prognosis for someone diagnosed with a particular serious illness (specific type of cancer, diabetes, etc). That is, the five year survival rate for people diagnosed with most life-threatening diseases is better in the U.S. than in most of the rest of the first world. There are many reasons why U.S. life expectancy is shorter that have nothing to do with quality of care. For example, in many first world countries, if a child dies within the first 24 hours after birth it is considered stillborn. In the U.S., such an incident is counted as infant mortality (and thus lowers average life expectancy). As another example, the life expectancy for Japan is higher than for the U.S., yet the life expectancy for a Japanese American is higher than the life expectancy for Japan.
Well, I do know that it snowed in England last year, which the AGW proponents said wasn't going to happen anymore. For that matter, the East Coast of the U.S. just had a record snow fall for this early. While you can make the case that Global Warming can do that sort of thing, it is the opposite of what the AGW people were saying was going to happen.
Sure, it's cheaper because with government care, sick people don't live as long. Just look at the prognosis for someone with a specific serious illness around the world.
No, this is about saving the government money not about saving money for HMOs. The people who are advocating that the government pay for everybody's healthcare realize that it can't actually afford it so they are working on getting the public ready for bureaucratic triage as to who gets treatment.
One who understands that the government cannot afford the level of care we have become accustomed to, but wants the government to pay for everybody's health care anyway.
The thing is that cancer is not one disorder, or even just a few disorders. Heart disease can reasonably be considered one disorder (although it is probably more accurately viewed as three or four disorders). There are hundreds of different disorders that we lump together under the term cancer.
What, you mean that there weren't people who said that if we did not reduce CO@ emmissions by 1995, then 200, then 2005 it would be too late? You know maybe if, like this guy, they would not spend so much time telling me things that aren't demonstrably untrue (this guy claims he used to be skeptical of global warming, when in fact, he has been a proponent of man-made global warming since the 80s), I might believe the rest of what they say.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they could, and will. They will get Barney Frank to introduce some law to "protect the consumer" more and low and behold there will be all kinds of regulations on Credit Unions that will force many of them out of business (or at least drive up their costs so that they are not competitive with BofA).
Then how come every time things go wrong because of regulations that those politicians implemented, people call for those politicians to pass more regulations?
As far as I know, the destruction of Israel is not enshrined in the Iranian constitution. It is enshrined in the founding documents of Hamas and the PLO(or whatever it is calling itseld now). These are the two Parties which are running the Palestinian "state".
Isn't there bigger fish to fry than this petty bickering between these parties?
Absolutely, except I do not see how it helps U.S. interests to support the side that has as one of its founding principles the complete elimination of the other side.
...peace is far cheaper than war.
But peace is not one of the options on the table in the Middle East. The U.S. has two reasonable choices in the Middle East. One, pick a side and help them convince the other side to give up. Or, two, ignore the whole situation and hope the side that wins will be friendly to us.
If the U.S. goes with option one they then have two choices. One, side with the group that has demonstrated that it shares at least some of the values of the U.S.. Or, two, side with the group that has made it clear that when they are finished here, the U.S. is next on the list (although they would probably go after Europe first, just for convenience).
The situation in the Middle East is divided between two groups. On one side we have the Israelis, who the most militant faction of would like to take complete control of the area now controlled by Israel plus perhaps Jordan and the Sinai. On the other side we have the Arabs, who have for centuries had it as a goal to take control of the entire planet.
The part that accepts as members a group who has as part of its charter the destruction of another member of the organization.
It sounds like the administration of George H W Bush was the cause.
You need to do a little bit of study on U.S. history. George H.W. Bush lost the 1992 election to Bill Clinton. Which means that Bill Clinton was the President in 1994. Additionally, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress in 1994 (they lost control in the election of 1994 for the first time in over a generation that the Democrats did not control the House). This law was passed by Democrats and signed by a Democratic President.
Here we have a golden opportunity to support peaceful elements in the Palestinians who wish to just peacefully exist,...
Which elements would that be? Palestinians support the violent destruction of Israel by a clear, overwhelming majority.
I do not believe the majority of U.S. citizens would have a problem with UN organizations following that strategy, since the bulk of the funding of most UN organizations comes from the U.S.. Which is the point of this law, many times UN organizations have been used to promote interests at odds with those of the U.S. while those organizations have received a large portion of their funding from the U.S..
You quoted him from earlier this year, I pointed out that in 2008 and before he was a true believer. I have no idea the context of your quotes. However, Muller is not a "turncoat and a traitor" because the beliefs he expressed in this study are the one's he has held since the 1980s. In order to be a turncoat and/or traitor you need to switch sides in a debate, Muller has not done this. He has come out with a new study which supports Global Warming Alarmism, which is the position he had as early as the 1980s. Before this year, he never showed any sign of being skeptical of the theory of man-made global warming.
I do not believe that you are correct. While it would have taken longer, the schools in Alabama would still be desegregated by now.
However, on a more basic level, I would argue that segregation is not an education issue, even when it takes place in the schools. Government ordered segregation is a violation of the equal protection clause and of the freedom of assembly clause.
That's nice, except that he published a book in 2008 that suggested that one of the challenges facing the next President was to confront global warming and in the 1980s he resigned from the Sierra Club because they opposed what he viewed as the only energy option available to fight man-made global warming, nuclear power.
So, in 2011 he started giving out quotes to sound like he was not a true believer, after close to 3 decades of being a promoter of the theory.
If they don't understand it, why are they passing laws on the subject? I would be willing to consider a system whereby they hired experts to write the laws they vote on. Those "experts", however, should work for the Congressperson, if an when the Congressperson gets voted out of office, those "experts" would be out of work.
There are some basic rules that I think people need to keep in mind for making a democratic government work. The first is that all issues should be decided at the most local level of government that can conceivably address the issue (for example, all education issues should be resolved at the local school board level). The second is the First Rule of Voting, "When in doubt, vote the Ins out." That means that voters should vote against the incumbent unless there is some very specific reason to return them to office. There are very few reasons to vote against the challenger. One should instead either vote for or against the incumbent (and only for if there is some very special circumstance).
I have not seen you post that before, but I agree whole-heartedly. I believe that a large part of what is wrong with modern politics is that Congress delegates too much of its authority to unelected bureaucrats.
The other problem with software patents vs hardware patents is that if I design a circuit board that is physically different, but generates the same output, the patent on the original does not apply. With software, if the software generates the same output with the same input, it will generally be considered to be infringing on the patent.
The amount of money the Koch's spend on global warming research is dwarfed by the amount of money that governments spend attempting to get evidence to justify expanding their control over people's lives.
Except that there is no evidence that Muller was skeptical about "steadily increasing temperatures" before he did the study. Actually, there is evidence that he was a true believer in man-made global warming before he did the study. While the links may give evidence that what he said was legitimate, he is being presented as a converted skeptic. He has been a believer in man-made global warming since the 1980s, when he resigned from the Sierra Club because they opposed nuclear energy, which he believed was the only way to avoid a catastrophe from man-made global warming.
No, I blame Medicare and Medicaid for that. Obamacare will just make medical care inflation worse. If you look at the cost of medical care over time you discover that the cost of medical care rose at basically the same rate as inflation until the year after both Medicare and Medicaid were in force. At which point, the cost of medical care began rising much faster than inflation.
Bzzt, reading comprehension fail.
The U.S. generally has the best prognosis for someone diagnosed with a particular serious illness (specific type of cancer, diabetes, etc). That is, the five year survival rate for people diagnosed with most life-threatening diseases is better in the U.S. than in most of the rest of the first world. There are many reasons why U.S. life expectancy is shorter that have nothing to do with quality of care. For example, in many first world countries, if a child dies within the first 24 hours after birth it is considered stillborn. In the U.S., such an incident is counted as infant mortality (and thus lowers average life expectancy). As another example, the life expectancy for Japan is higher than for the U.S., yet the life expectancy for a Japanese American is higher than the life expectancy for Japan.
Well, I do know that it snowed in England last year, which the AGW proponents said wasn't going to happen anymore. For that matter, the East Coast of the U.S. just had a record snow fall for this early. While you can make the case that Global Warming can do that sort of thing, it is the opposite of what the AGW people were saying was going to happen.
Sure, it's cheaper because with government care, sick people don't live as long. Just look at the prognosis for someone with a specific serious illness around the world.
No, this is about saving the government money not about saving money for HMOs. The people who are advocating that the government pay for everybody's healthcare realize that it can't actually afford it so they are working on getting the public ready for bureaucratic triage as to who gets treatment.
One who understands that the government cannot afford the level of care we have become accustomed to, but wants the government to pay for everybody's health care anyway.
The thing is that cancer is not one disorder, or even just a few disorders. Heart disease can reasonably be considered one disorder (although it is probably more accurately viewed as three or four disorders). There are hundreds of different disorders that we lump together under the term cancer.
What, you mean that there weren't people who said that if we did not reduce CO@ emmissions by 1995, then 200, then 2005 it would be too late? You know maybe if, like this guy, they would not spend so much time telling me things that aren't demonstrably untrue (this guy claims he used to be skeptical of global warming, when in fact, he has been a proponent of man-made global warming since the 80s), I might believe the rest of what they say.