Laws actually generally start in the House of Representatives (although unless it is a spending bill, they can start in the Senate). Once both the House and the Senate passes a bill, it goes to the President who can veto the bill. At this point it becomes the law. However, Congress may not pass any law they please, all laws must follow the U.S. Constitution. Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate combined) may not make any laws which violate the U.S. Constitution. The question then becomes how do you determine if a bill which Congress has passed violates the Constitution. This is where Federal Judges come in. If a judge believes that a law violates the Constitution he will rule that the law is invalid.
What you apparently are unaware of is that Righthaven is a company that was created by one or more newspapers in order to sue others for copyright infringement without getting the newspapers' own names on the lawsuit. Righthaven exists solely for the purpose of suing people for copyright infringement. One or more newspapers "sell" their copyright to Righthaven in return for the right to publish the material as the newspaper sees fit. Righthaven then sues anyone else who uses and/or links to that material for copyright infringement.
I was not aware of the gaming of the system by companies that were trying to make deregulation fail, but it doesn't surprise me. One of the things that most proponents of government regulation don't realize is that big companies generally favor government regulation of their industry as well. Government regulation always favors big companies at the expense of smaller companies (it is easier for a big company to absord the costs of regulation than it is for a small company).
I think this last election sums up the state of California. "Our state is bankrupt and has no idea how to come up with the money to meet its obligations. Let's elect the guy who started this whole thing as governor, surely more of what got us into this mess will get us out."
Yes, Enron was a company that did a lot of bad stuff, but if the government of California had actually deregulated the market instead of setting up the worst of both worlds (all the problems of deregulation combined with all of the problems of regulation and none of the benefits of either) they would not have been successful at what they did (of course what's fun is that the same people who are quick to point out how evil Enron was are often the same people who are pushing one of Enron's worst--or best, if you are a crooked company like Enron--idea: CO2 Cap and Trade).
That's fine but you can't regulate the maximum price that the transport company charges while allowing the production companies to charge whatever the market will bear (especially not if you do so at a time when energy prices are rising to record levels). There were other things that California did as part of its "deregulation" that were actually increased regulation. California completely restructured its regulation of the electricity market and called it "deregulation". It didn't actually deregulate its electricity market.
Two points, the first is that a principle of free market economics is that you're not allowed to lie about what you provide. The second is that broadband has a definition related to network communications that has nothing to do with speed (well ok, broadband will almost always be faster than baseband, but that is a result of what broadband is, not part of the definition of broadband).
California never deregulated the electricity market. They only deregulated the wholesale market for electricity, while maintaining a cap on how much you could charge the enduser, and requiring that the companies that delivered electricity to the enduser not produce any electricity. Those companies that before "deregulation" had both consumer electric divisions and electric generation plants were required to either sell their electric generation capabality or split it off into a separate, unrelated corporate entity. What happened was entirely predictable.
No, what you listed is the justification for the public school system, but if you look at the writings and opinions of the seminal thinkers who pushed for public school systems, you will discover that their goal was to brainwash the kids to disagree with their parents.
Right, only people who agree with your agenda are allowed to push their agenda. Since your public schools brainwash kids according to your agenda, everybody has "freedom". The whole purpose of public schools is brainwashing. It is only a question of whose agenda is being promoted.
No, it is more like Saddam Hussein. Those media outlets that support politicians who oppose Chavez either get shutdown or taken over by the government. Opposition politicians who gain any popular support are arrested and their property is confiscated.
However, Chavez is still not quite a complete totalitarian like Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam (at least not yet). On the other hand, Venezuela no longer works by rule of law (to whatever degree it ever did, and what I have read leads me to believe that Venezuela had a limited and improving rule of law before Chavez took power).
There is no point in arguing with unity100, he does not understand the categorical difference between Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany and the modern U.S.. He is incapable of understanding that if the U.S. was at all like the former two Julian Assange would either be dead by now or in captivity being tortured and that that is a significant, important difference.
Well, all the Y chromosomes trace back to a single male, too. The only problem for the Adam-Eve myth is that they lived 150,000 years apart, so likely they were not married.
That is actually not a problem. According to the Bible, everyone alive today is descended from Noah. According to the Biblical flood story, all male genetic material would come from Noah, but not all female genetic material would come from his wife. According to the Biblical account, Noah survived the flood along with his sons and their wives. Noah's sons were married before the flood. So, according to the Biblical account, while the most recent common source of all female human genetic material is Eve, the most recent common source of male human genetic material is more recent.
I thought the EU cellphone market was much better than in the US. Every time something negative about the US cellphone market comes up there are dozens of comments along the lines of, "Why is the US so backwards?" Well my question is, why is the EU so backwards? The U.S. market did away with roaming charges a long time ago and it didn't require any government intervention. The free market did it all on its own. So, if the free market could do it in the US, what's wrong with the EU that prevents the free market from doing it there? (I'll give you a hint, it probably has something to do with government regulation).
It's not that single-player is dead. It's that offline is dead (or dying).
I play several online games that are designed to be MMO's. When I first started I joined a group, but the experience was unimpressive. I couldn't figure out how to leave the group, so I deleted the character and started over. Since then I have not interacted with anyone online in any of those games. None of my friends currently play any of the online games that I play and I have no interest in playing with strangers. Fortunately, those games are entertaining as single player games.
I, also, have several single player games that I have had for over ten years that I break out and play every so often. If there were more good single player games out there that suit what I like to play, I might finally retire those games.
The U.S. combat troops are disproportionately not minority. I don't have the links currently, but the idea that the military was predominately poor minorities was thoroughly debunked several years ago. Minorities are under-represented in actual combat troops.
The reason that the laws have never been changed is unions. The PA state stores are staffed entirely by union employees. Whenever a push comes along to do privatize the state stores, the union goes a big campaign to make sure that it doesn't go through.
Besides the fact that he was a nasty peice of work (and that you think libertarians are as well), I cannot see why you think he was a libertarian. He sounds like a Democrat to me.
Right, because it would be terrible if the people who didn't believe the problem was bad enough to justify giving the government control of all aspects of our economy to the minutest detail were vindicated as being corrrect./s
BTW, this is what the argument has been about. There has been a vocal, militant group of people who have been saying that Global Warming is such a serious problem that we need government regulation of all economic activity. On the other side has been a group of people who have been saying that nothing justifies giving the government that much control and the evidence does not support saying the problem is that severe. Now we have a scientific study saying that the second group was right.
It is possible to divide the major factions with political power into two groups. The first group wished for the U.S. to lose the war. The second group wished for the U.S. to not win the war, but continue fighting it indefinitely.
Because I have studied those people. I know who made a big deal back in the early 70s about the Pentagon Papers. I don't need to do a study of the Pentagon Papers and what was in them and what effect that had on the country.
My comment about the people who promoted the idea that publishing the Pentagon Papers being a good idea pushing a destructive agenda is not anything about the Pentagon Papers. It is about the actual people. I have spent some time becoming familiar with the people who, among other things, propagandized the beneficial nature of the Pentagon Papers. My judgment of them is based on those "other things".
Slashdot Mirror
Laws actually generally start in the House of Representatives (although unless it is a spending bill, they can start in the Senate). Once both the House and the Senate passes a bill, it goes to the President who can veto the bill. At this point it becomes the law. However, Congress may not pass any law they please, all laws must follow the U.S. Constitution. Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate combined) may not make any laws which violate the U.S. Constitution. The question then becomes how do you determine if a bill which Congress has passed violates the Constitution. This is where Federal Judges come in. If a judge believes that a law violates the Constitution he will rule that the law is invalid.
What you apparently are unaware of is that Righthaven is a company that was created by one or more newspapers in order to sue others for copyright infringement without getting the newspapers' own names on the lawsuit. Righthaven exists solely for the purpose of suing people for copyright infringement. One or more newspapers "sell" their copyright to Righthaven in return for the right to publish the material as the newspaper sees fit. Righthaven then sues anyone else who uses and/or links to that material for copyright infringement.
I was not aware of the gaming of the system by companies that were trying to make deregulation fail, but it doesn't surprise me. One of the things that most proponents of government regulation don't realize is that big companies generally favor government regulation of their industry as well. Government regulation always favors big companies at the expense of smaller companies (it is easier for a big company to absord the costs of regulation than it is for a small company).
I think this last election sums up the state of California. "Our state is bankrupt and has no idea how to come up with the money to meet its obligations. Let's elect the guy who started this whole thing as governor, surely more of what got us into this mess will get us out."
Yes, Enron was a company that did a lot of bad stuff, but if the government of California had actually deregulated the market instead of setting up the worst of both worlds (all the problems of deregulation combined with all of the problems of regulation and none of the benefits of either) they would not have been successful at what they did (of course what's fun is that the same people who are quick to point out how evil Enron was are often the same people who are pushing one of Enron's worst--or best, if you are a crooked company like Enron--idea: CO2 Cap and Trade).
That's fine but you can't regulate the maximum price that the transport company charges while allowing the production companies to charge whatever the market will bear (especially not if you do so at a time when energy prices are rising to record levels). There were other things that California did as part of its "deregulation" that were actually increased regulation. California completely restructured its regulation of the electricity market and called it "deregulation". It didn't actually deregulate its electricity market.
Two points, the first is that a principle of free market economics is that you're not allowed to lie about what you provide. The second is that broadband has a definition related to network communications that has nothing to do with speed (well ok, broadband will almost always be faster than baseband, but that is a result of what broadband is, not part of the definition of broadband).
California never deregulated the electricity market. They only deregulated the wholesale market for electricity, while maintaining a cap on how much you could charge the enduser, and requiring that the companies that delivered electricity to the enduser not produce any electricity. Those companies that before "deregulation" had both consumer electric divisions and electric generation plants were required to either sell their electric generation capabality or split it off into a separate, unrelated corporate entity. What happened was entirely predictable.
No, what you listed is the justification for the public school system, but if you look at the writings and opinions of the seminal thinkers who pushed for public school systems, you will discover that their goal was to brainwash the kids to disagree with their parents.
I say they couldn't push their agenda.
Right, only people who agree with your agenda are allowed to push their agenda. Since your public schools brainwash kids according to your agenda, everybody has "freedom". The whole purpose of public schools is brainwashing. It is only a question of whose agenda is being promoted.
No, it is more like Saddam Hussein. Those media outlets that support politicians who oppose Chavez either get shutdown or taken over by the government. Opposition politicians who gain any popular support are arrested and their property is confiscated.
However, Chavez is still not quite a complete totalitarian like Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam (at least not yet). On the other hand, Venezuela no longer works by rule of law (to whatever degree it ever did, and what I have read leads me to believe that Venezuela had a limited and improving rule of law before Chavez took power).
In my country I can say whatever I want,...we don't allow the religious right to push for creationism on schools...
Well, which is it? Oh, sorry, I see, you can say whatever you want but the "religious right" is silenced. Yeah, that's real 'freedom of speech".
There is no point in arguing with unity100, he does not understand the categorical difference between Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany and the modern U.S.. He is incapable of understanding that if the U.S. was at all like the former two Julian Assange would either be dead by now or in captivity being tortured and that that is a significant, important difference.
Well, all the Y chromosomes trace back to a single male, too. The only problem for the Adam-Eve myth is that they lived 150,000 years apart, so likely they were not married.
That is actually not a problem. According to the Bible, everyone alive today is descended from Noah. According to the Biblical flood story, all male genetic material would come from Noah, but not all female genetic material would come from his wife. According to the Biblical account, Noah survived the flood along with his sons and their wives. Noah's sons were married before the flood. So, according to the Biblical account, while the most recent common source of all female human genetic material is Eve, the most recent common source of male human genetic material is more recent.
That's the mistake you make in comparing Europe to the U.S.. None of the "countries" in Europe are any more than states with delusions of granduer.
I thought the EU cellphone market was much better than in the US. Every time something negative about the US cellphone market comes up there are dozens of comments along the lines of, "Why is the US so backwards?" Well my question is, why is the EU so backwards? The U.S. market did away with roaming charges a long time ago and it didn't require any government intervention. The free market did it all on its own. So, if the free market could do it in the US, what's wrong with the EU that prevents the free market from doing it there? (I'll give you a hint, it probably has something to do with government regulation).
It's not that single-player is dead. It's that offline is dead (or dying).
I play several online games that are designed to be MMO's. When I first started I joined a group, but the experience was unimpressive. I couldn't figure out how to leave the group, so I deleted the character and started over. Since then I have not interacted with anyone online in any of those games. None of my friends currently play any of the online games that I play and I have no interest in playing with strangers. Fortunately, those games are entertaining as single player games.
I, also, have several single player games that I have had for over ten years that I break out and play every so often. If there were more good single player games out there that suit what I like to play, I might finally retire those games.
The U.S. combat troops are disproportionately not minority. I don't have the links currently, but the idea that the military was predominately poor minorities was thoroughly debunked several years ago. Minorities are under-represented in actual combat troops.
The reason that the laws have never been changed is unions. The PA state stores are staffed entirely by union employees. Whenever a push comes along to do privatize the state stores, the union goes a big campaign to make sure that it doesn't go through.
Besides the fact that he was a nasty peice of work (and that you think libertarians are as well), I cannot see why you think he was a libertarian. He sounds like a Democrat to me.
Perhaps you should look around a little more. Here's a link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101209/lf_nm_life/us_china_nobel_confucius
I suppose its possible this is also wrong, but the accompanying picture suggests otherwise.
Right, because it would be terrible if the people who didn't believe the problem was bad enough to justify giving the government control of all aspects of our economy to the minutest detail were vindicated as being corrrect. /s
BTW, this is what the argument has been about. There has been a vocal, militant group of people who have been saying that Global Warming is such a serious problem that we need government regulation of all economic activity. On the other side has been a group of people who have been saying that nothing justifies giving the government that much control and the evidence does not support saying the problem is that severe. Now we have a scientific study saying that the second group was right.
It is possible to divide the major factions with political power into two groups. The first group wished for the U.S. to lose the war. The second group wished for the U.S. to not win the war, but continue fighting it indefinitely.
I wasn't aware that there were people who spent their lives "addressing" the Pentagon Papers.
Because I have studied those people. I know who made a big deal back in the early 70s about the Pentagon Papers. I don't need to do a study of the Pentagon Papers and what was in them and what effect that had on the country.
My comment about the people who promoted the idea that publishing the Pentagon Papers being a good idea pushing a destructive agenda is not anything about the Pentagon Papers. It is about the actual people. I have spent some time becoming familiar with the people who, among other things, propagandized the beneficial nature of the Pentagon Papers. My judgment of them is based on those "other things".