If someone fails the background check to buy a gun, I don't want them in the army either. Someone who is ineligible to buy a gun, should also be ineligible to serve in the military.
He made a large number of statements to his fellow officers that indicated he was an Islamic extremist. His superiors should have known that he was an Islamic extremist. Even if they did not, the actions he did take, should have led to his discharge from the military.
If an army major is someone who should be ineligible to buy a gun, they should be ineligible to be an army major (or any other rank in the army for that matter...unless they are currently in military prison).
Growing your Military Industrial Complex destroys wealth. Building up your manufacturing and production to meet the civilian market grows your wealth. It's that simple. And something the United States is totally lost on.
So, the U.S. wasn't the wealthiest country in the world in the second half of the 20th century?
What you don't seem to be aware of is that your proposed strategy for the U.S. to follow is the one that most Western European nations have been following since the late 1960s. It hasn't worked as advertised for them. There have been more terrorism attacks in Europe against Europeans than in the U.S.
I'm sure there are so many warnings about a lot of people who'll never actually do anything. We have the benefit of hindsight in Nidal Hassan's case.
The thing is that no one who made the types of statements Nidal Hassan made should be allowed to remain in the military. Even without the violent content, the settings in which he said some of what he said should have lead to his discharge.
Yes, a company can work for the customer. A company that does not make any money is unable to deliver services to its customers, so if a company gives everything away for free, it does not truly benefit its customers. This sort of behavior on the part of Verizon (and many other companies) is why very few companies in the Fortune 100 were around 100 years ago.
There are two things that people and companies forget, not everybody is your customer. A good company chooses a target customer and serves them to the best of their ability in every way.
Why is the idea of splitting up that area into 6 seats "a bad idea", like you would your county commissioners in most American areas?
The town did not like that solution...I don't know who is meant by "the town". Is it the town government, a poll of the people of the town, or just the town lawyer?
Considering that the only evidence I have seen presented about discrimination is the results of the elections, I think that allowing the town to decide how to mitigate the problem is appropriate. Personally, I think that more evidence of discrimination than just the election results should be required to force a municipality to alter its method of selecting representatives. How do you know that a significant percentage of the Hispanic voters didn't vote for a non-Hispanic white?
This is the first article I have seen that actually thoroughly explains the new system. Up until now, I had a problem with it, however after reading what is actually going on I no longer do.
Under the old system, two of the seats were up for vote at a time and you got to vote for which person you wanted in each seat, but you had to choose a different person for each seat. Under the new system, all six seats are up for election at a time and you get to vote for which person you want in each seat, but you can choose the same person for all six seats. The six candidates who get the most votes get the seats (even if they did not get all of their votes for the same seat). Also, this is the first article I have seen that mentions that the town suggested this solution.
Most of the World's democracies work with proportional representation, AFAIK. The American system of giving all the representatives of one state to the most voted party (national election) always looked odd to me. If I understand it correctly, a party getting 30% of the votes gets all the representatives if the other (hypothetical) parties get 29%, 29% and 12%. Doesn't seem fair.
Actually that is not true (except for Electoral College representatives in Presidential elections, and then it depends on the state). The National elections work like this: For Senate, the candidate who gets the most votes in the state wins the election (only one of a state's two Senators is up for vote at a time, Senate terms are staggered). For the House of Representatives, the candidate who gets the most votes in a particular district gets the seat, but the votes in that district have no impact on the election in other districts in the state.
Since there is only one Representative or Senator being elected in a specific election, I don't see how you could use any other type of system. Members of the House of Representatives do not represent their home state, they represent their home district.
I was thinking more about Mark Lloyd, the FCC "Diversity Czar". Although there have been several other Obama Administration officials who have expressed a desire to limit freedom of speech. I was unaware of comments by Rahm Emanuel expressing a disdain for freedom of speech, I thought he was too smart to say that sort of thing.
How does the FCC asserting regulatory authority over the Internet ensure that the Internet will stay free? Especially, an FCC that has members who think that free speech is really not all that important, and are willing to ignore a law that explicitly says that they don't have authority over the Internet. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html
See section (b)(2)
Actually, the crusades were started by Muslim invasion into what had been lands controlled by Christians (at least as viewed by those Popes). If Christians had the same attitudes toward war and conquest that Mulsims do, the fact that Muslims control North Africa and most of the Middle East would be viewed as a reason for war.
seems I heard something about some Crusades that happened a while back.
You seem to not be aware that the Crusades were a counter attack. They were also an attempt to find something for all of the fighting men who were unemployed with the cessation of Viking raids to do (besides become bandits).
Actually, there are several European countries which hold the concept of "universal jurisdiction". The following countries claim universal jurisdiction: France, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, Spain, Australia, United Kingdom. Note that the US is not on this list. Canada and Israel do not officially assert that they have universal jurisdiction, but others have interpreted that certain laws of both of those countries amount to claims of universal jurisdiction.
Hmmm, pretty much sounds like Christianity as well.
Really? "where the very founder spread it at the point of a sword." I am pretty sure that you would have a hard time finding any historical support for that with regard to Christianity.
No, it isn't "how the Internets were run until the Bush administration...". The FCC is proposing to reclassify ISPs as common carriers and regulate them under Title II of the "Communications Act of 1934" as currently amended. ISPs have never been classified as common carriers. The FCC reviewed and upheld the understanding that ISPs are not common carriers under that law in 1998.
While it would be possible for the FCC to regulate the Internet without censoring it, the fact that there are a significant number of people in the Obama Administration who have publicly expressed a desire to limit freedom of speech (including at least one of his appointees to the FCC) does not make one think that it will be the actual case.
No, it educates, and if your read up it does better then a lot of private schools
Really, not according to this: http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-edpp.htm
Additionally, the average private school tuition in the US was $7502 in 2009. In 2005, the U.S. spent on average over $11,000 per student in public schools. According to this source ( http://www.capenet.org/Outlook/Out9-03.html#Story5 ) in 2003, the average public school SAT score was 504 Verbal and 516 Math. The average religious private school SAT score was 535 Verbal and 530 Math. The average independent private school SAT was 550 Verbal and 573 Math.
The point is that if one side has 4% name recognition, then it is not really surprising that they were beat by a guy with 0% name recognition. The people who are saying there is something wrong with this election say that they can't understand how the guy that only 4% of the electorate had heard of lost to the guy that nobody had ever heard of. I say that that isn't suspicious at all.
Yeah, hooray, as an Administration that has several high ranking members who are on record as saying that freedom of speech is over rated moves to give itself regulatory authority over the one place that it receives criticism.
I agree. When I use my corporate email account, I am speaking as a representative of my employer and I expect that they may monitor what I say. Considering that they can be held accountable in a court of law for what I say in an email from my corporate account, that only makes sense.
You feel like you're making more than your parents and grand-parents did, because the absolute number is higher. But in terms of purchasing power, you're making much less. Those union workers we like to complain about are actually living the way our grandparents did.
That is complete and utter BS. I am not a good comparison for my parents, but I have a good friend who is. I am one of six children, my friend has eight children. My mother was a nurse, my father was a jack of all trades. My friend is a jack of all trades, his wife is a nurse. My parents had only one car until after my oldest two siblings left for college, my friend and his wife have never had less than two cars. I could go on, but by any metric, my friend with 8 children has greater purchasing power than my parents did.
That story was anecdote, but there are studies that show the same thing. The poor in the US today have more stuff than the middle class did two generations ago.
I live in the U.S. and my employer is, also, not allowed to monitor my private emails because my private emails are not done using my employer's computers.
You seem to be saying that it would be a good thing for the government to tell you when to run your clothes dryer.
Relative to your example, if by "hicks" you mean people who live in rural areas, as far as I know the only question they had about indoor plumbing was when they could afford it.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone fails the background check to buy a gun, I don't want them in the army either. Someone who is ineligible to buy a gun, should also be ineligible to serve in the military.
He made a large number of statements to his fellow officers that indicated he was an Islamic extremist. His superiors should have known that he was an Islamic extremist. Even if they did not, the actions he did take, should have led to his discharge from the military.
If an army major is someone who should be ineligible to buy a gun, they should be ineligible to be an army major (or any other rank in the army for that matter...unless they are currently in military prison).
Growing your Military Industrial Complex destroys wealth. Building up your manufacturing and production to meet the civilian market grows your wealth. It's that simple. And something the United States is totally lost on.
So, the U.S. wasn't the wealthiest country in the world in the second half of the 20th century?
What you don't seem to be aware of is that your proposed strategy for the U.S. to follow is the one that most Western European nations have been following since the late 1960s. It hasn't worked as advertised for them. There have been more terrorism attacks in Europe against Europeans than in the U.S.
There were so many warnings
I'm sure there are so many warnings about a lot of people who'll never actually do anything. We have the benefit of hindsight in Nidal Hassan's case.
The thing is that no one who made the types of statements Nidal Hassan made should be allowed to remain in the military. Even without the violent content, the settings in which he said some of what he said should have lead to his discharge.
Yes, a company can work for the customer. A company that does not make any money is unable to deliver services to its customers, so if a company gives everything away for free, it does not truly benefit its customers. This sort of behavior on the part of Verizon (and many other companies) is why very few companies in the Fortune 100 were around 100 years ago.
There are two things that people and companies forget, not everybody is your customer. A good company chooses a target customer and serves them to the best of their ability in every way.
Why is the idea of splitting up that area into 6 seats "a bad idea", like you would your county commissioners in most American areas?
The town did not like that solution...I don't know who is meant by "the town". Is it the town government, a poll of the people of the town, or just the town lawyer?
Considering that the only evidence I have seen presented about discrimination is the results of the elections, I think that allowing the town to decide how to mitigate the problem is appropriate. Personally, I think that more evidence of discrimination than just the election results should be required to force a municipality to alter its method of selecting representatives. How do you know that a significant percentage of the Hispanic voters didn't vote for a non-Hispanic white?
This is the first article I have seen that actually thoroughly explains the new system. Up until now, I had a problem with it, however after reading what is actually going on I no longer do.
Under the old system, two of the seats were up for vote at a time and you got to vote for which person you wanted in each seat, but you had to choose a different person for each seat. Under the new system, all six seats are up for election at a time and you get to vote for which person you want in each seat, but you can choose the same person for all six seats. The six candidates who get the most votes get the seats (even if they did not get all of their votes for the same seat). Also, this is the first article I have seen that mentions that the town suggested this solution.
Most of the World's democracies work with proportional representation, AFAIK. The American system of giving all the representatives of one state to the most voted party (national election) always looked odd to me. If I understand it correctly, a party getting 30% of the votes gets all the representatives if the other (hypothetical) parties get 29%, 29% and 12%. Doesn't seem fair.
Actually that is not true (except for Electoral College representatives in Presidential elections, and then it depends on the state). The National elections work like this: For Senate, the candidate who gets the most votes in the state wins the election (only one of a state's two Senators is up for vote at a time, Senate terms are staggered). For the House of Representatives, the candidate who gets the most votes in a particular district gets the seat, but the votes in that district have no impact on the election in other districts in the state.
Since there is only one Representative or Senator being elected in a specific election, I don't see how you could use any other type of system. Members of the House of Representatives do not represent their home state, they represent their home district.
Absolutely, Rahm Emanuel knows that if the American people knew what he would really like to do, they would be horrified.
I was thinking more about Mark Lloyd, the FCC "Diversity Czar". Although there have been several other Obama Administration officials who have expressed a desire to limit freedom of speech. I was unaware of comments by Rahm Emanuel expressing a disdain for freedom of speech, I thought he was too smart to say that sort of thing.
How does the FCC asserting regulatory authority over the Internet ensure that the Internet will stay free? Especially, an FCC that has members who think that free speech is really not all that important, and are willing to ignore a law that explicitly says that they don't have authority over the Internet. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html See section (b)(2)
Actually, the crusades were started by Muslim invasion into what had been lands controlled by Christians (at least as viewed by those Popes). If Christians had the same attitudes toward war and conquest that Mulsims do, the fact that Muslims control North Africa and most of the Middle East would be viewed as a reason for war.
seems I heard something about some Crusades that happened a while back.
You seem to not be aware that the Crusades were a counter attack. They were also an attempt to find something for all of the fighting men who were unemployed with the cessation of Viking raids to do (besides become bandits).
Actually, there are several European countries which hold the concept of "universal jurisdiction". The following countries claim universal jurisdiction: France, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, Spain, Australia, United Kingdom. Note that the US is not on this list. Canada and Israel do not officially assert that they have universal jurisdiction, but others have interpreted that certain laws of both of those countries amount to claims of universal jurisdiction.
You do know that the Crusades started as a counter attack, don't you?
Hmmm, pretty much sounds like Christianity as well.
Really? "where the very founder spread it at the point of a sword." I am pretty sure that you would have a hard time finding any historical support for that with regard to Christianity.
No, it isn't "how the Internets were run until the Bush administration...". The FCC is proposing to reclassify ISPs as common carriers and regulate them under Title II of the "Communications Act of 1934" as currently amended. ISPs have never been classified as common carriers. The FCC reviewed and upheld the understanding that ISPs are not common carriers under that law in 1998.
While it would be possible for the FCC to regulate the Internet without censoring it, the fact that there are a significant number of people in the Obama Administration who have publicly expressed a desire to limit freedom of speech (including at least one of his appointees to the FCC) does not make one think that it will be the actual case.
No, it educates, and if your read up it does better then a lot of private schools
Really, not according to this: http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-edpp.htm Additionally, the average private school tuition in the US was $7502 in 2009. In 2005, the U.S. spent on average over $11,000 per student in public schools. According to this source ( http://www.capenet.org/Outlook/Out9-03.html#Story5 ) in 2003, the average public school SAT score was 504 Verbal and 516 Math. The average religious private school SAT score was 535 Verbal and 530 Math. The average independent private school SAT was 550 Verbal and 573 Math.
The point is that if one side has 4% name recognition, then it is not really surprising that they were beat by a guy with 0% name recognition. The people who are saying there is something wrong with this election say that they can't understand how the guy that only 4% of the electorate had heard of lost to the guy that nobody had ever heard of. I say that that isn't suspicious at all.
Yeah, hooray, as an Administration that has several high ranking members who are on record as saying that freedom of speech is over rated moves to give itself regulatory authority over the one place that it receives criticism.
I agree. When I use my corporate email account, I am speaking as a representative of my employer and I expect that they may monitor what I say. Considering that they can be held accountable in a court of law for what I say in an email from my corporate account, that only makes sense.
You feel like you're making more than your parents and grand-parents did, because the absolute number is higher. But in terms of purchasing power, you're making much less. Those union workers we like to complain about are actually living the way our grandparents did.
That is complete and utter BS. I am not a good comparison for my parents, but I have a good friend who is. I am one of six children, my friend has eight children. My mother was a nurse, my father was a jack of all trades. My friend is a jack of all trades, his wife is a nurse. My parents had only one car until after my oldest two siblings left for college, my friend and his wife have never had less than two cars. I could go on, but by any metric, my friend with 8 children has greater purchasing power than my parents did.
That story was anecdote, but there are studies that show the same thing. The poor in the US today have more stuff than the middle class did two generations ago.
I live in the U.S. and my employer is, also, not allowed to monitor my private emails because my private emails are not done using my employer's computers.
You seem to be saying that it would be a good thing for the government to tell you when to run your clothes dryer.
Relative to your example, if by "hicks" you mean people who live in rural areas, as far as I know the only question they had about indoor plumbing was when they could afford it.