Then we have no common ground on which to come to an understanding. If you ever decide to visit the real world, let me know. I will be happy to show you around.
That's because there are not a whole lot of jobs that are worth paying someone with no job skills minimum wage to do...and people want there to be even fewer of them.
So, you think that they should have increased the deficit by even more than the $1 trillion they did in Obama's first year?
I would argue that it was the fact that the Democrats increased the deficit from less then $500 billion to over $1.4 trillion is all the explanation we need for the soft recovery we have seen.
Oh yes, that explains why as government regulations have gotten stricter small businesses have thrived at the expense of big business...Wait, no, it's the other way around. As those government regulations, which you claim help small businesses compete, have become stricter and more extensive, it has become harder to start a business to compete with big business and big businesses have gotten bigger.
It is time to stop theorizing about how big business dominates in the absence of regulation and notice that what actually happens is that big business gets bigger as government regulation gets bigger.
So, you ignore the faster recovery under George W. Bush and forgive Obama for not doing better on the economy because he campaigned on doing things to damage the economy?
As opposed to you who SUPPORTS the party which makes it possible for those plutocrats to thrive by increasing the regulations which keep people from entering into the market and offering services which compete with those plutocrats.
You mean the demand that allowed George W. Bush to oversee a much stronger recovery than Obama did, even with an attack on the U.S. was a result of WWII?
The issue has nothing to do with regulating everything you do (which is what Democrats want) vs not regulating anything (which is what you think Republicans want). It is about changing BAD laws which allowed certain people (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank...you may have heard of them in the law named after them) to profit off of the mortgage mess which caused the 2008 meltdown.
Well, yes, but recessions end. Throughout history recessions, such as the Dodd-Frank recession, recovered about the same point where that recession did. Except that those which occurred post WW II were all stronger recoveries than this one.
If Obama is such a master of the economy, why was he unable to match ANY other President in that time period? And do not claim it was because the recession was so bad, because previously the worse the recession the stronger the recovery.
Apparently, you do not remember the numerous speeches which both Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd made in the 2003-2007 range stating that not only was there nothing wrong with the housing/mortgage market, but that the market was in great shape. They made such speeches every time someone proposed that something be done to prevent the coming meltdown. Their insistence that the housing mortgage market was doing better than fine and that those trying to fix it were just making partisan points played a large role in the problem not getting addressed before things blew up.
I know you won't believe that since I have observed that you believe that Democrats are the font of all good and Republicans do everything with evil motives.
Well, that is the sort of thing that happens when you task the two men (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) MOST responsible for the failure of the government to address the meltdown with the task of writing the law which was supposed to stop it from happening again. Please note that I am not saying that there are not others who share responsibility, I am merely saying that if these two had not used the power they had to promote the idea that there was nothing wrong (while profiting from the situation), perhaps one of the several attempts to correct the problem before the meltdown would have passed and worked.
You mean by crating the weakest post-War recovery the U.S. has seen, even with the cooked books his Administration uses?
You do realize that the Democrats controlled BOTH Houses of Congress for his first two years and still couldn't get the economy moving?
The scientist who did the original study which "discovered" non-celiac disease gluten sensitivity did a more thorough study which indicated that there was no such thing. In his second study he discovered that all non-celiac disease cases of "gluten sensitivity" were caused by something other than gluten, which he had failed to control for in his original study. You may want to look into that second study to see what other than gluten may be causing your symptoms.
Steamboat Willy is approximately 50 years more recent than "Happy Birthday". The song Happy Birthday was first published in 1912, but the evidence suggests that it had been around since sometime in the 1880s, or earlier. The "copyright" on the song is based on its publication in 1935, yet that publication was a copy of what was published in 1912.
OK, you are right. You only need the ability to insert your malicious code onto something that will be taken to the computer and set up to install. If you have the ability to both get your software installed on the computer and the ability to monitor its electromagnetic output, you can access the data on that computer.
Guess what, I would have told you ten years ago that if you have the ability to get your software installed on a computer, you have the ability to access the data on said computer.
So, this still requires physical access to the computer. I certainly hope that no one thought that it was possible to prevent someone with physical access to a computer from extracting data from said computer. You can make it difficult for them to do it, but not impossible.
The Constitution was written to limit what the federal government was allowed to do. Those limits were supposed to apply even if the majority of the people wished otherwise. There is a provision in the Constitution for changing those limits if a sufficiently large percentage of the population so desires, but barring that being done those limits were intended to continue.
So, the federal government does not have the authority to do whatever is supported by the democratically expressed will of the people. It only has the authority to do those things the Constitution gives it the authority to do, with the caveat that even there it only has the authority to do them according to the democratically expressed will of the people.
I am sorry, but the Supreme Court just ruled, "Yes, the law explicitly states this, but we do not like the consequences of that so we are going to say it does not mean what it says. No, there is no place in the law where it actually says what we would like it to say, but we are going to say it says it anyway."
I am sorry, but the American Republic as designed by the men who wrote the Constitution is over. We no longer have a government which considers itself bound by that Constitution. We no longer have a government of laws. Which rules apply depend on the political power of the individual involved, not on what the law says.
Slashdot Mirror
Then we have no common ground on which to come to an understanding. If you ever decide to visit the real world, let me know. I will be happy to show you around.
That's because there are not a whole lot of jobs that are worth paying someone with no job skills minimum wage to do...and people want there to be even fewer of them.
So, you think that they should have increased the deficit by even more than the $1 trillion they did in Obama's first year? I would argue that it was the fact that the Democrats increased the deficit from less then $500 billion to over $1.4 trillion is all the explanation we need for the soft recovery we have seen.
Well, only because this time the Republicans were able to stop the President from doing what he wanted to do.
Oh yes, that explains why as government regulations have gotten stricter small businesses have thrived at the expense of big business...Wait, no, it's the other way around. As those government regulations, which you claim help small businesses compete, have become stricter and more extensive, it has become harder to start a business to compete with big business and big businesses have gotten bigger.
It is time to stop theorizing about how big business dominates in the absence of regulation and notice that what actually happens is that big business gets bigger as government regulation gets bigger.
So, you ignore the faster recovery under George W. Bush and forgive Obama for not doing better on the economy because he campaigned on doing things to damage the economy?
As opposed to you who SUPPORTS the party which makes it possible for those plutocrats to thrive by increasing the regulations which keep people from entering into the market and offering services which compete with those plutocrats.
You mean the demand that allowed George W. Bush to oversee a much stronger recovery than Obama did, even with an attack on the U.S. was a result of WWII?
No, it was not on the scale of the Great Depression, except of course, as much as Obama made the same mistakes FDR did.
The issue has nothing to do with regulating everything you do (which is what Democrats want) vs not regulating anything (which is what you think Republicans want). It is about changing BAD laws which allowed certain people (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank...you may have heard of them in the law named after them) to profit off of the mortgage mess which caused the 2008 meltdown.
Well, yes, but recessions end. Throughout history recessions, such as the Dodd-Frank recession, recovered about the same point where that recession did. Except that those which occurred post WW II were all stronger recoveries than this one. If Obama is such a master of the economy, why was he unable to match ANY other President in that time period? And do not claim it was because the recession was so bad, because previously the worse the recession the stronger the recovery.
Apparently, you do not remember the numerous speeches which both Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd made in the 2003-2007 range stating that not only was there nothing wrong with the housing/mortgage market, but that the market was in great shape. They made such speeches every time someone proposed that something be done to prevent the coming meltdown. Their insistence that the housing mortgage market was doing better than fine and that those trying to fix it were just making partisan points played a large role in the problem not getting addressed before things blew up. I know you won't believe that since I have observed that you believe that Democrats are the font of all good and Republicans do everything with evil motives.
Well, that is the sort of thing that happens when you task the two men (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) MOST responsible for the failure of the government to address the meltdown with the task of writing the law which was supposed to stop it from happening again. Please note that I am not saying that there are not others who share responsibility, I am merely saying that if these two had not used the power they had to promote the idea that there was nothing wrong (while profiting from the situation), perhaps one of the several attempts to correct the problem before the meltdown would have passed and worked.
You mean by crating the weakest post-War recovery the U.S. has seen, even with the cooked books his Administration uses? You do realize that the Democrats controlled BOTH Houses of Congress for his first two years and still couldn't get the economy moving?
The scientist who did the original study which "discovered" non-celiac disease gluten sensitivity did a more thorough study which indicated that there was no such thing. In his second study he discovered that all non-celiac disease cases of "gluten sensitivity" were caused by something other than gluten, which he had failed to control for in his original study. You may want to look into that second study to see what other than gluten may be causing your symptoms.
I have a genetic sensitivity to gluten.
So, you suffer from Celiac's Disease?
That is what the person who came up with the idea for this product wanted you to do...and is why I will never purchase it.
Steamboat Willy is approximately 50 years more recent than "Happy Birthday". The song Happy Birthday was first published in 1912, but the evidence suggests that it had been around since sometime in the 1880s, or earlier. The "copyright" on the song is based on its publication in 1935, yet that publication was a copy of what was published in 1912.
The first rule of firearm safety: all guns are loaded.
You are missing the part where they had to install their malicious software on the computer in question in order to accomplish this hack.
OK, you are right. You only need the ability to insert your malicious code onto something that will be taken to the computer and set up to install. If you have the ability to both get your software installed on the computer and the ability to monitor its electromagnetic output, you can access the data on that computer. Guess what, I would have told you ten years ago that if you have the ability to get your software installed on a computer, you have the ability to access the data on said computer.
So, this still requires physical access to the computer. I certainly hope that no one thought that it was possible to prevent someone with physical access to a computer from extracting data from said computer. You can make it difficult for them to do it, but not impossible.
The Constitution was written to limit what the federal government was allowed to do. Those limits were supposed to apply even if the majority of the people wished otherwise. There is a provision in the Constitution for changing those limits if a sufficiently large percentage of the population so desires, but barring that being done those limits were intended to continue.
So, the federal government does not have the authority to do whatever is supported by the democratically expressed will of the people. It only has the authority to do those things the Constitution gives it the authority to do, with the caveat that even there it only has the authority to do them according to the democratically expressed will of the people.
I am sorry, but the Supreme Court just ruled, "Yes, the law explicitly states this, but we do not like the consequences of that so we are going to say it does not mean what it says. No, there is no place in the law where it actually says what we would like it to say, but we are going to say it says it anyway."
I am sorry, but the American Republic as designed by the men who wrote the Constitution is over. We no longer have a government which considers itself bound by that Constitution. We no longer have a government of laws. Which rules apply depend on the political power of the individual involved, not on what the law says.