I expect that you're wrong - it'll be at least partly because a sufficient number of people have a college degree, so it's a good way for a lazy HR department to cut their workload.
Your objection would hold water for technical jobs, but for secretarial positions?
You're giving us Madison's interpretation of that part of 1/8. OP gave us Hamilton's, which is currently the prevailing opinion of the Supreme Court and is therefore settled law.
What you're purposely ignoring is that the Republicans would not pass anything, and had this power on account of
1) their 40 votes that could enforce a filibuster, and 2) party discipline, and 3) their desire to see the Dems fail at everything, good of the country be damned.
I'm not trying to convince you; your mind is clearly made up, but this is for the benefit of whomever is reading.
The Republicans threatened to end filibuster privs ("the nuclear option") if the Dems didn't let more of Bush's judicial appointees go through the confirmation process. The Dems caved and the threat was over.
It's not a law exactly, just Senate rules that IIRC were last changed in the '70s. With that change all the minority has to do to filibuster is say "we're filibustering this", no endless speechifying required.
Prior to this change 3/4 of the Senate had to vote to end a filibuster, and now it's only 60... I don't think it was a fair trade.
The teabaggers exist because the Republicans lost big in the '08 elections, and the commentariat manufactured the movement to hurt the Dems once their boys were safely out of power.
They claim to be against big wasteful government, but were silent for the entire Bush Administration.
You're going to be mighty disappointed to learn that sometimes people lie, and pretty much everybody does it. I'd rather a president lie about a blow job than about why he's taking us to war, myself.
Were someone to come out in the political scene and say "I am raising taxes by 20%, but I am balancing the budget and paying off out debt. Not just reducing the amount we spend. But I'm going to send payments to our credit card too so our children are not burdened with out mistakes."
Tea Party would be all over that candidate.
I find this very difficult to believe, considering all the howling about OMG SOCIALISM and the fact that the movement's fucking/name/ is "Taxed Enough Already" (TEA).
Wrong. They offered plenty of cuts in domestic spending, but only if Republicans would meet them in the middle about serious tax increases. Predictably the Republicans refused.
Seriously. How can you argue against repealing tax cuts in the middle of two fucking wars? That's not rational, no matter how loudly you call yourself "rational".
What you people always ignore (on purpose) is that the Republicans had enough votes to filibuster in the Senate. And they did for pretty much everything.
Kind of impossible to have a budget when the minority party will abuse their power to prevent anything from passing....of course, given your signature I'm sure you'll ignore this.
What you people always ignore (on purpose) is that the Republicans had enough votes to filibuster in the Senate. And they did for pretty much everything.
Kind of impossible to have a budget when the minority party will abuse their power to prevent anything from passing.
Slashdot Mirror
I expect that you're wrong - it'll be at least partly because a sufficient number of people have a college degree, so it's a good way for a lazy HR department to cut their workload.
Your objection would hold water for technical jobs, but for secretarial positions?
Since HR departments everywhere started using "has a bachelor's degree" as a filter; you don't have the degree, you're unworthy of a job.
Sounds like it's supposed to be a sysadmin degree.
These days "standard" is certainly going to mean whatever's built into the motherboard and/or microprocessor.
That depends: how did the courts fail in your scenario? Did they in fact fail, or is that just one opinion?
You're wanting to look up "separation of powers" and "checks and balances". Google can educate you better than I can.
Dear jesus, know what you're talking about before you make yourself look stupid in public.
Jobs as laid out by the Constitution:
Congress: Make laws.
President: Enforce laws.
Supreme Court: interpret laws.
You're giving us Madison's interpretation of that part of 1/8. OP gave us Hamilton's, which is currently the prevailing opinion of the Supreme Court and is therefore settled law.
Also ammonium triiodide, which is very sensitive, requiring only a slight pressure to explode.
Given your signature, etc...
What you're purposely ignoring is that the Republicans would not pass anything, and had this power on account of
1) their 40 votes that could enforce a filibuster, and
2) party discipline, and
3) their desire to see the Dems fail at everything, good of the country be damned.
I'm not trying to convince you; your mind is clearly made up, but this is for the benefit of whomever is reading.
You are a liar.
The Republicans threatened to end filibuster privs ("the nuclear option") if the Dems didn't let more of Bush's judicial appointees go through the confirmation process. The Dems caved and the threat was over.
It's not a law exactly, just Senate rules that IIRC were last changed in the '70s. With that change all the minority has to do to filibuster is say "we're filibustering this", no endless speechifying required.
Prior to this change 3/4 of the Senate had to vote to end a filibuster, and now it's only 60... I don't think it was a fair trade.
It's not that I'm deliberately missing the point, it's that you're communicating your point poorly.
I agree in principle that pols shouldn't lie, but that's just not possible what with national security and the game that is politics.
I'd be intrigued if you could name me a president or anybody else in politics who hasn't lied about anything ever.
Then I'd dismiss you as a liar, 'cause that just ain't happening.
The problem with decreasing taxes on "job creators" (ptui!) is that they'll turn around and use the money to create more jobs. In the Third World.
Now you're trotting out more ad-homs. It's plain that you haven't got an argument.
The teabaggers exist because the Republicans lost big in the '08 elections, and the commentariat manufactured the movement to hurt the Dems once their boys were safely out of power.
They claim to be against big wasteful government, but were silent for the entire Bush Administration.
I quit reading at "leftist class warfare filter".
PROTIP: If you want people you disagree with to read a wall-o-text, don't be a douchebag right away.
...and adults. And politicians.
You're being obtuse.
He's talking about the country collapsing, dipshit.
You're going to be mighty disappointed to learn that sometimes people lie, and pretty much everybody does it. I'd rather a president lie about a blow job than about why he's taking us to war, myself.
Your objection is noted and found wanting.
Wrong. To make the metaphor /accurate/ you do that in exchange for not putting more fucking water into the boat with the bailing bucket.
Not that I accept your metaphor, it being contrived to make your position look reasonable.
Were someone to come out in the political scene and say "I am raising taxes by 20%, but I am balancing the budget and paying off out debt. Not just reducing the amount we spend. But I'm going to send payments to our credit card too so our children are not burdened with out mistakes."
Tea Party would be all over that candidate.
I find this very difficult to believe, considering all the howling about OMG SOCIALISM and the fact that the movement's fucking /name/ is "Taxed Enough Already" (TEA).
Wrong. They offered plenty of cuts in domestic spending, but only if Republicans would meet them in the middle about serious tax increases. Predictably the Republicans refused.
Seriously. How can you argue against repealing tax cuts in the middle of two fucking wars? That's not rational, no matter how loudly you call yourself "rational".
What you people always ignore (on purpose) is that the Republicans had enough votes to filibuster in the Senate. And they did for pretty much everything.
Kind of impossible to have a budget when the minority party will abuse their power to prevent anything from passing. ...of course, given your signature I'm sure you'll ignore this.
What you people always ignore (on purpose) is that the Republicans had enough votes to filibuster in the Senate. And they did for pretty much everything.
Kind of impossible to have a budget when the minority party will abuse their power to prevent anything from passing.