Except it is not a tax. It wasn't a tax when the bill passed Congress, it wasn't a tax when President Obama signed it into law, and it wasn't a tax when the Supreme Court decided they would call it a tax because the FINE for not buying a product is paid to the IRS.
But it isn't government run, and requiring me to buy a product from a private company is in no way a tax. The fact that the fine for not buying a product is paid to the IRS does not make the fine into a tax.
Well, that's the whole problem with this situation. The limit on federal power hinges on what is considered "unreasonable", and that is dependent on who provides the definition.
The NSA says it is reasonable to be able to gather intelligence on foreign terrorists. The military says it is reasonable to prevent attacks on our soldiers. Department of Homeland Security says it is reasonable to prevent attacks on our civilian population. So, when the government is defining "reasonable", they give themselves the most power they can.
I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying that is the problem with a 'common sense' reading of the Fourth Amendment. Unless people start holding government officials responsible, their belief of what is not "unreasonable" is not going to change.
However, the federal government does not have that 'right', nor does it have that 'authority'. It is allowed to do what the Constitution allows it to do. Forcing American citizens to buy products from private companies is not one of the powers listed.
1) You are an idiot. As GodfatherofSould stated above, even with 'normal' routine, memorials can be vandalized. The barricades are not to stop vandalism.
Actually, from a basic reading of his statement, it doesn't claim they are related for good or ill. Simply that a new version of one will arrive after the downfall of the other. No more related than saying "I woke up this morning after the sun came up."
And here I thought we already had one of those. Are you're saying this one was way too unclear and wordy?
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures
Who defines "unreasonable"?
and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
The warrants are judicially sanctioned. And they find probable cause by snooping before asking for the warrant. Again, depends on how "unreasonable searches" is defined.
It was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America. The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment.
That would be a good guess. I never tried it. Especially after I read that the publisher chopped huge sections out of the original story, and it still ended up at almost a thousand pages. I think originally it was over 1200 pages.
Being "accused of wasting taxpayer dollars" is exactly what would happen. If you can't imagine the headlines for the "investigative journalism" pieces, you aren't trying.
Investigative journalism by who? FOX News? We know you'll just ignore that like all the rest anyway.
And nothing prevents the "few hundred servers no longer in use" from being wiped, reloaded, and re-purposed in other agencies in the government. So, no waste would really happen.
Honestly, we know that isn't the major reason that healthcare.gov is performing so badly. It's just a giant mess of crap.
ACA Planner A: Hmm! We can either build a website that works for millions of people for a few months, then settles down to a few thousand at a time, or we can build a complete clusterfuck that doesn't work.
ACA Planner B: Well, if we build it to handle millions, we will need many servers, and an competent design. After the millions are taken care of, we can use a lot fewer servers to handle the thousands, so apparently we will have a few hundred servers no longer in use.
ACA Planner A: What? And waste all that money? Nonsense. We'll just make do with a few dozen servers from the beginning. We don't want to be accused of wasting taxpayer dollars.
ACA Planner B: But then it's going to be a giant clusterfuck that won't work.
ACA Planner A: It's for the greater good. The people will understand.
It would be symbolic of a new partnership of opposites. (Which country over in Europe had something similar this past year?) With the right planning, the Greens could use the attention it creates to get a few Congressional seats in left-leaning states, and the Libertarians do so in right-leaning states. Also, a certain number of cabinet positions would be guaranteed to be filled by libertarians (big or small L), just as a coalition would require.
They would have to point out their common causes, such as ending overseas wars and propping in dictators with our tax dollars, and ending the NSA spying immediately. The rest is details.
Besides, you have to recognize the reality of our media. If a Libertarian were on the top of the ticket, it would be demonized by all liberal media sources. Which is most of the national ones. With the Green party topping the ticket, the leftist media would be more likely to give them a fair hearing. In the campaign, and later if they won office, you would need the Greens on top for any hope of honest reporting.
So the logical thing would have been to install those fences and station armed guards every evening after the memorial was vandalized. Not all day a couple months later to keep daily visitors out.
Keep defending it if you want, but the people of this country know when someone is acting like a spoiled child, taking his toys and pouting in the corner. This has nothing at all to do with the shutdown, and everything to do with an ego.
Oh, but you have to remember a couple decades ago, some political group thought up a similar thing in reaction to someone else thinking up something. It's completely applicable today.
The memorials are open air lawns and monuments. The administration actually had to spend money to bring in fencing and armed guards to "shut them down". If the administration had wanted to, they could have simply put up a sign saying "Monuments closed. No security present. Use at your own risk." Then let American citizens and foreign visitors walk on the grass and take pictures of statues just like every other day.
You can make the argument that the shutdown is the sole fault of the Republicans. You are delusional if you think the same applies to lawns and monuments.
Really? So white people generally grow up attending Muslim schools in south Pacific nations?
He was raised by a dark-skinned Muslim for many years.
Even when he returned to Hawaii, there is no "growing up white" in Hawaii. And being a non-white in a private school does not change that, in Hawaii.
He grew up among many ethnic groups, nationalities, and religions, in the US and in a third world country on the other side of the world. So, in a very real sense, he did not grow up white.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it is not a tax. It wasn't a tax when the bill passed Congress, it wasn't a tax when President Obama signed it into law, and it wasn't a tax when the Supreme Court decided they would call it a tax because the FINE for not buying a product is paid to the IRS.
More or less, yes, that is correct.
But it isn't government run, and requiring me to buy a product from a private company is in no way a tax. The fact that the fine for not buying a product is paid to the IRS does not make the fine into a tax.
Who defines "unreasonable"?
How much more clear can one possibly be?
Well, that's the whole problem with this situation. The limit on federal power hinges on what is considered "unreasonable", and that is dependent on who provides the definition.
The NSA says it is reasonable to be able to gather intelligence on foreign terrorists. The military says it is reasonable to prevent attacks on our soldiers. Department of Homeland Security says it is reasonable to prevent attacks on our civilian population. So, when the government is defining "reasonable", they give themselves the most power they can.
I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying that is the problem with a 'common sense' reading of the Fourth Amendment. Unless people start holding government officials responsible, their belief of what is not "unreasonable" is not going to change.
However, the federal government does not have that 'right', nor does it have that 'authority'. It is allowed to do what the Constitution allows it to do. Forcing American citizens to buy products from private companies is not one of the powers listed.
You are making two points here.
1) You are an idiot. As GodfatherofSould stated above, even with 'normal' routine, memorials can be vandalized. The barricades are not to stop vandalism.
2) Really, what more is needed to be pointed out?
You must be new here. Welcome.
Wait.
What?
Uh, thanks.
I think.
As the one who started a thread-war about Ayn Rand yesterday, I just want to state I have no connection to this guy.
.
Carry on.
Actually, from a basic reading of his statement, it doesn't claim they are related for good or ill. Simply that a new version of one will arrive after the downfall of the other. No more related than saying "I woke up this morning after the sun came up."
And here I thought we already had one of those. Are you're saying this one was way too unclear and wordy?
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures
Who defines "unreasonable"?
and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
The warrants are judicially sanctioned. And they find probable cause by snooping before asking for the warrant. Again, depends on how "unreasonable searches" is defined.
It was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America. The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment.
That would be a good guess. I never tried it. Especially after I read that the publisher chopped huge sections out of the original story, and it still ended up at almost a thousand pages. I think originally it was over 1200 pages.
I did like the movie/mini-series though.
Being "accused of wasting taxpayer dollars" is exactly what would happen. If you can't imagine the headlines for the "investigative journalism" pieces, you aren't trying.
Investigative journalism by who? FOX News? We know you'll just ignore that like all the rest anyway.
And nothing prevents the "few hundred servers no longer in use" from being wiped, reloaded, and re-purposed in other agencies in the government. So, no waste would really happen.
Honestly, we know that isn't the major reason that healthcare.gov is performing so badly. It's just a giant mess of crap.
Fine, kick them all out of office for malfeasance. But the problem with you partisan idiots is that you are blinded to your own side's actions.
What issue is that?
ACA Planner A: Hmm! We can either build a website that works for millions of people for a few months, then settles down to a few thousand at a time, or we can build a complete clusterfuck that doesn't work.
ACA Planner B: Well, if we build it to handle millions, we will need many servers, and an competent design. After the millions are taken care of, we can use a lot fewer servers to handle the thousands, so apparently we will have a few hundred servers no longer in use.
ACA Planner A: What? And waste all that money? Nonsense. We'll just make do with a few dozen servers from the beginning. We don't want to be accused of wasting taxpayer dollars.
ACA Planner B: But then it's going to be a giant clusterfuck that won't work.
ACA Planner A: It's for the greater good. The people will understand.
It would be symbolic of a new partnership of opposites. (Which country over in Europe had something similar this past year?) With the right planning, the Greens could use the attention it creates to get a few Congressional seats in left-leaning states, and the Libertarians do so in right-leaning states. Also, a certain number of cabinet positions would be guaranteed to be filled by libertarians (big or small L), just as a coalition would require.
They would have to point out their common causes, such as ending overseas wars and propping in dictators with our tax dollars, and ending the NSA spying immediately. The rest is details.
Besides, you have to recognize the reality of our media. If a Libertarian were on the top of the ticket, it would be demonized by all liberal media sources. Which is most of the national ones. With the Green party topping the ticket, the leftist media would be more likely to give them a fair hearing. In the campaign, and later if they won office, you would need the Greens on top for any hope of honest reporting.
So the logical thing would have been to install those fences and station armed guards every evening after the memorial was vandalized. Not all day a couple months later to keep daily visitors out.
Keep defending it if you want, but the people of this country know when someone is acting like a spoiled child, taking his toys and pouting in the corner. This has nothing at all to do with the shutdown, and everything to do with an ego.
The base rate for health insurance used to be quite different from one state to another.
Now, all prices will be higher because of the extra coverage required by the ACA.
Oh, but you have to remember a couple decades ago, some political group thought up a similar thing in reaction to someone else thinking up something. It's completely applicable today.
Seems like most of the state-run sites are doing OK. At the very least, they are functional if not final.
Why are you defending a group that had 3 years to build a website, yet only decided to test it the week before it went live?
Sheltered? No. If he lived in a shelter, he would know more about homeless people.
I think it would be great if the Green Party ran a candidate for President, with a Libertarian party member as the Vice-President.
If coalition governments work well in other countries, let's try one here for a change. It couldn't be nearly as bad as what we currently have.
The memorials are open air lawns and monuments. The administration actually had to spend money to bring in fencing and armed guards to "shut them down". If the administration had wanted to, they could have simply put up a sign saying "Monuments closed. No security present. Use at your own risk." Then let American citizens and foreign visitors walk on the grass and take pictures of statues just like every other day.
You can make the argument that the shutdown is the sole fault of the Republicans. You are delusional if you think the same applies to lawns and monuments.
What is that in Celcius?
You are such a fool, you believed Obama was using your terms as you understand them. He meant a beating every galactic standard week.
Kay: Arquillian battle rules, kid: first we get an ultimatum, then a warning shot, then we have a galactic standard week to respond.
Jay: A galactic standard week? How the hell long is that?
Kay: One hour.
Really? So white people generally grow up attending Muslim schools in south Pacific nations?
He was raised by a dark-skinned Muslim for many years.
Even when he returned to Hawaii, there is no "growing up white" in Hawaii. And being a non-white in a private school does not change that, in Hawaii.
He grew up among many ethnic groups, nationalities, and religions, in the US and in a third world country on the other side of the world. So, in a very real sense, he did not grow up white.
Check out who has been in our heads lately.
http://xkcd.com/1277