I hope you are including unions, when you say big corporations. Nothing is more foul than the government collecting dues for unions like they do here in Wisconsin.
How do we get the Hydrogen? Unless the energy needed to extract it comes from solar, wind, hydroelectric or nuclear, we burn fossil fuels to extract the hydrogen. Currently hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not an energy source.
Right, so when someone in congress says we need to pass cap and trade we should ignore them. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change issues a report and recommendations we should take them with a grain of salt. Thanks for clearing that up.
Do you want one agency planning our internet? Or would you rather have hundreds of companies and entrepreneurs constantly working to evolve and improve it? Telephone technology was stagnant for 70 years and it was heavily regulated. Then alternatives such as wireless and ip based communications were developed and we have seen huge advances in the last 25 years. Let's not ruin a good thing.
So basically your argument went from, "monopolies in unregulated markets are fairly common" to "in all modern advanced economies, there are no current examples, at least in the developed world. You might be able to find some elsewhere, if you really wanted to."
You sound like you can't make an argument without insulting your opponent. Moving out of state can be expensive, but it can also save money. Many people are moving to Texas from the northeast and the west coast for precisely that reason.
Since most power and water companies are government created moNopolies, what incentive is there for them to improve?
The monopoly created by your friendly government? Even in those areas you still usually have more than one choice. And even if you only have one choice you can still boycott, or vote with your feet and move. Neither of those options is available with the federal government. With uniform government regulations we lose the ability to exercise our power as consumers. Corporations lose the incentive to improve as a result.
I think you are confusing education and intelligence with credentials. It is plain stupidity to ignore the will of the people who put you in office and then expecting to retain that office.
Um. Democrats took office 11 months before the recession officially started (dec 2007). When Dems took control of congress, we had 3% growth, a 4.6% unemployment rate, and a rapidly shrinking $165 billion deficit.
Did Bush sign that first 1.4trillion budget? No. Democrats delayed signing of that budget until January of 2009, so it could be signed by President Obama. Maybe you should follow your own advice.
Would you rather that for the purposes of apportionment Blacks were counted as a whole person, therefor giving southern slave states more power in Congress? Counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person was a compromise that allowed agreement on a constitution yet still limited the power of slave states. I would have much preferred that the constitution prohibited slavery from the beginning, but my second choice would have been to have slaves not be counted at all, if they weren't given the right to vote.
No he actually only votes with republicans after realizing the mistake he made with healthcare and the cornhusker kickback. Since he is up for re-election soon, he needs to act like he actually represents his constituents not his party's ideology.
The first amendment doesn't grant anybody rights. It recognizes that people have always had those rights. You are looking at it incorrectly.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
The 1st amendment limits the ability of the government to make laws restricting freedom of speech, whatever that speech may be. It never makes the claim that speech must come from an individual. It recognizes speech regardless of where it comes from.
There are no limits on how much a person or an organization can spend on a politicians campaign. That is what Citizens United upheld. There are limits to how much money an entity can give directly to a politician. Someone can spend as much as they want whenever they want on their own advocating for a politician or a particular position.
I think you misunderstand the concept of the Unitary Executive. Basically the theory holds that the entire power of the executive branch is vested in one person, the President. That is an entirely separate issue from what those powers may be,
That is also why it is a weenie cop out when the president ducks responsibility for things. For instance, Vilsack fired Sherrod, I had nothing to do with it.
Sure. A basic knowledge of the constitution, which Kagan should have as a nominee, would reveal that the enumerated powers dont give the government the power to tell you what to eat. Therefor the question merited a quick NO!, response.
Slashdot Mirror
Please give an example of this, "totally free market" of which you speak.
I hope you are including unions, when you say big corporations. Nothing is more foul than the government collecting dues for unions like they do here in Wisconsin.
Where did you get your Mr. Fusion? I'd like one too. Screw Hydrogen, I want a car that runs on bananas and beer.
How do we get the Hydrogen? Unless the energy needed to extract it comes from solar, wind, hydroelectric or nuclear, we burn fossil fuels to extract the hydrogen. Currently hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not an energy source.
Yet. If the government's ability to force you to buy a private product is found to be constitutional, that could change.
Really? So the left has moved right and no longer exists. Can you imagine Barack Obama giving a speech like this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AAEp0J_hzU
Right, so when someone in congress says we need to pass cap and trade we should ignore them. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change issues a report and recommendations we should take them with a grain of salt. Thanks for clearing that up.
Do you want one agency planning our internet? Or would you rather have hundreds of companies and entrepreneurs constantly working to evolve and improve it? Telephone technology was stagnant for 70 years and it was heavily regulated. Then alternatives such as wireless and ip based communications were developed and we have seen huge advances in the last 25 years. Let's not ruin a good thing.
So basically your argument went from, "monopolies in unregulated markets are fairly common" to "in all modern advanced economies, there are no current examples, at least in the developed world. You might be able to find some elsewhere, if you really wanted to."
Heckuva job, Brownie.
You sound like you can't make an argument without insulting your opponent. Moving out of state can be expensive, but it can also save money. Many people are moving to Texas from the northeast and the west coast for precisely that reason.
Since most power and water companies are government created moNopolies, what incentive is there for them to improve?
I challenge you to name one current unregulated market, or one company with a complete monopoly that isn't created by government regulation.
The monopoly created by your friendly government? Even in those areas you still usually have more than one choice. And even if you only have one choice you can still boycott, or vote with your feet and move. Neither of those options is available with the federal government. With uniform government regulations we lose the ability to exercise our power as consumers. Corporations lose the incentive to improve as a result.
There is a huge difference. You can escape the wrath of one by the way you choose to exercise your power as a consumer. The other is inescapable.
Or if you want to fly on an airplane.
Actually that document is a Certification of Live Birth. His original birth certificate has not been seen by Factcheck.
I think you are confusing education and intelligence with credentials. It is plain stupidity to ignore the will of the people who put you in office and then expecting to retain that office.
Um. Democrats took office 11 months before the recession officially started (dec 2007). When Dems took control of congress, we had 3% growth, a 4.6% unemployment rate, and a rapidly shrinking $165 billion deficit.
Did Bush sign that first 1.4trillion budget? No. Democrats delayed signing of that budget until January of 2009, so it could be signed by President Obama. Maybe you should follow your own advice.
Would you rather that for the purposes of apportionment Blacks were counted as a whole person, therefor giving southern slave states more power in Congress? Counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person was a compromise that allowed agreement on a constitution yet still limited the power of slave states. I would have much preferred that the constitution prohibited slavery from the beginning, but my second choice would have been to have slaves not be counted at all, if they weren't given the right to vote.
No he actually only votes with republicans after realizing the mistake he made with healthcare and the cornhusker kickback. Since he is up for re-election soon, he needs to act like he actually represents his constituents not his party's ideology.
The first amendment doesn't grant anybody rights. It recognizes that people have always had those rights. You are looking at it incorrectly.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
The 1st amendment limits the ability of the government to make laws restricting freedom of speech, whatever that speech may be. It never makes the claim that speech must come from an individual. It recognizes speech regardless of where it comes from.
There are no limits on how much a person or an organization can spend on a politicians campaign. That is what Citizens United upheld. There are limits to how much money an entity can give directly to a politician. Someone can spend as much as they want whenever they want on their own advocating for a politician or a particular position.
Just because popular opinion in California runs counter to your social views, it doesn't mean that popular opinion in California is unconstitutional.
I think you misunderstand the concept of the Unitary Executive. Basically the theory holds that the entire power of the executive branch is vested in one person, the President. That is an entirely separate issue from what those powers may be,
That is also why it is a weenie cop out when the president ducks responsibility for things. For instance, Vilsack fired Sherrod, I had nothing to do with it.
Sure. A basic knowledge of the constitution, which Kagan should have as a nominee, would reveal that the enumerated powers dont give the government the power to tell you what to eat. Therefor the question merited a quick NO!, response.