And "checks and balances" is not the same thing as "someone else's responsibility." That's the part I take issue with. If a President pushes for stupid legislation and then signs the legislation when it's passed, that's not "somone else's responsibility." That's the President and Congress screwing up.
The president can push all he wants, congress has a DUTY to shoot it down if they disagree. If you disagree that they had done their duty or not, then you shouldn't later elect one of those that failed to be the next president. Nor should you reelect them to the same spot where they may later fail you again.
So you're suggesting that, say, the PATRIOT Act, which was essentially written by Bush officials and submitted to Congress for their amendments and passage, and then signed into law by President Bush, is the responsibility of Congress because they passed it, and there's no way of knowing if Bush actually supported it?
Again, Congress in your eyes failed its duty to shoot down someones agenda. That means they either agreed with this agenda or failed to do their duty and must be replaced, NOT elected to a higher office
Those appointments are typically apporved by Congress. And Congress screwed up by approving a bunch of them.
See a patern here?
There's another reason the President is the fall guy. First, he signs the legislation. That gives him an equal share of the blame unless it's passed overwhelmingly. Often, he proposes the legislation. Finally it's usually his job to implement it and appoint people to implement it. Example: I thought that going into Iraq was a bad decision. Even if it wasn't a bad decision, its implementation was a complete clusterfuck. Congress gets a share of the blame for the decision. The executive gets all the blame for the implementation. "Someone else's responsibility" doesn't enter into it.
Going into Iraq is the only thing that people complain about that he was truly 100% responsible for. This was his duty. The rest of peoples gripes and complaints, guess what? Failures of congress, as it takes CONGRESS to propose a bill, Congress must have so many supporters before a vote can take place for this bill, Congress then still has to have a majority vote to have it pass, then the President can veto or pass it.
After all this, SCOTUS can then declare it uncostitutional.
If you want to end "more of the same" and have real change, you have to replace the whole lot. Not place all the blame of the 488 people who saw this same piece of paper before the president and had a majority say "sure, this seems like a good idea" as his fault.
Sure he can veto, but congress can override that veto as well if they meet about the issue again within 14 days. And the SCJ's can override passing the bill. This is called checks and ballances. This doesn't change the very simple fact that laws are not witten by nor sponsored by the President, but by congress. The president can suggest and reccomend all he wants, congress can still tell him to piss off.
Again, look at who was actually supporting these laws in congress(Warrentless wiretapping, DCMA, etc)
Bush signed, sure. But that doesnt mean he supported them. There is a political move where you KNOW they will pass it anyway if you veto, and sign it after holding it for a few days as a protest.
Appointments to regulatory posts MUST be approved by SCOTUS, appointments to SCOTUS must be approved by congress, see a pattern here?
One of us is not as evil as all of us.
We chose the assholes in charge, and rather than blame the bunch, democrats blame the red herring we chose to be a fall guy. The presidential role in modern society has become just that, the fall guy to those that don't understand the true governmental meathods.
Also, all this withstanding, congress can't infringe on the inherent rights granted to the state. This is defined in the constitution.
Don't tell them that, they don't logically understand the purpose of the president, after all they are democrats. To them, the president controls what food is on the table and how much gas costs, and the fact the neighborhood strip club raised its drink prices by $3/shot, and etc.
To those that think the president is the end all be all, read the constitution. His mandate is over the military and approving or denying congressional bills. NOT infringing on the rights of state governments as people seem to imply was his duty for katrina, the fact that louisiana's gov was incompitent was not the presidential responsiblity, but the responsibility of the state and population of the state to pick a capable leadership. They failed.
This is not the first or only time they have blamed Bush for failures that were actually someone elses responsibility. Learn the purpose of the government department that is at hand, and what powers they actually have before you assume.
My company produced and sold several thousands of murloc dolls to Jinx. Most detested? More like most notable. Thats the only one they contracted us out in such quanities.
Theres a setting in the blackberry server you can set to kill the handset on power failure. Your IT department set this. Smack them, its something they are doing to you, not RIM.
PS: IAABSA (I am a Blackbery Server Administrator)
I usually break a few extra things, make key databases go "offline" for no apparent reason, and make them scream for help. Do that for a few days and claim the server "crashed" and needed a restore from the backups. They will usually leave you be for a few months or so after that before the cycle starts again.
Everyone knows once they get past 30 or 40% market penetration they will flip the "Take over and destroy the world" switch causing our phones to form skynet.
Actually, this is incorrect. My stepfather used to work for a few of these in Indiana(I even tried it for a month, it sucked). The way they work is 49% of donations go to the people doing the call, the other 51% goes to the actual cause. This is better donation rate than Red Cross (between 80%-95% for the call center and the remainder to the cause depending on centers) Now, you are entitled by law to recieve their 401c3 federal tax ID number that registers them as a non profit in order to verify them as a non profit as they claim. If they dont give you this, tell them to piss off.
Typically, yes they follow that. They get alot of flack for some of it because they "OMG ARNT PROTECTING THEIR WORKS" because they dont use DRM, or hell most cases even installer disks. Everything they produce is downloadable via impulse, they really dont use any form of copy protection on things. The attitude they have is "If someone likes it, they will buy it, if they want updates to it, they HAVE to buy it" and it works well for them.
My 7 year old PC still plays their latest games, I see them as what the gaming industry SHOULD be, but fights so hard to not be.
Look more into them, these are the things they followed since they started, and I was quite skeptical of them then. 4 years after the first game I got of theirs now, and I have to say, they have sofar followed that list to the letter.
I have been buying almost exclusivly from stardock for about 6 months now because frankly the business ethics they follow I strongly agree with. Doesnt mean I dont or wouldnt like other publishers games, but the others shy of a few select few have left a very bad taste in my mouth with regards to DRM, buggy releases, bad support for bad products and lack of any form of customer service.
Im looking at you, everyone who put that shitware starforce on a disk, I hope theres a special circle of hell for the coders of that and anyone who signed off on it being added to a disk.
Stardock has always made sure any game they released was 100% complete, patchs they release are mostly bonus content (GCiv2 was expecially just bonus)
I know I cant be the only one whos sick of vendors releasing things that I wouldnt wipe my ass with let alone pay for.
So true. We had a system crash that took our company down for 3 hours and rather than "What happened" we got "Who's fault was it" and "How can you ensure me this will never happen again"
They were more focused on finding who to blame for the issue than finding how to truly fix the issue, and more focused on finding the person who messed something up rather than realize sometimes things just get bugged out.
They also wern't to happy when I told them that it was an error with the last IIS patch that dropped it so if they are looking for someone to blame with the "Whos fault is it" question then they can blame microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
And "checks and balances" is not the same thing as "someone else's responsibility." That's the part I take issue with. If a President pushes for stupid legislation and then signs the legislation when it's passed, that's not "somone else's responsibility." That's the President and Congress screwing up.
The president can push all he wants, congress has a DUTY to shoot it down if they disagree. If you disagree that they had done their duty or not, then you shouldn't later elect one of those that failed to be the next president. Nor should you reelect them to the same spot where they may later fail you again.
So you're suggesting that, say, the PATRIOT Act, which was essentially written by Bush officials and submitted to Congress for their amendments and passage, and then signed into law by President Bush, is the responsibility of Congress because they passed it, and there's no way of knowing if Bush actually supported it?
Again, Congress in your eyes failed its duty to shoot down someones agenda. That means they either agreed with this agenda or failed to do their duty and must be replaced, NOT elected to a higher office
Those appointments are typically apporved by Congress. And Congress screwed up by approving a bunch of them.
See a patern here?
There's another reason the President is the fall guy. First, he signs the legislation. That gives him an equal share of the blame unless it's passed overwhelmingly. Often, he proposes the legislation. Finally it's usually his job to implement it and appoint people to implement it. Example: I thought that going into Iraq was a bad decision. Even if it wasn't a bad decision, its implementation was a complete clusterfuck. Congress gets a share of the blame for the decision. The executive gets all the blame for the implementation. "Someone else's responsibility" doesn't enter into it.
Going into Iraq is the only thing that people complain about that he was truly 100% responsible for. This was his duty. The rest of peoples gripes and complaints, guess what? Failures of congress, as it takes CONGRESS to propose a bill, Congress must have so many supporters before a vote can take place for this bill, Congress then still has to have a majority vote to have it pass, then the President can veto or pass it.
After all this, SCOTUS can then declare it uncostitutional.
If you want to end "more of the same" and have real change, you have to replace the whole lot. Not place all the blame of the 488 people who saw this same piece of paper before the president and had a majority say "sure, this seems like a good idea" as his fault.
Sure he can veto, but congress can override that veto as well if they meet about the issue again within 14 days. And the SCJ's can override passing the bill. This is called checks and ballances. This doesn't change the very simple fact that laws are not witten by nor sponsored by the President, but by congress. The president can suggest and reccomend all he wants, congress can still tell him to piss off.
Again, look at who was actually supporting these laws in congress(Warrentless wiretapping, DCMA, etc)
Bush signed, sure. But that doesnt mean he supported them. There is a political move where you KNOW they will pass it anyway if you veto, and sign it after holding it for a few days as a protest.
Appointments to regulatory posts MUST be approved by SCOTUS, appointments to SCOTUS must be approved by congress, see a pattern here?
One of us is not as evil as all of us.
We chose the assholes in charge, and rather than blame the bunch, democrats blame the red herring we chose to be a fall guy. The presidential role in modern society has become just that, the fall guy to those that don't understand the true governmental meathods.
Also, all this withstanding, congress can't infringe on the inherent rights granted to the state. This is defined in the constitution.
Don't tell them that, they don't logically understand the purpose of the president, after all they are democrats. To them, the president controls what food is on the table and how much gas costs, and the fact the neighborhood strip club raised its drink prices by $3/shot, and etc.
To those that think the president is the end all be all, read the constitution.
His mandate is over the military and approving or denying congressional bills. NOT infringing on the rights of state governments as people seem to imply was his duty for katrina, the fact that louisiana's gov was incompitent was not the presidential responsiblity, but the responsibility of the state and population of the state to pick a capable leadership. They failed.
This is not the first or only time they have blamed Bush for failures that were actually someone elses responsibility. Learn the purpose of the government department that is at hand, and what powers they actually have before you assume.
Because people also get it iced?
My company produced and sold several thousands of murloc dolls to Jinx.
Most detested? More like most notable. Thats the only one they contracted us out in such quanities.
Theres a setting in the blackberry server you can set to kill the handset on power failure. Your IT department set this. Smack them, its something they are doing to you, not RIM.
PS: IAABSA (I am a Blackbery Server Administrator)
The first case i'd support Halliburton for. Think of it, they get this patent, and anyone who trolls patents are in violation.
Its a self obsoleting patent. Eventually they will bankrupt all the other trolls and have little left but hang up their hats.
I usually break a few extra things, make key databases go "offline" for no apparent reason, and make them scream for help. Do that for a few days and claim the server "crashed" and needed a restore from the backups. They will usually leave you be for a few months or so after that before the cycle starts again.
Everyone knows once they get past 30 or 40% market penetration they will flip the "Take over and destroy the world" switch causing our phones to form skynet.
Actually, this is incorrect. My stepfather used to work for a few of these in Indiana(I even tried it for a month, it sucked). The way they work is 49% of donations go to the people doing the call, the other 51% goes to the actual cause. This is better donation rate than Red Cross (between 80%-95% for the call center and the remainder to the cause depending on centers)
Now, you are entitled by law to recieve their 401c3 federal tax ID number that registers them as a non profit in order to verify them as a non profit as they claim. If they dont give you this, tell them to piss off.
Actually, your link goes to the proper spelling. If you try to look up nucular on merriam-webster it gives you http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nucular
Does not find anything, but suggests the proper spelling.
Typically, yes they follow that. They get alot of flack for some of it because they "OMG ARNT PROTECTING THEIR WORKS" because they dont use DRM, or hell most cases even installer disks. Everything they produce is downloadable via impulse, they really dont use any form of copy protection on things. The attitude they have is "If someone likes it, they will buy it, if they want updates to it, they HAVE to buy it" and it works well for them.
My 7 year old PC still plays their latest games, I see them as what the gaming industry SHOULD be, but fights so hard to not be.
Look more into them, these are the things they followed since they started, and I was quite skeptical of them then. 4 years after the first game I got of theirs now, and I have to say, they have sofar followed that list to the letter.
I have been buying almost exclusivly from stardock for about 6 months now because frankly the business ethics they follow I strongly agree with. Doesnt mean I dont or wouldnt like other publishers games, but the others shy of a few select few have left a very bad taste in my mouth with regards to DRM, buggy releases, bad support for bad products and lack of any form of customer service.
Im looking at you, everyone who put that shitware starforce on a disk, I hope theres a special circle of hell for the coders of that and anyone who signed off on it being added to a disk.
Stardock has always made sure any game they released was 100% complete, patchs they release are mostly bonus content (GCiv2 was expecially just bonus)
I know I cant be the only one whos sick of vendors releasing things that I wouldnt wipe my ass with let alone pay for.
So true.
We had a system crash that took our company down for 3 hours and rather than "What happened" we got "Who's fault was it" and "How can you ensure me this will never happen again"
They were more focused on finding who to blame for the issue than finding how to truly fix the issue, and more focused on finding the person who messed something up rather than realize sometimes things just get bugged out.
They also wern't to happy when I told them that it was an error with the last IIS patch that dropped it so if they are looking for someone to blame with the "Whos fault is it" question then they can blame microsoft.
If the site would ever load they would get a sale here...