Not in terms of a legal document such as a treaty. "Trade" will mean whatever the document, or international law in general, says it means. Cooperation between two governmental organizations will not qualify.
To quote Bill Maher, "words either have meaning, or they don't."
Much of the issue exist because people insist on maintaining lawns that have no place in deserts.
Exactly. While the younger generations get all the slack for supposedly having massives senses of entitlement and being greedy, the 50-60 somethings epitomize greed and narcissism. If you live in Phoenix and you have a nice lawn, you are part of the problem.
Treaties trump Federal law only if they're ratified by Congress, and if an executive agreement conflicts with federal law, the federal law controls. If they pass a law banning NASA from working with China, that's where it ends until Congress changes its mind.
Or maybe I'm just succumbing to nostalgia. It has changed around here though. Where is the place that is now what slashdot was?
Actually, in some ways slashdot posting has gotten better. When I first started on it (about 12 years ago), the vast majority of posters were comp. sci/engineering students and recent graduates. A large number of them skewed hard-right-libertarianism, didn't really understand politics beyond simplistic, kneejerk analyses they made under that libertarian framework, were amazingly contemptuous of anyone who wasn't part of their "club," and were in many cases covertly (and sometimes overtly) racist and sexist. Still a fair number of them here now, but there is definitely a broader group of commenters with a generally more mature outlook on life.
I remember way back when, if your area ran out of water, you left! How silly our ancestors were hundreds of years ago! They just makes too much sense.
Which became one of the main reasons human beings killed each other. Why do you want to go back to the bad old days? I mean, are you honestly contending that the few hundred million people who live in places without a reliable source of clean water should move? Where would they move to?
They sure haven't been answering to this taxpayer who has been saying for years that it's moronic to end the shuttle program before its replacement is even off the drawing board
Why? Is there some sort of space garrison we have to keep constantly staffed and stocked? Will the aliens come and get us if they realize that for a few years we don't have a shuttle program?
It pays to get along with China as opposed to nuking the Earth, and unless you seriously consider the USA to eventually be in position to conquer and assimilate China (HA!), it will pay to get along with China in space.
What could go wrong with helping an intensely nationalistic country that still harbors a grudge over the opium wars?
I don't know if anyone paid attention to the International Monetary meeting this weekend, but over here in the EU the general consensus is that the US is less and less relevant due to its complete lack of competent leaders, massive debts, and lazy, uncaring masses.
Ah yes, we haven't had such paragons of statesmanship like Tony Blair or Silvio Berlusconi.
Honestly, the EU's opinion just isn't really relevant anymore, something which has been further underscored by its near economic collapse lately. Which is the reason that both the US government and US corporations are focusing more on Asia. A good article on the subject:
Towards a Post-American Europe:
a power audit of EU-US Relations
Some choice quotes:
In this report we argue that the real threat to the transatlantic relationship
comes not from the remaking of America's global strategy, but from European
governments' failure to come to terms with how the world is changing and how
the relationship must adapt to those changes. Our audit (based on extensive
interviews and on structured input from all the European Union's 27 member
states) reveals that EU member states have so far failed to shake off the
attitudes, behaviours, and strategies they acquired over decades of American
hegemony. This sort of Europe is of rapidly decreasing interest to the US. In
the post-American world, a transatlantic relationship that works for both sides
depends on the emergence of a post-American Europe.
. ..
Thus far, the Obama administration has seen European governments broadly
living down to their expectations. It has found them weak and divided - ready
to talk a good game but reluctant to get muddy. Seen from Washington, there is
something almost infantile about how European governments behave towards
them - a combination of attention seeking and responsibility shirking.
. ..
These behavioural traits - a welcoming of dependence; a need for attention
and reassurance; a desire to ingratiate coupled with a reluctance to take
responsibility; and occasional self-assertion set against a more general
disposition to play the loyal lieutenant - suggest a less-than-adult attitude on
the part of Europeans to transatlantic relations. The term "infantilism" does not
seem out of place - just as veneration of the transatlantic relationship less for
what it can deliver than as an end in itself might unkindly be described as a sort
of fetishism.
Those crazy libertarians you snicker at don't massacre their own people or need to build a wall to keep their citizens from escaping.
You want to see what a libertarian country looks like? Look at Somalia in the late 90's and early 00's. Of course, the average slashdot libertarian slashdotter, a pasty, effeminate suburbanite who wouldn't last five seconds in a real libertarian utopia, wouldn't have lasted long in Somalia in that day and age.
I think you're mixing up the ideas here; I pointed out that despite OP's assertion, in many states you are required to get insurance if you own a car, as opposed to just if you're a driver. I didn't limit it to property insurance, I'm sure it's just liability, but the point we're arguing is whether the government can force you to get insurance for ownership of a vehicle.
And a lot of states require proof of insurance before they'll allow you to register your car (and registering your car, is of course, mandatory). This is outside any requirements for liability insurance for a driver.
So what are you going to do about it? I've seen a lot of your posts, you always have a lot of opinion as to how authoritarian the government is, do you have any options other than just do what you're told?
Then I show them my W2 form, and they say, oh, ok. The only people who should be terrified of audits are the people who are getting all complicated with their tax returns.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in terms of a legal document such as a treaty. "Trade" will mean whatever the document, or international law in general, says it means. Cooperation between two governmental organizations will not qualify.
To quote Bill Maher, "words either have meaning, or they don't."
Much of the issue exist because people insist on maintaining lawns that have no place in deserts.
Exactly. While the younger generations get all the slack for supposedly having massives senses of entitlement and being greedy, the 50-60 somethings epitomize greed and narcissism. If you live in Phoenix and you have a nice lawn, you are part of the problem.
Desalinization has its own pitfalls; namely, you end up with huge piles of salt, or a lot of incredibly salty water you have to vent somewhere.
Treaties trump Federal law only if they're ratified by Congress, and if an executive agreement conflicts with federal law, the federal law controls. If they pass a law banning NASA from working with China, that's where it ends until Congress changes its mind.
Or maybe I'm just succumbing to nostalgia. It has changed around here though. Where is the place that is now what slashdot was?
Actually, in some ways slashdot posting has gotten better. When I first started on it (about 12 years ago), the vast majority of posters were comp. sci/engineering students and recent graduates. A large number of them skewed hard-right-libertarianism, didn't really understand politics beyond simplistic, kneejerk analyses they made under that libertarian framework, were amazingly contemptuous of anyone who wasn't part of their "club," and were in many cases covertly (and sometimes overtly) racist and sexist. Still a fair number of them here now, but there is definitely a broader group of commenters with a generally more mature outlook on life.
Irrelevant. This isn't about trade.
I remember way back when, if your area ran out of water, you left! How silly our ancestors were hundreds of years ago! They just makes too much sense.
Which became one of the main reasons human beings killed each other. Why do you want to go back to the bad old days? I mean, are you honestly contending that the few hundred million people who live in places without a reliable source of clean water should move? Where would they move to?
Which treaties are you referring to?
Think of it as a proof of concept for turning life's most essential molecule into a global commodity
Hahaha...good one. Oh wait, were you serious? "turning"? Water has been a global commodity for a very long time.
And they can pass a law prohibiting NASA from cooperating with the Chinese.
They sure haven't been answering to this taxpayer who has been saying for years that it's moronic to end the shuttle program before its replacement is even off the drawing board
Why? Is there some sort of space garrison we have to keep constantly staffed and stocked? Will the aliens come and get us if they realize that for a few years we don't have a shuttle program?
It pays to get along with China as opposed to nuking the Earth, and unless you seriously consider the USA to eventually be in position to conquer and assimilate China (HA!), it will pay to get along with China in space.
What could go wrong with helping an intensely nationalistic country that still harbors a grudge over the opium wars?
I don't know if anyone paid attention to the International Monetary meeting this weekend, but over here in the EU the general consensus is that the US is less and less relevant due to its complete lack of competent leaders, massive debts, and lazy, uncaring masses.
.
.
Ah yes, we haven't had such paragons of statesmanship like Tony Blair or Silvio Berlusconi.
Honestly, the EU's opinion just isn't really relevant anymore, something which has been further underscored by its near economic collapse lately. Which is the reason that both the US government and US corporations are focusing more on Asia. A good article on the subject: Towards a Post-American Europe: a power audit of EU-US Relations
Some choice quotes:
In this report we argue that the real threat to the transatlantic relationship comes not from the remaking of America's global strategy, but from European governments' failure to come to terms with how the world is changing and how the relationship must adapt to those changes. Our audit (based on extensive interviews and on structured input from all the European Union's 27 member states) reveals that EU member states have so far failed to shake off the attitudes, behaviours, and strategies they acquired over decades of American hegemony. This sort of Europe is of rapidly decreasing interest to the US. In the post-American world, a transatlantic relationship that works for both sides depends on the emergence of a post-American Europe.
. .
Thus far, the Obama administration has seen European governments broadly living down to their expectations. It has found them weak and divided - ready to talk a good game but reluctant to get muddy. Seen from Washington, there is something almost infantile about how European governments behave towards them - a combination of attention seeking and responsibility shirking.
. .
These behavioural traits - a welcoming of dependence; a need for attention and reassurance; a desire to ingratiate coupled with a reluctance to take responsibility; and occasional self-assertion set against a more general disposition to play the loyal lieutenant - suggest a less-than-adult attitude on the part of Europeans to transatlantic relations. The term "infantilism" does not seem out of place - just as veneration of the transatlantic relationship less for what it can deliver than as an end in itself might unkindly be described as a sort of fetishism.
Those crazy libertarians you snicker at don't massacre their own people or need to build a wall to keep their citizens from escaping.
You want to see what a libertarian country looks like? Look at Somalia in the late 90's and early 00's. Of course, the average slashdot libertarian slashdotter, a pasty, effeminate suburbanite who wouldn't last five seconds in a real libertarian utopia, wouldn't have lasted long in Somalia in that day and age.
I think you're mixing up the ideas here; I pointed out that despite OP's assertion, in many states you are required to get insurance if you own a car, as opposed to just if you're a driver. I didn't limit it to property insurance, I'm sure it's just liability, but the point we're arguing is whether the government can force you to get insurance for ownership of a vehicle.
And a lot of states require proof of insurance before they'll allow you to register your car (and registering your car, is of course, mandatory). This is outside any requirements for liability insurance for a driver.
Or, alternately, a third world hellhole.
So what are you going to do about it? I've seen a lot of your posts, you always have a lot of opinion as to how authoritarian the government is, do you have any options other than just do what you're told?
Then I show them my W2 form, and they say, oh, ok. The only people who should be terrified of audits are the people who are getting all complicated with their tax returns.
Income tax requires you to submit to a degrading interrogation by the state, you are supposed to tell the state everything you do, how and why, etc.
That's completely false. I tell the state how much I make. They tax that revenue. I don't have to tell them anything else.
Like when they stood around watching his house burn down?
I don't insure my car. Do you think you have a right to FORCE me to insure it?
Uhhh...in a lot of states the government DOES force you insure your car.
The FD should have billed him for the cost of fighting the fire in light of not getting his check, not let his house burn down.
He made it easier for them by offering on the spot to do so.
The guy forgot to pay $75, offered to make good on it,
Not only that, he offered to pay whatever costs the fire department would incur by fighting the fire at his house.
What if what I read on the internet was Ron Paul's official website?