politicians also take into account... politics: what will benefit most MY home state, what will please MY core constituents most.
This is the entire purpose of politics. The alternative is who has the most/biggest guns.
Reid is able to keep the nuclear waste repository out of commission because of politics. While some (including me) do not agree with his position, it is his state and presumably, his position reflects the position of the citizens of the state (we'll find that out in 2010...not looking good).
The alternative to his use of the political/legislative process is for the feds to use force to open the repository. Or, for the citizens of the state to use armed force to prevent it.
Politics suck, but it's better than shooting someone.
faceless global economics that spawns hunger in the first place.
So there was no hunger before this guy showed up?
Hunger is spawned by governments, or lack of governments. Sounds like having it both ways huh?
Well, tin pot dictators and the like will hoard the food for themselves and friends and their military. Can't keep the populace in check if your soldiers are hungry.
Conversely, no government means various factions will act like miniature tin pot dictators and do the same thing...Somalia.
The best example of Government causing hunger is Zimbabwe.
Lastly, growing food crops is not a cultural thing. Yet when when the effort is made to change a third world society to provide the environment and infrastructure to produce food, cries of Cultural Imperialism can be heard throughout the world.
"The idea that this represents the common man would be like having the king of england attend the boston tea party."
They represent the people who are paying the bills. The fact that you don't believe they are the "common man" is telling. The finger should be pointed at everyone who spent and wants to spend massively and take yet more money from the producers.
It would be interesting if there was a structured legislation language.
Consider:
All terms and covered individuals and entities defined up front.
Specific sections that spell out standard considerations
Some kind of enforcement mechanism that wouldn't allow for confusion.
Example sections
TItle: Purpose: Definitions: A list of all terms and their definitions. Requirements: Something that must be done Prohibitions: Something that can't be done Funding: How it will be paid for. Penalties: If any, punishments for violating provisions of the law.
I could see a complete class library, defining the government, that would be used to build the text of the legislation
See what great ideas you can come up with when you are four bottles into your third six-pack?
It always comes down to the "feelings". Their heart was in the right place, trying to stop hate, blah blah blah.
First, I suspect you will have a hard time showing that anyone had the "feds" sent after them for merely disagreeing with Bush. More likely, the people who did get a knock on the door were people who made some kind of threat, overt, or veiled. In which case, it is their job to a have a sit down with that person.
Second, there is a very high probability that the folks arrested at were engaging in acts of vandalism or disorderly conduct and refused to disburse. Many people probably were not involved, but if you hang out in the middle of a crowd of anarchists, who's favorite past time is to burn cars and break shop windows, then you have to expect to be caught up in law enforcement actions. The cops have no idea who they are or that their hearts are in the right place and they just want to peacefully express their absolute hatred for anything not in line with their agenda. They just know you are standing there with someone who probably through a Molotov cocktail at them. Since they were later released, then it was obviously sorted out at the station and everyone now knows their true hearts.
Lastly, the "Left" has been at the forefront of banning speech. Either through civil laws, administrative laws (think Universities) or just plain intimidation. So the beam is your problem to deal with.
I can see it now. Several years from now, a developer who has been working, doing heads down coding, doing his job, and getting the projects finished, goes for an interview...
"Have you any experience being a ScrumMaster" "A what?" "A ScrumMaster" "I'm sorry, I don't play those online fantasy games" "No, that's not what I mean" "Oh...well, I don't play rugby either."
I'm not sure if you are in the U.S, but the premise here is that Freedom of Speech is an inherent right. In fact, I would venture to say it falls under Liberty, which we consider one of the inalienable rights granted by our Creator, if you happen to have one. And if your Creator grants it, then that pretty much makes it a universal rule.
That was some ancient study done by a group called physicians against violence or something like that. Thing is, it's made up mostly of activists with just a few token doctors.
The study itself was bogus. John Lott has several books out and several peer reviewed papers that pretty much dismantle Gun Control claims.
I just posted what he said. You drew the parallel.
However, no one is saying that Obamacare will bring about the atrocities of the Nazis.
But there is one fundamental truth at the core of both philosophies. That is, the Government will decide who is worthy of "socially guaranteed" health services.
"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.."
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Presidential health adviser or Czar, or whatever, on how to reduced health care costs.
1. You need to cogitate a little longer on the Sig.
2. Where did I say anything about fair? Pointing the disparity doesn't mean I think people should start going out and making all manner of Obama parodies to match each one done for Bush.
3. Bush is out of office, take a chill pill. Obama is showing much promise when it come to fucking over the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
politicians also take into account... politics: what will benefit most MY home state, what will please MY core constituents most.
This is the entire purpose of politics. The alternative is who has the most/biggest guns.
Reid is able to keep the nuclear waste repository out of commission because of politics. While some (including me) do not agree with his position, it is his state and presumably, his position reflects the position of the citizens of the state (we'll find that out in 2010...not looking good).
The alternative to his use of the political/legislative process is for the feds to use force to open the repository. Or, for the citizens of the state to use armed force to prevent it.
Politics suck, but it's better than shooting someone.
I'd say we have to make small tamper-proof nuclear reactors like SSTAR available to developing nations
Good luck with that. Three quarters of the green movement just put you on their hit list.
In case you missed it, the 2008 Presidential election was considered to be a populist victory.
faceless global economics that spawns hunger in the first place.
So there was no hunger before this guy showed up?
Hunger is spawned by governments, or lack of governments. Sounds like having it both ways huh?
Well, tin pot dictators and the like will hoard the food for themselves and friends and their military. Can't keep the populace in check if your soldiers are hungry.
Conversely, no government means various factions will act like miniature tin pot dictators and do the same thing...Somalia.
The best example of Government causing hunger is Zimbabwe.
Lastly, growing food crops is not a cultural thing. Yet when when the effort is made to change a third world society to provide the environment and infrastructure to produce food, cries of Cultural Imperialism can be heard throughout the world.
"The idea that this represents the common man would be like having the king of england attend the boston tea party."
They represent the people who are paying the bills. The fact that you don't believe they are the "common man" is telling. The finger should be pointed at everyone who spent and wants to spend massively and take yet more money from the producers.
It would be interesting if there was a structured legislation language.
Consider:
All terms and covered individuals and entities defined up front.
Specific sections that spell out standard considerations
Some kind of enforcement mechanism that wouldn't allow for confusion.
Example sections
TItle:
Purpose:
Definitions: A list of all terms and their definitions.
Requirements: Something that must be done
Prohibitions: Something that can't be done
Funding: How it will be paid for.
Penalties: If any, punishments for violating provisions of the law.
I could see a complete class library, defining the government, that would be used to build the text of the legislation
See what great ideas you can come up with when you are four bottles into your third six-pack?
"arrested at were" should be "arrested at (insert any Left wing protest here) were"
It always comes down to the "feelings". Their heart was in the right place, trying to stop hate, blah blah blah.
First, I suspect you will have a hard time showing that anyone had the "feds" sent after them for merely disagreeing with Bush. More likely, the people who did get a knock on the door were people who made some kind of threat, overt, or veiled. In which case, it is their job to a have a sit down with that person.
Second, there is a very high probability that the folks arrested at were engaging in acts of vandalism or disorderly conduct and refused to disburse. Many people probably were not involved, but if you hang out in the middle of a crowd of anarchists, who's favorite past time is to burn cars and break shop windows, then you have to expect to be caught up in law enforcement actions. The cops have no idea who they are or that their hearts are in the right place and they just want to peacefully express their absolute hatred for anything not in line with their agenda. They just know you are standing there with someone who probably through a Molotov cocktail at them. Since they were later released, then it was obviously sorted out at the station and everyone now knows their true hearts.
Lastly, the "Left" has been at the forefront of banning speech. Either through civil laws, administrative laws (think Universities) or just plain intimidation. So the beam is your problem to deal with.
... is not interviewed.
WTF?
Bueller....
Bueller....
Bueller....
Bueller....
But, I have been on teams where the thought of smashing the crap out another team member would have been a great idea.
I can see it now. Several years from now, a developer who has been working, doing heads down coding, doing his job, and getting the projects finished, goes for an interview...
"Have you any experience being a ScrumMaster"
"A what?"
"A ScrumMaster"
"I'm sorry, I don't play those online fantasy games"
"No, that's not what I mean"
"Oh...well, I don't play rugby either."
Don't worry, all their investors and employees are paying taxes.
Who takes their laptop to Mexico?
Limited internet connections and a high probability of being hit over the head and the laptop taken.
I'm not sure if you are in the U.S, but the premise here is that Freedom of Speech is an inherent right. In fact, I would venture to say it falls under Liberty, which we consider one of the inalienable rights granted by our Creator, if you happen to have one. And if your Creator grants it, then that pretty much makes it a universal rule.
That was some ancient study done by a group called physicians against violence or something like that. Thing is, it's made up mostly of activists with just a few token doctors.
The study itself was bogus. John Lott has several books out and several peer reviewed papers that pretty much dismantle Gun Control claims.
Well, small company and I was supporting my product. Which makes it even worse I guess.
I just posted what he said. You drew the parallel.
However, no one is saying that Obamacare will bring about the atrocities of the Nazis.
But there is one fundamental truth at the core of both philosophies. That is, the Government will decide who is worthy of "socially guaranteed" health services.
"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.."
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Presidential health adviser or Czar, or whatever, on how to reduced health care costs.
Blah Blah Blah Bullshit.
1. You need to cogitate a little longer on the Sig.
2. Where did I say anything about fair? Pointing the disparity doesn't mean I think people should start going out and making all manner of Obama parodies to match each one done for Bush.
3. Bush is out of office, take a chill pill. Obama is showing much promise when it come to fucking over the U.S.
I wonder what they'd have done if they were there while Bush was in office if he had been similarly parodied?
Are you kidding me? Parodies of Obama are amateur league when compared to what has been done with Bush
Yes, it was a joke.
I should have said 10 years because one AC said it has been around since 2003.
In that case, I should have written 7 years experience.
...I have a begrudging respect for the Verizon guy.