That's certainly why he's popular in the US -- unfortunately as PRESIDENT, it does you little good, because you're dealing with non-rural people. You're dealing with foreign heads of state who know the name of the prime minister, who know all the college graduate stuff.
Yes, I'd rather take a bus trip with Bush, and I'd probably rather start a company with him too (hell, he's got connections!), but if I had to choose who would negotiate a peace treaty where just "being nice" doesn't cut it?...
He's qualified to be the front-man for a committee, isn't he?
We already have a committee -- we call it Congress.
Being president means taking advice from a lot of people, but ultimately the ball is in your court, and when you're accross the table from Arafat and Rabin you better have a clue what's happening beyond "I remember Cheney saying something about Jews and some other religious people fighting".
That's what people outside the USA are concerned about -- domestic policy can quite frankly run itself (or by committee).
A whole lot of people didn't care that Hillary Clinton, who was not on the ballot, was being given a huge amount of power to determine the course of 1/7 of the nation's economy
What power? She spent unpaid time with a ton of advisors, made a proposal, and got totally shot down by Congress. She never had a job as the head of any health care system, and she never had any "power" beyond that of any other top advisor to the president. She never "determined the course" of anything.
To turn around and condemn GWB for taking the same role is, well, a little hypocritical.
No, condemning Clinton for lying about legal (but embarassing) activities, while forgiving Bush for lying about ILLEGAL activities, is hypocritical. Or to condemn him for smoking pot, and then forgiving Bush for snorting coke, is hypocritical.
Electing a president who can do nothing BUT head committees is very different than electing one who knows when to trust advisors...
You're much better off trying to make it look like a "movement" by going early, then others will jump on. All the undecideds basically are just waiting so they can vote for the percieved winner (like it benefits them?).
The only place it would hurt is when people are voting strategically, like with Nader. The illusion of Gore having more strength then he does would possibly lead people to vote Nader who would otherwise go Gore, but you'd have to have a LOT of friends to skew the polls that much!...
BTW, one prediction from the pundit class has already been proven false -- light turnout. When I voted this morning (five minutes after the polls opened) I had to stand in the longest line I've seen in the fourteen years I've lived in this precinct.
The closeness of this race may very well give us a good turnout -- it would be great. Show politicians that we DO care, it's just that generally the populace is apathetic if the winner is already ordained before they ever show up...
Voting in the wrong precinct is considered to be as serious a crime as all of those in Florida. Does that strike anybody as just a tad irrational?
Well, it is voting fraud.
Yes, you paint many innocent or accidental reasons it can happen, but the laws were made because there are also sinister reasons -- to deliberately have a bloc vote so a House member would be elected/defeated, or so a school board would be stacked with ideological candidates, etc.
If you live in a republican district, but are a democrat, you might know you can't elect a democrat to the House. So you go across the street to the more split district, along with a bunch of friends, and elect a democrat there, even though the people who actually live there would have otherwise elected a republican.
That's what the law is for, not people who moved too recently...
Although I have followed all the campaign carefully all along and I have to say that I was really disappointed that NO ONE during the whole process asked a question: "How will other countries view US and how will change their dealing with US in case Bush (Gore) will get elected?"
This is an interesting point that you're right, most people didn't ever ask.
I spend a lot of time overseas and have to say that I haven't met a single person outside the USA who believes GW Bush is even remotely qualified to be president.
The world is basically laughing at us because it's so obvious to them that this guy is a lightweight, but hey in the USA I guess as long as your dad was cool you can still play with the big boys, even if you can't remember their names.
But the US has never put a big premium on experience, which is why I think we don't see it as such a big deal here. We like the idea of an "outsider" stepping in and cleaning up (y'know, because Bush has NO ties to politics-as-usual, other than all his money, friends, and his own father).
Orin Hatch called the Napster hearings because he believes that his law is being misused in the courtrooms. He is fighting to change the law he wrote, because it isn't doing what he wants it to. The US Senate submitted a briefing to the court in the Napster case saying that the DMCA was being misused, and did not support its use against Napster
and that's fantastic! So where the hell does Gore or Bush fit in? he still didn't write the law, and he still doesn't have anything to do with civil lawsuits between private parties that are using the DMCA as a basis.
Diane Feinstein is vocal in supporting the RIAA and MPAA-- and spoke out against fair use at the Napster hearings. SHe's running for re-election in California
Wow! A congressperson from california who is agreeing with the entertainment industry! Gosh, next you'll tell me That Orrin hatch sides with his constituents (Novell) against Microsoft. This is shocking. So don't vote for feinstein -- again, I'm not seeing where Gore has anything to do with this (the original poster did, of course, say this was Gore's fault and GW would fix it).
The Clinton/Gore legal team have defended the modified interpretations of the DMCA that have caused so many problems
No they didn't -- the Justic Department said that they didn't think Napster could be excluded from the scope of the DMCA as Napster was arguing, they had nothing to say about the legal merits of the arguments about distribution or copying (I may be getting this mixed up with the MP3.com case, though!).
But again, the DMCA, AS CONGRESS WROTE IT, clearly applies for exactly what the RIAA and MPAA are using it for. It is Congress' fault for NOT LISTENING when they wrote the law to those who said it was overbroad. Now CONGRESS has to fix the law, and I sure hope they do it quickly.
Judges they appointed are making the rulings we don't like. ICANN, which they created, is slowly turning into a tyranny
The federal judges (appointed, BTW, mostly during the Reagan/Bush years) are making rulings that are consistent with the law. They don't get to second-guess the DMCA, as Congress wrote it the law is incredibly broad and quite clearly includes a lot of the stuff we'd like to see be legal. All I hear is Bush people complaining about judges "legislating from the bench" and now you bitch because the judges are ruling on the law AS CONGRESS WROTE IT.
Talk to fucking Congress if you have a problem with the law -- the Justic department IS NOT PROSECUTING ANYONE under the DMCA, these are all civil lawsuits. The judges HAVE TO RULE ON THE LAW. That's their job, and it has nothign to do with who appointed them -- I would be disappointed in any judge who said that napster and MP3.com didn't violate the DMCA because they clearly do. That's why we should change the DMCA, not the judge!
As for ICANN, jeesus, that's fucked. Although I'm not really sure (again) how Gore/Bush have anything to do with it. It's ICANN going bonkers, not the administration. I would like to know what (if ANY) ability the govt has to bitch-slap those losers, though. The whole point, after all, was to get the government out of it (Bush people keep telling me government can't do anything as well as a private company -- so why was it all fine until ICANN was private?).
But I have yet to hear, even from CmdrTaco, anything other than cheap shots. Gore, meanwhile, is actively supporting virtually every technology policy we don't like
Well i don't really know that many people who are voting on tech issues (I don't think the govt has anywhere near the influence there as elsewhere). As for economics and social issues, I think it's pretty clear where each candidate falls, so that's surely substantive enough to justify voting for or against one. If you want abortion, you probably won't want to consider Bush, etc.
As for Texas -- having lived there most of my life (and now being closer to DC), I can tell you that Bush will have a rude awakening. Democrats in Texas are like Republicans everywhere else -- he doesn't have experience working with the kind of ideological spread that exists nationally. Uniting democrats and republicans in a state where everyone is for the death penalty and concealed weapons is not exactly a great challenge for a conservative -- let's see how well he can do in a place where the NRA is considered evil and his dad isn't quite as univerally loved.
But not of politics (or Katz) -- I really am literally sick and tired (I think it's the flu). So I didn't go to work today, but I'm getting in the shower in a minute to go vote.
I'll be sure to update you guys when I get back in case Jon wants us to post about lunch or something...
Go look at their records, and remember, it was the Clinton/Gore administration that brought you UCITA and DMCA!
Um, the DMCA is legislation -- it was made by congress (currently a slight Republican majority), not Clinton or Gore. Granted, Clinton didn't Veto it, but it's hardly "his" law, and I fail to see why Bush would have vetoed a law that passed a republican congress.
And UCITA is a state by state law. The federal government has literally nothing to do with it, whether legislative or executive. If you want to stop the UCITA, talk to your STATE congress or Governor, becuase no president has a damn thing to do with it...
You're absolutely right -- that's why I appreciate presidential candidates giving speeches about campaign finance reform rather than actually refusing soft money and reforming the system.
By talking about it instead of doing it, they get out the message much more effectively, and give a voice to those who are in favor of reform...
With the impending release of realMyst, a realtime 3D version of Myst, and the accompanying Demo and Trailer, quite a few editors are having trouble paying attention to what they're doing...
The point is not to quit -- it's to be "forged" into a harder, more resiliant, and ultimately more successful and disciplined person.
If you quit after a year because of harrassment, what are you going to do when people start dying because of your decisions? If you can't convince those above you that you're a brilliant strategist, how do you plan on convincing those below you to fight and die for your strategies?
Do you really think Dubya will do squat about extinctions, pollution & global warming (at least until it's far too late)
Do those extinct animals make anyone a profit? Then maybe they deserve to die -- they're just Looters, living off our hard work!
What has the environment done for us lately? If it was worth saving it would work harder, like all good americans do! Why should we give welfare to the "environment" when it doesn't pay taxes, all it does is take, take, take?
Don't you see, protecting the environment is for communists -- we live in a free country, and the government should stay out of it. If you want to fix the ozone layer, then do it on your own dime.
Don't tell me to stop dumping toxic chemicals into your drinking water just because you're not profitable enough to afford a filter.
why do executive orders reference previous executive orders about the "emergency," extend it
Because any "national emergency" (not any executive order) automatically expire after a year, so they have to be "extended" every year to stay in effect. Every extension has to go to Congress, and congress can feel free to say "no" to the president if they want to.
and also reference section 5b of Title 50? The 1976 law did not repeal Title 50, or end all of the "emergencies" declared under its aegis, or nullify the executive orders that are based on it.
It didn't repeal title 50 (why would it need to?) Title 50 is a huge group of laws, and they amended it in places so that the existing emergencies would expire in '76, and any new ones had to be renewed annually to stay in effect.
The powers that militias claim a state of "national emergeny" gives the president are much more limited than they claim. It doesn't let him order FEMA into your neighborhood in black helicoptors -- but it does allow him to say (for example) that for the next year all transfers of assets between Afghanistan and the US have to be declared to the State department, and may be blocked at the departments's discretion.
Congress is still congress -- the president cannot unilaterally declare himself dictator (well, he could, but it wouldn't mean anything). If they want to vote down an executive order (including any one that declares a state of emergency) they can certainly do so.
The White House even has a searchable online listing of all executive orders. Most of them are boring things like "from now on the president will have a council of watchmakers to advise him, and they will be appointed by him on an annual basis."
Granted that congress requires renewal of the emergencies now, but it's always renewed. The end result if the same -- sweeping power for the President
It's renewed if the president wants to, but the congress has the authority to say "no". Go to the link you included on Title 50, and look around in it. It states pretty clearly all the checks and balances Congress added that restrict possible abuse by the President. Also remember that Congress is the only body that can spend money -- they make all the budgets, it's one of their exclusive checks over the other branches of government. If the president does something they don't like (even if he has the legal authority), they can just cut his budget. Just as they've threatened several times to Clinton over military engagements overseas -- even though the President can commit forces unilaterally, he can't pay the bills without Congress' approval.
Seriously, 5 minutes of reading the actual US Code will tell you more than 5 hours of tax-dodgers who claim that FEMA is shipping "road closed" signs to huge warehouses for the Y2k takeover (oops, that one didn't happen, either!)...
Dude, I cannot fathom how you string together these ideas and come out convinced that everyone else is conspiring against you.
First off, national emergencies have nothing to do with executive orders. Executive orders are just that -- orders from the chief of the executive branch of the Unites States government. They do have the power and effect of law, but can be overturned at any time by congress or the courts should they see fit. There is no special authority from executive orders that allow the president to do anything strange -- it's how every president does their job!
Second, the whole "FDR National Emergency" is bullshit. There's no such emergency that's still going on -- if you had read the same section 50 you cite with such confidence, you'd know this:
All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on September 14, 1976, are terminated two years from September 14, 1976. Such termination shall not affect -
(1) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally
concluded or determined on such date;
(2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior
to such date; or
(3) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were
incurred prior to such date.
Your paranoia is about 25 years late, though clearly unfounded in the first place, considering these laws were put into place by congress due to presidential overstepping of bounds during Vietnam.
I would find it simply hilarious that you believe this stuff, except that the message board you linked to had so many other willing believers. So tell me, the conspiracy to keep Clinton in office when his term is up (the one the whole "national emergency" was supposedly cooked up for) -- when exactly does that take place? I mean, we've only got two weeks until the election so the stormtroopers better start now.
It might look bad for him to seize control of the government after the elections...
I happen to have a plextor -- I have 3 CD drives that I use for ripping MP3s.
I have about 1200 (100 gigs) CDs on my home jukebox, and ripped every one of them myself.
Error correction is wonderful, and I use it in the hardware and the software (EAC). If you're trusting the drive to eliminate all the skips and pops, you're just plain wrong -- it can't. At least EAC will say (after trying 100 times!) "there's an error on this CD at this position" and I know to check it and see if it sounds bad so I can delete it. Otherwise you can have a collection full of annoying pops you don't know about until you play it later...
but I am very intolerant (alert! P.C. blacklist word!) of emotional reactions (as yours clearly was) to factual, moral or ethical questions
Overreact much? First off, I made a glib one-liner, not a political pronouncement, so I can hardly comprehend how someone would see it as an "emotional" reaction.
Secondly, how can you be "intolerant of emotional reactions to...moral or ethical question"? What other kind of reaction should a person have to a moral or ethical issue?
You seem to be having a pretty emotional reaction of your own, there, if a one-liner can get you accusing me of supporting every hypocritical NOW statement of the past decade. No offense, but maybe holding me to a different standard than yourself (vis-a-vis emotional reactions) is why you have the common accusation of being hate-filled? You're tolerant of emotional reactions so long as they coincide exactly with yours?
Believe it or not, one doesn't have to swallow everything from the left in order to see the hypocracy on the right, or vice-versa. I laugh just as hard when NOW does a backflip trying to defend Clinton while criticizing Packwood -- the same kind of laugh that I use when i hear republicans giving out prescription drug plans instead of paying down the debt. It's funny how circumstances can change once inviolable standards of responsibility (whether it be moral or fiscal)...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there. Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Fine, they can't be "recalled" whatever purpose that would serve (new elections every 6 months or what?). The point is that they can't just change their policies and have everyone go "oh, well, I guess we're just screwed" -- they'll have no ability to enforce them...
For that matter, so can Nader, or anybody-- this is a problem with the US political system, there is no way for the people to recall a candidate that has violated his mandate.
Sure there is -- it's called checks and balances. If the president changes his stance on everything he got voted for, there's no reason for Congress to let him get away with any of it (it'll make them look good to stand up for the little guy).
Think of the Republican revolution in the 90s -- a huge electoral mandate to fix taxes and campaign financing. So they got into office and started pushing morality legislation and abortion laws and everyone else promptly started ignoring them because they had no more influence to get things done. They changed their priorities from middle-class economics to right-wing social.
It's the stealthiest tax around (I dare you to find the numbers on your 1040!)
Eh? That's like saying income taxes are stealthy because they're not on your hunting license. SS Taxes aren't handled by the IRS, so it's unlikely they would be on an IRS form.
He's not splitting hairs -- he's making a legitimate distinction. The declaration of Independence is a purely historical document, it has no legal impact on us. It also says that people have the right to raise arms against the government whenever they want, which is (needless to say) illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Hate Crimes Legislation => Thought Crimes Legislation
Is that why we have stricter penalties for killing a fireman in the line of duty than a random guy on the street?
Because we want to make it illegal for people to dislike firemen?
---------------------------------------------
Bush is the rural man's hero
That's certainly why he's popular in the US -- unfortunately as PRESIDENT, it does you little good, because you're dealing with non-rural people. You're dealing with foreign heads of state who know the name of the prime minister, who know all the college graduate stuff.
Yes, I'd rather take a bus trip with Bush, and I'd probably rather start a company with him too (hell, he's got connections!), but if I had to choose who would negotiate a peace treaty where just "being nice" doesn't cut it?...
---------------------------------------------
He's qualified to be the front-man for a committee, isn't he?
We already have a committee -- we call it Congress.
Being president means taking advice from a lot of people, but ultimately the ball is in your court, and when you're accross the table from Arafat and Rabin you better have a clue what's happening beyond "I remember Cheney saying something about Jews and some other religious people fighting".
That's what people outside the USA are concerned about -- domestic policy can quite frankly run itself (or by committee).
A whole lot of people didn't care that Hillary Clinton, who was not on the ballot, was being given a huge amount of power to determine the course of 1/7 of the nation's economy
What power? She spent unpaid time with a ton of advisors, made a proposal, and got totally shot down by Congress. She never had a job as the head of any health care system, and she never had any "power" beyond that of any other top advisor to the president. She never "determined the course" of anything.
To turn around and condemn GWB for taking the same role is, well, a little hypocritical.
No, condemning Clinton for lying about legal (but embarassing) activities, while forgiving Bush for lying about ILLEGAL activities, is hypocritical. Or to condemn him for smoking pot, and then forgiving Bush for snorting coke, is hypocritical.
Electing a president who can do nothing BUT head committees is very different than electing one who knows when to trust advisors...
---------------------------------------------
You're much better off trying to make it look like a "movement" by going early, then others will jump on. All the undecideds basically are just waiting so they can vote for the percieved winner (like it benefits them?).
The only place it would hurt is when people are voting strategically, like with Nader. The illusion of Gore having more strength then he does would possibly lead people to vote Nader who would otherwise go Gore, but you'd have to have a LOT of friends to skew the polls that much!...
---------------------------------------------
BTW, one prediction from the pundit class has already been proven false -- light turnout. When I voted this morning (five minutes after the polls opened) I had to stand in the longest line I've seen in the fourteen years I've lived in this precinct.
The closeness of this race may very well give us a good turnout -- it would be great. Show politicians that we DO care, it's just that generally the populace is apathetic if the winner is already ordained before they ever show up...
---------------------------------------------
Voting in the wrong precinct is considered to be as serious a crime as all of those in Florida. Does that strike anybody as just a tad irrational?
Well, it is voting fraud.
Yes, you paint many innocent or accidental reasons it can happen, but the laws were made because there are also sinister reasons -- to deliberately have a bloc vote so a House member would be elected/defeated, or so a school board would be stacked with ideological candidates, etc.
If you live in a republican district, but are a democrat, you might know you can't elect a democrat to the House. So you go across the street to the more split district, along with a bunch of friends, and elect a democrat there, even though the people who actually live there would have otherwise elected a republican.
That's what the law is for, not people who moved too recently...
---------------------------------------------
Although I have followed all the campaign carefully all along and I have to say that I was really disappointed that NO ONE during the whole process asked a question: "How will other countries view US and how will change their dealing with US in case Bush (Gore) will get elected?"
This is an interesting point that you're right, most people didn't ever ask.
I spend a lot of time overseas and have to say that I haven't met a single person outside the USA who believes GW Bush is even remotely qualified to be president.
The world is basically laughing at us because it's so obvious to them that this guy is a lightweight, but hey in the USA I guess as long as your dad was cool you can still play with the big boys, even if you can't remember their names.
But the US has never put a big premium on experience, which is why I think we don't see it as such a big deal here. We like the idea of an "outsider" stepping in and cleaning up (y'know, because Bush has NO ties to politics-as-usual, other than all his money, friends, and his own father).
---------------------------------------------
Orin Hatch called the Napster hearings because he believes that his law is being misused in the courtrooms. He is fighting to change the law he wrote, because it isn't doing what he wants it to. The US Senate submitted a briefing to the court in the Napster case saying that the DMCA was being misused, and did not support its use against Napster
and that's fantastic! So where the hell does Gore or Bush fit in? he still didn't write the law, and he still doesn't have anything to do with civil lawsuits between private parties that are using the DMCA as a basis.
Diane Feinstein is vocal in supporting the RIAA and MPAA-- and spoke out against fair use at the Napster hearings. SHe's running for re-election in California
Wow! A congressperson from california who is agreeing with the entertainment industry! Gosh, next you'll tell me That Orrin hatch sides with his constituents (Novell) against Microsoft. This is shocking. So don't vote for feinstein -- again, I'm not seeing where Gore has anything to do with this (the original poster did, of course, say this was Gore's fault and GW would fix it).
The Clinton/Gore legal team have defended the modified interpretations of the DMCA that have caused so many problems
No they didn't -- the Justic Department said that they didn't think Napster could be excluded from the scope of the DMCA as Napster was arguing, they had nothing to say about the legal merits of the arguments about distribution or copying (I may be getting this mixed up with the MP3.com case, though!).
But again, the DMCA, AS CONGRESS WROTE IT, clearly applies for exactly what the RIAA and MPAA are using it for. It is Congress' fault for NOT LISTENING when they wrote the law to those who said it was overbroad. Now CONGRESS has to fix the law, and I sure hope they do it quickly.
Judges they appointed are making the rulings we don't like. ICANN, which they created, is slowly turning into a tyranny
The federal judges (appointed, BTW, mostly during the Reagan/Bush years) are making rulings that are consistent with the law. They don't get to second-guess the DMCA, as Congress wrote it the law is incredibly broad and quite clearly includes a lot of the stuff we'd like to see be legal. All I hear is Bush people complaining about judges "legislating from the bench" and now you bitch because the judges are ruling on the law AS CONGRESS WROTE IT.
Talk to fucking Congress if you have a problem with the law -- the Justic department IS NOT PROSECUTING ANYONE under the DMCA, these are all civil lawsuits. The judges HAVE TO RULE ON THE LAW. That's their job, and it has nothign to do with who appointed them -- I would be disappointed in any judge who said that napster and MP3.com didn't violate the DMCA because they clearly do. That's why we should change the DMCA, not the judge!
As for ICANN, jeesus, that's fucked. Although I'm not really sure (again) how Gore/Bush have anything to do with it. It's ICANN going bonkers, not the administration. I would like to know what (if ANY) ability the govt has to bitch-slap those losers, though. The whole point, after all, was to get the government out of it (Bush people keep telling me government can't do anything as well as a private company -- so why was it all fine until ICANN was private?).
But I have yet to hear, even from CmdrTaco, anything other than cheap shots. Gore, meanwhile, is actively supporting virtually every technology policy we don't like
Well i don't really know that many people who are voting on tech issues (I don't think the govt has anywhere near the influence there as elsewhere). As for economics and social issues, I think it's pretty clear where each candidate falls, so that's surely substantive enough to justify voting for or against one. If you want abortion, you probably won't want to consider Bush, etc.
As for Texas -- having lived there most of my life (and now being closer to DC), I can tell you that Bush will have a rude awakening. Democrats in Texas are like Republicans everywhere else -- he doesn't have experience working with the kind of ideological spread that exists nationally. Uniting democrats and republicans in a state where everyone is for the death penalty and concealed weapons is not exactly a great challenge for a conservative -- let's see how well he can do in a place where the NRA is considered evil and his dad isn't quite as univerally loved.
---------------------------------------------
...and tired.
But not of politics (or Katz) -- I really am literally sick and tired (I think it's the flu). So I didn't go to work today, but I'm getting in the shower in a minute to go vote.
I'll be sure to update you guys when I get back in case Jon wants us to post about lunch or something...
---------------------------------------------
Go look at their records, and remember, it was the Clinton/Gore administration that brought you UCITA and DMCA!
Um, the DMCA is legislation -- it was made by congress (currently a slight Republican majority), not Clinton or Gore. Granted, Clinton didn't Veto it, but it's hardly "his" law, and I fail to see why Bush would have vetoed a law that passed a republican congress.
And UCITA is a state by state law. The federal government has literally nothing to do with it, whether legislative or executive. If you want to stop the UCITA, talk to your STATE congress or Governor, becuase no president has a damn thing to do with it...
---------------------------------------------
You're absolutely right -- that's why I appreciate presidential candidates giving speeches about campaign finance reform rather than actually refusing soft money and reforming the system.
By talking about it instead of doing it, they get out the message much more effectively, and give a voice to those who are in favor of reform...
---------------------------------------------
With the impending release of realMyst, a realtime 3D version of Myst, and the accompanying Demo and Trailer, quite a few editors are having trouble paying attention to what they're doing...
---------------------------------------------
The point is not to quit -- it's to be "forged" into a harder, more resiliant, and ultimately more successful and disciplined person.
If you quit after a year because of harrassment, what are you going to do when people start dying because of your decisions? If you can't convince those above you that you're a brilliant strategist, how do you plan on convincing those below you to fight and die for your strategies?
---------------------------------------------
Hey Moderators -- this post is totally ontopic and needs to be rescued from the bowels of "below 1".
---------------------------------------------
Do you really think Dubya will do squat about extinctions, pollution & global warming (at least until it's far too late)
Do those extinct animals make anyone a profit? Then maybe they deserve to die -- they're just Looters, living off our hard work!
What has the environment done for us lately? If it was worth saving it would work harder, like all good americans do! Why should we give welfare to the "environment" when it doesn't pay taxes, all it does is take, take, take?
Don't you see, protecting the environment is for communists -- we live in a free country, and the government should stay out of it. If you want to fix the ozone layer, then do it on your own dime.
Don't tell me to stop dumping toxic chemicals into your drinking water just because you're not profitable enough to afford a filter.
Damn looters!...
---------------------------------------------
why do executive orders reference previous executive orders about the "emergency," extend it
Because any "national emergency" (not any executive order) automatically expire after a year, so they have to be "extended" every year to stay in effect. Every extension has to go to Congress, and congress can feel free to say "no" to the president if they want to.
and also reference section 5b of Title 50? The 1976 law did not repeal Title 50, or end all of the "emergencies" declared under its aegis, or nullify the executive orders that are based on it.
It didn't repeal title 50 (why would it need to?) Title 50 is a huge group of laws, and they amended it in places so that the existing emergencies would expire in '76, and any new ones had to be renewed annually to stay in effect.
The powers that militias claim a state of "national emergeny" gives the president are much more limited than they claim. It doesn't let him order FEMA into your neighborhood in black helicoptors -- but it does allow him to say (for example) that for the next year all transfers of assets between Afghanistan and the US have to be declared to the State department, and may be blocked at the departments's discretion.
Congress is still congress -- the president cannot unilaterally declare himself dictator (well, he could, but it wouldn't mean anything). If they want to vote down an executive order (including any one that declares a state of emergency) they can certainly do so.
The White House even has a searchable online listing of all executive orders. Most of them are boring things like "from now on the president will have a council of watchmakers to advise him, and they will be appointed by him on an annual basis."
Granted that congress requires renewal of the emergencies now, but it's always renewed. The end result if the same -- sweeping power for the President
It's renewed if the president wants to, but the congress has the authority to say "no". Go to the link you included on Title 50, and look around in it. It states pretty clearly all the checks and balances Congress added that restrict possible abuse by the President. Also remember that Congress is the only body that can spend money -- they make all the budgets, it's one of their exclusive checks over the other branches of government. If the president does something they don't like (even if he has the legal authority), they can just cut his budget. Just as they've threatened several times to Clinton over military engagements overseas -- even though the President can commit forces unilaterally, he can't pay the bills without Congress' approval.
Seriously, 5 minutes of reading the actual US Code will tell you more than 5 hours of tax-dodgers who claim that FEMA is shipping "road closed" signs to huge warehouses for the Y2k takeover (oops, that one didn't happen, either!)...
---------------------------------------------
Dude, I cannot fathom how you string together these ideas and come out convinced that everyone else is conspiring against you.
First off, national emergencies have nothing to do with executive orders. Executive orders are just that -- orders from the chief of the executive branch of the Unites States government. They do have the power and effect of law, but can be overturned at any time by congress or the courts should they see fit. There is no special authority from executive orders that allow the president to do anything strange -- it's how every president does their job!
Second, the whole "FDR National Emergency" is bullshit. There's no such emergency that's still going on -- if you had read the same section 50 you cite with such confidence, you'd know this:
All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on September 14, 1976, are terminated two years from September 14, 1976. Such termination shall not affect -
(1) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally
concluded or determined on such date;
(2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior
to such date; or
(3) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were
incurred prior to such date.
Your paranoia is about 25 years late, though clearly unfounded in the first place, considering these laws were put into place by congress due to presidential overstepping of bounds during Vietnam.
I would find it simply hilarious that you believe this stuff, except that the message board you linked to had so many other willing believers. So tell me, the conspiracy to keep Clinton in office when his term is up (the one the whole "national emergency" was supposedly cooked up for) -- when exactly does that take place? I mean, we've only got two weeks until the election so the stormtroopers better start now.
It might look bad for him to seize control of the government after the elections...
---------------------------------------------
I happen to have a plextor -- I have 3 CD drives that I use for ripping MP3s.
I have about 1200 (100 gigs) CDs on my home jukebox, and ripped every one of them myself.
Error correction is wonderful, and I use it in the hardware and the software (EAC). If you're trusting the drive to eliminate all the skips and pops, you're just plain wrong -- it can't. At least EAC will say (after trying 100 times!) "there's an error on this CD at this position" and I know to check it and see if it sounds bad so I can delete it. Otherwise you can have a collection full of annoying pops you don't know about until you play it later...
---------------------------------------------
That's twice you've made this same mistake (after being so nitpicky on other people).
I think HAN (not BEN) is the one who gives in and directs Chewie to lock in the auxilary power.
Not that it really matters at all...
---------------------------------------------
but I am very intolerant (alert! P.C. blacklist word!) of emotional reactions (as yours clearly was) to factual, moral or ethical questions
Overreact much? First off, I made a glib one-liner, not a political pronouncement, so I can hardly comprehend how someone would see it as an "emotional" reaction.
Secondly, how can you be "intolerant of emotional reactions to...moral or ethical question"? What other kind of reaction should a person have to a moral or ethical issue?
You seem to be having a pretty emotional reaction of your own, there, if a one-liner can get you accusing me of supporting every hypocritical NOW statement of the past decade. No offense, but maybe holding me to a different standard than yourself (vis-a-vis emotional reactions) is why you have the common accusation of being hate-filled? You're tolerant of emotional reactions so long as they coincide exactly with yours?
Believe it or not, one doesn't have to swallow everything from the left in order to see the hypocracy on the right, or vice-versa. I laugh just as hard when NOW does a backflip trying to defend Clinton while criticizing Packwood -- the same kind of laugh that I use when i hear republicans giving out prescription drug plans instead of paying down the debt. It's funny how circumstances can change once inviolable standards of responsibility (whether it be moral or fiscal)...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Fine, they can't be "recalled" whatever purpose that would serve (new elections every 6 months or what?). The point is that they can't just change their policies and have everyone go "oh, well, I guess we're just screwed" -- they'll have no ability to enforce them...
---------------------------------------------
No, one RIP in a few hours (depending).
As opposed to using MusicMatch or something, which lets you rip your CD to a crappy-quality MP3 with skips and pops in faster than real time!
I figure if I'm going to bother to RIP a CD I may as well do it right...
---------------------------------------------
For that matter, so can Nader, or anybody-- this is a problem with the US political system, there is no way for the people to recall a candidate that has violated his mandate.
Sure there is -- it's called checks and balances. If the president changes his stance on everything he got voted for, there's no reason for Congress to let him get away with any of it (it'll make them look good to stand up for the little guy).
Think of the Republican revolution in the 90s -- a huge electoral mandate to fix taxes and campaign financing. So they got into office and started pushing morality legislation and abortion laws and everyone else promptly started ignoring them because they had no more influence to get things done. They changed their priorities from middle-class economics to right-wing social.
---------------------------------------------
It's the stealthiest tax around (I dare you to find the numbers on your 1040!)
Eh? That's like saying income taxes are stealthy because they're not on your hunting license. SS Taxes aren't handled by the IRS, so it's unlikely they would be on an IRS form.
---------------------------------------------
He's not splitting hairs -- he's making a legitimate distinction. The declaration of Independence is a purely historical document, it has no legal impact on us. It also says that people have the right to raise arms against the government whenever they want, which is (needless to say) illegal.
---------------------------------------------