Stalemate presumes that he has the votes in Congress to avoid an override. Congress has shown that when it comes to passing out money to constituents, they will override by a very large margin. He would lose to the court of public opinion if he decided that any spending bill funding things he doesn't like would get vetoed.
His views work for his state, and he's a welcome part of politics to me. He brings up issues that others don't want to talk about. There are people on the left who are the same way in my eyes. It's good to debate these things. But in a government like ours, idealism must sometimes give way to pragmatism.
I agree for the most part (except the number of marshals -- there are something like 30,000 domestic flights per day in the US, and that would be a very expensive program). There's no need to do most of the intrusive screening that goes on, and while I'm very much in favor of a strong defense, there are some very lame decisions being made by Congress that should be left to the Pentagon (they wanted to retire the USS Kennedy many years ago to save money, and someone in Congress wouldn't let them). I'm fine with metal detectors (and I'm actually fine with both this and backscatter scanning if it lets me bring my damned drink with me), but let's move the line along a little, hmm?
It's not unreasonable search. This has been addressed before by the courts and many times here on Slashdot. Flying is a choice. If you choose not to go through the security measures, that means you choose not to fly (at least commercially). You are free to take other routes that do not have the same level of security.
Because he's running as a Republican, and a lot of them, whatever their initial feelings about the war, don't want to leave Iraq right now, because it looks like we can't finish what we started and/or can't clean up after ourselves.
There are things about Ron Paul that I like quite a lot. But despite the bungling of the war that was the result of meddling and improper planning on the part of Rumsfeld, among others, (we were supposed to learn from Vietnam that wars are never to be micromanaged by politicians), we caused a mess in Iraq, and we need to see it through to its end.
A number of politicians in Iraq -- some of them quite powerful -- are moving in favor of a forced draw-down of US and allied troops, especially as Iraqi forces are doing much better at handling operations, and are suffering fewer desertions, though the rate is still startlingly high. Gen. Petraeus has said that he believes the draw-down will continue after the July pause. It's not going to drop below 100,000 this year, but it very well may do so next year, and it may continue to the point that, aside from a few rapid-reaction forces and air cover (think West Germany in the Cold War, though not quite at that level), the US doesn't maintain much there at all. There's still time to further break things, of course, but I think there's a generally positive path right now.
That's getting a little off-topic. Back on the main point, aside from Iraq, there's no chance at all that Paul would have been able to do most of the things that he wants to do. The IRS isn't going away anytime soon, nor is the Department of Education. He's just not going to get that with a Democratic Congress. He would probably have issues getting strict constructionist judges onto the courts. I have to wonder how effective he would be as president.
That's not what they want. Fuel has moved from 10% of the airlines' cost to more than half, in some cases. Nearly a dozen airlines have folded in the last few months, and even the largest carriers are getting panicky. If anything, this is more problematic than the post-9/11 jitters, because everyone knew they would subside, but no one knows if this is going to be a bubble or if it's the new standard for oil. As someone who likes to fly 3-5 times a year (and would like to fly more), I'm concerned that what used to be comfortable $300 flights (I'm 5'4") will become crowded $450 flights, and that makes it hard for me to justify the expense.
The airlines would love to get back to competing on fares while also having a comfortable profit margin. It's just not in the cards right now.
You can board a plane without ID. However, you have to go through more intensive security measures, and you go into a separate line for that.
At some very busy airports, this has been occasionally used by seasoned travelers to get through security more quickly. It's a gamble as it depends on how busy the wand screeners are, but sometimes it works.
They physically search you. The scanner isn't mandatory; it's just faster than a physical search and doesn't require you to remove much, if any, clothing.
I have a right to vote, and I exercise it with each election that comes along. I also have a right to expect that the election will be free and fair, and that means that I don't want people claiming to be who they are not, taking advantage of the fact that ID is not checked.
As for NYC, a cop shouldn't be able to ask for ID without a warrant or documentable probable cause. I seem to recall that the courts ruled in favor of police in a case brought by a Nevada man who refused to show his ID upon demand to police.
The GP poster can't, because the court decision doesn't exist, and I believe that the authority isn't in the Patriot Act, either. Some may not believe it, but there's still a constitutional requirement that a person be charged within a reasonably short time-frame, stemming from the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, which necessitates that the charges themselves be filed speedily.
Far too many people conflate the Patriot Act with Guantanamo Bay detentions. They are unrelated, and the only reason that Gitmo detainees have fewer rights is because of a technical loophole. I'm not especially enamored of it, nor of some of the other things done by the Bush Administration regarding detentions, and I have strong concerns about how habeas corpus is being handled in those cases. There was no reason that I could see to create an all-new mechanism for the trials. But the loophole is there, and until it's closed, it is legal (though perhaps immoral) to exploit it.
And before anyone complains about technicalities in general, stop and consider whether you or some cause for which you have cheered has ever benefited from a legal technicality. There's a very strong chance that they have.
I liked the punchcard system. There was something satisfyiung to that feeling of the machine punching the hole that reinforced the fact that I'd just used one of my most precious rights. The electronic systems now used here are OK, but they don't really measure up to the old systems in that way.
That's exactly how they work on several (if not all) of the systems approved in California. Until you press the button to submit the vote for the print run, you can only see blank paper. You then see the ballot as it's printed so that you can verify the results. After that, you confirm or deny that it's what you want, and there's another short print run to indicate the validity of the vote. If you're satisfied, you're done. If not, you either start over or make changes (I'm not sure which -- I've never had to edit my selections after submitting).
At Tuesday's vote in California, I had to provide my name for lookup, then sign my name on the line and print my address as the first thing upon showing up. I then went to another person three feet to my left, who asked me for my name and address, holding the book open just partially so she could see the record for my name. Once I passed that, I was able to get the code to enter for the machine to cast my ballot (I had the choice of paper or electronic, but we have paper trails, so I went with that).
I'd have been much, much more comfortable with being able to provide my state-issued ID in exchange for the code.
No. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the citizenship issue, and the courts' move towards confirming it in the Jose Padilla case is why the administration dropped the attempts to have him treated as a non-citizen.
Conversations entering or leaving the US would be treated the same way that the FBI handles wiretaps of phones where the warrant doesn't allow every call to be used, as a given call may not have anything to do with the investigation. They can listen for a period of time to see if it's covered, and may check back into the call periodically to confirm that the subject hasn't changed to something, but if it's not in the warrant, it has to be dropped. This prevents them from doing things like listening in on calls to legal counsel or medical personnel, as these are protected by client-provider privilege.
A civilian provides plausible deniability, which is exactly why the military would ask civilians to do something for them. A civilian research vessel within a few dozen miles of your lost vessel is maybe cause for a raised eyebrow, but a US Navy-flagged vessel nearby is cause to put a few extra subs in the area and maybe send a battle fleet nearby to continue protecting the right to transit international waters.
Let's say that a medium-size city has 1000 incorporated businesses. If a vote for renewal came up every four years, on average, the people would be voting on 250 corporate charters every year. How does one realistically collect the information needed to make a decision on that? It's hard enough to gather the information required to cover all of the other election issues.
I'd also like some information on the history of this. If it was around as recently as 1970 at any meaningful level, I'd be surprised, especially since incorporation is handled at the state level, not the national level.
If the company is running at a loss, you say that it's closed down.
And then you say that employees don't lose their jobs.
These don't seem to reconcile at all.
Further, if only one person is killed by, say, a GE jet engine that the company knew was problematic, should the family of that one person get the entire $22.2 billion that GE booked as net income in 2007 (if the "sentence" is only one year)? Does this not seem like a way to completely clog the legal system with claims, and bring down every corporation that currently exists?
So you would simply upend the entire system without considering the consequences of doing so? There may be answers to my questions. If you can find them, and they are reasonable, I'm willing to consider them. But changing the system wantonly will only cause more problems.
Do you know how many thousands of corporations there are in California alone? How would we gather the necessary knowledge? What's to keep someone rich from funding a campaign to highlight some minimal yet slightly gray conduct of a much smaller competitor in order to force their dissolution?
That kind of thing is much better handled by the system in place now.
How does a corporation commit the crime of murder?
And what do you do if, say, GE is convicted of murder and 300,000 people no longer have jobs?
When companies have charges leveled against them, they're civil cases. When it rises to the level of a criminal complaint, actual people are charged with crimes. I don't recall the exact case, but last year, there was a company whose executive row was gutted, each of them sent to prison and fined millions of dollars on top of what the corporation had to pay in fines.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you can. Bruce Schneier did it. So did author Tim Ferriss. So did journalist Jim Harper.
While 1000s of Americans are jobless
Unemployment rate of United States: 5.5%
Unemployment rate of Canada: 6.1%
Stalemate presumes that he has the votes in Congress to avoid an override. Congress has shown that when it comes to passing out money to constituents, they will override by a very large margin. He would lose to the court of public opinion if he decided that any spending bill funding things he doesn't like would get vetoed.
His views work for his state, and he's a welcome part of politics to me. He brings up issues that others don't want to talk about. There are people on the left who are the same way in my eyes. It's good to debate these things. But in a government like ours, idealism must sometimes give way to pragmatism.
I agree for the most part (except the number of marshals -- there are something like 30,000 domestic flights per day in the US, and that would be a very expensive program). There's no need to do most of the intrusive screening that goes on, and while I'm very much in favor of a strong defense, there are some very lame decisions being made by Congress that should be left to the Pentagon (they wanted to retire the USS Kennedy many years ago to save money, and someone in Congress wouldn't let them). I'm fine with metal detectors (and I'm actually fine with both this and backscatter scanning if it lets me bring my damned drink with me), but let's move the line along a little, hmm?
It's not unreasonable search. This has been addressed before by the courts and many times here on Slashdot. Flying is a choice. If you choose not to go through the security measures, that means you choose not to fly (at least commercially). You are free to take other routes that do not have the same level of security.
Because he's running as a Republican, and a lot of them, whatever their initial feelings about the war, don't want to leave Iraq right now, because it looks like we can't finish what we started and/or can't clean up after ourselves.
There are things about Ron Paul that I like quite a lot. But despite the bungling of the war that was the result of meddling and improper planning on the part of Rumsfeld, among others, (we were supposed to learn from Vietnam that wars are never to be micromanaged by politicians), we caused a mess in Iraq, and we need to see it through to its end.
A number of politicians in Iraq -- some of them quite powerful -- are moving in favor of a forced draw-down of US and allied troops, especially as Iraqi forces are doing much better at handling operations, and are suffering fewer desertions, though the rate is still startlingly high. Gen. Petraeus has said that he believes the draw-down will continue after the July pause. It's not going to drop below 100,000 this year, but it very well may do so next year, and it may continue to the point that, aside from a few rapid-reaction forces and air cover (think West Germany in the Cold War, though not quite at that level), the US doesn't maintain much there at all. There's still time to further break things, of course, but I think there's a generally positive path right now.
That's getting a little off-topic. Back on the main point, aside from Iraq, there's no chance at all that Paul would have been able to do most of the things that he wants to do. The IRS isn't going away anytime soon, nor is the Department of Education. He's just not going to get that with a Democratic Congress. He would probably have issues getting strict constructionist judges onto the courts. I have to wonder how effective he would be as president.
No.
Firstly, it's your option to fly, not your right. That other methods are slower and less convenient doesn't matter from this perspective.
Secondly, you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search.
That's not what they want. Fuel has moved from 10% of the airlines' cost to more than half, in some cases. Nearly a dozen airlines have folded in the last few months, and even the largest carriers are getting panicky. If anything, this is more problematic than the post-9/11 jitters, because everyone knew they would subside, but no one knows if this is going to be a bubble or if it's the new standard for oil. As someone who likes to fly 3-5 times a year (and would like to fly more), I'm concerned that what used to be comfortable $300 flights (I'm 5'4") will become crowded $450 flights, and that makes it hard for me to justify the expense.
The airlines would love to get back to competing on fares while also having a comfortable profit margin. It's just not in the cards right now.
You can board a plane without ID. However, you have to go through more intensive security measures, and you go into a separate line for that.
At some very busy airports, this has been occasionally used by seasoned travelers to get through security more quickly. It's a gamble as it depends on how busy the wand screeners are, but sometimes it works.
They physically search you. The scanner isn't mandatory; it's just faster than a physical search and doesn't require you to remove much, if any, clothing.
I have a right to vote, and I exercise it with each election that comes along. I also have a right to expect that the election will be free and fair, and that means that I don't want people claiming to be who they are not, taking advantage of the fact that ID is not checked.
As for NYC, a cop shouldn't be able to ask for ID without a warrant or documentable probable cause. I seem to recall that the courts ruled in favor of police in a case brought by a Nevada man who refused to show his ID upon demand to police.
The GP poster can't, because the court decision doesn't exist, and I believe that the authority isn't in the Patriot Act, either. Some may not believe it, but there's still a constitutional requirement that a person be charged within a reasonably short time-frame, stemming from the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, which necessitates that the charges themselves be filed speedily.
Far too many people conflate the Patriot Act with Guantanamo Bay detentions. They are unrelated, and the only reason that Gitmo detainees have fewer rights is because of a technical loophole. I'm not especially enamored of it, nor of some of the other things done by the Bush Administration regarding detentions, and I have strong concerns about how habeas corpus is being handled in those cases. There was no reason that I could see to create an all-new mechanism for the trials. But the loophole is there, and until it's closed, it is legal (though perhaps immoral) to exploit it.
And before anyone complains about technicalities in general, stop and consider whether you or some cause for which you have cheered has ever benefited from a legal technicality. There's a very strong chance that they have.
I liked the punchcard system. There was something satisfyiung to that feeling of the machine punching the hole that reinforced the fact that I'd just used one of my most precious rights. The electronic systems now used here are OK, but they don't really measure up to the old systems in that way.
That's exactly how they work on several (if not all) of the systems approved in California. Until you press the button to submit the vote for the print run, you can only see blank paper. You then see the ballot as it's printed so that you can verify the results. After that, you confirm or deny that it's what you want, and there's another short print run to indicate the validity of the vote. If you're satisfied, you're done. If not, you either start over or make changes (I'm not sure which -- I've never had to edit my selections after submitting).
At Tuesday's vote in California, I had to provide my name for lookup, then sign my name on the line and print my address as the first thing upon showing up. I then went to another person three feet to my left, who asked me for my name and address, holding the book open just partially so she could see the record for my name. Once I passed that, I was able to get the code to enter for the machine to cast my ballot (I had the choice of paper or electronic, but we have paper trails, so I went with that).
I'd have been much, much more comfortable with being able to provide my state-issued ID in exchange for the code.
This is not in the Constitution. If you have a legal citation for this, I'm sure we're all interested to read about it.
No. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the citizenship issue, and the courts' move towards confirming it in the Jose Padilla case is why the administration dropped the attempts to have him treated as a non-citizen.
Conversations entering or leaving the US would be treated the same way that the FBI handles wiretaps of phones where the warrant doesn't allow every call to be used, as a given call may not have anything to do with the investigation. They can listen for a period of time to see if it's covered, and may check back into the call periodically to confirm that the subject hasn't changed to something, but if it's not in the warrant, it has to be dropped. This prevents them from doing things like listening in on calls to legal counsel or medical personnel, as these are protected by client-provider privilege.
Submarines submerge. Sinking is what they try to make enemy vessels do in wartime.
Water absorbs certain kinds of radiation, and then the water disperses. The strength of the radiation can be traced back to the original wreckage.
A civilian provides plausible deniability, which is exactly why the military would ask civilians to do something for them. A civilian research vessel within a few dozen miles of your lost vessel is maybe cause for a raised eyebrow, but a US Navy-flagged vessel nearby is cause to put a few extra subs in the area and maybe send a battle fleet nearby to continue protecting the right to transit international waters.
Let's say that a medium-size city has 1000 incorporated businesses. If a vote for renewal came up every four years, on average, the people would be voting on 250 corporate charters every year. How does one realistically collect the information needed to make a decision on that? It's hard enough to gather the information required to cover all of the other election issues.
I'd also like some information on the history of this. If it was around as recently as 1970 at any meaningful level, I'd be surprised, especially since incorporation is handled at the state level, not the national level.
If the company is running at a loss, you say that it's closed down.
And then you say that employees don't lose their jobs.
These don't seem to reconcile at all.
Further, if only one person is killed by, say, a GE jet engine that the company knew was problematic, should the family of that one person get the entire $22.2 billion that GE booked as net income in 2007 (if the "sentence" is only one year)? Does this not seem like a way to completely clog the legal system with claims, and bring down every corporation that currently exists?
So you would simply upend the entire system without considering the consequences of doing so? There may be answers to my questions. If you can find them, and they are reasonable, I'm willing to consider them. But changing the system wantonly will only cause more problems.
Do you know how many thousands of corporations there are in California alone? How would we gather the necessary knowledge? What's to keep someone rich from funding a campaign to highlight some minimal yet slightly gray conduct of a much smaller competitor in order to force their dissolution?
That kind of thing is much better handled by the system in place now.
How does a corporation commit the crime of murder?
And what do you do if, say, GE is convicted of murder and 300,000 people no longer have jobs?
When companies have charges leveled against them, they're civil cases. When it rises to the level of a criminal complaint, actual people are charged with crimes. I don't recall the exact case, but last year, there was a company whose executive row was gutted, each of them sent to prison and fined millions of dollars on top of what the corporation had to pay in fines.