Care to back that up with any references to recent statement about Israel not recognizing Palestine's right to exist? Here is evidence counter to that argument. As for Hamas, destroying an organization who's main stated goal is the destruction of one's country seems to be a prudent thing to do. If Hamas get what it wants Israel will not exist. If Israel gets what it wants Israel and Palestine will exist.
How about the following; 1. Recognize Israel's right to exist 2. Stop shooting rockets across the border 3. Stop sending assassins over the border 4. Stop building tunnels under the border 5. Actively stop their people from attacking Israel.
Obviously the most important one is the first one. There can be no peace when one side is still trying to destroy the other.
Do you know history at all? From 1516 to the end of WW2 the area was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. After WW2 it was controlled by the British. The British the partitioned it. Palestinians never had the land to want back.
Sure the demands to not seem unreasonable but what has Hamas offered? Nothing at all. Until Hamas changes their views on the existence of Israel there will be no peace. I would also like to point out that you have no references for what you call the Hamas conditions. As far as I can tell you might be making them up and/or embellishing them to make them look better.. Lets assume they are true look at a couple of demands
allowing farmers to work their land up to the fence;
So tunneling can be done without discovery.
release of all prisoners from the Gilad Shalit swap who have been rearrested
The swap which should never have been done as it rewards kidnappers.
expansion of the fishing zone
So fishing vessels can meet ships at sea and return with a "catch" of missiles
an Israeli pledge to a 10-year cease-fire
No pledge of a 10 year Cease fire from Hamas. A one sided cease fire is no cease fire at all.
closure of Gaza’s air space to Israeli aircraft;
So Hamas can fire rickets without danger of air strikes.
Lets look at the next few statements
Go back a few months: the breakdown of negotiations by Israel;
Maybe the refusal to even talk about removing their insistence of the destruction od Israel might have something to do about it.
the war on Hamas in the West Bank following the murder of the three yeshiva students,
Did the Palestinian Authority or Palestinian people do anything to catch the criminals?
stopping payment of salaries to Hamas workers in Gaza
According to this it was Fatah that cut off the funds and not Israel. As to the opposition to a Hamas/Fatah Unity Government, who is to know which faction will come into control. It is just as likely Hamas will gain control and start up attacks again. Would you trust a government where one faction wants the destruction of your country? Again, as long as Hamas holds to the objective of the destruction of Israel all violence in the conflict is on their heads.
All the examples look very contrived. They show specific tasks where the extra fingers would be useful. For me the extra fingers would probably be useful 1% of the time and get in the way 90% of the time.
The last time US ground forces were put in the fight prior to aerial decimation of the opposition was?
Grenada, Panama, Kuwait City. Aerial bombardment has limited effects and can not completely wipe out opposition. It will weaken them but ground forces still need to go in and hold the land.
I think what the OP was trying to say was that most Universities already have a policy against sexual harassment as is stated in the summary.
Universities and other workplaces have codes of conduct guarding against sexual harassment.
What the summary suggests is there is no explicit policy for fieldwork. Why is there a need for an explicit policy for fieldwork when it is already covered by the University's general policy?
You missed the point. Even 22% is "once in a while". I hate exaggerations. By the way, most murders, rapes and kidnappings are not in the FBI jurisdiction They are a local matter.
Not necessarily. It just means no public internet funded by a tax paid by people who pay for internet access and Internet-only services. The funding could come from general taxes.
There is also no guarantee that such taxes would go to fund public internet. It is quite possible that they would go into general revenue and be use to fund other things.
My particular favorite is when a man tied a shoe string around a rifle's trigger to simulate automatic fire and the BATFE declared shoe strings to be machine guns under provisions of the NFA
That was a stupid ruling by a single bureaucrat which has since been rescinded.
because it has never stopped them before from stepping all over state's sovereignty.
That is actually difficult to prove or disprove. Sure there are cases where the feds have stepped all over States Rights but it is also difficult to prove there were no cases where the feds didn't even try because it was a States Rights issue.
Long story short the federal government doesn't seem to particularly care if something is actually a state issue and will use the commerce clause to justify just about anything.
The petition the House and not the Whitehouse as the President can not make laws; he can only sign them. By the way The issue with guns in schools is a easy thing to fight for. Noone in their right mind would vote against such a law even if it was not valid under the Commerce Clause. The issue of dealerships is very different in that there are arguments on both sides and it would probably be shot down by the Supreme court.
The Gun Free Zone Act of 1995 was shot down by the Supreme court and the amendments have yet to be challenged there. National Firearms Act of 1934 was a tax and not a ban. Gun Control Act of 1968 is definitely about interstate commerce. Here are a couple of provisions;
Private sales between residents of two different states are also prohibited without going through a licensed dealer, except for the case of a buyer holding a Curio & Relic license purchasing a firearm that qualifies as a curio or relic. Private sales between unlicensed individuals who are residents of the same state are allowed under federal law so long as such transfers do not violate the other existing federal and state laws. While current law mandates that a background check be performed if the seller has a federal firearms license, private parties living in the same state are not required to perform such checks under federal law. State laws however can prohibit such sales.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was also another "vote against and lose the next election" bill. Whether or not the law was valid if one did not vote for it they would be out of office.
Actually it does not. NAFTA states that the US can not treat Canadian made cars any worse than American made cars. Since the dealership requirement is there for American made cars NAFTA would have no effect.
That is a very simplistic view of a very complex subject. That would mean that anything that is produced out of state would be federally regulated and that is completely untrue. For example California has certain emission standards and they are applied to all vehicles sold in California. These standards are different than other states but they do not put an unfair burden on out of state manufactures are are therefore the Commerce Clause does not apply.
States are not supposed to be able to prevent businesses and individuals from competing with one another, that is the purpose of the federal interstate commerce law.
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
It can easily be argued that the sale of a vehicle pertains to one State and is not Commerce among several States. Had the States required a local dealership and then denied a dealership license then that would be anti competitive. That is not what happened. If Tesla wanted to they could open dealerships in every state but they chose not to. I think that requiring a local dealership is a stupid and archaic idea but it is a State issue to be decided by the State and not interstate commerce.
You really need to know what anti competitive means. It means an un-level playing field where one entity had special rights over other entities in the same market. Requiring anyone who sells a new car to have a local dealership is a law that every new car seller has to comply with and therefore not anti-competitive. Your next paragraph is just ludicrous. Lets look at your statements one by one.
.Mandating and requiring business licenses for people to engage in commerce is the anti-competitive practice that needs to be stopped
If all companies need to have the same license and the licenses are fairly given then it is not anti competitive. It is a way of dealing with companies that break laws and deal with the public unfairly. It is also a way of knowing who is responsible for the businesses as their names are on the licenses.
Mandating and requiring that businesses abide by government rules and regulations is the anti-competitive practice that needs to be stopped.
Again, if evenly applied rules and regulations are not anti competitive. They also protect our environment and the consumer. Do you really want our food produced with no regulations? How would recalls be enforced without regulations? Do you really want industry to be able to spew any pollutant they want into the environment? What is there to stop them without government rules and regulations.
Income taxes are not only a horrible economic policy, it is also a way to segregate businesses into those, that have access to government officials and those that cannot compete because they are not getting special treatment.
First income tax is a personal tax not a business tax. Second business tax law is based on industry sectors and not specific businesses therefore different taxes for different business sectors. If business taxes are applied evenly it is not anti competitive.
The idea of no licences, no rules/regulations and not business taxes is completely unworkable.Try to be a bit realistic.
The problem is that the government can not walk up to the banks they deal with and deposit Bitcoins. Some banks to not accept some currencies but that does not invalidate the fact that it is still a currency. Try to go to a local bank and deposit foreign currency. You will notice that the bank will convert the foreign currency to local currency and deposit the local currency. Most banks do not have a conversion process from Bitcoin to local currency therefore one can not directly deposit Bitcoins. All the government is doing by auctioning off the Bitcoin currency is converting it into a currency their banks can handle.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to back that up with any references to recent statement about Israel not recognizing Palestine's right to exist? Here is evidence counter to that argument. As for Hamas, destroying an organization who's main stated goal is the destruction of one's country seems to be a prudent thing to do. If Hamas get what it wants Israel will not exist. If Israel gets what it wants Israel and Palestine will exist.
In a word, yes. Where in recent history has Israel stated their desire to eradicate Palestine?
How about the following;
1. Recognize Israel's right to exist
2. Stop shooting rockets across the border
3. Stop sending assassins over the border
4. Stop building tunnels under the border
5. Actively stop their people from attacking Israel.
Obviously the most important one is the first one. There can be no peace when one side is still trying to destroy the other.
Do you know history at all? From 1516 to the end of WW2 the area was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. After WW2 it was controlled by the British. The British the partitioned it. Palestinians never had the land to want back.
Amira Hass and Gideon Levy are by no means unbiased reporters.
Sure the demands to not seem unreasonable but what has Hamas offered? Nothing at all. Until Hamas changes their views on the existence of Israel there will be no peace.
I would also like to point out that you have no references for what you call the Hamas conditions. As far as I can tell you might be making them up and/or embellishing them to make them look better.. Lets assume they are true look at a couple of demands
allowing farmers to work their land up to the fence;
So tunneling can be done without discovery.
release of all prisoners from the Gilad Shalit swap who have been rearrested
The swap which should never have been done as it rewards kidnappers.
expansion of the fishing zone
So fishing vessels can meet ships at sea and return with a "catch" of missiles
an Israeli pledge to a 10-year cease-fire
No pledge of a 10 year Cease fire from Hamas. A one sided cease fire is no cease fire at all.
closure of Gaza’s air space to Israeli aircraft;
So Hamas can fire rickets without danger of air strikes.
Lets look at the next few statements
Go back a few months: the breakdown of negotiations by Israel;
Maybe the refusal to even talk about removing their insistence of the destruction od Israel might have something to do about it.
the war on Hamas in the West Bank following the murder of the three yeshiva students,
Did the Palestinian Authority or Palestinian people do anything to catch the criminals?
stopping payment of salaries to Hamas workers in Gaza
According to this it was Fatah that cut off the funds and not Israel.
As to the opposition to a Hamas/Fatah Unity Government, who is to know which faction will come into control. It is just as likely Hamas will gain control and start up attacks again. Would you trust a government where one faction wants the destruction of your country? Again, as long as Hamas holds to the objective of the destruction of Israel all violence in the conflict is on their heads.
All the examples look very contrived. They show specific tasks where the extra fingers would be useful. For me the extra fingers would probably be useful 1% of the time and get in the way 90% of the time.
And the last time Marines stormed a beach was?
Kuwait
The last time US ground forces were put in the fight prior to aerial decimation of the opposition was?
Grenada, Panama, Kuwait City. Aerial bombardment has limited effects and can not completely wipe out opposition. It will weaken them but ground forces still need to go in and hold the land.
I think what the OP was trying to say was that most Universities already have a policy against sexual harassment as is stated in the summary.
Universities and other workplaces have codes of conduct guarding against sexual harassment.
What the summary suggests is there is no explicit policy for fieldwork. Why is there a need for an explicit policy for fieldwork when it is already covered by the University's general policy?
You missed the point. Even 22% is "once in a while". I hate exaggerations. By the way, most murders, rapes and kidnappings are not in the FBI jurisdiction They are a local matter.
Take a look at this. There are several instances where the SCOTUS has thrown out federal laws as not being valid under the Commerce Clause.
In the end it would be the same effect; the vehicle would not be allowed to be driven.
Not necessarily. It just means no public internet funded by a tax paid by people who pay for internet access and Internet-only services. The funding could come from general taxes.
There is also no guarantee that such taxes would go to fund public internet. It is quite possible that they would go into general revenue and be use to fund other things.
How about they actually solve a murder, rape, or kidnapping once in a while? 35% of murders don't get solved
The second sentence contradicts the first. They do solve murders quite often; 65% of the time in fact.
My particular favorite is when a man tied a shoe string around a rifle's trigger to simulate automatic fire and the BATFE declared shoe strings to be machine guns under provisions of the NFA
That was a stupid ruling by a single bureaucrat which has since been rescinded.
because it has never stopped them before from stepping all over state's sovereignty.
That is actually difficult to prove or disprove. Sure there are cases where the feds have stepped all over States Rights but it is also difficult to prove there were no cases where the feds didn't even try because it was a States Rights issue.
While that may seem slow, people in remote areas may have few alternatives.
Try this or this as alternatives.
Long story short the federal government doesn't seem to particularly care if something is actually a state issue and will use the commerce clause to justify just about anything.
The petition the House and not the Whitehouse as the President can not make laws; he can only sign them. By the way The issue with guns in schools is a easy thing to fight for. Noone in their right mind would vote against such a law even if it was not valid under the Commerce Clause. The issue of dealerships is very different in that there are arguments on both sides and it would probably be shot down by the Supreme court.
The Gun Free Zone Act of 1995 was shot down by the Supreme court and the amendments have yet to be challenged there. National Firearms Act of 1934 was a tax and not a ban. Gun Control Act of 1968 is definitely about interstate commerce. Here are a couple of provisions;
Private sales between residents of two different states are also prohibited without going through a licensed dealer, except for the case of a buyer holding a Curio & Relic license purchasing a firearm that qualifies as a curio or relic.
Private sales between unlicensed individuals who are residents of the same state are allowed under federal law so long as such transfers do not violate the other existing federal and state laws. While current law mandates that a background check be performed if the seller has a federal firearms license, private parties living in the same state are not required to perform such checks under federal law. State laws however can prohibit such sales.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was also another "vote against and lose the next election" bill. Whether or not the law was valid if one did not vote for it they would be out of office.
What state has that florist regulation?
Actually it does not. NAFTA states that the US can not treat Canadian made cars any worse than American made cars. Since the dealership requirement is there for American made cars NAFTA would have no effect.
That is a very simplistic view of a very complex subject. That would mean that anything that is produced out of state would be federally regulated and that is completely untrue. For example California has certain emission standards and they are applied to all vehicles sold in California. These standards are different than other states but they do not put an unfair burden on out of state manufactures are are therefore the Commerce Clause does not apply.
States are not supposed to be able to prevent businesses and individuals from competing with one another, that is the purpose of the federal interstate commerce law.
First, there is no such thing as the "federal interstate commerce law". It is the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution. Here is the actual Clause;
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
It can easily be argued that the sale of a vehicle pertains to one State and is not Commerce among several States. Had the States required a local dealership and then denied a dealership license then that would be anti competitive. That is not what happened. If Tesla wanted to they could open dealerships in every state but they chose not to. I think that requiring a local dealership is a stupid and archaic idea but it is a State issue to be decided by the State and not interstate commerce.
You really need to know what anti competitive means. It means an un-level playing field where one entity had special rights over other entities in the same market. Requiring anyone who sells a new car to have a local dealership is a law that every new car seller has to comply with and therefore not anti-competitive. Your next paragraph is just ludicrous. Lets look at your statements one by one.
.Mandating and requiring business licenses for people to engage in commerce is the anti-competitive practice that needs to be stopped
If all companies need to have the same license and the licenses are fairly given then it is not anti competitive. It is a way of dealing with companies that break laws and deal with the public unfairly. It is also a way of knowing who is responsible for the businesses as their names are on the licenses.
Mandating and requiring that businesses abide by government rules and regulations is the anti-competitive practice that needs to be stopped.
Again, if evenly applied rules and regulations are not anti competitive. They also protect our environment and the consumer. Do you really want our food produced with no regulations? How would recalls be enforced without regulations? Do you really want industry to be able to spew any pollutant they want into the environment? What is there to stop them without government rules and regulations.
Income taxes are not only a horrible economic policy, it is also a way to segregate businesses into those, that have access to government officials and those that cannot compete because they are not getting special treatment.
First income tax is a personal tax not a business tax. Second business tax law is based on industry sectors and not specific businesses therefore different taxes for different business sectors. If business taxes are applied evenly it is not anti competitive.
The idea of no licences, no rules/regulations and not business taxes is completely unworkable.Try to be a bit realistic.
Even with a mimeograph a copy can get "destroyed".
Isn't that what I just said? I guess you got distracted half way through the sentence. And people say I have a short attention span. ;-)
When they get photocopied for distribution a copy can easily go "missing" are the data file from the digital copier can be sent somewhere.
The agency realized the error when it began receiving calls from bewildered relatives last week.
It is the relative if the intended recipients that have the issue.
The problem is that the government can not walk up to the banks they deal with and deposit Bitcoins. Some banks to not accept some currencies but that does not invalidate the fact that it is still a currency. Try to go to a local bank and deposit foreign currency. You will notice that the bank will convert the foreign currency to local currency and deposit the local currency. Most banks do not have a conversion process from Bitcoin to local currency therefore one can not directly deposit Bitcoins. All the government is doing by auctioning off the Bitcoin currency is converting it into a currency their banks can handle.