Did you know that by the time Clinton was kicked out, the US was on the verge of becoming financially stable and was gaining respect in the eyes of the rest of the world? Then he got a blowjob from an intern, got fired,
Clinton served 8 years, both full terms. He was never "kicked out" or "fired"
Obama's started multiple wars in other countries that are no threat to the United States (unlike Iraq)
Citation please, I haven't heard of any "new wars"
carried out military attacks in allied nations without their permission
When allied nations provide safe harbor and assistance to groups that we are at war with, I elect to allow this activity. Of course I have to assume you are referring to attacks on al qaeda in Pakistan. You know the place where their citizens are oppressed as much if not more than in China and where the government intelligence service provides intel on US troops and communications to al qaeda...
started playing social experiments with our armed services
You mean like the "social experiments" of the past Presidents? Remember, don't ask, don't tell was enacted by Clinton and Every President from Carter on toyed with the idea to allow openly gay personnel in the military.
instructed the justice department to literally ignore laws he doesn't like
Bush was even worse mate.
and has enacted the biggest tax in US history
actually, the biggest tax in US history would be income tax. But, if you really want to go that route with Obamacare, it's only the people who CAN afford healthcare but choose NOT to have it that are being "taxed". Just as an FYI, I am not a fan of the way it was done either, even though I approve highly of a nationalized healthcare system.
No, he's changed things all right. See, for example, this "law" he's inventing out of whole cloth that gives the Obama adminstration control over private communication systems.
You're an idiot. He is not creating a law. He is defining the purview of the executive branch's agencies in the even of an emergency so that there is little or no confusion as to who is responsible for keeping the communications systems up and running. A power which he already has; enacted by previous administrations.
Citation please, I haven't heard of any "new wars"
carried out military attacks in allied nations without their permission
When allied nations provide safe harbor and assistance to groups that we are at war with, I elect to allow this activity. Of course I have to assume you are referring to attacks on al qaeda in Pakistan. You know the place where their citizens are oppressed as much if not more than in China and where the government intelligence service provides intel on US troops and communications to al qaeda...
started playing social experiments with our armed services
You mean like the "social experiments" of the past Presidents? Remember, don't ask, don't tell was enacted by Clinton and Every President from Carter on toyed with the idea to allow openly gay personnel in the military.
instructed the justice department to literally ignore laws he doesn't like
Bush was even worse mate.
and has enacted the biggest tax in US history
actually, the biggest tax in US history would be income tax. But, if you really want to go that route with Obamacare, it's only the people who CAN afford healthcare but choose NOT to have it that are being "taxed". Just as an FYI, I am not a fan of the way it was done either, even though I approve highly of a nationalized healthcare system.
No, he's changed things all right. See, for example, this "law" he's inventing out of whole cloth that gives the Obama adminstration control over private communication systems.
You're an idiot. He is not creating a law. He is defining the purview of the executive branch's agencies in the even of an emergency so that there is little or no confusion as to who is responsible for keeping the communications systems up and running. A power which he already has; enacted by previous administrations.
Why do any of you actually believe that the President is "of the people or for the people"? It is NOT his job. The representation of the people is the House of representatives. Originally, the Senate was representation for the State government, the House was for the people, the President was for the enforcement of laws and the command of the military. This belief that the President is there for the people is amusing.
in a state of emergency, do you want the government to be able to function if necessary to defend the US population and assets? We all do, the catch to it is, the government can declare an emergency at any time and take over the communications grid to lock out non-sanctioned comms. It's a catch 22, you want them to be able to do this while at the same time not infringe upon your rights as well. You can't have both unless you want the government to spend billions on building an entirely private communications network.... oh wait.....
Neither the state nor the federal governments are required to enforce each and every law. They have a minor amount ( and in some cases, huge amount ) of discretion as to what they enforce and what they do not. This is also defined by each agency's parameters of jurisdiction. You won't have the Secret Service pull you over for speeding even though they are a law enforcement agency under the Treasury Dept.
Don't forget the government forcing AT&T to build and maintain wiretapping facilities. There is one still in operation right down the street from my father's house.
I think one of the larger problems is this whole "we cover this but not that and only x % of that one thing we cover after you pay x $'s" needs to go away. Either you cover the person's health, or you don't. It would also help if you could claim whatever you spend on an insurance policy that you haven't used on your taxes. Ispend about $3700 per year on my insurance that I haven't had to use.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
20% of Americans is NOT "an infinitisimally small number", dick.
Here's a huge flaw in your argument there sir: For those of us men paying child support, our support costs are NOT tax deductible. SO if you are making $40,000 a year and paying $8500 out in taxes, you might not be able to afford insurance and yet you STILL do not get subsidized by the government so now you DO have to pay this tax.
You could say "edge case" if you wanted, but it's not. Not only am I an example, but nearly a dozen of my friends are as well. I am currently getting raped by child support and there is nothing I can do about it for another 11 months. Meanwhile, a full 1/3rd of my paycheck is all child support AND I have to mandatorily cover my child with insurance as a secondary.
Not everyone fits into your "I can do it easily so everyone can" category buddy.
For which the ER will bill him and if he doesn't pay, sue him. Get real, the government subsidizes the insurance companies that do not pay out for people who aren't insured with them and rarely payout for those that are. For example: I got a new job last year and my health benefits kicked in last July. In October, I broke a tooth. I went to the dentist to get it fixed and the insurance company denied my claim saying that they wouldn't cover it for the first year of coverage. Even then, they would only cover $1000 total FOR THE YEAR. The root canal, filling and crown cost me $2100 out of my own pocket. WTF am I paying an insurance company for?
Test drove a few when I was looking for my last car. Didn't really care for it all that much. I went with the Saturn Aura XR though. No regrets at all. It's been a great machine aside from a minor leak in the water pump but was easily fixed at home for $120. Rides great, has great power, I average about 32 mpg when I am travelling between cities, 25ish around the city.
Actually this is quite incorrect. The UK has quite strict rule regarding extradition, generally they will only extradite someone if the alleged crime is a crime in both the UK and the requester country. This was the initial argument brought to the extradition hearings and why the UK decided to hear it all out first. On the other hand, Sweden and the US have some very loose and flimsy extradition agreements. You can be extradited from Sweden to the US for virtually anything. The US and the UK have extradition agreements but they are far more rigid and complex. The US would have had very little luck getting him out of the UK.
The real problem here is that once you read all of the available information and do maybe 5 minutes worth of research, you start to draw a picture that this really is a fabrication. Whether they have done it for attention or whether they do it for a government, doesn't really matter. But they do not decide to seek police assistance until AFTER they have texted each other, after Ardin throws a party FOR Assange, after she tweets bragging about the party, her guests and Assange.
Now, do I believe that the behavior would be abhorrent if true? Yes, most certainly. Do I draw a personal conclusion about the events that took place, the two women and Assange? No, I wasn't there, I do not know the truth of the matter and I will not mentally convict of raping a woman when I have absolutely no clue as to whether or not he really did it.
you illegally access a movie and copy it to your hard drive, you have stolen in the eye of the MPAA. How is this any different than federal agents illegally accessing a data source and making copies of it?
You can do both. I do not believe that killing a fetus is the right thing, FOR ME. However, I will defend to my best ability, your right to choose whether it is right for you or not. When you are able to set aside your personal moral obligations and think about the people around you and their rights as human beings, you can start to gain some perspective and hopefully a willingness to side with the people who believe that the government has no right to tell you, me or anyone what to do with our bodies.
I am by no means apologizing for their actions. They were out of line in the way the situation was handled. I do however, believe that by following a government official in an unmarked vehicle for long distances, in THIS CLIMATE of fear, you are begging to have something happen to you. I would be on her side a great deal more had they done what they did in a much smarter way. Additionally, having had many broken bones, dislocated joints, cracked bones, muscle pulls etc, I can't really believe that her "long lasting" injuries are more than attention grabbing.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you know that by the time Clinton was kicked out, the US was on the verge of becoming financially stable and was gaining respect in the eyes of the rest of the world? Then he got a blowjob from an intern, got fired,
Clinton served 8 years, both full terms. He was never "kicked out" or "fired"
Obama's started multiple wars in other countries that are no threat to the United States (unlike Iraq)
Citation please, I haven't heard of any "new wars"
carried out military attacks in allied nations without their permission
When allied nations provide safe harbor and assistance to groups that we are at war with, I elect to allow this activity. Of course I have to assume you are referring to attacks on al qaeda in Pakistan. You know the place where their citizens are oppressed as much if not more than in China and where the government intelligence service provides intel on US troops and communications to al qaeda...
started playing social experiments with our armed services
You mean like the "social experiments" of the past Presidents? Remember, don't ask, don't tell was enacted by Clinton and Every President from Carter on toyed with the idea to allow openly gay personnel in the military.
instructed the justice department to literally ignore laws he doesn't like
Bush was even worse mate.
and has enacted the biggest tax in US history
actually, the biggest tax in US history would be income tax. But, if you really want to go that route with Obamacare, it's only the people who CAN afford healthcare but choose NOT to have it that are being "taxed". Just as an FYI, I am not a fan of the way it was done either, even though I approve highly of a nationalized healthcare system.
No, he's changed things all right. See, for example, this "law" he's inventing out of whole cloth that gives the Obama adminstration control over private communication systems.
You're an idiot. He is not creating a law. He is defining the purview of the executive branch's agencies in the even of an emergency so that there is little or no confusion as to who is responsible for keeping the communications systems up and running. A power which he already has; enacted by previous administrations.
Edit: fixed copy / paste fail
http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/interviews/240002892
Citation please, I haven't heard of any "new wars"
carried out military attacks in allied nations without their permission
When allied nations provide safe harbor and assistance to groups that we are at war with, I elect to allow this activity. Of course I have to assume you are referring to attacks on al qaeda in Pakistan. You know the place where their citizens are oppressed as much if not more than in China and where the government intelligence service provides intel on US troops and communications to al qaeda...
started playing social experiments with our armed services
You mean like the "social experiments" of the past Presidents? Remember, don't ask, don't tell was enacted by Clinton and Every President from Carter on toyed with the idea to allow openly gay personnel in the military.
instructed the justice department to literally ignore laws he doesn't like
Bush was even worse mate.
and has enacted the biggest tax in US history
actually, the biggest tax in US history would be income tax. But, if you really want to go that route with Obamacare, it's only the people who CAN afford healthcare but choose NOT to have it that are being "taxed". Just as an FYI, I am not a fan of the way it was done either, even though I approve highly of a nationalized healthcare system.
No, he's changed things all right. See, for example, this "law" he's inventing out of whole cloth that gives the Obama adminstration control over private communication systems.
You're an idiot. He is not creating a law. He is defining the purview of the executive branch's agencies in the even of an emergency so that there is little or no confusion as to who is responsible for keeping the communications systems up and running. A power which he already has; enacted by previous administrations.
Why do any of you actually believe that the President is "of the people or for the people"? It is NOT his job. The representation of the people is the House of representatives. Originally, the Senate was representation for the State government, the House was for the people, the President was for the enforcement of laws and the command of the military. This belief that the President is there for the people is amusing.
in a state of emergency, do you want the government to be able to function if necessary to defend the US population and assets? We all do, the catch to it is, the government can declare an emergency at any time and take over the communications grid to lock out non-sanctioned comms. It's a catch 22, you want them to be able to do this while at the same time not infringe upon your rights as well. You can't have both unless you want the government to spend billions on building an entirely private communications network.... oh wait.....
Neither the state nor the federal governments are required to enforce each and every law. They have a minor amount ( and in some cases, huge amount ) of discretion as to what they enforce and what they do not. This is also defined by each agency's parameters of jurisdiction. You won't have the Secret Service pull you over for speeding even though they are a law enforcement agency under the Treasury Dept.
Don't forget the government forcing AT&T to build and maintain wiretapping facilities. There is one still in operation right down the street from my father's house.
Since it is part of an amendment, we would have to amend the constitution to limit this power.
Haven't heard, could you elaborate more?
It was "Fire" not "Bang" in the theater.
I think one of the larger problems is this whole "we cover this but not that and only x % of that one thing we cover after you pay x $'s" needs to go away. Either you cover the person's health, or you don't. It would also help if you could claim whatever you spend on an insurance policy that you haven't used on your taxes. Ispend about $3700 per year on my insurance that I haven't had to use.
I'm not the one throwing "infinitisimally" out there to describe 60,000,000 Americans. That's more than 7 times the population if New York city.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
20% of Americans is NOT "an infinitisimally small number", dick.
You mean a scapegoat that was supposed to be lowering the cost of insurance for the individual by creating this larger "buying power"?
Here's a huge flaw in your argument there sir: For those of us men paying child support, our support costs are NOT tax deductible. SO if you are making $40,000 a year and paying $8500 out in taxes, you might not be able to afford insurance and yet you STILL do not get subsidized by the government so now you DO have to pay this tax.
You could say "edge case" if you wanted, but it's not. Not only am I an example, but nearly a dozen of my friends are as well. I am currently getting raped by child support and there is nothing I can do about it for another 11 months. Meanwhile, a full 1/3rd of my paycheck is all child support AND I have to mandatorily cover my child with insurance as a secondary.
Not everyone fits into your "I can do it easily so everyone can" category buddy.
You're an idiot if you think he will appoint anything other than more corporate lackeys and shills.
For which the ER will bill him and if he doesn't pay, sue him. Get real, the government subsidizes the insurance companies that do not pay out for people who aren't insured with them and rarely payout for those that are. For example: I got a new job last year and my health benefits kicked in last July. In October, I broke a tooth. I went to the dentist to get it fixed and the insurance company denied my claim saying that they wouldn't cover it for the first year of coverage. Even then, they would only cover $1000 total FOR THE YEAR. The root canal, filling and crown cost me $2100 out of my own pocket. WTF am I paying an insurance company for?
Test drove a few when I was looking for my last car. Didn't really care for it all that much. I went with the Saturn Aura XR though. No regrets at all. It's been a great machine aside from a minor leak in the water pump but was easily fixed at home for $120. Rides great, has great power, I average about 32 mpg when I am travelling between cities, 25ish around the city.
Actually this is quite incorrect. The UK has quite strict rule regarding extradition, generally they will only extradite someone if the alleged crime is a crime in both the UK and the requester country. This was the initial argument brought to the extradition hearings and why the UK decided to hear it all out first. On the other hand, Sweden and the US have some very loose and flimsy extradition agreements. You can be extradited from Sweden to the US for virtually anything. The US and the UK have extradition agreements but they are far more rigid and complex. The US would have had very little luck getting him out of the UK.
The real problem here is that once you read all of the available information and do maybe 5 minutes worth of research, you start to draw a picture that this really is a fabrication. Whether they have done it for attention or whether they do it for a government, doesn't really matter. But they do not decide to seek police assistance until AFTER they have texted each other, after Ardin throws a party FOR Assange, after she tweets bragging about the party, her guests and Assange.
Now, do I believe that the behavior would be abhorrent if true? Yes, most certainly. Do I draw a personal conclusion about the events that took place, the two women and Assange? No, I wasn't there, I do not know the truth of the matter and I will not mentally convict of raping a woman when I have absolutely no clue as to whether or not he really did it.
you illegally access a movie and copy it to your hard drive, you have stolen in the eye of the MPAA. How is this any different than federal agents illegally accessing a data source and making copies of it?
You seem to be awfully adamant about this not being a conspiracy... What are you trying to cover up? *Sideways Glare*
sorry, FTFY. But I like your hat....
You can do both. I do not believe that killing a fetus is the right thing, FOR ME. However, I will defend to my best ability, your right to choose whether it is right for you or not. When you are able to set aside your personal moral obligations and think about the people around you and their rights as human beings, you can start to gain some perspective and hopefully a willingness to side with the people who believe that the government has no right to tell you, me or anyone what to do with our bodies.
You want to? Damn, that's amazing. You must be desperate.
I am by no means apologizing for their actions. They were out of line in the way the situation was handled. I do however, believe that by following a government official in an unmarked vehicle for long distances, in THIS CLIMATE of fear, you are begging to have something happen to you. I would be on her side a great deal more had they done what they did in a much smarter way. Additionally, having had many broken bones, dislocated joints, cracked bones, muscle pulls etc, I can't really believe that her "long lasting" injuries are more than attention grabbing.
police orders trump any "personal arrest" or "citizen's arrest"