Of course, we can. Obama's economy may be weak, but it is still greater than that of Russia and Ukraine combined. Many times greater.
We don't need to send "boots on the ground" — just help Ukrainian defenders with weapons. Like, for example, precise ground-to-ground missiles to let them destroy a Russian "Grad" parked behind an apartment building without hitting the building too. Or all that surplus equipment, that Pentagon has been sending to police departments nation-wide, militarizing them against fellow citizens. But the charlatan-in-chief would not even send Ukrainians the perfectly defensive helmets and body armor...
pissing it all away invading Afghanistan and Iraq?
What? Hell no. Classics are: checkers, chess, a deck of cards, a pair of dice, dominoes and backgammon. Everybody has heard of them, everybody has seen them, (almost) everybody have played them in their lives...
Anything invented in the past few decades simply has not been around long enough to become a classic.
Chairman Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Hitler, not so much with the bluffing.
We fought Hitler and now Germany is a free and prosperous country at peace with its neighbors. China — where we dithered — not so much. Nor is North Korea — in the 60 years since we decided to "give peace a chance" there and not use nukes against the invading Chinese "volunteers", generations of millions lived in dire poverty and suffering, that they deserved even less than the Chinese soldiers.
Some times non-invasive therapies are indicated, but quite often the best course is surgery. Sadly, what we have in the White House is a "herbal remedies" charlatan...
I don't know how Russia, you know, the big one, reacts if the US decided to support
I wonder, what happened to:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
Perhaps, the author of the above was a war-mongering neocon teatard — not a Nobel "Peace" Prize laureate...
You can't turn it off even now. The GPS tracking is built into the circuitry and there is no way to disable it.
I doubt, that's entirely true. While I'm sure, cell companies keep track of each phone's approximate position (relative to their towers), the phone's battery drains considerably quicker, when the "location service" (an iPhone term) is turned on. If it really were on all the time, there would not have been such a pronounced effect on the batter from starting the "Maps" application or "Uber"...
And your solution to this problem, is, of course, to jail people who took pictures of rabbits.
If jailing is what the law prescribes for this offense, then everybody breaking it ought to be jailed — not just those, who pissed the policeman off doing something perfectly legal.
You need citations for Congressional use of the "power of the purse"? Really?
Here in the United States, the term Power of the Purse refers to relationship between Legislative and Executive branches of the same government.
The relationship discussed in this sub-thread is between different governments: Federal vs. local ones...
Because communities are often not as in charge of their police departments as they should be or think they are
In other words, you do think, Washington "knows better" than the local doofuses . Right... Why, I wonder, even bother with elections there — instead of letting the sophisticated Washingtonian nobility appoint one of their own...
Where's the injustice here?
Your granpa can demand you do something in exchange for his contribution to your pocket money — that's Ok, because it is his money... On contrast, the monies the Feds disburse as subsidies are not theirs to attach strings to. They use this method to get around the 10th Amendment — and I consider it unjust.
Congress has the power of the purse.
Only over President... This was, indeed, part of the "checks-and-balances" from day one. Congress was never supposed to have the same power over States and towns however. And — contrary to your earlier assertion — did not have it, until Federal taxes grew up so much...
Anything, that is "not a bad idea" for a personal vehicle, is also not a bad idea for a person. The argument for mandatory license plates (which we have accepted so long ago, freaks like me objecting appear as, well, freaks), for example, would apply just as convincingly to mandating people not only carry identification at all times, but also keep it visiblefrom distance.
Would you support a law mandating, that people carry personal beacons at all times? Those can be made small enough to make it practical already... In fact, if you aren't careful, your cellphone is already acting as just such a device — should a law prohibit you from turning it off?
Thankfully, we have the most open and technologically-savvy Administration in history. He uses e-mail like, OMG, daily (!!11!) and has, like, the most Twitter-followers of any US President too. Seriously, like, ever!..
Nothing to worry about... Our lives, rights, and freedoms are in good hands. Please, don't hate.
Is it to far afield to invoke the author's prejudices when dealing with the amendment?
Again, I was referring to the States' (and towns') rights being diminished by the Federal government. Not those of the individuals. So, yes, it is "too far afield".
I'm sorry if I don't put drinking age and speeding in the same category as "enslavement" viz. tyranny -- but I don't think you do either.
It is not in the same category, but that does not diminish my argument: the Feds should not have this power over local governments. The monies they dispense as subsidies are not theirs to attach strings to...
Yes, but abuse of power is always going to a problem
It will be less of a problem if a stupid law is removed from the books. And it will not be for as long as the "upstanding citizens" (those, whom the police like or are afraid of) are not affected by it, because the cops never apply it to them.
Pointlessly punishing people who are easily understood to have done nothing wrong is worse.
The worst is when the pointless punishment is applied to a perfectly innocent person, who pissed the pig off doing something perfectly legal (such as video-taping him). There is no law against video-taping, so the cop may get creative and invoke something else... For example, if it happened in Wyoming in June, the cop may seize your camera on suspicion, a rabbit may have entered the frame — photographing rabbits during the month of June is illegal in Wyoming.
By ensuring, that the ridiculous law is regularly applied to everyone — including cute little girls taking the perfectly adorable pictures of little bunnies — we increase the chances, the stupid law is promptly abolished and can no longer be used to harass innocent people.
Congress has been using the power of the purse to bully states into compliance virtually since the Union began
No citations — no argument.
the proposal of forcing cops to wear cameras is a solid and popular one
If it is so solid and popular, why not leave it to the communities themselves to equip their police departments as they please? Because the elites in Washington "know better" than the rest of us in the boondocks?
So then why raise the ideological issue here and now?
How about because "the injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"?
Would you really be happier if the feds didn't use the power they have
I would've been (much) happier, if the feds did not have this power at all. And that's my point.
This power is very dangerous — by raising taxes and providing this and that "for free" in return, the governments are able to attach all sorts of "strings" to their help. And not all of these requirements are sensible or universally loved — had they been, there would've been no need to mandate them...
The federal government has acted as a check on the tyranny of state governments [...]
None of the abuses you listed were fought with the "federal subsidies" method I am decrying.
The method was used instead to abolish the "tyranny" of drinking age being to low, or legal speeds being too high — for just a few examples...
not saying Madison and Jefferson weren't brilliant -- but you shouldn't ask them about oppression
I am not talking about oppression of individuals here — nor have I invoked the names you are invoking, my argument stands on its own, thank you very much — I'm talking about the Federal government bullying local ones.
because sometimes the laws themselves are poorly written or out of date
Sure. But letting the cop decide, whether or not to enforce a particular law gives him too much power — the power, that he (a representative of Executive branch) is not supposed to have. And abuse that power they will.
Your source does not say that IPCC members are not scientists, as that would be an obvious lie.
A person may remain an academic and retain various titles, but he stops being a scientist when his research is done not to advance knowledge, but to confirm an already held conviction. Perhaps, you did not read to this text:
A panel of climate experts are telling the House Science Committee that politics often gets in the way of good science at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as in the U.S. government’s own climate research.
Climate scientists and researchers who dissent even slightly from the talking points of politicians and environmental groups are intimidated and ostracized, said one congressional witness. Politics, the witness said, takes a lead role over science in the study of global warming.
Then, if a silly law affects too many people — including judges, mayors, and good-looking women, who would've all gotten off with a warning before — the law may get amended...
Though I don't think, this particular one is a bad idea, I am worried about the yet another illustration of how the Federal government's control reaches into the crooks and nannies it was never supposed to reach:
If you want federal funding in your community, you've got to fill in the blank
By ratcheting up the Federal taxes, the Federal government has come into position to dictate the terms to local governments, who can neither print money nor raise their taxes to finance themselves without bankrupting local economies. But don't you worry — it is not dictatorship, you can always refuse the federal monies, can you not?
Certainly not. The panel would be disbanded, if Climate Change turned out to be a hoax so all members are interested in maintaining the fear. The fear may still be justified, but the glaring conflict of interest disqualifies their reports as evidence.
I would not trust them any more, than I would trust an "anti-poverty" politician to eliminate poverty — what is he going to run on come next elections?
Then how about Koch funded 0.01% papers?
You had the opportunity to offer a link, but chose not to... Is it because you don't have one.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are exactly the sort of people I was talking about — the ones, whose salaries and authority depend on Climate Change being a big deal. The conflict of interest is so glaringly obvious, it is comparable to the proverbial elephant in the room. They've been caught red-handed before.
The "reports" they produce are written by people appointed by governments. Few of them are scientists, and what few scientists there are seek not knowledge, but ways to confirm their pre-existing convictions — and when the data fails to do that, they "homogenize" it until it does... And though governments differ world-wide, they all have one thing in common: they are all convinced (often sincerely), that they "know better" and could "do good" if only they had more control over their subjects and their pretty little heads.
This is why you have never heard of any "green" measure, that would have reduced rather than increased the government's power over Individuals, have you?..
In fact, I don't see how these two are mutually exclusive.
They are not mutually exclusive, but undertakings as substantial as building a network of telescopes would certainly be, will always be at the expense of something else. And there are plenty of those "somethings", that should have a higher priority, in my not so humble opinion.
Doing both, or the cheaper first is good, sound science.
No. Because the two fields — hunting for exo-planets and developing the theory of very fast space-travel — are not much related, there is no synergy in doing both at once. Various scientists may choose to pursue either (or both) as they please, but no coordinated effort needs to be extended to further increase the list of destinations before we even know, we'll ever be able to reach any of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, we can. Obama's economy may be weak, but it is still greater than that of Russia and Ukraine combined. Many times greater.
We don't need to send "boots on the ground" — just help Ukrainian defenders with weapons. Like, for example, precise ground-to-ground missiles to let them destroy a Russian "Grad" parked behind an apartment building without hitting the building too. Or all that surplus equipment, that Pentagon has been sending to police departments nation-wide, militarizing them against fellow citizens . But the charlatan-in-chief would not even send Ukrainians the perfectly defensive helmets and body armor...
We pissed nothing away invading those two. We pissed it away by withdrawing prematurely.
What? Hell no. Classics are: checkers, chess, a deck of cards, a pair of dice, dominoes and backgammon. Everybody has heard of them, everybody has seen them, (almost) everybody have played them in their lives...
Anything invented in the past few decades simply has not been around long enough to become a classic.
We fought Hitler and now Germany is a free and prosperous country at peace with its neighbors. China — where we dithered — not so much. Nor is North Korea — in the 60 years since we decided to "give peace a chance" there and not use nukes against the invading Chinese "volunteers", generations of millions lived in dire poverty and suffering, that they deserved even less than the Chinese soldiers.
Some times non-invasive therapies are indicated, but quite often the best course is surgery. Sadly, what we have in the White House is a "herbal remedies" charlatan...
I wonder, what happened to:
Perhaps, the author of the above was a war-mongering neocon teatard — not a Nobel "Peace" Prize laureate...
I doubt, that's entirely true. While I'm sure, cell companies keep track of each phone's approximate position (relative to their towers), the phone's battery drains considerably quicker, when the "location service" (an iPhone term) is turned on. If it really were on all the time, there would not have been such a pronounced effect on the batter from starting the "Maps" application or "Uber"...
If jailing is what the law prescribes for this offense, then everybody breaking it ought to be jailed — not just those, who pissed the policeman off doing something perfectly legal.
Thank you for providing an example of the abuse of power I too am decrying.
Here in the United States, the term Power of the Purse refers to relationship between Legislative and Executive branches of the same government.
The relationship discussed in this sub-thread is between different governments: Federal vs. local ones...
In other words, you do think, Washington "knows better" than the local doofuses . Right... Why, I wonder, even bother with elections there — instead of letting the sophisticated Washingtonian nobility appoint one of their own...
Your granpa can demand you do something in exchange for his contribution to your pocket money — that's Ok, because it is his money... On contrast, the monies the Feds disburse as subsidies are not theirs to attach strings to. They use this method to get around the 10th Amendment — and I consider it unjust.
Only over President... This was, indeed, part of the "checks-and-balances" from day one. Congress was never supposed to have the same power over States and towns however. And — contrary to your earlier assertion — did not have it, until Federal taxes grew up so much...
Anything, that is "not a bad idea" for a personal vehicle, is also not a bad idea for a person. The argument for mandatory license plates (which we have accepted so long ago, freaks like me objecting appear as, well, freaks), for example, would apply just as convincingly to mandating people not only carry identification at all times, but also keep it visible from distance.
Would you support a law mandating, that people carry personal beacons at all times? Those can be made small enough to make it practical already... In fact, if you aren't careful, your cellphone is already acting as just such a device — should a law prohibit you from turning it off?
Thankfully, we have the most open and technologically-savvy Administration in history. He uses e-mail like, OMG, daily (!!11!) and has, like, the most Twitter-followers of any US President too. Seriously, like, ever!..
Nothing to worry about... Our lives, rights, and freedoms are in good hands. Please, don't hate.
Again, I was referring to the States' (and towns') rights being diminished by the Federal government. Not those of the individuals. So, yes, it is "too far afield".
It is not in the same category, but that does not diminish my argument: the Feds should not have this power over local governments. The monies they dispense as subsidies are not theirs to attach strings to...
It will be less of a problem if a stupid law is removed from the books. And it will not be for as long as the "upstanding citizens" (those, whom the police like or are afraid of) are not affected by it, because the cops never apply it to them.
The worst is when the pointless punishment is applied to a perfectly innocent person, who pissed the pig off doing something perfectly legal (such as video-taping him). There is no law against video-taping, so the cop may get creative and invoke something else... For example, if it happened in Wyoming in June, the cop may seize your camera on suspicion, a rabbit may have entered the frame — photographing rabbits during the month of June is illegal in Wyoming.
By ensuring, that the ridiculous law is regularly applied to everyone — including cute little girls taking the perfectly adorable pictures of little bunnies — we increase the chances, the stupid law is promptly abolished and can no longer be used to harass innocent people.
No citations — no argument.
If it is so solid and popular, why not leave it to the communities themselves to equip their police departments as they please? Because the elites in Washington "know better" than the rest of us in the boondocks?
How about because "the injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"?
I would've been (much) happier, if the feds did not have this power at all. And that's my point.
This power is very dangerous — by raising taxes and providing this and that "for free" in return, the governments are able to attach all sorts of "strings" to their help. And not all of these requirements are sensible or universally loved — had they been, there would've been no need to mandate them...
None of the abuses you listed were fought with the "federal subsidies" method I am decrying.
The method was used instead to abolish the "tyranny" of drinking age being to low, or legal speeds being too high — for just a few examples...
I am not talking about oppression of individuals here — nor have I invoked the names you are invoking, my argument stands on its own, thank you very much — I'm talking about the Federal government bullying local ones.
Sure. But letting the cop decide, whether or not to enforce a particular law gives him too much power — the power, that he (a representative of Executive branch) is not supposed to have. And abuse that power they will.
There will be nothing to "retain" nor "verify", if a cop wraps a piece of chewing gum around camera's lens and microphone hole for a few minutes...
There will just be a string of "unexplained malfunctions" nationwide, which the manufacturers will be at a loss to explain...
It may be possible to get it to work, yes, but it is going to be a lot harder, than the Senator realizes...
Ah, the refined arguments of the sophisticated Illiberals... How exquisitely worded, how politely delivered. How refreshingly persuasive...
Thank you! Will definitely read again.
A person may remain an academic and retain various titles, but he stops being a scientist when his research is done not to advance knowledge, but to confirm an already held conviction. Perhaps, you did not read to this text:
That may, actually, be a good thing — enforcing police objectivity by ending the selective enforcement (sometimes affectionately referred to as "Prosecutorial Discretion").
Then, if a silly law affects too many people — including judges, mayors, and good-looking women, who would've all gotten off with a warning before — the law may get amended...
Though I don't think, this particular one is a bad idea, I am worried about the yet another illustration of how the Federal government's control reaches into the crooks and nannies it was never supposed to reach:
By ratcheting up the Federal taxes, the Federal government has come into position to dictate the terms to local governments, who can neither print money nor raise their taxes to finance themselves without bankrupting local economies. But don't you worry — it is not dictatorship, you can always refuse the federal monies, can you not?
Or will we one day hear, that, unfortunately, the cameras worn by the officers involved had "malfunctioned" at the most inopportune moment?
(Pay no attention to the remains of chewing gum around the lenses.)
Certainly not. The panel would be disbanded, if Climate Change turned out to be a hoax so all members are interested in maintaining the fear. The fear may still be justified, but the glaring conflict of interest disqualifies their reports as evidence.
I would not trust them any more, than I would trust an "anti-poverty" politician to eliminate poverty — what is he going to run on come next elections?
You had the opportunity to offer a link, but chose not to... Is it because you don't have one.
Ah, this is a lot more persuasive than your earlier attempt, but still not quite good enough... Citation needed much? (No, IPCC-produced documents don't count — members of the panel are government-appointed politicians, not scientists.)
Please, don't hate.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are exactly the sort of people I was talking about — the ones, whose salaries and authority depend on Climate Change being a big deal. The conflict of interest is so glaringly obvious, it is comparable to the proverbial elephant in the room. They've been caught red-handed before.
The "reports" they produce are written by people appointed by governments. Few of them are scientists, and what few scientists there are seek not knowledge, but ways to confirm their pre-existing convictions — and when the data fails to do that, they "homogenize" it until it does... And though governments differ world-wide, they all have one thing in common: they are all convinced (often sincerely), that they "know better" and could "do good" if only they had more control over their subjects and their pretty little heads.
This is why you have never heard of any "green" measure, that would have reduced rather than increased the government's power over Individuals, have you?..
They are not mutually exclusive, but undertakings as substantial as building a network of telescopes would certainly be, will always be at the expense of something else. And there are plenty of those "somethings", that should have a higher priority, in my not so humble opinion.
No. Because the two fields — hunting for exo-planets and developing the theory of very fast space-travel — are not much related, there is no synergy in doing both at once. Various scientists may choose to pursue either (or both) as they please, but no coordinated effort needs to be extended to further increase the list of destinations before we even know, we'll ever be able to reach any of them.