Carter inherited a large family farm, and when he got settled after leaving the Navy he went straight into politics.
Cain spent 25 years in various aspects of real business, climbing his way to the top, before going into politics (and then it was only advising initially, with no serious run until 2004).
But one of my biggest reasons for wanting to see him in the campaign is to see how Obama leverages race politics. Will Obama use "Uncle Tom" on Cain? Will Cain trump him with the fact that he experienced real racism and hardship growing up poor in the segregated South, while Obama was raised middle-class white in Hawaii?
Republican Party, who propose enforced limits (either economic penalty-based or forced-sterilization-if-on-government-assistance) on lower income people having babies (while at the same time denying this is anything like China's "one child policy", where only the ultra-rich are allowed to have an extra kid or two) with the express purpose of limiting the growing population of hispanics and blacks
Mr. "I have four kids" Al Gore is a BIG proponent of population control. Of course, he only means population control for the darker skin types, not for rich folks like himself.
Couch it in whatever racist terms you'd like, but Republicans are only proposing to stop the vicious feedback cycle that Democratic welfare has created. Poor woman has kid, we pay her more, she has more kids in order to get more. When having kids is the easiest path to making money, that is the path people will take. This also contributes to breakup of the family, as a mother can make more if she doesn't have a husband, practically ensuring she and her kids remain in poverty.
This all perpetuates the cycle of poverty. Democrats want to continue it, Republicans want to stop it.
In those areas when a teenage girl gets pregnant the first thought is often "Wooohooo, I'm gonna get a government check now!" That perverse incentive needs to be eliminated.
You have the fiscal conservatives who want a restrained fiscal policy for government.
Then there are the governmental conservatives, who want to reduce the power of federal government over the states, and the power of all government over the people. They're more for individual freedom, but the government does have to spend a lot of money to infringe on those freedoms, so they're related to the first.
In both cases they want to go back to original concepts of our country -- a small government that doesn't use much of the country's riches to run and doesn't interfere much with the lives of the people.
Then you have religious conservatives, who aren't necessarily either of the above. Many of them are creationists.
This doesn't fly well with the Enlightenment environment this country was created in, with the love for science and learning, and the willingness to question theistic traditions. So in a sense, they're not very conservative, just fundamentalist.
They also weren't identified solely with the Republican party. The concentration of Christian conservatives into the Republican party didn't start until around the 1960s with Barry Goldwater. Ignorant racist Southern Democrats were also a huge chunk of religious conservative influx. They began defecting when the Democratic Party finally started supporting civil rights for blacks, and that became a flood when Nixon actively courted them to the Republicans to get elected.
They do not know the actual statistics on how much nuclear power is dangerous
Deaths per terawatt-hour. That is, if we need to generate X amount of electricity, here's how many people will die to get it generated based on method:
Nuclear has the biggest "dumb public" problem of any electricity generation method. They're afraid of the invisible killer that'll make them glow in the dark regardless of how many people have actually died from it.
You can't have scientists running policy on global warming. If the world is warming, they'll propose anything scientifically possible to do something about it.
But how about someone who will tell you the economic impact of those actions? How about someone who will tell you the social impact of those actions? How about protecting freedom while implementing the actions?
Hate to say it, call it flamebait if you want, but it appears to be true. Facts have nothing to do with the case when we're talking about looney leftists (or looney right-wingers for that matter, see Pat Robertson).
In the leftist handbook, the NRA is a racist (although it has supported the rights of blacks against the KKK) right-wing (although it supports pro gun-rights Democrats) fascist (although it believes in the right to bear arms partly to oppose fascism) organization that supports violating all of your rights.
No, I don't say "except the right to keep and bear arms" because that isn't recognized as an individual right in the leftist handbook. Even the ACLU, supposed defender of our rights, doesn't recognize it as an individual right. Somehow it's the only right in the Bill of Rights to be considered collective in nature.
Frame, engine, seats, body, windows. That's mostly it, no ABS, power brakes, power steering, power windows, power top, stereo, spare tire, A/C, bumpers, carpet, glove box, or even a cup holder.
Congress approves the use of military force, the use of force is legal. That is how it has always been. Even the use of force to some extent without congressional approval has been found legal for centuries. You are seriously grasping at straws here.
Give me one thing in the legal arena that casts doubt on the ability of Congress to authorize the use of military force, and the President to use it. Do you have a court case maybe? Or just the wishes of Al Qaeda sympathizers?
Just because congress authorizes something doesn't mean it's legal.
Huh? That's the definition of legal. Congress passed, president signed, Supreme Court has not ruled unconstitutional, nor is there a suit in the pipeline to try to have it declared unconstitutional.
Sorry, you keep failing on the facts and are grasping for straw. Use of military force is authorized against Al Qaeda, he was Al Qaeda, thus use of military force was authorized against him.
Admit it, you simply don't like it. Sounds like a personal problem, but it has nothing to do with the legality of killing an enemy.
Authorization for the use of military force was passed by Congress, worldwide, Pub.L. 107-40, 2001.
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"
Al Qaeda as an organization planned, authorized and committed the attacks. Thus any member of Al Qaeda is legally fair game, WORLDWIDE. It is, quite literally, open season, with no bag limit.
Some are support personnel, like him. Did Goebbels ever engage in active battle? No. Was he a legitimate enemy target? Yes.
Our former soldiers working in the SS were also legitimate targets. One specific case was an American deserter in an SS propaganda -- not combat -- unit. Legitimate target with the rest of his unit.
I'll type very slowly for the logically impaired:
- In military conflict the enemy is a legitimate target (kind of the point) - Al Qaeda is the enemy in this military conflict - This guy was a member of Al Qaeda - Thus, this guy was a legitimate target
This isn't about guilty or not. Are we currently in armed hostilities with Al Qaeda? Yes. Is he fighting on the side of Al Qaeda? Yes. Then he is a legitimate target. We never consider that an enemy soldier or leader is guilty or not guilty of anything during hostilities.
However, given that he is American, had he surrendered himself to civilian authorities, or had he survived until after hostilities and was captured, then precedent says he would have been tried for treason. However, just like declaration of war we never try anyone for treason anymore either (the last one being over 50 years ago despite dozens of examples of treasonous activity since).
A formal declaration of war is important for the authorization of extended use of armed forces and it is very and extremely important that we not enter into combat without going through the proper channels.
We haven't had a declaration of war since 1942. After that, we had authorizations for the use of military force. Legally, it's the same thing since either way it's the approval of Congress.
But remember what I wrote earlier, a declaration of war is a declaration of the existence of armed hostilities. All the way back to our first war as a country, the War of 1812, armed hostilities had begun years before the actual declaration of war.
It's still a shooting war, different groups killing each other. Just because Al Qaeda isn't a country doesn't mean a war can't be fought with the group and its allies.
He allied with them, he is a valid target, pure and simple.
When it comes to government, semantics and procedures matter
Then you might want to know that a declaration of war doesn't start a war. It is a recognition that a state of war already exists.
They have to have something local, probably what they pay rent and payroll out of.
If you show up with a sheriff, you can seize anything they can't prove is rented, including any money in registers, probably even their cell phones if they're company-owned (which they probably are, they would want the phones to go as a business expense).
The big problem with companies like this is that they shut down and re-form often. His chance to collect has probably already gone away. I have no idea how to chase a claim in that case, probably need a lawyer, which isn't worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Carter inherited a large family farm, and when he got settled after leaving the Navy he went straight into politics.
Cain spent 25 years in various aspects of real business, climbing his way to the top, before going into politics (and then it was only advising initially, with no serious run until 2004).
But one of my biggest reasons for wanting to see him in the campaign is to see how Obama leverages race politics. Will Obama use "Uncle Tom" on Cain? Will Cain trump him with the fact that he experienced real racism and hardship growing up poor in the segregated South, while Obama was raised middle-class white in Hawaii?
Mr. "I have four kids" Al Gore is a BIG proponent of population control. Of course, he only means population control for the darker skin types, not for rich folks like himself.
Couch it in whatever racist terms you'd like, but Republicans are only proposing to stop the vicious feedback cycle that Democratic welfare has created. Poor woman has kid, we pay her more, she has more kids in order to get more. When having kids is the easiest path to making money, that is the path people will take. This also contributes to breakup of the family, as a mother can make more if she doesn't have a husband, practically ensuring she and her kids remain in poverty.
This all perpetuates the cycle of poverty. Democrats want to continue it, Republicans want to stop it.
In those areas when a teenage girl gets pregnant the first thought is often "Wooohooo, I'm gonna get a government check now!" That perverse incentive needs to be eliminated.
Historically, the Democratic Party is owned by the content creation industry, the liberals pushing its agenda. That was a very bad example.
For example, the MAFIAA practically owns liberal Democrat Howard Berman (D-Disney), who is one of the the lead politicians pushing ACTA through.
You have the fiscal conservatives who want a restrained fiscal policy for government.
Then there are the governmental conservatives, who want to reduce the power of federal government over the states, and the power of all government over the people. They're more for individual freedom, but the government does have to spend a lot of money to infringe on those freedoms, so they're related to the first.
In both cases they want to go back to original concepts of our country -- a small government that doesn't use much of the country's riches to run and doesn't interfere much with the lives of the people.
Then you have religious conservatives, who aren't necessarily either of the above. Many of them are creationists.
This doesn't fly well with the Enlightenment environment this country was created in, with the love for science and learning, and the willingness to question theistic traditions. So in a sense, they're not very conservative, just fundamentalist.
They also weren't identified solely with the Republican party. The concentration of Christian conservatives into the Republican party didn't start until around the 1960s with Barry Goldwater. Ignorant racist Southern Democrats were also a huge chunk of religious conservative influx. They began defecting when the Democratic Party finally started supporting civil rights for blacks, and that became a flood when Nixon actively courted them to the Republicans to get elected.
Deaths per terawatt-hour. That is, if we need to generate X amount of electricity, here's how many people will die to get it generated based on method:
Coal - 161
Oil - 36
Natural Gas - 4
Biofuel/Biomass - 12
Peat - 12
Wind - 0.15
Hydro - 1.4
Nuclear - 0.04
Nuclear has the biggest "dumb public" problem of any electricity generation method. They're afraid of the invisible killer that'll make them glow in the dark regardless of how many people have actually died from it.
Master's in computer science, did ballistics for the Navy, not the standard law or business degree that our politcians normally have.
... into the ground.
So it's not dead, it's just pretending to be a phone, all the while pining for the fjords.
You can't have scientists running policy on global warming. If the world is warming, they'll propose anything scientifically possible to do something about it.
But how about someone who will tell you the economic impact of those actions? How about someone who will tell you the social impact of those actions? How about protecting freedom while implementing the actions?
Scientists can't answer that.
http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/second-amendment
From the horse's mouth, 2A is "collective" meaning it doesn't exist.
Hate to say it, call it flamebait if you want, but it appears to be true. Facts have nothing to do with the case when we're talking about looney leftists (or looney right-wingers for that matter, see Pat Robertson).
In the leftist handbook, the NRA is a racist (although it has supported the rights of blacks against the KKK) right-wing (although it supports pro gun-rights Democrats) fascist (although it believes in the right to bear arms partly to oppose fascism) organization that supports violating all of your rights.
No, I don't say "except the right to keep and bear arms" because that isn't recognized as an individual right in the leftist handbook. Even the ACLU, supposed defender of our rights, doesn't recognize it as an individual right. Somehow it's the only right in the Bill of Rights to be considered collective in nature.
So much for next season's production of "To Kill a Mockinbird."
Frame, engine, seats, body, windows. That's mostly it, no ABS, power brakes, power steering, power windows, power top, stereo, spare tire, A/C, bumpers, carpet, glove box, or even a cup holder.
Or Yemen for that matter. Al Qaeda operative = fair game. Whether he is a US citizen is irrelevant, has never been in history.
Congress approves the use of military force, the use of force is legal. That is how it has always been. Even the use of force to some extent without congressional approval has been found legal for centuries. You are seriously grasping at straws here.
Give me one thing in the legal arena that casts doubt on the ability of Congress to authorize the use of military force, and the President to use it. Do you have a court case maybe? Or just the wishes of Al Qaeda sympathizers?
Huh? That's the definition of legal. Congress passed, president signed, Supreme Court has not ruled unconstitutional, nor is there a suit in the pipeline to try to have it declared unconstitutional.
Sorry, you keep failing on the facts and are grasping for straw. Use of military force is authorized against Al Qaeda, he was Al Qaeda, thus use of military force was authorized against him.
Admit it, you simply don't like it. Sounds like a personal problem, but it has nothing to do with the legality of killing an enemy.
You're funny.
Member of Al Qaeda.
Fair game.
Period.
Authorization for the use of military force was passed by Congress, worldwide, Pub.L. 107-40, 2001.
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"
Al Qaeda as an organization planned, authorized and committed the attacks. Thus any member of Al Qaeda is legally fair game, WORLDWIDE. It is, quite literally, open season, with no bag limit.
Some are support personnel, like him. Did Goebbels ever engage in active battle? No. Was he a legitimate enemy target? Yes.
Our former soldiers working in the SS were also legitimate targets. One specific case was an American deserter in an SS propaganda -- not combat -- unit. Legitimate target with the rest of his unit.
I'll type very slowly for the logically impaired:
- In military conflict the enemy is a legitimate target (kind of the point)
- Al Qaeda is the enemy in this military conflict
- This guy was a member of Al Qaeda
- Thus, this guy was a legitimate target
Very simple. These are the rules of war.
This isn't about guilty or not. Are we currently in armed hostilities with Al Qaeda? Yes. Is he fighting on the side of Al Qaeda? Yes. Then he is a legitimate target. We never consider that an enemy soldier or leader is guilty or not guilty of anything during hostilities.
However, given that he is American, had he surrendered himself to civilian authorities, or had he survived until after hostilities and was captured, then precedent says he would have been tried for treason. However, just like declaration of war we never try anyone for treason anymore either (the last one being over 50 years ago despite dozens of examples of treasonous activity since).
We haven't had a declaration of war since 1942. After that, we had authorizations for the use of military force. Legally, it's the same thing since either way it's the approval of Congress.
But remember what I wrote earlier, a declaration of war is a declaration of the existence of armed hostilities. All the way back to our first war as a country, the War of 1812, armed hostilities had begun years before the actual declaration of war.
It's still a shooting war, different groups killing each other. Just because Al Qaeda isn't a country doesn't mean a war can't be fought with the group and its allies.
He allied with them, he is a valid target, pure and simple.
Then you might want to know that a declaration of war doesn't start a war. It is a recognition that a state of war already exists.
Would it have been wrong to kill them?
Special Forces in remote areas of Afghanistan for example.
They have to have something local, probably what they pay rent and payroll out of.
If you show up with a sheriff, you can seize anything they can't prove is rented, including any money in registers, probably even their cell phones if they're company-owned (which they probably are, they would want the phones to go as a business expense).
The big problem with companies like this is that they shut down and re-form often. His chance to collect has probably already gone away. I have no idea how to chase a claim in that case, probably need a lawyer, which isn't worth it.
You can put a lien on a bank account.