Because the TSA gave them all grants and spent $40 billion equipping police departments with APCs and machine guns so that they could be utilized during martial law.
What do you think police officers are? Where do you think police receive their authority? Some strange woman in a lake passing out badges?
ALL authority derives from the inherent natural right to live and defend one's self. Essentially, the issue comes about that humans are both passionate and fallable. So we have a tendency to make mistakes. And if you make such a mistake while meting out justic, it rather sucks.
So we ceded, for the benefit of our communal living states, that right to a collective authority. At first it was essentially sheriffs/constables/justices of the peace/elders/etc. These would judiciously decide a matter, and make a determination of guilt and a fair reparation.
As society grew, this authority needed to be further delegated and expanded. Hence more constables, and then eventually our modernized police force hired by a community at large to render service. In which regards, the actions of Oakland residents are in fact, no different than in the past.
Oakland residents could even choose to allow enforcement authority to be granted. They could go so far and even decide they want to succeed from Oakland and become their own independent community. I am sure Oakland would object. Perhaps send their unionized police force to enact thuggery on the independent community of OakSapling. In which case the community could acquiescence, or raise up arms in its unified defense.
But the truth is, vigilantism in and of itself is the purest form and right of law enforcement. Every other form, derives its authority from a collection of the individual's rights to vigilante justice or more simply put, individual justice..
I repeatedly see a misconception being repeatedly. How can a minority party hold the whole government hostage. I believe that most foreignors are unfamiliar with the structure of the U.S. government. We do NOT have a parlimentary style government. Much of the world has a parliment where the controlling party (or coalition) appoints the President/Premier, etc. Thus corresponding to the majority party.
The U.S. is rather different. We have the President, Senate and House of Representitives. And these loosely correspond to Prime Minister, House of Lords and House of Commons. However, in the U.S. the President does not have to come from the majority party. And at present, the House of Representatives (which most closely corresponds to the House of Commons) is held by the Republicans. This means that in the U.S., the Republicans are the closest to the majority party.
The President is a Democrat, and the Senate is essentially Democrat controlled.
President = Democrat
Senate = 55 Democrats/45 Republicans
House = 232 Republicans / 200 Democrats
In the House, the Republicans are the MAJORITY party. And if you base majority traditionally on who controls the "common house" of a government. The Republicans ARE the majority party. In the U.S., sole budgetary discretion lies with the House of Representatives. (Though some parlimentary tricks exist to side-step this, and in fact, that was how it was first passed.)
In fact, guess what the original name of Obamacare was? "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009", that is the bill that was passed. Then changed into Obamacare via a parlimentary trick.
At the time, the Democrats controlled the House 257 members to Republicans 178, a 79 member advantage. Following the passing of Obamacare, which upset a very large chunk of the American populace, the Democrats lost control of the House. The following term the balance of control was 193 Democrats to 242 Republicans, a 49 member advantage in favor of the Republicans.
Note, this was a shift of 129 seats in a body of 435. Literally 1/3 of the seats switched from Democrats to Republicans over the issue of the passage of Obamacare. That's a pretty huge, 30% shift. That's essentially a mandate. So the Republicans are now doing EXACTLY what they were elected to do.
Something to keep in mind. Is that one of the major issues with Obamacare was that it was passed when the Democrats had control of both houses and the presidency. The result is, that they did not compromise, they railroaded it through. And even then they had to use a parlimentary trick to get it passed.
So is it any wonder that it is causing problems today. Especially, as the Democrats have refused to cut spending and engage in any activity to work toward balancing the budget. Thus endangering the entire global economy.
See you're uneducated. A majority vote in the last government passed by a narrow one sided victory using a procedural loophole.
Now, that majority vote of the commons, which controls the purse has chosen simply not to fund that railroaded legislation because nearly half the nation hates the implementation.
You are confused because you think of parlimentary type governments. Where the President/Premier is derived from the majority party.
In America, the President can come from the minority party, while the House of Commons equivalent branch of government will be held in majority by a different party.
You will buy insurance, or be fined - up to thousands. You're going to be taxed 28% if you have good insurance. We passed this through a procedural hack where we create a law, pass it, then change it entirely and send back to the House. Then reconcile the bill. So that we don't need as many votes to pass it. And we did this essentially with a 50+1 majority.
Oh crap, it was so bad, we lost the House (commons), which controls the purse. They're using a procedural act to defund the legislation. Heck, they're not even trying to eradicate the whole thing. Just a few elements. And delay some things. (What's the big deal about delay, many elements don't go into effect until 2016 (after the President leaves office).
So nice to pass legislation that won't cause problems until you're OUT OF OFFICE.
That's part of the issue. The last government basically had a +1 majority. And railroaded a huge monstrous piece of legislation on the nation. And they did so without even having decided everything IN the bill using a procedural trick. The end result was they lost the elections in the commons. And in came a group with a mandate to reduce spending and curtail a bill that is poorly designed.
How poorly designed is it?
If you're working poor, in some states you could find yourself unable to qualify for subsidies, but being fined if you don't have insurance.
So like the procedural trick that passed the bill, a procedural trick is being used to defund the bill.
Oh, let me add, that this is not the minority. This is now the majority party of the house of commons.
***
Think of it this way.
Party one passes a monstrous bill by one vote. Party one loses the house of commons because of it. Party two now controls the house of commons, which controls the purse. Party two defunds the monstrous bill. All legal, procedural, and the way the system works.
I'd love to have dual booting cell phone. And I think this is a smart move on Microsoft's part.
When I tried three different phones, I have to admit that the Windows phone was very intuitive to use. Much much more so than the Android phones I tried. That said, I was worried about app availability.
I'd definitely be open to the option to dual boot.
First, this was a direct puncture by a piece of large metal debris. Not a design failure. The metal object likely caused a short and the resultant fire.
Second, from a number of articles and reports, Tesla's safety designs worked as planned. Numerous articles noted that the fire was contained in the front section of the vehicle where the impact occurred, and did not shift into the passenger compartment. This = GOOD!!!!
The firefighters pouring of water on a chemical fire likely exasperated the situation.
What Tesla should lean from this...
a) evaluate design to see if the front underguard can be further strengthened for greater resistance to impact and puncture with minimal affect on price and performance.
b) recognize the benefit of better trained fire departments, sell off some those stocks to found a non-profit with an endowment to help train nationally all fire departments in the handling of electric drive vehicle systems. Namely to utilize chemical extinguishers rather than water.
c) perhaps evaluate whether a small extinguishing system could be incorporated into the design. (BONUS POINTS)
Hey idiots, as I was a marine science major for 5 1/2 years. I'm kind of familiar with the two. And nothing in my post has any confusion on that fact.
Yes, Anarctica is a continent covered in ice and surrounded by more ice. Arctic is a big super iceberg floating at the top of the planet. But the truth is, that the article is postulating that wind blowing freezes more ice (usually true, especially if you've ever raced in the Boston Snow row in January - I have).
But you're making a couple of mistakes. First you wrongly misapplied a failing on my part that did not exist. Second, you seem to think that a huge mass of ice cannot act in a similar fashion as an ice covered continent and provide a barrier for strong winds to beat and pack ice against. It can. In fact it happens on much smaller scales.
Even in a harbor during winter when pack ice floating on the surface is pressed between the outgoing river flow and in-coming tidal flow. You essentially get a wall of packed together ice. Now this is on a very small scale. But it is the same fundamental process.
I am sorry that you guys got focused on a straw man. But my point still holds.
Um, did you read my post. I think it was clear that I was differentiating between the two. Hence, noting the lack of wind in the arctic and the need for big giant fans.;-)
Look up the meaning of variation. Prediction. Accuracy.
Both the weather and climate are vary and fluctuate greatly. Both are unpredictable. Both have a habit of showing mankind's predictions to always be wrong.
So wait, all this time I thought Global Warming and the melting of the arctic ice caps was due to CO2. But now I know, it's just the fact the northern hemisphere hasn't been very windy.
I mean if wind is responsible for 80% of the growth in the anarctic, then the arctic decline must be due to wind. If not, we can fix it by building huge fans in Alaska. Or just send all of the Tim Tebow and Miley Cyrus fans up that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the TSA gave them all grants and spent $40 billion equipping police departments with APCs and machine guns so that they could be utilized during martial law.
Many people with horribly crappy police departments pay far more in taxes than you probably do.
What do you think police officers are? Where do you think police receive their authority? Some strange woman in a lake passing out badges?
ALL authority derives from the inherent natural right to live and defend one's self. Essentially, the issue comes about that humans are both passionate and fallable. So we have a tendency to make mistakes. And if you make such a mistake while meting out justic, it rather sucks.
So we ceded, for the benefit of our communal living states, that right to a collective authority. At first it was essentially sheriffs/constables/justices of the peace/elders/etc. These would judiciously decide a matter, and make a determination of guilt and a fair reparation.
As society grew, this authority needed to be further delegated and expanded. Hence more constables, and then eventually our modernized police force hired by a community at large to render service. In which regards, the actions of Oakland residents are in fact, no different than in the past.
Oakland residents could even choose to allow enforcement authority to be granted. They could go so far and even decide they want to succeed from Oakland and become their own independent community. I am sure Oakland would object. Perhaps send their unionized police force to enact thuggery on the independent community of OakSapling. In which case the community could acquiescence, or raise up arms in its unified defense.
But the truth is, vigilantism in and of itself is the purest form and right of law enforcement. Every other form, derives its authority from a collection of the individual's rights to vigilante justice or more simply put, individual justice..
Wouldn't that in fact make wings into legs?
Interesting, sounds like what we need is a CO2 machine that will essentially freeze the CO2. Dry ice out the lithium fire.
Clearly I exacerbated your problem of correcting mistakes. My humble apologies for typing to quickly and not noticing my typos.
Figure at the point your car is on fire, the engine, and interior, are likely far less of a concern than one's posterior.
I repeatedly see a misconception being repeatedly. How can a minority party hold the whole government hostage. I believe that most foreignors are unfamiliar with the structure of the U.S. government. We do NOT have a parlimentary style government. Much of the world has a parliment where the controlling party (or coalition) appoints the President/Premier, etc. Thus corresponding to the majority party.
The U.S. is rather different. We have the President, Senate and House of Representitives. And these loosely correspond to Prime Minister, House of Lords and House of Commons. However, in the U.S. the President does not have to come from the majority party. And at present, the House of Representatives (which most closely corresponds to the House of Commons) is held by the Republicans. This means that in the U.S., the Republicans are the closest to the majority party.
The President is a Democrat, and the Senate is essentially Democrat controlled.
President = Democrat
Senate = 55 Democrats/45 Republicans
House = 232 Republicans / 200 Democrats
In the House, the Republicans are the MAJORITY party. And if you base majority traditionally on who controls the "common house" of a government. The Republicans ARE the majority party. In the U.S., sole budgetary discretion lies with the House of Representatives. (Though some parlimentary tricks exist to side-step this, and in fact, that was how it was first passed.)
In fact, guess what the original name of Obamacare was? "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009", that is the bill that was passed. Then changed into Obamacare via a parlimentary trick.
At the time, the Democrats controlled the House 257 members to Republicans 178, a 79 member advantage. Following the passing of Obamacare, which upset a very large chunk of the American populace, the Democrats lost control of the House. The following term the balance of control was 193 Democrats to 242 Republicans, a 49 member advantage in favor of the Republicans.
Note, this was a shift of 129 seats in a body of 435. Literally 1/3 of the seats switched from Democrats to Republicans over the issue of the passage of Obamacare. That's a pretty huge, 30% shift. That's essentially a mandate. So the Republicans are now doing EXACTLY what they were elected to do.
Something to keep in mind. Is that one of the major issues with Obamacare was that it was passed when the Democrats had control of both houses and the presidency. The result is, that they did not compromise, they railroaded it through. And even then they had to use a parlimentary trick to get it passed.
So is it any wonder that it is causing problems today. Especially, as the Democrats have refused to cut spending and engage in any activity to work toward balancing the budget. Thus endangering the entire global economy.
See you're uneducated. A majority vote in the last government passed by a narrow one sided victory using a procedural loophole.
Now, that majority vote of the commons, which controls the purse has chosen simply not to fund that railroaded legislation because nearly half the nation hates the implementation.
You are confused because you think of parlimentary type governments. Where the President/Premier is derived from the majority party.
In America, the President can come from the minority party, while the House of Commons equivalent branch of government will be held in majority by a different party.
You will buy insurance, or be fined - up to thousands. You're going to be taxed 28% if you have good insurance. We passed this through a procedural hack where we create a law, pass it, then change it entirely and send back to the House. Then reconcile the bill. So that we don't need as many votes to pass it. And we did this essentially with a 50+1 majority.
Oh crap, it was so bad, we lost the House (commons), which controls the purse. They're using a procedural act to defund the legislation. Heck, they're not even trying to eradicate the whole thing. Just a few elements. And delay some things. (What's the big deal about delay, many elements don't go into effect until 2016 (after the President leaves office).
So nice to pass legislation that won't cause problems until you're OUT OF OFFICE.
Cause there are many laws, including one to restore right to keep and bear arms. That are not implemented because they've been defunded.
Happens all the time. Oh guess what, this process is part of the LAW. So it's all according to the LAW>
That's part of the issue. The last government basically had a +1 majority. And railroaded a huge monstrous piece of legislation on the nation. And they did so without even having decided everything IN the bill using a procedural trick. The end result was they lost the elections in the commons. And in came a group with a mandate to reduce spending and curtail a bill that is poorly designed.
How poorly designed is it?
If you're working poor, in some states you could find yourself unable to qualify for subsidies, but being fined if you don't have insurance.
So like the procedural trick that passed the bill, a procedural trick is being used to defund the bill.
Oh, let me add, that this is not the minority. This is now the majority party of the house of commons.
***
Think of it this way.
Party one passes a monstrous bill by one vote.
Party one loses the house of commons because of it.
Party two now controls the house of commons, which controls the purse.
Party two defunds the monstrous bill. All legal, procedural, and the way the system works.
I'd love to have dual booting cell phone. And I think this is a smart move on Microsoft's part.
When I tried three different phones, I have to admit that the Windows phone was very intuitive to use. Much much more so than the Android phones I tried. That said, I was worried about app availability.
I'd definitely be open to the option to dual boot.
And tire rotation...
=)
First, this was a direct puncture by a piece of large metal debris. Not a design failure. The metal object likely caused a short and the resultant fire.
Second, from a number of articles and reports, Tesla's safety designs worked as planned. Numerous articles noted that the fire was contained in the front section of the vehicle where the impact occurred, and did not shift into the passenger compartment. This = GOOD!!!!
The firefighters pouring of water on a chemical fire likely exasperated the situation.
What Tesla should lean from this...
a) evaluate design to see if the front underguard can be further strengthened for greater resistance to impact and puncture with minimal affect on price and performance.
b) recognize the benefit of better trained fire departments, sell off some those stocks to found a non-profit with an endowment to help train nationally all fire departments in the handling of electric drive vehicle systems. Namely to utilize chemical extinguishers rather than water.
c) perhaps evaluate whether a small extinguishing system could be incorporated into the design. (BONUS POINTS)
a)
[R]ed Storm Rising
[I]nto the Storm
[P]atriot Games
Tom Clancy :'(
***
And lets not forget his depicting an aircraft being crashed into the capitol building years before it was attempted in real life.
Why our IRAs/401Ks perform so poorly. They're almost all invested and managed by over 65 folks.
No its not. By the time we get to vote for President we are given a choice of one of two pre-selected approved candidates.
Voting in America is akin to voting in the former Soviet Union.
They didn't need it, they were subcontracting their slavery and cotton production the American south.
Hey idiots, as I was a marine science major for 5 1/2 years. I'm kind of familiar with the two. And nothing in my post has any confusion on that fact.
Yes, Anarctica is a continent covered in ice and surrounded by more ice. Arctic is a big super iceberg floating at the top of the planet. But the truth is, that the article is postulating that wind blowing freezes more ice (usually true, especially if you've ever raced in the Boston Snow row in January - I have).
But you're making a couple of mistakes. First you wrongly misapplied a failing on my part that did not exist. Second, you seem to think that a huge mass of ice cannot act in a similar fashion as an ice covered continent and provide a barrier for strong winds to beat and pack ice against. It can. In fact it happens on much smaller scales.
Even in a harbor during winter when pack ice floating on the surface is pressed between the outgoing river flow and in-coming tidal flow. You essentially get a wall of packed together ice. Now this is on a very small scale. But it is the same fundamental process.
I am sorry that you guys got focused on a straw man. But my point still holds.
Um, did you read my post. I think it was clear that I was differentiating between the two. Hence, noting the lack of wind in the arctic and the need for big giant fans. ;-)
You "twerk" the truth brother....
Look up the meaning of variation. Prediction. Accuracy.
Both the weather and climate are vary and fluctuate greatly. Both are unpredictable. Both have a habit of showing mankind's predictions to always be wrong.
I'd settle for predicting the weather 5 days out. I am lucky if they can get it right two days out.
You are not winning your argument here.
So wait, all this time I thought Global Warming and the melting of the arctic ice caps was due to CO2. But now I know, it's just the fact the northern hemisphere hasn't been very windy.
I mean if wind is responsible for 80% of the growth in the anarctic, then the arctic decline must be due to wind. If not, we can fix it by building huge fans in Alaska. Or just send all of the Tim Tebow and Miley Cyrus fans up that way.