A bill to raise minimum wage has been introduced by Democrats. But an exception to this bill is the US territory of American Samoa.
"Why" one might ask?
Because StarKist the tuna company has a factory on that island. But why does that make them special? Because their HQ is in the district of Nanci Pelosi who introduced that part of the bill.
Anyone who says that Democrats are "for the people" or "dont sell out to corporate interests" are full of horseshit. Both parties do it, both parties are guilty as hell, and BOTH parties should be barred from holding a majority of seats in the Congress.
This is the sort of shit that makes my blood boil! Anyone who voted for EITHER the Dems or the Reps is part of the problem and helps continue this corporate sell-out of the US. Remember, the government that governs the least, governs the best.
"Because you expect it from the Republicans."... Only if you are an uneducated, ignorant, biased, close-minded, partisan idiot.
A bill to raise minimum wage has been introduced by Democrats. But an exception to this bill is the US territory of American Samoa.
Why one might ask?
Because StarKist the tuna company has a factory on that island. But why does that make them special? Because their HQ is in the district of Nanci Pelosi who introduced that part of the bill.
Anyone who says that Democrats are "for the people" or "dont sell out to corporate interests" are full of horseshit. Both parties do it, both parties are guilty as hell, and BOTH parties should be barred from holding a majority of seats in the Congress.
This is the sort of shit that makes my blood boil! Anyone who voted for EITHER the Dems or the Reps is part of the problem and helps continue this corporate sell-out of the US. Remember, the government that governs the least, governs the best.
Of course there is nothing wrong with sex or nudity. A large majority of Americans however do believe that it is sacred and is only acceptable within the confines of marriage.
You and I agree, but are splitting hairs. Rights are derived from property - ownership over one's body. Ownership over one's land. Ownership over one's personal possessions. Previous to the DoI the King owned our bodies and our possessions because we were subject to him. Essentially the DoI proclaimed that each human is born a sovereign individual either by Nature or by God and really bypasses any higher authority.
If we don't own our own bodies, then we can't do whatever we want with them - including smoking, drinking, eating trans-fat, etc. That is the problem we are having now is that the government or 'nanny state' is trying to own our bodies for us so that they can tell us what we can and cannot consume.
Rights are inherent in property. If you possesses property, real property, or personal property, you have sovereign individual rights given to you by either God, or the Universe/Nature (choose your poison).
You touch on somewhat of a point here that MANY people take for granted. When people give up their rights to their own property, such as their own land or bodies, for a bit of security or safety, then they no longer have some rights. For example if society wants to trade their right to pollute their body (think smoking, trans fat, alcohol etc)in favor of the government providing health care, then society at large has surrendered their rights over their own property (their individual bodies). Once WE, as in "THE PEOPLE", begin to accept government handouts then we become subject to many many rules and stipulations that trample our natural rights. For a prime example look how the States are forced into rules such as Federally mandated drinking and smoking laws because they are given highway funds from the Fed and threatened to lose those funds if they want to self-govern.
Fortunately here in the US we are founded on the rule of law as a republic which says Americans can NOT give away their rights no matter what. Unfortunately the government and People seem to be ignoring the Constitution and circumventing those rules anyway, thus surrendering our rights.
You can find some more fascinating videos on the Net about this and of course other topics to read. YouTube/Google has videos of Michael Badnarik discussing the subject, and www.cato.org probably has some basic primers on classical liberalism, libertarianism, and self-determination.
Well - if the island is formed close to another chain of islands, whoever lays claim to the original chain, probably by default has claim to the new one simply due to proximity.
However being able to occupy and defend this island is only part of the ability to claim it, because the governing organization of the island must also be recognized by other governments as being the official governing body for that area of land. Anyone can say they are an independent sovereign nation-state, but even if they have the guns to back it up, it doesn't do much good unless they are recognized by other sovereign states.
Since this is NOT the first time in history that a volcano has produced a new island, I am willing to bet that there is either previous common law on the subject, or there are treaties that have been signed by the majority of states on this specific issue. Any international attorneys in the house?
THANK YOU for posting this. I am surprised it took this long for someone to mention this.
Since in when in the hell does the Federal government get to decide how my neighborhood gets wired?!?! And where is this written out? I don't see 'utility regulation' in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution - powers delegated to Congress.
I would like to see every law passed in Congress have a subsection in which it documents HOW it is tied to Article 1 Section 8.
Essentially the judge will look at the case in the light of 'causing confusion in the marketplace'. In other words, the entire goal of trademarks is to PREVENT confusion in the free market. If the judge finds the current domain name to be causing confusion, then he could potentially rule that it is to be surrendered to MGM. Who knows how it will go? That's why it pays to have a good attorney that can make a convincing case before a judge.
The issue here is the government is much larger than it should be.
Government really shouldn't do research unless it is military based in most cases. For the majority of instances private industry can do tasks including research better than the government can.
Private industry is also much less susceptible to the political winds that exist in governmental operations.
Democracy is where people can vote to take other people's property. In other words, if there are 10 neighbors and they all vote to take one of their neighbor's property, then in a democracy they can do that. It's been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
As already pointed out, that's why in a Constitutional Republic the 'rule of law' is paramount. The worst violators of the rule of law were Lincoln, Teddy, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and Bush.
"Attacking a sovereign country for no reason, and lying about it"
We don't know that he lied, and I am sure there was a reason (think Israel).
But you are pretty much correct on everything else. The Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. That's why I'm voting Libertarian whenever possible.
Airlines are going bankrupt because they were "protected" and "propped-up" by the Gov for decades. Now that they are in the free market, those that are not profitable, are being forced to close their doors. That's how the free market works, but in the end, the consumer DOES win due to lower prices.
I think what you mean is that there are 1/3rd as many MAJOR carriers, and that might be true. However the amount of smaller airlines and regionals have increased exponentially. And of course there are many more choices of airlines overall and tickets are much cheaper.
And regarding the ashtray comment, the FAA bans smoking on all flights in/within the US. I don't think all countries do that. In other words, I think it is still perfectly legal to smoke on flights in and out of the UK for example, or some other European countries perhaps. Either way, why make planes without ashtrays if it is possible that they will be sold to an airline that allows smoking? Therefore, your comment equating the age of the aircraft to whether or not it has ashtrays is nonsense.
A "recording artist" is not the same thing as a "songwriter". In many cases, they are indeed one and the same person, but the royalty structure are different for each position. The songwriter gets a royalty from a publisher or performing rights org (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC), and the performing artist gets royalties from the music label (usually a member of the RIAA).
As an audio engineer, someone who lives in Nashville, and has a degree in the study of the Industry, the majority of any artist's income is their live performances. Most artists do not make a dime on their recorded music, the top 20 of course being the exception.
If I had to guess Metallica probably has a gross income of between 500k- $1 million per concert including the guarantee and merchandise. A full-time touring act will make a LOT more money on their live shows than income from recorded music, possibly by an order of magnitude.
Slashdot Mirror
A bill to raise minimum wage has been introduced by Democrats. But an exception to this bill is the US territory of American Samoa.
9 873
"Why" one might ask?
Because StarKist the tuna company has a factory on that island. But why does that make them special? Because their HQ is in the district of Nanci Pelosi who introduced that part of the bill.
Anyone who says that Democrats are "for the people" or "dont sell out to corporate interests" are full of horseshit. Both parties do it, both parties are guilty as hell, and BOTH parties should be barred from holding a majority of seats in the Congress.
This is the sort of shit that makes my blood boil! Anyone who voted for EITHER the Dems or the Reps is part of the problem and helps continue this corporate sell-out of the US. Remember, the government that governs the least, governs the best.
Don't believe me? Look here:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&n...&ncl=111256
"Because you expect it from the Republicans." ... Only if you are an uneducated, ignorant, biased, close-minded, partisan idiot.
9 873
A bill to raise minimum wage has been introduced by Democrats. But an exception to this bill is the US territory of American Samoa.
Why one might ask?
Because StarKist the tuna company has a factory on that island. But why does that make them special? Because their HQ is in the district of Nanci Pelosi who introduced that part of the bill.
Anyone who says that Democrats are "for the people" or "dont sell out to corporate interests" are full of horseshit. Both parties do it, both parties are guilty as hell, and BOTH parties should be barred from holding a majority of seats in the Congress.
This is the sort of shit that makes my blood boil! Anyone who voted for EITHER the Dems or the Reps is part of the problem and helps continue this corporate sell-out of the US. Remember, the government that governs the least, governs the best.
Don't believe me? Look here:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&n...&ncl=111256
Of course there is nothing wrong with sex or nudity. A large majority of Americans however do believe that it is sacred and is only acceptable within the confines of marriage.
You and I agree, but are splitting hairs. Rights are derived from property - ownership over one's body. Ownership over one's land. Ownership over one's personal possessions. Previous to the DoI the King owned our bodies and our possessions because we were subject to him. Essentially the DoI proclaimed that each human is born a sovereign individual either by Nature or by God and really bypasses any higher authority.
If we don't own our own bodies, then we can't do whatever we want with them - including smoking, drinking, eating trans-fat, etc. That is the problem we are having now is that the government or 'nanny state' is trying to own our bodies for us so that they can tell us what we can and cannot consume.
Three words "dead polar bears!" ha ha !
No seriously - a baby seal walked into a club...
"Manchurian Candidate"?
Rights are inherent in property. If you possesses property, real property, or personal property, you have sovereign individual rights given to you by either God, or the Universe/Nature (choose your poison).
You touch on somewhat of a point here that MANY people take for granted. When people give up their rights to their own property, such as their own land or bodies, for a bit of security or safety, then they no longer have some rights. For example if society wants to trade their right to pollute their body (think smoking, trans fat, alcohol etc)in favor of the government providing health care, then society at large has surrendered their rights over their own property (their individual bodies). Once WE, as in "THE PEOPLE", begin to accept government handouts then we become subject to many many rules and stipulations that trample our natural rights. For a prime example look how the States are forced into rules such as Federally mandated drinking and smoking laws because they are given highway funds from the Fed and threatened to lose those funds if they want to self-govern.
Fortunately here in the US we are founded on the rule of law as a republic which says Americans can NOT give away their rights no matter what. Unfortunately the government and People seem to be ignoring the Constitution and circumventing those rules anyway, thus surrendering our rights.
You can find some more fascinating videos on the Net about this and of course other topics to read. YouTube/Google has videos of Michael Badnarik discussing the subject, and www.cato.org probably has some basic primers on classical liberalism, libertarianism, and self-determination.
such as "How to get a girl to drink it with you?!" or "how to kiss a girl on NYE and NOT get slapped?!"
Well - if the island is formed close to another chain of islands, whoever lays claim to the original chain, probably by default has claim to the new one simply due to proximity.
0 .html
However being able to occupy and defend this island is only part of the ability to claim it, because the governing organization of the island must also be recognized by other governments as being the official governing body for that area of land. Anyone can say they are an independent sovereign nation-state, but even if they have the guns to back it up, it doesn't do much good unless they are recognized by other sovereign states.
Since this is NOT the first time in history that a volcano has produced a new island, I am willing to bet that there is either previous common law on the subject, or there are treaties that have been signed by the majority of states on this specific issue. Any international attorneys in the house?
A few sources of information of relevant subjects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_republic (Key West, FL ceding from the USA)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,36749,0
http://www.havenco.com/
And that's exactly why I vote Libertarian!
The scary part is that not only are many people that stupid, but that they also vote too!
THANK YOU for posting this. I am surprised it took this long for someone to mention this.
Since in when in the hell does the Federal government get to decide how my neighborhood gets wired?!?! And where is this written out? I don't see 'utility regulation' in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution - powers delegated to Congress.
I would like to see every law passed in Congress have a subsection in which it documents HOW it is tied to Article 1 Section 8.
This reminds me of the old joke:
Q - How is being an OB/GYN and a pizza delivery boy the same?
A - They can both smell it, but can't eat it!
It's all about US trademark law.
Essentially the judge will look at the case in the light of 'causing confusion in the marketplace'. In other words, the entire goal of trademarks is to PREVENT confusion in the free market. If the judge finds the current domain name to be causing confusion, then he could potentially rule that it is to be surrendered to MGM. Who knows how it will go? That's why it pays to have a good attorney that can make a convincing case before a judge.
The issue here is the government is much larger than it should be.
Government really shouldn't do research unless it is military based in most cases. For the majority of instances private industry can do tasks including research better than the government can.
Private industry is also much less susceptible to the political winds that exist in governmental operations.
Democracy is where people can vote to take other people's property. In other words, if there are 10 neighbors and they all vote to take one of their neighbor's property, then in a democracy they can do that. It's been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
As already pointed out, that's why in a Constitutional Republic the 'rule of law' is paramount. The worst violators of the rule of law were Lincoln, Teddy, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and Bush.
"Attacking a sovereign country for no reason, and lying about it"
We don't know that he lied, and I am sure there was a reason (think Israel).
But you are pretty much correct on everything else. The Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. That's why I'm voting Libertarian whenever possible.
"Mid-Atlantic Commercial Spaceport...you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."
Airlines are going bankrupt because they were "protected" and "propped-up" by the Gov for decades. Now that they are in the free market, those that are not profitable, are being forced to close their doors. That's how the free market works, but in the end, the consumer DOES win due to lower prices.
I think what you mean is that there are 1/3rd as many MAJOR carriers, and that might be true. However the amount of smaller airlines and regionals have increased exponentially. And of course there are many more choices of airlines overall and tickets are much cheaper.
And regarding the ashtray comment, the FAA bans smoking on all flights in/within the US. I don't think all countries do that. In other words, I think it is still perfectly legal to smoke on flights in and out of the UK for example, or some other European countries perhaps. Either way, why make planes without ashtrays if it is possible that they will be sold to an airline that allows smoking? Therefore, your comment equating the age of the aircraft to whether or not it has ashtrays is nonsense.
Here is your answer:
0 8
http://opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B
(that site rocks!)
Well, when the industry was 'regulated' no one could compete on price. They had to compete purely on service.
Now because the industry is less regulated, you can get a ticket across the US for VERY cheap compared to 20-30 years ago.
Less government regulation is actually a good thing because it allows the free market to do its thing and uses capitalism as a vehicle for progress.
A "recording artist" is not the same thing as a "songwriter". In many cases, they are indeed one and the same person, but the royalty structure are different for each position. The songwriter gets a royalty from a publisher or performing rights org (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC), and the performing artist gets royalties from the music label (usually a member of the RIAA).
As an audio engineer, someone who lives in Nashville, and has a degree in the study of the Industry, the majority of any artist's income is their live performances. Most artists do not make a dime on their recorded music, the top 20 of course being the exception.
If I had to guess Metallica probably has a gross income of between 500k- $1 million per concert including the guarantee and merchandise. A full-time touring act will make a LOT more money on their live shows than income from recorded music, possibly by an order of magnitude.
the Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
I think you just described their platform.
Well those were the ideals that the country was founded on.