We know that the DoD is quite good at training it's soldiers not just in the ways of war and killing, but other useful skills that are often transferable to civilian life (depending on specialization)... tell me, how many kids has the Department of Education taught in it's history?
Same goes for just about all contracts... which can and often are modified by the courts in bankruptcy proceedings... unless you are the UAW that is... then somehow you and up at the top while secured creditors end up at the bottom.
Uhhh...what? I think you mean General Motors. And no, they are not owned by the US government
Um... did you miss the side bar?
Owner(s): -United States Department of the Treasury (61%) -United Auto Workers Union Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (17.5%) -Canada Development Investment Corporation (7.9%) -Government of Ontario (3.8%) -Bond holders of Motors Liquidation Company (9.8%)
If a 61% stake isn't ownership... I don't know what is!
> and next year they will make sure they will create corporations for the exclusive purpose of donating money to election campaigns
So you are only in favor of 'free speech' from certain types and shapes of groups of people? All one of those evil executives had to do to get involved in political speech prior to the Citizens United case was form or fund a PAC or other types of tax excempt group.
One of the effects of the CU case was that they no longer need to take that step.
Half true... there is also the issue of the platform given by their employer.
While we did see the likes of Olbermann & Mathews moderating a debate or two during the 2008 election cycle... I don't recall O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck or any of the other FNC commentators doing the same.
You've never heard of a closed shop, have you? They are plentiful in non 'right to work states'... and that ignores the whole 'card check' issue in Washington right now.
The union's got your back even if you don't want to pay dues (which are minimal),
Depends on the union and shop... in quite a few places because the union does the negotiations for wages (whether you like or not, wheather you are a member or not) may negotiate things in such a way that you are required to pay a 'fair share' fee to the union... often ~70% (which is the % for non-union teachers in MN when last I checked, as one example) of the total cost of dues to the union for members of it.
70% of full union dues is NOT minimal when you want nothing to do with said union.
Ahh such naivety... or a poor attempt at guilt by association.
Do you know anything about the Chinese Communist Party? Did you know that membership isn't always voluntary? A buddy of mine's wife *was* a member as well, she was automatically enrolled because of her academic standing years ago... and a couple of years back when they were working on a green card for her she willingly renounced her non-voluntary membership in it.
But even if such a fact is relevant... tell me, should just go out of their way to mention it? Or have they outright avoided saying such a thing when doing a story on the subject of his wife?
When it comes to relevancy... why is that anytime FNC does a story about anything owned by NewsCorp... they mention that it is the parent company of the station... or when discussing Rupert Murdoch they say that Rupert Murdoch is the CEO of NewsCorp, the parent company of this network... and yet not once when discussing the President (or most any other government official) on NBC or MSNBC have I heard a reporter say: "Barack Obama is the President of the United States, a major investor in the parent company of this network."
Odd that... tell me, who exactly has something to hide here?
But there you see the key difference between FNC & MSNBC... FNC clearly draws a line between it's reporters & commentators
Don't believe me? Look back to the 2008 presidential debates. Did you ever see Beck, O'Reilly, or Hannity (ie commentators) acting as a moderator or questioner during any debate? I do seem to recall Olbermann & Mathews doing so though while nearly simultaneously rooting for specific candidates. Nothing of that kind was seen from FNC reporters.
So what was your source that supported non-differentiation between the two categories?
My... source? My single source? Well, if I have to boil it down to just one (and discount any supporting evidence or writings)... I would go with reason based on history (for a start).
Given how explicit the Constitution is about some things... such as certain election processes or the Presidential oath of office... it seems odd that such an important thing such as declaring war is left so vague... that leaves two options either a) it is so well understood what the meaning was that no further expansion is necessary, or b) something that will be expanded upon by statute at a later time.
You would no doubt be quick to point out that A is the correct answer (which it is) and that it proves your case... only that assumes that declarations of war were at the time known and understood to be a written document which always contains the words "declaration of war" right up at the top... forgetting the meaning of the word declaration.
Now let's go back to the signing of the Constitution... do you think it was well understood that a formal declaration of war follow an exact format, starting with the title "Declaration of War"... or that it was simply understood and accepted that such a declaration have a few key parts... such as why you are initiating military force, against who, and possibly conditions for the ceasing of hostilities?
For simplicity, go back to the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier on Declaration of war and refer to the first sentence (emphasis mine):
A declaration of war (aka DOW, DoW) is a formal performative speech act or signing of a document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war between two or more nations.
Note 'speech act'... which means (in short) that such a declaration does not have to take the form of a written communication/act, but can be delivered not only verbally, but almost certainly entail the aspects I listed above... or do you wish to continue to claim that even that address/speech must contain the words "declaration of war" in that order?
More so... seems kind of odd, doesn't it, that it took until the 1907 Hague Convention before they formalized such a thing? Though even then... they didn't do that, did they? To quote Article 1 of Hague III:
Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.
More uses of the word 'declaration'... but still no definition of what constitutes 'declaration of war' is... now what is a declaration again? Oh yes... simply a formal (and usually public) statement... so based on a continued lack of formal and explicit definition of what exactly constitutes a 'declaration of war'... we are left with the need of a dictionary!
Declaration we've already defined, and war... well that's pretty self-explanatory... so together we have a formal statement (written or not) that a state of hostility (very possibly resulting in armed conflict) now exists between one nation/group and another.
But when it comes to something you can read... good chapter on a related subject in the book Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America when discussing the run-up to Iraq. Be warned though... the book reads like a legal brief (meticulously detailed and dry)... though that isn’t surprising given the aut
Again, the article itself is flawed because of the line I quoted above:
This article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.
They (like you) create a specific and admittedly arbitrary definition and go with it... however from a legal & historical basis it's a meaningless differentiation.
May I suggest reading something other than Wikipedia to support your assertions?
Um... did you even read the opening paragraph of that article?
There is a key sentence buried in the middle, allow me to copy & paste it here:
However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.
Now... contrast to what I said in my most recent post:
I'm still waiting for you to be very explicit as to what exactly is formally/legally required in an official declaration of war
Your referenced article doesn't lay out required specifics, does it? Now to answer that you could point to the end of that paragraph where they say:
This article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.
As that would seem to agree with your view... however it is an admittedly artificial limitation.
Perhaps you should expand your reading on the subject to a more slightly more broad view on what a declaration of war is.
Again, I'm still waiting for you to be very explicit as to what exactly is formally/legally required in an official declaration of war... because a quick reading of either authorization makes pretty clear that they are in fact declarations of war.
Not quite... such irregular force which we now called insurgents or 'illegal enemy combatants' were previously known by another term... 'spies and saboteurs'... in both cases were frequently simply executed on the battlefield if/when captured for their actions as they were doing so out of uniform... something that historically has offered a certain degree of protection (when captured).
Care to explain what exactly is required in a formal declaration of war? Or where said requirements have been codified in a mannor that is still relevant (ie the Hague Convention of 1907 has been usurped by things such as the UN charter).
I ask because a quick reading of the congressional authorizations of force with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq are de facto declarations of war... they just don't use the words 'declaration of war'.
Check your history... the string (singular) was found in FTP IIRC... the BSD based TCP stack was removed quite some time ago with a fully in-house written one (in time for NT 3.51)... something that was again re-written for Vista/2008.
Noting that an evil republican has AT&T (the PAC and its employees on their own) be #3 on his donors list makes him bad... but the fact that both the Telecom Services & Equipment AND Telephone Utilities (just to name a few industries) overwhelmingly has been giving to Democrats makes them... good? Or is that just not worthy of mentioning?
Slashdot Mirror
At the bottom of the page it clearly says:
Even when those investors... as a condition of their investment are promised that they will have first claim in the event the company goes belly up?
That is the idea behind being a 'secured creditor'... less risk.
We know that the DoD is quite good at training it's soldiers not just in the ways of war and killing, but other useful skills that are often transferable to civilian life (depending on specialization)... tell me, how many kids has the Department of Education taught in it's history?
Same goes for just about all contracts... which can and often are modified by the courts in bankruptcy proceedings... unless you are the UAW that is... then somehow you and up at the top while secured creditors end up at the bottom.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that it was the Republicans were the ones who misspelled the name of Rich Whitney on some machines?
Oh right... this is /.
Um... did you miss the side bar?
Owner(s):
-United States Department of the Treasury (61%)
-United Auto Workers Union Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (17.5%)
-Canada Development Investment Corporation (7.9%)
-Government of Ontario (3.8%)
-Bond holders of Motors Liquidation Company (9.8%)
If a 61% stake isn't ownership... I don't know what is!
Really? I've personally seen Windows run quite well on a box with 256 cores.
> and next year they will make sure they will create corporations for the exclusive purpose of donating money to election campaigns
So you are only in favor of 'free speech' from certain types and shapes of groups of people? All one of those evil executives had to do to get involved in political speech prior to the Citizens United case was form or fund a PAC or other types of tax excempt group.
One of the effects of the CU case was that they no longer need to take that step.
You really should look up the meaning of the word 'rich'... as I'm fairly sure it doesn't mean what you think it does.
High Income != Rich
Half true... there is also the issue of the platform given by their employer.
While we did see the likes of Olbermann & Mathews moderating a debate or two during the 2008 election cycle... I don't recall O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck or any of the other FNC commentators doing the same.
Care to support that assertion?
David Hoyle is... a Democrat
Somehow I suspect that if he was a Republican that would have been mentioned once or twice in the /. Story.
You've never heard of a closed shop, have you? They are plentiful in non 'right to work states'... and that ignores the whole 'card check' issue in Washington right now.
Depends on the union and shop... in quite a few places because the union does the negotiations for wages (whether you like or not, wheather you are a member or not) may negotiate things in such a way that you are required to pay a 'fair share' fee to the union... often ~70% (which is the % for non-union teachers in MN when last I checked, as one example) of the total cost of dues to the union for members of it.
70% of full union dues is NOT minimal when you want nothing to do with said union.
Ahh such naivety... or a poor attempt at guilt by association.
Do you know anything about the Chinese Communist Party? Did you know that membership isn't always voluntary? A buddy of mine's wife *was* a member as well, she was automatically enrolled because of her academic standing years ago... and a couple of years back when they were working on a green card for her she willingly renounced her non-voluntary membership in it.
But even if such a fact is relevant... tell me, should just go out of their way to mention it? Or have they outright avoided saying such a thing when doing a story on the subject of his wife?
When it comes to relevancy... why is that anytime FNC does a story about anything owned by NewsCorp... they mention that it is the parent company of the station... or when discussing Rupert Murdoch they say that Rupert Murdoch is the CEO of NewsCorp, the parent company of this network... and yet not once when discussing the President (or most any other government official) on NBC or MSNBC have I heard a reporter say: "Barack Obama is the President of the United States, a major investor in the parent company of this network."
Odd that... tell me, who exactly has something to hide here?
Really? I seem to recall Mika Brzezinski (if that is her real name) admitting that she was "working with the White House" on oil spill talking points
If that's not propaganda, I don't know what is!
But there you see the key difference between FNC & MSNBC... FNC clearly draws a line between it's reporters & commentators
Don't believe me? Look back to the 2008 presidential debates. Did you ever see Beck, O'Reilly, or Hannity (ie commentators) acting as a moderator or questioner during any debate? I do seem to recall Olbermann & Mathews doing so though while nearly simultaneously rooting for specific candidates. Nothing of that kind was seen from FNC reporters.
My... source? My single source? Well, if I have to boil it down to just one (and discount any supporting evidence or writings)... I would go with reason based on history (for a start).
Given how explicit the Constitution is about some things... such as certain election processes or the Presidential oath of office... it seems odd that such an important thing such as declaring war is left so vague... that leaves two options either a) it is so well understood what the meaning was that no further expansion is necessary, or b) something that will be expanded upon by statute at a later time.
You would no doubt be quick to point out that A is the correct answer (which it is) and that it proves your case... only that assumes that declarations of war were at the time known and understood to be a written document which always contains the words "declaration of war" right up at the top... forgetting the meaning of the word declaration.
I'll pause here as you look it up.
Now let's go back to the signing of the Constitution... do you think it was well understood that a formal declaration of war follow an exact format, starting with the title "Declaration of War"... or that it was simply understood and accepted that such a declaration have a few key parts... such as why you are initiating military force, against who, and possibly conditions for the ceasing of hostilities?
For simplicity, go back to the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier on Declaration of war and refer to the first sentence (emphasis mine):
Note 'speech act'... which means (in short) that such a declaration does not have to take the form of a written communication/act, but can be delivered not only verbally, but almost certainly entail the aspects I listed above... or do you wish to continue to claim that even that address/speech must contain the words "declaration of war" in that order?
More so... seems kind of odd, doesn't it, that it took until the 1907 Hague Convention before they formalized such a thing? Though even then... they didn't do that, did they? To quote Article 1 of Hague III:
More uses of the word 'declaration'... but still no definition of what constitutes 'declaration of war' is... now what is a declaration again? Oh yes... simply a formal (and usually public) statement... so based on a continued lack of formal and explicit definition of what exactly constitutes a 'declaration of war'... we are left with the need of a dictionary!
Declaration we've already defined, and war... well that's pretty self-explanatory... so together we have a formal statement (written or not) that a state of hostility (very possibly resulting in armed conflict) now exists between one nation/group and another.
But when it comes to something you can read... good chapter on a related subject in the book Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America when discussing the run-up to Iraq. Be warned though... the book reads like a legal brief (meticulously detailed and dry)... though that isn’t surprising given the aut
Again, the article itself is flawed because of the line I quoted above:
They (like you) create a specific and admittedly arbitrary definition and go with it... however from a legal & historical basis it's a meaningless differentiation.
May I suggest reading something other than Wikipedia to support your assertions?
Um... did you even read the opening paragraph of that article?
There is a key sentence buried in the middle, allow me to copy & paste it here:
Now... contrast to what I said in my most recent post:
Your referenced article doesn't lay out required specifics, does it? Now to answer that you could point to the end of that paragraph where they say:
As that would seem to agree with your view... however it is an admittedly artificial limitation.
Perhaps you should expand your reading on the subject to a more slightly more broad view on what a declaration of war is.
Again, I'm still waiting for you to be very explicit as to what exactly is formally/legally required in an official declaration of war... because a quick reading of either authorization makes pretty clear that they are in fact declarations of war.
Not quite... such irregular force which we now called insurgents or 'illegal enemy combatants' were previously known by another term... 'spies and saboteurs'... in both cases were frequently simply executed on the battlefield if/when captured for their actions as they were doing so out of uniform... something that historically has offered a certain degree of protection (when captured).
And the Taliban has made clear that they will be hunting down said informants.
> War was never declared
Care to explain what exactly is required in a formal declaration of war? Or where said requirements have been codified in a mannor that is still relevant (ie the Hague Convention of 1907 has been usurped by things such as the UN charter).
I ask because a quick reading of the congressional authorizations of force with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq are de facto declarations of war... they just don't use the words 'declaration of war'.
Check your history... the string (singular) was found in FTP IIRC... the BSD based TCP stack was removed quite some time ago with a fully in-house written one (in time for NT 3.51)... something that was again re-written for Vista/2008.
Noting that an evil republican has AT&T (the PAC and its employees on their own) be #3 on his donors list makes him bad... but the fact that both the Telecom Services & Equipment AND Telephone Utilities (just to name a few industries) overwhelmingly has been giving to Democrats makes them... good? Or is that just not worthy of mentioning?