In several languages, associative arrays are used for modt things. Perl calls them hashes, PHP calls them arrays, and both languages tend to see them overused. I strongly suspect that most programmers using them have no idea how these data structures work internally, so they don't really know when or how to best use them. C programmers will tend to understand how the data structures and which other types of structures are better suited for a particular use. A single C program may use a queue, a doubly-linked list, and several arrays. The JavaScript, PHP, or Perl version will probably use an associative array for all three cases. Heck, in Perl OBJECTS are normally associative arrays (hashes) which have been blessed as a particular class.
We got rid of the tax-and-spend bums yesterday. Starting in January, we'll have another type of bums in Washington. With this type, we can expect economic improvement - more business being done, and thus more jobs and *gasp* profit from the stuff those jobs produce.
You're certain that you are aboce average? Studies show that the less capable someone is, the more they are sure of themselves.
Only applies to others
Most certainly it applies to me as well. Of course, I'm aware of the fact that I type sloppily on Slashdot. I learned a long time ago that my Slashdot posts won't get me a better job or any other benefit, so there is nothing to gain by being more careful than is necessary to be readable, without to much effort on the part of the reader.
One of my own "faults" is that I tend not to do anything that I'm not going to do quite well, meaning I don't get things done, including important things. Very often, I would have been better off doing $it half-ass, but I didn't do it at all because I didn't have time, skill, or inclination to do it well. Tis better to be dressed poorly than to not be dressed at all.:)
> I'm merely saying that over the years, we've chosen the expedient route to fixing our legislative problems > (generous judicial interpretation of written law) instead of one that is consistent with our stated ideals (amending the constitution). >... > If we don't like what our constitution says, we'd be better off amending it than ignoring it.
The enumerated powers have been ignored and the interstate commerce clause stretched to cover people growing their own food, for their home consumption, in their own garden. (The wheat cases, etc.)
Also, two other things are clear. It is clear that rights sometimes conflict. My freedom of speech can not include using a megaphone outside your bedroom at 3 AM. I don't know that we want to cover the details of each case in the Constitution, making it several thousand pages long. Thus, we can, without defining the precise limits in every situation, know that no right is absolute - my right to swing my fists ends at your nose.
The statement I just made must not be to generously applied, however - it comes into play only when there is a genuine conflict of _rights_. Specifically, democracy without individual rights would mean that the law is whatever the majority wish it to be. The unique feature of rights is that they exist and must be protected EVEN WHEN THE MAJORITY PREFERS OTHERWISE. That is to say, freedom of speech can never be only the freedom to say things that aren't offensive. My rights extend to the point where they interfere with your _rights_, they do not end where they interfere with your _preferences_.
There certainly are a lot of people in the industry who _think_ they're good. In general, about 75% of people think they are above average for any given skill or ability. I'd guess that 85% of programmers think so. That means there is a high likelihood that you, dear reader, are actually below average. You're certain that you are aboce average? Studies show that the less capable someone is, the more they are sure of themselves.
I had one applicant tell me he had experience with C, C+, and C++. Orly. I'm currently working on a fairly well known code base in which the (experienced) developers take great pride in the quality of their work. I'm ripping out a LOT of code, replacing 500 lines that seem to work most of the with 35 lines that do the same thing, but more correctly. There's a lot of crap code being written by experienced developers, people who have simply been doing it wrong for 15 years rather than constantly improving. That's really easy to do even if you're learning- if you're learning new things, new languages and technologies, rather than learning to get really good at the language you use every day.
When I say these things, people sometimes ask of I think I'm really good. I've talked to people better than me (Ralf Engelschal, Ted T'so) and I've talked to people less knowledgeable than me. I could rate myself an 8.5, but Knuth would rate 312, so whatever.
Yes, I (and anyone with a clue) will tell you that the three largest cities in Libya are controlled by people the military considers their enemy, to the extent anyone has control in those areas. Nobody has the ability to effectively enforce laws which govern people's private lives in those cities.
If Libya is your example of what the US military could do, you've just defeated your own argument. Now you have a choice. Having proven your old idea wrong, you can learn something from this line of thinking, or you can willfully choose to be ignorant. Your call.
You've argued that the US military could control the US people and enforce unconstitutional dictates, so that's exactly the examples you need - cases where the military turned against their own people and successfully controlled their day-to-day lives for an extended period of time.
If a military turned against it's own people and several years later that military still doesn't have control of the three largest cities, that's yet another example showing the military is INcapable of controlling the people. (hint - Tripoli, Benghazi, and Misrata)
You may find an example where the military successfully controlled, for a time, a people who had previously turned over their arms peacefully. I don't think you'll find any cases in which a military successfully controlled an armed populace.
> However, this seems to be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. You say that in order to enter into a common law marriages, two criteria must be met, one of which is potentially the filing of taxes as a "married" couple.
Filing taxes as married is only one of many examples. Another example I gave is having a joint checking account, particularly if you deposit the entirety of your paychecks there, meaning you treat all of your money as community property. Another is being faithful to one another. If you have a kid together, that's something that married people do. Buying a house together is another example. Another is using the same last name. So there are many ways to get there.
However, I don't see any useful purpose to be served by trying to create a common-law marriage. It seems you want the government to treat you as married (for tax purposes), but not treat you as married (for some other purpose). Nah. If you want the government to treat you as married, simply go fill in the form saying you're married.
The usefulness of having the government recognize common-law marriage is generally when looking at things in the past tense - having the court recgonize that you WERE married at some point in the past. The founder of Maglite, Anthony Maglica, is a good example. When they split up, his wife/girlfriend of 20 years, Claire Maglica, sued for her half of the money. He argued that they were never married. She pointed out that for 20 years he went around introducing her as "my wife", and she'd long been using the name Claire Maglica. She won, the appeals court ordered a new trial, and they settled for $29 million.
Regardless of which side of the gun argument one may support, we should all agree on one thing.
The second amendment, as written, ensures that government cannot limit the right of private citizens to possess nuclear warheads. This is undesirable. In the spirit of rule of law, we should repeal this amendment and replace it with one that does not have such undesirable outcomes (as opposed to the much more convenient approach we've opted for instead: merely ignoring it).
I agree we should not ignore it. Rather, if we feel it must be changed, there is a process in place to change it.
Unfortunately, we do not agree that it limits, or allows, anything in particular. Liberals believe that the second amendment means essentially nothing. By ignoring the plain words "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms", ignoring the difference between a dependent clause and an independent clause, and ignoring the definition of the word "militia", and ignoring the context in which it appears, they claim it means that the government has the right to bear arms. Which is funny, because the Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights which the government "may not infringe". ("What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials" - Mason, convention on ratifying the Constitution).
Some conservatives also would argue that it doesn't mean they have the right to own nuclear weapons, for several reasons:
a) You may not legally possess Pu-239 at all without license, weaponized or not. Nuclear power stations require years of approvals. A restriction on dangerous radioactive substances may well be fully legal, regardless of it's side-effects on what would otherwise be a legal activity.
b) Freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. No right is absolute, all are limited at the point where they affect others. "One man's right to swing his fists ends at another man's nose". If my neighbor merely possesses dangerous radioactive materials, my safety is threatened, so his right must be limited to preserve mine, and vice versa.
c) Possibly the most important consideration when interpreting the full implications of a short phrase is to look at it's purpose. Any "interpretation" which castrates it's stated purpose is invalid, any interpretation which accomplishes the stated purpose may be effective. The stated purpose is to maintain the security of the free states - in other words, to avoid having anyone take away our freedoms. If the local drug lord were allowed to have nuclear weapons, that would REDUCE security and freedom, not protect it. Therefore, such an interpretation is at odds with the stated purpose and therefore incorrect.
Considered married. You are considered married for the whole year if, on the last day of your tax year, you and your spouse meet any one of the following tests.
You are married and living together as a married couple.
You are living together in a common law marriage recognized in the state where you now live or in the state where the common law marriage began.
You said "my girlfriend and I". You did not say "my wife and I". If you do not consider yourself to be married, do not lie on your tax forms and claim that you are. That would be tax fraud. File as married only if you consider yourself to be married, you tell other people you're married, and your state recognizes common-law marriage. (Even at that, if you're married, you may as well take a few minutes to file the paperwork with the state.)
So in other words, no, you don't have a single example of the US military EVER having control over any population, yet you're sure they could control the day-to-day lives of the US population. Further, you suggest that the only way they could control a population would be to "let loose to engage in full-scale warfare" against the American public.
Do you expect that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen will wage "full-scale warfare" against their own families? No? So then they wouldn't be able to control what their families and mine do on a day-to-day basis, would they?
In this thread you haven't mentioned anywhere that the US military has effective control of people's daily lives. If you've done so in any other thread, please provide the link (or just name the country).
You're suggesting that the US won in Vietnam? And that we effectively have control of the daily activities of the local population in Iraq?
> We have never been let loose to engage North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan ISIS, in full-scale warfare.
Which is all quite irrelevant, because the topic is the US military going to war against the US population, not North Korea's military. Please try to follow your own thread - your claim is that the US military can and will use aircraft carriers and cruise missiles to subdue the local US population and enforce a president's unconstitutional dictates. This has nothing to do with one military fighting another. It has to do with your claim that the US military can control the day-to-day activities of the American people.
I've given some examples of the US military and the USSR military being unable to effectively exercise general police power - the ability to control the day-to-day lives of local populations. If you have a counter-example, please cite it.
I keep hearing about "women in technology " and such on Slashdot. Is there some new programming language or something that involves the worker using their genitals to do the job? Something new that makes one's crotch relevant in IT?
> The US government has enjoyed exponential growth in weaponry sophistication what with smart bombs, night vision, drones, attack ships, fighter jets, napalm, and a holy host of others
Sophisticated US aircraft, navy ships, etc fought vs small arms many times, from Vietnam to Iraq. The results have been fairly consistent - missiles cannot control the local population. An armed populace beats a superpower military every time, from USSR-Afghanistan to US-Iraq. That's because the locals don't need to destroy the aircraft carrier or the country sending it, they only need to keep doing what they do in their own private homes. If soldiers raid homes looking for "illicit" material, simple booby traps put an end to that after a while.
The US military COULD carpet bomb the US and destroy it, if soldiers and airmen were robots, but nobody would ever want to do that. There's no need to protect the population against our own cruise missiles. The idea is that groups of citizens can protect themselves feom soldiers regularly entering homes to enforce the dictatorial president's will. Small arms have been proven to be very effective for that.
That's a fair criticism of the consistency of Republican (and democrat) policy as passed by Congress. The Patriot Act is inconsistent with limited government and I'ved called out my (republican) congressman on that when he was on the radio, and on his Facebook page.
It is perhaps also fair to point out that while congress-critters from both parties voted for it, few average Americans support it. In other words, neither Democrats nor Republicans support it, their politicians do.
Lastly, it may be interesting to note that because the bill was so huge, nobody has read it, leading to massive misinformation about it from every direction.
Eight years ago, the unemployment rate was 4.5%, so it would be great to return to that. (It's averaged about 8% over Obama's tenure.), Unemployment has ALWAYS improved during every period of Republican control of the Senate.
Until Bush Jr's final year, economic growth had always improved under every republican president's budgets since the great depression. It's always gotten worse under every democrat president. You can legitimately disagree with republicans on social issues; the clear fact is that the economy consistently does better under republicans, and always has. Saying that republicans are bad for the economy is like calling democrats war-mongers- ot flies in the face of obvious facts.
Would that also include subpoenas of all sermons in Houston, Tx that mentioned either gay marriage or a certain city official? I suppose you have a point.
You used the word "feel" twice to describe your positions. You didn't say "what I think" about the issues. Many people may do more thinking about the issues as opposed to feeling and thereby end up with a consistent set of thoughts. As an example, if you think that "we" should fix things and that federal government is the appropriate instrument of "we", that'll be consistent and you'll think that the federal government should do all sorts of things - you'll be a Democrat. If you think that the federal government should stick to what the Constitution authorizes them to do, or that they tend to screw up, you will conclude that they shouldn't do many of the things Democrats want them to do - you'll be a Republican.
The first amendment is one notable thing where this doesn't hold true, however. On that, the parties are inconsistent with their systems of thought.
The Republicans will have control of Congress on January 3rd and get to work cleaning things up. Some of what they clean up may be mess you'd prefer to sweep under the rug, or stuff you'd rather leave alone.
There's some local variation, but not nearly as much as popular misconception would have you believe. It's called COMMON law for a reason, after all. This is the law as commonly applied by many courts over hundreds of years.
The other type of law is statutory law. Different jurisdictions have different statutes regarding controversial topics. (They tend to use codes and model statutes for non-controversial topics.) The statutes generally codifyan official way of getting married and registering that marriage with the state; a marriage license and such. The common law, including common law marriage, is concerned with fair ways of dealing with actual facts, using principles of fairness developed over hundreds of years. This is largely separate from the written statutes. Local statutes will specify how you can get an official piece of paper saying that you're married, and thatvaries from place to place. Common law deals with people who are _in_fact_ a family, regardless if what Abby piece if paper says. Much of common law was decided in thirteenth century England, so it was already decided before your city existed.
I mean, would two non-gay roommates end up in a "common law" marriage now if they live together for long enough?
Common law marriages are idiotic to begin with. They shouldn't assume that just because you lived together with someone for X amount of time, that you're together.
That's a bit of an urban legend. The first requirement for common law marriage is that you hold yourself out as husband and wife over an extended period of time - that you go around introducing her as "my wife" and she says things like "my husband bought...". This indicates that the couple has decided that they are married.
The second requirement is that they live together as husband and wife. Examples of living as husband and wife include things like having a joint checking account or filling taxes as "married".
Note that BOTH requirements have to be met - the couple has to go around saying they are married (proving they've decided to be married) AND they have to actually do so - actually do the things married people do. If a couple decides to be married and they do so for a long time, the court will simply recognize what already is true. So for example when one dies, their spouse will have rights to the property, because they did in fact live their lives as a marriage - not as roommates.
Slashdot Mirror
In several languages, associative arrays are used for modt things. Perl calls them hashes, PHP calls them arrays, and both languages tend to see them overused. I strongly suspect that most programmers using them have no idea how these data structures work internally, so they don't really know when or how to best use them. C programmers will tend to understand how the data structures and which other types of structures are better suited for a particular use. A single C program may use a queue, a doubly-linked list, and several arrays. The JavaScript, PHP, or Perl version will probably use an associative array for all three cases. Heck, in Perl OBJECTS are normally associative arrays (hashes) which have been blessed as a particular class.
We got rid of the tax-and-spend bums yesterday. Starting in January, we'll have another type of bums in Washington. With this type, we can expect economic improvement - more business being done, and thus more jobs and *gasp* profit from the stuff those jobs produce.
That post is apparently self-proving. TOO much effort ...
You're certain that you are aboce average? Studies show that the less capable someone is, the more they are sure of themselves.
Only applies to others
Most certainly it applies to me as well. Of course, I'm aware of the fact that I type sloppily on Slashdot. I learned a long time ago that my Slashdot posts won't get me a better job or any other benefit, so there is nothing to gain by being more careful than is necessary to be readable, without to much effort on the part of the reader.
One of my own "faults" is that I tend not to do anything that I'm not going to do quite well, meaning I don't get things done, including important things. Very often, I would have been better off doing $it half-ass, but I didn't do it at all because I didn't have time, skill, or inclination to do it well. Tis better to be dressed poorly than to not be dressed at all. :)
I most whole-heartedly agree with your point:
> I'm merely saying that over the years, we've chosen the expedient route to fixing our legislative problems ...
> (generous judicial interpretation of written law) instead of one that is consistent with our stated ideals (amending the constitution).
>
> If we don't like what our constitution says, we'd be better off amending it than ignoring it.
The enumerated powers have been ignored and the interstate commerce clause stretched to cover people growing their own food, for their home consumption, in their own garden. (The wheat cases, etc.)
Also, two other things are clear. It is clear that rights sometimes conflict. My freedom of speech can not include using a megaphone outside your bedroom at 3 AM. I don't know that we want to cover the details of each case in the Constitution, making it several thousand pages long. Thus, we can, without defining the precise limits in every situation, know that no right is absolute - my right to swing my fists ends at your nose.
The statement I just made must not be to generously applied, however - it comes into play only when there is a genuine conflict of _rights_. Specifically, democracy without individual rights would mean that the law is whatever the majority wish it to be. The unique feature of rights is that they exist and must be protected EVEN WHEN THE MAJORITY PREFERS OTHERWISE. That is to say, freedom of speech can never be only the freedom to say things that aren't offensive. My rights extend to the point where they interfere with your _rights_, they do not end where they interfere with your _preferences_.
There certainly are a lot of people in the industry who _think_ they're good. In general, about 75% of people think they are above average for any given skill or ability. I'd guess that 85% of programmers think so. That means there is a high likelihood that you, dear reader, are actually below average. You're certain that you are aboce average? Studies show that the less capable someone is, the more they are sure of themselves.
I had one applicant tell me he had experience with C, C+, and C++. Orly. I'm currently working on a fairly well known code base in which the (experienced) developers take great pride in the quality of their work. I'm ripping out a LOT of code, replacing 500 lines that seem to work most of the with 35 lines that do the same thing, but more correctly. There's a lot of crap code being written by experienced developers, people who have simply been doing it wrong for 15 years rather than constantly improving. That's really easy to do even if you're learning- if you're learning new things, new languages and technologies, rather than learning to get really good at the language you use every day.
When I say these things, people sometimes ask of I think I'm really good. I've talked to people better than me (Ralf Engelschal, Ted T'so) and I've talked to people less knowledgeable than me. I could rate myself an 8.5, but Knuth would rate 312, so whatever.
Yes, I (and anyone with a clue) will tell you that the three largest cities in Libya are controlled by people the military considers their enemy, to the extent anyone has control in those areas. Nobody has the ability to effectively enforce laws which govern people's private lives in those cities.
If Libya is your example of what the US military could do, you've just defeated your own argument. Now you have a choice. Having proven your old idea wrong, you can learn something from this line of thinking, or you can willfully choose to be ignorant. Your call.
You've argued that the US military could control the US people and enforce unconstitutional dictates, so that's exactly the examples you need - cases where the military turned against their own people and successfully controlled their day-to-day lives for an extended period of time.
If a military turned against it's own people and several years later that military still doesn't have control of the three largest cities, that's yet another example showing the military is INcapable of controlling the people. (hint - Tripoli, Benghazi, and Misrata)
You may find an example where the military successfully controlled, for a time, a people who had previously turned over their arms peacefully. I don't think you'll find any cases in which a military successfully controlled an armed populace.
> However, this seems to be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. You say that in order to enter into a common law marriages, two criteria must be met, one of which is potentially the filing of taxes as a "married" couple.
Filing taxes as married is only one of many examples. Another example I gave is having a joint checking account, particularly if you deposit the entirety of your paychecks there, meaning you treat all of your money as community property. Another is being faithful to one another. If you have a kid together, that's something that married people do. Buying a house together is another example. Another is using the same last name. So there are many ways to get there.
However, I don't see any useful purpose to be served by trying to create a common-law marriage. It seems you want the government to treat you as married (for tax purposes), but not treat you as married (for some other purpose). Nah. If you want the government to treat you as married, simply go fill in the form saying you're married.
The usefulness of having the government recognize common-law marriage is generally when looking at things in the past tense - having the court recgonize that you WERE married at some point in the past. The founder of Maglite, Anthony Maglica, is a good example. When they split up, his wife/girlfriend of 20 years, Claire Maglica, sued for her half of the money. He argued that they were never married. She pointed out that for 20 years he went around introducing her as "my wife", and she'd long been using the name Claire Maglica. She won, the appeals court ordered a new trial, and they settled for $29 million.
Regardless of which side of the gun argument one may support, we should all agree on one thing.
The second amendment, as written, ensures that government cannot limit the right of private citizens to possess nuclear warheads. This is undesirable. In the spirit of rule of law, we should repeal this amendment and replace it with one that does not have such undesirable outcomes (as opposed to the much more convenient approach we've opted for instead: merely ignoring it).
I agree we should not ignore it. Rather, if we feel it must be changed, there is a process in place to change it.
Unfortunately, we do not agree that it limits, or allows, anything in particular. Liberals believe that the second amendment means essentially nothing. By ignoring the plain words "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms", ignoring the difference between a dependent clause and an independent clause, and ignoring the definition of the word "militia", and ignoring the context in which it appears, they claim it means that the government has the right to bear arms. Which is funny, because the Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights which the government "may not infringe". ("What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials" - Mason, convention on ratifying the Constitution).
Some conservatives also would argue that it doesn't mean they have the right to own nuclear weapons, for several reasons:
a) You may not legally possess Pu-239 at all without license, weaponized or not. Nuclear power stations require years of approvals. A restriction on dangerous radioactive substances may well be fully legal, regardless of it's side-effects on what would otherwise be a legal activity.
b) Freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. No right is absolute, all are limited at the point where they affect others. "One man's right to swing his fists ends at another man's nose". If my neighbor merely possesses dangerous radioactive materials, my safety is threatened, so his right must be limited to preserve mine, and vice versa.
c) Possibly the most important consideration when interpreting the full implications of a short phrase is to look at it's purpose. Any "interpretation" which castrates it's stated purpose is invalid, any interpretation which accomplishes the stated purpose may be effective. The stated purpose is to maintain the security of the free states - in other words, to avoid having anyone take away our freedoms. If the local drug lord were allowed to have nuclear weapons, that would REDUCE security and freedom, not protect it. Therefore, such an interpretation is at odds with the stated purpose and therefore incorrect.
b)
Publication 17, Part 2 covers the various filing statae.
http://www.irs.gov/publication...
Considered married. You are considered married for the whole year if, on the last day of your tax year, you and your spouse meet any one of the following tests.
You are married and living together as a married couple.
You are living together in a common law marriage recognized in the state where you now live or in the state where the common law marriage began.
You said "my girlfriend and I". You did not say "my wife and I". If you do not consider yourself to be married, do not lie on your tax forms and claim that you are. That would be tax fraud. File as married only if you consider yourself to be married, you tell other people you're married, and your state recognizes common-law marriage. (Even at that, if you're married, you may as well take a few minutes to file the paperwork with the state.)
So in other words, no, you don't have a single example of the US military EVER having control over any population, yet you're sure they could control the day-to-day lives of the US population. Further, you suggest that the only way they could control a population would be to "let loose to engage in full-scale warfare" against the American public.
Do you expect that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen will wage "full-scale warfare" against their own families? No? So then they wouldn't be able to control what their families and mine do on a day-to-day basis, would they?
In this thread you haven't mentioned anywhere that the US military has effective control of people's daily lives. If you've done so in any other thread, please provide the link (or just name the country).
> Wrong on all counts.
You're suggesting that the US won in Vietnam? And that we effectively have control of the daily activities of the local population in Iraq?
> We have never been let loose to engage North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan ISIS, in full-scale warfare.
Which is all quite irrelevant, because the topic is the US military going to war against the US population, not North Korea's military. Please try to follow your own thread - your claim is that the US military can and will use aircraft carriers and cruise missiles to subdue the local US population and enforce a president's unconstitutional dictates. This has nothing to do with one military fighting another. It has to do with your claim that the US military can control the day-to-day activities of the American people.
I've given some examples of the US military and the USSR military being unable to effectively exercise general police power - the ability to control the day-to-day lives of local populations. If you have a counter-example, please cite it.
I keep hearing about "women in technology " and such on Slashdot. Is there some new programming language or something that involves the worker using their genitals to do the job? Something new that makes one's crotch relevant in IT?
> The US government has enjoyed exponential growth in weaponry sophistication what with smart bombs, night vision, drones, attack ships, fighter jets, napalm, and a holy host of others
Sophisticated US aircraft, navy ships, etc fought vs small arms many times, from Vietnam to Iraq. The results have been fairly consistent - missiles cannot control the local population. An armed populace beats a superpower military every time, from USSR-Afghanistan to US-Iraq. That's because the locals don't need to destroy the aircraft carrier or the country sending it, they only need to keep doing what they do in their own private homes. If soldiers raid homes looking for "illicit" material, simple booby traps put an end to that after a while.
The US military COULD carpet bomb the US and destroy it, if soldiers and airmen were robots, but nobody would ever want to do that. There's no need to protect the population against our own cruise missiles. The idea is that groups of citizens can protect themselves feom soldiers regularly entering homes to enforce the dictatorial president's will. Small arms have been proven to be very effective for that.
That's a fair criticism of the consistency of Republican (and democrat) policy as passed by Congress. The Patriot Act is inconsistent with limited government and I'ved called out my (republican) congressman on that when he was on the radio, and on his Facebook page.
It is perhaps also fair to point out that while congress-critters from both parties voted for it, few average Americans support it. In other words, neither Democrats nor Republicans support it, their politicians do.
Lastly, it may be interesting to note that because the bill was so huge, nobody has read it, leading to massive misinformation about it from every direction.
Thou shalt not kill predates the Democrat party by several thousand years.
Eight years ago, the unemployment rate was 4.5%, so it would be great to return to that. (It's averaged about 8% over Obama's tenure.), Unemployment has ALWAYS improved during every period of Republican control of the Senate.
Until Bush Jr's final year, economic growth had always improved under every republican president's budgets since the great depression. It's always gotten worse under every democrat president. You can legitimately disagree with republicans on social issues; the clear fact is that the economy consistently does better under republicans, and always has. Saying that republicans are bad for the economy is like calling democrats war-mongers- ot flies in the face of obvious facts.
Would that also include subpoenas of all sermons in Houston, Tx that mentioned either gay marriage or a certain city official?
I suppose you have a point.
You used the word "feel" twice to describe your positions. You didn't say "what I think" about the issues. Many people may do more thinking about the issues as opposed to feeling and thereby end up with a consistent set of thoughts. As an example, if you think that "we" should fix things and that federal government is the appropriate instrument of "we", that'll be consistent and you'll think that the federal government should do all sorts of things - you'll be a Democrat. If you think that the federal government should stick to what the Constitution authorizes them to do, or that they tend to screw up, you will conclude that they shouldn't do many of the things Democrats want them to do - you'll be a Republican.
The first amendment is one notable thing where this doesn't hold true, however. On that, the parties are inconsistent with their systems of thought.
The Republicans will have control of Congress on January 3rd and get to work cleaning things up. Some of what they clean up may be mess you'd prefer to sweep under the rug, or stuff you'd rather leave alone.
I imagine representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) is very concerned about the number of people in one place in Rhode Island.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v...
There's some local variation, but not nearly as much as popular misconception would have you believe. It's called COMMON law for a reason, after all. This is the law as commonly applied by many courts over hundreds of years.
The other type of law is statutory law. Different jurisdictions have different statutes regarding controversial topics. (They tend to use codes and model statutes for non-controversial topics.) The statutes generally codifyan official way of getting married and registering that marriage with the state; a marriage license and such. The common law, including common law marriage, is concerned with fair ways of dealing with actual facts, using principles of fairness developed over hundreds of years. This is largely separate from the written statutes. Local statutes will specify how you can get an official piece of paper saying that you're married, and thatvaries from place to place. Common law deals with people who are _in_fact_ a family, regardless if what Abby piece if paper says. Much of common law was decided in thirteenth century England, so it was already decided before your city existed.
I mean, would two non-gay roommates end up in a "common law" marriage now if they live together for long enough?
Common law marriages are idiotic to begin with. They shouldn't assume that just because you lived together with someone for X amount of time, that you're together.
That's a bit of an urban legend. The first requirement for common law marriage is that you hold yourself out as husband and wife over an extended period of time - that you go around introducing her as "my wife" and she says things like "my husband bought ...". This indicates that the couple has decided that they are married.
The second requirement is that they live together as husband and wife. Examples of living as husband and wife include things like having a joint checking account or filling taxes as "married".
Note that BOTH requirements have to be met - the couple has to go around saying they are married (proving they've decided to be married) AND they have to actually do so - actually do the things married people do.
If a couple decides to be married and they do so for a long time, the court will simply recognize what already is true. So for example when one dies, their spouse will have rights to the property, because they did in fact live their lives as a marriage - not as roommates.