Completely agreed on all counts. I would stipulate that madrasas are equally bad to other religious schools, whereas Muslim terrorism is worse than other religious terrorism.
Yeah pot seeds are regulated under pot laws. I'm pretty sure you already know that legally pot seeds are drugs.
(Pass to the left, by the way. I'll see you in Portland next January.)
"If an 'American' ships an illegal firearm to someone in a country that prohibits it, should they be held accountable to local laws?"
This area of law is incredibly complicated but the answer is definitely maybe. Newspaper mavens are sometimes prosecuted for slander in jurisdictions where their papers are published; hackers are sometimes prosecuted for hacking computers in jurisdictions other than where they are physically located; the Unibomber was prosecuted for bombs that exploded in a place other than where he mailed them. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, and I don't know enough to say about shipping guns.
The question you asked was why can't someone just go get a different job; I answered that question to your apparent satisfaction, since you shifted to asking other questions. I'm not interested in your other questions but I'm glad we agreed that BVis's observation about who has power in most employment contracts is valid and that your fake-hypothetical question wasn't valid.
Yep, if he shipped drugs to America then he violated American law. That kind of jurisdiction question was one of the tricky legal questions that was answered with the advent of postal technology. It's only a problem if you live in a country with an extradition treaty to the place where you broke the law, or if you go visit there. Civil action can be similar. If you slander someone on the internet, a court in some place might issue action against you. Be careful where you are when you commit crimes, and understand what "where" means legally.
Yeah I agree that the housing bubble was the primary problem but I disagree that the tax situation had nothing to do with it -- or, more specifically, the federal deficit problem. I think that was a contributing factor, but much less than the conventionally recognized primary problem which was the housing problem caused by the FSMA which was proposed by Republicans, signed by a Democrat, and although there were Congressional Dems who opposed it, they were few and not so loud about it. There's blame to go around, but the Congressional Pubs get most of it and Clinton gets most of the rest. A smattering is left over for Congressional Dems and for Bush.
Take a look at the unemployment graph from, say, 2006 to 2010. The Dems took over in January of 2009 when the unemployment bomb was already exploding. To say that they are at fault for being there when the bomb went off is to ignore the fact that the Pubs installed the bomb and lit the fuse.
I mostly blame Republicans for the 2009 crash because they were the ones that had been driving the ship for 8 years, but I agree with the conventional explanation that the cause of the crash precedes even those 8 years and stretches back to Clinton signing the Financial Services Modernization Act. I blame Clinton for signing that, although it was still the Republicans in charge of Congress. Almost all the blame goes to Congressional Republicans, a little bit goes to Clinton, and some also goes to Bush mostly for his disastrous tax cut.
"Hey remember that one time that one guy killed some people and said that it was for Jesus? Yeah, that means Christians are as bad as Muslims, who in the meantime have committed tens of thousands of separate suicide attacks."
Today in the world, most terrorism comes from the Muslim community. Nobody gets to claim that that factual statement implies that all Muslims are terrorists, because that's not what the statement says. Anyone who makes that false claim concedes all credibility.
A majority of worldwide Muslims support death as a punishment for apostasy. If you think death-for-apostasy is bad, and if you think majority support within a group for a certain policy makes it fair to discuss that policy in terms of that group, then it is fair to say that "Muslims support death for apostates".
Compare that to the statement "Republicans support restrictions on abortion". Is that a true statement? I consider it to be true even though not every last Republican supports restrictions on abortion. When discussing groups, we don't have to account for every last member of the group. If we did, it would be impossible to discuss groups.
The Muslim community has problems -- moral problems. The community generally supports some incredibly horrible things. It is wonderful that some Muslims are not horrible, especially many or most of those who now live in Western countries, as well as a minority of those living in Islamic countries. I hope that that minority grows into the majority someday, but today they are still a minority, and it is fair to discuss Muslims as a group and policies supported by the majority of Muslims.
Muslims as a group support death for apostasy. Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for women. Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for homosexuals. Muslims as a group support blasphemy laws.
The USA can't prosecute you for a crime committed in another country. For instance, if you are an American who travels to Thailand in order to have sex with children, America can't prosecute you for child rape because it didn't happen in American jurisdictions.
But America can and has made it a crime to travel to another country for the purpose of having sex with children. The "traveling to" part (and the all-important "returning from" part) happens on American soil so they can, and do, and should prosecute that.
There are few jobs which match for most individuals so going and finding another job isn't the low-cost option that would be required for middle-school-level economic theory to apply to reality.
Thanks, I sure did! It took a little while. You might not remember this well, but that was the very peak of the first Bush-era unemployment period. You might also not remember that tech jobs were particularly thin, which is what I was seeking. There were a lot of news stories about unemployed tech workers then and I was a fresh college graduate. But yep I sure did find a job eventually, like most tech workers did, even though we were applying for jobs at a 500-to-1 ratio; my job came from a personal connection. And since then the decade was quite good to me and most tech workers!
But anyway you asked who controlled Congress last time I [or, TWX] was unemployed, and the answer is "Republicans".
Came here to say this. It's dark matter because it doesn't seem to emit or block light. Baseball-sized clumps of whatever would block light. We'd know it was there because we couldn't see the stars behind it.
I didn't read the article. Maybe they explained that bit.
They're the majority in the most important part of all government. They control everything that can be controlled by money, which is everything. Their bellyaching is hollow.
My life is way way WAY better over the last few years. I don't typically credit that to Democrats but since you said I should, I've decided to support all Democrats. Thanks for your advice.
The problem is, no, you don't have good people that actually want to represent their constituents. You just have liars and cheaters who are such losers that they don't have a chance in the spotlight to be shown for what they are.
Dems had a supermajority for a little less than two months during which they passed the most consequential piece of domestic legislation since your grandma was in grade school. They won a huge political victory and they used it to advance their #1 policy goal. It's no wonder their opponents are still biatching about it.
Wait, the "last time the Republicans were in charge" wasn't 2007 it was... RIGHT NOW! They control the House where all spending bills originate. Therefore every single thing that America spends money on is directly their fault, which means everything.
98.3% of Republicans voted against the stimulus. For you to claim that the three Pubs who supported it -- and then lost their jobs because of it -- is evidence of Republican support is not credible.
"if he hadn't rammed through his healthcare bill without compromising with Republicans, they'd be much better at doing the political horse-trading it takes to work across party lines to get things done"
Oh, yes, if only Obama hadn't sat back and done nothing while Congress chose a Republican healthcare policy proposal, voted on it, and sent it to his desk for signature, then Republicans would be eager to partner with him for legislation. Sure enough.
His record is mixed, for sure, but Obama has never gleefully publicized his support for war crimes (torture). There is pretty much nothing that can outweigh that.
Before 2009: 0% black Presidents After 2009: 100% black Presidents
BOOM there's your numbers, pinko!
(Sarcasm!)
Okay, okay, I don't actually think all of the opposition to Obama is racism. I think that's about 1/3 of it overall but almost all of it coming from the Tea People.
I don't know about TWX but for me it was 2003 so the Republicans controlled every corner of governance, from the Presidency to the SCUSA to both houses of Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Completely agreed on all counts. I would stipulate that madrasas are equally bad to other religious schools, whereas Muslim terrorism is worse than other religious terrorism.
"A seed, not a drug."
Yeah pot seeds are regulated under pot laws. I'm pretty sure you already know that legally pot seeds are drugs.
(Pass to the left, by the way. I'll see you in Portland next January.)
"If an 'American' ships an illegal firearm to someone in a country that prohibits it, should they be held accountable to local laws?"
This area of law is incredibly complicated but the answer is definitely maybe. Newspaper mavens are sometimes prosecuted for slander in jurisdictions where their papers are published; hackers are sometimes prosecuted for hacking computers in jurisdictions other than where they are physically located; the Unibomber was prosecuted for bombs that exploded in a place other than where he mailed them. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, and I don't know enough to say about shipping guns.
The question you asked was why can't someone just go get a different job; I answered that question to your apparent satisfaction, since you shifted to asking other questions. I'm not interested in your other questions but I'm glad we agreed that BVis's observation about who has power in most employment contracts is valid and that your fake-hypothetical question wasn't valid.
Yep, if he shipped drugs to America then he violated American law. That kind of jurisdiction question was one of the tricky legal questions that was answered with the advent of postal technology. It's only a problem if you live in a country with an extradition treaty to the place where you broke the law, or if you go visit there. Civil action can be similar. If you slander someone on the internet, a court in some place might issue action against you. Be careful where you are when you commit crimes, and understand what "where" means legally.
Yeah I agree that the housing bubble was the primary problem but I disagree that the tax situation had nothing to do with it -- or, more specifically, the federal deficit problem. I think that was a contributing factor, but much less than the conventionally recognized primary problem which was the housing problem caused by the FSMA which was proposed by Republicans, signed by a Democrat, and although there were Congressional Dems who opposed it, they were few and not so loud about it. There's blame to go around, but the Congressional Pubs get most of it and Clinton gets most of the rest. A smattering is left over for Congressional Dems and for Bush.
Take a look at the unemployment graph from, say, 2006 to 2010. The Dems took over in January of 2009 when the unemployment bomb was already exploding. To say that they are at fault for being there when the bomb went off is to ignore the fact that the Pubs installed the bomb and lit the fuse.
I mostly blame Republicans for the 2009 crash because they were the ones that had been driving the ship for 8 years, but I agree with the conventional explanation that the cause of the crash precedes even those 8 years and stretches back to Clinton signing the Financial Services Modernization Act. I blame Clinton for signing that, although it was still the Republicans in charge of Congress. Almost all the blame goes to Congressional Republicans, a little bit goes to Clinton, and some also goes to Bush mostly for his disastrous tax cut.
I'm not really convinced by that argument:
"Hey remember that one time that one guy killed some people and said that it was for Jesus? Yeah, that means Christians are as bad as Muslims, who in the meantime have committed tens of thousands of separate suicide attacks."
Today in the world, most terrorism comes from the Muslim community. Nobody gets to claim that that factual statement implies that all Muslims are terrorists, because that's not what the statement says. Anyone who makes that false claim concedes all credibility.
A majority of worldwide Muslims support death as a punishment for apostasy. If you think death-for-apostasy is bad, and if you think majority support within a group for a certain policy makes it fair to discuss that policy in terms of that group, then it is fair to say that "Muslims support death for apostates".
Compare that to the statement "Republicans support restrictions on abortion". Is that a true statement? I consider it to be true even though not every last Republican supports restrictions on abortion. When discussing groups, we don't have to account for every last member of the group. If we did, it would be impossible to discuss groups.
The Muslim community has problems -- moral problems. The community generally supports some incredibly horrible things. It is wonderful that some Muslims are not horrible, especially many or most of those who now live in Western countries, as well as a minority of those living in Islamic countries. I hope that that minority grows into the majority someday, but today they are still a minority, and it is fair to discuss Muslims as a group and policies supported by the majority of Muslims.
Muslims as a group support death for apostasy.
Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for women.
Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for homosexuals.
Muslims as a group support blasphemy laws.
Some Muslims don't support those things; most do.
The USA can't prosecute you for a crime committed in another country. For instance, if you are an American who travels to Thailand in order to have sex with children, America can't prosecute you for child rape because it didn't happen in American jurisdictions.
But America can and has made it a crime to travel to another country for the purpose of having sex with children. The "traveling to" part (and the all-important "returning from" part) happens on American soil so they can, and do, and should prosecute that.
When you say "small government", what measurement indicates size?
There are few jobs which match for most individuals so going and finding another job isn't the low-cost option that would be required for middle-school-level economic theory to apply to reality.
Thanks, I sure did! It took a little while. You might not remember this well, but that was the very peak of the first Bush-era unemployment period. You might also not remember that tech jobs were particularly thin, which is what I was seeking. There were a lot of news stories about unemployed tech workers then and I was a fresh college graduate. But yep I sure did find a job eventually, like most tech workers did, even though we were applying for jobs at a 500-to-1 ratio; my job came from a personal connection. And since then the decade was quite good to me and most tech workers!
But anyway you asked who controlled Congress last time I [or, TWX] was unemployed, and the answer is "Republicans".
"It's transparent to light"
Came here to say this. It's dark matter because it doesn't seem to emit or block light. Baseball-sized clumps of whatever would block light. We'd know it was there because we couldn't see the stars behind it.
I didn't read the article. Maybe they explained that bit.
They're the majority in the most important part of all government. They control everything that can be controlled by money, which is everything. Their bellyaching is hollow.
Your point is undermined by the phrase "to campaigns".
Most money is directed around campaigns today and that money is not tracked.
And yes, the Dem with the freezer money is also part of it, but mostly we're talking about the lying and cheating that are allowed by the rules.
What really makes sense is for those 10,000 people to talk to their neighbors about it, then vote.
Democracy. Wow.
My life is way way WAY better over the last few years. I don't typically credit that to Democrats but since you said I should, I've decided to support all Democrats. Thanks for your advice.
The problem is, no, you don't have good people that actually want to represent their constituents. You just have liars and cheaters who are such losers that they don't have a chance in the spotlight to be shown for what they are.
Dems had a supermajority for a little less than two months during which they passed the most consequential piece of domestic legislation since your grandma was in grade school. They won a huge political victory and they used it to advance their #1 policy goal. It's no wonder their opponents are still biatching about it.
Wait, the "last time the Republicans were in charge" wasn't 2007 it was... RIGHT NOW! They control the House where all spending bills originate. Therefore every single thing that America spends money on is directly their fault, which means everything.
98.3% of Republicans voted against the stimulus. For you to claim that the three Pubs who supported it -- and then lost their jobs because of it -- is evidence of Republican support is not credible.
"if he hadn't rammed through his healthcare bill without compromising with Republicans, they'd be much better at doing the political horse-trading it takes to work across party lines to get things done"
Oh, yes, if only Obama hadn't sat back and done nothing while Congress chose a Republican healthcare policy proposal, voted on it, and sent it to his desk for signature, then Republicans would be eager to partner with him for legislation. Sure enough.
His record is mixed, for sure, but Obama has never gleefully publicized his support for war crimes (torture). There is pretty much nothing that can outweigh that.
Here's the numbers:
Before 2009: 0% black Presidents
After 2009: 100% black Presidents
BOOM there's your numbers, pinko!
(Sarcasm!)
Okay, okay, I don't actually think all of the opposition to Obama is racism. I think that's about 1/3 of it overall but almost all of it coming from the Tea People.
Nope, he spelled it right.
I don't know about TWX but for me it was 2003 so the Republicans controlled every corner of governance, from the Presidency to the SCUSA to both houses of Congress.