I certainly noticed the change. It's odd that a user base that generally professes a love for science and facts also got drawn in to those (economic) libertarian fantasies. Or maybe they're just more vocal.
in the case, it seems to me, is that they never delivered on their end of the sale, yet still seek to enforce the other side of the contract.
Of course, it's a BS, should-be-unenforceable clause of the contract that may not have even been in the contract at the time. The above seems like the easiest way to win the case, but hopefully Public Citizen can get some precedent set for it as unenforceable.
No, sorry, you haven't "got me the answer". The question is not whether candidates associate with an organization, it's whether the organization campaigns on behalf of the candidates.
You asked "Really?" and "Like where?" and my answers were "yes" and "at a minimum, FL, NV, NJ and NY". I don't have all the answers to the broader question you're now raising.
As for the BTP, as I was saying it's a branch of the Libertarian party. What does that have to do with the Tea Party movement???
As I already wrote, the goals and the name puts them at least superficially in the tea party movement. Maybe there's something deeper than that I missed in my 2 minutes on Wikipedia that sets them apart. It sounds like you think the former party affiliation of many (most?) of the BTP means they're not part of the tea party movement. Is that the point you're trying to make?
Those are candidates friendly to goals of the Tea Party organizations, not official candidates of a "tea party".
Yes, they were friendly, and listed themselves as tea party candidates on the ballots. You asked where when I mentioned it and I got you the answer.
We don't strip tax exempt status from progressive organizations or environmental organizations because there are "progressive candidates" or "environmental candidates".
Of course not. That would be silly.
The Boston Tea Party party predates the Tea Party protests by three years, and it was a spin-out from the Libertarian party.
What was your point? Just that they were the first? If so, I don't have any particular reason to doubt that.
I didn't remember where, but here's the first clear reference I found when searching for tea party candidates on ballots. It mentions such candidates in FL, NV, NJ and NY in 2010.
I didn't know about the BTP, but from its goals and name, it seems clear they were part of the tea party movement. Do you disagree?
I don't think anyone here is unaware of the origin of the name. Obviously there are many groups and individuals that use some form of the tea party name, but some certainly do act as if they were a political party, whether or not they've made it official. Tea party candidates have been listed as such on ballots for state and federal offices and there's even a "tea party" response to the SotU address in addition to the Republican response, though I forget which group has been scoring the airtime.
I think that'd be a better system, too, as I described. I happen to know I'm not a threat, so me looking at my own boarding pass harms no one. And as others have stated, this little bit of notoriety is likely to get the system changed.
The obvious answer for the problem is to scan the barcode at security, which could just be a unique identifier, and look it up in a database of who's cleared for PreCheck that day.
My boarding passes seem to have PDF417 barcodes on them. I've tried several but haven't found an Android app that'll read them yet. The Android app from the airline displays a QR code boarding pass, but then I can't scan it with my phone. Anyone know an Android app that'll scan it? Or a program for Mac that'll scan a QR code from the camera? No, I'm not looking to change it, but finding out if I got the PreCheck lane would be nice in advance.
Budget reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered.
Right, but what's your point? If it's that budgets aren't being passed, they're optional and don't carry the force of law. Sure it'd be nice to agree on a blueprint for spending, but Congress is split and the appropriations bills are where the money gets spent anyway.
It can also be said that the more the majority tries to rule by a "tyranny of the majority" standard, the more the filibuster is necessary to invoke.
It sounds like you're talking about democracy and don't like being in the minority.
You brought up the credit rating hostage issue. The Republicans threatened to default on the U.S. debt. It didn't happen, but just the threat led S&P to downgrade our credit rating. And the top Republican in the Senate said publicly that "it's a hostage that's worth ransoming."
Of course there are those who choose to believe and *do* impose on others, and they certainly deserve our disdain. Not for believing in a god, but for their actions and impositions.
Those actions and impositions are why so many atheists openly mock and disdain religion. That behavior grows out of belief in a god. Attacking the belief is like striking at the root instead of the leaf.
Actually, women do have the right to equal pay. It's the law. You seem to prefer that everyone is free to discriminate, but I think you can probably understand why most women would not want to give up their right to equal pay.
It's not a straw man, since there are many Republicans supporting so-called "personhood" measures, which would outlaw hormonal birth control. Romney and Ryan have both voiced support for that idea.
Yes, of course abortion is not just a woman's right. But to me (and to many), a few cells do not deserve the rights of a fully formed human being, with a brain, a heart and so on. If I were a woman, I'd be offended by the GOP telling me what to do with my body.
Many countries pay much less, have better health outcomes and cover everyone. Do you want to stay on that old system without trying the new one? I'd prefer we dump Obamacare for something we know works - single payer or at least a public option, but I don't think that's what you meant.
It is more important to the DNC to punish people who are successful than it is to help the middle class.
The other side of that coin, of course, is that the Republicans are holding hostage the middle class tax cut to benefit the wealthy.
So that might seem about even at first glance. But in reality, the Democrats know that as soon as the whole thing expires they can pass a middle class tax cut and the Republicans will go along with it (or give up any pretense of actually caring about it, and suffer in the next election).
Cloture votes to break a filibuster are 60% of Senators (whether present and voting or not), and that may change as the next Senate votes on its rules.
I believe they could. But it's an unwritten agreement between the two parties and worked alright (allowing other business to be conducted instead) until the system was abused. That's why it's likely to change, by new Senate cloture rules as opposed to the less formal agreement.
It doesn't seem to work that way. There is a perverse incentive - the GOP can obstruct Democratic attempts to help the economy, then blame Obama for the poor economy in their campaigns.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly noticed the change. It's odd that a user base that generally professes a love for science and facts also got drawn in to those (economic) libertarian fantasies. Or maybe they're just more vocal.
in the case, it seems to me, is that they never delivered on their end of the sale, yet still seek to enforce the other side of the contract.
Of course, it's a BS, should-be-unenforceable clause of the contract that may not have even been in the contract at the time. The above seems like the easiest way to win the case, but hopefully Public Citizen can get some precedent set for it as unenforceable.
No, sorry, you haven't "got me the answer". The question is not whether candidates associate with an organization, it's whether the organization campaigns on behalf of the candidates.
You asked "Really?" and "Like where?" and my answers were "yes" and "at a minimum, FL, NV, NJ and NY". I don't have all the answers to the broader question you're now raising.
As for the BTP, as I was saying it's a branch of the Libertarian party. What does that have to do with the Tea Party movement???
As I already wrote, the goals and the name puts them at least superficially in the tea party movement. Maybe there's something deeper than that I missed in my 2 minutes on Wikipedia that sets them apart. It sounds like you think the former party affiliation of many (most?) of the BTP means they're not part of the tea party movement. Is that the point you're trying to make?
Those are candidates friendly to goals of the Tea Party organizations, not official candidates of a "tea party".
Yes, they were friendly, and listed themselves as tea party candidates on the ballots. You asked where when I mentioned it and I got you the answer.
We don't strip tax exempt status from progressive organizations or environmental organizations because there are "progressive candidates" or "environmental candidates".
Of course not. That would be silly.
The Boston Tea Party party predates the Tea Party protests by three years, and it was a spin-out from the Libertarian party.
What was your point? Just that they were the first? If so, I don't have any particular reason to doubt that.
I didn't remember where, but here's the first clear reference I found when searching for tea party candidates on ballots. It mentions such candidates in FL, NV, NJ and NY in 2010.
I didn't know about the BTP, but from its goals and name, it seems clear they were part of the tea party movement. Do you disagree?
I don't think anyone here is unaware of the origin of the name. Obviously there are many groups and individuals that use some form of the tea party name, but some certainly do act as if they were a political party, whether or not they've made it official. Tea party candidates have been listed as such on ballots for state and federal offices and there's even a "tea party" response to the SotU address in addition to the Republican response, though I forget which group has been scoring the airtime.
All of us probably mistake correlation with causation at times, but to think negative correlation equals causation is idiotic.
I think that'd be a better system, too, as I described. I happen to know I'm not a threat, so me looking at my own boarding pass harms no one. And as others have stated, this little bit of notoriety is likely to get the system changed.
You'll note I didn't say it was a good system.
The obvious answer for the problem is to scan the barcode at security, which could just be a unique identifier, and look it up in a database of who's cleared for PreCheck that day.
My boarding passes seem to have PDF417 barcodes on them. I've tried several but haven't found an Android app that'll read them yet. The Android app from the airline displays a QR code boarding pass, but then I can't scan it with my phone. Anyone know an Android app that'll scan it? Or a program for Mac that'll scan a QR code from the camera? No, I'm not looking to change it, but finding out if I got the PreCheck lane would be nice in advance.
Budget reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered.
Right, but what's your point? If it's that budgets aren't being passed, they're optional and don't carry the force of law. Sure it'd be nice to agree on a blueprint for spending, but Congress is split and the appropriations bills are where the money gets spent anyway.
It can also be said that the more the majority tries to rule by a "tyranny of the majority" standard, the more the filibuster is necessary to invoke.
It sounds like you're talking about democracy and don't like being in the minority.
You brought up the credit rating hostage issue. The Republicans threatened to default on the U.S. debt. It didn't happen, but just the threat led S&P to downgrade our credit rating. And the top Republican in the Senate said publicly that "it's a hostage that's worth ransoming."
Of course there are those who choose to believe and *do* impose on others, and they certainly deserve our disdain. Not for believing in a god, but for their actions and impositions.
Those actions and impositions are why so many atheists openly mock and disdain religion. That behavior grows out of belief in a god. Attacking the belief is like striking at the root instead of the leaf.
Actually, women do have the right to equal pay. It's the law. You seem to prefer that everyone is free to discriminate, but I think you can probably understand why most women would not want to give up their right to equal pay.
It's not a straw man, since there are many Republicans supporting so-called "personhood" measures, which would outlaw hormonal birth control. Romney and Ryan have both voiced support for that idea.
Yes, of course abortion is not just a woman's right. But to me (and to many), a few cells do not deserve the rights of a fully formed human being, with a brain, a heart and so on. If I were a woman, I'd be offended by the GOP telling me what to do with my body.
I like your signature.
Many countries pay much less, have better health outcomes and cover everyone. Do you want to stay on that old system without trying the new one? I'd prefer we dump Obamacare for something we know works - single payer or at least a public option, but I don't think that's what you meant.
Well, at least he was just acting.
Biden was condescending, rude, disruptive, immature.
Yeah...about the only thing he had going for him was that he had better policy positions.
Solely with your choice of username, that is. :)
Why don't you explain to women why equal pay, access to contraception and abortion shouldn't really be important to them?
The truth is everyone was better off before the Bush tax cuts and with stronger financial regulations.
It is more important to the DNC to punish people who are successful than it is to help the middle class.
The other side of that coin, of course, is that the Republicans are holding hostage the middle class tax cut to benefit the wealthy.
So that might seem about even at first glance. But in reality, the Democrats know that as soon as the whole thing expires they can pass a middle class tax cut and the Republicans will go along with it (or give up any pretense of actually caring about it, and suffer in the next election).
If you can't tell the difference, you're not paying attention.
Cloture votes to break a filibuster are 60% of Senators (whether present and voting or not), and that may change as the next Senate votes on its rules.
I believe they could. But it's an unwritten agreement between the two parties and worked alright (allowing other business to be conducted instead) until the system was abused. That's why it's likely to change, by new Senate cloture rules as opposed to the less formal agreement.
"hold our nation's economy and credit rating hostage..."
You should acknowledge that only the GOP has done that, and that they have been using the filibuster much more than the Democrats did.
Force those fuckers to compromise.
It doesn't seem to work that way. There is a perverse incentive - the GOP can obstruct Democratic attempts to help the economy, then blame Obama for the poor economy in their campaigns.