Senator Obama, do you support coercing the Israeli government to make more suicidal concessions to its avowed enemies, thereby continuing the failed "Peace Process" initiated under President Bill Clinton?
Senator Obama, will you ever admit your party's culpability in the Sub-Prime crisis (i.e. Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act; Barney Frank declaring the GSEs sound in 2003; Democrats resisting reform of the GSEs in 2003 and 2005)?
Senator Obama, since the surge has worked and has led to the fulfillment of most of the benchmarks set by Congress for its success, is your reluctance to recognize that success based primarily on political expediency?
Senator Obama, you claim to want to give the "middle class" a tax cut, but at the same time you propose to raise capital gains taxes, the death tax and corporate taxes, among others. Wouldn't your tax scheme harm many small businesses and small investors, indeed much of the "middle class" you claim to want to help?
Senator Obama, given that Medicare is an even bigger drain than Social Security and will go bust along with it as the Baby Boomers retire, why are you proposing to nationalize the health coverage of the entire country in a style similar to Medicare?
Senator Obama, why are you opposed to restructuring Social Security into a system of private accounts, insured and invested very conservatively, so that people can actually own the retirement funds they produce, instead of the current system in which workers are robbed to pay current retirees with the remaining surplus being spent by the government?
Senator Obama, why are you opposed to restructuring Social Security into a system of private accounts, insured and invested very conservatively, so that people can actually own the retirement funds they produce, instead of the current system in which workers are robbed to pay current retirees with the remaining surplus being spent by the government?
Senator Obama, given that Medicare is an even bigger drain than Social Security and will go bust along with it as the Baby Boomers retire, why are you proposing to nationalize the health coverage of the entire country in a style similar to Medicare?
Senator Obama, wouldn't your proposal to nationalize health coverage simply encourage people and companies to drop their current coverage and pile on to the government plan?
Senator Obama, would your proposal to nationalize health coverage cover non-citizens and thereby represent an additional incentive for illegal immigration?
Senator Obama, why are you opposed to Health Savings Account plans, which would protect people from catastrophic illness costs while giving them a monetary incentives to seek treatment early and stay healthier?
Senator Obama, do you think that soaking the so-called "rich" alone will allow for the funding of your indulgent domestic spending agenda, and what makes you think that you won't be punishing incentive and encouraging the "rich" to work less and even hide more in order to avoid excessive taxation?
Senator Obama, will you commit to balancing the federal budget?
Senator Obama, you claim to want to give the "middle class" a tax cut, but at the same time you propose to raise capital gains taxes, the death tax and corporate taxes, among others. Wouldn't your tax scheme harm many small businesses and small investors, indeed much of the "middle class" you claim to want to help?
Senator Obama, are you familiar with the Laffer Curve?
Senator Obama, given your radical connections (Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Flager) and your past radical Chicago politics, as well as your younger days in which you gravitated to Marxism, why should voters believe you when you claim to be a moderate?
Senator Obama, will you repudiate the leftist radicals represented by the sites like dailykos?
Senator Obama, do you support coercing the Israeli government to make more suicidal concessions to its avowed enemies, thereby continuing the failed "Peace Process" initiated under President Bill Clinton?
Senator Obama, if diplomacy fails with Iran, would you allow the country to produce nuclear weapons?
Senator Obama, do you find it problematic that you have been endorsed by the Al Qaeda Arab terrorist network?
Senator Obama, since the surge has worked and has led to the fulfillment of most of the benchmarks set by Congress for its success, is your reluctance to recognize that success based primarily on political expediency?
Senator Obama, will you ever admit your party's culpability in the Sub-Prime crisis (i.e. Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act; Barney Frank declaring the GSEs sound in 2003; Democrats resisting reform of the GSEs in 2003 and 2005)?
Senator Obama, what do the terms liberty and freedom mean to you in political and economic contexts?
Yeah, I saw that after I posted - that's a little confusing. It would have also been nice to have a chronological listing in addition to their category listing. Still worth reading through (although those damn Flash ads were taking gobs of CPU time).
Clunky as hell is a very subjective judgment. I find my productivity drops considerably in Windows compared to OS X. As for why one would want to use OS X on regular PC hardware, it's mainly due to the fact that Apple has for some time refused to cater to the normal desktop consumer/prosumer with a midrange Mac tower. The entry level price of Apple's towers was reasonable back in the G4 era. It rose with the introduction of the G5. And with the Mac Pro, it rose even more. The Mac Pro is positioned only as a workstation and priced accordingly. The iMac is supposed to serve the midrange, but many sophisticated buyers don't care for the iMac's AIO form factor. If Apple were to come out with a midrange tower again, there would be much less of a desire and demand for OS X on normal PCs.
Amend the statement, "but based on precedent, it's pretty safe to assume treaties probably won't be struck down by the courts any time in the future." to read, "but based on precedent, it's pretty safe to assume treaties probably won't be struck down explicitly on constitutional grounds any time in the future." Unless, that is, a treaty contains an outlandishly unconstitutional provision that would compel judicial review.
but treaties that contravene the Constitution aren't passed
That may be true from the standpoint that no treaty has ever been explicitly struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, but it is noted in that previous excerpt that, "there are examples in which decision was seemingly based on a reading compelled by constitutional considerations." I don't think there's any guarantee that an unconstitutional treaty hasn't passed in the past or won't ever be passed in the future, but whether or not such Constitutionally defective treaties will be struck down is a different matter. Clearly judicial review extends to treaties, but based on precedent, it's pretty safe to assume treaties probably won't be struck down by the courts any time in the future. That is probably close to the point you're making, and another reason why Americans to be very leery of ACTA.
IANAL, but if you allow infringement or dilution of your I.P. to continue for an indefinite period of time, the law penalizes you for not be vigilant in protecting your rights and may apply the doctrine of "latches" to your claim. It depends on the court's assessment of the particulars involved and as such is only really defined by common law precedent, AFAIK. I'd love to hear from lawyers experienced with Internet litigation to what extent courts employ latches in those cases. I suspect that as a judicial doctrine it has become less relevant in contemporary times, for a number of reasons. But as for this particular firm's claim, unless another entity is using the trademark to masquerade as the firm or otherwise confuse the public, they've got no standing whatsoever.
Treaties are given equal status with the Constitution.
Equal status as being supreme to state constitutions and laws, but not equal status with the Constitution itself. The Constitution is still the overriding Supreme Law of the United States. The Supremacy Clause doesn't explicitly rank levels of supremacy, but just as we know the Constitution is superior to Congressional legislation, so too must it be superior to treaties made under the Constitution. According to Justia.com:
By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties "are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other." As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated. It does not appear that the Court has ever held a treaty unconstitutional, although there are examples in which decision was seemingly based on a reading compelled by constitutional considerations.
âoeThe treaty is... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.â
Untrue. The Senate has right of confirmation of appointees. Even in the military, officers are confirmed by the Senate. Congress can also regulate Executive agencies such as the FCC, FTC, SEC and other 3 letter agencies. They are Constitutionally mandated to do so as part of the "power of the purse". How long do you think the Executive can do things without funding?
Correct. In addition, the Congress possesses broad investigative powers and the power of impeachment. It is a tad moronic for anyone to claim there are no Congressional checks on the Presidency under the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Senator Obama, do you support coercing the Israeli government to make more suicidal concessions to its avowed enemies, thereby continuing the failed "Peace Process" initiated under President Bill Clinton?
Senator Obama, will you ever admit your party's culpability in the Sub-Prime crisis (i.e. Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act; Barney Frank declaring the GSEs sound in 2003; Democrats resisting reform of the GSEs in 2003 and 2005)?
Senator Obama, since the surge has worked and has led to the fulfillment of most of the benchmarks set by Congress for its success, is your reluctance to recognize that success based primarily on political expediency?
Senator Obama, you claim to want to give the "middle class" a tax cut, but at the same time you propose to raise capital gains taxes, the death tax and corporate taxes, among others. Wouldn't your tax scheme harm many small businesses and small investors, indeed much of the "middle class" you claim to want to help?
Senator Obama, given that Medicare is an even bigger drain than Social Security and will go bust along with it as the Baby Boomers retire, why are you proposing to nationalize the health coverage of the entire country in a style similar to Medicare?
Senator Obama, why are you opposed to restructuring Social Security into a system of private accounts, insured and invested very conservatively, so that people can actually own the retirement funds they produce, instead of the current system in which workers are robbed to pay current retirees with the remaining surplus being spent by the government?
Senator Obama, why are you opposed to restructuring Social Security into a system of private accounts, insured and invested very conservatively, so that people can actually own the retirement funds they produce, instead of the current system in which workers are robbed to pay current retirees with the remaining surplus being spent by the government?
Senator Obama, given that Medicare is an even bigger drain than Social Security and will go bust along with it as the Baby Boomers retire, why are you proposing to nationalize the health coverage of the entire country in a style similar to Medicare?
Senator Obama, wouldn't your proposal to nationalize health coverage simply encourage people and companies to drop their current coverage and pile on to the government plan?
Senator Obama, would your proposal to nationalize health coverage cover non-citizens and thereby represent an additional incentive for illegal immigration?
Senator Obama, why are you opposed to Health Savings Account plans, which would protect people from catastrophic illness costs while giving them a monetary incentives to seek treatment early and stay healthier?
Senator Obama, do you think that soaking the so-called "rich" alone will allow for the funding of your indulgent domestic spending agenda, and what makes you think that you won't be punishing incentive and encouraging the "rich" to work less and even hide more in order to avoid excessive taxation?
Senator Obama, will you commit to balancing the federal budget?
Senator Obama, you claim to want to give the "middle class" a tax cut, but at the same time you propose to raise capital gains taxes, the death tax and corporate taxes, among others. Wouldn't your tax scheme harm many small businesses and small investors, indeed much of the "middle class" you claim to want to help?
Senator Obama, are you familiar with the Laffer Curve?
Senator Obama, given your radical connections (Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Flager) and your past radical Chicago politics, as well as your younger days in which you gravitated to Marxism, why should voters believe you when you claim to be a moderate?
Senator Obama, will you repudiate the leftist radicals represented by the sites like dailykos?
Senator Obama, do you support coercing the Israeli government to make more suicidal concessions to its avowed enemies, thereby continuing the failed "Peace Process" initiated under President Bill Clinton?
Senator Obama, if diplomacy fails with Iran, would you allow the country to produce nuclear weapons?
Senator Obama, do you find it problematic that you have been endorsed by the Al Qaeda Arab terrorist network?
Senator Obama, since the surge has worked and has led to the fulfillment of most of the benchmarks set by Congress for its success, is your reluctance to recognize that success based primarily on political expediency?
Senator Obama, will you ever admit your party's culpability in the Sub-Prime crisis (i.e. Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act; Barney Frank declaring the GSEs sound in 2003; Democrats resisting reform of the GSEs in 2003 and 2005)?
Senator Obama, what do the terms liberty and freedom mean to you in political and economic contexts?
Let's see any of these get asked!
Yeah, I saw that after I posted - that's a little confusing. It would have also been nice to have a chronological listing in addition to their category listing. Still worth reading through (although those damn Flash ads were taking gobs of CPU time).
Read the article instead - it appears to be concise, well-written and nicely formatted. It looks like a job well done by cnet UK.
See here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/895421/posts
So then even self-described Socialists don't fit in that category according to you?
take note of the fact that California's state legislature is dominated by hard-line, left-wing Democrats. So much for them being pro-worker, huh?
Yeah, but as others have pointed out, such scripted articles and speeches don't include supposed dialog from the future.
Clunky as hell is a very subjective judgment. I find my productivity drops considerably in Windows compared to OS X. As for why one would want to use OS X on regular PC hardware, it's mainly due to the fact that Apple has for some time refused to cater to the normal desktop consumer/prosumer with a midrange Mac tower. The entry level price of Apple's towers was reasonable back in the G4 era. It rose with the introduction of the G5. And with the Mac Pro, it rose even more. The Mac Pro is positioned only as a workstation and priced accordingly. The iMac is supposed to serve the midrange, but many sophisticated buyers don't care for the iMac's AIO form factor. If Apple were to come out with a midrange tower again, there would be much less of a desire and demand for OS X on normal PCs.
Amend the statement, "but based on precedent, it's pretty safe to assume treaties probably won't be struck down by the courts any time in the future." to read, "but based on precedent, it's pretty safe to assume treaties probably won't be struck down explicitly on constitutional grounds any time in the future." Unless, that is, a treaty contains an outlandishly unconstitutional provision that would compel judicial review.
but treaties that contravene the Constitution aren't passed
That may be true from the standpoint that no treaty has ever been explicitly struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, but it is noted in that previous excerpt that, "there are examples in which decision was seemingly based on a reading compelled by constitutional considerations." I don't think there's any guarantee that an unconstitutional treaty hasn't passed in the past or won't ever be passed in the future, but whether or not such Constitutionally defective treaties will be struck down is a different matter. Clearly judicial review extends to treaties, but based on precedent, it's pretty safe to assume treaties probably won't be struck down by the courts any time in the future. That is probably close to the point you're making, and another reason why Americans to be very leery of ACTA.
IANAL, but if you allow infringement or dilution of your I.P. to continue for an indefinite period of time, the law penalizes you for not be vigilant in protecting your rights and may apply the doctrine of "latches" to your claim. It depends on the court's assessment of the particulars involved and as such is only really defined by common law precedent, AFAIK. I'd love to hear from lawyers experienced with Internet litigation to what extent courts employ latches in those cases. I suspect that as a judicial doctrine it has become less relevant in contemporary times, for a number of reasons. But as for this particular firm's claim, unless another entity is using the trademark to masquerade as the firm or otherwise confuse the public, they've got no standing whatsoever.
I had to do a double take when I read 10.5% of yearly revenue. 10.5% of profits sounds excessive, but 10.5% off the top is outrageous.
Treaties are given equal status with the Constitution.
Equal status as being supreme to state constitutions and laws, but not equal status with the Constitution itself. The Constitution is still the overriding Supreme Law of the United States. The Supremacy Clause doesn't explicitly rank levels of supremacy, but just as we know the Constitution is superior to Congressional legislation, so too must it be superior to treaties made under the Constitution. According to Justia.com:
By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties "are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other." As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated. It does not appear that the Court has ever held a treaty unconstitutional, although there are examples in which decision was seemingly based on a reading compelled by constitutional considerations. âoeThe treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.â
Yeah, that story doesn't sound right or comport with anything I've ever read about Hollywood history - and I live 30 minutes from Hollywood.
Untrue. The Senate has right of confirmation of appointees. Even in the military, officers are confirmed by the Senate. Congress can also regulate Executive agencies such as the FCC, FTC, SEC and other 3 letter agencies. They are Constitutionally mandated to do so as part of the "power of the purse". How long do you think the Executive can do things without funding?
Correct. In addition, the Congress possesses broad investigative powers and the power of impeachment. It is a tad moronic for anyone to claim there are no Congressional checks on the Presidency under the Constitution.
Apple Preview handles forms properly, so it's possible to do it without Reader.
Go With Him. . . .
Probably based on some kind of spectral analysis.
There is no quality trading/management trading software on any OS other than Windows that bears even a passing mention.
You are correct, sir. It's the only platform trading software companies deal with, unfortunately.