The USDA may have the power to interfere with a producer in the United States, but they can't keep the importers and distributors in other countries from doing whatever they feel is appropriate to protect their customers and their business.
The purpose of the commerce clause in the constitution, was to prevent the states from putting up tariff barriers to interstate trade, not to provide a pretext for the federal government to interfere in anything and everything we do. The feds have proved conclusively in case after case, that they can't be trusted with this power. The clause should be removed by amendment, and replaced with a statement that simply prohibits the states from taxing interstate commerce.
In a divorce, both sides always accuse the other of being thugs.
That's an awfully broad brush you're waving around there, sport. I know several couples who split up, in some cases quite bitterly, who didn't make up any claims of violence against each other.
Not for divorcing her sister, but for being a thug. When a politician knows that there's a bad cop on the public payroll, I'd say they have an obligation to get that person canned.
This spammer isn't just stealing advertising and committing millions of instances of petty theft. A death threat is a felony in itself, and this clown is racking up enough separate crimes for his sentence to run to thousands of lifetimes.
And what of Obama's support for illegal wiretapping indemnity?!?
One thing to keep in mind about the two wings of the Ruling Party, is that they will lament each others' abuse of power, but never take any steps to reduce the power of any federal office, because they hope to be in a position to abuse that power themselves come the next election cycle.
Was back in the mid-1980s, when he was beating the drum for protectionism to keep TI and Intel in the DRAM business. His plan was basically to fuck over the entire computer industry to protect two vendors from competitors who were doing a far better job. He's why we had that period of memory prices actually going up for a short while. That's when I decided he was a pig-ignorant, big-government interventionist that we'd all be far better off without.
In the years since then, he's been one of the assholes who promoted the DMCA, he voted for the Iraq war and the Patriot act, (in fact, he bragged quite a bit at the time that the patriot act was based on a similar attack on the bill of rights that he'd written shortly after the Oklahoma City attack.)
So, when faced with his first major decision, the guy spewing all this hogwash about "change we can believe in" chooses an apparatchik who's spent half of his life in the senate, voting for anything that could possible increase the power of the federal government.
what does this mean for the safety of other buildings?
Not much. The key here is that the fire was burning for many hours, without sprinkers, around very long girders that expanded and buckled. It took a combination of factors, not the least of which was that there was no water supply for firefighting, to bring WTC 7 down.
I used to work in that building, back when I was doing a gig for the soft-dollar desk at Salomon brothers. It still shakes me up to think it's not there anymore.
Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress cannot give the President conditions precedent before acting?
The constitution enumerates limited powers. The congress has only the powers given to it by the constitution. Trying to enumerate all of the things the congress may not do is absurd.
The purpose of Congress having the power to declare war in Article I is a check on the Executive Branch, so one man can't wage war.
Exactly. The constitution doesn't permit the congress to delegate the decision to the president. Until and unless the congress declares war, anything the executive claims as wartime powers are nothing but usurpation.
At least from my experience, unless provided by a major news provider, blogs tend to be a means for someone to advance their opinion,
And this differs from the other media in what way, exactly?
We had a brief period in history where journalists pretended to be objective. Before the mid 20th century, they were very upfront about their political motives, and I hope that we can drop the pretense altogether in the near future.
Who says they need to take anything before a judge?
You've got a point. Of course, Hoover didn't have quite the nerve to harass MLK on his own authority alone, and Bobbie Kennedy authorized the FBIs illegal surveillance of King and other civil rights leaders.
The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.
It's not that hard to get a warrant, and if they're too fucking lazy to call up a judge and explain why they think a warrant is needed, they're endangering the public.
FTA: Roe supposedly from flying fish was actually from smelt.
Cheaper sushi bars do this all the time, and you don't need DNA sequencing to spot the difference. Tobiko (flying fish roe) eggs are larger than smelt eggs, and they're a clear orange color.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm waiting for someone to tell us again how agencies like the USDA and the FDA "protect" us.
-jcr
The USDA may have the power to interfere with a producer in the United States, but they can't keep the importers and distributors in other countries from doing whatever they feel is appropriate to protect their customers and their business.
-jcr
The purpose of the commerce clause in the constitution, was to prevent the states from putting up tariff barriers to interstate trade, not to provide a pretext for the federal government to interfere in anything and everything we do. The feds have proved conclusively in case after case, that they can't be trusted with this power. The clause should be removed by amendment, and replaced with a statement that simply prohibits the states from taxing interstate commerce.
-jcr
In a divorce, both sides always accuse the other of being thugs.
That's an awfully broad brush you're waving around there, sport. I know several couples who split up, in some cases quite bitterly, who didn't make up any claims of violence against each other.
-jcr
What exactly makes him a thug, in your expert opinion?
That's a tough call. He might have had a traumatic childhood, or he might just be an asshole on his own accord.
Or did you mean to ask why I'm convinced he's a thug?
-jcr
Your defense of this woman comes across as a bit desperate.
What's to defend? She did the right thing. I'm not defending her, I'm praising her.
-jcr
Where's the justice in firing a police commander who protects a thug? Are you serious?
Far too many police departments protect bad cops. I say, kudos to Palin for cleaning house.
-jcr
Not for divorcing her sister, but for being a thug. When a politician knows that there's a bad cop on the public payroll, I'd say they have an obligation to get that person canned.
-jcr
This spammer isn't just stealing advertising and committing millions of instances of petty theft. A death threat is a felony in itself, and this clown is racking up enough separate crimes for his sentence to run to thousands of lifetimes.
-jcr
Why didn't he choose Hillary?
Oh, this is just a wild guess, but I would say it was because picking her was the one sure way he could lose.
-jcr
not change we can count on.
Well, since I never bought his act, I can't be disappointed. The depressing thing is how many people think he's different.
-jcr
Biden's not one of the good guys. Never was, never will be.
-jcr
And what of Obama's support for illegal wiretapping indemnity?!?
One thing to keep in mind about the two wings of the Ruling Party, is that they will lament each others' abuse of power, but never take any steps to reduce the power of any federal office, because they hope to be in a position to abuse that power themselves come the next election cycle.
-jcr
Was back in the mid-1980s, when he was beating the drum for protectionism to keep TI and Intel in the DRAM business. His plan was basically to fuck over the entire computer industry to protect two vendors from competitors who were doing a far better job. He's why we had that period of memory prices actually going up for a short while. That's when I decided he was a pig-ignorant, big-government interventionist that we'd all be far better off without.
In the years since then, he's been one of the assholes who promoted the DMCA, he voted for the Iraq war and the Patriot act, (in fact, he bragged quite a bit at the time that the patriot act was based on a similar attack on the bill of rights that he'd written shortly after the Oklahoma City attack.)
So, when faced with his first major decision, the guy spewing all this hogwash about "change we can believe in" chooses an apparatchik who's spent half of his life in the senate, voting for anything that could possible increase the power of the federal government.
-jcr
what does this mean for the safety of other buildings?
Not much. The key here is that the fire was burning for many hours, without sprinkers, around very long girders that expanded and buckled. It took a combination of factors, not the least of which was that there was no water supply for firefighting, to bring WTC 7 down.
I used to work in that building, back when I was doing a gig for the soft-dollar desk at Salomon brothers. It still shakes me up to think it's not there anymore.
-jcr
Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress cannot give the President conditions precedent before acting?
The constitution enumerates limited powers. The congress has only the powers given to it by the constitution. Trying to enumerate all of the things the congress may not do is absurd.
-jcr
I'm looking for a conservative to complain about Fox News, and a liberal to complain about Micheal Moore.
I'm a hard-line Libertarian, and I'll complain about them both. Not for their bias, but for their pretense at objectivity.
-jcr
I vehemently disagree.
Tell it to Dan Rather.
-jcr
One more time for the extremely slow:
Fuck you for getting snotty about it.
The purpose of Congress having the power to declare war in Article I is a check on the Executive Branch, so one man can't wage war.
Exactly. The constitution doesn't permit the congress to delegate the decision to the president. Until and unless the congress declares war, anything the executive claims as wartime powers are nothing but usurpation.
-jcr
At least from my experience, unless provided by a major news provider, blogs tend to be a means for someone to advance their opinion,
And this differs from the other media in what way, exactly?
We had a brief period in history where journalists pretended to be objective. Before the mid 20th century, they were very upfront about their political motives, and I hope that we can drop the pretense altogether in the near future.
-jcr
Seems to me the history and legal precedent (Civil War, WWII)
Seems to me that in both of the examples you cite above, the congress declared war.
Of course, Lincoln did an awful lot of illegal things which are now tolerated just because he did them first.
-jcr
Who says they need to take anything before a judge?
You've got a point. Of course, Hoover didn't have quite the nerve to harass MLK on his own authority alone, and Bobbie Kennedy authorized the FBIs illegal surveillance of King and other civil rights leaders.
-jcr
The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.
It's not that hard to get a warrant, and if they're too fucking lazy to call up a judge and explain why they think a warrant is needed, they're endangering the public.
-jcr
I have no ego wrapped up in any such thing
Sure you do. There's no other reason to advocate C++.
-jcr
FTA: Roe supposedly from flying fish was actually from smelt.
Cheaper sushi bars do this all the time, and you don't need DNA sequencing to spot the difference. Tobiko (flying fish roe) eggs are larger than smelt eggs, and they're a clear orange color.
-jcr