Most did, but there were too many not ready to end it, so they had to compromise. But the heavy hand of government's monopoly on legalized violence coerced everyone into supporting it, even when the abolitionists far outnumbered the supports of slavery.
Just as they do now enforcing drug prohibition, expanding wars in the middle east, and deficit spending and regressive taxation.
It's the fault of the Republicans who're holding the entire country hostage in a blatantly un-Constitutional attempt to repeal majority-supported legislation.
Actually, they are using an explicitly Constitutional tool to force negotiations that they have not been able to have before. All funding bills must start in the House, according to the Constitution, so the Senate cannot pass funding bills. Considering that the ACA, which has now been declared a taxation vehicle, initiated in the Senate, it's actually the ACA passage itself that is "un-Constitutional". The House even offered to fund everything if only the Congressional exemption to ACA were repealed, and Harry Reid even rejected that.
Child Labor, Slavery and Segregation, created Superfund sites for cleanup of the messes made by private business and made them stop poisoning ground water.
Total revisionist history. Slavery and Segregation existed because the Federal Gov't enforced and allowed it. They even had the SCOTUS telling "free" states they had to obey the Feds when they are told to return escaped slaves to their masters. Most of the really badly contaminated "Superfund" sites were created by government agencies and the military - yet they need corporate taxes to fund the clean up.
For the last 20 or 30 years we've been hammered with a 'Gov't is Evil' message.
Bah! Young 'uns. The founding fathers knew that governments were necessary evils when they started the US. That's why they wrote the Constitution to limit the evil that their new governments could do. Too bad so many people have forgotten that, and cheer with every loosening of the Constitutional chains that keep the government in check.
Also, they get automatic raises every year, but I think most people are aware of that.
Well that's necessary because of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which states:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Of course, the slimy lawyers in Congress saw the loophole in this populist amendment right away: just pass a law making raises automatic, and once it's in effect they get raises forever.
Uh, no. *Some* of the people on each side believe they're right. I'm pretty sure that John Boehner is just trying to protect his job (position as Speaker of the House) and wishes the Tea Party never made the demands in the first place.
And what gives you such deep insight into the minds of others, to accurately judge who is sincere or not? Remember, no one sees themself as the villain of their own story; most people have layers upon layers of rationalizations, justifications, and excuses, which combine to form a 'moral code'. It's entirely possible, even probable, for someone's motivations to be completely consistent with an earnest belief that they are in the right, even when observers see their actions as corrupt and self-serving. Even serial killers and child molesters typically have worldviews that frame themselves in a positive light. It takes an unusually honest disposition to admit to flaws in one's own character, even to oneself... and politicians are not generally known for such honesty.
It's actually much more complicated than that, and your analogy is a good example. Many child molesters, for example, are consumed by self-loathing, but unable to control their behavior. I recall the story of a child molester from some years ago that begged to be kept in prison when his sentence was up, because he knew his own destructive behavior was beyond his control (and sure enough ended up re-offending). Whatever insights they may have of their own psyche, they are still driven by the desire for that quick release or physical pleasure they get out from the act. Drug addicts, serial rapists, wife beaters, etc., all fit into this pattern, unable to control their emotions. But nevertheless they typically do view themselves as villains.
Now I'm not saying that John Boehner falls into this category, but there are many justifications that the mind can come up with, including following a path of supporting an evil idea, simply to remain in a position to do a greater "good" later. Harry Reid may be using a similar justification to support Obamacare, telling himself that all the harm, destruction of the economy, loss of jobs and and other bad consequences are worth if the final collapse of the program leads to fully socialized single-payer healthcare system.
But the world is unlikely to make much progress on climate change until the barrier of human psychology is squarely addressed.'
Which I take to mean - anyone not a zombie or an easily led drone needs to be eliminated. Or maybe he is planning the next-generation MK Ultra project for the masses.
Although Galileo’s explanation for why ice floats on water was closer to the truth than his opponent’s arguments, Galileo also belittled legitimate, contradictory evidence given by his opponent
So did he call him a denier, or claim he was on the payroll of the someone with questionable motives?
All that being said - I expect everything applies to the Kindle as well, so - no, there's really no compelling reason to choose the Nook. There's a very good reason to get a Kindle instead: Amazon has a much better selection. (Yeah, I kind of regret my Nook purchase, but not enough to replace it with a Kindle.)
That's not much of a selling point, since you can install and run Kindle on the Nook, but you can't install Nook reader on the Kindle. So that means the Nook actually has a bigger selection.
Then don't vote for politicians that are for securing the country at all cost. Honestly, if the GOP candidates wouldn't be so quick to take away our freedoms, it would be a lot easier to find somebody to vote for that would have more of a spine. But, ultimately, we ended up with Obama who was far less scary than either Romney or McCain in this area, but falls well short of what a reasonable politician should be doing with personal Liberties.
Riiiiight... because it's ONLY ONE of the parties that want to take away your freedom. If only everyone would just vote for Democrats, it would be all Rainbows and Unicorns all the time.
Since the NSA grabs everything anyways, at least if it were a sign on we could end trolls and harassment online.
So does active moderation. In this case, it will be government doing the moderation. You trust your government, don't you? Don't call it "censorship" - it's "moderation".
The last scary thought I shall leave with. What if J Edgar Hoover had the NSA's ability to spy on people?
I'm not sure why you're assuming that Robert Mueller is any better. Maybe because he's better at secrecy and intimidation? Think about this for a minute: After Hoover's death, when all the stuff he did came out, Congress passed a law limiting the term of any FBI director to 10 years. Yet, recently, the law was ignored and Mueller's term extended Why? Well the excuse was that it was required for "continuity", but, is that really credible coming from a Democratically-controlled Senate debating the illegal extension of term for a Bush appointee. How?
During one of the recent hearings on spying, Holder was asked if the NSA was also tapping into private phone calls and emails of members of Congress. He basically refused to answer the question, offering to "address that in a different forum." In secret, in other words. And one NSA whistle blower mentioned how the program even targeted a certain senate candidate from Illinois (yep, that one).
So we may now be in an even worse position, with a J. Edgar Hoover type leading the FBI, and with much better technology and a greatly expanded police and surveillance state.
People just like blaming Obama for apparatus that was setup under Bush's watch.
How about blaming him for criticizing that apparatus during his campaign, promising to dismantle it, and then embracing and expanding it all after he was elected.
Getting really tired of the It's Okay When My Side Does It crowd.
Except of course only ~300 tonnes of partially treated water IN TOTAL leaked (not 300 tonnes per day) and the leak has been stopped.
Sorry, that is incorrect. There are many much better stories about the leaks, but even this one mentioned (at the bottom):
The incident comes days after Tepco admitted that as much as 300 tonnes of contaminated water a day was leaking from the damaged reactor buildings to the sea.
Yes, they are pumping water out of a leaky tank into another one, but have only promised to remove the contaminated soil, nothing done on that yet. And the problem is that these plants are sinking, and there is ground water flowing through them (and getting contaminated from the melted fuel lumps) and going right out into the sea. That's a different issue than all the water getting pumped in to keep the damaged fuel from getting hot that has to be stored in tanks (some of which are prone to leaks).
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently they didn't consider slavery evil.
Most did, but there were too many not ready to end it, so they had to compromise. But the heavy hand of government's monopoly on legalized violence coerced everyone into supporting it, even when the abolitionists far outnumbered the supports of slavery.
Just as they do now enforcing drug prohibition, expanding wars in the middle east, and deficit spending and regressive taxation.
It's the fault of the Republicans who're holding the entire country hostage in a blatantly un-Constitutional attempt to repeal majority-supported legislation.
Actually, they are using an explicitly Constitutional tool to force negotiations that they have not been able to have before. All funding bills must start in the House, according to the Constitution, so the Senate cannot pass funding bills. Considering that the ACA, which has now been declared a taxation vehicle, initiated in the Senate, it's actually the ACA passage itself that is "un-Constitutional". The House even offered to fund everything if only the Congressional exemption to ACA were repealed, and Harry Reid even rejected that.
Child Labor, Slavery and Segregation, created Superfund sites for cleanup of the messes made by private business and made them stop poisoning ground water.
Total revisionist history. Slavery and Segregation existed because the Federal Gov't enforced and allowed it. They even had the SCOTUS telling "free" states they had to obey the Feds when they are told to return escaped slaves to their masters. Most of the really badly contaminated "Superfund" sites were created by government agencies and the military - yet they need corporate taxes to fund the clean up.
For the last 20 or 30 years we've been hammered with a 'Gov't is Evil' message.
Bah! Young 'uns. The founding fathers knew that governments were necessary evils when they started the US. That's why they wrote the Constitution to limit the evil that their new governments could do. Too bad so many people have forgotten that, and cheer with every loosening of the Constitutional chains that keep the government in check.
Also, they get automatic raises every year, but I think most people are aware of that.
Well that's necessary because of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which states:
Of course, the slimy lawyers in Congress saw the loophole in this populist amendment right away: just pass a law making raises automatic, and once it's in effect they get raises forever.
Uh, no. *Some* of the people on each side believe they're right. I'm pretty sure that John Boehner is just trying to protect his job (position as Speaker of the House) and wishes the Tea Party never made the demands in the first place.
And what gives you such deep insight into the minds of others, to accurately judge who is sincere or not? Remember, no one sees themself as the villain of their own story; most people have layers upon layers of rationalizations, justifications, and excuses, which combine to form a 'moral code'. It's entirely possible, even probable, for someone's motivations to be completely consistent with an earnest belief that they are in the right, even when observers see their actions as corrupt and self-serving. Even serial killers and child molesters typically have worldviews that frame themselves in a positive light. It takes an unusually honest disposition to admit to flaws in one's own character, even to oneself... and politicians are not generally known for such honesty.
It's actually much more complicated than that, and your analogy is a good example. Many child molesters, for example, are consumed by self-loathing, but unable to control their behavior. I recall the story of a child molester from some years ago that begged to be kept in prison when his sentence was up, because he knew his own destructive behavior was beyond his control (and sure enough ended up re-offending). Whatever insights they may have of their own psyche, they are still driven by the desire for that quick release or physical pleasure they get out from the act. Drug addicts, serial rapists, wife beaters, etc., all fit into this pattern, unable to control their emotions. But nevertheless they typically do view themselves as villains.
Now I'm not saying that John Boehner falls into this category, but there are many justifications that the mind can come up with, including following a path of supporting an evil idea, simply to remain in a position to do a greater "good" later. Harry Reid may be using a similar justification to support Obamacare, telling himself that all the harm, destruction of the economy, loss of jobs and and other bad consequences are worth if the final collapse of the program leads to fully socialized single-payer healthcare system.
The vast majority of triple AAA games aren't ported to the Wii
Just how many AAA AAA AAA games are out there, anyway?
I would gladly pay far more in taxes if we had a functional safety net comparable to other first-world nations.
That's not what you get when you pay more taxes - you just get poorer and the tax collectors and thousands of their friends get richer.
Right, but that seems to be his solution:
But the world is unlikely to make much progress on climate change until the barrier of human psychology is squarely addressed.'
Which I take to mean - anyone not a zombie or an easily led drone needs to be eliminated. Or maybe he is planning the next-generation MK Ultra project for the masses.
Well this human being has a fear of Cass Sunstein in any sort of authoritative position, that's for sure.
And either one in high enough concentrations can kill you.
Irrelevant. Your BREATH has CO2 in high enough concentrations to kill you, too.
Even if man-made climate change is false, reducing the fucking atmospheric pollution is a good damn idea.
Quite agree. And there is a long list of pollutants spoiling our air and water. CO2 is not one of them.
Do everyone a favour by going breath auto-mobile exhaust
Great - another idiot that can't tell the difference between CO and CO2.
Although Galileo’s explanation for why ice floats on water was closer to the truth than his opponent’s arguments, Galileo also belittled legitimate, contradictory evidence given by his opponent
So did he call him a denier, or claim he was on the payroll of the someone with questionable motives?
All that being said - I expect everything applies to the Kindle as well, so - no, there's really no compelling reason to choose the Nook. There's a very good reason to get a Kindle instead: Amazon has a much better selection. (Yeah, I kind of regret my Nook purchase, but not enough to replace it with a Kindle.)
That's not much of a selling point, since you can install and run Kindle on the Nook, but you can't install Nook reader on the Kindle. So that means the Nook actually has a bigger selection.
One item that really tested Kirk's metal
The plate in his head? Or did you mean mettle?
Now, it's arguable that
Teaser?! Very interesting start, where's your conclusion? Did the boss walk in and catch you on /.?
With Tim Russ? No thanks.
What's your problem with Canadia?
Then don't vote for politicians that are for securing the country at all cost. Honestly, if the GOP candidates wouldn't be so quick to take away our freedoms, it would be a lot easier to find somebody to vote for that would have more of a spine. But, ultimately, we ended up with Obama who was far less scary than either Romney or McCain in this area, but falls well short of what a reasonable politician should be doing with personal Liberties.
Riiiiight... because it's ONLY ONE of the parties that want to take away your freedom. If only everyone would just vote for Democrats, it would be all Rainbows and Unicorns all the time.
...and it's free to the user.
Nothing is ever "free". Don't ever forget that.
Since the NSA grabs everything anyways, at least if it were a sign on we could end trolls and harassment online.
So does active moderation. In this case, it will be government doing the moderation. You trust your government, don't you? Don't call it "censorship" - it's "moderation".
In other news, HuffPo plans to ban anonymous posting, and phase in a requirement for a secure government-issued ID for all posters...
only one person has signed it lol
There are now 7. Maybe they'll take it down, or maybe they'll use it as a Secret Services' "List of people to visit".
The last scary thought I shall leave with. What if J Edgar Hoover had the NSA's ability to spy on people?
I'm not sure why you're assuming that Robert Mueller is any better. Maybe because he's better at secrecy and intimidation? Think about this for a minute: After Hoover's death, when all the stuff he did came out, Congress passed a law limiting the term of any FBI director to 10 years. Yet, recently, the law was ignored and Mueller's term extended Why? Well the excuse was that it was required for "continuity", but, is that really credible coming from a Democratically-controlled Senate debating the illegal extension of term for a Bush appointee. How?
During one of the recent hearings on spying, Holder was asked if the NSA was also tapping into private phone calls and emails of members of Congress. He basically refused to answer the question, offering to "address that in a different forum." In secret, in other words. And one NSA whistle blower mentioned how the program even targeted a certain senate candidate from Illinois (yep, that one).
So we may now be in an even worse position, with a J. Edgar Hoover type leading the FBI, and with much better technology and a greatly expanded police and surveillance state.
People just like blaming Obama for apparatus that was setup under Bush's watch.
How about blaming him for criticizing that apparatus during his campaign, promising to dismantle it, and then embracing and expanding it all after he was elected.
Getting really tired of the It's Okay When My Side Does It crowd.
Surprise, surprise. Obummer lies.
Racist!
Except of course only ~300 tonnes of partially treated water IN TOTAL leaked (not 300 tonnes per day) and the leak has been stopped.
Sorry, that is incorrect. There are many much better stories about the leaks, but even this one mentioned (at the bottom):
Yes, they are pumping water out of a leaky tank into another one, but have only promised to remove the contaminated soil, nothing done on that yet. And the problem is that these plants are sinking, and there is ground water flowing through them (and getting contaminated from the melted fuel lumps) and going right out into the sea. That's a different issue than all the water getting pumped in to keep the damaged fuel from getting hot that has to be stored in tanks (some of which are prone to leaks).