Cooperation, conflict avoidance, and negotiation have been part of common culture essentially forever, at least within the band. (We seem to have been evolved to function in groups of roughly 150, and the members have to work together harmoniously.) That's neither male nor female.
The taxes can probably best be used reducing some other taxes, to create revenue neutrality. That will have the minimum impact on the economy consistent with reducing CO2 emissions.
"thinking like that", in this case, means recognizing the laws of physics. You can't burn carbon and then unburn it without expending energy, net. Therefore, if you have non-fossil-fuel energy that can be used to replace fossil fuels, it's most efficient to do just that.
Really? A Nazi in the 1920s and early 1930s would be quite comfortable saying that a head of the Weimar Republic was "destroying Germany, the Germans and Europe. Traitor." Seems simple enough to me.
Going back to this, the armed forces are not required to exist by the Constitution, merely allowed, and the President has nothing to command that Congress doesn't have to set up first. I missed the part about being able to adjourn Congress if the houses disagree in the above. So, the only actual power the President without action by Congress has is to issue pardons and reprieves, adjourn Congress when the houses thereof disagree, and fill in vacancies when the Senate is out of session (the Supreme Court is required by the Constitution, and Congress can't abolish it).
The First says that there will be no laws restricting freedom of speech etc. It does not have exemptions for non-citizens. The second says "the right to bear Arms shall not be infringed". There's no reason to assume that only US citizens would be part of a militia. There is nothing in international law that compels people to fight only in the armed forces of a country they're citizens of. The Third applies to houses and their Owners, and there's no reason why a non-citizen can't own a house in the US. The Fourth starts with "the right of the people", and says nothing about citizenship. The Fifth starts with "No person", not "No citizen". The Sixth applies to "the accused" in "all criminal prosecutions". It's certainly possible for non-citizens to commit a crime in this country. The Seventh specifies a jury in civil cases, and a non-citizen can be sued and can sue in US courts. The Eighth applies to criminal cases, again not a specialty of citizens. The Ninth says nothing about states. I didn't find the word "citizen" in any of them.
Obviously, the US Constitution, as amended, does not apply everywhere in the world. It does apply to the parts of the world the US does control, which is just common sense, but there's no "common sense" way to show that "This shall not happen" means "This shall not happen to citizens".
The Federalist papers were propaganda, designed to make people want the Constitution ratified. They aren't an impartial commentary on the Constitution.
I can't provide better empirical evidence that the vetting process is working than to note that no refugee admitted has made a terrorist attack. You seem to take that as an indication that the vetting isn't good enough.
The Mahdi was not the Prophet, and attributing his prophecies to all Muslims is like saying all Christians acknowledge the Pope as their spiritual leader. The Mahdi cult has caused problems in the past, and doubtless will in the future, but it isn't really part of Islam as opposed to something many Muslims believe. Christians have their own apocalyptic death cults, although they generally await Armageddon rather than try to cause it.
I liked the proposal (Trump's, I believe) to grant H-1Bs on the basis of who wants to pay most, so each application would come with a salary and we'd go through them in decreasing order and stop when we hit the limit. That would allow companies to bring in the sort of people H-1Bs are nominally for.
Trust me, if Progressives in general decided to shoot Republican members of Congress, we'd do a much better job of it. This was no more a liberal act than the shooting of Giffords was a conservative act.
Except the "conservative" branch for various reasons does not want federalism as GP has defined it. Consider Federal drug bans, as one example. Everybody wants the Feds to have a certain amount of power, which varies person to person, and looks for Constitutional reasons for that.
Islam is not a death cult. The fact that there's a good fraction of a billion people who want to do horrible things to me isn't a concern to me as long as they can't do them. Banning an entire religion on the basis that a lot of them have horrible beliefs is wrong. Ban the people with the horrible beliefs. So far, the vetting process has done an excellent job of keeping terrorists masquerading as terrorists out of the US, and I don't see why we can't keep doing that.
What do you mean by "play along"? I'm free to have my own opinions about people's beliefs and express them. It's only a problem when we want to prevent people from doing something due to their crazy beliefs.
You're talking about a matter of degree, not of kind. We have a lot of perfectly reasonable Muslims around the world, and a fair number of idiot Christians. The ratios differ, that's all.
How is it OK to support the "freedom" of a religion that systematic oppresses women?
You're missing the mindset here. Everyone has freedom of religion, including Muslims. Various people do things I think bad, and attribute them to their religion. I blame the people, not the religion. There are Muslims who aren't interested in oppressing women. There are Christians who are very much in favor of oppressing women. I'm against the oppression of women by anyone.
Also, I can be strongly against something but be strongly against making it illegal. I believe neo-Nazis should have all the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
That was the whole point of putting a prison in Guantanamo - it was Cuban soil, not U.S., and thus the prisoners wouldn't have U.S. Constitutional protection.
That always seemed wrong to me. In all the other governments I know of in the world when the Constitution took effect, the government (typically a monarch) theoretically had all the power, and constitutions and other such laws were limits on the government's power. The US Federal Government is supposed to have the powers in the Constitution, so those are positive statements about what the Feds can do. This is still enforced, although "Commerce...among the several States" gets (in my opinion) way overstretched.
Therefore, anything the Federal government can do is subject to the Constitution.
Relations with Stalin in and around WWII were complicated. He was generally in favor in the West from mid-1941 (when Germany invaded) until the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, which started complicating relationships. Had he handled that better, he might have been considered an ally for some time after the war. It would have broken down eventually, but not necessarily immediately after the war.
Most US Constitutional rights apply to everyone. The people who wrote the Constitution had no problem with the word "citizen", and they used it sparingly. There can be no laws in the country abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, establishing (i.e., favoring) any religion, even ones affecting non-citizens only.
The limit is that the Constitution only applies to parts of the world controlled by the US, so non-US citizens in other countries have no effective rights under it.
According to the Constitution, all border and naturalization issues are the responsibility of Congress, and the President can only exert authority he gets from Congress, which under any possible application of the First means he can't discriminate based on religion.
The President actually has very little power of his own. The President is commander-in-chief of the national armed forces, can issue pardons and reprieves, and can fill in vacancies that happen when the Senate is out of session. The President has the power to require written opinions from heads of executive departments, but Congress has to create the departments. The President's ability to nominate officials and make treaties is dependent on the Senate. Most of the power of the President is through executing powers delegated by Congress.
The reason people attribute attitudes to Trump that he may not have is that the guy doesn't make it clear what he thinks. Typically, someone will take something Trump said, apply some plausible reasoning, and get a conclusion about what Trump was saying. Someone else will do the same to come up with a different conclusion, and yet another person will argue that Trump didn't mean what he said. To refute "what he really thinks" arguments, all you have to do is come up with quotes and reasons to believe otherwise, and usually that's impossible.
It could have easily attracted a market of more professional users if it wouldn't have tried to copy iOS and Android.
Which was basically RIM's idea to stay relevant with the Blackberry. Provide professional-level services (whatever they are) and sell to businesses. Microsoft couldn't have won that way either.
Slashdot Mirror
Cooperation, conflict avoidance, and negotiation have been part of common culture essentially forever, at least within the band. (We seem to have been evolved to function in groups of roughly 150, and the members have to work together harmoniously.) That's neither male nor female.
The taxes can probably best be used reducing some other taxes, to create revenue neutrality. That will have the minimum impact on the economy consistent with reducing CO2 emissions.
"thinking like that", in this case, means recognizing the laws of physics. You can't burn carbon and then unburn it without expending energy, net. Therefore, if you have non-fossil-fuel energy that can be used to replace fossil fuels, it's most efficient to do just that.
Really? A Nazi in the 1920s and early 1930s would be quite comfortable saying that a head of the Weimar Republic was "destroying Germany, the Germans and Europe. Traitor." Seems simple enough to me.
Going back to this, the armed forces are not required to exist by the Constitution, merely allowed, and the President has nothing to command that Congress doesn't have to set up first. I missed the part about being able to adjourn Congress if the houses disagree in the above. So, the only actual power the President without action by Congress has is to issue pardons and reprieves, adjourn Congress when the houses thereof disagree, and fill in vacancies when the Senate is out of session (the Supreme Court is required by the Constitution, and Congress can't abolish it).
The First says that there will be no laws restricting freedom of speech etc. It does not have exemptions for non-citizens. The second says "the right to bear Arms shall not be infringed". There's no reason to assume that only US citizens would be part of a militia. There is nothing in international law that compels people to fight only in the armed forces of a country they're citizens of. The Third applies to houses and their Owners, and there's no reason why a non-citizen can't own a house in the US. The Fourth starts with "the right of the people", and says nothing about citizenship. The Fifth starts with "No person", not "No citizen". The Sixth applies to "the accused" in "all criminal prosecutions". It's certainly possible for non-citizens to commit a crime in this country. The Seventh specifies a jury in civil cases, and a non-citizen can be sued and can sue in US courts. The Eighth applies to criminal cases, again not a specialty of citizens. The Ninth says nothing about states. I didn't find the word "citizen" in any of them.
Obviously, the US Constitution, as amended, does not apply everywhere in the world. It does apply to the parts of the world the US does control, which is just common sense, but there's no "common sense" way to show that "This shall not happen" means "This shall not happen to citizens".
The Federalist papers were propaganda, designed to make people want the Constitution ratified. They aren't an impartial commentary on the Constitution.
I can't provide better empirical evidence that the vetting process is working than to note that no refugee admitted has made a terrorist attack. You seem to take that as an indication that the vetting isn't good enough.
The Mahdi was not the Prophet, and attributing his prophecies to all Muslims is like saying all Christians acknowledge the Pope as their spiritual leader. The Mahdi cult has caused problems in the past, and doubtless will in the future, but it isn't really part of Islam as opposed to something many Muslims believe. Christians have their own apocalyptic death cults, although they generally await Armageddon rather than try to cause it.
I liked the proposal (Trump's, I believe) to grant H-1Bs on the basis of who wants to pay most, so each application would come with a salary and we'd go through them in decreasing order and stop when we hit the limit. That would allow companies to bring in the sort of people H-1Bs are nominally for.
Trust me, if Progressives in general decided to shoot Republican members of Congress, we'd do a much better job of it. This was no more a liberal act than the shooting of Giffords was a conservative act.
Except the "conservative" branch for various reasons does not want federalism as GP has defined it. Consider Federal drug bans, as one example. Everybody wants the Feds to have a certain amount of power, which varies person to person, and looks for Constitutional reasons for that.
Strange....I've been seeing liberals pushing for reasonable policies and measured responses, and the conservatives go ballistic.
Islam is not a death cult. The fact that there's a good fraction of a billion people who want to do horrible things to me isn't a concern to me as long as they can't do them. Banning an entire religion on the basis that a lot of them have horrible beliefs is wrong. Ban the people with the horrible beliefs. So far, the vetting process has done an excellent job of keeping terrorists masquerading as terrorists out of the US, and I don't see why we can't keep doing that.
What do you mean by "play along"? I'm free to have my own opinions about people's beliefs and express them. It's only a problem when we want to prevent people from doing something due to their crazy beliefs.
You're talking about a matter of degree, not of kind. We have a lot of perfectly reasonable Muslims around the world, and a fair number of idiot Christians. The ratios differ, that's all.
You're missing the mindset here. Everyone has freedom of religion, including Muslims. Various people do things I think bad, and attribute them to their religion. I blame the people, not the religion. There are Muslims who aren't interested in oppressing women. There are Christians who are very much in favor of oppressing women. I'm against the oppression of women by anyone.
Also, I can be strongly against something but be strongly against making it illegal. I believe neo-Nazis should have all the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
That always seemed wrong to me. In all the other governments I know of in the world when the Constitution took effect, the government (typically a monarch) theoretically had all the power, and constitutions and other such laws were limits on the government's power. The US Federal Government is supposed to have the powers in the Constitution, so those are positive statements about what the Feds can do. This is still enforced, although "Commerce...among the several States" gets (in my opinion) way overstretched.
Therefore, anything the Federal government can do is subject to the Constitution.
Relations with Stalin in and around WWII were complicated. He was generally in favor in the West from mid-1941 (when Germany invaded) until the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, which started complicating relationships. Had he handled that better, he might have been considered an ally for some time after the war. It would have broken down eventually, but not necessarily immediately after the war.
Most US Constitutional rights apply to everyone. The people who wrote the Constitution had no problem with the word "citizen", and they used it sparingly. There can be no laws in the country abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, establishing (i.e., favoring) any religion, even ones affecting non-citizens only.
The limit is that the Constitution only applies to parts of the world controlled by the US, so non-US citizens in other countries have no effective rights under it.
According to the Constitution, all border and naturalization issues are the responsibility of Congress, and the President can only exert authority he gets from Congress, which under any possible application of the First means he can't discriminate based on religion.
The President actually has very little power of his own. The President is commander-in-chief of the national armed forces, can issue pardons and reprieves, and can fill in vacancies that happen when the Senate is out of session. The President has the power to require written opinions from heads of executive departments, but Congress has to create the departments. The President's ability to nominate officials and make treaties is dependent on the Senate. Most of the power of the President is through executing powers delegated by Congress.
The reason people attribute attitudes to Trump that he may not have is that the guy doesn't make it clear what he thinks. Typically, someone will take something Trump said, apply some plausible reasoning, and get a conclusion about what Trump was saying. Someone else will do the same to come up with a different conclusion, and yet another person will argue that Trump didn't mean what he said. To refute "what he really thinks" arguments, all you have to do is come up with quotes and reasons to believe otherwise, and usually that's impossible.
Rats, misclicked on the moderation dropdown.
Which was basically RIM's idea to stay relevant with the Blackberry. Provide professional-level services (whatever they are) and sell to businesses. Microsoft couldn't have won that way either.
Could you rephrase that question so it doesn't contradict itself?
That's something a Nazi would have said about a head of the Weimar Republic.
It was at least partly the speech of citizens that led to Germany's government.
You can't have a classical free market with information asymmetry either, but we manage with what we've got.
Complete freedom of speech is not part of any definition of "democracy" I've ever seen.