One's in the constitution, one isn't. It's called "law". And I find it hard to believe that defending its citizens (not "nation building" in failed states) is seriously not considered to be a base function of a government by supposedly well-educated Slashdotters.
What? So men are responsible for the emotional well-being of women now? Say "no", dump the guy, then go see a counselor about your low self-esteem. Until all men are empaths, don't expect them to know what you're thinking and feeling.
We have Jimmy Carter (yes, Carter!) to thank for re-legalizing home brewing in the US.
He basically corrected a clerical error (with Congress, of course). When the prohibition amendment was repealed, it returned all regulation to the states. However, the Volstead act also needed to be repealed, and since it didn't mention beer this lent ambiguity to the legality of home brewing as opposed to wine making. It really shouldn't have, as clearly any federal regulations against alcohol production would be unconstitutional at this point, but we've had trouble figuring out how the constitution works for years now.
Anyways, I don't understand why Europeans always pick on cheap mass-market American beers and suggest that the only alternatives are made in [pick a European country].
Progressives will love this because it's populist, and they hate traditional NASA programs because they "take" funds that could be used for social programs. But it puts money in the pockets of capitalists, and adds "carbon" to the atmosphere. What to do!
Name one progressive who has relaxed the regulations on drugs. We have a congress that is about 60% moderate or left-wing, and a president who is left-wing; yet the DEA is still breaking down doors. Of course, we aren't doing much about the drugs streaming across our porous borders, so maybe you DO have a point.
Let me be the last person on Earth to attack a victim, if this 'molestation' actually happened that is just awful. But let me be the first to say, war crimes are more important.
Bill Clinton, is that you? BTW, that's what logical people like to call a "false dilemma".
The swedish political system is similar to the US. In the us you either chose between the elephant right wing or the donkey right wing.
You rattle on about "senior socialist politicians" in Sweden, but you think the major parties in the USA are both right wing? Megan's laws (I like to call them "The Ultimate ThinkOfTheChildren Acts") pretty much make it illegal for a male of any age to get within 20 yards of a female below 18, or have to wear a virtual scarlet letter for the rest of his life. Heck, a minor doesn't even have to be involved; you can just be caught peeing outside and be recorded as a "sexual offender". In other words, they are just a stroke of a pen away from scorned women filing rape charges like in Sweden. I don't even have to get into how many truly socialist bills have been passed in just the last two years. When you have trillions of dollars being spent-- none for inarguably constitutional uses such as defense-- and a big tax hike across the board, that's redistribution of wealth by definition.
It has been a decade since I first proposed the glass box, and progress toward it has been shamefully slow. The main hurdle is sheer institutional inertia. The strongest institutional opposition has come from airline pilots, who fear that the practice would lead to full-scale monitoring of their work, much as it has for interstate truckers. In 2000, in reaction to the EgyptAir crash, the FAA tried to mandate cockpit cameras, but the U.S. pilots' union managed to prevent it. The rest of the world, which followed the U.S. lead, has also done nothing.
Regardless, it's the article's author who is jumping to conclusions here.
I didn't know you had to decapitate people to be considered evil! I think robbery is pretty bad even when performed without a weapon (which actually happens quite often).
Before someone jumps in and claims that the federal government can ask any questions they want, in the constitution it says that the count may be undertaken in "such manner as they shall by Law direct." That means that if they want to use pencil and paper, a web site, or handhelds, any method that they choose in Congress is OK. It doesn't say that the actual census can be anything they want. This means that just about every question other than "how many people" is unconstitutional. Yes, this even includes the claim that even in 1790 they asked for "race". They actually asked for "white" and "other"; regardless, it was wrong even then. They also asked for the number of slaves, but that we pretty much required due to the 3/5 representation clause.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/deep-cuts-health-care-services-uk
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/140810
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295111
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253438/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-routinely-neglected-patients.html?ITO=1490
One's in the constitution, one isn't. It's called "law". And I find it hard to believe that defending its citizens (not "nation building" in failed states) is seriously not considered to be a base function of a government by supposedly well-educated Slashdotters.
He would, but he has a Mac and Microsoft just patented locking the console.
srussia has made a joke. [Continue] [Cancel]
What? So men are responsible for the emotional well-being of women now? Say "no", dump the guy, then go see a counselor about your low self-esteem. Until all men are empaths, don't expect them to know what you're thinking and feeling.
You don't have a Clue, do you?
What's the dumbest thing? "Go Cowboys!"
He basically corrected a clerical error (with Congress, of course). When the prohibition amendment was repealed, it returned all regulation to the states. However, the Volstead act also needed to be repealed, and since it didn't mention beer this lent ambiguity to the legality of home brewing as opposed to wine making. It really shouldn't have, as clearly any federal regulations against alcohol production would be unconstitutional at this point, but we've had trouble figuring out how the constitution works for years now.
Anyways, I don't understand why Europeans always pick on cheap mass-market American beers and suggest that the only alternatives are made in [pick a European country].
Progressives will love this because it's populist, and they hate traditional NASA programs because they "take" funds that could be used for social programs. But it puts money in the pockets of capitalists, and adds "carbon" to the atmosphere. What to do!
Name one progressive who has relaxed the regulations on drugs. We have a congress that is about 60% moderate or left-wing, and a president who is left-wing; yet the DEA is still breaking down doors. Of course, we aren't doing much about the drugs streaming across our porous borders, so maybe you DO have a point.
"Rubbing alcohol" is either ethyl or isopropyl alcohol, not methanol.
Right-- because Sweden's bizarre, archfeminist morality laws aren't the real problem here.
Bill Clinton, is that you? BTW, that's what logical people like to call a "false dilemma".
You rattle on about "senior socialist politicians" in Sweden, but you think the major parties in the USA are both right wing? Megan's laws (I like to call them "The Ultimate ThinkOfTheChildren Acts") pretty much make it illegal for a male of any age to get within 20 yards of a female below 18, or have to wear a virtual scarlet letter for the rest of his life. Heck, a minor doesn't even have to be involved; you can just be caught peeing outside and be recorded as a "sexual offender". In other words, they are just a stroke of a pen away from scorned women filing rape charges like in Sweden. I don't even have to get into how many truly socialist bills have been passed in just the last two years. When you have trillions of dollars being spent-- none for inarguably constitutional uses such as defense-- and a big tax hike across the board, that's redistribution of wealth by definition.
Don't forget the 'roids.
Guess these yokels don't have electricity in their cabins.
Totally without visiting the link, I'll assume it's a video of someone dropping a cat with buttered toast strapped to its back.
Regardless, it's the article's author who is jumping to conclusions here.
It would actually be impressive to have 1 GB of RAM in a desktop PC in 1995, but to have Windows 98 years before it was released...
Let's make sure a copy of "Daikatana" doesn't slip in there, lest future generations not think too well of us.
Fruit?
I didn't know you had to decapitate people to be considered evil! I think robbery is pretty bad even when performed without a weapon (which actually happens quite often).
Sorry to see that you got a "-1, Can't handle the truth" mod there.
Before someone jumps in and claims that the federal government can ask any questions they want, in the constitution it says that the count may be undertaken in "such manner as they shall by Law direct." That means that if they want to use pencil and paper, a web site, or handhelds, any method that they choose in Congress is OK. It doesn't say that the actual census can be anything they want. This means that just about every question other than "how many people" is unconstitutional. Yes, this even includes the claim that even in 1790 they asked for "race". They actually asked for "white" and "other"; regardless, it was wrong even then. They also asked for the number of slaves, but that we pretty much required due to the 3/5 representation clause.