This always gets modded up and is INCORRECT. IE has the same privileges as the user that ran it. The main problem is that ActiveX allows any code to be run on the machine at the user's privileges instead of a sandbox.
If you don't have an IRS, who is going to collect your flat sales tax, the mystical tax fairies?
In any case, flat taxes (like sales, gas, vice) are regressive. A poor person would most likely end up paying a much larger percentage of their income than a rich person under a flat tax.
From what I recall, the SPR holds a drop in the bucket.. something on the order of a few days' worth of oil. The SPR website used to list how much oil was in the Reserve, but it looks like that information has been removed, so I can't confirm.
But anyway, you can't just seize oil fields and expect to get gasoline the next day. One merely needs to look at Iraq.
Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that if push came to shove, if arguments came to missiles and bombs, that the United States would be incapable of taking over the oil fields of a major producer, and then securing production and delivery?
Pre-Iraq I would have said no.. but now I do say yes. It doesn't take much work to sabotage or destroy oil equipment, and once that's done you've got to get all new equipment in place, and you may even have to drill new wells. Remember that the profits from oil in Iraq were supposed to pay for the reconstruction? And now it's 2.5 years later and they're still barely managing a few million barrels per day.
Taking over oil fields sounds easy, but this is war, real war, we're talking about.
I'm thinking that we should "remind" our foreign allies that a country with our military might cannot and will not be forced.
Reality check time. You can't run a military without a few things.. two of them are oil and money.
A majority of our oil comes from outside the country. Over half of our debt is held by foreign countries, with China buying up more and more each day.
While we have stocks on hand to conduct operations, if other countries wanted to get serious (and they obviously wouldn't over such a silly issue as this), the US would be in deep shit. We've situated ourselves in the world to rely on not only our allies, but also countries that some consider enemies, like China and the some of the nations in OPEC. The US cannot stand alone against the world.
Let me get this straight. You think it was car racing that 'stuck' us with the ICE? You believe that an extremely small amount of vehicles led to the widespread adoption of the ICE?
That is to say, you don't think it was the facts that an ICE is mechanically simple, powered by a cheap and easily transportable fuel, reasonably efficient, easily constructed, etc?
Re:how many people actually _like_ windows?
on
Pepping Up Windows
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Having never seen the point of docking stations, I can't comment here.
Are you high? A caveman can see the point of a docking station. It's a simple concept: when in the office, dock the laptop and use a traditional monitor, keyboard, mouse, usb, network, speakers -- anything. No hooking up a hundred different cables each time you come into work: just drop it in the dock. When it's time to go on-site, pop off the dock and go.
I was talking about the original definitions of 1st world, etc. In case you forgot (or never knew in the first place), there used to be two Germanys! West, and East! How about that!
If you don't like it, vote in someone who will make the changes you want. If you can't get that done, move.
You think the people your taxes help support have an easy life? I submit that you are an arrogant and ignorant piece of shit. Go try living on welfare, food stamps, public housing and medicaid for a year and let us know how easy it is.
Today unused embryos are worthless trash, if legal for research they'd be a very valuable commodity. This might give the incentive to overcollect embryos or start paying women to donate embryos only to turn around and sell them.
A trivial problem. Make it just like donating your body to science when you die. It's illegal to sell your body parts, but completely legal to be an organ donor.
... and the only people who could introduce such legislation are?
It always comes back to the legislators. If they aren't going to stop this behavior on their own, why would they voluntarily amend the rules to prohibit it?
An interesting idea, but unworkable from a practical sense.
The solution is balls. People in Congress need balls to stand up and vote against these bills with riders, no matter what the original legislation was. They should be casting no votes (or abstentions) on these bills, and holding press conferences immediately afterwords to explain why the bill was inappropriate. The President needs balls to stand up and veto bills that slip through with inappropriate riders.
It's a fallacy that a line-item veto is necessary to control spending. A line-item veto is a spending control, but it's not the only one. The two biggest spending restaints are the Congress' self-control, and the executive's ability to veto bills. Our current Congress and President have used neither of these tools.
Regarding the OT foray into term limits, I am against term limits and for the repeal of the 22nd.
I just don't see what's different, except for the procedure. The President can already say "sure, I'll pass it, but hold the side of pork" by vetoing the bill, and explaining to the public why the bill was vetoed. If Congress decides to not address the main issue of the bill again (e.g disaster relief), then the President can say "There is no disaster relief because the Congress has not presented me with an appropriate spending bill."
By being able to approve the bill - as intended - and reject the graft
The bill that comes out of Congress is the bill as intended. If it has riders/pork/etc. in it, then Congress meant for that pork to be there.
The onus is always on Congress to pass appropriate legislation. The executive acts as the check that Congress passses appropriate legislation. When the Congress and President are in cahoots, this system is effectively removed. There are two solutions. One is to ensure a divided government (historically this has been the case). Another is to elect leaders that whose principles are rooted in the Constitution; not the party. What we have right now is a legislature and executive that are controlled by people who consistently put the party above everything else.
Right, so the problem is not with the system, but the people. The legislators, and the president that signs the final bill, are the ones that need to be held accountable.
The Congress is free to make its own rules in the Constitution. If the leaders of Congress can't handle this responsibility, they simply need to be replaced.
Who is going to veto an emergency spending bill for e.g. Katrina?
Someone with the balls to stand up and say "This is wrong". The President really has the high ground in these situations, as witnessed with the government shutdown that resulted from the impasse between Clinton and the GOP.
Your solution would appear to work.. but would be a line-item veto in name only and not really different from the current system, imo.
Instead of blaming the legislative process, which has been virtually unchanged for over 200 years, why don't you blame the legislators?
The term "snuck into bills" is misleading. After a bill is reported out of committee, amendments must be offered on the floor during the Committee of the Whole. There's nothing secret or sneaky about it.
Sibling poster incorrectly points out that you have the Germane rule switched around. In any case, if I remember my Congressional Politics class correctly, the Chair gets to rule on the germaness of amendments. In effect, the germaneness rule only limits the minority party (typical of the House). The Supreme Court has routinely ruled that the Congress is free to set and interpret its own rules, so this action is not unconstitutional or illegal, just annoying.
There is a limited germaness rule in the Senate. My recollection is that amendments to appropriations bills must be germane.
A line-item veto makes the executive a de facto legislator and weakens the system of checks and balances. If the President does not like part of a bill, they should veto it and use the bully pulpit to win public approval for their version of the bill (something the current president has never done). The Supreme Court was correct in ruling the line item veto unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
The LOTR done by "The Mind's Eye" is abridged and cuts out much of the unnecessary bits. I believe it clocks in at 20 hours total.
This always gets modded up and is INCORRECT. IE has the same privileges as the user that ran it. The main problem is that ActiveX allows any code to be run on the machine at the user's privileges instead of a sandbox.
If you don't have an IRS, who is going to collect your flat sales tax, the mystical tax fairies?
In any case, flat taxes (like sales, gas, vice) are regressive. A poor person would most likely end up paying a much larger percentage of their income than a rich person under a flat tax.
Lying to the police won't get you perjury in the US, but it will get you an obstruction charge if they're pissed at you.
There is no address tonight. It was at 10 this morning and it was merely a rewrite of Bush's standard terrorism speech.
From what I recall, the SPR holds a drop in the bucket.. something on the order of a few days' worth of oil. The SPR website used to list how much oil was in the Reserve, but it looks like that information has been removed, so I can't confirm.
But anyway, you can't just seize oil fields and expect to get gasoline the next day. One merely needs to look at Iraq.
Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that if push came to shove, if arguments came to missiles and bombs, that the United States would be incapable of taking over the oil fields of a major producer, and then securing production and delivery?
Pre-Iraq I would have said no.. but now I do say yes. It doesn't take much work to sabotage or destroy oil equipment, and once that's done you've got to get all new equipment in place, and you may even have to drill new wells. Remember that the profits from oil in Iraq were supposed to pay for the reconstruction? And now it's 2.5 years later and they're still barely managing a few million barrels per day.
Taking over oil fields sounds easy, but this is war, real war, we're talking about.
It does have authority, at least in the US. Treaties, when ratified by the Senate, become equal to the Constitution in authority.
I'm thinking that we should "remind" our foreign allies that a country with our military might cannot and will not be forced.
Reality check time. You can't run a military without a few things.. two of them are oil and money.
A majority of our oil comes from outside the country. Over half of our debt is held by foreign countries, with China buying up more and more each day.
While we have stocks on hand to conduct operations, if other countries wanted to get serious (and they obviously wouldn't over such a silly issue as this), the US would be in deep shit. We've situated ourselves in the world to rely on not only our allies, but also countries that some consider enemies, like China and the some of the nations in OPEC. The US cannot stand alone against the world.
Let me get this straight. You think it was car racing that 'stuck' us with the ICE? You believe that an extremely small amount of vehicles led to the widespread adoption of the ICE?
That is to say, you don't think it was the facts that an ICE is mechanically simple, powered by a cheap and easily transportable fuel, reasonably efficient, easily constructed, etc?
Having never seen the point of docking stations, I can't comment here.
Are you high? A caveman can see the point of a docking station. It's a simple concept: when in the office, dock the laptop and use a traditional monitor, keyboard, mouse, usb, network, speakers -- anything. No hooking up a hundred different cables each time you come into work: just drop it in the dock. When it's time to go on-site, pop off the dock and go.
I was talking about the original definitions of 1st world, etc. In case you forgot (or never knew in the first place), there used to be two Germanys! West, and East! How about that!
If you don't like it, vote in someone who will make the changes you want. If you can't get that done, move.
You think the people your taxes help support have an easy life? I submit that you are an arrogant and ignorant piece of shit. Go try living on welfare, food stamps, public housing and medicaid for a year and let us know how easy it is.
Even your definition is incorrect.
1st World: US, UK, W. Ger, and allies (NATO)
2nd World: USSR, E. Ger, Poland, and allies. (Warsaw Pact)
3rd World: Everyone else.
Economics have nothing to do with the original definitions of 3rd world, etc.
Today unused embryos are worthless trash, if legal for research they'd be a very valuable commodity. This might give the incentive to overcollect embryos or start paying women to donate embryos only to turn around and sell them.
A trivial problem. Make it just like donating your body to science when you die. It's illegal to sell your body parts, but completely legal to be an organ donor.
... and the only people who could introduce such legislation are?
It always comes back to the legislators. If they aren't going to stop this behavior on their own, why would they voluntarily amend the rules to prohibit it?
An interesting idea, but unworkable from a practical sense.
The solution is balls. People in Congress need balls to stand up and vote against these bills with riders, no matter what the original legislation was. They should be casting no votes (or abstentions) on these bills, and holding press conferences immediately afterwords to explain why the bill was inappropriate. The President needs balls to stand up and veto bills that slip through with inappropriate riders.
It's a fallacy that a line-item veto is necessary to control spending. A line-item veto is a spending control, but it's not the only one. The two biggest spending restaints are the Congress' self-control, and the executive's ability to veto bills. Our current Congress and President have used neither of these tools.
Regarding the OT foray into term limits, I am against term limits and for the repeal of the 22nd.
I just don't see what's different, except for the procedure. The President can already say "sure, I'll pass it, but hold the side of pork" by vetoing the bill, and explaining to the public why the bill was vetoed. If Congress decides to not address the main issue of the bill again (e.g disaster relief), then the President can say "There is no disaster relief because the Congress has not presented me with an appropriate spending bill."
By being able to approve the bill - as intended - and reject the graft
The bill that comes out of Congress is the bill as intended. If it has riders/pork/etc. in it, then Congress meant for that pork to be there.
The onus is always on Congress to pass appropriate legislation. The executive acts as the check that Congress passses appropriate legislation. When the Congress and President are in cahoots, this system is effectively removed. There are two solutions. One is to ensure a divided government (historically this has been the case). Another is to elect leaders that whose principles are rooted in the Constitution; not the party. What we have right now is a legislature and executive that are controlled by people who consistently put the party above everything else.
Right, so the problem is not with the system, but the people. The legislators, and the president that signs the final bill, are the ones that need to be held accountable.
The Congress is free to make its own rules in the Constitution. If the leaders of Congress can't handle this responsibility, they simply need to be replaced.
Who is going to veto an emergency spending bill for e.g. Katrina?
Someone with the balls to stand up and say "This is wrong". The President really has the high ground in these situations, as witnessed with the government shutdown that resulted from the impasse between Clinton and the GOP.
Your solution would appear to work.. but would be a line-item veto in name only and not really different from the current system, imo.
Instead of blaming the legislative process, which has been virtually unchanged for over 200 years, why don't you blame the legislators?
The term "snuck into bills" is misleading. After a bill is reported out of committee, amendments must be offered on the floor during the Committee of the Whole. There's nothing secret or sneaky about it.
Sibling poster incorrectly points out that you have the Germane rule switched around. In any case, if I remember my Congressional Politics class correctly, the Chair gets to rule on the germaness of amendments. In effect, the germaneness rule only limits the minority party (typical of the House). The Supreme Court has routinely ruled that the Congress is free to set and interpret its own rules, so this action is not unconstitutional or illegal, just annoying.
There is a limited germaness rule in the Senate. My recollection is that amendments to appropriations bills must be germane.
A line-item veto makes the executive a de facto legislator and weakens the system of checks and balances. If the President does not like part of a bill, they should veto it and use the bully pulpit to win public approval for their version of the bill (something the current president has never done). The Supreme Court was correct in ruling the line item veto unconstitutional.
AirTrain JFK is elevated light rail, not monorail. AirTrain Newark is a monorail.