In my mind 'getting government to operate withing budget' == Fiscal Conservative,
I'm a rabid left-wing radical, and apparently a fiscal conservative as well.
That's the problem with the current definitions. Everyone labels with the intent of shaming, not describing. I want a small government that does nothing but protect the rights of people from anyone who would impinge on them, from private or governmental sources.
A Libertarian wants a government that doesn't defend rights, but defends contracts. If property has rights, and people only have rights assigned to them by their property, then you are libertarian. If you believe people have rights, and property is one of the lowest rights in the hierarchy, then you are liberal. If you believe money has rights, and people don't, then you are a conservative.
Nobody was saying we (or they) should be doing what the others are doing. But that the global definition of "center" puts the US firmly in the "right" category. That was all, not that we should be more or less like someone else.
That the US is likely not in much better shape, it's not like we have found the magic answer.
The right to vote is Constitutionally guaranteed to citizens, but not denied to residents (legal or illegal). A state could allow residents to vote. A state "grants" most of the rights of citizenship. So ignore the feds. The most they'll do is pass a law that takes away the state's highway's funding if they don't enforce laws the feds can't enforce. Like how they set 55 as the NMSL, 21 for the drinking age, and tight laws on drunk driving.
Prior to the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to 18, many States already allowed 18 year olds to vote in non-federal elections, and the Supreme Court upheld that Congress had the right to regulate the minimum age in federal elections, but not at the state and local level.
What's odd is that Congress would have been able to require 21+ to vote for a congressman, but not for president. The presidential elections are not federal elections. Congress could require the electors in the Electoral college be 25+ or whatever they like, but not the ages of the state voters selecting them, that's a local election, not a federal one.
If you're not a Hillary fan, why are you defending her so emotionally?
Stating facts is "emotional"? Since when is "emotional" an insult. I guess that's considered a feminine trait, and the misogynist in you that makes you emotionally hate Hilary so much makes sure you try to take as many subtle jabs as possible. So subtle that if you are called on them, you'll deny them. But your words are there for everyone to see.
But you're stuck on this one, with such strong emotion, so you must be a Hillary fan.
Nope. I argue on others. That you have a selection bias doesn't change reality. Though that would be nice for you to support your bias and misogyny. After all, if you aren't a woman-hater, why do you emotionally hate Hillary so much, when you have no facts that support your irrational and emotional rants against her?
Fine, but you're a well known radical leftist troll.
"well known"? that's a laugh. For one, nobody knows me, for another, I'm center. When I go to places outside the US, I'm a radical conservative troll. Given that I get accused of being a radical from each side, I must be doing something right. I'm a libertarian. That's right to the left, and left to the right. And no, I'm not a US neo-liberal Libertarian, but a classic one.
You've proven yourself a liar or an idiot. You are wrong on that point, and so you believe it to be false and are baiting me by lying, or you think it true and are an idiot for making up things in your mind to make your silly little world view easier to reconcile with reality when the two are quite divergent.
Everything I said was 100% true, but because I point out reality, that proves my bias, and it must be my bias I'm arguing with you, and not because you are 100% provably wrong.
If she is so innocent, when the emails were requested, why did she print them out on 55,000 pages?
You are lying again. I never said she was "innocent." I just said that her handling of emails didn't break any law identified so far. I note that the Hillary haters don't quote the laws broken often (except when accusing her of having received confidential documents, which would have indicated a law breach, but not by her). But for the email-only issue, what law did she break? If there is no law broken,then it's legal. It is that simple. If you can't name the law you think she broke, then you should default to thinking she's law-aiding. That you don't indicates *your* bias, not mine.
So the "penalty" is that they will file for an injunction to prevent you from working at the new place. No loss of money. No fees or monetary penalty at all. The only "punishment" is forcing you to get a new job. And that's only if they get a court injunction, which might get thrown out by a judge looking at the invalid clause.
What she did was use personal email when an official email was not provided for her, at a time when it was allowed to do so. The rest is mostly lies, made up by the people who hate her. When did the IT department make an official email account for her to use? Never. When was she officially notified that the rules she was hired under had changed? Never.
But it's her fault that she followed all the rules she agreed to.
Yeah, and the news has picked up on a facebook joke that quotes Cruz as saying Obama couldn't run for president because his father wasn't American and he wasn't born in the US. Sometimes the news has it wrong.
And his corporate welfare and war policies were not significantly different from the previous president, marking him as center. He's far too right wing for me. He promises change, but doesn't deliver.
Because Obama's mother was a minor at the time, had he been born outside Hawaii, he would not have been a natural-born citizen without additional paperwork that wasn't done (as it wasn't needed, as he was born in Hawaii). The only problem with Obama's birth was that his mother, being under 18, was unable to confer citizenship at birth, because the laws were sexist. Though those laws, if challenged today, could be considered unconstitutional, making him retroactively a citizen at birth.
The law was not settled. It never really came up at the time, and was changed between his birth and now anyway.
Not only was keeping a private email server against the law,
What law is it against? I've seen one regulation quoted (after she was using personal email) that indicated that emails should use the official system, but no idea if there was any grandfather clause, and the department policy isn't "law".
Without all of the e-mails, there's no way to verify this statement, but it is probably true.
Why is the standard of proof so much higher for Hillary than Palin?
But in this case, the responsibility is where it belongs -- on the government and the government employees. By being on Clinton's private server... who is legally responsible?
So you are asserting that Hillary Clinton, while serving as Secretary of State, is not a government employee?
You can't enter into all kinds of contracts. The constitution bans you from selling yourself into slavery, for instance, and various other laws prevent various other terms. Doesn't matter who knows or signs.
They aren't a threat, because the "or else" must be stated or implied. I've had a non-compete in a contract. But they were too cheap to run it past a lawyer. The only remedy the contract allowed if I breached it was for them to terminate it. That made sense in that if I came to work drunk, they could fire me on the spot and not give me notice, a hearing, or other recourse. But if I quit, then take a job somewhere else that competes, there is no remedy allowed in the contract, so it's a threat like "go away or I shall taunt you a second time" is a threat. It is a statement of purpose, but since the consequence carries no harm, it doesn't meet my definition of threaten. "state one's intention to take hostile action against (someone) in retribution for something done or not done." Taunting someone isn't "hostile".
Even in states where non competes are allowed, the contract as explained here would likely be invalid. Think about the practical application. Someone that worked for Amazon leaves. Unless they work in a service-only industry (as a janitor or a lawyer), there's little they could do. They couldn't work for a book store (if there are any left), Wal-Mart, a movie theater, or millions of other places.
The allowable reasons for a non-compete are to protect the previous employer. A non-compete that offers no such protections, but is purely punitive is illegal in all 50 states. Though some may require more appearances in court to prove that point.
Then use a 5W CPU and set the disks to spin down after inactivity. Your argument only holds if the disks are spinning 100% of the time, which is only true if you have an incompetent idiot setting up your power-sensitive NAS, or are actually using it 100% of the time.
You are wrong. Amazon is a greater risk because there are more known unknowns and unknown unknowns. They can build a cloud. If I build my own, I can specify the MTBF myself. I can spec higher or lower equipment. Same reason why building my own PC is a lower risk. Rather than unknown components, I can specify specific components. This modifies risk.
Your stupid assertion is that risk is the same if you can't prove the risk is different. By that standard, parachuting without a chute is no more risky than snorkeling in a 5 ft pool. Neither are well defined risks, so we must accept them as equal.
No, I don't believe in that religion. I'll stick to more traditional risk management practices.
Or, to put it in the framework of your wrong religion, the risk is that the outsourcing company is lying to you. That is an additional risk that will always make outsourcing more risky than insourcing. It's the lazy and incompetent managers that mutter "core competency" while outsourcing the vital portions of the company. And the piles of consultants who make money writing rigged reports recommending outsourcing. Liars cheats and thieves.
Total control doesn't mean perfection. He has total control. His actions control the fate and risks of the drives 100%. There is no risk outsourced to a 3rd party entity.
Slashdot Mirror
In my mind 'getting government to operate withing budget' == Fiscal Conservative,
I'm a rabid left-wing radical, and apparently a fiscal conservative as well.
That's the problem with the current definitions. Everyone labels with the intent of shaming, not describing. I want a small government that does nothing but protect the rights of people from anyone who would impinge on them, from private or governmental sources.
A Libertarian wants a government that doesn't defend rights, but defends contracts. If property has rights, and people only have rights assigned to them by their property, then you are libertarian. If you believe people have rights, and property is one of the lowest rights in the hierarchy, then you are liberal. If you believe money has rights, and people don't, then you are a conservative.
Nobody was saying we (or they) should be doing what the others are doing. But that the global definition of "center" puts the US firmly in the "right" category. That was all, not that we should be more or less like someone else.
That the US is likely not in much better shape, it's not like we have found the magic answer.
The right to vote is Constitutionally guaranteed to citizens, but not denied to residents (legal or illegal). A state could allow residents to vote. A state "grants" most of the rights of citizenship. So ignore the feds. The most they'll do is pass a law that takes away the state's highway's funding if they don't enforce laws the feds can't enforce. Like how they set 55 as the NMSL, 21 for the drinking age, and tight laws on drunk driving.
Prior to the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to 18, many States already allowed 18 year olds to vote in non-federal elections, and the Supreme Court upheld that Congress had the right to regulate the minimum age in federal elections, but not at the state and local level.
What's odd is that Congress would have been able to require 21+ to vote for a congressman, but not for president. The presidential elections are not federal elections. Congress could require the electors in the Electoral college be 25+ or whatever they like, but not the ages of the state voters selecting them, that's a local election, not a federal one.
If you're not a Hillary fan, why are you defending her so emotionally?
Stating facts is "emotional"? Since when is "emotional" an insult. I guess that's considered a feminine trait, and the misogynist in you that makes you emotionally hate Hilary so much makes sure you try to take as many subtle jabs as possible. So subtle that if you are called on them, you'll deny them. But your words are there for everyone to see.
But you're stuck on this one, with such strong emotion, so you must be a Hillary fan.
Nope. I argue on others. That you have a selection bias doesn't change reality. Though that would be nice for you to support your bias and misogyny. After all, if you aren't a woman-hater, why do you emotionally hate Hillary so much, when you have no facts that support your irrational and emotional rants against her?
Fine, but you're a well known radical leftist troll.
"well known"? that's a laugh. For one, nobody knows me, for another, I'm center. When I go to places outside the US, I'm a radical conservative troll. Given that I get accused of being a radical from each side, I must be doing something right. I'm a libertarian. That's right to the left, and left to the right. And no, I'm not a US neo-liberal Libertarian, but a classic one.
And how many until the US no longer exists in its current form?
You're clearly a fan of Hillary Clinton.
You've proven yourself a liar or an idiot. You are wrong on that point, and so you believe it to be false and are baiting me by lying, or you think it true and are an idiot for making up things in your mind to make your silly little world view easier to reconcile with reality when the two are quite divergent.
Everything I said was 100% true, but because I point out reality, that proves my bias, and it must be my bias I'm arguing with you, and not because you are 100% provably wrong.
If she is so innocent, when the emails were requested, why did she print them out on 55,000 pages?
You are lying again. I never said she was "innocent." I just said that her handling of emails didn't break any law identified so far. I note that the Hillary haters don't quote the laws broken often (except when accusing her of having received confidential documents, which would have indicated a law breach, but not by her). But for the email-only issue, what law did she break? If there is no law broken,then it's legal. It is that simple. If you can't name the law you think she broke, then you should default to thinking she's law-aiding. That you don't indicates *your* bias, not mine.
I know at least one thing for sure, that is that she won't start approving tax cuts while boosting spending like the Republicans want.
When HRC was agitating to get a war started in Iraq back in the early 2003, she said exactly that,
The quote you give says the opposite of what you say it will.
So the "penalty" is that they will file for an injunction to prevent you from working at the new place. No loss of money. No fees or monetary penalty at all. The only "punishment" is forcing you to get a new job. And that's only if they get a court injunction, which might get thrown out by a judge looking at the invalid clause.
What she did was use personal email when an official email was not provided for her, at a time when it was allowed to do so. The rest is mostly lies, made up by the people who hate her. When did the IT department make an official email account for her to use? Never. When was she officially notified that the rules she was hired under had changed? Never.
But it's her fault that she followed all the rules she agreed to.
Yeah, and the news has picked up on a facebook joke that quotes Cruz as saying Obama couldn't run for president because his father wasn't American and he wasn't born in the US. Sometimes the news has it wrong.
Counterpoint: Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012
And his corporate welfare and war policies were not significantly different from the previous president, marking him as center. He's far too right wing for me. He promises change, but doesn't deliver.
What, that in the rest of the world "center" is well to the left of the US "center"? How does that say anything about the messenger?
What year was he born? What year did HI become a state?
Because Obama's mother was a minor at the time, had he been born outside Hawaii, he would not have been a natural-born citizen without additional paperwork that wasn't done (as it wasn't needed, as he was born in Hawaii). The only problem with Obama's birth was that his mother, being under 18, was unable to confer citizenship at birth, because the laws were sexist. Though those laws, if challenged today, could be considered unconstitutional, making him retroactively a citizen at birth.
The law was not settled. It never really came up at the time, and was changed between his birth and now anyway.
Not only was keeping a private email server against the law,
What law is it against? I've seen one regulation quoted (after she was using personal email) that indicated that emails should use the official system, but no idea if there was any grandfather clause, and the department policy isn't "law".
Without all of the e-mails, there's no way to verify this statement, but it is probably true.
Why is the standard of proof so much higher for Hillary than Palin?
But in this case, the responsibility is where it belongs -- on the government and the government employees. By being on Clinton's private server ... who is legally responsible?
So you are asserting that Hillary Clinton, while serving as Secretary of State, is not a government employee?
You can't enter into all kinds of contracts. The constitution bans you from selling yourself into slavery, for instance, and various other laws prevent various other terms. Doesn't matter who knows or signs.
They aren't a threat, because the "or else" must be stated or implied. I've had a non-compete in a contract. But they were too cheap to run it past a lawyer. The only remedy the contract allowed if I breached it was for them to terminate it. That made sense in that if I came to work drunk, they could fire me on the spot and not give me notice, a hearing, or other recourse. But if I quit, then take a job somewhere else that competes, there is no remedy allowed in the contract, so it's a threat like "go away or I shall taunt you a second time" is a threat. It is a statement of purpose, but since the consequence carries no harm, it doesn't meet my definition of threaten. "state one's intention to take hostile action against (someone) in retribution for something done or not done." Taunting someone isn't "hostile".
Even in states where non competes are allowed, the contract as explained here would likely be invalid. Think about the practical application. Someone that worked for Amazon leaves. Unless they work in a service-only industry (as a janitor or a lawyer), there's little they could do. They couldn't work for a book store (if there are any left), Wal-Mart, a movie theater, or millions of other places.
The allowable reasons for a non-compete are to protect the previous employer. A non-compete that offers no such protections, but is purely punitive is illegal in all 50 states. Though some may require more appearances in court to prove that point.
Then use a 5W CPU and set the disks to spin down after inactivity. Your argument only holds if the disks are spinning 100% of the time, which is only true if you have an incompetent idiot setting up your power-sensitive NAS, or are actually using it 100% of the time.
You are wrong. Amazon is a greater risk because there are more known unknowns and unknown unknowns. They can build a cloud. If I build my own, I can specify the MTBF myself. I can spec higher or lower equipment. Same reason why building my own PC is a lower risk. Rather than unknown components, I can specify specific components. This modifies risk.
Your stupid assertion is that risk is the same if you can't prove the risk is different. By that standard, parachuting without a chute is no more risky than snorkeling in a 5 ft pool. Neither are well defined risks, so we must accept them as equal.
No, I don't believe in that religion. I'll stick to more traditional risk management practices.
Or, to put it in the framework of your wrong religion, the risk is that the outsourcing company is lying to you. That is an additional risk that will always make outsourcing more risky than insourcing. It's the lazy and incompetent managers that mutter "core competency" while outsourcing the vital portions of the company. And the piles of consultants who make money writing rigged reports recommending outsourcing. Liars cheats and thieves.
And you there, leading the charge.
You do realize that you can turn them off sometimes, right?
Total control doesn't mean perfection. He has total control. His actions control the fate and risks of the drives 100%. There is no risk outsourced to a 3rd party entity.