No, the truth is much more sinister. Public agencies can't be bothered to make this information available. It would cost them $$$, which they would rather use for their pet projects.
Your best bet (in my experience) it to find out who your inspector will be in advance (not an easy task, but it's worth it) and get everything worked out beforehand. Use a contractor who has worked in the area before, they will likely have a working relationship with the inspector and know what he wants.
We need to rethink what we mean when we say "the Government". A lot of people seem to take this to mean only the executive branch of the federal government. That is an incomplete picture of governance. I would consider anyone who has enforceable authority over another (other than parents) to be a part of the government. But certainly the courts are a part of the government, as are state and local authorities, which enforce the laws. Since this is the case, I'd say the government shut down any web-site shut down by a court order.
You can not, under any circumstances, give up your right to sue. It does not matter what you sign or what you say or do, you can sue anyone for anything.
I pay my bills online every month. That way I know exactly what I am paying. It's not that hard. The automatic payment thing is scary to me, because it takes control out of my hands. The only bill I pay automatically is my gym membership, because they wouldn't have it any other way. But at least that bill is the same every month.
I'd hate to pay my power bill automatically because it would have been a total surprise to me last month when it jumped from $50 to $160.
"If you don't do business with the credit card companies, you will have a very low credit rating."
The only thing a credit rating is good for is getting into debt.
"it is legal for a business to refuse cash purchases."
But it is illegal to them to refuse cash in repayment for a debt.
"The credit/currency corporations are the key to being "in the system" and if you are "out of the system" you will be homeless or in government housing in short order."
That's a load of nonsense. Many people pay their rent with cash. You can buy a house and a car with cash, if you have the cash. You can immediately cash you paycheck and never use a bank account.
Other countries abuse their positions just the same as the US does. The difference is that the US has had a lot of power compared to other countries for the past century. This power never came from being trusted and respected by other nations, because we weren't.
It comes from our high level of industrialization and the resulting productivity associated with it. When we stopped really building new infrastructure in the '70s it was only a matter of time before other nations caught up.
"The banking systems are controlled by some elite individuals that even the U.S. cannot claim 'ownership' of"
That's not really true. All the $$$ in the us are "made" by the FED giving loans to the nations major banks. The FED chairman and board of governors is appointed by the president.
I'm not trying to excuse corruption. That would imply the authority to judge them. I do not have that authority. But I do know that their corrupt actions hurt me. It makes sense to try to limit the effects their corruption will have.
If we hold all our politicians to the standard that they must be perfect and incorruptible, we will have no politicians. The problem is not that the system is broken. Any "system" which grants power and authority is prone to abuse. We should try to limit corruption by removing the obviously corrupt from office. But that will never be enough. We need to limit the authority of government.
It's true that you need to have a position of authority to be corrupt, so not having had significant authority wold lead to a lack of evidence. However, it seems like almost every politician who has been around for a while has had a corruption scandal.
There are other ways to tell that you aren't incorruptible. Have you ever lied to someone? This is an abuse of your power to control the perception of others for personal gain. Stealing is much the same, as is cheating. Yet these are all things that most people do very often. If you abuse the power of your words and your hands, it is probably reasonable to assume you would abuse other power similarly.
To me it seems that the problem with government is how we relate to it. We expect and demand perfection from imperfect people, and then when our unreasonable expectations are not met, we are let down. It's better not to have unreasonable expectations and decide what authority to give our leaders with the understanding that they are imperfect.
"They are our representatives, and they are our leaders. Don't you think we should hold them to a higher standard?"
Are they super-human in some way? I don't think so. That leads me to believe that it's unreasonable to hold them to a higher standard. Corruption impacts all politicians.
If you dropped a bowling ball on your food 10 times and it hurt you every time, would you expect it not to hurt on the 11th time?
"We should expect at least as much as we would deliver ourselves"
And do you deliver perfection? If so then you should be running for president, but I doubt you do. It's not reasonable to expect someone else to be uncorrnptable when you yourself are not. I'm not saying that it's okay, or fair, or that it "should" be this way, but that's how it is and that's all there is to it.
The only significant way a tax is different from a fine is the higher level of enforcement. The cigarette tax is basically a fine. People say that smoking is bad for society, and use that is a justification for the taxes. It is exactly the same rational that is used when we assess fines for speeding. People are still using the law to play the moral police against marijuana smokers. That is unacceptable to me.
No, they can't. They have no legal authority to do so. It's kind of like they way Sprint is still sending bills to customers for cancelation fees in CA, when state law forbids it. They will harass you to try to get you to pay them, but if they try to take you to court to collect, they are in for a nasty surprise.
Great, so rich people will have the privilege of buying drugs and everyone else is screwed. No thanks.
I am from Idaho, and there all the liquor is dispensed by as state owned corporation. All the proceeds go to state run social programs. I always thought it was ironic that they took the money from poor people buying alcohol, then gave it back to them. This kind of regulation is so retarded that it is beyond words. If it's legal it's legal, if it's not it's not. Putting a tax on it is exactly like fining people for buying it. I don't see how a libertarian could support such a thing.
I would think that would be more of a reason not to select him, since this thing would sink a campaign or lead to impeachment if it were true. I'm not saying that it's not true, but Obama would have to be monumentally stupid. Then again Edwards ran a campaign while he was paying rent on a mansion for his mistress and likely his love-child, so there is really no limit to the stupid things politicians will do.
Corruption means accepting bribes (in one form or another). A voting record alone can not prove, or indicate this.
I'd also like to point out that it is completely unreasonable for us to expect a complete absence of corruption in our politicians. They are human, so doing stupid things and going on power trips is par for the course. We shouldn't expect more of our politicians than we would deliver ourselves.
"Had the Republicans taken a stronger stand on civil liberties while advocating a well regulated economy"
They would be democrats.
P.S. If you don't have economic freedom, you don't really have civil liberties. Have you ever heard someone say "they should legalize drugs and then tax and regulate them?" They might as well not say anything. I don't want to buy some government bureaucrat a limousine every-time I want some mary-jane. What is the point of that?
Are you calling these candidates corrupt simply because they've been in the senate for a long time, or do you have some other reason to believe this. Biden was chosen because he has experience, political experience means being involved in politics for a long time. It's not fair to say that he (or McCain) is corrupt simply because he's been around a while.
It's bad when they probably don't. The truth is that labeling laws don't accomplish anything. Especially when you put warnings about cancer on everything. Every building down here has that "known to cause cancer" sign on it. It's ridiculous scaremongering.
"Sorry, but sexy women and nice weather alone will not be enough for its future."
It would be enough, if the high tax rate weren't driving the entertainment industry out of Southern California. Maybe they should make some kind of exception for Hollywood, just to keep this liberal nanny-state alive.
They irony is that even when you are paying for music you are doing it voluntarily. Who would think that art is so important purchasing it should be compulsory?
I can see the logic that if the perpetuation of your genes was the most important thing, then you can demand that others make sacrifices to meet that goal. I just don't understand why someone would make that their goal.
I am not a hedonist. Hedonists don't understand how to truly be happy. They usually will indulge themselves in some destructive behavior because it makes them feel good, then pay for it later on (anti-social behavior like trying to force someone else to make a sacrifice for you falls into that category). I'm actually a Christian, but I believe that God wants me to be happy.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the truth is much more sinister. Public agencies can't be bothered to make this information available. It would cost them $$$, which they would rather use for their pet projects.
Your best bet (in my experience) it to find out who your inspector will be in advance (not an easy task, but it's worth it) and get everything worked out beforehand. Use a contractor who has worked in the area before, they will likely have a working relationship with the inspector and know what he wants.
We need to rethink what we mean when we say "the Government". A lot of people seem to take this to mean only the executive branch of the federal government. That is an incomplete picture of governance. I would consider anyone who has enforceable authority over another (other than parents) to be a part of the government. But certainly the courts are a part of the government, as are state and local authorities, which enforce the laws. Since this is the case, I'd say the government shut down any web-site shut down by a court order.
You can not, under any circumstances, give up your right to sue. It does not matter what you sign or what you say or do, you can sue anyone for anything.
I pay my bills online every month. That way I know exactly what I am paying. It's not that hard. The automatic payment thing is scary to me, because it takes control out of my hands. The only bill I pay automatically is my gym membership, because they wouldn't have it any other way. But at least that bill is the same every month.
I'd hate to pay my power bill automatically because it would have been a total surprise to me last month when it jumped from $50 to $160.
"If you don't do business with the credit card companies, you will have a very low credit rating."
The only thing a credit rating is good for is getting into debt.
"it is legal for a business to refuse cash purchases."
But it is illegal to them to refuse cash in repayment for a debt.
"The credit/currency corporations are the key to being "in the system" and if you are "out of the system" you will be homeless or in government housing in short order."
That's a load of nonsense. Many people pay their rent with cash. You can buy a house and a car with cash, if you have the cash. You can immediately cash you paycheck and never use a bank account.
Other countries abuse their positions just the same as the US does. The difference is that the US has had a lot of power compared to other countries for the past century. This power never came from being trusted and respected by other nations, because we weren't.
It comes from our high level of industrialization and the resulting productivity associated with it. When we stopped really building new infrastructure in the '70s it was only a matter of time before other nations caught up.
"The banking systems are controlled by some elite individuals that even the U.S. cannot claim 'ownership' of"
That's not really true. All the $$$ in the us are "made" by the FED giving loans to the nations major banks. The FED chairman and board of governors is appointed by the president.
"those actions and other government policies may be hastening the shift in Canadian and European traffic away from the United States."
Because those countries don't have similar policies, right? Except that they do. . .
I'm not trying to excuse corruption. That would imply the authority to judge them. I do not have that authority. But I do know that their corrupt actions hurt me. It makes sense to try to limit the effects their corruption will have.
If we hold all our politicians to the standard that they must be perfect and incorruptible, we will have no politicians. The problem is not that the system is broken. Any "system" which grants power and authority is prone to abuse. We should try to limit corruption by removing the obviously corrupt from office. But that will never be enough. We need to limit the authority of government.
It's true that you need to have a position of authority to be corrupt, so not having had significant authority wold lead to a lack of evidence. However, it seems like almost every politician who has been around for a while has had a corruption scandal.
There are other ways to tell that you aren't incorruptible. Have you ever lied to someone? This is an abuse of your power to control the perception of others for personal gain. Stealing is much the same, as is cheating. Yet these are all things that most people do very often. If you abuse the power of your words and your hands, it is probably reasonable to assume you would abuse other power similarly.
To me it seems that the problem with government is how we relate to it. We expect and demand perfection from imperfect people, and then when our unreasonable expectations are not met, we are let down. It's better not to have unreasonable expectations and decide what authority to give our leaders with the understanding that they are imperfect.
"They are our representatives, and they are our leaders. Don't you think we should hold them to a higher standard?"
Are they super-human in some way? I don't think so. That leads me to believe that it's unreasonable to hold them to a higher standard. Corruption impacts all politicians.
If you dropped a bowling ball on your food 10 times and it hurt you every time, would you expect it not to hurt on the 11th time?
"We should expect at least as much as we would deliver ourselves"
And do you deliver perfection? If so then you should be running for president, but I doubt you do. It's not reasonable to expect someone else to be uncorrnptable when you yourself are not. I'm not saying that it's okay, or fair, or that it "should" be this way, but that's how it is and that's all there is to it.
The only significant way a tax is different from a fine is the higher level of enforcement. The cigarette tax is basically a fine. People say that smoking is bad for society, and use that is a justification for the taxes. It is exactly the same rational that is used when we assess fines for speeding. People are still using the law to play the moral police against marijuana smokers. That is unacceptable to me.
No, they can't. They have no legal authority to do so. It's kind of like they way Sprint is still sending bills to customers for cancelation fees in CA, when state law forbids it. They will harass you to try to get you to pay them, but if they try to take you to court to collect, they are in for a nasty surprise.
Great, so rich people will have the privilege of buying drugs and everyone else is screwed. No thanks.
I am from Idaho, and there all the liquor is dispensed by as state owned corporation. All the proceeds go to state run social programs. I always thought it was ironic that they took the money from poor people buying alcohol, then gave it back to them. This kind of regulation is so retarded that it is beyond words. If it's legal it's legal, if it's not it's not. Putting a tax on it is exactly like fining people for buying it. I don't see how a libertarian could support such a thing.
I would think that would be more of a reason not to select him, since this thing would sink a campaign or lead to impeachment if it were true. I'm not saying that it's not true, but Obama would have to be monumentally stupid. Then again Edwards ran a campaign while he was paying rent on a mansion for his mistress and likely his love-child, so there is really no limit to the stupid things politicians will do.
Corruption means accepting bribes (in one form or another). A voting record alone can not prove, or indicate this.
I'd also like to point out that it is completely unreasonable for us to expect a complete absence of corruption in our politicians. They are human, so doing stupid things and going on power trips is par for the course. We shouldn't expect more of our politicians than we would deliver ourselves.
Bailing out banks is regulation.
"Had the Republicans taken a stronger stand on civil liberties while advocating a well regulated economy"
They would be democrats.
P.S. If you don't have economic freedom, you don't really have civil liberties. Have you ever heard someone say "they should legalize drugs and then tax and regulate them?" They might as well not say anything. I don't want to buy some government bureaucrat a limousine every-time I want some mary-jane. What is the point of that?
Are you calling these candidates corrupt simply because they've been in the senate for a long time, or do you have some other reason to believe this. Biden was chosen because he has experience, political experience means being involved in politics for a long time. It's not fair to say that he (or McCain) is corrupt simply because he's been around a while.
Have you ever tried living in a small town, or out in the country? I've tried everything except the suburbs, and I like small towns the best.
It's bad when they probably don't. The truth is that labeling laws don't accomplish anything. Especially when you put warnings about cancer on everything. Every building down here has that "known to cause cancer" sign on it. It's ridiculous scaremongering.
"Sorry, but sexy women and nice weather alone will not be enough for its future."
It would be enough, if the high tax rate weren't driving the entertainment industry out of Southern California. Maybe they should make some kind of exception for Hollywood, just to keep this liberal nanny-state alive.
Until there are a lot of Lithium Ion batteries powering cars. That should be fun. Maybe they will consider making those batteries outside China. . .
They irony is that even when you are paying for music you are doing it voluntarily. Who would think that art is so important purchasing it should be compulsory?
. . . as long they don't try to get the government involved in collecting money for them.
I can see the logic that if the perpetuation of your genes was the most important thing, then you can demand that others make sacrifices to meet that goal. I just don't understand why someone would make that their goal.
I am not a hedonist. Hedonists don't understand how to truly be happy. They usually will indulge themselves in some destructive behavior because it makes them feel good, then pay for it later on (anti-social behavior like trying to force someone else to make a sacrifice for you falls into that category). I'm actually a Christian, but I believe that God wants me to be happy.