Insurance is not really capable of being competitive in the same ways manufacturers are. Insurance companies are more like middle management who go between the employees doing the work and the bosses wanting the work done. The differences in costs and coverage between states is likely due to requirements imposed by the states and the risks inherent in the cultures of the people within those states. That being said, there is a little room for competition to create savings or better services. The ACA will get around much of the state regulatory issues which is why we are seeing a lot of states insurance costs actually increasing. But even though the ACA has provisions in it requiring insurance providers to refund the differences if their profit is a certain amount over the coverage paid out, those same insurance providers will still be required to collect and have the ability to pay out for a worst case scenario developed by their actuaries and approved by the government. That is where the real costs of insurance comes from- they are required to keep a certain amount of capitol liquid and available to cover their obligations. Competition cannot get around that.
Insurance is also not health care. The main reason the health care is so expensive in the US is because the government became involved in it. In 1965, the US created medicare and was so overwhelmed by the costs of it, they created HMOs in an attempt to reduce their costs. They gave people with less of a medical education then your typical EMT, Paramedic or nurse the power to deny procedures in the name of cutting costs. Of course this morphed into a mandatory payment schedule where instead of paying the health care costs that are billed, they average the costs billed for an area and pay the average. This means that if one doc charged $10 for an office visit and another charges $30, the average is $20 and both doctors get reimbursed $20 for the visit. This is despite one office being in a rural town and the other being in a large city where overhead just for having the office might be 3 or 4 times as much as in the rural location. Now this cost billed can also be different than the costs billed to an insurance provider too. Well, what happened is that the medical industry who were getting more then expected, increased their rates to $20 and those getting less increased theirs to $60 so the average is now $40.
After a while, this proved to be way to expensive on the government side (granted, insurance providers at the same place might be charged $40 or less but the discounted rates were never part of the average) so the government started paying a percentage of the average. This meant that while the payment average should have been $40, they would only pay 80% meaning only $32 would be paid out. This was acceptable to some as long as they could bill the patient for the non-covered amounts. Well, that caused a lot of outrage and a law was passed saying they had to accept the payment as payment in full and couldn't go after the difference from the patient. People in the health care industry knew that if their costs were higher, the average would be higher and they would get what they wanted again, so they moved their costs up and the doc visit is now $120 or more. Rinse and repeat as this happened in some form close enough to this to call it accurate several times until the ACA was finally passed.
The Affordable Care Act simply doesn't have any mechanism to reduce costs of health care and by all indicators, it has increased the costs of most health insurance. It might even get worse because insurance companies cannot negotiate steep discounts for in network providers the same way as before. Cutting costs might be easier done if instead of average billing, we paid out a costs plus scheme (actual cost of providing the care plus a percentage of that as profit) on the government side. There will be no easy fix for the insurance side and it might get a lot worse.
Lets not forget that law enforcement will have a field day with a live feed from directly inside the building where the terrorist event is happening. Even if it is delayed a short amount of time, it will give them so much more perspective on how to enter and kill or capture the terrorist.
The fourth amendment protects both. History tells us that we need privacy to freely associate with people. This is more of a neccesity then an original intent. History also tells us that before the US broke away from England, the king and people representing them went on witch hunts regularly. If someone with any power disliked you or you said the wrong thing in front of someone, the would issue a general warrant and some goons would show up and turn your home, place of employment, and friends upside down trying to find any evidence of you doing anything wrong- even if they knew it would only harass you. Once the general warrant was issued, it remained in efect for the life of the king. The fourth amendment specifically had this in mind with both the federalist ant anti-federalist bringing it up. There were four revisions to what became the fourth amendment and all those revisions were grammer and style in attemps to make it clear and understandable. It is well documented in our founding and the events attributed to it.
It most certainly is supposed to protect against wild witch hunts.
I might add, for the questionable books, put them in a box and list them on one of the online auctions for cheep or something- buyer pays shipping. There might be an admin out there that inherited something old and needs reference material or perhaps a kid getting a hand me down system and wants to make use of it.
Try to make the same cash as you would selling it in store, but make sure your supervisor or someone else in charge knows about it so it doesn't appear like you are taking books and selling them on the side.
A communist uprising in the US in 1919 not only isn't in the history books, it isn't even in the first six pages of a Google search. The liberal mind control machine must be at work. I didn't bother searching further, since there wasn't even a Communist Party in the US until the second half of the year anyway.
Interesting. Look under the first red scare. This sugar coats it enormously but it was a real event. Also, the communist party came to America in 1915, so I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but you better look at other sources.
BTW, a "pure fact" would have said "Democratic Party", rather than the wingnut "democrat party".
You are one to talk about facts. I never said "democrat party", I said democrat congress. And yes, it is proper to call a congress occupied by democrats a democrat congress. The democratic party has nothing to do with this conversation. Please just stop and learn a little before you go on to further humiliate yourself.
The US isn't the only country in the world.
And your point is what exactly? I mean we are talking about the US constitution, the president of the US, actions taken by the highest court of the US, actions taken by the US government, why are you confused by other countries?
Please stop and take a deep breath- wait a few minutes before pushing reply, then check to see if what you are wanting to say actually makes sense or if it is some blind political ideological belief that you have never questioned and really want to be true regardless of facts. Seriously, you seem to be offended by the truth as if it hurt your feelings or something. Don't misdirect that anger at me, place it squarely where it belongs at yourself for not knowing what you follow.
To chime in (and join the choir), I definitely agree with what is said. But, honestly, I think we're at the point that the US Constitution needs to be rewritten. I state this for a number of reasons. The largest one is that after 200 years, it has become very clear that a combination of select interpretation or reinterpretation by those both for an "originalist", "modern language", or a "living document" view all fail very badly at providing the sort of protections of rights the people that people want/expect while also failing pretty badly at actually providing for the duties the people want/expect. One could argue that the current political environment is so corrosive to the point that any major rewrite would, even it were to be ratified, be so warped to the point of what is desired or good.
Here is the problem with that. Most of what people want the government to do is supposed to be done at the state and local levels where the politicians are more accountable to the people they serve. For some reason, and probably the same as why the interstate commerce clause was expanded, people think the federal government is supposed to be over the entire country. This was never the intention of it, it was supposed to be only over the interactions between the states and foreign entities with a few other specific things involved. IF you doubt this, look at federal jurisdiction in crimes, it only comes into play if the crime crosses state lines, happens on federal government property, or if the crime violate a law the constitution and/or it's amendments specifically authorize congress to pass. For instance look at murder, the federal government can't do a damn thing about it if it doesn't cross a state line or happened on federal property, but they can come after you for civil rights violations because the 14th amendment section 5 gives congress the power to create law enforcing the 14th amendment.
The 9th and tenth amendments make this specifically clear. Those are the bill of rights that everyone thinks is so great until it gets in the way of their political ideology. The 9th amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". This means that if I have a right to free speech, neither you nor the government can take that way by using their right to free speech. If I have the right to the free exercise of my religion, I cannot stop you from your free exercise of religion even if that means you have no religion at all. The tenth amendment goes even further and shows that the constitution specifically allows the federal government to do a limited amount of things as long as those things do not equate to what the constitution specifically forbids the government from doing. It reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This specifically says unless the constitution authorizes it, the states and the people are to do it if it is wished to be done and not otherwise prohibited by the constitution.
Now don't think I just made this up. Most of this is discussed in the federalist papers which was a public debate trying to convince states to join accept the constitution and ratify it at the time of adoption. You can say it doesn't mean that any more, and I would say that is the reason we are having this discussion. You are right, we have twisted the constitution and the amendments into meaning things it was never intended to mean in order to advance someone's political agenda.
The Constitution doesn't need to be rewritten. It needs to be followed and if changes are necessary, it needs to be changed by the process outlined within it. But the majority of what people expect from government needs to come from their state and local governments or they need to accept that they can't always get what they want.
Remember most fake computer "professionals" like higher version numbers for no real reason other than it makes them feel good.
And here I thought it was simply to attempt to create more business by claiming something new is a reason to allow them to upgrade your experience.
I guess that can be the same thing. More money does make me feel good so feeling good and more money might be the same thing. Sorry for being redundant.
What absolute rubbish to dump on Slashdot. I think the only one seriously criticizing the allied criminal tribunals for being "victors justice" was from people sympathetic to the nazi cause, often perpetrators of the worst kind. Unlike you, I have actually seen a lot of archival material from eg. the British "War Crimes Group (NW Europe)". And I can assure you, that unless the evidence against the German perpetrators could hold up in a normal criminal court, they didn't prosecute.
The Chief prosecutor who was from the United States of America said this. The US supreme Court said it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it is rubbish or even product of Nazi sympathizers. BTW, the Japanese were not Nazi's and the same arguments were made of the International Military Tribunals for the Far East by the exact same people and then some. Some complaints of victors justice were lodged by the judges overseeing the IMTFA trials themselves. Please get your history from something other then a movie.
The sad fact is, that the vast majority of nazi war criminals never was prosecuted. It wasn't enough to be an officer in a unit whose whole purpose was mass slaughter of civilians like the SS Police battalions, and the officer's unit a proven record of murdering tens of thousands civilians in a 6 month period. If it couldn't be proved by witness account that the officer personally had shot specific victims, he wouldn't be persecuted.
Persecuted is about right. The laws where almost all ex post facto (after the fact laws). This is why only select people were PROSECUTED and probably why you think it is a sad thing.
Listen, I never said they didn't deserve what they got. In fact, if you would have paid attention, you would have seen where I specifically said something to that very effect. But it is largely no different them me killing you because you killed my brother because he tried to kill your sister. The difference is that the victors were in control and declared what was right and wrong and despite objections and outcry (even by those participating), it is only considered moral because our side won.
Regardless of what one thinks about the WWII tribunals the actual point that "following orders" shouldn't be a valid defense has a pretty wide support and have been added to the Geneva Conventions.
You are missing the point, right or wrong, it is only enforceable if the side that wins wished to pursue it. If the evil side wins, it is meaningless which was the point of presenting the ex post fact argument and the claim of victors justice.
I'm sorry, but WTF does a minor political clash in Germany have to do with events in the US over a decade later?
You should be sorry. I'm talking about the one in the US not Germany. This used to be part of history books and I think still is if you care to pay attention.
Ah. You're a Rush Limbaugh listener. Logic isn't really your strong point then.
Stating a pure fact has nothing to do with who or what I listen to. However, you not knowing facts or trying to purposely ignore them means truth and logic is really at a loss in you. Please stop jerking your knee so hard and find out a bit about what is being discussed before spewing more ignorance.
They're still not seen as being bad. All of the most stable economies of today are run by socialist-leaning governments, who also tend to have the highest standard of living. I don't see either of those two things as having negative connotations.
You are a complete illiterate monkey. You cannot ignore the current political hatred for socialism and socialist policies in the US by some political ideologies and pretend to be intellectually honest. Please crawl back into whatever cave you have been hiding in and keep your ignorance to yourself.
Large bodied people do need more alcohol to equate to the same blood alcohol concentration. That's not what the article is saying though. That is a matter of dilution not how drunk someone is by the effect of alcohol (impaired reflexes, decision making and so on). Dilution is as simple as adding 3 grams of something to 10 grams or 15 grams. It would take more then 3 grams to equate the same concentration in the 15 gram batch. What the article is saying is that larger people, at the same concentration (dilution being the same), have a tolerance that can be measured higher then those with smaller body weights. This means a person with a tolerance can consume enough to be at a certain BAC level and show less signs of impairment then others without a tolerance. Larger people show larger signs of not being impaired when they have a tolerance.
The constitution has several mechanism built into it to amend it. There are only two ways it could be unconstitutional to amend it and those were based on time spans that have long passed.
Now, if your bank decided that after 29 years, just one payment from your mortgage being paid in full and the house being yours, to reinterpret the contract so as you have another 30 years to pay or somehow have a balloon payment or they can repossess the house, you would be outraged. Even if it wasn't happening to you but others because the contract was a document of it's time and inevitably subject to subsequent reinterpretations, the vast majority of people would be outraged.
That is what the US constitution is- a contract between the states and the people within them that forgo certain amounts of sovereignty to a federal government and if something needs changed, then it needs to be amended and changed. It really is that simple.
I'm not against changing the US constitution, in fact, I would like to see several changes myself. I just think that we owe history the honesty of following the rules to do so. This means amending the constitution instead of all the sudden deciding the word "one" means two or three or something similar to make something constitutional that otherwise wouldn't be. Its a smoke and mirror game right now with what actually means something and what doesn't. When we ignore it, we have given license to ignore all of it. That does mean that when something you don't want ignored is, they can use the exact same justifications to ignore the search and seizure or due process clauses or free speech guarantees as they use to ignore the second amendment or rules to how legislation is made or war is waged.
The problem is that "liberal agenda" in this context is completely different then any modern assumption of it. This all happened before liberal was a 4 letter word and that should be common knowledge to anyone with a cursory understanding of US history.
I understand what you are saying though and the point is taken. However, I'm not sure how I could have explained that bastardization of the constitution as the start of modern warping of the constitution without the term as it specifically is what happened. Terms like left and right would have the same political objectionable connotations just the same and be less accurate (as we well know there are right liberals too). If history is off limits because some ignorant people refuse to understand it due to political ideology, then we have lost all hope. We might as well sit on the couch and watch TV to keep up with the celebrities of the day.
I hope you realize how much a point is ruined by including the term "liberal agenda". It paints you as an utter imbecile, and thus everything you say, no matter it's merit, will likely be disregarded by all but the most mentally insufficient readers.
I hope you realize how true the term "liberal agenda" actually is. Roosevelt's New Deal legislation was a liberal agenda supported and created by most of the liberal groups of the time. Most of it was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. The democrat congress threatened to increase the number of justices on the supreme court and stack it with liberal judges while Roosevelt more or less said make me stop knowing they controlled the executive powers and any means of enforcing the ruling. The Supreme court then ruled some of the New Deal legislation constitutional by expanding the interstate commerce clause to include anything that could possibly influence interstate commerce even if it wasn't interstate commerce itself.
I would say the "utter imbecile" in this picture would be the ones who attempt to use modern politics to define an era of the past. Roosevelt worked well with the socialist and their liberal agenda despite the Communist uprising in 1919 and most of the remaining communist joining the socialist in the US after they refused to cooperate. The socialist of the time were not seen as being bad because they actually abstained from the revolt and left the communist hanging. The communist after WWII changed into socialist after WWII when communism got a bad name and was largely shunned by western cultures. That creates a different look on liberal and socialist in today's politics that weren't part of the past politics. It is entirely accurate and competent to say liberal agenda as used in my post.
I strongly suggest opening a couple of history books, perhaps an encyclopedia and maybe learn something before trying to "paint" something you obviously know nothing about. Then perhaps you won't appear so "mentally insufficient". I can see why you posted AC.
Many critiques of the war crimes tribunals after WWII, including the chief prosecutor who was a judge but never had a law degree, claim the prosecutions were ex post facto law (law after the fact) and the trials constituted a victors justice.
I'm not saying they didn't deserve what they got, but lets not pretend it was all on the up and up when comparing it to other things we find horrible too.
As for the reinterpretations of the US constitution, it is an artifact of the liberal agenda (Roosevelt fought for it to preserve a lot of his unconstitutional new deal programs). They first attempted to amend the US constitution by interpreting wordings out of context and extending government reach and powers by construing meaning beyond what was traditionally present in it. This is because there was no support for legitimately amending the constitution to their favor. Unfortunately, their short sightedness has missed the problem of "if they can do it, others can too" so now it is a common thing to do by any political ideology and it seems to have no bounds as long as it can advance someone's cause.
It is a sad day when the US constituion is reinterpreted in order to get around the limitations it imposes on government. This is true whether you like one, some or all of the reinterpretations or none of them at all.
Usually, regular Budweiser but I also drink some of the bitter crap like Guinness Foreign Extra Stout with the same effects too.
It doesn't really matter because it is the amount of time spent drinking not the alcohol content of the drink. When I say long day, I'm talking 12+ hours. Start at 11 or so in the AM and finish about 2 am like at the truck and tractor pulls or when smoking a hog or something.
You are forgetting that the legal term for drunk driving is an number encoded into law by the state that measures the alcohol concentration in the blood stream. A well known effect called alcohol tolerance allows a person who drinks regularly to consume more alcohol then others before the effects of the alcohol show. Unfortunately for the offender, the blood alcohol concentration does not change with the person's tolerance so a person with a.08 BAC can be as sober as someone who doesn't drink if their tolerance is high enough and still be considered legally drunk and get a DUI.
My point and statement stand in place. Most DUIs are issued to people who regularly consume alcohol and hence have a tolerance of some sort to the alcohol.
Blood alcohol content does not have the same effects on everyone. At.08, a legally drunk driver who drinks regularly will not have their reaction times or any senses dulled like a novice drinker. If you take two legally drunk people, one who drinks once or twice a year and one who drinks every night, you will find one of them to be more capable then the other and not noticeably under any influence.
BAC or Blood alcohol content is not the same drunk for everyone. As tolerances build up, people who don't even notice an effect from the alcohol will still be legally drunk. The low limit is for the occasional drinkers who will be adversely impacted by drinking such small amounts.
Most drunk drivers can drive as well as most sober drivers when they get a DUI. The legal limits is really too low for someone who is accustom to drinking. Cops do things like paint white dots on the treads of tires on cars parked at or near bars then make something up to pull them over later when they see the streak rolling down the road. They also sit outside bars and watch people walking to their cars and pull over the people who display "drunken" behavior.
A DUI is mostly about money and little more. There are groups who claim it is about safety and to them, it likely is, but to government and cops, it's a revenue thing.
Finally, I can plead the Americans with Disabilities act when I get a DUI.
Interestingly, wouldn't federal law trump state law on this? I mean if someone is drunk due to a medical condition then a DUI would likely go against the ADA. Otherwise it would be like passing a law saying that people while licensed to drive, if they have a medical condition (lets say heart disease) can be incarcerated and fined for driving.
9 to 10 per week? Beer guts are usually associated with people who drink 9-10 beers a day or more. I got mine years ago when I generally drank a 12 pack a day. I was drinking a six pack before going bar hopping just to save a few bucks at the clubs. I can still consume a case of beer on a long day of drinking (24 beers) without much thought about it and not getting past a buzz.
But I know people who drank that much or more who didn't have a beer gut so exercise, metabolism and probably a host of other things play along with it too. I just wouldn't be too proud or worried about 9-10 beers a week. You probably put more calories from soda into your body per week then with the beer.
Borders on means right next to- touching each other. If my property line borders on your back yard, it means we are close not that i am in your yard.
As for legal avenues, he could have informed any member of congress of what he thought to be illegal without failing the law. He could have aldo made the accusations without disclosing any specific information. You must be really messed up to think his only choice wss to copy a bunch of secret files and give them to foreign countries snd enemies.
Slashdot Mirror
Insurance is not really capable of being competitive in the same ways manufacturers are. Insurance companies are more like middle management who go between the employees doing the work and the bosses wanting the work done. The differences in costs and coverage between states is likely due to requirements imposed by the states and the risks inherent in the cultures of the people within those states. That being said, there is a little room for competition to create savings or better services. The ACA will get around much of the state regulatory issues which is why we are seeing a lot of states insurance costs actually increasing. But even though the ACA has provisions in it requiring insurance providers to refund the differences if their profit is a certain amount over the coverage paid out, those same insurance providers will still be required to collect and have the ability to pay out for a worst case scenario developed by their actuaries and approved by the government. That is where the real costs of insurance comes from- they are required to keep a certain amount of capitol liquid and available to cover their obligations. Competition cannot get around that.
Insurance is also not health care. The main reason the health care is so expensive in the US is because the government became involved in it. In 1965, the US created medicare and was so overwhelmed by the costs of it, they created HMOs in an attempt to reduce their costs. They gave people with less of a medical education then your typical EMT, Paramedic or nurse the power to deny procedures in the name of cutting costs. Of course this morphed into a mandatory payment schedule where instead of paying the health care costs that are billed, they average the costs billed for an area and pay the average. This means that if one doc charged $10 for an office visit and another charges $30, the average is $20 and both doctors get reimbursed $20 for the visit. This is despite one office being in a rural town and the other being in a large city where overhead just for having the office might be 3 or 4 times as much as in the rural location. Now this cost billed can also be different than the costs billed to an insurance provider too. Well, what happened is that the medical industry who were getting more then expected, increased their rates to $20 and those getting less increased theirs to $60 so the average is now $40.
After a while, this proved to be way to expensive on the government side (granted, insurance providers at the same place might be charged $40 or less but the discounted rates were never part of the average) so the government started paying a percentage of the average. This meant that while the payment average should have been $40, they would only pay 80% meaning only $32 would be paid out. This was acceptable to some as long as they could bill the patient for the non-covered amounts. Well, that caused a lot of outrage and a law was passed saying they had to accept the payment as payment in full and couldn't go after the difference from the patient. People in the health care industry knew that if their costs were higher, the average would be higher and they would get what they wanted again, so they moved their costs up and the doc visit is now $120 or more. Rinse and repeat as this happened in some form close enough to this to call it accurate several times until the ACA was finally passed.
The Affordable Care Act simply doesn't have any mechanism to reduce costs of health care and by all indicators, it has increased the costs of most health insurance. It might even get worse because insurance companies cannot negotiate steep discounts for in network providers the same way as before. Cutting costs might be easier done if instead of average billing, we paid out a costs plus scheme (actual cost of providing the care plus a percentage of that as profit) on the government side. There will be no easy fix for the insurance side and it might get a lot worse.
Lets not forget that law enforcement will have a field day with a live feed from directly inside the building where the terrorist event is happening. Even if it is delayed a short amount of time, it will give them so much more perspective on how to enter and kill or capture the terrorist.
The fourth amendment protects both. History tells us that we need privacy to freely associate with people. This is more of a neccesity then an original intent. History also tells us that before the US broke away from England, the king and people representing them went on witch hunts regularly. If someone with any power disliked you or you said the wrong thing in front of someone, the would issue a general warrant and some goons would show up and turn your home, place of employment, and friends upside down trying to find any evidence of you doing anything wrong- even if they knew it would only harass you. Once the general warrant was issued, it remained in efect for the life of the king.
The fourth amendment specifically had this in mind with both the federalist ant anti-federalist bringing it up. There were four revisions to what became the fourth amendment and all those revisions were grammer and style in attemps to make it clear and understandable. It is well documented in our founding and the events attributed to it.
It most certainly is supposed to protect against wild witch hunts.
I might add, for the questionable books, put them in a box and list them on one of the online auctions for cheep or something- buyer pays shipping. There might be an admin out there that inherited something old and needs reference material or perhaps a kid getting a hand me down system and wants to make use of it.
Try to make the same cash as you would selling it in store, but make sure your supervisor or someone else in charge knows about it so it doesn't appear like you are taking books and selling them on the side.
Interesting. Look under the first red scare. This sugar coats it enormously but it was a real event. Also, the communist party came to America in 1915, so I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but you better look at other sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_scare#First_Red_Scare_.281919.E2.80.931921.29
You are one to talk about facts. I never said "democrat party", I said democrat congress. And yes, it is proper to call a congress occupied by democrats a democrat congress. The democratic party has nothing to do with this conversation. Please just stop and learn a little before you go on to further humiliate yourself.
And your point is what exactly? I mean we are talking about the US constitution, the president of the US, actions taken by the highest court of the US, actions taken by the US government, why are you confused by other countries?
Please stop and take a deep breath- wait a few minutes before pushing reply, then check to see if what you are wanting to say actually makes sense or if it is some blind political ideological belief that you have never questioned and really want to be true regardless of facts. Seriously, you seem to be offended by the truth as if it hurt your feelings or something. Don't misdirect that anger at me, place it squarely where it belongs at yourself for not knowing what you follow.
Here is the problem with that. Most of what people want the government to do is supposed to be done at the state and local levels where the politicians are more accountable to the people they serve. For some reason, and probably the same as why the interstate commerce clause was expanded, people think the federal government is supposed to be over the entire country. This was never the intention of it, it was supposed to be only over the interactions between the states and foreign entities with a few other specific things involved. IF you doubt this, look at federal jurisdiction in crimes, it only comes into play if the crime crosses state lines, happens on federal government property, or if the crime violate a law the constitution and/or it's amendments specifically authorize congress to pass. For instance look at murder, the federal government can't do a damn thing about it if it doesn't cross a state line or happened on federal property, but they can come after you for civil rights violations because the 14th amendment section 5 gives congress the power to create law enforcing the 14th amendment.
The 9th and tenth amendments make this specifically clear. Those are the bill of rights that everyone thinks is so great until it gets in the way of their political ideology. The 9th amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". This means that if I have a right to free speech, neither you nor the government can take that way by using their right to free speech. If I have the right to the free exercise of my religion, I cannot stop you from your free exercise of religion even if that means you have no religion at all. The tenth amendment goes even further and shows that the constitution specifically allows the federal government to do a limited amount of things as long as those things do not equate to what the constitution specifically forbids the government from doing. It reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This specifically says unless the constitution authorizes it, the states and the people are to do it if it is wished to be done and not otherwise prohibited by the constitution.
Now don't think I just made this up. Most of this is discussed in the federalist papers which was a public debate trying to convince states to join accept the constitution and ratify it at the time of adoption. You can say it doesn't mean that any more, and I would say that is the reason we are having this discussion. You are right, we have twisted the constitution and the amendments into meaning things it was never intended to mean in order to advance someone's political agenda.
The Constitution doesn't need to be rewritten. It needs to be followed and if changes are necessary, it needs to be changed by the process outlined within it. But the majority of what people expect from government needs to come from their state and local governments or they need to accept that they can't always get what they want.
And here I thought it was simply to attempt to create more business by claiming something new is a reason to allow them to upgrade your experience.
I guess that can be the same thing. More money does make me feel good so feeling good and more money might be the same thing. Sorry for being redundant.
The Chief prosecutor who was from the United States of America said this. The US supreme Court said it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it is rubbish or even product of Nazi sympathizers. BTW, the Japanese were not Nazi's and the same arguments were made of the International Military Tribunals for the Far East by the exact same people and then some. Some complaints of victors justice were lodged by the judges overseeing the IMTFA trials themselves. Please get your history from something other then a movie.
Persecuted is about right. The laws where almost all ex post facto (after the fact laws). This is why only select people were PROSECUTED and probably why you think it is a sad thing.
Listen, I never said they didn't deserve what they got. In fact, if you would have paid attention, you would have seen where I specifically said something to that very effect. But it is largely no different them me killing you because you killed my brother because he tried to kill your sister. The difference is that the victors were in control and declared what was right and wrong and despite objections and outcry (even by those participating), it is only considered moral because our side won.
You are missing the point, right or wrong, it is only enforceable if the side that wins wished to pursue it. If the evil side wins, it is meaningless which was the point of presenting the ex post fact argument and the claim of victors justice.
You should be sorry. I'm talking about the one in the US not Germany. This used to be part of history books and I think still is if you care to pay attention.
Stating a pure fact has nothing to do with who or what I listen to. However, you not knowing facts or trying to purposely ignore them means truth and logic is really at a loss in you. Please stop jerking your knee so hard and find out a bit about what is being discussed before spewing more ignorance.
You are a complete illiterate monkey. You cannot ignore the current political hatred for socialism and socialist policies in the US by some political ideologies and pretend to be intellectually honest. Please crawl back into whatever cave you have been hiding in and keep your ignorance to yourself.
A +B can equal C but C doesn't always equal B+A.
Large bodied people do need more alcohol to equate to the same blood alcohol concentration. That's not what the article is saying though. That is a matter of dilution not how drunk someone is by the effect of alcohol (impaired reflexes, decision making and so on). Dilution is as simple as adding 3 grams of something to 10 grams or 15 grams. It would take more then 3 grams to equate the same concentration in the 15 gram batch. What the article is saying is that larger people, at the same concentration (dilution being the same), have a tolerance that can be measured higher then those with smaller body weights. This means a person with a tolerance can consume enough to be at a certain BAC level and show less signs of impairment then others without a tolerance. Larger people show larger signs of not being impaired when they have a tolerance.
The constitution has several mechanism built into it to amend it. There are only two ways it could be unconstitutional to amend it and those were based on time spans that have long passed.
Now, if your bank decided that after 29 years, just one payment from your mortgage being paid in full and the house being yours, to reinterpret the contract so as you have another 30 years to pay or somehow have a balloon payment or they can repossess the house, you would be outraged. Even if it wasn't happening to you but others because the contract was a document of it's time and inevitably subject to subsequent reinterpretations, the vast majority of people would be outraged.
That is what the US constitution is- a contract between the states and the people within them that forgo certain amounts of sovereignty to a federal government and if something needs changed, then it needs to be amended and changed. It really is that simple.
I'm not against changing the US constitution, in fact, I would like to see several changes myself. I just think that we owe history the honesty of following the rules to do so. This means amending the constitution instead of all the sudden deciding the word "one" means two or three or something similar to make something constitutional that otherwise wouldn't be. Its a smoke and mirror game right now with what actually means something and what doesn't. When we ignore it, we have given license to ignore all of it. That does mean that when something you don't want ignored is, they can use the exact same justifications to ignore the search and seizure or due process clauses or free speech guarantees as they use to ignore the second amendment or rules to how legislation is made or war is waged.
The problem is that "liberal agenda" in this context is completely different then any modern assumption of it. This all happened before liberal was a 4 letter word and that should be common knowledge to anyone with a cursory understanding of US history.
I understand what you are saying though and the point is taken. However, I'm not sure how I could have explained that bastardization of the constitution as the start of modern warping of the constitution without the term as it specifically is what happened. Terms like left and right would have the same political objectionable connotations just the same and be less accurate (as we well know there are right liberals too). If history is off limits because some ignorant people refuse to understand it due to political ideology, then we have lost all hope. We might as well sit on the couch and watch TV to keep up with the celebrities of the day.
I hope you realize how true the term "liberal agenda" actually is. Roosevelt's New Deal legislation was a liberal agenda supported and created by most of the liberal groups of the time. Most of it was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. The democrat congress threatened to increase the number of justices on the supreme court and stack it with liberal judges while Roosevelt more or less said make me stop knowing they controlled the executive powers and any means of enforcing the ruling. The Supreme court then ruled some of the New Deal legislation constitutional by expanding the interstate commerce clause to include anything that could possibly influence interstate commerce even if it wasn't interstate commerce itself.
I would say the "utter imbecile" in this picture would be the ones who attempt to use modern politics to define an era of the past. Roosevelt worked well with the socialist and their liberal agenda despite the Communist uprising in 1919 and most of the remaining communist joining the socialist in the US after they refused to cooperate. The socialist of the time were not seen as being bad because they actually abstained from the revolt and left the communist hanging. The communist after WWII changed into socialist after WWII when communism got a bad name and was largely shunned by western cultures. That creates a different look on liberal and socialist in today's politics that weren't part of the past politics. It is entirely accurate and competent to say liberal agenda as used in my post.
I strongly suggest opening a couple of history books, perhaps an encyclopedia and maybe learn something before trying to "paint" something you obviously know nothing about. Then perhaps you won't appear so "mentally insufficient". I can see why you posted AC.
Many critiques of the war crimes tribunals after WWII, including the chief prosecutor who was a judge but never had a law degree, claim the prosecutions were ex post facto law (law after the fact) and the trials constituted a victors justice.
I'm not saying they didn't deserve what they got, but lets not pretend it was all on the up and up when comparing it to other things we find horrible too.
As for the reinterpretations of the US constitution, it is an artifact of the liberal agenda (Roosevelt fought for it to preserve a lot of his unconstitutional new deal programs). They first attempted to amend the US constitution by interpreting wordings out of context and extending government reach and powers by construing meaning beyond what was traditionally present in it. This is because there was no support for legitimately amending the constitution to their favor. Unfortunately, their short sightedness has missed the problem of "if they can do it, others can too" so now it is a common thing to do by any political ideology and it seems to have no bounds as long as it can advance someone's cause.
It is a sad day when the US constituion is reinterpreted in order to get around the limitations it imposes on government. This is true whether you like one, some or all of the reinterpretations or none of them at all.
Usually, regular Budweiser but I also drink some of the bitter crap like Guinness Foreign Extra Stout with the same effects too.
It doesn't really matter because it is the amount of time spent drinking not the alcohol content of the drink. When I say long day, I'm talking 12+ hours. Start at 11 or so in the AM and finish about 2 am like at the truck and tractor pulls or when smoking a hog or something.
You are forgetting that the legal term for drunk driving is an number encoded into law by the state that measures the alcohol concentration in the blood stream. A well known effect called alcohol tolerance allows a person who drinks regularly to consume more alcohol then others before the effects of the alcohol show. Unfortunately for the offender, the blood alcohol concentration does not change with the person's tolerance so a person with a .08 BAC can be as sober as someone who doesn't drink if their tolerance is high enough and still be considered legally drunk and get a DUI.
My point and statement stand in place. Most DUIs are issued to people who regularly consume alcohol and hence have a tolerance of some sort to the alcohol.
Blood alcohol content does not have the same effects on everyone. At .08, a legally drunk driver who drinks regularly will not have their reaction times or any senses dulled like a novice drinker. If you take two legally drunk people, one who drinks once or twice a year and one who drinks every night, you will find one of them to be more capable then the other and not noticeably under any influence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_tolerance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_tolerance
BAC or Blood alcohol content is not the same drunk for everyone. As tolerances build up, people who don't even notice an effect from the alcohol will still be legally drunk. The low limit is for the occasional drinkers who will be adversely impacted by drinking such small amounts.
Most drunk drivers can drive as well as most sober drivers when they get a DUI. The legal limits is really too low for someone who is accustom to drinking. Cops do things like paint white dots on the treads of tires on cars parked at or near bars then make something up to pull them over later when they see the streak rolling down the road. They also sit outside bars and watch people walking to their cars and pull over the people who display "drunken" behavior.
A DUI is mostly about money and little more. There are groups who claim it is about safety and to them, it likely is, but to government and cops, it's a revenue thing.
Finally, I can plead the Americans with Disabilities act when I get a DUI.
Interestingly, wouldn't federal law trump state law on this? I mean if someone is drunk due to a medical condition then a DUI would likely go against the ADA. Otherwise it would be like passing a law saying that people while licensed to drive, if they have a medical condition (lets say heart disease) can be incarcerated and fined for driving.
9 to 10 per week? Beer guts are usually associated with people who drink 9-10 beers a day or more. I got mine years ago when I generally drank a 12 pack a day. I was drinking a six pack before going bar hopping just to save a few bucks at the clubs. I can still consume a case of beer on a long day of drinking (24 beers) without much thought about it and not getting past a buzz.
But I know people who drank that much or more who didn't have a beer gut so exercise, metabolism and probably a host of other things play along with it too. I just wouldn't be too proud or worried about 9-10 beers a week. You probably put more calories from soda into your body per week then with the beer.
And somehow that is dtill fsstrr the modt dwings of a fly dwatter.
You spelled it wrong. It is the " just us" system not justice system. Or at least that is what it appears like in practice.
Borders on means right next to- touching each other. If my property line borders on your back yard, it means we are close not that i am in your yard.
As for legal avenues, he could have informed any member of congress of what he thought to be illegal without failing the law. He could have aldo made the accusations without disclosing any specific information. You must be really messed up to think his only choice wss to copy a bunch of secret files and give them to foreign countries snd enemies.