That's correct. It's why state's rights is important. You can't have a dictator taking over 50 states unless there is one power controlling those states. The federal government was originally intended to settle issues between the states and put a forward unified face for foreign relations. That is why the state department deals with foreign affairs not the affairs of the 50 states within the United State of America.
Somewhere along the lines, the political power has been taken from the several states and concentrated at the federal level and now it is easier to mandate from there rather then convince 50 separate entities to do the same things.
Terms that no one expected to be held. Just like the treaty to return the Panama canal to Panama was never allowed to proceed.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, nothing was changed in Obama's so called withdrawl of troops from Iraq as apposed to Bush's SOFA. Also, Panama got control of the canal. What exactly are you talking about?
Everyone was expecting a non-withdrawal withdrawal where all the forces move back to a few army bases and stop patrolling the entire territory (see Japan or Germany after WWII for a reference for this model). Obama actually stood by the SOFA rules and withdrew.
complete nonsense. The SOFA rules required us to be out unless another agreement was made. The SOFA rules were made understanding that another agreement might be needed to extend the forces but it entirely rested on the administration in office at the time as well as the government of Iraq. The SOFA agreement was the US's acknowledgement of Iraq as a sovereign state again and our presence there would need to be in accordance with international law respecting their sovereignty.
What you are saying here defies logic. It is essentially that because Obama followed the rules set up by Bush, and that people thought Bush would not follow them if he somehow magically could have a third term, that Obama made the rules instead. This is complete and utter delusion.
He put an end to not one, but two wars and refused to go to full out war in Libya and Syria. That seems a radical difference with the previous holder of the oval office to me, and very much exercizing that option.
No, he put an end to one war, Iraq was already settled by the SOFA rules already in place by Bush when Obama took office. He changed a few wordings like the name of the remaining forces but it's materially the same.
Funny that you mention marijuana, because he has done exactly that: CNN: President Barack Obama says that federal law enforcement agencies have "bigger fish to fry" than prosecuting marijuana users in Colorado and Washington, which voted in November to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. (late 2012)
I know this is from what you would probably consider to be the conservative source but it seems your reality is not conjoined with the real world.
Just wanted to make a couple minor corrections to your post. One war instead of two and despite what has been said by officials, it seems they are targeting medical marijuana after all.
What amazes me by the administration is that they seem to be able to completely separate themselves from their own actions when it comes to public appearance. It's as if someone else is running the government and Obama and friends are just puppets along for the ride or something without a care in the world about what their administration is actually doing unless it somehow benefits them.
Congress can appoint an independent prosecutor and go after whistle blowers and certain violations of laws the AG refuses to prosecute. However, I believe you are correct in that the AG (or maybe the FDA) can add and remove listings and even change the classifications of controlled substances effectively making pot or any other controlled substance legal without an act of congress and their independent prosecutor would be powerless to act.
You mean when the black guy was a senator and failed to oppose it then?
Back in the Bush administration, we didn't also have entire government departments like the IRS attempting to impose political ideology and punish those who didn't think like them but refusing to process or demanding exorbitant amounts of information for their tax status while funneling the information illegally to their political opponents.
Here are a couple of differences between then and now. When the TSP was found out about, no one had any reason to believe it was being used to political purposes. Many people apposed it anyways. Now we know the government uses it for partisan political purposes by extension of what happened with the IRS. The other is that we didn't know about the depth and extend of the monitoring when Bush Jr was president. Perhaps if we did and understood it to be as it is today, we would be just as outrages. Finally, Bush has not been in office for over 5 years. The executive heads up these operations and by all means the current head of the executive- the black guy as you put it, could have stopped it any time he wanted to. The fact of the matter is that he didn't want to, he didn't appose the TSP as a senator and he claimed he would keep it but administrate it differently as president. We already got bush out of office, why you think we still need to do that or that he isn't and it gives the current administration a pass or something is beyond understanding.
I'm not sure that is any more noble. My user ID definitely does not connect to anything in the real world (except when it comes to women, I tend to be a real dumb-ass on a consistent basis).
If I can translate your comment, it might be something along the lines of, I don't have anything but I'll act as if I do in order to avoid being called into question. the emperor really has no cloths on- But perhaps that is because he is taking a shower at the moment.
I was reading an opinion piece which I cannot find now, but they suggest that the reason is more or less to make throw away technology available to get around liabilities due to that kind of thing.
I guess the underlying root of this is that Iran had an election a few years ago where smart phones and wifi relays were used by people to contest the elections and report on what they seen. Trying to flood the market with cheap as well as expensive technology will make the government's job of sniffing on these activities that much harder. Plus throw away phones registered to fictional people can be easier to come by which makes it that much harder to catch those apposed to the government.
In short, they more or less say this move is more about promoting an Arab spring in Iran then anything else (even though Iran is mostly Persian). I tend to agree with this thought.
So in other words, nothing particular but you want to make the association.
You also got a few things wrong. I have never met a tea party identifier who was anti-immigration. I have never seen a platform that was anti-immigration passed among people claiming to be in the tea party. I have however seen anti-illegal immigration stances which is distinctly different then immigration.
Also, I have never seen American Exceptional-ism taken as a policy of projection through force. I've seen it intrude into other areas where force was needed or used though. That would make it ancillary verses policy projection though. This sort of makes your concept of "the eradication of rival ideologies through force of arms in order to promote unity a careless association" a little less then a casual acquaintance. At least as far as I can see with the tea party.
As for your comment on anti-intellectual stands. I think you are confusing opinion with fact and that is a very unintellectual problem. Opinions about facts do not make facts itself and most of what you see (if not all) is the rejection of political opinion concerning facts. It does not make the facts wrong or the opposing opinion wrong and it does not make the opinions about facts right. When scientific institutions start expressing political opinions, opposition of those opinions is not a rejection of scientific institutions either (that line of thought is very unscientific to boot).
As for the soda cup sizes, I said the comment was meant as an insult. You can creatively construe the tea party as fascists, but you need a lot of creativity to do so. A lot more than what is needed to call an idiot wanting to nanny state state your health and ruin established city services because they found a legal reason to oppose your will- a fascist- even if just as an insult.
There is a lot wrong, but it is with the political ideology that thinks it can manage my freedoms. Government is in no position to do so. As I said, the term fascist was used as an insult.
BTW, what parts of the tea party do you consider fascism? I'm interested to hear about this. I think it's going to be a laugh when you put it down in words.
Your a complete moron. Making sure the size or amounts listed is actually what is delivered is a function of government. Do you want to buy a 16 oz soda with only 10 oz in it? Do you want to purchase 10 gallons of gasoline and only receive 8 gallons? Regulating commerce to prevent deceptive marketing and fraud is a legitimate function of government. Telling me what I can and can't have that is otherwise completely legal at private establishments outside of alcohol which has a constitutional amendment making it a government concern is bullshit. It is in no way the same as making sure the 20 oz soft drink is actually 20 oz or the 10 gallons of gas is 10 gallons.
Try thinking things through before attempting to insult others and proving yourself to be worse off in the process.
You are going to be more depressed when you find out I used fascist as an insult and planned on being neither accurate or ironic. Government simply has no place at dictating what size soda I can purchase.
A free market has morals. Maybe the people in it don't.
Morals are built into the system that keeps it free. However, a free market rarely stays free because someone always gets to large and exploits it or a regulatory entity enters and hampers it. A free market is a hypothetical like Marxism and bears no resemblance to any attempts to practice them.
Bloomberg couldn't ever become president. His no soda for you stick killed those chances. Not to many people outside of NYC would vote for someone that openly fascist.
How do Canadian voters get to pic "long term" government when all the politicians lie?
Not all politicians lie. Some are just deluded into believing what they are saying or saying what they have been brainwashed into believing only to find that reality is a different game altogether. Some are just inexperienced and incompetent to understand the truth from a lie that has been passed on to them.
Someone being wrong is not someone telling a lie. There is a note of having to know and understand what you are saying is not true or correct in order for there to be a lie involved. A lie carries an intent to deceive or misdirect where being wrong can result from being lied to originally, not having all the information or having incorrect information or something even more challenging, an opinion that doesn't necessarily translate into the real world situation.
There is a saying about blaming malice over incompetence and most of the so called lies seem to be nothing more then incompetence.
Unfortunately, in their TOS available here, section 4.3 has language that specifically addresses servers. It says,
You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server.
Now that does imply there can be limits to unlimited but specifically disallows servers of any kind.
People dying from suicides is not an inflated number it s people dying due to easy access of guns.
But it is completely disingenuous to consider it a gun crime. Well, I guess maybe not if you are willing to consider someone contracting aids from a random hookup and dieing as a homicide too.
Last I checked, it was not a crime to kill yourself. It was only illegal if you break the law in the process. Counting suicides by gun as gun crimes is nothing more then an attempt to exaggerate the numbers. It's misleading, false, and dishonest.
It's done this way in downtown because when the areas are congested, averaging 35mph will be impossible.. Instead, they average the speed from a complete stop to the speed limit with heavy traffic considerations and it comes out usually to slightly less then the posted speed limit.
Most modern traffic systems can dynamically change this to match the flow of traffic. The set timeings are holdovers from the old more difficult to change systems. Los Vegas Nevada actually sends monitors out on foot and to drive along the routes in order to direct the changing of these timeings to increase the flow of traffic. Of course they are of the impression that they make their money from successful businesses paying taxes not from penalizing people trying to patronize those businesses.
You don't see a problem with the city saying drive this fast, "trust us it is safe to do" by posting the speed limits, then rigging the intersection to where you have to drive slower else pay them a large fine?
I seen those in New Jersey near college campuses. When pedestrians break an electronic beam on the side of the cross walk, flashing lights in the road and on signs go off for a few seconds while they cross. Ohio has some similar things with nothing embedded in the roads that I know of but I've seen them around some larger cities where there isn't a traffic light.
The first time you drive up on one of the flashing cross walks in NJ, you will think you are entering a crash scene or something, they are all over the road and freak you out until you notice what is going on.
TFA makes it sound like they're all speed cameras anyway, not line cameras, and points out that of the two cameras which were operating one was in a school zone where you really do want these things enforced
Just a note, in Ohio, the school zone speed limit is only during certain hours and when activity is present outside of those hours unless the speed limit is marked with a normal speed limit sign. The law actually says "during school recess and while children are going to or leaving school during the opening or closing hours"
The problem here is that if you are not familiar with the specific school in question, those times can vary from district to district and on certain cases day to day (delays in opening school because of weather, half days, recess times, and so on). Sometimes you will not know you are in one of those restricted times until you have already entered the school zone and are capable of observing the activities associated with them. You also have the question of whether these cams were in place and ticketing people outside of those hours without the proper speed limit signs indicating that the speed is 20 mph all the time. I can easily see entrapment- or a scam happening here.
Fair use is a defense to a violation not and exception to controls. It works out in reality that it can be an exception, but only after the claim of a violation is made.
I'm not really sure what you think has to do with it. It's all about what the person who filed the notice thinks. If they have a claim, then there is a claim. The validity of that claim might be questioned but it still doesn't negate the claim as far as the law is concerned.
Good catch. I was under the impression that MBL actually went to court to get a blog shut down and content removed in the late 1990's and won. But I can find no reference to this now.
Slashdot Mirror
That's correct. It's why state's rights is important. You can't have a dictator taking over 50 states unless there is one power controlling those states. The federal government was originally intended to settle issues between the states and put a forward unified face for foreign relations. That is why the state department deals with foreign affairs not the affairs of the 50 states within the United State of America.
Somewhere along the lines, the political power has been taken from the several states and concentrated at the federal level and now it is easier to mandate from there rather then convince 50 separate entities to do the same things.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, nothing was changed in Obama's so called withdrawl of troops from Iraq as apposed to Bush's SOFA. Also, Panama got control of the canal. What exactly are you talking about?
complete nonsense. The SOFA rules required us to be out unless another agreement was made. The SOFA rules were made understanding that another agreement might be needed to extend the forces but it entirely rested on the administration in office at the time as well as the government of Iraq. The SOFA agreement was the US's acknowledgement of Iraq as a sovereign state again and our presence there would need to be in accordance with international law respecting their sovereignty.
What you are saying here defies logic. It is essentially that because Obama followed the rules set up by Bush, and that people thought Bush would not follow them if he somehow magically could have a third term, that Obama made the rules instead. This is complete and utter delusion.
No, he put an end to one war, Iraq was already settled by the SOFA rules already in place by Bush when Obama took office. He changed a few wordings like the name of the remaining forces but it's materially the same.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/stewart130309p.html
I know this is from what you would probably consider to be the conservative source but it seems your reality is not conjoined with the real world.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/06/1961751/feds-ramp-up-crackdowns-on-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/
Just wanted to make a couple minor corrections to your post. One war instead of two and despite what has been said by officials, it seems they are targeting medical marijuana after all.
What amazes me by the administration is that they seem to be able to completely separate themselves from their own actions when it comes to public appearance. It's as if someone else is running the government and Obama and friends are just puppets along for the ride or something without a care in the world about what their administration is actually doing unless it somehow benefits them.
Congress can appoint an independent prosecutor and go after whistle blowers and certain violations of laws the AG refuses to prosecute. However, I believe you are correct in that the AG (or maybe the FDA) can add and remove listings and even change the classifications of controlled substances effectively making pot or any other controlled substance legal without an act of congress and their independent prosecutor would be powerless to act.
You mean when the black guy was a senator and failed to oppose it then?
Back in the Bush administration, we didn't also have entire government departments like the IRS attempting to impose political ideology and punish those who didn't think like them but refusing to process or demanding exorbitant amounts of information for their tax status while funneling the information illegally to their political opponents.
Here are a couple of differences between then and now. When the TSP was found out about, no one had any reason to believe it was being used to political purposes. Many people apposed it anyways. Now we know the government uses it for partisan political purposes by extension of what happened with the IRS. The other is that we didn't know about the depth and extend of the monitoring when Bush Jr was president. Perhaps if we did and understood it to be as it is today, we would be just as outrages. Finally, Bush has not been in office for over 5 years. The executive heads up these operations and by all means the current head of the executive- the black guy as you put it, could have stopped it any time he wanted to. The fact of the matter is that he didn't want to, he didn't appose the TSP as a senator and he claimed he would keep it but administrate it differently as president. We already got bush out of office, why you think we still need to do that or that he isn't and it gives the current administration a pass or something is beyond understanding.
I'm not sure that is any more noble. My user ID definitely does not connect to anything in the real world (except when it comes to women, I tend to be a real dumb-ass on a consistent basis).
If I can translate your comment, it might be something along the lines of, I don't have anything but I'll act as if I do in order to avoid being called into question. the emperor really has no cloths on- But perhaps that is because he is taking a shower at the moment.
I was reading an opinion piece which I cannot find now, but they suggest that the reason is more or less to make throw away technology available to get around liabilities due to that kind of thing.
I guess the underlying root of this is that Iran had an election a few years ago where smart phones and wifi relays were used by people to contest the elections and report on what they seen. Trying to flood the market with cheap as well as expensive technology will make the government's job of sniffing on these activities that much harder. Plus throw away phones registered to fictional people can be easier to come by which makes it that much harder to catch those apposed to the government.
In short, they more or less say this move is more about promoting an Arab spring in Iran then anything else (even though Iran is mostly Persian). I tend to agree with this thought.
So in other words, nothing particular but you want to make the association.
You also got a few things wrong. I have never met a tea party identifier who was anti-immigration. I have never seen a platform that was anti-immigration passed among people claiming to be in the tea party. I have however seen anti-illegal immigration stances which is distinctly different then immigration.
Also, I have never seen American Exceptional-ism taken as a policy of projection through force. I've seen it intrude into other areas where force was needed or used though. That would make it ancillary verses policy projection though. This sort of makes your concept of "the eradication of rival ideologies through force of arms in order to promote unity a careless association" a little less then a casual acquaintance. At least as far as I can see with the tea party.
As for your comment on anti-intellectual stands. I think you are confusing opinion with fact and that is a very unintellectual problem. Opinions about facts do not make facts itself and most of what you see (if not all) is the rejection of political opinion concerning facts. It does not make the facts wrong or the opposing opinion wrong and it does not make the opinions about facts right. When scientific institutions start expressing political opinions, opposition of those opinions is not a rejection of scientific institutions either (that line of thought is very unscientific to boot).
As for the soda cup sizes, I said the comment was meant as an insult. You can creatively construe the tea party as fascists, but you need a lot of creativity to do so. A lot more than what is needed to call an idiot wanting to nanny state state your health and ruin established city services because they found a legal reason to oppose your will- a fascist- even if just as an insult.
There is a lot wrong, but it is with the political ideology that thinks it can manage my freedoms. Government is in no position to do so. As I said, the term fascist was used as an insult.
BTW, what parts of the tea party do you consider fascism? I'm interested to hear about this. I think it's going to be a laugh when you put it down in words.
Your a complete moron. Making sure the size or amounts listed is actually what is delivered is a function of government. Do you want to buy a 16 oz soda with only 10 oz in it? Do you want to purchase 10 gallons of gasoline and only receive 8 gallons? Regulating commerce to prevent deceptive marketing and fraud is a legitimate function of government. Telling me what I can and can't have that is otherwise completely legal at private establishments outside of alcohol which has a constitutional amendment making it a government concern is bullshit. It is in no way the same as making sure the 20 oz soft drink is actually 20 oz or the 10 gallons of gas is 10 gallons.
Try thinking things through before attempting to insult others and proving yourself to be worse off in the process.
You are going to be more depressed when you find out I used fascist as an insult and planned on being neither accurate or ironic. Government simply has no place at dictating what size soda I can purchase.
A free market has morals. Maybe the people in it don't.
Morals are built into the system that keeps it free. However, a free market rarely stays free because someone always gets to large and exploits it or a regulatory entity enters and hampers it. A free market is a hypothetical like Marxism and bears no resemblance to any attempts to practice them.
Bloomberg couldn't ever become president. His no soda for you stick killed those chances. Not to many people outside of NYC would vote for someone that openly fascist.
Minor nitpick.
Not all politicians lie. Some are just deluded into believing what they are saying or saying what they have been brainwashed into believing only to find that reality is a different game altogether. Some are just inexperienced and incompetent to understand the truth from a lie that has been passed on to them.
Someone being wrong is not someone telling a lie. There is a note of having to know and understand what you are saying is not true or correct in order for there to be a lie involved. A lie carries an intent to deceive or misdirect where being wrong can result from being lied to originally, not having all the information or having incorrect information or something even more challenging, an opinion that doesn't necessarily translate into the real world situation.
There is a saying about blaming malice over incompetence and most of the so called lies seem to be nothing more then incompetence.
Unfortunately, in their TOS available here, section 4.3 has language that specifically addresses servers. It says,
Now that does imply there can be limits to unlimited but specifically disallows servers of any kind.
But it is completely disingenuous to consider it a gun crime. Well, I guess maybe not if you are willing to consider someone contracting aids from a random hookup and dieing as a homicide too.
Last I checked, it was not a crime to kill yourself. It was only illegal if you break the law in the process. Counting suicides by gun as gun crimes is nothing more then an attempt to exaggerate the numbers. It's misleading, false, and dishonest.
It's done this way in downtown because when the areas are congested, averaging 35mph will be impossible.. Instead, they average the speed from a complete stop to the speed limit with heavy traffic considerations and it comes out usually to slightly less then the posted speed limit.
Most modern traffic systems can dynamically change this to match the flow of traffic. The set timeings are holdovers from the old more difficult to change systems. Los Vegas Nevada actually sends monitors out on foot and to drive along the routes in order to direct the changing of these timeings to increase the flow of traffic. Of course they are of the impression that they make their money from successful businesses paying taxes not from penalizing people trying to patronize those businesses.
You don't see a problem with the city saying drive this fast, "trust us it is safe to do" by posting the speed limits, then rigging the intersection to where you have to drive slower else pay them a large fine?
I seen those in New Jersey near college campuses. When pedestrians break an electronic beam on the side of the cross walk, flashing lights in the road and on signs go off for a few seconds while they cross. Ohio has some similar things with nothing embedded in the roads that I know of but I've seen them around some larger cities where there isn't a traffic light.
The first time you drive up on one of the flashing cross walks in NJ, you will think you are entering a crash scene or something, they are all over the road and freak you out until you notice what is going on.
Just a note, in Ohio, the school zone speed limit is only during certain hours and when activity is present outside of those hours unless the speed limit is marked with a normal speed limit sign. The law actually says "during school recess and while children are going to or leaving school during the opening or closing hours"
The problem here is that if you are not familiar with the specific school in question, those times can vary from district to district and on certain cases day to day (delays in opening school because of weather, half days, recess times, and so on). Sometimes you will not know you are in one of those restricted times until you have already entered the school zone and are capable of observing the activities associated with them. You also have the question of whether these cams were in place and ticketing people outside of those hours without the proper speed limit signs indicating that the speed is 20 mph all the time. I can easily see entrapment- or a scam happening here.
It sure can. Unfortunately, once it finds it cannot lift it, it can give itself the power to do so. It's like when redbull gives you wings.
You are missing the "why" are we seeing a report like this just when the government is being forced to cut it's budget.
But I agree, technology will alleviate much of these doomsday scenarios.
Fair use is a defense to a violation not and exception to controls. It works out in reality that it can be an exception, but only after the claim of a violation is made.
I'm not really sure what you think has to do with it. It's all about what the person who filed the notice thinks. If they have a claim, then there is a claim. The validity of that claim might be questioned but it still doesn't negate the claim as far as the law is concerned.
Good catch. I was under the impression that MBL actually went to court to get a blog shut down and content removed in the late 1990's and won. But I can find no reference to this now.