It's more of a matter of why a dog licks his own balls- because he can. Different guns shoot differently and having lots of them means lots of fun. When you can have them and have the fun, why not?
I'm sure they will be happy to know their grandmother didn't die, was able to get the drugs kept from her by the NHS and that the NHS is continuing to treat her.
Actually, she would have died by now anyways because the drug would have kept her alive about 6 months longer on average. But it is exactly what i said, they wanted a treatment not allowed, had to pay privately for it, and the NHS refused to continue covering that illness if they got the private treatment.
It's no where near a false dilemma. The concept of calling for approval came up and the reason why approval needed to be made was specifically because the treatment was non-standard for the condition or the billing code needed to be changed to include a condition the treatment would be standard for. With Medicaid and Medicare, we already see what happens in real life, the standard medical treatment is applied. Part of the Obamacare package that is being called a death panel is where advisory boards are set up to determine the best standard treatment for something and balance the costs according to the age and likely results of the patient, This is fact and it is designed to modernize a standard of procedure system that is supposed to drive costs down specifically by limiting the treatment to a standard for the condition.
You need to either start paying attention or bow out of discussions about this stuff.
I do not think the case of a savings can be made at all. As I said, same person, same car, same driving record, different address (US address verses Canada Address) and paying for the same amount of coverage in automobile insurance was $1200 a year cheaper in the area that has medical coverage in it (the US). That is a pretty large sum of money if you think about it and the less amount was actually where there is no universal coverage and the policy had to provide some medical coverage.
I guess a study could be done to determine this. However it would get more complicated with homeowners as flood risks and crime rates would heavily influence the costs of insurance. But simply looking at your coverage and saying X amount of for medical coverage so I will automatically save that amount is a bit naive and unreal. I just checked Massachusetts' minimum liability requirements, after all, they have universal coverage in the state, and the medical coverage isn't removed from their car insurance coverage.
Why yes, i do remember when I would drop my boat in the lake for an evening water skiing, all the other boaters bitching about not having health insurance. They said with gas being as expensive as it was, and their 25K cars they were paying for, they could barely afford their Iphones, deluxe cable packages, plasma TVs, and Xboxes, let alone paying for some sort of insurance or setting money aside for emergencies.
You're advocating for a system with more illness, not less.
not really and it really doesn't matter because it is the person's choice in what to do or it should be. It is not like these people are all the sudden going to start getting checkups if they feel they are healthy enough to only need catastrophic insurance. Well unless you are planning on forcing them to go to the doctors too. But you do have a point, they will just spend their money on other things anyways and not be able to put money aside because everything else is so much more important.
Having other (private) insurances such as car-, or home insurance cover medical expenses just means those are more expensive. If the US ever had a single payer tax financed system, of course employers would NOT pay for healthcare, and car insurance would NOT pay for healtcare in that system. What does your car insurance cost? How much of that premium is there to cover lawsuits and/or medical treatments for whoever is hit by your car? How much of that premium is there because there may be a legal procedure first?
They will not be any cheaper if they didn't cover the medical costs and you are required to have them if you drive a car or are buying a home. If i remember right, car insurance in Canada is still more expensive then in the US. So shifting the medical cost doesn't seem to lower the expense automatically. A good friend moved to the US from Canada and was surprised that her rates in the US were about $100 per month less for equal coverage.
What if the person you ran over just got the best treatment possible, straight away, no questions asked? What would that do to your car insurance premium?
I'm not really sure why you are so worried about it when i am the one who would have to pay the premium. However, the insurance will only pay for reasonable treatment costs and the law will only make me liable for that too. If the person decides to go to some $500 a hour private doctor, they would be paying the difference themselves. And that point is insignificant with universal coverage because the option to get luxury health care wouldn't exist either.
Saying that "there is a narrow window left between other insurances" just points out that its scary as hell to have a system where healtcare is provided by a patchwork of different insurances where some may even be bound to your employment and so on (That would scare the hell out of me).
then pay for health insurance. You must be confused about something here, I said a lot of healthy people use that to not spend money on health insurance, not that anyone had to do that. Hell, for a healthy person, a catastrophic policy is more then enough.
The fact that a doctor would have to check with some insurance company before giving me a medical treatment to see if it is covered also scares the hell out of me.
Do you know what the difference is in a universal coverage state is? The government had already dictated what could be done and the more risky procedures that might have a better outcome would not be considered at all. You see, there are medical standards already in place pertaining to the treatment of about anything. Existing government care like medicare/medicaid will only pay for that type of care. When the doc calls the insurance company to get approval for something, it is something that will likely be beneficial to the patient but not already a standard treatment. You can be scared all you want, but it would be because of your own ignorance not anything in practice. Your government healthcare wouldn't even provide the opportunity for that kind of treatment in the first place.
The NHS probably isn't inadequate but you do hear horror stories about it from time to time. Medical tourism in former colony states seems to be a popular thing for people who have government insurance coverage that is supposed to cover everyone. The NHS has a rule or law that states they can avoid treating any illness if you attempt to get treatment outside their system and it isn't an emergency situation. So if there is rumor of some miracle treatment for your liver cancer or whatever and you fly to whatever country who is allowing it to be practiced and the treatment fails, you can be stuck flipping the bill yourself for the rest of your liver cancer treatment life.
I think there are problems with most health care systems and they all have horror stories.
That's about how it was described to me when I was about to be going there. Job fell apart and didn't go though. Most people I spoke with about it like it too.
Actually, you are making a weird extrapolation between police and healthcare. And yes, a lot of people think they are being forced to pay for police they do not call or schools they have no children in. And yes, some areas do call a private company for fire and emergency medical services.
The difference is that most people can agree that the police and fire are necessary but requiring a 22 year old in good health to spend money in case his health goes bad is not automagicly seen as a necessity. I have gone 15 years without seeing a doctor outside of a DOT physical and a couple of blood test required after a hazmat cleanup.
Here is the problem, when in good health, all people need is catastrophic insurance with a high deductible and a health savings account that can cover the deductible. Most of what they do that can be considered dangerous is already covered by workers comp when working or by car insurance when traveling somewhere and sometimes even by homeowners or renters insurance depending what policy you have and almost always when at another person's residence. That leaves a very narrow window where someone isn't already covered by some already existing entity if you are in good health. So most people do not see paying for the police in the same light as being forced to pay for something that is mostly redundant and probably not needed.
Please don't make things up because you got but hurt that someone yet again pointed to the shining examples thrust at us with the claim of being better and pointed to the deficiencies saying that is what i don't want.
No one in the US has had to sell their house to get medical tests or treatment unless they were purposely trying to manipulate their income and assets to sneak into a government program and have the state pay for their health care. There are people who lost their income from not being able to work who lost their houses (foreclosures), but nothing in the Obamacare (you happy?) or the mexican coverage will prevent that.
lol.. isn't Australia a duel health care country consisting of private and public system like England? I'm pretty sure I was going to have to buy insurance when I was thinking of moving there.
"can be" is probably the operative word here. Cops can be charged for assault when they tackle you and arrest you too. It's just you cannot file charges directly and need to rely on a court advocate (generally a prosecutor) to file the charges on your or the state's behalf. The likelihood of that happening is zilch unless something is obvious that it was an abuse of authority.
Most cops not in the movies will not bother with the "or I will shoot you" though. They will repeat the drop the gun order as forcible as possible until it is determined the gun is a threat then shoot. It is rare that a cop will be in front of someone with a gun in a position that they can drop it under a command or order and not be shooting or ready to shoot. In most cases, if they are telling you to drop a weapon, they are already justified according to operational procedures in shooting you.
But cops do get away with violating a lot of laws simply because the prosecutor will not take the case up. Most department internal affairs offices are loyal to the cops too. They have to really screw up with lots of witnesses in most cases to get anything more then a mark on their record or sensitivity training.
the fire in a theater is a bit dated to continue to be realistic or practical in this scenario.
At one time, a fire in a movie theater was almost a guarantee of several deaths if not a couple dozen if it was full. There really would have been a life threatening sense of panic in the same as someone could be justified in killing an attacker who is threatening their life.
Before modern building codes and fire safety codes, theaters were basically tinder boxes with only one narrow exit. If a fire started back stage, it could be in front of the doors blocking the exits in a matter of minutes, often well before the time needed to evacuate the people inside. You also had the problems of props and materials that produced toxic fumes that would overwhelm patrons stuck behind the others and cost them their life. With the requirements of emergency exits and flame retardant materials, sprinkler systems and so on, this is not longer the case and the seriousness of how life threatening it was sort of disappeared.
So the fire in a crowded theater mem is sort of outdated as you pointed out, we have fire drills in public education now, most places have them at work once or twice a year, and the theaters themselves are a lot safer then it used to be. But even recently, in the station night club in Rhode Island sort of illustrates the perils of this. 100 people died and 200 were injured out of 400 some total because a lot of the fire codes in modern theaters were ignored (tables blocking emergency exits, exit lights not functioning, no sprinkler systems). Now imagine the sense of danger if that was expected every time a crowded theater caught fire.
Exactly how is creation a concrete disprovable stance? The belief if I understand it correctly is that a supernatural being did some supernatural stuff. How do you concretely disprove a supernatural event when you are limited to the bounds of nature?
Here is a natural event that will illustrate what I mean. I created a very hot fire. In the base of the fire pit was some sand and it melted and became glass. I decided to build a house there later and took the glass and threw it into another field miles away. Now suppose I told some people that I threw the glass in the field miles away and they told their kid and it was passed on and on for hundreds of years. Now suppose 2000 years from now, someone finds the glass, notices it was created by a hot fire and isn't formed or anything that would make it appear like it was intentionally made. He draws the conclusion that there must have been a very hot fire in the spot at one point in time. The locals tell him he is crazy, the glass was dumped there by some whackjob 2000 years ago. HE insists that science says it was created a certain way and that his explanation is accurate. You see, he cannot prove or disprove that I put the glass there. All he can do it show how it was possible for glass to get into that field outside of me putting it there. He can do that, does that mean he disproved that I put it there.
But this is neither here nor there. The problem isn't whether you think you can disprove something, it is the government via schools telling children something is true or not true in a religion. The government is bared from doing that by the establishment clause. The government can teach the theory of evolution, they can teach the big bang and the singularity which in and of itself assumes something from nothing or something from nothing within our limits imposed by nature.The government just cannot do it in a way that say your religion is a fraud- fake- not real- true- real- or any position confirming or denying it.
Do you even think about what you are saying? Science cannot disprove a supernatural being doing supernatural things, the best they can do is show a natural path to the same ends and cast doubt in the claims. This is because science is limited to the constraints of nature and how we currently understand it. Now how we currently understand it is important because our understanding changes from time to time as more knowledge is gathered.
But I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. The limits to the state sponsored denial of religion is a constitutional limit placed on the state(s). It's not a matter of you convincing yourself that X is right or wrong, it is a matter of the government saying this religion is ok and this religion is a joke. You brought up the establishment clause in another post you replied to with me, use your brain and figure out what it actually says.
Actually, there is nothing prohibiting the states from offering religious education- even reading chicken guts. The problem comes in when it is required and tax payer monies is sort of a misnomer. Once it is paid to the state, it is no longer the tax payer's. This has already been hashed out with Bush's faith based initiatives and the charter schools issue with the NCLBA allowing vouchers to go to religious schools.
But none of that stops tyranny of the majority. The amendment process can actually enact tyranny of the majority like what happened with prohibition and the subsequent repeal once it was determined to be a bad idea. It took 75% of the states to sign off on it.
You are right in that it would restrict that application of tyranny of the majority if the original enumerated powers was strictly observed, but it wouldn't stop it from happening within those limits.
So when he does something that pleases both you and your neighbor, he is still not doing the will of the majority or tyranny of the majority?
Or does this ability to operate independently disconnect the representative's desire to take a position popular with the majority of voters in order to remain in office and survive reelection and the pandering is just his insignificant BS unrelated to the will of the people or his actions?
Nothing except for the electoral college and the now ignored limits on government is in the constitution to prevent tyranny of the majority. It may be difficult to achieve in reality but it is not precluded by anything in the constitution.
It doesn't change the fact that charges could still be laid either. My guess is they are going to arrest and charge him when he answers a question the way they think he will answer which is why they want him in custody to question him.
But what we do know to exist outside of either of our heads or Julian's imagination is that Sweden wants Assange in their custody concerning rape allegations. So the fact that a charge has not officially been levied does not imply that any will or will not in the future.
Actually, I said it was the "nature of progress". Progress has several meanings, none of which are precluding the usage as I used. But the nature of something implies a byproduct or function of it, not the measurement itself.
The further a society advances, progresses, or develops, the more laws will be made. More laws mean less free because there is simply more that you cannot do and remain lawful and less that you are free to do and remain lawful. This is especially true in a society that thinks the government is supposed to be serving them and demands the government do something to justify the representative's term in office.
Probably not unfortunately. What generally happens is you just lose the lawsuit. The courts rarely punish perjury (or in Clinton's case the weaker lying under oath) in civil trials which has had a nasty effect on our civil system.
That's a bit misleading. It is another mem from the clinton sex era that turned out to be incorrect. It appears that perjury is prosecuted quite often in addition to losing the case.
In any case the issue was Congress in the analogy not Clinton.
The issue is with the entire analogy. Congress has a legitimate and constitutional role in overseeing the conduct of the office of president as well as offices of the government. This is fact that cannot be disputed unless you ignore something or imagine things not real.
I suspect your assertion about this never being about some rape charge/situation employs a lot of this imagination. The US simply is not involved with the extradition, the charges in Sweden, nor do they have an active warrant for Assange's arrest. The statement released wasn't even about Assange except that a reporter asked about Ecuador's membership in the OAS and diplomatic asylum. Even if the US did sign the treaty, it wouldn't matter as it only gives safe passage to people given political asylum from some place inside the country to the destination country and Assange isn't even in the US.
I'm starting to think this entire issue is manufactured by Assange in order to take advantage of useful idiots. I mean seriously, a reporter asks a question, the state department answers it, Assange jumps to a balcony talking about secrete warrants (which is why no one else can find them) and a witch hunt involving an elaborate scheme that in reality isn't even necessary in order to get custody of him. But because of it, asylum by a South American country is necessary despite the fact that the CIA has a long history of covert operations there and is probably more dangerous for Assange if the US actually did want him.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more of a matter of why a dog licks his own balls- because he can. Different guns shoot differently and having lots of them means lots of fun. When you can have them and have the fun, why not?
I'll make sure these people know that
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1016262/Grandmother-dies-NHS-cancer-treatment-withdrawn-paid-privately-life-extending-drug.html
I'm sure they will be happy to know their grandmother didn't die, was able to get the drugs kept from her by the NHS and that the NHS is continuing to treat her.
Actually, she would have died by now anyways because the drug would have kept her alive about 6 months longer on average. But it is exactly what i said, they wanted a treatment not allowed, had to pay privately for it, and the NHS refused to continue covering that illness if they got the private treatment.
It's no where near a false dilemma. The concept of calling for approval came up and the reason why approval needed to be made was specifically because the treatment was non-standard for the condition or the billing code needed to be changed to include a condition the treatment would be standard for. With Medicaid and Medicare, we already see what happens in real life, the standard medical treatment is applied. Part of the Obamacare package that is being called a death panel is where advisory boards are set up to determine the best standard treatment for something and balance the costs according to the age and likely results of the patient, This is fact and it is designed to modernize a standard of procedure system that is supposed to drive costs down specifically by limiting the treatment to a standard for the condition.
You need to either start paying attention or bow out of discussions about this stuff.
I do not think the case of a savings can be made at all. As I said, same person, same car, same driving record, different address (US address verses Canada Address) and paying for the same amount of coverage in automobile insurance was $1200 a year cheaper in the area that has medical coverage in it (the US). That is a pretty large sum of money if you think about it and the less amount was actually where there is no universal coverage and the policy had to provide some medical coverage.
I guess a study could be done to determine this. However it would get more complicated with homeowners as flood risks and crime rates would heavily influence the costs of insurance. But simply looking at your coverage and saying X amount of for medical coverage so I will automatically save that amount is a bit naive and unreal. I just checked Massachusetts' minimum liability requirements, after all, they have universal coverage in the state, and the medical coverage isn't removed from their car insurance coverage.
Why yes, i do remember when I would drop my boat in the lake for an evening water skiing, all the other boaters bitching about not having health insurance. They said with gas being as expensive as it was, and their 25K cars they were paying for, they could barely afford their Iphones, deluxe cable packages, plasma TVs, and Xboxes, let alone paying for some sort of insurance or setting money aside for emergencies.
not really and it really doesn't matter because it is the person's choice in what to do or it should be. It is not like these people are all the sudden going to start getting checkups if they feel they are healthy enough to only need catastrophic insurance. Well unless you are planning on forcing them to go to the doctors too. But you do have a point, they will just spend their money on other things anyways and not be able to put money aside because everything else is so much more important.
They will not be any cheaper if they didn't cover the medical costs and you are required to have them if you drive a car or are buying a home. If i remember right, car insurance in Canada is still more expensive then in the US. So shifting the medical cost doesn't seem to lower the expense automatically. A good friend moved to the US from Canada and was surprised that her rates in the US were about $100 per month less for equal coverage.
I'm not really sure why you are so worried about it when i am the one who would have to pay the premium. However, the insurance will only pay for reasonable treatment costs and the law will only make me liable for that too. If the person decides to go to some $500 a hour private doctor, they would be paying the difference themselves. And that point is insignificant with universal coverage because the option to get luxury health care wouldn't exist either.
then pay for health insurance. You must be confused about something here, I said a lot of healthy people use that to not spend money on health insurance, not that anyone had to do that. Hell, for a healthy person, a catastrophic policy is more then enough.
Do you know what the difference is in a universal coverage state is? The government had already dictated what could be done and the more risky procedures that might have a better outcome would not be considered at all. You see, there are medical standards already in place pertaining to the treatment of about anything. Existing government care like medicare/medicaid will only pay for that type of care. When the doc calls the insurance company to get approval for something, it is something that will likely be beneficial to the patient but not already a standard treatment. You can be scared all you want, but it would be because of your own ignorance not anything in practice. Your government healthcare wouldn't even provide the opportunity for that kind of treatment in the first place.
The NHS probably isn't inadequate but you do hear horror stories about it from time to time. Medical tourism in former colony states seems to be a popular thing for people who have government insurance coverage that is supposed to cover everyone. The NHS has a rule or law that states they can avoid treating any illness if you attempt to get treatment outside their system and it isn't an emergency situation. So if there is rumor of some miracle treatment for your liver cancer or whatever and you fly to whatever country who is allowing it to be practiced and the treatment fails, you can be stuck flipping the bill yourself for the rest of your liver cancer treatment life.
I think there are problems with most health care systems and they all have horror stories.
That's about how it was described to me when I was about to be going there. Job fell apart and didn't go though. Most people I spoke with about it like it too.
Actually, you are making a weird extrapolation between police and healthcare. And yes, a lot of people think they are being forced to pay for police they do not call or schools they have no children in. And yes, some areas do call a private company for fire and emergency medical services.
The difference is that most people can agree that the police and fire are necessary but requiring a 22 year old in good health to spend money in case his health goes bad is not automagicly seen as a necessity. I have gone 15 years without seeing a doctor outside of a DOT physical and a couple of blood test required after a hazmat cleanup.
Here is the problem, when in good health, all people need is catastrophic insurance with a high deductible and a health savings account that can cover the deductible. Most of what they do that can be considered dangerous is already covered by workers comp when working or by car insurance when traveling somewhere and sometimes even by homeowners or renters insurance depending what policy you have and almost always when at another person's residence. That leaves a very narrow window where someone isn't already covered by some already existing entity if you are in good health. So most people do not see paying for the police in the same light as being forced to pay for something that is mostly redundant and probably not needed.
Please don't make things up because you got but hurt that someone yet again pointed to the shining examples thrust at us with the claim of being better and pointed to the deficiencies saying that is what i don't want.
No one in the US has had to sell their house to get medical tests or treatment unless they were purposely trying to manipulate their income and assets to sneak into a government program and have the state pay for their health care. There are people who lost their income from not being able to work who lost their houses (foreclosures), but nothing in the Obamacare (you happy?) or the mexican coverage will prevent that.
lol.. isn't Australia a duel health care country consisting of private and public system like England? I'm pretty sure I was going to have to buy insurance when I was thinking of moving there.
Who needs to stock up?
If it doesn't take two trips in the pickup truck just to move your guns and ammo when you change addresses, you aren't doing something right.
"can be" is probably the operative word here. Cops can be charged for assault when they tackle you and arrest you too. It's just you cannot file charges directly and need to rely on a court advocate (generally a prosecutor) to file the charges on your or the state's behalf. The likelihood of that happening is zilch unless something is obvious that it was an abuse of authority.
Most cops not in the movies will not bother with the "or I will shoot you" though. They will repeat the drop the gun order as forcible as possible until it is determined the gun is a threat then shoot. It is rare that a cop will be in front of someone with a gun in a position that they can drop it under a command or order and not be shooting or ready to shoot. In most cases, if they are telling you to drop a weapon, they are already justified according to operational procedures in shooting you.
But cops do get away with violating a lot of laws simply because the prosecutor will not take the case up. Most department internal affairs offices are loyal to the cops too. They have to really screw up with lots of witnesses in most cases to get anything more then a mark on their record or sensitivity training.
I ate not one, but two (count them) monte cristo sandwiches in one siting once.
But I can't credit for it.
the fire in a theater is a bit dated to continue to be realistic or practical in this scenario.
At one time, a fire in a movie theater was almost a guarantee of several deaths if not a couple dozen if it was full. There really would have been a life threatening sense of panic in the same as someone could be justified in killing an attacker who is threatening their life.
Before modern building codes and fire safety codes, theaters were basically tinder boxes with only one narrow exit. If a fire started back stage, it could be in front of the doors blocking the exits in a matter of minutes, often well before the time needed to evacuate the people inside. You also had the problems of props and materials that produced toxic fumes that would overwhelm patrons stuck behind the others and cost them their life. With the requirements of emergency exits and flame retardant materials, sprinkler systems and so on, this is not longer the case and the seriousness of how life threatening it was sort of disappeared.
So the fire in a crowded theater mem is sort of outdated as you pointed out, we have fire drills in public education now, most places have them at work once or twice a year, and the theaters themselves are a lot safer then it used to be. But even recently, in the station night club in Rhode Island sort of illustrates the perils of this. 100 people died and 200 were injured out of 400 some total because a lot of the fire codes in modern theaters were ignored (tables blocking emergency exits, exit lights not functioning, no sprinkler systems). Now imagine the sense of danger if that was expected every time a crowded theater caught fire.
Everyone should create a fake page saying the same crap then send friend request to the two US presidential candidates running this year.
Hey now, don't blame that on me.
Exactly how is creation a concrete disprovable stance? The belief if I understand it correctly is that a supernatural being did some supernatural stuff. How do you concretely disprove a supernatural event when you are limited to the bounds of nature?
Here is a natural event that will illustrate what I mean. I created a very hot fire. In the base of the fire pit was some sand and it melted and became glass. I decided to build a house there later and took the glass and threw it into another field miles away. Now suppose I told some people that I threw the glass in the field miles away and they told their kid and it was passed on and on for hundreds of years. Now suppose 2000 years from now, someone finds the glass, notices it was created by a hot fire and isn't formed or anything that would make it appear like it was intentionally made. He draws the conclusion that there must have been a very hot fire in the spot at one point in time. The locals tell him he is crazy, the glass was dumped there by some whackjob 2000 years ago. HE insists that science says it was created a certain way and that his explanation is accurate. You see, he cannot prove or disprove that I put the glass there. All he can do it show how it was possible for glass to get into that field outside of me putting it there. He can do that, does that mean he disproved that I put it there.
But this is neither here nor there. The problem isn't whether you think you can disprove something, it is the government via schools telling children something is true or not true in a religion. The government is bared from doing that by the establishment clause. The government can teach the theory of evolution, they can teach the big bang and the singularity which in and of itself assumes something from nothing or something from nothing within our limits imposed by nature.The government just cannot do it in a way that say your religion is a fraud- fake- not real- true- real- or any position confirming or denying it.
Do you even think about what you are saying? Science cannot disprove a supernatural being doing supernatural things, the best they can do is show a natural path to the same ends and cast doubt in the claims. This is because science is limited to the constraints of nature and how we currently understand it. Now how we currently understand it is important because our understanding changes from time to time as more knowledge is gathered.
But I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. The limits to the state sponsored denial of religion is a constitutional limit placed on the state(s). It's not a matter of you convincing yourself that X is right or wrong, it is a matter of the government saying this religion is ok and this religion is a joke. You brought up the establishment clause in another post you replied to with me, use your brain and figure out what it actually says.
Actually, there is nothing prohibiting the states from offering religious education- even reading chicken guts. The problem comes in when it is required and tax payer monies is sort of a misnomer. Once it is paid to the state, it is no longer the tax payer's. This has already been hashed out with Bush's faith based initiatives and the charter schools issue with the NCLBA allowing vouchers to go to religious schools.
But none of that stops tyranny of the majority. The amendment process can actually enact tyranny of the majority like what happened with prohibition and the subsequent repeal once it was determined to be a bad idea. It took 75% of the states to sign off on it.
You are right in that it would restrict that application of tyranny of the majority if the original enumerated powers was strictly observed, but it wouldn't stop it from happening within those limits.
So when he does something that pleases both you and your neighbor, he is still not doing the will of the majority or tyranny of the majority?
Or does this ability to operate independently disconnect the representative's desire to take a position popular with the majority of voters in order to remain in office and survive reelection and the pandering is just his insignificant BS unrelated to the will of the people or his actions?
Nothing except for the electoral college and the now ignored limits on government is in the constitution to prevent tyranny of the majority. It may be difficult to achieve in reality but it is not precluded by anything in the constitution.
It doesn't change the fact that charges could still be laid either. My guess is they are going to arrest and charge him when he answers a question the way they think he will answer which is why they want him in custody to question him.
But what we do know to exist outside of either of our heads or Julian's imagination is that Sweden wants Assange in their custody concerning rape allegations. So the fact that a charge has not officially been levied does not imply that any will or will not in the future.
Actually, I said it was the "nature of progress". Progress has several meanings, none of which are precluding the usage as I used. But the nature of something implies a byproduct or function of it, not the measurement itself.
The further a society advances, progresses, or develops, the more laws will be made. More laws mean less free because there is simply more that you cannot do and remain lawful and less that you are free to do and remain lawful. This is especially true in a society that thinks the government is supposed to be serving them and demands the government do something to justify the representative's term in office.
That's a bit misleading. It is another mem from the clinton sex era that turned out to be incorrect. It appears that perjury is prosecuted quite often in addition to losing the case.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/18/opinion/the-perjury-loophole.html
The issue is with the entire analogy. Congress has a legitimate and constitutional role in overseeing the conduct of the office of president as well as offices of the government. This is fact that cannot be disputed unless you ignore something or imagine things not real.
I suspect your assertion about this never being about some rape charge/situation employs a lot of this imagination. The US simply is not involved with the extradition, the charges in Sweden, nor do they have an active warrant for Assange's arrest. The statement released wasn't even about Assange except that a reporter asked about Ecuador's membership in the OAS and diplomatic asylum. Even if the US did sign the treaty, it wouldn't matter as it only gives safe passage to people given political asylum from some place inside the country to the destination country and Assange isn't even in the US.
I'm starting to think this entire issue is manufactured by Assange in order to take advantage of useful idiots. I mean seriously, a reporter asks a question, the state department answers it, Assange jumps to a balcony talking about secrete warrants (which is why no one else can find them) and a witch hunt involving an elaborate scheme that in reality isn't even necessary in order to get custody of him. But because of it, asylum by a South American country is necessary despite the fact that the CIA has a long history of covert operations there and is probably more dangerous for Assange if the US actually did want him.