Your point wasn't made but you think it was only after I went to your argument 4 posts into the reply. You really need to get a grip and pull your head out of your ass.
Other countries and other people in other countries have nothing to do with a right of sovereignty for this country. It has everything to do with their own sovereignty and they should act accordingly. You have never understood the argument being made, you never attempted to, and for the most part, I still doubt you have the smallest fucking clue about what sovereignty is. Like I said, To date, all claims of illegality rely on some hidden idea that we have no sovereignty. If you would figure out what the hell sovereignty means, you would understand the argument and statement. Until then, you will just be a retarded asshole who loses arguments with sumdumass. Is it wrong of me to expect you to think before you speak? Or for you to actually know a little about what you intend to discuss?
What I mean is that currently the debates are being put off in favor of immediate stimulus. Don't fool yourself into thinking that as soon as the bill passes next week the money will be there and suddenly everything will be glorious. The fact of the matter is that no matter what is included in the bill it will take time to sort out the funding and legal ramifications.
I'm not fooling myself. I saying that debate on the spending needs to happen. This bill is missing a lot of the debate because of the so called urgency of it. If this bill was debated and worked through the system like all the others, your fears could just as well be realized anyways. So by including it, some are attempting to short circuit that debate and unilaterally decide something in a way that we don't normally do.
So why not just put it on there and get the ball rolling on it. My point was that if we can get $16 Billion into schools, if we send it in for debate we might only get $12 Billion. We might only get $1 Billion for Broadband. Thats a lot of money to lose out on for something that is a major investment in our Nation.
If this bill would receive the same scrutiny and debate as any bill would normally receive, what you mention here could happen anyways. If the stuff that doesn't directly create jobs and address the specific goals of the reasons why the bill isn't going through the normal route, it should be removed. It's really that simple- else we end up taking half a year examining this bill like the normal process takes and if it survives, then it gets past.
The argument of keeping this in seems to be "the stuff removed wouldn't be able to stand on it's own in a normal debate" which is a key reason we shouldn't be "shoveling it in" in the middle of the night. And if it stays in, then they should slow the process down and examine everything as they would normally do.
I would happily pay into the Stimulus if it included such things as this because they are things that I will see and experience. Helping the banks with their credit lines doesn't help me (personally at this point) as much as seeing $16 Billion invested in school projects and other infrastructure. Send people back to work, put money directly into the hands of people and employers who have jobs that need to get done. Then let the people put their money in the banks. Let them pay off their own credit lines and that in turn will helps the banks recover from this mess that they got us into in the first place.
I personally don't agree with helping banks either. It really isn't the job of the government to be propping up insolvent private businesses that side tracked regulations already in place. However, 16 billion in schools don't help you any more then pumping money into banks. Private investments from people on the job end of the equation won't do much in the short term either. It will be too little over too long of a time span. It will need to be an end game goal though.
I watched Obama on TV tonight when he made his speech. He seems to be a little short sighted in everything on this. He claims we are in this mess because "banks made stupid investments". That's not entirely true, quite a few of the "risky loans" which was mandated by congress fell into the "toxic" status which comprised the bulk of the Stupid investments. Energy prices are what kicked the bucket over and started the staining of the economy. Those investments were otherwise sound until the people who were in the risk category had to pay double to get to and from work, the babysitters, to heat and cool their homes, to turn the lights on at night because they are working during all the daylight hours.
He talks as if investing in the schools was a good idea, and it probably is (even if the feds have no place in it). This means that it will be picked back up and it will be taken care of in some way with normal debate and normal appropria
Like I said, there will be plenty of time to find out which schools need what and where the money is needed the most. How long will it take before they (the feds) even recognize that the two schools you know of are in this position? How long will it take to figure is those schools are in need more then some others? Should we skip the others and waste the money on the two schools you know of even though the money will eventually need to be spend elsewhere?
Ok, so you know of two schools that the ground work has been done on but they didn't go through because your state decided the money was needed somewhere else. Big deal, that is two schools out of how many? In my county, there are 25 specific schools, in the county next to me, there are 80 some -(a couple were just closed down). There are 88 counties in my state, times that by 50 for a modest number and we are looking at a lot of schools and school districts to look through. It just wouldn't do anything soon enough for what it is supposed to do.
I'm not sure why people are crying about this. If the money being spent in schools is a good idea, it will be brought back up and spent anyways. If it isn't needed, then it won't. Combining it inside this bill is nothing but an attempt to remove the debate around that necessity and it will not provide any near term jobs like the stimulus is supposed to be striving for.
the problem with this that is that a lot (not all) of the things cut could be thousands of jobs created too.
The jobs it will create, if any, are jobs that will be around in 4 to 12 years, not tomorrow or next month or even next year. The idea of the Stimulus is to get jobs sooner then that.
$16 Billion for School Construction? Its gonna take someone to build all those.
Yes, it will. But it will also take a resource planning comity to select a site for the schools, a study on traffic patterns so you don't have little Susie crossing a highway on the way home like she is playing frogger, an infrastructure upgrade in the area so the water supply lines and the sewage lines can handle 500 extra people and so on. I know, they just relocated a school in my area, ended up building it in the adjacent lot and took up part of the playground to do it. It took over 5 years before they broke ground, then another 2 to put the structure up, 1 year to upgrade the sewage and water supply moving to it and it isn't expected to be open for another year or two.
$2 Billion for broadband? Someone has to be paid to lay the cable
First you need to determine what kind of broadband will be delivered because of the funding, then you have to figure the layout of the new broadband infrastructure based around existing right of ways withing the limits of the chosen technology. Then if you plan to deliver it to anyone who isn't already being servers by broadband, you will have to negotiate new right of ways and perhaps go to court to secure them is one doesn't already exist. Time Warner wanted to put Cable down my road and the township demanded $3 per customer and Time Warner backed out because they were already going to have to be paying Verizon a conduit charge to tag along their existing right of way.
Both of those scenarios are not just things you can simply do. There are legal requirements, permissions to get, perhaps to force through the courts, and planning as well as other things that need to be accomplished first. It just takes too long to get done.
Just putting them off again means they can be widdled down more and debated on further. When was the last time $16 Billion was on the table for school construction? When is the next time we are likely to see that much money offered up for something like this?
Here is the problem, if they can't survive debate, then they probably aren't the top priority at the time. This is exactly why they need to be debated and why they need to be processes like regular spending. If we had more pressing needs the School construction, maybe like repairing existing schools or perhaps upgrading them to be more energy efficient so they cost less to operate then we should go that route. Perhaps the wireless spectrum that was just sold can and will fill the broad band gap and do what is necessary there without the use of Government funding. Perhaps when the broadband issues come back around, there will be more money for it because someone can make the case of how important it is instead of one person attempting to sneak it into a bill with no debate.
Both of those issues are things the US government probably shouldn't be involved with anyways, but if they are going to be involved, then it should be discussed and let the chips fall where they may on the merits of the programs.
Why, yes there is! There's such a shortage of technically skilled people willing to work the hours and accept the meager pay being offered, we're having to import them from India and China through H1B visas! That's because all you tech guys are all already employed, amiright?
Here is the problem. Most of this stuff is pork that should be spent and debated on their own merits. In the Stimulus package, it was originally passed off as an emergency bill with no debate. When the Republicans grew a pair, it forces the debate but the so called necessity of spending doesn't offer a proper debate.
Think of this like the bailout bill, there was such a rush to put it out that key politicians including Obama said it doesn't need to be perfect, we can change things later, then we find out that the bail out paid for parties at large resorts and so on. All of the stuff cut from this bill are things that will need more of a debate then what is currently availible to the politicians. So while they are cut from this bill which was basically a spending and appropriations bill before, they aren't off the table, it's just an affirmation to push them to the proper time, place, and environment to consider them. There are no short term job creation or direct financial benefit with them to the public in the near term so they don't need to be included into a stimulus bill by necessity which would bypass the traditional debate surrounding them.
In short, when they drafted the original bill, they went past stimulus and started piling in wish list items, some of which have been rejected for quite some time, some of which might be good for the country but has no direct effect on the goals of the stimulus goal, but most of all deserve to be properly considered in normal debate. Sneaking them into this bill was only an attempt to remove the debate on them, cutting them out doesn't mean they are gone, it just means they will have to go throught normal channels.
You saw neither science nor physics? The one was talking directly about what the science and physics say by listing comments of the Scientist who did the science and physics.
I have yet to see any science or physics outside of the same layman's terms that say anything directly in support of global warming either. Does that mean it doesn't exist? The idea behind a consensus is that something peer reviewed and stood to the point that others agree with it. The PFD itself is proof that not everyone who looked at the stuff agrees with it. In fact, it lists people who did the science that the IPCC is claiming supports global warming and they are claiming that the IPCC is misrepresenting that their research found by selectively summarizing the papers and using them to support ideas that they were never intended to.
Perhaps you should apply the same standards all the way around instead of selectively applying them to what you don't like.
Fuck dude, there were two other sites I asked about, what are you above addressing anything mentioned their?
Here is the problem. People come out in opposition of Global Warming theories claiming that human created Co2 is reasoning behind it. Then you dismiss them because you don't like the political leanings of the site or the person who made the statement. In this case, the site only posted the information and discusses it. But this happens when people can find 25 year old connections to oil companies despite not direct or indirect relation currently, it happens for any minor nit where people like you can ignore and excuse away the opposition based on anything but what they presented. In some cases, people like you refer other to papers that are directly being challenged as some sort of proof that the challenge in accuracy it wrong. That's like you saying 2+2=5, me saying no, it's equal to 4, then you referring me to your original statement as if it invalidates my correction.
In the end, you haven't convinced anyone who is capable of thinking for themselves or even independent of group think of anything other then you don't like the politics behind something. It's a fucking insane process your participating in to anyone who isn't already brainwashed. I don't know if you can't see it or if you do see it and just don't care. Either way, the problem is with you, not me.
What right? The "right" to hold guns to other people's heads? It is ONE world, one human race. No "right" exists that deprives another.
You are a complete idiot. The right is the right of sovereignty, the right to act independent of any other countries authority. That right can be used for good or bad but it in and of itself is neither. Like I said before, go figure out what the fuck Sovereignty means.
Really? And then by what "hidden idea" do you suppose it is by which the laws of this country may be imposed on anyone who doesn't agree with them? This argument is fatally flawed on the face of it. Law is a tool of necessity. We collectively, the people, all of the people, have exactly the right to have what laws we need, local, national, or international. And we all, as individuals or as nations have the obligation to live peacefully with each other and abide by those just laws. No one group, regardless if it calls itself a "sovereign nation" or anything else is above that law.
Again, your showing your ignorance. Obviously We as a people have not agree to anything your pissed about otherwise it simply wouldn't have happened in the first place and you wouldn't be getting your panties in a knot right now struggling to understand the concept of sovereignty. The "we as a people" end at the borders of the countries. The we as a people past that is only enforceable under voluntary situations unless those people are willing to use force to stop the transgression. That is the problem with people like you, your so wrapped into the "Oh no, not violence" that you don't understand that violence or the threat of it is the only way to enforce something onto someone who doesn't share your views.
My opinion is that where you are going wrong is in somehow believing that there is some kind of "us" and some kind of "them". Nobody is suggesting that people should be stopped from doing what they want to do, except and unless it interferes with everyone else's equal rights. When have I ever suggested that the people of the United States should be submitted in their place on the Earth to someone else's law? There are times and places where WE need to abide by the greater law of the whole, that doesn't give the rest of the world any right to interfere where it isn't justified, and the same rule applies to us.
Your opinion is as worthless as your understanding of sovereignty. There is an "us" and "them". The "us" is this cournty, the "them" is the other countries and anyone who doesn't have a direct role in the governance of this country. Europe cannot vote or whatever and unilaterally impose restrictions on the US outside of anything they directly control. The US can't either. The only way that can happen is if one nation or political boundary losses their sovereignty. Now every sovereign nation has a right and duty to act in it's own interest or they will suffer the loss of their sovereignty and resign to being the colony of another nation. This isn't rocket science here. An act forcing their power over another has to happen to subject them to their will. This act can be peaceful or violent, it all depends on the people inside the political boundary.
Read the words that the founders of this nation wrote down. REALLY read them, understand that they are not the words of one people for itself. They are words for all people in all places at all times. If we really actually believe them, if we live them, then what are we doing condemning the people of other countries for wanting to be free to live the way THEY want to live as well. Just because it is different from the way you want to live and the way you THINK they should live does not give us the right to interfere with them.
I have read them and I most likely understand them far more then you ever will. The founding fathers fought to gain their sovereignty at the cost of
What about those 600 some odd scientists who last summer walked out of an IPCC meeting in protest claiming they misrepresented their works? Are you sure they are in agreement?
I think the problem is that as the unemployment numbers increase, the estimated amount of people with cable decreases.
What I mean is, the number of converters box needed 2 or 5 years ago is not the same as today because people with cable have had to start canceling it when their jobs went away. Anyways, the majority today or yesterday doesn't mean it will be in the near future. But you also have to account for failures in DTV converters and a lack in sales from a down economy resulting in a increase reuse rate when those that can, upgrade.
I don't remember US pulling out of the UN? Sure it could, but it didn't and while it doesn't it is bound by the UN charter like any other member. Presumably its continuing membership means that it is benefiting from it somehow, otherwise it would have pulled out? You can't have it both ways, belonging to an organization but ignoring the rules which are a condition for the membership in the first place.
What part of the UN charter takes the sovereignty of the US away? What part of it denied the US to act and what procedure was followed to declare that the US acted in violation of the fucking charter? Do you even know what sovereignty means? Did you even read my post or the links you provided?
And Germany invaded Poland because some German border guards were shot at by the Poles, right? Now you are just being an apologist for the Bush administration. They can't say we wanted to take over Iraq for a long time for various strategic reasons and 9/11 gave us the public support we needed, so they have to say something. If you think the reason we invaded Iraq is that weapons inspectors had some difficulties monitoring it's non-existent WMD program then you are living in a funny world.
And if England and France would have enforced the armastice that ended WWI, WWII would never of happened. However, none of that has anything to do with right now. Fuck dude, there were a ton of reasons we had for going into Iraq. The presence of them only goes to show that we restrained ourselves until a time when it wasn't in out interest. That doesn't make anything your implying true over anything else. We took as much of Iraq's shit as we could, then we demanded them to honor their armistice agreements, when they didn't, they became void. You don't have to apologize for stating the truth, the fact that you don't like something doesn't make it untrue, you are not the god damned arbitrator on reality. Got over it and get back into the real world.
Sorry, I had to laugh at "the proactive defense strategy". Self defense has its limits. According to your line of thought the ultimate act of self-defense would be to nuke every other country preemptively so nobody could ever threaten us. I hope you don't really believe that Iraq was some kind of a realistic threat to the US? Might is right might be the reality in the world but you are arguing that this is a good thing.
BOy, your a really smart one there aren't you? Do you often impress your friend with wit like that? Maybe you should stop hanging around the short buses. The idea behind the proactive defense, which isn't anything new to bush and if you were one quarter as intelligent as you think you are, you would know about it already. It goes like this, there is a problem, your can deal with it before it gets worse or after all hells broken loose. Preemptive is addressing the threat before it escalates out of your favor. Now go educate yourself a little Mkay.
BTW, Yes, Iraq was perceived as a threat to the US. The previous administration and most of the US senate said so all through the decade leading up to the war. Are two administrations and most of the congress and senate liars or something? If you had some insight back there to why all those people were wrong, you should have convincingly showed it. You didn't so you might as well either admit you using hindsight or going to war is on your hands for failing to inform the government of their errors. ?Chances are, you knew nothing as was simply guessing.
True but not really saying much. If ICC had pronounced the invasion of Iraq illegal, or if there was a UN council resolution to that effect then this wouldn't be an issue worth discussing at all. The fact that they didn't though has more to do with the US power than with any legal issues. If a criminal is so powerful that he has a veto p
It's stupid to leave all your money to your lawyer who is drafting the will and neglect your family who is sacrificing to your benefit.
While I can agree with your sentiment and the basis of what you say, I don't think it is wise to assume that it wasn't anything other then stupidity in some situations. I can understand if they left the money to a good cause like a charity, a school, PBS, the government, a lover, an illegitimate family and so on but to a lawyer? Who drafted the Will? I've even heard of people leaving everything to those "god will save you if you give me money" Televangelist.
The comment about it being stupid was really meant to describe what you mentioned. It is honorable to do those things you mentioned under certain circumstances. People removed from the situation can see the circumstances in which you have to go What the hell? Not all of them are like that though. This is where the honor turns into the equivalent of falling for a 419 scam. That's where is becomes stupid. I didn't mean to come across that it was always stupid. At least that's the way I see it.
Dude, Iraq was a sovereign nation recognized by the US. If one sovereign nation takes military action against another sovereign nation, it is usually considered illegal.
The key word is usually. However, Iraq's sovereignty was limited to it's armistice agreements ending a war that he started with an ally and we went to war to stop. The war was already there- his compliance with the armistice wasn't.
The constitution says something about honoring treaties with foreign powers, you might want to look it up.
The constitution doesn't say something, it says something specific. It says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Now I shouldn't need to break it down for you but I will in case you don't understand it. The president and only the president has the power to make treaties only if two thirds of the senate agrees with the treaties.
Now, Article VI (6) says that the constitution and the laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. All treaties made have to be made under the authority of the US. This means that no treaty can be made that defeats the constitution. But the treasties that were made stand above the constitution which mean if it is legitimate, then it is law of the land.
However, no treaty has been rules to of been broken. Claims that they were have been bandied about but no governing authority has come to that conclusion. The notwithstanding part was added to the constitution because at the time of it's construction, we were bound by treaties that may have been voided by the adoption of the constitution. This is why there is a separation between "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States". It recognizes obligations previously held while requiring all future treaties to be made within the authority of the constitution. An example of this might be a treaty with Germany making all visiting national subject to the protections in the constitution and a later amendment defines the constitution and bill of rights to only apply to citizens. The treaty would survive and German nationals would retain the benefits and protections that citizens do.
So what is bullshit is claiming that there's no need to get permission since there's no one that could grant permission - what the US did was to not honor treaties, which is illegal.
What treaties did the US no honor? There are none that we are bound by. Some Clain the UN charter or the International Criminal Court. First, the UN charter says that no wars can be judged illegal unless the UN security council makes the decision. It has never done so. The UN charter also provides that every nation has the right to self defense.
Second, the US has never adopted the Rome Statute that created the ICC and we are not bound by it regardless of the mad dutch judges who assert authority over anything unilaterally. We haven't adopted it because we would have to amend the constitution to do so. To note also, no supporting member nation of the ICC has even attempted to rule on the legality of the war.
It seems that you are just repeating rhetoric spouted by Anti-war idiots and people who are Anti-American. I don't blame you, you probably didn't know enough to know better or more likely are a citizen of another country that has drafted treaties that we aren't obligated to.
There are, however, circumstances under which such breaking of treaties would be considered legal - if the concensus is that the country against which military action is about to be taken, has already broken the treaties
Precisely. By arming yourself and participating in the logic of power, which is ultimately ONLY the rule of force and can logically be nothing else you have created the violence.
Once you arm yourself, you now MUST logically arrogate to yourself the 'right' to use violence, and thus demote all others to the condition of being subservient to your will.
"The US [substitute any name you want here] doesn't need permission to act on anything". You must see the utter contempt for the equality of the rights of all others inherent in this statement. You illustrate perfectly ALL that is wrong with this entire world view, I couldn't have done it better myself.
Only if you view the world through rose colored glasses and twist it's appearance to suit your own ideals.
The basic idea of sovereignty is to be independent of others in your own governance. Even without arming yourself you a nation can be sovereign and act in that way. Take Japan for instance, it was largely disarmed after WWII but it retained it's sovereignty and acted accordingly to that. The idea of one aspect that you disagree with invalidating the entire premise is completely wrong. Or are you suggesting that no country should be a sovereign nation independent of others? I'm will to bet that you also don't think it is good for the US Or england or China or Russia to require other countries to do certain things against their will and the will of their populous. But that what your advocating as what is wrong with the world right now- sovereignty, the ability to reject the will of other countries and act independently of them.
Moreover your entire statement taken as a whole illustrates the path of reasoning which inevitably follows from the initial flawed assertion. The other is not like me, my actions are always just, I am not bound by any obligations to you, only I have the right to decide what I do, and I'll back that up with violence. What? Does that violence make you right? Is your willingness to kill to get what you think is right a license to impose your viewpoint on the rest of us? I assure you many people will disagree with you, and now you have given them little recourse except to either submit to your tyranny or resist it with their own force.
Clearley you need to lay off the drugs.:0... Seriously though, the right of sovereignty doesn't suppose justification or validation. It is simply an inherent ability of a free nation to govern it's own actions. Nothing makes the acts of a sovereign nation just but the act itself. The act itself doesn't speak to sovereignty outside that a nation has a right to act in it's own interests.
Now don't get confused here because it's obvious that your confusing sovereignty with the actual act. Sovereignty is self rule where the laws and government of on nation is independent of another. This means that the US can't force the UK to paa a law changing the speed limit or to goto war with Australia or something. It can ask them and negotiate with them for their alliance but both countries would be acting independent of each other. When a state loses it's sovereignty, it loses it's right to self rule. If the US lost it's sovereignty to say Russia, it means Russia could impose laws that are direct violations of our constitution and all legal frame works supporting it and we would be expected to follow it. Currently, the US cannot surrender it's sovereignty so we cannot be bound to any other nation further then the voluntary compliance with such rules or obligations. This goes true for most of the sovereign nations out there. Canada for instance, until 1931 with the passing of the Statute of Westminster and some claim it wasn't until the 1980's when it ratified it's own constitution. That meant that until then, England could order laws to be made and bind Canada to them. Currently, this can't happen unless Canada agrees to accept those laws willfully and because they have that freedom, t
The explanation you're asking for is that the US is bound by the international treaties which it signs, and they become part of the US law. If the US did violate the UN Charter by invading Iraq, and lets face it it's obvious that it did, then this is in fact an illegal act by the US law and by the international law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War Even Richard Perle has conceded that the invasion was illegal: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/20/1069027255087.html
What part of Sovereignty do you not understand? First, as being a sovereign nation, the US as well as any other sovereign country is able to act independent of other nations. You right that we are bound by international treaties insomuch as they have been ratified and made into law. But as a right of sovereignty, any sovereign nation can change it's laws at will. But more to the point, the First gulf war was never ended. The armistice was an agreement upon conditions that Iraq failed to uphold. When you fail at your obligations, then the conditions behind them disappear too. These conditions were the cease fire that stopped the fighting from the first gulf war.
However, that is all pointless too. A sovereign nation has a right to defend itself. Bush's proactive defense strategy was an exercise of that right. No other nation can stop that while the country is sovereign. Other nations can take up arms or appose it but that's the extent.
This is why the US is not a member of the international criminal court (ICC) and your own link to the UN specifically says that UN Charter required the UN security council to rule on a war being illegal before it is. That has not happened and probably won't happen because the US and UK have Veto powers in the security council. So the UN charter argument falls flat on it's face because of the charter itself. The UN charter also give every state the right to self defense and the Bush preemptive defense doctrine is in and of itself, self defense so the argument fails there too.
To date, no official body with the Authority, internationally or domestic, to rule on the legality or the war has ruled it illegal. That statement of it being illegal is little more then hopeful dreams from anti-war or anti-American factions attempting to gather support and sympathy for their cause.
If the folk throwing a shit storm were the folk supporting Obama before, I'd agree. But everytime I hear shit, it's from someone who from the start was attacking Obama. I'm sure there were plenty of people out there who let themselves be blinded in their expectations, but most of them are NOT the people bitching and making snide remarks. It's the people who decided that the rest of us supported Obama not on our opinion of his ability to lead but because we somehow were 'culted' into believing he was the next coming of Christ that are bitching.
I know a lot of people who would have voted for the green party or libertarian instead of Obama but they did vote for him for those reasons. That would fit your definition of attacking Obama from the start but they did vote for him. I'm voted against him however so I have no personal attachment and probably fall into the placard you are describing. However, they are the ones who are upset and appear outrages, I'm just cynical and being a prick about it.
It's the ultimate straw man arguement. "Ha ha! Where is your messiah now!", when most of us went in clear eyed knowing that he wasing going to match our world view 100%.
Well, sort of. But most of the railings I see is where people are commenting on the "change and hope message". That is something they were roped into believing for whatever reasons. I think the Messiah thing is over played too. He attempted to appear like a greek god not the second coming although there were people who acted as if he was.
I can tell you one thing though, he's a damn sight better a match at seeing the world the way I dothan the previous guy or the guys he was running up against (Dem or Rep).
I can agree with that. I don't agree with Obama's outlook though. I don't see it as being different enough to warrant all the attention. It's more of a clintontonian type view (yea, I just made that up) which led us into the path that resulted with the last leader. For instance, I agree that Club Gitmo should be closed because it's a symbol of things that should not be but I don't agree that the members should be brought into the US and put in the US court systems. I also think the global warming is a scam, it may be a scientific reality but it has been politicized and hijacks for ulterior motives that have little or nothing to do with the science. Just a few months ago over 600 scientists who contributed to the IPCC stood up and walked out of a meeting stating that their work is being misrepresented and that it doesn't say what the IPCC is claiming it does.
I also don't like the false hope that seems to be going around. Obama ordered the EPA to review if it could allow California to set stricter standards on automakers. But this is somehow being promoted as a reversal of their previous position. Perhaps the previous policy has a sound footing and nothing will change. Especially when all car manufacturers are losing money and having troubles at the moment. Then there is the entire review of the science of the bush administration which is claimed to be supporting science again. However, he is canning NASA missions which is to be expected seeing how the democrats have a history of cutting NASA funding the most (the 1993 funding cut where the democrats controlled both houses of congress and the administration was more then the 3 cuts before and 4 cuts after combined). Then you have to look at the global warming science where it's being pushed by a zealot who admitted to exaggerating things because he believed the ends justified the means.
In short, most of what he has done is minor compared to what he presented himself as and they haven't really panned out yet but people are acting like he started the earth rotating in the opposite direction. People have elevated this person to some position he doesn't deserve to be in and sooner or later, their high will crash and most won't think much more of him then they did Bush.
Not necessarily, there are some provisions of contracts that are simply illegal and legally immoral. You cannot be bound to something like giving your landlord a kidney if he ever needs one while your renting from him.
That's an extreme example but I know people who have signed contracts that they know couldn't be enforced. There are some things that the courts cannot enforce by law or by moral right. There is also a defense of "necessity" that allows this to happen if the need for the services are great enough that someone would be severely worse off without the benefits of the contract. Suppose your out of work, the bank is about to foreclose on your home, State aid is about to run out, your children have holes in their shoes and there isn't much hope left. Now you find a job but they want to sign a wavier stating that you can't work in your trained field of specialty for 5 years after employment terminates. Now, your signing this doesn't matter because you have a right to find gainful employment. The only part that can be forced on you is the spirit of the clause where you don't use or transfer trade secretes to new employers. You might have to goto court and fight for your right to work (some EU countries already stop this before it hits the courts) and show that your not taking advantage of their trade secretes but you can get out of the contract that you signed through necessity.
Necessity is a legal concept that specifies that something was necessary because the alternative or current conditions were somehow unsustainable and perhaps life threatening. Robbing a store for food is a crime, robbing the store during an emergency for food and medication where it wouldn't otherwise be availible and people's lives were in danger is not a crime. Killing a person is illegal, killing a person to save your own life when you aren't the aggressor isn't. Escaping from prison is illegal, escaping from prison because the warden is torturing you and you watched others die in front of you isn't. There seems to be a need for inherent danger to the preservation of life to effectivly use necessity as a defense.
From what I understand, it's defeated more then it's successful in a court and the judges take a strong view of alternatives present.
You may try to sue the lawyers but you probably won't have any standing to do so. Sure, they drafted it but it would be CNN or whatever company who put it to use in which effected you. You may be able to sue them in addition to (alongside) CNN but your still on shaky grounds. Of course they probably have some blanket coverage thing where CNN pays expenses so it probably still wouldn't make it personal to them.
The interesting thing here is that when I checked the inauguration coverage from CNN's site, it told me I had to install that plug in in order to view the content. I selected no and realized it worked without it.
I wonder how many people were/are being tricked into installing this thing under the false pretense that it is needed in order to view content. The inauguration probably roped in millions of people who were tricked into thinking they needed this thing. It seems to me that if a transaction starts out as fraud, then any license or requirement after that wouldn't be enforceable. Surely, I wouldn't be obligated to deliver merchandise to someone who's check bounced or used stolen credit cards.
From his start, he employed dirty tricks and had help from invisible friends working behind the scenes. I mean if we start by looking at his start in politics and how he screwed over the person who put his name in the hat in the first place. And it should be noted that this page is heavily biased in Obama's favor. But then later, when he decided to go after a higher seat, all the sudden a judge decided to unseal a messy divorce case just before the elections making Obama virtually unapposed.
My favorite is how he justifies his position and speech defeating an abortion bill inspired by a nurse in Illinois who was outraged that when a baby was aborted then delivered alive, the doctors put it in a closet to allow it to die "of natural causes". It's no wonder that he reversed the positions on using tax payers money to fund abortions within the first week of office.
I don't think anyone can make the case that Obama isn't a career politician.
The scary part is that we have more to lose from the government then we do from the BSA and RIAA. This is sort of scary when you consider the type of firepower the government is stocking up on. I mean people who have taken single mothers and blind grandmas to court and dragged them around quite capably. Now we can rest assured that knowing that the government now has people skilled in this area. It sort of balances the power out that has been lopsided towards the people for the last 230 plus years.
Now that's change we can believe in. HOPE and all that shit.
Immoral I can let slide because it is selective in it's interpretation. Not everyone carries the same morals and not everyone lets the same things pass as morals. However, legal or illegal is something that is bound by law. The war was not illegal and your continuing to make that statement doesn't make it so.
As a sovereign nation, The US doesn't need permission to act on anything. To date, all claims of illegality rely on some hidden idea that we have no sovereignty. Perhaps you could explain why we aren't in control of our own country and aren't sovereign or finally shut the hell up about the illegal bullshit.
Inclusive means including people. Not catering to some to the point of excluding others. Just because the tide is in the opposite direction doesn't mean it isn't at play.
Slashdot Mirror
Your point wasn't made but you think it was only after I went to your argument 4 posts into the reply. You really need to get a grip and pull your head out of your ass.
Other countries and other people in other countries have nothing to do with a right of sovereignty for this country. It has everything to do with their own sovereignty and they should act accordingly. You have never understood the argument being made, you never attempted to, and for the most part, I still doubt you have the smallest fucking clue about what sovereignty is. Like I said, To date, all claims of illegality rely on some hidden idea that we have no sovereignty. If you would figure out what the hell sovereignty means, you would understand the argument and statement. Until then, you will just be a retarded asshole who loses arguments with sumdumass. Is it wrong of me to expect you to think before you speak? Or for you to actually know a little about what you intend to discuss?
I'm not fooling myself. I saying that debate on the spending needs to happen. This bill is missing a lot of the debate because of the so called urgency of it. If this bill was debated and worked through the system like all the others, your fears could just as well be realized anyways. So by including it, some are attempting to short circuit that debate and unilaterally decide something in a way that we don't normally do.
If this bill would receive the same scrutiny and debate as any bill would normally receive, what you mention here could happen anyways. If the stuff that doesn't directly create jobs and address the specific goals of the reasons why the bill isn't going through the normal route, it should be removed. It's really that simple- else we end up taking half a year examining this bill like the normal process takes and if it survives, then it gets past.
The argument of keeping this in seems to be "the stuff removed wouldn't be able to stand on it's own in a normal debate" which is a key reason we shouldn't be "shoveling it in" in the middle of the night. And if it stays in, then they should slow the process down and examine everything as they would normally do.
I personally don't agree with helping banks either. It really isn't the job of the government to be propping up insolvent private businesses that side tracked regulations already in place. However, 16 billion in schools don't help you any more then pumping money into banks. Private investments from people on the job end of the equation won't do much in the short term either. It will be too little over too long of a time span. It will need to be an end game goal though.
I watched Obama on TV tonight when he made his speech. He seems to be a little short sighted in everything on this. He claims we are in this mess because "banks made stupid investments". That's not entirely true, quite a few of the "risky loans" which was mandated by congress fell into the "toxic" status which comprised the bulk of the Stupid investments. Energy prices are what kicked the bucket over and started the staining of the economy. Those investments were otherwise sound until the people who were in the risk category had to pay double to get to and from work, the babysitters, to heat and cool their homes, to turn the lights on at night because they are working during all the daylight hours.
He talks as if investing in the schools was a good idea, and it probably is (even if the feds have no place in it). This means that it will be picked back up and it will be taken care of in some way with normal debate and normal appropria
So how many billions will these two schools need?
Like I said, there will be plenty of time to find out which schools need what and where the money is needed the most. How long will it take before they (the feds) even recognize that the two schools you know of are in this position? How long will it take to figure is those schools are in need more then some others? Should we skip the others and waste the money on the two schools you know of even though the money will eventually need to be spend elsewhere?
Ok, so you know of two schools that the ground work has been done on but they didn't go through because your state decided the money was needed somewhere else. Big deal, that is two schools out of how many? In my county, there are 25 specific schools, in the county next to me, there are 80 some -(a couple were just closed down). There are 88 counties in my state, times that by 50 for a modest number and we are looking at a lot of schools and school districts to look through. It just wouldn't do anything soon enough for what it is supposed to do.
I'm not sure why people are crying about this. If the money being spent in schools is a good idea, it will be brought back up and spent anyways. If it isn't needed, then it won't. Combining it inside this bill is nothing but an attempt to remove the debate around that necessity and it will not provide any near term jobs like the stimulus is supposed to be striving for.
The jobs it will create, if any, are jobs that will be around in 4 to 12 years, not tomorrow or next month or even next year. The idea of the Stimulus is to get jobs sooner then that.
Yes, it will. But it will also take a resource planning comity to select a site for the schools, a study on traffic patterns so you don't have little Susie crossing a highway on the way home like she is playing frogger, an infrastructure upgrade in the area so the water supply lines and the sewage lines can handle 500 extra people and so on. I know, they just relocated a school in my area, ended up building it in the adjacent lot and took up part of the playground to do it. It took over 5 years before they broke ground, then another 2 to put the structure up, 1 year to upgrade the sewage and water supply moving to it and it isn't expected to be open for another year or two.
First you need to determine what kind of broadband will be delivered because of the funding, then you have to figure the layout of the new broadband infrastructure based around existing right of ways withing the limits of the chosen technology. Then if you plan to deliver it to anyone who isn't already being servers by broadband, you will have to negotiate new right of ways and perhaps go to court to secure them is one doesn't already exist. Time Warner wanted to put Cable down my road and the township demanded $3 per customer and Time Warner backed out because they were already going to have to be paying Verizon a conduit charge to tag along their existing right of way.
Both of those scenarios are not just things you can simply do. There are legal requirements, permissions to get, perhaps to force through the courts, and planning as well as other things that need to be accomplished first. It just takes too long to get done.
Here is the problem, if they can't survive debate, then they probably aren't the top priority at the time. This is exactly why they need to be debated and why they need to be processes like regular spending. If we had more pressing needs the School construction, maybe like repairing existing schools or perhaps upgrading them to be more energy efficient so they cost less to operate then we should go that route. Perhaps the wireless spectrum that was just sold can and will fill the broad band gap and do what is necessary there without the use of Government funding. Perhaps when the broadband issues come back around, there will be more money for it because someone can make the case of how important it is instead of one person attempting to sneak it into a bill with no debate.
Both of those issues are things the US government probably shouldn't be involved with anyways, but if they are going to be involved, then it should be discussed and let the chips fall where they may on the merits of the programs.
Why, yes there is! There's such a shortage of technically skilled people willing to work the hours and accept the meager pay being offered, we're having to import them from India and China through H1B visas! That's because all you tech guys are all already employed, amiright?
There, fixed that for you.
Have a nice day.
Here is the problem. Most of this stuff is pork that should be spent and debated on their own merits. In the Stimulus package, it was originally passed off as an emergency bill with no debate. When the Republicans grew a pair, it forces the debate but the so called necessity of spending doesn't offer a proper debate.
Think of this like the bailout bill, there was such a rush to put it out that key politicians including Obama said it doesn't need to be perfect, we can change things later, then we find out that the bail out paid for parties at large resorts and so on. All of the stuff cut from this bill are things that will need more of a debate then what is currently availible to the politicians. So while they are cut from this bill which was basically a spending and appropriations bill before, they aren't off the table, it's just an affirmation to push them to the proper time, place, and environment to consider them. There are no short term job creation or direct financial benefit with them to the public in the near term so they don't need to be included into a stimulus bill by necessity which would bypass the traditional debate surrounding them.
In short, when they drafted the original bill, they went past stimulus and started piling in wish list items, some of which have been rejected for quite some time, some of which might be good for the country but has no direct effect on the goals of the stimulus goal, but most of all deserve to be properly considered in normal debate. Sneaking them into this bill was only an attempt to remove the debate on them, cutting them out doesn't mean they are gone, it just means they will have to go throught normal channels.
You saw neither science nor physics? The one was talking directly about what the science and physics say by listing comments of the Scientist who did the science and physics.
I have yet to see any science or physics outside of the same layman's terms that say anything directly in support of global warming either. Does that mean it doesn't exist? The idea behind a consensus is that something peer reviewed and stood to the point that others agree with it. The PFD itself is proof that not everyone who looked at the stuff agrees with it. In fact, it lists people who did the science that the IPCC is claiming supports global warming and they are claiming that the IPCC is misrepresenting that their research found by selectively summarizing the papers and using them to support ideas that they were never intended to.
Perhaps you should apply the same standards all the way around instead of selectively applying them to what you don't like.
Fuck dude, there were two other sites I asked about, what are you above addressing anything mentioned their?
Here is the problem. People come out in opposition of Global Warming theories claiming that human created Co2 is reasoning behind it. Then you dismiss them because you don't like the political leanings of the site or the person who made the statement. In this case, the site only posted the information and discusses it. But this happens when people can find 25 year old connections to oil companies despite not direct or indirect relation currently, it happens for any minor nit where people like you can ignore and excuse away the opposition based on anything but what they presented. In some cases, people like you refer other to papers that are directly being challenged as some sort of proof that the challenge in accuracy it wrong. That's like you saying 2+2=5, me saying no, it's equal to 4, then you referring me to your original statement as if it invalidates my correction.
In the end, you haven't convinced anyone who is capable of thinking for themselves or even independent of group think of anything other then you don't like the politics behind something. It's a fucking insane process your participating in to anyone who isn't already brainwashed. I don't know if you can't see it or if you do see it and just don't care. Either way, the problem is with you, not me.
You are a complete idiot. The right is the right of sovereignty, the right to act independent of any other countries authority. That right can be used for good or bad but it in and of itself is neither. Like I said before, go figure out what the fuck Sovereignty means.
Again, your showing your ignorance. Obviously We as a people have not agree to anything your pissed about otherwise it simply wouldn't have happened in the first place and you wouldn't be getting your panties in a knot right now struggling to understand the concept of sovereignty. The "we as a people" end at the borders of the countries. The we as a people past that is only enforceable under voluntary situations unless those people are willing to use force to stop the transgression. That is the problem with people like you, your so wrapped into the "Oh no, not violence" that you don't understand that violence or the threat of it is the only way to enforce something onto someone who doesn't share your views.
Your opinion is as worthless as your understanding of sovereignty. There is an "us" and "them". The "us" is this cournty, the "them" is the other countries and anyone who doesn't have a direct role in the governance of this country. Europe cannot vote or whatever and unilaterally impose restrictions on the US outside of anything they directly control. The US can't either. The only way that can happen is if one nation or political boundary losses their sovereignty. Now every sovereign nation has a right and duty to act in it's own interest or they will suffer the loss of their sovereignty and resign to being the colony of another nation. This isn't rocket science here. An act forcing their power over another has to happen to subject them to their will. This act can be peaceful or violent, it all depends on the people inside the political boundary.
I have read them and I most likely understand them far more then you ever will. The founding fathers fought to gain their sovereignty at the cost of
What about this?
Or stuff like this?
And what would life be like if I didn't mention this? (pdf wanting)
What about those 600 some odd scientists who last summer walked out of an IPCC meeting in protest claiming they misrepresented their works? Are you sure they are in agreement?
I think the problem is that as the unemployment numbers increase, the estimated amount of people with cable decreases.
What I mean is, the number of converters box needed 2 or 5 years ago is not the same as today because people with cable have had to start canceling it when their jobs went away. Anyways, the majority today or yesterday doesn't mean it will be in the near future. But you also have to account for failures in DTV converters and a lack in sales from a down economy resulting in a increase reuse rate when those that can, upgrade.
What part of the UN charter takes the sovereignty of the US away? What part of it denied the US to act and what procedure was followed to declare that the US acted in violation of the fucking charter? Do you even know what sovereignty means? Did you even read my post or the links you provided?
And if England and France would have enforced the armastice that ended WWI, WWII would never of happened. However, none of that has anything to do with right now. Fuck dude, there were a ton of reasons we had for going into Iraq. The presence of them only goes to show that we restrained ourselves until a time when it wasn't in out interest. That doesn't make anything your implying true over anything else. We took as much of Iraq's shit as we could, then we demanded them to honor their armistice agreements, when they didn't, they became void. You don't have to apologize for stating the truth, the fact that you don't like something doesn't make it untrue, you are not the god damned arbitrator on reality. Got over it and get back into the real world.
BOy, your a really smart one there aren't you? Do you often impress your friend with wit like that? Maybe you should stop hanging around the short buses. The idea behind the proactive defense, which isn't anything new to bush and if you were one quarter as intelligent as you think you are, you would know about it already. It goes like this, there is a problem, your can deal with it before it gets worse or after all hells broken loose. Preemptive is addressing the threat before it escalates out of your favor. Now go educate yourself a little Mkay.
BTW, Yes, Iraq was perceived as a threat to the US. The previous administration and most of the US senate said so all through the decade leading up to the war. Are two administrations and most of the congress and senate liars or something? If you had some insight back there to why all those people were wrong, you should have convincingly showed it. You didn't so you might as well either admit you using hindsight or going to war is on your hands for failing to inform the government of their errors. ?Chances are, you knew nothing as was simply guessing.
It's stupid to leave all your money to your lawyer who is drafting the will and neglect your family who is sacrificing to your benefit.
While I can agree with your sentiment and the basis of what you say, I don't think it is wise to assume that it wasn't anything other then stupidity in some situations. I can understand if they left the money to a good cause like a charity, a school, PBS, the government, a lover, an illegitimate family and so on but to a lawyer? Who drafted the Will? I've even heard of people leaving everything to those "god will save you if you give me money" Televangelist.
The comment about it being stupid was really meant to describe what you mentioned. It is honorable to do those things you mentioned under certain circumstances. People removed from the situation can see the circumstances in which you have to go What the hell? Not all of them are like that though. This is where the honor turns into the equivalent of falling for a 419 scam. That's where is becomes stupid. I didn't mean to come across that it was always stupid. At least that's the way I see it.
The key word is usually. However, Iraq's sovereignty was limited to it's armistice agreements ending a war that he started with an ally and we went to war to stop. The war was already there- his compliance with the armistice wasn't.
The constitution doesn't say something, it says something specific. It says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Now I shouldn't need to break it down for you but I will in case you don't understand it. The president and only the president has the power to make treaties only if two thirds of the senate agrees with the treaties.
Now, Article VI (6) says that the constitution and the laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. All treaties made have to be made under the authority of the US. This means that no treaty can be made that defeats the constitution. But the treasties that were made stand above the constitution which mean if it is legitimate, then it is law of the land.
However, no treaty has been rules to of been broken. Claims that they were have been bandied about but no governing authority has come to that conclusion. The notwithstanding part was added to the constitution because at the time of it's construction, we were bound by treaties that may have been voided by the adoption of the constitution. This is why there is a separation between "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States". It recognizes obligations previously held while requiring all future treaties to be made within the authority of the constitution. An example of this might be a treaty with Germany making all visiting national subject to the protections in the constitution and a later amendment defines the constitution and bill of rights to only apply to citizens. The treaty would survive and German nationals would retain the benefits and protections that citizens do.
What treaties did the US no honor? There are none that we are bound by. Some Clain the UN charter or the International Criminal Court. First, the UN charter says that no wars can be judged illegal unless the UN security council makes the decision. It has never done so. The UN charter also provides that every nation has the right to self defense.
Second, the US has never adopted the Rome Statute that created the ICC and we are not bound by it regardless of the mad dutch judges who assert authority over anything unilaterally. We haven't adopted it because we would have to amend the constitution to do so. To note also, no supporting member nation of the ICC has even attempted to rule on the legality of the war.
It seems that you are just repeating rhetoric spouted by Anti-war idiots and people who are Anti-American. I don't blame you, you probably didn't know enough to know better or more likely are a citizen of another country that has drafted treaties that we aren't obligated to.
Only if you view the world through rose colored glasses and twist it's appearance to suit your own ideals.
The basic idea of sovereignty is to be independent of others in your own governance. Even without arming yourself you a nation can be sovereign and act in that way. Take Japan for instance, it was largely disarmed after WWII but it retained it's sovereignty and acted accordingly to that. The idea of one aspect that you disagree with invalidating the entire premise is completely wrong. Or are you suggesting that no country should be a sovereign nation independent of others? I'm will to bet that you also don't think it is good for the US Or england or China or Russia to require other countries to do certain things against their will and the will of their populous. But that what your advocating as what is wrong with the world right now- sovereignty, the ability to reject the will of other countries and act independently of them.
Clearley you need to lay off the drugs.:0... Seriously though, the right of sovereignty doesn't suppose justification or validation. It is simply an inherent ability of a free nation to govern it's own actions. Nothing makes the acts of a sovereign nation just but the act itself. The act itself doesn't speak to sovereignty outside that a nation has a right to act in it's own interests.
Now don't get confused here because it's obvious that your confusing sovereignty with the actual act. Sovereignty is self rule where the laws and government of on nation is independent of another. This means that the US can't force the UK to paa a law changing the speed limit or to goto war with Australia or something. It can ask them and negotiate with them for their alliance but both countries would be acting independent of each other. When a state loses it's sovereignty, it loses it's right to self rule. If the US lost it's sovereignty to say Russia, it means Russia could impose laws that are direct violations of our constitution and all legal frame works supporting it and we would be expected to follow it. Currently, the US cannot surrender it's sovereignty so we cannot be bound to any other nation further then the voluntary compliance with such rules or obligations. This goes true for most of the sovereign nations out there. Canada for instance, until 1931 with the passing of the Statute of Westminster and some claim it wasn't until the 1980's when it ratified it's own constitution. That meant that until then, England could order laws to be made and bind Canada to them. Currently, this can't happen unless Canada agrees to accept those laws willfully and because they have that freedom, t
What part of Sovereignty do you not understand? First, as being a sovereign nation, the US as well as any other sovereign country is able to act independent of other nations. You right that we are bound by international treaties insomuch as they have been ratified and made into law. But as a right of sovereignty, any sovereign nation can change it's laws at will. But more to the point, the First gulf war was never ended. The armistice was an agreement upon conditions that Iraq failed to uphold. When you fail at your obligations, then the conditions behind them disappear too. These conditions were the cease fire that stopped the fighting from the first gulf war.
However, that is all pointless too. A sovereign nation has a right to defend itself. Bush's proactive defense strategy was an exercise of that right. No other nation can stop that while the country is sovereign. Other nations can take up arms or appose it but that's the extent.
This is why the US is not a member of the international criminal court (ICC) and your own link to the UN specifically says that UN Charter required the UN security council to rule on a war being illegal before it is. That has not happened and probably won't happen because the US and UK have Veto powers in the security council. So the UN charter argument falls flat on it's face because of the charter itself. The UN charter also give every state the right to self defense and the Bush preemptive defense doctrine is in and of itself, self defense so the argument fails there too.
To date, no official body with the Authority, internationally or domestic, to rule on the legality or the war has ruled it illegal. That statement of it being illegal is little more then hopeful dreams from anti-war or anti-American factions attempting to gather support and sympathy for their cause.
I know a lot of people who would have voted for the green party or libertarian instead of Obama but they did vote for him for those reasons. That would fit your definition of attacking Obama from the start but they did vote for him. I'm voted against him however so I have no personal attachment and probably fall into the placard you are describing. However, they are the ones who are upset and appear outrages, I'm just cynical and being a prick about it.
Well, sort of. But most of the railings I see is where people are commenting on the "change and hope message". That is something they were roped into believing for whatever reasons. I think the Messiah thing is over played too. He attempted to appear like a greek god not the second coming although there were people who acted as if he was.
I can agree with that. I don't agree with Obama's outlook though. I don't see it as being different enough to warrant all the attention. It's more of a clintontonian type view (yea, I just made that up) which led us into the path that resulted with the last leader. For instance, I agree that Club Gitmo should be closed because it's a symbol of things that should not be but I don't agree that the members should be brought into the US and put in the US court systems. I also think the global warming is a scam, it may be a scientific reality but it has been politicized and hijacks for ulterior motives that have little or nothing to do with the science. Just a few months ago over 600 scientists who contributed to the IPCC stood up and walked out of a meeting stating that their work is being misrepresented and that it doesn't say what the IPCC is claiming it does.
I also don't like the false hope that seems to be going around. Obama ordered the EPA to review if it could allow California to set stricter standards on automakers. But this is somehow being promoted as a reversal of their previous position. Perhaps the previous policy has a sound footing and nothing will change. Especially when all car manufacturers are losing money and having troubles at the moment. Then there is the entire review of the science of the bush administration which is claimed to be supporting science again. However, he is canning NASA missions which is to be expected seeing how the democrats have a history of cutting NASA funding the most (the 1993 funding cut where the democrats controlled both houses of congress and the administration was more then the 3 cuts before and 4 cuts after combined). Then you have to look at the global warming science where it's being pushed by a zealot who admitted to exaggerating things because he believed the ends justified the means.
In short, most of what he has done is minor compared to what he presented himself as and they haven't really panned out yet but people are acting like he started the earth rotating in the opposite direction. People have elevated this person to some position he doesn't deserve to be in and sooner or later, their high will crash and most won't think much more of him then they did Bush.
Not necessarily, there are some provisions of contracts that are simply illegal and legally immoral. You cannot be bound to something like giving your landlord a kidney if he ever needs one while your renting from him.
That's an extreme example but I know people who have signed contracts that they know couldn't be enforced. There are some things that the courts cannot enforce by law or by moral right. There is also a defense of "necessity" that allows this to happen if the need for the services are great enough that someone would be severely worse off without the benefits of the contract. Suppose your out of work, the bank is about to foreclose on your home, State aid is about to run out, your children have holes in their shoes and there isn't much hope left. Now you find a job but they want to sign a wavier stating that you can't work in your trained field of specialty for 5 years after employment terminates. Now, your signing this doesn't matter because you have a right to find gainful employment. The only part that can be forced on you is the spirit of the clause where you don't use or transfer trade secretes to new employers. You might have to goto court and fight for your right to work (some EU countries already stop this before it hits the courts) and show that your not taking advantage of their trade secretes but you can get out of the contract that you signed through necessity.
Necessity is a legal concept that specifies that something was necessary because the alternative or current conditions were somehow unsustainable and perhaps life threatening. Robbing a store for food is a crime, robbing the store during an emergency for food and medication where it wouldn't otherwise be availible and people's lives were in danger is not a crime. Killing a person is illegal, killing a person to save your own life when you aren't the aggressor isn't. Escaping from prison is illegal, escaping from prison because the warden is torturing you and you watched others die in front of you isn't. There seems to be a need for inherent danger to the preservation of life to effectivly use necessity as a defense.
From what I understand, it's defeated more then it's successful in a court and the judges take a strong view of alternatives present.
You may try to sue the lawyers but you probably won't have any standing to do so. Sure, they drafted it but it would be CNN or whatever company who put it to use in which effected you. You may be able to sue them in addition to (alongside) CNN but your still on shaky grounds. Of course they probably have some blanket coverage thing where CNN pays expenses so it probably still wouldn't make it personal to them.
The interesting thing here is that when I checked the inauguration coverage from CNN's site, it told me I had to install that plug in in order to view the content. I selected no and realized it worked without it.
I wonder how many people were/are being tricked into installing this thing under the false pretense that it is needed in order to view content. The inauguration probably roped in millions of people who were tricked into thinking they needed this thing. It seems to me that if a transaction starts out as fraud, then any license or requirement after that wouldn't be enforceable. Surely, I wouldn't be obligated to deliver merchandise to someone who's check bounced or used stolen credit cards.
I don't think you could get around that.
From his start, he employed dirty tricks and had help from invisible friends working behind the scenes. I mean if we start by looking at his start in politics and how he screwed over the person who put his name in the hat in the first place. And it should be noted that this page is heavily biased in Obama's favor. But then later, when he decided to go after a higher seat, all the sudden a judge decided to unseal a messy divorce case just before the elections making Obama virtually unapposed.
My favorite is how he justifies his position and speech defeating an abortion bill inspired by a nurse in Illinois who was outraged that when a baby was aborted then delivered alive, the doctors put it in a closet to allow it to die "of natural causes". It's no wonder that he reversed the positions on using tax payers money to fund abortions within the first week of office.
I don't think anyone can make the case that Obama isn't a career politician.
The scary part is that we have more to lose from the government then we do from the BSA and RIAA. This is sort of scary when you consider the type of firepower the government is stocking up on. I mean people who have taken single mothers and blind grandmas to court and dragged them around quite capably. Now we can rest assured that knowing that the government now has people skilled in this area. It sort of balances the power out that has been lopsided towards the people for the last 230 plus years.
Now that's change we can believe in. HOPE and all that shit.
Immoral I can let slide because it is selective in it's interpretation. Not everyone carries the same morals and not everyone lets the same things pass as morals. However, legal or illegal is something that is bound by law. The war was not illegal and your continuing to make that statement doesn't make it so.
As a sovereign nation, The US doesn't need permission to act on anything. To date, all claims of illegality rely on some hidden idea that we have no sovereignty. Perhaps you could explain why we aren't in control of our own country and aren't sovereign or finally shut the hell up about the illegal bullshit.
Inclusive means including people. Not catering to some to the point of excluding others. Just because the tide is in the opposite direction doesn't mean it isn't at play.