That's sort of how Ruby Ridge got started. The FBI and ATF badgered a guy to spy on skinheads around the bend from his house and in the process tried to get him to sell illegal arms to them.. he refused but eventualy did something with a shotgun and told s guy how to saw it shorter than the legal limits then they shot his family up trying yo arrest him gor illegal firearm sales.
Its actually a bit more complicated than that but the elements are sll there. Some of the other so called stand offs in the 90s started similar. Except i think those went beyond what the fed agencies were trying to do making it less obvious. Weaver was railroaded for sure though.
To act as a unified front to foreihn matters of the state, to set up post offices and roads, to settle disputes between the states, to provide for the common defence, and a couple other things.
You do understand that the states are or were actual countries who formed a union surendering only part of their soveregnty for these purposes right? The state is where this taking care of the people if it is to happen is supposed to be. This is why all fed programs in such manner other than social security and medicare is pushed thriugh the states. It id why all constitutionsl amendments that prohibit acts or action of the people (slavery for instance) has an explicite statement giving congress the ability to enact laws to achieve the amendment's purpose.
Wrong, I'm holding in my hands an amendment mandating every single female US citizen to have an abortion immediately. As soon as its passes it is the law. I also have one about reducing gravity, which I suspect will be more popular.
You do understand that you do not amend the constitution by passing a law right? There are two distinct processes to amend the constitution and as a practical matter, it would never be ratified.
Glad you have heard about amendments though, amazing power they have, assuming it is the will of the people. We can also amend ourselves hte ability to not be able to amend our constitution further, also we can amend ourselves into a communist dictatorship.
And if it ever happened, then what I said would still be true because of the time it was said. But it is impractical that any constitutional amendment like that would be ratified. Also, the amendment process has little to do with "the will of the people". The people do not vote on them nor do they have much of a say on them. It's left to the states and congress which the people have influence over.
True, but this is a particualrly loud, if inconvenient voice. Osama won in 2001, it may have been a pyrrhic victory for him personally, but if you didn't notice the insane increase in police power, TSA power, FBI power before and after you must have been under a rock. Osama scared people.
I guess you wouldn't get the point if you stepped on it and it went through you shoe. People can complain and bitch all they want, it doesn't make them correct or wrong because of it. It just makes them loud enough for you to listen to.
I'm talking about the citizens of the United States, who are the only thing that actually matters.
and that still does not negate anything I have said. You are taking people that people do not know or understand the purpose of the federal government.
That's missing the point of being constitutionally limited and directed in powers but it is also still contrary to the GP's assertion of
"Very clearly the constitution says the US government is supposed to do what the collective we want it to do, there was no "intent" beyond creating a stable, balanced government that could self-modify."
However, yes, if enough people go through the processes, they can change the constitutions to give the government newly created powers or even restrict the government even more.
I can see that you have never read the US constitution or passed a government and civics class. Do they even have those in high school any more?
Very clearly the constitution says the US government is supposed to do what the collective we want it to do
Wrong, completely wrong. For instance, if the majority of the collective wanted to force every single female US citizen to have at least one abortion in her life time if she should get pregnant and for all men to purchase, practice with, and keep ready at all time, military style riffles and handguns, the US government would be beyond their abilities in making these laws.
there was no "intent" beyond creating a stable, balanced government that could self-modify.
I don't know why you brought up intent, I certainly didn't. But the only way to self modify is to amend the constitution granting the government more powers or taking them away.
Honestly intent doesn't matter for shit, the guys that wrote it are dead.
It matters simply because it is what constitutes the federal government. Without it, we would have 50 different countries more or less. That is how the USA was formed, the 13 colonies became 13 countries and they surrendered some of their sovereignty to a central government when they constituted one which is why there is a constitution.
When I leave my young urban mecca and visit more traditional venues, all I hear is how the Obama isn't doing enough to stop crime, terrorists, drugs, etc.; how he's weakened the government and pussified the United States, that we need a republican back in there to kick out the muslims and put some order in.
You can walk into a sport bar and hear how some team could have won a game or what will make them winners (usually something stupid like catch the ball or something). But that doesn't make them authoritative of correct.
These people aren't bothered by spying, torture, or big government interventions. They want safety and they do vote. Their message is no doubt inconsistent, they also complain about "big government" and "regulation" and "wasting money". But listening carefully they don't consider the military, a well stocked police force or an elaborate spy network to be 'wasting" and they consider it a priority.
Maybe they know more than you do or something? The military and spying is actually constitutional duties of the US government. Well, not spying in particular but national defense under which the spying is excused away.
The young urbans, by contrast, largely don't care about this at all, and instead want the government focusing its efforts on other things, mostly economy & socially oriented; listening carefully to them speak they merely have contempt for the police state, they don't vote strongly against it.
I'm seeing a theme here. You are taking people that people do not know or understand the purpose of the federal government. They even look at Keynesian economics as if it will somehow save things when it is the reason they want improvement. I'm not saying anything specifically is better, I'm saying these uninformed idiots should take a course on government and civics and realize they have a lot more control directly at local levels starting with themselves.
The US government is not supposed to take care ofits citizens. The US constitution lays out what it is supposed to do and the only reason it can get by with what you complain about is because clueless people think it is supposed to do crap it was never intended to do.
Well- i do not condone terrorism or terrorist organizations - but i do have a about 250 bazookas in a fresh tub i could bargain sell you. They are the topps.
If interested, write tuity fruity on an envelope and slip it under the coin return for the third payphone past the news stand at the corner of elm and high. I'll have a dropped a price there tonight.
Well, not only is it entrenched in that way, there are a lot of laws and regulations that detail the mechanics of an elevator. This is even before liability issues and indurance consideration even come into play. So it isn't that just anything else could be used either. Of course there is no telling how much of those regulations are because of what you mentioned and what is pure safety.
Sigh.. your reading comprehension seems to have taken a walk while you were sleeping.
You replied to a post with someone bitching about paying extra for pickup trucks. I replied with that in mind and now it seems you forgot and want to change the goal posts s bit. That's fine lets look at big rigs. California has a state tax on diesel of 40.6 cents per gallon and the fed tax is 24.4 cents. The national average mpg for an 18 wheeler 5.9 mile per gallon. Now it should be noted that if you cannot provide records to show otherwise IFTA willdefault to 4.7mpg. So the same 500 mile trip in a semi will use 84.75 gallons of fuel.
If we take this 84 gallons of fuel and multiply it out, we see they pay about $34.10 to the state and $20.49 to the feds for a total of $54.60 in fuel taxes. In a years time that is $2839.20 in diesel taxes. So if we bring the prius and pickup back, we compare that to $328.64 and $697.84 respectivly. So that is about 8.5 times as much as the prius and a little over 4 times as much as the pickup.
Now i know you believe something and want it to be true because you have shaped your world view around it. But this information is not hard to find or calculate. You could have engaged that critical thinking portion of your brain and discovered all this on your own years ago. And no, do not assume that the smaller vehicle is not overpaying in the process. Last i heard, about 15% of federal gas tax and roughly 25% of state fuel taxes go to programs other than building and mainraining roads.
Lol.. i explained why i wouldn't have to. I see you are ignoring content in order to focus on red herrings so i guess this conversation is over.
But here is a recap in case big paragrapg scare you. The context was obvious, no explaination needed as the article was talking of the government of california and the GP was talking of the article.therefore the attempt to associate anything that ever happened in california is misplaced and out of context.
I think the point was not in asking but telling people under pain of law through executive decree.
In a free society, you make the case and ask people to be reasonable. Most will be and the rest you can easily deal with if something is needed. In a non free society, a single overlord uses the policing powers of the state to demand you do or not do something regardless of the costs to the citizen.
I'm betting the phone allows M2M sim cards or something similar which would allow the authentification and encoding to happen in hardware on both the phone and hotspot/VoIP servers.
It would also solve handoff issues when moving from one access point to another.
If you do wish to bring that concern forward, do make it against the OP, and then I'll make a modified reply to them once they do so, should I feel it is warranted.
I'm not sure why I would have to. The article stated the government of California which is the only entity that could be by California. This is the context the OP's comment should be examined in. You stated "in California" which is not the same thing but could encompass the same things.
Absent that, I hold them to their words as expressed, which was not engaging in any such differentiation, but simply lambasting California in the stereotypical fashion that would lead to outrage if it were another locale.
No, it is clear from the context of the reply and even just the summery that the GP was talking about the government of California.
Me, I was just highlighting how they didn't make the differentiation, but painted the whole state with a broad brush. I guess you didn't get the point of my words. Please understand, you didn't get my purpose at all, so no, you were not comprehending what I was speaking about. I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear to you.
Ok, you do understand that there is/can be a difference between from or in a geographical area and caused by the leaders of that geographic area right? In other words, I understood your point or purpose but showed how it was not relevant to the situation due to nuances in language. Now if I say go get me some ice cream, and you say why, I would expect any other person wishing to comment to be commenting to your why within regard to my telling you to get me ice cream. It's just how language works. It would be silly for someone to chime in with "Your wrench is the wrong size" as a reply to your "why". In order for their comment to have bearing on the conversation, it would have to apply the presupposition that I told you to get me ice cream in order to be congruent with the conversation. Made "in" is simply not made "by" therefore bringing in the problem.
Which part of what he said is not true? Talking points or not, he did not mention the mass exodus from California so your setting up strawman just to knock down seems like a convoluted ploy to ignore the realities mentioned.
Actually, a lot of the state's got rid of the air brake endorsements. I was completely shocked when I was purchasing a class 7 medium duty single axle box truck that came stock with air brakes as it's a non-CDL truck and I was under the old assumption that the air brakes made it a CDL truck because of the endorsement. My state got rid of the requirements and I can no longer find them on the FMCSA website and a search shows a lot of other state's do not bother any more.
I think it has to do with technology that is mandatory now like ABS and self adjusters. But I have no idea why it went away or when it did.
This is the stupidest concept application I have ever heard and you are not the first person to do it. You are likely following the uninformed logic of someone else so I will not fault you directly.
All vehicles will have their fuel mileage impacted by the weight of the vehicles. All larger and heavier vehicles will by default pay more from the simple act of being used. The roads are repaired with taxes collected from fuel sales and either more friction from their foot print (less aerodynamic) or power needed to overcome the extra weight will cause more fuel to be consumed thereby already increasing the amounts they pay by default. There is no way around it.
If we compare two identical drives made at 100 miles a day, 5 days a week. and a hybrid car gets 45 mpg average of fuel use and a 1/2 ton pickup truck uses 20 mpg (both a low end combined city/highway average for the vehicle types), we will see how much of a difference there is. Let's take California's fuel tax for comparison sake. California has a 35.3 cents per gallon state fuel tax and an18.4 cents per gallon federal tax obligation (most of which they get back in highway trust fund projects). So the hybrid drives 500 miles a week at 45 MPG and uses 11.11 gallons of gas. The Pickup truck drives 500 miles a week and uses 25 gallons of fuel. In a weeks time, the hybrid pays $3.92 in state gas taxes and $2.40 in federal gas taxes. This is $6.32 a week in total or $328.64 for the year. The truck pays $8.82 a week in state and $4.60 in federal gas taxes. Combined, this is $13.42 a week in gas taxes or $697.84 a year in gas taxes for the same amount of driving.
Notice how the heavier pickup is more than double what the lighter hybrid pays? This is compounded even more when larger trucks are in the mix and more fuel is used. And this is before the various sales taxes which can be different county to county are applied but those increase with volume also.
You can purchase an 18 wheeler for private personal use and drive it as a camper. The problem is the federal law designates anything with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds as a commercial vehicle or if the vehicle is designed to seat more than 16 people including the driver. There are exceptions for private non-commercial uses. Some 3/4 ton pickup trucks and almost all 1 ton or better pickup trucks fall within this category. The state however does the licensing and can be a little loose with these definitions pertaining to cuts in highway trust money from the feds. But they don't have much wiggle room and it's easier to just include everything. This is the reasons for the pickup truck license issue and it is likely the same in most states.
What I find interesting is that many of these people, and probably most of the people upset over the laws and rules trying to be enforced, are the same people who think businesses need strict regulation and so on. Most of these people got what they wanted and are now realizing how much what they wanted sucks. People like me who hold that this excessive regulation makes it harder to competition to start and compete, that think this excessive regulation benefits not hurts the established businesses, who think less regulations but more proper and enforced or effective regulation would be the best solution, are called racist conservative libertarian kooks who know nothing. And even when those who do the calling get ensnared in their own traps, they will not admit they were wrong or even the opposing views were the slightest bit right. It's just the man putting their boots on their necks with little to no lessons learned.
The was my first though with a cursory vieeing of the article headlined. I naturally went to thinking wow, that many people support labeling GMO foods.
It wasn't until i read more that i realised this was about DNA alone. I have no doubt that othes did the same but didn't bother going deeper into it.
Imagine the article loading in its entirety, so you can start reading it, before there's even a single image tag on the page; then, well-written javascript popping the images in as you read. The content loads and renders faster and you have an over-all better experience, especialy if you happen to be on a mobile device or slow connection.
I don't have to imagine that. Every time I turn no script off, I almost always hit a site like that and the images constantly move the formatting and content to fit the images in making reading more than the first couple lines almost impossible. This, if the logic isn't obvious, defeats the benefits you expose very readily. Of course these sites could be the one that do "when not used properly" but I cannot tell the difference.
It's even worse when trying to view in a non standard browser or on a phone or something with a limited screen and slower connection.
Slashdot Mirror
That's sort of how Ruby Ridge got started. The FBI and ATF badgered a guy to spy on skinheads around the bend from his house and in the process tried to get him to sell illegal arms to them.. he refused but eventualy did something with a shotgun and told s guy how to saw it shorter than the legal limits then they shot his family up trying yo arrest him gor illegal firearm sales.
Its actually a bit more complicated than that but the elements are sll there. Some of the other so called stand offs in the 90s started similar. Except i think those went beyond what the fed agencies were trying to do making it less obvious. Weaver was railroaded for sure though.
Lol.. its laid out withing the constitution.
To act as a unified front to foreihn matters of the state, to set up post offices and roads, to settle disputes between the states, to provide for the common defence, and a couple other things.
You do understand that the states are or were actual countries who formed a union surendering only part of their soveregnty for these purposes right? The state is where this taking care of the people if it is to happen is supposed to be. This is why all fed programs in such manner other than social security and medicare is pushed thriugh the states. It id why all constitutionsl amendments that prohibit acts or action of the people (slavery for instance) has an explicite statement giving congress the ability to enact laws to achieve the amendment's purpose.
You do understand that you do not amend the constitution by passing a law right? There are two distinct processes to amend the constitution and as a practical matter, it would never be ratified.
And if it ever happened, then what I said would still be true because of the time it was said. But it is impractical that any constitutional amendment like that would be ratified. Also, the amendment process has little to do with "the will of the people". The people do not vote on them nor do they have much of a say on them. It's left to the states and congress which the people have influence over.
I guess you wouldn't get the point if you stepped on it and it went through you shoe. People can complain and bitch all they want, it doesn't make them correct or wrong because of it. It just makes them loud enough for you to listen to.
and that still does not negate anything I have said. You are taking people that people do not know or understand the purpose of the federal government.
That's missing the point of being constitutionally limited and directed in powers but it is also still contrary to the GP's assertion of
However, yes, if enough people go through the processes, they can change the constitutions to give the government newly created powers or even restrict the government even more.
I can see that you have never read the US constitution or passed a government and civics class. Do they even have those in high school any more?
Wrong, completely wrong. For instance, if the majority of the collective wanted to force every single female US citizen to have at least one abortion in her life time if she should get pregnant and for all men to purchase, practice with, and keep ready at all time, military style riffles and handguns, the US government would be beyond their abilities in making these laws.
I don't know why you brought up intent, I certainly didn't. But the only way to self modify is to amend the constitution granting the government more powers or taking them away.
It matters simply because it is what constitutes the federal government. Without it, we would have 50 different countries more or less. That is how the USA was formed, the 13 colonies became 13 countries and they surrendered some of their sovereignty to a central government when they constituted one which is why there is a constitution.
You can walk into a sport bar and hear how some team could have won a game or what will make them winners (usually something stupid like catch the ball or something). But that doesn't make them authoritative of correct.
Maybe they know more than you do or something? The military and spying is actually constitutional duties of the US government. Well, not spying in particular but national defense under which the spying is excused away.
I'm seeing a theme here. You are taking people that people do not know or understand the purpose of the federal government. They even look at Keynesian economics as if it will somehow save things when it is the reason they want improvement. I'm not saying anything specifically is better, I'm saying these uninformed idiots should take a course on government and civics and realize they have a lot more control directly at local levels starting with themselves.
Yes, making war is a constitutional provision.
The US government is not supposed to take care ofits citizens. The US constitution lays out what it is supposed to do and the only reason it can get by with what you complain about is because clueless people think it is supposed to do crap it was never intended to do.
Well- i do not condone terrorism or terrorist organizations - but i do have a about 250 bazookas in a fresh tub i could bargain sell you. They are the topps.
If interested, write tuity fruity on an envelope and slip it under the coin return for the third payphone past the news stand at the corner of elm and high. I'll have a dropped a price there tonight.
Well, not only is it entrenched in that way, there are a lot of laws and regulations that detail the mechanics of an elevator. This is even before liability issues and indurance consideration even come into play. So it isn't that just anything else could be used either. Of course there is no telling how much of those regulations are because of what you mentioned and what is pure safety.
Something being banned or made illegal does not prevent it from happening. It just prevdnts it from happening legally. See speeding for reference.
I eonder how that will trickle to ISP provided Email if the make ISPs common carriers?.
Sigh.. your reading comprehension seems to have taken a walk while you were sleeping.
You replied to a post with someone bitching about paying extra for pickup trucks. I replied with that in mind and now it seems you forgot and want to change the goal posts s bit. That's fine lets look at big rigs. California has a state tax on diesel of 40.6 cents per gallon and the fed tax is 24.4 cents. The national average mpg for an 18 wheeler 5.9 mile per gallon. Now it should be noted that if you cannot provide records to show otherwise IFTA willdefault to 4.7mpg. So the same 500 mile trip in a semi will use 84.75 gallons of fuel.
If we take this 84 gallons of fuel and multiply it out, we see they pay about $34.10 to the state and $20.49 to the feds for a total of $54.60 in fuel taxes. In a years time that is $2839.20 in diesel taxes. So if we bring the prius and pickup back, we compare that to $328.64 and $697.84 respectivly. So that is about 8.5 times as much as the prius and a little over 4 times as much as the pickup.
Now i know you believe something and want it to be true because you have shaped your world view around it. But this information is not hard to find or calculate. You could have engaged that critical thinking portion of your brain and discovered all this on your own years ago. And no, do not assume that the smaller vehicle is not overpaying in the process. Last i heard, about 15% of federal gas tax and roughly 25% of state fuel taxes go to programs other than building and mainraining roads.
Lol.. i explained why i wouldn't have to. I see you are ignoring content in order to focus on red herrings so i guess this conversation is over.
But here is a recap in case big paragrapg scare you. The context was obvious, no explaination needed as the article was talking of the government of california and the GP was talking of the article.therefore the attempt to associate anything that ever happened in california is misplaced and out of context.
I think the point was not in asking but telling people under pain of law through executive decree.
In a free society, you make the case and ask people to be reasonable. Most will be and the rest you can easily deal with if something is needed. In a non free society, a single overlord uses the policing powers of the state to demand you do or not do something regardless of the costs to the citizen.
I'm betting the phone allows M2M sim cards or something similar which would allow the authentification and encoding to happen in hardware on both the phone and hotspot/VoIP servers.
It would also solve handoff issues when moving from one access point to another.
I'm not sure why I would have to. The article stated the government of California which is the only entity that could be by California. This is the context the OP's comment should be examined in. You stated "in California" which is not the same thing but could encompass the same things.
No, it is clear from the context of the reply and even just the summery that the GP was talking about the government of California.
Ok, you do understand that there is/can be a difference between from or in a geographical area and caused by the leaders of that geographic area right? In other words, I understood your point or purpose but showed how it was not relevant to the situation due to nuances in language. Now if I say go get me some ice cream, and you say why, I would expect any other person wishing to comment to be commenting to your why within regard to my telling you to get me ice cream. It's just how language works. It would be silly for someone to chime in with "Your wrench is the wrong size" as a reply to your "why". In order for their comment to have bearing on the conversation, it would have to apply the presupposition that I told you to get me ice cream in order to be congruent with the conversation. Made "in" is simply not made "by" therefore bringing in the problem.
Which part of what he said is not true? Talking points or not, he did not mention the mass exodus from California so your setting up strawman just to knock down seems like a convoluted ploy to ignore the realities mentioned.
In California and by California are not the same things even though they sound similar.
I'm not supporting the parent's position but please understand that you are not speaking about the same things.
Actually, a lot of the state's got rid of the air brake endorsements. I was completely shocked when I was purchasing a class 7 medium duty single axle box truck that came stock with air brakes as it's a non-CDL truck and I was under the old assumption that the air brakes made it a CDL truck because of the endorsement. My state got rid of the requirements and I can no longer find them on the FMCSA website and a search shows a lot of other state's do not bother any more.
I think it has to do with technology that is mandatory now like ABS and self adjusters. But I have no idea why it went away or when it did.
This is the stupidest concept application I have ever heard and you are not the first person to do it. You are likely following the uninformed logic of someone else so I will not fault you directly.
All vehicles will have their fuel mileage impacted by the weight of the vehicles. All larger and heavier vehicles will by default pay more from the simple act of being used. The roads are repaired with taxes collected from fuel sales and either more friction from their foot print (less aerodynamic) or power needed to overcome the extra weight will cause more fuel to be consumed thereby already increasing the amounts they pay by default. There is no way around it.
If we compare two identical drives made at 100 miles a day, 5 days a week. and a hybrid car gets 45 mpg average of fuel use and a 1/2 ton pickup truck uses 20 mpg (both a low end combined city/highway average for the vehicle types), we will see how much of a difference there is. Let's take California's fuel tax for comparison sake. California has a 35.3 cents per gallon state fuel tax and an18.4 cents per gallon federal tax obligation (most of which they get back in highway trust fund projects). So the hybrid drives 500 miles a week at 45 MPG and uses 11.11 gallons of gas. The Pickup truck drives 500 miles a week and uses 25 gallons of fuel. In a weeks time, the hybrid pays $3.92 in state gas taxes and $2.40 in federal gas taxes. This is $6.32 a week in total or $328.64 for the year. The truck pays $8.82 a week in state and $4.60 in federal gas taxes. Combined, this is $13.42 a week in gas taxes or $697.84 a year in gas taxes for the same amount of driving.
Notice how the heavier pickup is more than double what the lighter hybrid pays? This is compounded even more when larger trucks are in the mix and more fuel is used. And this is before the various sales taxes which can be different county to county are applied but those increase with volume also.
You can purchase an 18 wheeler for private personal use and drive it as a camper. The problem is the federal law designates anything with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds as a commercial vehicle or if the vehicle is designed to seat more than 16 people including the driver. There are exceptions for private non-commercial uses. Some 3/4 ton pickup trucks and almost all 1 ton or better pickup trucks fall within this category. The state however does the licensing and can be a little loose with these definitions pertaining to cuts in highway trust money from the feds. But they don't have much wiggle room and it's easier to just include everything. This is the reasons for the pickup truck license issue and it is likely the same in most states.
What I find interesting is that many of these people, and probably most of the people upset over the laws and rules trying to be enforced, are the same people who think businesses need strict regulation and so on. Most of these people got what they wanted and are now realizing how much what they wanted sucks. People like me who hold that this excessive regulation makes it harder to competition to start and compete, that think this excessive regulation benefits not hurts the established businesses, who think less regulations but more proper and enforced or effective regulation would be the best solution, are called racist conservative libertarian kooks who know nothing. And even when those who do the calling get ensnared in their own traps, they will not admit they were wrong or even the opposing views were the slightest bit right. It's just the man putting their boots on their necks with little to no lessons learned.
And no one believed that idiocracy was a documentry from the future.
The was my first though with a cursory vieeing of the article headlined. I naturally went to thinking wow, that many people support labeling GMO foods.
It wasn't until i read more that i realised this was about DNA alone. I have no doubt that othes did the same but didn't bother going deeper into it.
I run the AC backwards to cool the outside in the winter. Does that help as much?
I don't have to imagine that. Every time I turn no script off, I almost always hit a site like that and the images constantly move the formatting and content to fit the images in making reading more than the first couple lines almost impossible. This, if the logic isn't obvious, defeats the benefits you expose very readily. Of course these sites could be the one that do "when not used properly" but I cannot tell the difference.
It's even worse when trying to view in a non standard browser or on a phone or something with a limited screen and slower connection.