and an ideological litmus test should not be part of the application
So what happens when you wind up with an election district entirely filled with left-leaning or right-leaning poll workers?
I can't speak for Ohio but I've been a Inspector of Elections in New York State for the last five years. In New York State the election law requires two inspectors from each "major" party (for a total of four) at each polling site. The "major" parties themselves are not named in the election law but rather defined as the two parties that got the highest number of voters in the last Gubernatorial election.
The election law also requires that at least one of each party be present at the polling place (i.e.: both Democrats can't go to lunch at the same time) and one from each party for actions such as canvassing the vote, going into the machine to assist a voter, etc, etc.
People who aren't members of the major parties can still serve as poll workers here but they will serve under the banner of one of the major parties, i.e: the Democrats will accept poll workers from the Working Families Party and the Republicans will accept poll workers from the Conservative Party.
and weren't dumb enough to live 40 miles away from work.
My commute is 29 miles one way because my employer is located in the middle of nowhere. I could move closer -- but then I'd just be driving every single time I want a gallon of milk or to see a movie. I do what I can to mitigate this -- carpool four days a week (can't on Fridays because our schedules don't mesh up) and telecommute whenever possible.
This is the whole problem with globalization, IMO. It makes people too interdependent, and when something goes wrong, it affects the whole planet, instead of the effects being contained. People, regions, and countries need to be more self-sufficient
It's a toss up. In theory free trade results in people producing the goods that they can make most efficiently and trading for those goods that others can produce more efficiently, thus increasing production. In theory this results in a higher standard of living for everybody. Of course reality doesn't always work out this way and trade isn't really "free" (even Adam Smith said that free trade should take a back seat to national security.... I wonder what he would think of our dependence on imported oil?) but on balance I think that free trade has benefited a lot of countries.
Of course if oil keeps going up this might be a moot point. Economists disagree on the exact number but most think that at a certain point (anywhere from $200 - $400/barrel depending on whose figures you believe) energy costs will make it uneconomical to ship a lot of goods halfway across the world. If that happens I think you'll still see free trade and interdependent countries -- but it will be more regional in scope, i.e.: we'd be buying our cheap imported crap from Latin/South America instead of China.
No, I think people should be able to buy what vehicles they want, and then when the economy crashes, they should be informed of exactly how their personal choices made it happen.
Buying SUVs is not why the economy is crashing. Energy costs didn't drive the housing and credit bubbles. Energy costs didn't make Global Crossing or Enron cook their books. Energy costs weren't the reason the dot-com bubble burst. SUVs in and of themselves are just another product. Somebody got paid to build them. Somebody got paid to sell them. Consumers bought them. The energy crisis certainly isn't helping us any but I don't think you can blame all of our woes on SUV drivers.
And by "protecting our interests", we actually prevent the marketplace from delivering a solution, because the price of oil is effectively subsidized by our military involvement, removing the need for creating an alternative quickly. $4/gallon does not in any way reflect the true price of oil when you account for all the military and political involvement. Let the economy crash and burn, and maybe people will start coming up with real solutions to this problem.
I understand the spirit of what you are trying to say but I still disagree with you. You are advocating for a course of action that would literally ruin the lives of millions of people around the world. I think we can find a solution to this problem before that happens.
The only thing I'm really worried about is the prospect of oil prices coming back down. I don't think that's going to happen to any real degree (growing demand in China and India) but if it did then I'd worry that people would forget about it and go back to driving gas-guzzlers. If we are lucky they will stay in the neighborhood of where they are now -- high enough that it hurts but not so high that the rug is pulled out from under the developed world.
I'm sorry but I disagree with that assessment. I saw a fair amount of coverage about him and his movement. Time magazine even did a whole write-up about him and Libertarians in general several months back (they also interviewed Bob Barr at a later date). I don't know how much more mainstream than 'Time' you can get.
They did the exact same thing to Democrat contender Dennis Kucinich, another pro-Constitution candidate.
Might that have something to do with the fact that Kucinich has run two or three times before and lost every time? I don't always agree with what the media chooses to cover (Britney Spears while IEDs are blowing up in Iraq....) but I also don't think that the media owes any special obligation to any political candidate -- mainstream or otherwise.
That's what the Bushies said about Iraq and WMD. Where are they? Remember the boy who cried wolf
It's not particularly fair or open minded to point the finger for that clusterfuck solely at Bush. I seem to recall that most of our Allies, including those that opposed the war (France) also thought he had WMD. You can rightfully blame Bush for trumping it up and using it as an excuse to go to war but I don't think he deserves the blame for thinking that they had them in the first place.
It's not our job to protect the world from itself.
As nation we've decided that it is our job by supporting an interventionist foreign policy. I've often waffled back and forth between thinking that we should become non-interventionists again and staying the current course.... it's a complicated issue to say the least. History suggests that even when we remain non-interventionist/neutral that we invariably get dragged into conflicts anyway.
Regardless of our foreign policy though I think that you'd agree that it is our job to look out after our own interests -- and our economic interests would not be served by an Israeli/Iranian nuclear exchange.
Who cares? If we've based our future on a commodity from such an unstable region outside our borders, we deserve to be screwed when a big war flares up there. We should have been self-sufficient, and we deserve to pay the price. We make enough oil here within our own borders to meet our own needs, if we weren't wasting so much driving around in giant SUVs with monster tires on 100-mile roundtrip commutes.
I'm not a particularly big fan of SUVs either but I would think that a Ron Paul supporter would in favor of the free market. SUVs won the battle in the free market back when gas was cheap. Thankfully that paradigm seems to be changing now but what else could we have done? Governmental regulation to mandate what types of vehicles people can buy? Protectionist restrictions on imported oil?
Regardless though we are where we are for the foreseeable future. I don't think any Presidential candidate is going to win on a platform of "we deserve to be screwed". Until the marketplace delivers a solution for our petroleum based economy (because it sure as hell isn't gonna come from Washington) we are obligated to protect our economic interests in the Middle East.
Higher taxes aren't going to bring down the deficit. To do that, you need money. Taxes only bring the government a portion of the GDP. With too much taxes, the economy plunges, and the actual tax revenue you bring in also plunges. You're basically assuming that the economy will stay at its current level if taxes are raised, so the government will get more money. I disagree, I think the economy will collapse, and the government will get even less money in tax revenue than it does now
And you are basically assuming that Obama is going to raise taxes to the point that the economy is going to collapse. I disagree with this assessment. Some of his ideas are pretty stupid (windfall profits tax.... e
They will never be able to match their arsenal to that of US or UK or France or Russia or Israel
They don't have to match our arsenal. All they need to be able to do is reach a major city in any one of the countries you mentioned. Yeah, we could obliterate them (to borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton) if they hit us but would we be willing to go to war with them in the first place if it was going to cost us New York City or Washington?
Sure, if we convince our enemies to put tracking chips in their missiles and to launch them when and where we want them to, and to not use countermeasures we can shoot down almost 50% of them. But for some reason they don't want to play ball.
Which makes Russia's bellyaching over our deployment all the more amusing. The base in Poland can't intercept missiles launched from Russia to North America (they tend to go over the pole) and even if it could Russia probably has the technology to defeat or at least overwhelm it.
That 50% might just be enough to stop an Iranian or North Korean missile though.
A big one was the media: they hated him. Every opportunity they had, they acted like he didn't exist. When he was at debates, the camerapeople would do their best to not even have him in the picture.
The media sucks but I question whether or not it really deserves blame for Ron Paul (or any other candidate who comes up short for that matter). Indeed I think you answered it with your next point:
Another big one, I think (though I don't have any proof) is that I don't think the American people were interested in his ideas of limited government.
I think you hit the nail on the head. You might convince me of the virtues of more limited Government -- but not to the extreme that Ron Paul would advocate for. I heard him once giving a speech about shrinking the Federal Government -- one of the things he wanted to go after was Federal student loans. All the expenses of the Federal Government and he picks that one to talk about? WTH?
Right now, our country is so fucked up that we really need someone like Ron Paul to "press the reset button" of government, and make major changes to bring us back to financial solvency before we go bankrupt.
Eh, if you really feel that way then you should be calling for a Constitutional Convention. I don't think a President has the power to push the "reset" button. As you previously said that would really be a job for Congress. In this respect Ron Paul wasn't really any better than any of the other politicians who were running -- he promised more than his fair share of stuff that he would have no way to deliver once in office.
Instead, the voters have chosen two candidates that do nothing to make things better, and will probably make things even worse
Aren't there at least three other people running? Granted, I've looked at them and wasn't very impressed (I see a crazy witch-burner, a crazy left-wing dude and a crazy left-wing chick with a chip on her shoulder) but they are running and would be viable options if you don't feel like voting for McCain or Obama.
McCain is rightfully called "McSame", and will probably get us involved in a useless war in Iran before we're even done with Iraq
I don't know what you call "useless". If Iran is indeed pursing nuclear weapons then I think that we have cause to be concerned. I'm not a pro-war hawk but the prospect of a nuclear armed state that seeks the destruction of Israel (another nuclear armed state) scares the hell out of me. Regardless of any American intervention we'd be fucked economically if Iran and Israel came to nuclear blows -- how much of the Worlds oil comes from that region?
Obama's going to jack up taxes so much the economy will go in the toilet
I'd rather see higher taxes if the end result is bringing the deficit down. Obama is pulling the standard issue ideas out of the Liberal play book (so much for a different kind of leadership...) but he's at least being somewhat more realistic than "I'll find you a hundred billion tomorrow" McCain.
Either way, we're fucked.
Eh, I don't know. I had some hope for Obama but I've lost a lot of it over the last few weeks. I still think he's the best of the five choices we currently have. In the end I suppose that's all you can hope for in politics -- incremental change/progress. The system is setup to resist wholesale drastic changes in either direction.
However, based on its discussion of how asking someone to speak their name in the context of a Terry stop was not a Fourth Amendment violation, the Court actually upheld a conviction for failure to produce papers rather than failure to speak a name.
What case was that? Nothing I've read about Hiibel would suggest to me that it was part of that case.
How he's better than a constitutional scholar for running the executive branch.
You mean the Constitutional Scholar that voted for a bill including retroactive telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping?
I think Obama is the best choice out of the five who are running but don't delude yourself into thinking that he has anymore respect for the rule of law than any of the other 43 Presidents we had. He'll expand the power of the Executive Branch just like all the others have.
Hell, it's not really surprising that Presidents would want to expand the power of their own branch. What's surprising/depressing is that the other two branches let them get away with it.
That they can demand to see your ID before you get on a flight is also a violation of your Constitutional rights [papersplease.org], no matter what courts say about it, IMHO.
That guy is a bit far fetched, IMHO. Why is he calling his site "Papers Please" when he was never actually asked for ID during his police encounter? The officer asked for his name and he refused to give it.
No where in that SCOTUS ruling did it say that you have to produce identification if asked. It only stated that you have to identify yourself and give your address if asked. Most states have laws like that on the books already so it was hardly something new.
You might disagree with the concept of being required to identify yourself to a police officer if asked (I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it) but making it about the "papers" is wrong. To the best of my knowledge, in the United States (at least in my own state) you can't be compelled to produce id. You can be compelled to give your name and address.
We all saw how far a 10th level US Senator [electionspeak.com] goes.
Ron Paul isn't a Senator.... he's a Representative.
And the reason he didn't go anywhere had nothing to do with level. It had everything to do with his lack of a charisma +10 tie. He should have borrowed one from Senator Obama;)
I was going to tell you to RTFA but TFA is almost as useless as the summary. Apparently Intel and AMD have a "lock" on the technology. What part of the technology they have a "lock" on is left unsaid... the instruction set? The manufacturing processes? TFA doesn't bother to say.
This is certainly debatable, but I will not get into this
How the hell is that "debatable"?
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
I don't think you understand how the appeals process works. First, mistakes by the prosecution aren't important; only those by the judge are and second, there's no jury involved
I'm pretty sure that depends on the nature of the prosecution's mistake. If the prosecution fails to turn over evidence that suggests the defendant might not have been guilty you can bet your ass that's gonna come up in the appeals process.
No, the prosecutors who are trying to force a legal precedent to require citizens to relinquish their password are the conspiratorial sacks of shit.
Even if they got that precedent how would it actually help them? A blatant refusal to hand over the password would obviously be contempt of court in such a scenario but I'm wondering exactly how they would respond to someone who pulled out the Bush administration line of "I don't recall".
Would it be contempt of court to forget a password?
If you're going to spend on the poor at all, spend predominately on Americans. Helping out other countries is fine, but the American president's primary and overriding obligation is to the well-being and betterment of America.
The well-being and betterment of America is served by helping to lift other countries out of poverty. I don't know if you've been following the news the last few years or not but a large portion of the World (including some of our most important European allies) no longer trusts us.
Projects like the Bush initiatives in Africa serve at least two purposes. First and foremost they lift others out of poverty and despair. Second they improve our standing aboard. Seeing as how Russia is on the march again and China is becoming an economic superpower I think we'd be well served by making all the friends we can -- and right now Africa loves us.
Are you really going to tell me that isn't worth a few billion bucks? We get goodwill and future trading partners/potential allies out of the deal. Sounds like a bargain to me.
Slashdot Mirror
You're welcome to, but I never really found either of them particularly attractive
Obviously you've never seen Senator Obama wearing his charisma +10 tie. I suggest you turn on the TV ;)
and an ideological litmus test should not be part of the application
So what happens when you wind up with an election district entirely filled with left-leaning or right-leaning poll workers?
I can't speak for Ohio but I've been a Inspector of Elections in New York State for the last five years. In New York State the election law requires two inspectors from each "major" party (for a total of four) at each polling site. The "major" parties themselves are not named in the election law but rather defined as the two parties that got the highest number of voters in the last Gubernatorial election.
The election law also requires that at least one of each party be present at the polling place (i.e.: both Democrats can't go to lunch at the same time) and one from each party for actions such as canvassing the vote, going into the machine to assist a voter, etc, etc.
People who aren't members of the major parties can still serve as poll workers here but they will serve under the banner of one of the major parties, i.e: the Democrats will accept poll workers from the Working Families Party and the Republicans will accept poll workers from the Conservative Party.
and weren't dumb enough to live 40 miles away from work.
My commute is 29 miles one way because my employer is located in the middle of nowhere. I could move closer -- but then I'd just be driving every single time I want a gallon of milk or to see a movie. I do what I can to mitigate this -- carpool four days a week (can't on Fridays because our schedules don't mesh up) and telecommute whenever possible.
This is the whole problem with globalization, IMO. It makes people too interdependent, and when something goes wrong, it affects the whole planet, instead of the effects being contained. People, regions, and countries need to be more self-sufficient
It's a toss up. In theory free trade results in people producing the goods that they can make most efficiently and trading for those goods that others can produce more efficiently, thus increasing production. In theory this results in a higher standard of living for everybody. Of course reality doesn't always work out this way and trade isn't really "free" (even Adam Smith said that free trade should take a back seat to national security.... I wonder what he would think of our dependence on imported oil?) but on balance I think that free trade has benefited a lot of countries.
Of course if oil keeps going up this might be a moot point. Economists disagree on the exact number but most think that at a certain point (anywhere from $200 - $400/barrel depending on whose figures you believe) energy costs will make it uneconomical to ship a lot of goods halfway across the world. If that happens I think you'll still see free trade and interdependent countries -- but it will be more regional in scope, i.e.: we'd be buying our cheap imported crap from Latin/South America instead of China.
As if there were any competition to be unfair to...
Yeah, if only there were other VOD providers.
No, I think people should be able to buy what vehicles they want, and then when the economy crashes, they should be informed of exactly how their personal choices made it happen.
Buying SUVs is not why the economy is crashing. Energy costs didn't drive the housing and credit bubbles. Energy costs didn't make Global Crossing or Enron cook their books. Energy costs weren't the reason the dot-com bubble burst. SUVs in and of themselves are just another product. Somebody got paid to build them. Somebody got paid to sell them. Consumers bought them. The energy crisis certainly isn't helping us any but I don't think you can blame all of our woes on SUV drivers.
And by "protecting our interests", we actually prevent the marketplace from delivering a solution, because the price of oil is effectively subsidized by our military involvement, removing the need for creating an alternative quickly. $4/gallon does not in any way reflect the true price of oil when you account for all the military and political involvement. Let the economy crash and burn, and maybe people will start coming up with real solutions to this problem.
I understand the spirit of what you are trying to say but I still disagree with you. You are advocating for a course of action that would literally ruin the lives of millions of people around the world. I think we can find a solution to this problem before that happens.
The only thing I'm really worried about is the prospect of oil prices coming back down. I don't think that's going to happen to any real degree (growing demand in China and India) but if it did then I'd worry that people would forget about it and go back to driving gas-guzzlers. If we are lucky they will stay in the neighborhood of where they are now -- high enough that it hurts but not so high that the rug is pulled out from under the developed world.
So if the US isn't going to use it for defense, then what are they going to use it for? Most likely offense.
I wasn't aware that missile interceptors were considered an offensive weapon. Nothing like the good offense of shooting down incoming warheads.
Instead, they acted like he didn't exist
I'm sorry but I disagree with that assessment. I saw a fair amount of coverage about him and his movement. Time magazine even did a whole write-up about him and Libertarians in general several months back (they also interviewed Bob Barr at a later date). I don't know how much more mainstream than 'Time' you can get.
They did the exact same thing to Democrat contender Dennis Kucinich, another pro-Constitution candidate.
Might that have something to do with the fact that Kucinich has run two or three times before and lost every time? I don't always agree with what the media chooses to cover (Britney Spears while IEDs are blowing up in Iraq....) but I also don't think that the media owes any special obligation to any political candidate -- mainstream or otherwise.
That's what the Bushies said about Iraq and WMD. Where are they? Remember the boy who cried wolf
It's not particularly fair or open minded to point the finger for that clusterfuck solely at Bush. I seem to recall that most of our Allies, including those that opposed the war (France) also thought he had WMD. You can rightfully blame Bush for trumping it up and using it as an excuse to go to war but I don't think he deserves the blame for thinking that they had them in the first place.
It's not our job to protect the world from itself.
As nation we've decided that it is our job by supporting an interventionist foreign policy. I've often waffled back and forth between thinking that we should become non-interventionists again and staying the current course.... it's a complicated issue to say the least. History suggests that even when we remain non-interventionist/neutral that we invariably get dragged into conflicts anyway.
Regardless of our foreign policy though I think that you'd agree that it is our job to look out after our own interests -- and our economic interests would not be served by an Israeli/Iranian nuclear exchange.
Who cares? If we've based our future on a commodity from such an unstable region outside our borders, we deserve to be screwed when a big war flares up there. We should have been self-sufficient, and we deserve to pay the price. We make enough oil here within our own borders to meet our own needs, if we weren't wasting so much driving around in giant SUVs with monster tires on 100-mile roundtrip commutes.
I'm not a particularly big fan of SUVs either but I would think that a Ron Paul supporter would in favor of the free market. SUVs won the battle in the free market back when gas was cheap. Thankfully that paradigm seems to be changing now but what else could we have done? Governmental regulation to mandate what types of vehicles people can buy? Protectionist restrictions on imported oil?
Regardless though we are where we are for the foreseeable future. I don't think any Presidential candidate is going to win on a platform of "we deserve to be screwed". Until the marketplace delivers a solution for our petroleum based economy (because it sure as hell isn't gonna come from Washington) we are obligated to protect our economic interests in the Middle East.
Higher taxes aren't going to bring down the deficit. To do that, you need money. Taxes only bring the government a portion of the GDP. With too much taxes, the economy plunges, and the actual tax revenue you bring in also plunges. You're basically assuming that the economy will stay at its current level if taxes are raised, so the government will get more money. I disagree, I think the economy will collapse, and the government will get even less money in tax revenue than it does now
And you are basically assuming that Obama is going to raise taxes to the point that the economy is going to collapse. I disagree with this assessment. Some of his ideas are pretty stupid (windfall profits tax.... e
They will never be able to match their arsenal to that of US or UK or France or Russia or Israel
They don't have to match our arsenal. All they need to be able to do is reach a major city in any one of the countries you mentioned. Yeah, we could obliterate them (to borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton) if they hit us but would we be willing to go to war with them in the first place if it was going to cost us New York City or Washington?
We need a workable missile defense technology.
Sure, if we convince our enemies to put tracking chips in their missiles and to launch them when and where we want them to, and to not use countermeasures we can shoot down almost 50% of them. But for some reason they don't want to play ball.
Which makes Russia's bellyaching over our deployment all the more amusing. The base in Poland can't intercept missiles launched from Russia to North America (they tend to go over the pole) and even if it could Russia probably has the technology to defeat or at least overwhelm it.
That 50% might just be enough to stop an Iranian or North Korean missile though.
A big one was the media: they hated him. Every opportunity they had, they acted like he didn't exist. When he was at debates, the camerapeople would do their best to not even have him in the picture.
The media sucks but I question whether or not it really deserves blame for Ron Paul (or any other candidate who comes up short for that matter). Indeed I think you answered it with your next point:
Another big one, I think (though I don't have any proof) is that I don't think the American people were interested in his ideas of limited government.
I think you hit the nail on the head. You might convince me of the virtues of more limited Government -- but not to the extreme that Ron Paul would advocate for. I heard him once giving a speech about shrinking the Federal Government -- one of the things he wanted to go after was Federal student loans. All the expenses of the Federal Government and he picks that one to talk about? WTH?
Right now, our country is so fucked up that we really need someone like Ron Paul to "press the reset button" of government, and make major changes to bring us back to financial solvency before we go bankrupt.
Eh, if you really feel that way then you should be calling for a Constitutional Convention. I don't think a President has the power to push the "reset" button. As you previously said that would really be a job for Congress. In this respect Ron Paul wasn't really any better than any of the other politicians who were running -- he promised more than his fair share of stuff that he would have no way to deliver once in office.
Instead, the voters have chosen two candidates that do nothing to make things better, and will probably make things even worse
Aren't there at least three other people running? Granted, I've looked at them and wasn't very impressed (I see a crazy witch-burner, a crazy left-wing dude and a crazy left-wing chick with a chip on her shoulder) but they are running and would be viable options if you don't feel like voting for McCain or Obama.
McCain is rightfully called "McSame", and will probably get us involved in a useless war in Iran before we're even done with Iraq
I don't know what you call "useless". If Iran is indeed pursing nuclear weapons then I think that we have cause to be concerned. I'm not a pro-war hawk but the prospect of a nuclear armed state that seeks the destruction of Israel (another nuclear armed state) scares the hell out of me. Regardless of any American intervention we'd be fucked economically if Iran and Israel came to nuclear blows -- how much of the Worlds oil comes from that region?
Obama's going to jack up taxes so much the economy will go in the toilet
I'd rather see higher taxes if the end result is bringing the deficit down. Obama is pulling the standard issue ideas out of the Liberal play book (so much for a different kind of leadership...) but he's at least being somewhat more realistic than "I'll find you a hundred billion tomorrow" McCain.
Either way, we're fucked.
Eh, I don't know. I had some hope for Obama but I've lost a lot of it over the last few weeks. I still think he's the best of the five choices we currently have. In the end I suppose that's all you can hope for in politics -- incremental change/progress. The system is setup to resist wholesale drastic changes in either direction.
However, based on its discussion of how asking someone to speak their name in the context of a Terry stop was not a Fourth Amendment violation, the Court actually upheld a conviction for failure to produce papers rather than failure to speak a name.
What case was that? Nothing I've read about Hiibel would suggest to me that it was part of that case.
It's not surprising when all three branches were controlled by the same party.
You'd think our friends in Congress would take their oath of office more seriously than their party obligations. Guess that's too much to ask for.....
Didn't Washington try to warn us about this?
How he's better than a constitutional scholar for running the executive branch.
You mean the Constitutional Scholar that voted for a bill including retroactive telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping?
I think Obama is the best choice out of the five who are running but don't delude yourself into thinking that he has anymore respect for the rule of law than any of the other 43 Presidents we had. He'll expand the power of the Executive Branch just like all the others have.
Hell, it's not really surprising that Presidents would want to expand the power of their own branch. What's surprising/depressing is that the other two branches let them get away with it.
That they can demand to see your ID before you get on a flight is also a violation of your Constitutional rights [papersplease.org], no matter what courts say about it, IMHO.
That guy is a bit far fetched, IMHO. Why is he calling his site "Papers Please" when he was never actually asked for ID during his police encounter? The officer asked for his name and he refused to give it.
No where in that SCOTUS ruling did it say that you have to produce identification if asked. It only stated that you have to identify yourself and give your address if asked. Most states have laws like that on the books already so it was hardly something new.
You might disagree with the concept of being required to identify yourself to a police officer if asked (I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it) but making it about the "papers" is wrong. To the best of my knowledge, in the United States (at least in my own state) you can't be compelled to produce id. You can be compelled to give your name and address.
We all saw how far a 10th level US Senator [electionspeak.com] goes.
Ron Paul isn't a Senator.... he's a Representative.
And the reason he didn't go anywhere had nothing to do with level. It had everything to do with his lack of a charisma +10 tie. He should have borrowed one from Senator Obama ;)
I think their tinfoil hats need some adjustment.
Is that better? ;)
I was going to tell you to RTFA but TFA is almost as useless as the summary. Apparently Intel and AMD have a "lock" on the technology. What part of the technology they have a "lock" on is left unsaid... the instruction set? The manufacturing processes? TFA doesn't bother to say.
TV is the source of gov't manipulation, and by extension, satan
I think your tinfoil hat needs some adjustment.......
But unfortunately it's a more difficult to get the lovin' if you're not trim and in shape. Damn you chicken and egg! Foiled again!
Yeah but this chicken and egg scenario can be easily solved with beer goggles ;) Who said you need to be trim and in shape to get laid?
This is certainly debatable, but I will not get into this
How the hell is that "debatable"?
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Recruiter: "Right Johnny, so this err. lady.. is resisting arrest. Here's a taser and now let it rip with all you've got!"
Free chance to taze my Mom without being punished? Where do I sign up? ;)
I don't think you understand how the appeals process works. First, mistakes by the prosecution aren't important; only those by the judge are and second, there's no jury involved
I'm pretty sure that depends on the nature of the prosecution's mistake. If the prosecution fails to turn over evidence that suggests the defendant might not have been guilty you can bet your ass that's gonna come up in the appeals process.
There simply is no way to compel someone to SAY something. It's not part of our legal system.
Actually there is. If they give you immunity from prosecution you can't remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
No, the prosecutors who are trying to force a legal precedent to require citizens to relinquish their password are the conspiratorial sacks of shit.
Even if they got that precedent how would it actually help them? A blatant refusal to hand over the password would obviously be contempt of court in such a scenario but I'm wondering exactly how they would respond to someone who pulled out the Bush administration line of "I don't recall".
Would it be contempt of court to forget a password?
If you're going to spend on the poor at all, spend predominately on Americans. Helping out other countries is fine, but the American president's primary and overriding obligation is to the well-being and betterment of America.
The well-being and betterment of America is served by helping to lift other countries out of poverty. I don't know if you've been following the news the last few years or not but a large portion of the World (including some of our most important European allies) no longer trusts us.
Projects like the Bush initiatives in Africa serve at least two purposes. First and foremost they lift others out of poverty and despair. Second they improve our standing aboard. Seeing as how Russia is on the march again and China is becoming an economic superpower I think we'd be well served by making all the friends we can -- and right now Africa loves us.
Are you really going to tell me that isn't worth a few billion bucks? We get goodwill and future trading partners/potential allies out of the deal. Sounds like a bargain to me.