Doesn't the Justice Department report to the Executive Branch?
And your point is.....? The Justice Department != the Judiciary. Show me a single court ruling that cited a signing statement as force of law or even as the "intent" behind the law. You'll find tons of rulings where the Courts have tried to interpret the "intent of Congress". I've never found a single one that cited a Presidential signing statement.
If Congress had balls it would just pass a law over the President's veto that declared all signing statements null and void and command Federal agencies and the courts to ignore them or lose their funding.
Unfortunately modern day politics places more importance on supporting your party then supporting your own individual ideals. Why else can we see Republicans accuse Democrats of wanting to "cut and run" and "undermine our President during a time of war" with a straight face despite the fact that they themselves did the exact same thing when Clinton went into Kosovo. If they had any balls they would have opposed both wars, but it's far more important to stay in office then it is to actually stand for something.
YOU'RE the one questioning my right to speak my mind
And where exactly did I do that? I recall expressing an opinion about your opinion. I don't recall saying that you shouldn't speak your opinion.
And if you think that other people hurting themselves has "no impact on me whatsoever"
You said: "The problem with drugs isn't that people get high -- it's that people see them as an alternative to finding healthy, active, fulfilling ways to be happy, and then get adddicted to a passive, unhealthy lifestyle" I responded with: "And just who the hell are you to say that my smoking pot isn't a fulfilling way to be happy for me?" Your response was: "A grown-up, who's been where you are, and learnt from it, like many of my friends, some of whom were dealers."
At no time in this conversation have you demonstrated why people shouldn't have the right to smoke pot. It's fully legal to sit on your ass watching TV 24/7 while drinking beer and living off McDonalds (hardly an active and healthy lifestyle) but it's illegal for me to spark up a joint? How do you justify that?
The American Declaration of Independence states that among the "unalienable rights" are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Who are you to judge whether or not drugs are a legitimate way for people to attain said happiness? And if you can pass that judgment, then why shouldn't we regulate the couch potatoes? After all, you seem very concerned that people use "healthy and active" ways to pursue happiness.
And before you go saying that's a bad analogy it's only in response to your statements, specifically that drugs cause people to "get adddicted to a passive, unhealthy lifestyle". Well the last time I checked, large numbers of Americans (and Westerners) are already living passive and unhealthy lifestyles without the assistance of any illegal drugs.
Not all girlfriends/wives are so tollerant. Usually a better approach (but not 100% guaranteed) is to offer a compromise: something you are willing to support if she switches to it, but at the same time still as usuable for her needs. Generally a Mac and maybe even Ubuntu will do the job.
I don't think it's about tolerance so much as what she uses the computer for. Naturally I got the job of setting it up for her when she bought it -- I never even asked her about Firefox or Open Office, I just installed them and she uses them. I doubt she'd care much if it was running Ubuntu, as long as she could still do everything with it that she needs, along with the annoyingly cute habits of GFs/wives (like wallpapers that change every day to some cute kitten picture or what have you)
However, GWB's habit of issuing signing statements modifying leglislation he passes effectively bypasses that restriction.
As far as I'm aware, signing statements have no force of law. He might be able to say that "this is how the executive branch will interpret this law" but he can't say (well he can't enforce) "The states and courts should interpret this law in this manner".
A grown-up, who's been where you are, and learnt from it, like many of my friends, some of whom were dealers.
That sounds dangerously close to thinking that you can impose your opinions on the conduct of other people even where that conduct has no impact on you whatsoever. And what exactly is the relevance of your friends being dealers?
It's nice being the only IT guy at the company (I tell my friends that I'm Levels 1 through 4 of tech support here;) and knowing that none of my activity is logged;)
The problem with drugs isn't that people get high -- it's that people see them as an alternative to finding healthy, active, fulfilling ways to be happy, and then get adddicted to a passive, unhealthy lifestyle
And just who the hell are you to say that my smoking pot isn't a fulfilling way to be happy for me? (You didn't directly say that but that seems to be the line of reasoning that you are referring to).
If I choose to smoke pot, drink beer or use cocaine instead of playing outside on a bright sunny day, exactly what the hell is the problem? How is sitting around smoking pot any worse then somebody who sits on his ass watching TV all day? Neither one is "healthy" or "active", yet if they make somebody happy then who are we to tell them that they can't do it?
Well then why do we need lengthy prison sentences for drug use. Just make it so that drug related health problems are not covered
That's a great idea! And while we are at it, let's make it so McDonalds-related health problems aren't covered either cuz I bet my insurance premiums would be lower if we could just get rid of all the fatties. And the tobacco smokers. And the boozers. We should also make it so STDs aren't covered either, after all you wouldn't have gotten the clap if you had shown better judgment.
This might not be a popular opinion but I'm of the belief that everybody has the right to the best health care that soceity can provide, regardless of any questionable choices they made earlier in life. We've all made questionable choices in our lives. That's part of being human the last time I checked.
There are a significant links between pot and mental illness
Thanks for providing them.
It's more harmful in that respect than alchohol.
Erowid'seffects page for cannabis lists "can precipitate or exacerbate latent or existing mental disorders" under negative effects. I will say that a friend of mine who was diagnosed with schizophrenia was strongly encouraged to stay away from pot. It can allegedly cause people with certain mental disorders to act out more and/or conflict with their meds.
That said, he received the same warning about alcohol (Erowid doesn't have anything to say on this subject) and there are many different substances that specific groups of people should avoid. I don't think that's justification to deny those substances to the rest of us though. Should alcohol be outlawed because pregnant woman shouldn't consume it?
Nicotine is probably the most harmful drug we know. Heroin will kill roughly 1 in 10, thereabouts , of its addicts. Nicotine will kill 1 in 3.
Uhh, don't you mean that tobacco smoking will kill 1 in 3? Because I've never heard that nicotine by itself causes cancer or any life threatening conditions (barring an overdose).
(Disclaimer: I'm a shocking Nicotine addicts and I utterly resent the shit for it. I want my health back, but every time I go to quit I end up almost psychiatric from the freaking withdrawal symptoms.)
Start smoking pot. Seriously. I've never been addicted to nicotine and the handful of times I tried tobacco smoking I got horribly sick, but I have two friends that quit and claim it helped. Doesn't hurt to try.
Oh well, add it to the list of things that Ron Paul will solve within 1 week.;-)
How is he gonna do that exactly when the Executive Branch is limited to signing bills into law that were passed by Congress and Congress is filled with people of both parties owned by media outfits?
The President doesn't get to write laws. All he can do is try and sway public opinion towards him and hope that encourages Congress to act on his agenda.
Draconian restrictions were also used at the fall of the roman empire. I think we (the US) is really shooting ourselves in the foot with these restrictions.
Yes, the fall of the Roman Empire can be traced directly to restrictive DRM schemes imposed by the media of the day;) So restrictive were they that it was often easier to just pirate the town criers announcements by listening to friends repeat what he had to say then trying to listen to him directly.
Sorry for the sarcasm, I largely agree with what you had to say up until this. It might have been better to say that corruption played a part in the downfall of Rome -- corruption triggered by people with financial interests to protect. That actually sounds kind of familiar....:(
And Yes I have seen these errors on my wifes Vista computer. God how I'd love to strip out vista and install ubuntu or fedora for her. Im tired of cleaning out windows systems !
What's stopping you? Ironically enough my girlfriend (the artist) is less locked into Windows then I am (the IT person). She needs a PC to be able to surf the web (Firefox), do document production for her graduate courses (Open Office) and read e-mail (any number of free clients). She didn't even notice when I switched her to Firefox and isn't really locked into anything that requires Windows.
I'm screwed, because I need MS Abscess^WAccess for work and the ability to join my PC to our Active Directory. Even on a personal level I'm more locked in then she is, because I'm into gaming and keep all of my finances in Quicken.
There are already european and asian companies that simply don't trade in the USA anymore
Really? Which ones?
The USA is ceasing to matter
Says who?
And while the USA spends more on military than the rest of the world combined, it really can't hope to win WWIII, spending more money on something doesn't mean it's actually better.
But it said Washington was violating trade law by targeting online gambling without equal application of the rules to American operators offering remote betting on horse and dog racing."
Again, I fail to see what the problem is, provided that overseas operators are also allowed to conduct betting on horse/dog races.
Under this administration, The WTO and Antiguan people are now terrorists. Prepare for us to spend 1 billion dollars a day in taxpayer funds to attack you now.
This post stands at +4 insightful? Give me a fucking break. This is flamebait, pure and simple. I suspect that if it was directed at any country not called "The United States of America" it would have modded as such in short order.
Has there been a single statement from any US Government official (from George W. all the way down to your local mailman) that suggests that we consider Antigua to be a terrorist state? Didn't think so.....
That's a crock of shit then. It's not our fault or problem that nobody has bothered to setup online horse racing in your country. As long as any horse racing business from these nations is treated the same as a domestic outfit I really fail to see what the problem is.
They just can't treat the domestic businesses differently than the foreign ones, which the US does explicitly.
Yeah we do that all the time. But on this one specific issue I fail to see the problem -- is there something that treats American horse-racing betting sites different then ones from overseas?
That is the problem, that States did not Ban Online Gambling Completely. The Problems is the US Allowed online Gambling on horse races, The Majority of sites most likely in the states.. Since the states does allow one form of online Gambling, banning other forms is seen as a protective tarriff.
Cry me a fucking river. So because the "majority" of horse racing gambling is in the states that makes it a protective tariff to outlaw ALL forms of online poker (to pull a random example out of my ass)?
Attacking recognition of US copyright and patent monopolies is a good way to rein in the USA on an international level
Yes, because of all the things that my country does wrong in the World, banning online gambling ranks at the top of the list of the things we should be "reined in" on.
To really tank the US economy (only a good thing for the rest of us
Yes, because when the US economy "tanks" it's a completely isolated event and has no impact on the rest of the World whatsoever. That's why Europe escaped the Great Depression. Oh wait....
Since when did "free trade" translate into an abandonment of sovereignty in favor of having an unelected global organization dictate national policy? If the people of the United States (or any country) want to ban online gambling then what business of the WTO is it? At least when the WTO steps in over protective tariffs that makes SOME sense. If a product is completely outlawed though, how the hell is a free trade issue?
Can the Netherlands file a WTO complaint because some of their products (cannabis coffee shops) illegal in the United States? Can the United States file a complaint because some of our exports (pornography) are illegal in Saudi Arabia? Where the hell does it end?
holding an attacker at gun point until the police show up
Where's the fun in that?;)
Even in my fairly blue state (New York) you can legally blow someone away if they break into your house -- regardless of whether or not they are armed. If you break into my house I'm not very likely to try and "hold you at gunpoint" until the police arrive.
A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.
Slashdot Mirror
And your point is.....? The Justice Department != the Judiciary. Show me a single court ruling that cited a signing statement as force of law or even as the "intent" behind the law. You'll find tons of rulings where the Courts have tried to interpret the "intent of Congress". I've never found a single one that cited a Presidential signing statement.
If Congress had balls it would just pass a law over the President's veto that declared all signing statements null and void and command Federal agencies and the courts to ignore them or lose their funding.
Unfortunately modern day politics places more importance on supporting your party then supporting your own individual ideals. Why else can we see Republicans accuse Democrats of wanting to "cut and run" and "undermine our President during a time of war" with a straight face despite the fact that they themselves did the exact same thing when Clinton went into Kosovo. If they had any balls they would have opposed both wars, but it's far more important to stay in office then it is to actually stand for something.
And where exactly did I do that? I recall expressing an opinion about your opinion. I don't recall saying that you shouldn't speak your opinion.
And if you think that other people hurting themselves has "no impact on me whatsoever"You said: "The problem with drugs isn't that people get high -- it's that people see them as an alternative to finding healthy, active, fulfilling ways to be happy, and then get adddicted to a passive, unhealthy lifestyle"
I responded with: "And just who the hell are you to say that my smoking pot isn't a fulfilling way to be happy for me?"
Your response was: "A grown-up, who's been where you are, and learnt from it, like many of my friends, some of whom were dealers."
At no time in this conversation have you demonstrated why people shouldn't have the right to smoke pot. It's fully legal to sit on your ass watching TV 24/7 while drinking beer and living off McDonalds (hardly an active and healthy lifestyle) but it's illegal for me to spark up a joint? How do you justify that?
The American Declaration of Independence states that among the "unalienable rights" are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Who are you to judge whether or not drugs are a legitimate way for people to attain said happiness? And if you can pass that judgment, then why shouldn't we regulate the couch potatoes? After all, you seem very concerned that people use "healthy and active" ways to pursue happiness.
And before you go saying that's a bad analogy it's only in response to your statements, specifically that drugs cause people to "get adddicted to a passive, unhealthy lifestyle". Well the last time I checked, large numbers of Americans (and Westerners) are already living passive and unhealthy lifestyles without the assistance of any illegal drugs.
I don't think it's about tolerance so much as what she uses the computer for. Naturally I got the job of setting it up for her when she bought it -- I never even asked her about Firefox or Open Office, I just installed them and she uses them. I doubt she'd care much if it was running Ubuntu, as long as she could still do everything with it that she needs, along with the annoyingly cute habits of GFs/wives (like wallpapers that change every day to some cute kitten picture or what have you)
As far as I'm aware, signing statements have no force of law. He might be able to say that "this is how the executive branch will interpret this law" but he can't say (well he can't enforce) "The states and courts should interpret this law in this manner".
That sounds dangerously close to thinking that you can impose your opinions on the conduct of other people even where that conduct has no impact on you whatsoever. And what exactly is the relevance of your friends being dealers?
It's nice being the only IT guy at the company (I tell my friends that I'm Levels 1 through 4 of tech support here ;) and knowing that none of my activity is logged ;)
Only if this is your end goal and we can also apply it to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ;)
And just who the hell are you to say that my smoking pot isn't a fulfilling way to be happy for me? (You didn't directly say that but that seems to be the line of reasoning that you are referring to).
If I choose to smoke pot, drink beer or use cocaine instead of playing outside on a bright sunny day, exactly what the hell is the problem? How is sitting around smoking pot any worse then somebody who sits on his ass watching TV all day? Neither one is "healthy" or "active", yet if they make somebody happy then who are we to tell them that they can't do it?
That's a great idea! And while we are at it, let's make it so McDonalds-related health problems aren't covered either cuz I bet my insurance premiums would be lower if we could just get rid of all the fatties. And the tobacco smokers. And the boozers. We should also make it so STDs aren't covered either, after all you wouldn't have gotten the clap if you had shown better judgment.
This might not be a popular opinion but I'm of the belief that everybody has the right to the best health care that soceity can provide, regardless of any questionable choices they made earlier in life. We've all made questionable choices in our lives. That's part of being human the last time I checked.
Unfortunately, it has stood up just fine :(
Thanks for providing them.
It's more harmful in that respect than alchohol.Erowid's effects page for cannabis lists "can precipitate or exacerbate latent or existing mental disorders" under negative effects. I will say that a friend of mine who was diagnosed with schizophrenia was strongly encouraged to stay away from pot. It can allegedly cause people with certain mental disorders to act out more and/or conflict with their meds.
That said, he received the same warning about alcohol (Erowid doesn't have anything to say on this subject) and there are many different substances that specific groups of people should avoid. I don't think that's justification to deny those substances to the rest of us though. Should alcohol be outlawed because pregnant woman shouldn't consume it?
Uhh, don't you mean that tobacco smoking will kill 1 in 3? Because I've never heard that nicotine by itself causes cancer or any life threatening conditions (barring an overdose).
(Disclaimer: I'm a shocking Nicotine addicts and I utterly resent the shit for it. I want my health back, but every time I go to quit I end up almost psychiatric from the freaking withdrawal symptoms.)Start smoking pot. Seriously. I've never been addicted to nicotine and the handful of times I tried tobacco smoking I got horribly sick, but I have two friends that quit and claim it helped. Doesn't hurt to try.
How is he gonna do that exactly when the Executive Branch is limited to signing bills into law that were passed by Congress and Congress is filled with people of both parties owned by media outfits?
The President doesn't get to write laws. All he can do is try and sway public opinion towards him and hope that encourages Congress to act on his agenda.
Yes, the fall of the Roman Empire can be traced directly to restrictive DRM schemes imposed by the media of the day ;) So restrictive were they that it was often easier to just pirate the town criers announcements by listening to friends repeat what he had to say then trying to listen to him directly.
Sorry for the sarcasm, I largely agree with what you had to say up until this. It might have been better to say that corruption played a part in the downfall of Rome -- corruption triggered by people with financial interests to protect. That actually sounds kind of familiar.... :(
And Yes I have seen these errors on my wifes Vista computer. God how I'd love to strip out vista and install ubuntu or fedora for her. Im tired of cleaning out windows systems !What's stopping you? Ironically enough my girlfriend (the artist) is less locked into Windows then I am (the IT person). She needs a PC to be able to surf the web (Firefox), do document production for her graduate courses (Open Office) and read e-mail (any number of free clients). She didn't even notice when I switched her to Firefox and isn't really locked into anything that requires Windows.
I'm screwed, because I need MS Abscess^WAccess for work and the ability to join my PC to our Active Directory. Even on a personal level I'm more locked in then she is, because I'm into gaming and keep all of my finances in Quicken.
In the United States we'd rather look out for ourselves then rely on the Government to do it for us.
In the USA, I gather, you couldn't trust the government as far as you could throw them"In the World, I gather, you couldn't trust the government as far as you could throw them"
There, fixed that for you.
Really? Which ones?
The USA is ceasing to matterSays who?
And while the USA spends more on military than the rest of the world combined, it really can't hope to win WWIII, spending more money on something doesn't mean it's actually better.I'm sorry, WWIII started when, exactly?
Again, I fail to see what the problem is, provided that overseas operators are also allowed to conduct betting on horse/dog races.
This post stands at +4 insightful? Give me a fucking break. This is flamebait, pure and simple. I suspect that if it was directed at any country not called "The United States of America" it would have modded as such in short order.
Has there been a single statement from any US Government official (from George W. all the way down to your local mailman) that suggests that we consider Antigua to be a terrorist state? Didn't think so.....
That's a crock of shit then. It's not our fault or problem that nobody has bothered to setup online horse racing in your country. As long as any horse racing business from these nations is treated the same as a domestic outfit I really fail to see what the problem is.
Yeah we do that all the time. But on this one specific issue I fail to see the problem -- is there something that treats American horse-racing betting sites different then ones from overseas?
Cry me a fucking river. So because the "majority" of horse racing gambling is in the states that makes it a protective tariff to outlaw ALL forms of online poker (to pull a random example out of my ass)?
Yes, because of all the things that my country does wrong in the World, banning online gambling ranks at the top of the list of the things we should be "reined in" on.
To really tank the US economy (only a good thing for the rest of usYes, because when the US economy "tanks" it's a completely isolated event and has no impact on the rest of the World whatsoever. That's why Europe escaped the Great Depression. Oh wait....
Since when did "free trade" translate into an abandonment of sovereignty in favor of having an unelected global organization dictate national policy? If the people of the United States (or any country) want to ban online gambling then what business of the WTO is it? At least when the WTO steps in over protective tariffs that makes SOME sense. If a product is completely outlawed though, how the hell is a free trade issue?
Can the Netherlands file a WTO complaint because some of their products (cannabis coffee shops) illegal in the United States? Can the United States file a complaint because some of our exports (pornography) are illegal in Saudi Arabia? Where the hell does it end?
Where's the fun in that? ;)
Even in my fairly blue state (New York) you can legally blow someone away if they break into your house -- regardless of whether or not they are armed. If you break into my house I'm not very likely to try and "hold you at gunpoint" until the police arrive.
A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.
Does that mean if L. Ron hadn't invented Scientology somebody else would have? ;)
Scary thought.....