Okay. I've met alcoholics who didn't junction, except in the most rudimentary way. Others were a danger to society.
The link goes to a post I made where I make statements that are contrary to my perception of your perception of my attitude.
The subject bar? No I don't think that making drugs legal again will solve all the problems. But I do believe there will be less problems and those can be handled easier. For instance I've said elsewhere that the drugs can be taxed then the revenue thus generated can be used to offer treatments for those who want it.
After reading all the articles linked to, I noticed not one mentioned one part of the scam. Business Week and Chicago Tribune said the ethanol was corn based. However the same amount of land would produce more ethanol if sugarcane was used instead. With the world's largest biofuels program Brazil uses sugarcane. And switchgrass produces even more. Another benefit of using switchgrass to make ethanol is that it will grow on marginal land other crops aren't grown on.
I had a linguistics class once taught by a guy from spain. One of the things I've retained was when he told us how in spain they talk about the Cure for drugs, Cure for poverty, etc. In the US we use the term War.
That's how it should be if anything. Drug abuse needs to be treated as a medical issue not a legal one. And drug use should not be treated.
For most jobs, drug users make pretty crappy employees.
There are a number of casual users who are good employees, if not employers. I've seen more people with alcoholics who are terrible employees than all other drugs combined. Then again I've seen people who don't use drugs but are still terrible employees.
many minimum-wage employees could be thrown in jail and replaced with robots, and it would cost less and provide economic benefit to the rest of us, overall.
No, that'd be a drain. You're taking taxpayers and turning them into prisoners. Not only are they not paying taxes, but they eating up taxes by keeping them in gaol. About the only ones who benefit are the private prison contractors.
I've actually met drug users who would rather be in jail than have access to drugs.
They need therapy then.
And, unfortunately, I believe history shows that violent crime rates rise with increased drug use,
If you're going to make such an assertion you need to provide evidence such as scientific studies that back that statement up. When Portugal decriminalized drugs "drug-related crime and violence was down, and there was no measurable uptick in overall drug use." CA legalized medical marijuana and though some say drug dispensers are easy to find violence has not escalated. The violence from drugs is mostly about gangs fighting to control the drugs, with legal drugs most violence should end.
More importantly, the victims of those crimes are random citizens, not drug dealers or gang members fighting amongst each other.
Citation needed again.
I don't want government passing laws that make victim-less crimes.
I don't either. But that horse left the barn several decades ago. And there's no sign of it coming back. So until I can drive without being harassed for not wearing my seatbelt, I don't think this argument will gain any traction when it comes to anything more controversial.
I oppose seatbelt laws too. And that's something I find weird about the state I live in, MN. It has a seatbelt law but motorcyclists can ride their bikes without helmets. Conceivably I can see government requiring children to wear seatbelts but adults should be able to decide for themselves if they will wear them. Otherwise, I'd let auto insurance issuers charge higher premiums for those who do not wear them.
I was talking about dealers suddenly becoming unemployed whilst having a rather blase attitude towards what is expected of them legally.
In your post I replied to there's no hint of dealers. If that's what you meant though sorry. Now as for dealers, if they're selling drugs I'd say they're either blasé or hostile to the law. Then again they make like them because if drugs were legal then they'd be out of business.
The fact that there are screwed up people who sort of function doesn't really completely answer that (though it does point out that they might end up sort of functioning, I guess depending quite a bit on the nuances of their attitudes).
I'm not sure who you mean here either by "screwed up people". You've not clear on that.
I don't think I actually have the attitude that you seem to me to be harshing on:
Clicking on that link I do not see where I made a comment. I see where Chris Burke (6130) replied, then you made a reply to that and he answered you, or whatever I didn't read either.
I acknowledge that Palm's only responsibility is to its shareholders.
No. As a corporation with limited liability for it's owners, the stockholders, it has the responsibility to improve the common or public good. That was the only reason businesses were ever given limited liability. Because they were anti-democratic Thomas Jefferson said of corporations: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
MS did support xhtml. Though it was years ago I took an xhtml class that was required at the college I attended then. The only browser we used was IE. In a javascript class we had to use xhtml also, but in it we got extra points if the js worked in both IE and Netscape. The same is true for the xml class.
Yes, but somebody skilled in video editing and graphic design can easily make changes to a.fla file, but not a javascript file. Sometimes complexity is prohibitive, especially with small to medium companies that don't have a small army of programmers.
Both Flash and javascript require skills. However whereas the tools for Flash are expensive the tools for javascript come installed on most computers. When I used Windows I used Crimson Editor, NotePad, or Wordpad which are all free. Having switched to Mac I use TextEdit, which came with my Mac. On Linux I used Katie, though I could also use emacs, vi, or a number of other FOOS editors. Add if you use Firefox there are add-ons that you can use to edit javascript.
Update: Furthering Adobe's commitment to the Linux community and as part of ongoing efforts to ensure the cross-platform compatibility of Flash Player, an alpha refresh of 64-bit Adobe Flash Player 10 for Linux operating systems was released on 2/24/09 and is available for download. This offers easier, native installation on 64-bit Linux distributions and removes the need for 32-bit emulation. Learn more by reading the 64-bit Flash Player 10 FAQ.
If your Flash file works in IE, it works in FF, Opera, Safari, etc. It requires a plugin sure, but it's one that's almost universally adopted.
I don't know how many tymes I've come across a Flash movie, though a bunch, where it says I need to upgrade my Flasher player to at least v9, before the movie will play. Using Adobe's Flash version tester it says I have 9,0,151,0 installed.
The only way to download a movie from one of these is to pretend you're their branded flash player and siphon the data stream... very few sites let you get the FLV file URL from the page source or any other casual means
If you use Firefox there's a number of different add-ons you can use to grab and save FLV files. And that's true for other video formats as well.
Or they have to work with someone else. A guy that spends days trying to convert a design made with Photoshop into HTML/CSS. And the result is often not comparable. And the poor designer depends on the HTML/CSS guy, he can't change a single button in seconds by his own.
One designer I knew did just that. He'd create compleat websites with Photoshop then mark it up in html/css/js.
For you perhaps but not for everyone. Look at slashdot's code, there are no tables. A List Apart has some good tutorials on how to use CSS for layouts. As does Zen Garden. Eric Meyer has some good books on it.
A lot of people start new businesses in recessions. It's often a good opportunity because people are looking for change, whereas when everything is going alright, they aren't interested in changing from what they already have.
Perhaps I should of included a smiley;-). Actually in a lot of cases starting a business in an economic slowdown or recession is the best tyme to do it.
Also, my comment that you are replying to wasn't addressing CSS vs Tables, but rather the general failure of CSS to fulfill the promise of content separated from layout.
Okay. I think the failure to code layout with tables not CSS is for two reasons. One is developers and the other is the browsers. Developers, like most people, tend to stick with what they're comfortable with. However the browsers are getting better.
Of course it's easy for me to complain and point my fingers, I don't design websites. I used to but haven't in years. However as I said in the post you replied to I want to start a photography business and I want to be online. In two respects, I want an online portfolio and store as well as design websites for others to showcase their photos.
quite frankly it is so much easier to use tables and the results are so much more consistent, provided you know what you are doing that for me at least,
The same applies to CSS, if you know what you're doing CSS is or consistent and easier.
You may like absolute positioning and all that, I am quite comfortable in tables and can usually visualize even a complex layout entirely in my head when its tables. To each their own.
Try to see, er hear, how a complex table layout sounds in an aural browser. Even simple tables can be messed up. And what if the browser window size is changed?
At the end of the day, on most websites, the thing that matters IS the presentation (otherwise the only tags we'd need were h, a, and p). If you can't align one image correctly next to another one, then that is a problem. If you have to sacrifice your design vision at all, then that is a failure of the system.
I'm a photographer and want to start my own photography business, which is not very likely in today's economy, and I've studied a bunch of photographers' websites. Though not all it seems many get along with good layouts using CSS and not tables.
Now, I know a lot of people are going to argue with me, but the most important tag in HTML is . Every single graphical trick done to either speed up or sexify your web site is done with tables inside tables inside tables--it's tables all the way down!
Tables in html are not for layouts, which is you're doing, they are for data. Sure people have been doing that since tables came along. Among other things using tables for layout is a bitch for visually impaired people. Evolt does have a tutorial on how to build accessible tables though. CSS is what's supposed to be used for layouts, and it's faster. A List Apart has some good articles on how to use CSS for layouts
I said FDR was accused of packing the court not Jackson. Look for yourself, here's what I said "Many people accuse FDR of court packing".
Since you want to make things up and accuse me of saying things I did not say, I see no reason to continue. There's a big difference between debating with logic and lying.
No they are not. You aren't an immigrant if you don't have the right to be there in the first place.
I provided a link, can you show where the definition says permission is required? If not then you're making things up.
Ok, how does an illegal mexican start a business? Can't even get a DBA license because you don't have the right to live in the US.
Show me where I said illegal immigrants start more businesses. Hint: I didn't, I said immigrants.
Since you seem to want to make things ups I see no reason to continue. Reason? Ah, I haven't seen any from you. I provide links to support what I say, but all you do is say is "Go look it up."
I don't understand your link between FDR and Jackson.
Jackson basically told the Supreme Court to get lost whereas FDR packed the court with those who would let him do what he wanted. That should be pretty easy to understand.
The treaty was signed and ratified in 1835 during Jackson's term, but the Trail of Tears didn't happen until 1838, after Jackson left office.
The Cherokee was sent on the Trail of Tears in 1838, but the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, and Seminole were sent away before them. The Choctaw was forcibly removed in 1831, the Seminoles in 1832, the Creek in 1834, and the Chickasaw in 1837. Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, so he was president during the removal of all these tribes except the Cherokee. I'm not sure about the others but when the Cherokee was forced the move the US broke a treaty with them. Okay, when the Choctaw was removed treaties were broken, and about 2500 died on their Trail of Tears. The Treaty of Indian Springs in 1825 which allowed the forcible removal of the Creek was never ratified by the Creek. And the Treaty With the Chickasaw, January 10, 1786 was broken with the forces removal of the Chickasaw.
there's little evidence in any case that Jackson's response was as harsh as you reported. What he is recorded to have said was much lighter, and basically that as the Supreme Court found Georgia's action to be unconstitutional, they could not force Georgia to comply; Jackson had no intentions of getting involved.
Okay so Jackson's remake may not of been as harsh as I made out, quotes I've read had him saying Marshall needed to get his own army, but it was bad still. And the decision was about the Cherokee removal:
"In 1831 the Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision rendered by Justice, John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the entire Cherokee Nation from their ancestral homes in the South Eastern United States to be illegal, unconstitutional and against treaties made. President Andrew Jackson, having the executive responsibility for enforcement of the laws had this to say:"
"John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."
Jackson had no intentions of getting involved.
That's right, Andrew Jackson was pretty well known as an Indian Fighter in Tennessee, his home state.
I would say I'm almost convinced of Portugal's success, but I'm really not convinced similar policy would have a beneficial effect in the US. Comparing alcohol use in Europe and the US, for example, it's obvious that Americans have much less responsible attitudes towards it.
Oh, I agree that Americans are less responsible. All too often for instance people want government to fix or do something, such as with the oldtime saying on slashdot "think of the children". It seems all too often Americans don't know what or take person responsibility.
The US has a progressive income tax. They aren't paying the true cost of the services they consume. People making higher incomes are subsidizing them.
I'd expand that to say the high income people subsidies all low income people in the US. They pay the biggest share of taxes. I didn't find a link, perhaps my search terms were bad or I didn't take long enough looking, but I read where the top 2% of income earners pay more than half of the taxes.
The US economy is shedding a half a million jobs a month, mostly due to rising energy costs and a growth in automation technologies. If anything, the birth rate "needs" to be negative.
The US birth rate needs to be low only if you want less people paying for the retirement of seniors. Say instead of having 4 or more workers paying for each retiree you want 2 people paying.
I do. But it's perfectly possible for Mexican peasant farmers to grow fruits and vegetables instead of corn, and profit from trade as you mentioned.
Oh some do, but not everyone is able to.
US governments will happily provide them services as incentive.
This may surprise you but I don't think government should be providing services if those receiving them aren't paying taxes. As you and others have said or implied some immigrants are or may be here because they think they can get assistance. At the same tyme though some say they don't report crimes because they don't want to get arrested. You can't have it both ways, receive assistance and not report crimes due to fear of arrest. Actually it's easier to report a crime, just pick up a phone and call 911.
I said above I don't like, er think, the government providing services to non tax payers. Actually I don't like federal government provide many services. At most it should be state or local governments who decide want they will provide. Sure government can provide a safety net if civil societies do not. But a freer market will lower costs so more can afford services.
It doesn't help the American economy nearly as much as Americans buying American goods due to the multiplier effect.
This is no different than "buy local" thinking which raises costs. At one tyme Walmart used to have ads saying "Made in the USA" and about buying US goods. Guess what? Those ads disappeared when it became obvious buying American goods was more expensive. So the question is is are you willing to pay more? I do sometimes, for instance I belong to 2 coops where I try to buy as much groceries as I can. While the prices are generally a little higher than I'd pay at a cheap chain grocery store, where I also shop, the coops sell organic and local produce as much as they can.
To tell the truth I'd rather grow most of my own food.
But this will never happen because it conflicts with the naive optimization approach of forcibly re-distributing wealth to create bullshit make-work jobs that almost every government follows. Government force of this type is completely at odds with market optimization.
Oh, I agree, governments distort trade. For instance the US gives billions of taxpayer dollars to agriculture businesses, who can then export and sell corn in Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow corn. Or the billions government gives to "conventional" power companies. People complain alternative energy such as from solar and wind cost too m
A law that has been found to be valid by the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional in the eyes of the system. It may be morally wrong, but it's constitutional, and therefore not a 'false law.' (I still don't like that name, because it implies something different from an unconstitutional law.)
I agree my use of "false law" was bad, that "bad law" may of been better, but I used it to begin with because it fit in with "false imprisonment".
I'll have to be more careful about stuff like that.
Slashdot Mirror
The screwed up people were your alcoholics.
Okay. I've met alcoholics who didn't junction, except in the most rudimentary way. Others were a danger to society.
The link goes to a post I made where I make statements that are contrary to my perception of your perception of my attitude.
The subject bar? No I don't think that making drugs legal again will solve all the problems. But I do believe there will be less problems and those can be handled easier. For instance I've said elsewhere that the drugs can be taxed then the revenue thus generated can be used to offer treatments for those who want it.
Falcon
After reading all the articles linked to, I noticed not one mentioned one part of the scam. Business Week and Chicago Tribune said the ethanol was corn based. However the same amount of land would produce more ethanol if sugarcane was used instead. With the world's largest biofuels program Brazil uses sugarcane. And switchgrass produces even more. Another benefit of using switchgrass to make ethanol is that it will grow on marginal land other crops aren't grown on.
Falcon
Actually some drugs have been shown to cause problems, I'm thinking of meth
Where is the medical/scientific evidence of this?
Falcon
I had a linguistics class once taught by a guy from spain. One of the things I've retained was when he told us how in spain they talk about the Cure for drugs, Cure for poverty, etc. In the US we use the term War.
That's how it should be if anything. Drug abuse needs to be treated as a medical issue not a legal one. And drug use should not be treated.
Falcon
For most jobs, drug users make pretty crappy employees.
There are a number of casual users who are good employees, if not employers. I've seen more people with alcoholics who are terrible employees than all other drugs combined. Then again I've seen people who don't use drugs but are still terrible employees.
many minimum-wage employees could be thrown in jail and replaced with robots, and it would cost less and provide economic benefit to the rest of us, overall.
No, that'd be a drain. You're taking taxpayers and turning them into prisoners. Not only are they not paying taxes, but they eating up taxes by keeping them in gaol. About the only ones who benefit are the private prison contractors.
I've actually met drug users who would rather be in jail than have access to drugs.
They need therapy then.
And, unfortunately, I believe history shows that violent crime rates rise with increased drug use,
If you're going to make such an assertion you need to provide evidence such as scientific studies that back that statement up. When Portugal decriminalized drugs "drug-related crime and violence was down, and there was no measurable uptick in overall drug use." CA legalized medical marijuana and though some say drug dispensers are easy to find violence has not escalated. The violence from drugs is mostly about gangs fighting to control the drugs, with legal drugs most violence should end.
More importantly, the victims of those crimes are random citizens, not drug dealers or gang members fighting amongst each other.
Citation needed again.
I don't want government passing laws that make victim-less crimes.
I don't either. But that horse left the barn several decades ago. And there's no sign of it coming back. So until I can drive without being harassed for not wearing my seatbelt, I don't think this argument will gain any traction when it comes to anything more controversial.
I oppose seatbelt laws too. And that's something I find weird about the state I live in, MN. It has a seatbelt law but motorcyclists can ride their bikes without helmets. Conceivably I can see government requiring children to wear seatbelts but adults should be able to decide for themselves if they will wear them. Otherwise, I'd let auto insurance issuers charge higher premiums for those who do not wear them.
Falcon
I was talking about dealers suddenly becoming unemployed whilst having a rather blase attitude towards what is expected of them legally.
In your post I replied to there's no hint of dealers. If that's what you meant though sorry. Now as for dealers, if they're selling drugs I'd say they're either blasé or hostile to the law. Then again they make like them because if drugs were legal then they'd be out of business.
The fact that there are screwed up people who sort of function doesn't really completely answer that (though it does point out that they might end up sort of functioning, I guess depending quite a bit on the nuances of their attitudes).
I'm not sure who you mean here either by "screwed up people". You've not clear on that.
I don't think I actually have the attitude that you seem to me to be harshing on:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1238539&cid=28019345
Clicking on that link I do not see where I made a comment. I see where Chris Burke (6130) replied, then you made a reply to that and he answered you, or whatever I didn't read either.
Falcon
I acknowledge that Palm's only responsibility is to its shareholders.
No. As a corporation with limited liability for it's owners, the stockholders, it has the responsibility to improve the common or public good. That was the only reason businesses were ever given limited liability. Because they were anti-democratic Thomas Jefferson said of corporations: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Falcon
Microsoft never supported it in IE
MS did support xhtml. Though it was years ago I took an xhtml class that was required at the college I attended then. The only browser we used was IE. In a javascript class we had to use xhtml also, but in it we got extra points if the js worked in both IE and Netscape. The same is true for the xml class.
Falcon
xhtml
html5 has some of the same rules xhtml does, such as all tags needing to be closed, from what I read about it.
Falcon
Yes, but somebody skilled in video editing and graphic design can easily make changes to a .fla file, but not a javascript file. Sometimes complexity is prohibitive, especially with small to medium companies that don't have a small army of programmers.
Both Flash and javascript require skills. However whereas the tools for Flash are expensive the tools for javascript come installed on most computers. When I used Windows I used Crimson Editor, NotePad, or Wordpad which are all free. Having switched to Mac I use TextEdit, which came with my Mac. On Linux I used Katie, though I could also use emacs, vi, or a number of other FOOS editors. Add if you use Firefox there are add-ons that you can use to edit javascript.
Falcon
Update: Furthering Adobe's commitment to the Linux community and as part of ongoing efforts to ensure the cross-platform compatibility of Flash Player, an alpha refresh of 64-bit Adobe Flash Player 10 for Linux operating systems was released on 2/24/09 and is available for download. This offers easier, native installation on 64-bit Linux distributions and removes the need for 32-bit emulation. Learn more by reading the 64-bit Flash Player 10 FAQ.
Falcon
If your Flash file works in IE, it works in FF, Opera, Safari, etc. It requires a plugin sure, but it's one that's almost universally adopted.
I don't know how many tymes I've come across a Flash movie, though a bunch, where it says I need to upgrade my Flasher player to at least v9, before the movie will play. Using Adobe's Flash version tester it says I have 9,0,151,0 installed.
Falcon
The only way to download a movie from one of these is to pretend you're their branded flash player and siphon the data stream... very few sites let you get the FLV file URL from the page source or any other casual means
If you use Firefox there's a number of different add-ons you can use to grab and save FLV files. And that's true for other video formats as well.
Falcon
Or they have to work with someone else. A guy that spends days trying to convert a design made with Photoshop into HTML/CSS. And the result is often not comparable. And the poor designer depends on the HTML/CSS guy, he can't change a single button in seconds by his own.
One designer I knew did just that. He'd create compleat websites with Photoshop then mark it up in html/css/js.
Falcon
Good luck with your business.
Thanks.
Falcon
to learn. A LOT more difficult.
For you perhaps but not for everyone. Look at slashdot's code, there are no tables. A List Apart has some good tutorials on how to use CSS for layouts. As does Zen Garden. Eric Meyer has some good books on it.
Falcon
A lot of people start new businesses in recessions. It's often a good opportunity because people are looking for change, whereas when everything is going alright, they aren't interested in changing from what they already have.
Perhaps I should of included a smiley ;-). Actually in a lot of cases starting a business in an economic slowdown or recession is the best tyme to do it.
Also, my comment that you are replying to wasn't addressing CSS vs Tables, but rather the general failure of CSS to fulfill the promise of content separated from layout.
Okay. I think the failure to code layout with tables not CSS is for two reasons. One is developers and the other is the browsers. Developers, like most people, tend to stick with what they're comfortable with. However the browsers are getting better.
Of course it's easy for me to complain and point my fingers, I don't design websites. I used to but haven't in years. However as I said in the post you replied to I want to start a photography business and I want to be online. In two respects, I want an online portfolio and store as well as design websites for others to showcase their photos.
Falcon
quite frankly it is so much easier to use tables and the results are so much more consistent, provided you know what you are doing that for me at least,
The same applies to CSS, if you know what you're doing CSS is or consistent and easier.
You may like absolute positioning and all that, I am quite comfortable in tables and can usually visualize even a complex layout entirely in my head when its tables. To each their own.
Try to see, er hear, how a complex table layout sounds in an aural browser. Even simple tables can be messed up. And what if the browser window size is changed?
Falcon
At the end of the day, on most websites, the thing that matters IS the presentation (otherwise the only tags we'd need were h, a, and p). If you can't align one image correctly next to another one, then that is a problem. If you have to sacrifice your design vision at all, then that is a failure of the system.
I'm a photographer and want to start my own photography business, which is not very likely in today's economy, and I've studied a bunch of photographers' websites. Though not all it seems many get along with good layouts using CSS and not tables.
Falcon
Now, I know a lot of people are going to argue with me, but the most important tag in HTML is . Every single graphical trick done to either speed up or sexify your web site is done with tables inside tables inside tables--it's tables all the way down!
Tables in html are not for layouts, which is you're doing, they are for data. Sure people have been doing that since tables came along. Among other things using tables for layout is a bitch for visually impaired people. Evolt does have a tutorial on how to build accessible tables though. CSS is what's supposed to be used for layouts, and it's faster. A List Apart has some good articles on how to use CSS for layouts
.
Falcon
You accused Jackson of court packing
I said FDR was accused of packing the court not Jackson. Look for yourself, here's what I said "Many people accuse FDR of court packing".
Since you want to make things up and accuse me of saying things I did not say, I see no reason to continue. There's a big difference between debating with logic and lying.
Falcon
No they are not. You aren't an immigrant if you don't have the right to be there in the first place.
I provided a link, can you show where the definition says permission is required? If not then you're making things up.
Ok, how does an illegal mexican start a business? Can't even get a DBA license because you don't have the right to live in the US.
Show me where I said illegal immigrants start more businesses. Hint: I didn't, I said immigrants.
Since you seem to want to make things ups I see no reason to continue. Reason? Ah, I haven't seen any from you. I provide links to support what I say, but all you do is say is "Go look it up."
Falcon
I don't understand your link between FDR and Jackson.
Jackson basically told the Supreme Court to get lost whereas FDR packed the court with those who would let him do what he wanted. That should be pretty easy to understand.
The treaty was signed and ratified in 1835 during Jackson's term, but the Trail of Tears didn't happen until 1838, after Jackson left office.
The Cherokee was sent on the Trail of Tears in 1838, but the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, and Seminole were sent away before them. The Choctaw was forcibly removed in 1831, the Seminoles in 1832, the Creek in 1834, and the Chickasaw in 1837. Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, so he was president during the removal of all these tribes except the Cherokee. I'm not sure about the others but when the Cherokee was forced the move the US broke a treaty with them. Okay, when the Choctaw was removed treaties were broken, and about 2500 died on their Trail of Tears. The Treaty of Indian Springs in 1825 which allowed the forcible removal of the Creek was never ratified by the Creek. And the Treaty With the Chickasaw, January 10, 1786 was broken with the forces removal of the Chickasaw.
there's little evidence in any case that Jackson's response was as harsh as you reported. What he is recorded to have said was much lighter, and basically that as the Supreme Court found Georgia's action to be unconstitutional, they could not force Georgia to comply; Jackson had no intentions of getting involved.
Okay so Jackson's remake may not of been as harsh as I made out, quotes I've read had him saying Marshall needed to get his own army, but it was bad still. And the decision was about the Cherokee removal:
"In 1831 the Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision rendered by Justice, John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the entire Cherokee Nation from their ancestral homes in the South Eastern United States to be illegal, unconstitutional and against treaties made. President Andrew Jackson, having the executive responsibility for enforcement of the laws had this to say:"
"John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."
Jackson had no intentions of getting involved.
That's right, Andrew Jackson was pretty well known as an Indian Fighter in Tennessee, his home state.
Falcon
I would say I'm almost convinced of Portugal's success, but I'm really not convinced similar policy would have a beneficial effect in the US. Comparing alcohol use in Europe and the US, for example, it's obvious that Americans have much less responsible attitudes towards it.
Oh, I agree that Americans are less responsible. All too often for instance people want government to fix or do something, such as with the oldtime saying on slashdot "think of the children". It seems all too often Americans don't know what or take person responsibility.
The US has a progressive income tax. They aren't paying the true cost of the services they consume. People making higher incomes are subsidizing them.
I'd expand that to say the high income people subsidies all low income people in the US. They pay the biggest share of taxes. I didn't find a link, perhaps my search terms were bad or I didn't take long enough looking, but I read where the top 2% of income earners pay more than half of the taxes.
The US economy is shedding a half a million jobs a month, mostly due to rising energy costs and a growth in automation technologies. If anything, the birth rate "needs" to be negative.
The US birth rate needs to be low only if you want less people paying for the retirement of seniors. Say instead of having 4 or more workers paying for each retiree you want 2 people paying.
I do. But it's perfectly possible for Mexican peasant farmers to grow fruits and vegetables instead of corn, and profit from trade as you mentioned.
Oh some do, but not everyone is able to.
US governments will happily provide them services as incentive.
This may surprise you but I don't think government should be providing services if those receiving them aren't paying taxes. As you and others have said or implied some immigrants are or may be here because they think they can get assistance. At the same tyme though some say they don't report crimes because they don't want to get arrested. You can't have it both ways, receive assistance and not report crimes due to fear of arrest. Actually it's easier to report a crime, just pick up a phone and call 911.
I said above I don't like, er think, the government providing services to non tax payers. Actually I don't like federal government provide many services. At most it should be state or local governments who decide want they will provide. Sure government can provide a safety net if civil societies do not. But a freer market will lower costs so more can afford services.
It doesn't help the American economy nearly as much as Americans buying American goods due to the multiplier effect.
This is no different than "buy local" thinking which raises costs. At one tyme Walmart used to have ads saying "Made in the USA" and about buying US goods. Guess what? Those ads disappeared when it became obvious buying American goods was more expensive. So the question is is are you willing to pay more? I do sometimes, for instance I belong to 2 coops where I try to buy as much groceries as I can. While the prices are generally a little higher than I'd pay at a cheap chain grocery store, where I also shop, the coops sell organic and local produce as much as they can.
To tell the truth I'd rather grow most of my own food.
But this will never happen because it conflicts with the naive optimization approach of forcibly re-distributing wealth to create bullshit make-work jobs that almost every government follows. Government force of this type is completely at odds with market optimization.
Oh, I agree, governments distort trade. For instance the US gives billions of taxpayer dollars to agriculture businesses, who can then export and sell corn in Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow corn. Or the billions government gives to "conventional" power companies. People complain alternative energy such as from solar and wind cost too m
A law that has been found to be valid by the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional in the eyes of the system. It may be morally wrong, but it's constitutional, and therefore not a 'false law.' (I still don't like that name, because it implies something different from an unconstitutional law.)
I agree my use of "false law" was bad, that "bad law" may of been better, but I used it to begin with because it fit in with "false imprisonment".
I'll have to be more careful about stuff like that.
Falcon