Granting religions tax-exempt status is making a law respecting the establishment of religion, because it differentiates between tax liabilities, based solely upon whether the entity is a religion or not. It singles out religion as being a special class, and that is a facial violation of the establishment clause.
Orin Kerr, Professor of Law; George Washington University Law School, who is a supporter of John McCain, questions the legality of the indictment:
Here's the indictment. And here's the potential problem with the indictment. In order to charge the case as a felony rather than a misdemeanor, the government needed to claim that the intrusion was committed to further criminal or tortious activity. The statute, 18 U.S.C. 1030, states that the intrusion is a felony if the intrusion "was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State."
Oddly, though, the indictment doesn't exactly state what the crime or tort is that the intrusion was designed to further. It just states that the intrusion was "in furtherance of the commission of a criminal act in violation of the laws of the United States, including 18 U.S.C. Section 2701 and 18 U.S.C. Section lO30(a)(2)" But Section 2701 and Section 1030 are the intrusion statutes themselves! It makes no sense to allow a felony enhancement for a crime committed in furtherance of the crime itself; presumably the enhancement is only for intrusions committed in furtherance of some other crime. Otherwise the felony enhancement is meaningless, as every misdemeanor becomes a felony.
So you are describing the rescinding of a "weapon" tax of $0.39 placed upon wooden arrows manufactured for use in children's archery, which cost $0.30 to produce, pork?
Do you support a weapon tax on child arrows? If so, why, and if not, why do you call this pork?
The bail-out bill sucks, and granted, this tax should be rescinded in a different bill, but the bail-out itself should have been in a different bill. It was an amendment to:
Creekstone wants to test "all of its beef", which is not the same thing as testing all of the cow carcasses. One contaminated cow carcass could taint beef from carcasses which were not infected with mad cow. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is transmitted only through the spinal cord or brain, but meat packing equipment could easily be contaminated.
Even if this is largely a ruse, and unneeded test, it is still an egregious free-market impediment instituted by a conservative administration. Just a Creekstone should be allowed to test and advertise that they test, other meat-packer should be allowed to advertise that the needless testing is nothing more than a increased cost which does not provide extra assurance. The consumers could then decide for themselves.
Contemporary conservatism is but a brutal parody of its former greatness, and need feel the pain to purge its resident evil, or be taken to ground for it intransigence. There is no third way.
"If South Carolina seceded again, but instead of putting up a military, they just stopped paying the feds and accepting help and whatever else they'd have to do...
There was once a time in America when Conservatives actually possessed honour, and would stand their ground, come hell or high-water. This has not been the case for a very long time now.
Witness how many contemporary conservatives are willing to renounce G.W. Bush now that he is no longer popular, and many GOP analysts believe association with the Bush brand is poison for Republican candidates.
Did you vote for GW in 2004? He was a well-known brand then.
Contemporary Conservatives don't really believe in accepting personal responsibility for their past actions. That just a ploy they use, enabling them to publicly flog single mothers.
What was alleged was that Obama supported a "hate speech" bill". Do not conflate these two concepts, or prove yourself to be incapable of understanding why they are entirely different concepts.
At the same time, aske yourself, why these god-fearing Conservative Republicans have suddenly gotten ale riled up about differing sentencing standards, when they had no problem with sentence enhancements for a crime tacked-on, when the protected groups were ones they desired to protect. As I mentioned earlier, intentionally targeting a person because they are a law enforcement officer is recommended in the DOJ's sentence guidelines as a 6-step enhancement. Torching SUV's and ski resort construction sites is arson, for which the law has well-defined code and sentences for. It is not terrorism. How about burning churches? Should the perpetrators of acts of arson targeting churches receive longer sentences than a person who torched his own business to hide financial improprieties from the authorities?
The simple facts are that there exists a myriad of U.S. legal code that increases sentencing based only upon the perpetrator's targeting choices. What the true underlying issue here is that these politicians are opposed to protections extended to persons because of gender identity or sexual preferences, but they are just too damn dishonest to say so.
And let's face it, what is there to really fear about transvestites anyway? If you cannot outrun some guy wearing spike heels and a long tight cocktail gown, you really ought to go down to the gym and work out a bit.
None of this has anything to do with speaking within America. You can freely speak about your doubts, but if you speak in a manner that directly incited a violent felony to be committed, you have committed a criminal act. This is the same with or without hate crimes legislation.
Debate and commentary from May, 2007. The mark-up is mine, as is the commentary on the entry page, but the rest of the files in the sub-site are verbatim XHTML mark-ups of The Congressional Daily Record, parsed from Government Printing Office served ASCII source files, and the links to the sources are given on each page.
I don't like hate crime laws, because they cross over a double jeopardy line in my mind. There is something wrong with being punished twice for the same criminal act, which is what hate crimes legislation does, but this has nothing to do with constitutionally protected speech, as many members of the House Republican Conservative Committee were alleging. The crime for being an accessory to an act of violence, for conspiratorial speech which was a part of a felony's commission, or speech which directly incited criminal behavior has never been protected speech. It does not matter that some assholes believe their religion teaches them to hate fags, or if a preacherman said it. It is still a crime, and this law does not change that. It only changes the sentence meted out if the victim of a violent felony was targeted, because they were a member in a listed group.
The argument made about special protected classes is lame too, when considering sentence guidelines promulgated by the DOJ. With violent crimes in which the victim was specifically targeted because of being a law enforcement officer, there is already a 6 step sentence enhancement. With victims targeted because of excessive vulnerability (aged, children, mentally or physically disabled, etc.), it is a 2 step sentence enhancement. For this specific hate crimes legislation, a 3 step sentence enhancement is proposed. It's covered in the entry page at the above link.
Please inform the world about this "hate speech" bill supported by Obama.
The very assertion is laughably in error. Obama does support Hate crimes legislation, which enhances sentences for persons convicted of violent felonies, or being an accessory to the commission violent felonies, when the victim(s) were singled out as being a member of specifically listed groups. There are valid questions, and proper arguments which can be made, regarding the legality and utility of hate crimes legislation, but 1st Amendment speech protection is certainly not one of them. There has never, ever been a 1st Amendment protection for speech which directly incited felonious acts.
The only reason some have decided to attack hate crimes legislation using this argument, is because the newest legislation would add to the list of protected groups, anyone attacked violently because of sexual orientation, or gender identity.
So why don't you just go ahead and spit out your anti-faggotry agenda Mr. AC, instead of hiding behind a 1st Amendment rock? You are free to spew, as long as you do not advocate killing fags in a manner that convinces others to act on your words.
Chicken-shit pissant peeper in the public potties...
but for reasons that should be fairly obvious, given the rules a Slashdot, I am not able to reply without resort to AC or creating a sock, and I hate socks.
What the hell were these two intelligence briefs doing storing sensitive data on boxes that were hard-wired nodes on their personal slices of the US Congressional computer network, that if compromised could easily lead to Chinese dissidents' imprisonment, severe harm, and even death?
These two guys should be publicly flogged for their promiscuous in-office security protocols.
Listen carefully Congressmen Tweedle-Dee, and Tweedle-Dum: ANY DATA that resides on a server accessible from the internet SHOULD ALWAYS be assumed to be inherently at risk of being compromised.
Contemporary Conservatives are never willing to accept responsibilities for the negative effects that naturally flow as cause from their past actions, but are always inclined to publicly state, for the record, after being arrested in a pulic restroom facility for solicitation by an undercover law-enforcement officer: 1) for a $20 blowjob; or 2) performing a soft-shoe routine while gesturing suggestively with a hand under a stall wall; that They Are Not Gay.
It is NOT within the traditional role of the AG to fire U.S. Attorneys, simply because they chose to not pursue frivolous, politically motivated charges, which was a part of the agenda of a vengeful administration.
Yes, U.S. attorneys are chosen based on partisan decisions, but they are supposed to be largely independent after appointment, and not taken to task by a venal AG, whose motivation was electoral gains, because they refused to file charges without substantiating evidence.
Instead of elevating Ashcroft, you should instead be further denigrating the Bush Administration. If Ashcroft had not weaseled immensely when testifying before the 911 Commission, I might have been willing to cut him some slack, but he refused to accept responsibility for his recent acts, and instead heaped disparagement and blame upon "Gorelick's Wall", which he himself had added another brick onto after becoming AG.
If with honour you valiantly defended The Constitution's virtue from Reno's wanton advances upon it; Why did you turn into a splay-legged slattern, when General JohnBoy, and Dubya came a sniffing round freedom's backdoor, whistling the theme song from the movie "Deliverance"?
That accompanies my feelings of nostalgia for an idyllic America past when our president's lies were only about consensual blow-jobs, cum-stained dresses, and exotically aromatic tobacco products.
Thanks, I should have remembered that. I also should have doubled checked. I keep a listing of congressional member in an easily accessible text file
It could be worse though you know. Both of Oklahoma's Senators voted against the McCain Torture Amendment, and Inhofe is number one Senator A-hole on my scorecard for his defense of human torture. During the Senate investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuses, after General Taguba had delivered the unredacted portion of his report on nationwide TV, in which one of the many findings was:
8 8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses...Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
Inhofe spouted off for the Record:
"...as I watched the -- this outrage, this outrage everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners, I was, I have to say -- and I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment."
And that, along with so many conservatives calling the Abu Ghraib abuses "fraternity-style pranks" was where I got the idea for The Official Abu Ghraib Interrogators' Model Chemical Light Stick of GOP Enlightenment ®, because it is very clear that contemporary conservatives are in great need of illumination for their minds' eyes.
What is very sad, is that all 9 nine of the pro-Torture Senators still are in office. With Sessions, the motivation is clear, that little weasel considers having a Bush Man Date forcibly sodomise him with a blunt instrument a compassionate dream come true, because he gets to enjoy a stick being shoved up his ass, and then lie about it later, claiming that he is not a sado-masochistic pervert, but was instead just doing his patriotic chore. I won't lie about it, I dream of urinating on Session's headstone.
If this isn't turned back, friend, then America is lost, forever.
Tell me; how many Official Abu Ghraib Interrogators' Model Chemical Light Sticks of GOP Enlightenment ® need be properly inserted deep up where the sun don't shine by an accredited Bush Man Date each day to keep your mind's eye so sharp?
You did not even visit the proffered link, did you? It was a video in which the first part is Senator Levin questioning Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, February 27, 2008:
Sen. Levin:Do you believe that water boarding is consistent with common article 3 of The Geneva Conventions?
Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples: No Sir, I don't.
Sen. Levin: Do you believe it's humane?
Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples: No Sir, I think it would go beyond that.
It's obvious that you're a Card Carrying Member from The Party of The Public Potty-Peepers, whose closeted name for the interrogatory methodology of forceful sodomy with a blunt instrument is: "Compassionate Conservatism".
Equivocating coward, bloated up full of hot-air like a rutting slime-toad, and croaking false bravado. Even in the exceedingly unlikely event that you could stand to have water forced into your lungs repeatedly; We Have Ways To Deal With Tough-Boys. We'll just switch over to the Bybee Torture Memo protocols, that narrowly define torture as; "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function". Now bring me a dull hand ax, I do believe that the loss of a pinkie finger's first digit is allowed; it won't kill you; it's not an organ, and you can teach yourself new methods of manual dexterity, so no permanent loss either. If that fails, we'll switch over to the Yoo Catch 22, that defines torture as a violation of the 8th Amendment's "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" clause, and then disavows the detainees' possession of their 8th Amendment right; therefore they can not be tortured. Now bring me the tin snips, and we'll go for the family jewels.
Waterboarding is torture. It is inhumane and Un-American. The bar against cruel and unusual punishment is a Human Natural right, not bounded by citizenry, and these detainees are being held by the U.S. Government as criminal actors, without having been tried and convicted in a legitimate tribunal that adheres to due process of law. They are being held by only the word of The Connecticut cowboy, in his 38qt hat, Inbred Spawn of a Carpet-Bagging Family, whose ancestral home is Kennwefukdapoor, Maine. The man who was tasked with America's defense, and asleep at the wheel on September 11, 2001. The man who listened to his repressed Oedipal desires, and turned America's military away from the righteous fight, against our real enemy at Tora Bora in December 2001, when we had the bastards dead in our sights, and could have taken them to ground then and there as the rabid dogs that they are. A man who, all the while falsely preaching his devotion to democratic processes world-wide, played pocket Pool with the Pakistani Military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, slept with Uzbekistan's kleptocrat, Islam "Butcher of Andijon" Karimov, and let a Saudi Prince slip him the tongue deep in the heart of Middling, Texas, at his Crawford ranch.
So c'mon on back, boy; I'm anxious to hear just what the Is_Lamo_Fashionists' "I wannabe a Bauery Boy Too" excuse of the Week is.
That's a lousy bit of reporting by the Washington Post. No proper sourcing at all. It took a little looking, but I found some data.
First, Senator Sessions (R-MS) is despicable human and an embarrassment to The Nation as a Senator. He was one of the Nine Reprehensible Republicans Senators who voted against the McCain anti-torture amendment to the Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, on October 5, 2005, which passed 90-9. During debate and commentary about the amendment, Sessions defamed West Point Graduate Captain Ian Fishback, 82nd Airborne Division, who had served in combat tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and had come forward, at the cost of his military career, to publicly make a statement with two anonymous Army NonComs about the use of human torture. More recently, Sessions rationalised the use of waterboarding in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing held February 27, 2008. Sessions a a lowlife scum, whose election reflects poorly upon Mississippi voters' discretion. May fortune be so kind that I toast to a better world upon hearing news of his death.
There is however, a bit of counterbalance given as a reason for the amendment. I am not well enough informed on the facts though to make a decent judgment regarding the merits.
The following three citations are from: Senate Report 110-259 (GPO PDF) - Accompanied S. 1145: The Patent Reform Act Of 2007, January 24, 2008
Here's the official rationale given for the limiting the patent's reach:
Section 14: Limitation On Damages And Other Remedies With Respect To Patents For Methods In Compliance With Check Imaging Methods
Background
In 1994, the Federal Reserve proposed the idea of an electronic check image processing, archival, and retrieval system. In 1996, the American National Standard for Financial Image Interchange issued its architecture and design specification for such a system. The Federal Reserve implemented this technology in a check truncation pilot in 1999. Years later, this evolving technology became standard practice in the banking industry, and its importance became particularly noted in the days after September 11, 2001, when transporting paper checks by airplane was impossible for several days.[158] In 1999 and 2000, several inventors sought a series of patents relating to a system/process for imaging and storing documents, building their technology around what the government was already doing. The patent claims relate to a three-tiered system for imaging, transferring, and storing (archiving) paper checks tendered for processing via the electronic payment system. The 108th Congress enacted the Check 21 Act of 2003, P.L. 108- 100,[159] which allowed the recipient of a paper check to create a digital version to store and transfer (referred to as a "substitute check"),[160] thereby eliminating the need for further handling of the physical document.[161] The Check 21 Act requires all banks to recognize and accept the digital images of checks it receives from other banks.[162] The financial services industry (including banks) and their technology providers must be able to implement the Check 21 Act, which permits electronic check transfer based on technology developed by the federal government.[163]
Discussion of changes
Because Congress has mandated implementation of the Check 21 Act, the Committee accepted an amendment during the mark-up of the bill that declares practicing of the Check 21 industry standard should not constitute patent infringement. Section 14 of the Act amends section 287 of title 35 to limit the remedies available against a financial institution
I just did a quick look-up on Thomas. The Bill originated in the House:
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) - introduced the bill
Chris Cannon (R-UT) - sponsor
Bob Clement (D-TN) - sponsor
Howard Coble (R-NC) - sponsor
William D. Delahunt (D-MA) - sponsor
Barney Frank (D-MA) - sponsor
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) - sponsor
On the Senate side, the following Senators voiced support in the Congressional Daily Record:
Trent Lott (R-MI)
Patrick Leahy(D-VT)
Orrin Hatch(R-UT)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
I found no obvious dissent, and there were many other House members who did not speak, but were mentioned as supporting the Bill
The Bill was passed by unanimous consent on a voice vote in both the House and The Senate, indicating that if there was any opposition, it was very weak, and they did not even consider it important enough to order a roll call vote (any legislator can call for a roll-call on any vote)
The legislative branch makes the laws. The President can veto, but given the evidence I found from a skimming search, even if Clinton had been opposed (which I doubt), the veto would have easily been overridden in the legislature. The President usually does not waste his power pissing off legislators in a veto battle he has no hope of winning.
The Slasdot author took a gratuitous baseless shot at Clinton, who hasn't even been in office for over 7 years now, when the congressman who introduced the bill and 5 of the 6 sponsors are still house members, as are 3 of the 4 Senators I listed.
The arrogant naivete of American voters is astounding and obscene. I wasn't a big Clinton fan; in fact anyone who would lie under oath about a consensual blow job has an exceedingly low valuation of his own personal honour. Still the fact remains, that after 7 1/2 years of the Bush tyranny; a president's lies about a blow-job, cum-stained dresses, and exotically aromatic tobacco products is fucking minor league when compared to lies about the causes for War Upon Iraq; the lies about al Qaida licking its wounds in Pakistan, the theft of habeas corpus, the governmental imprimatur upon acts of human torture, and the blood-stained Iraqi sands.
The Democratic Party is The Lamer of Two Evils, and the Republican Party has yet to even begin to feel the level of pain necessary for it to purge its resident evil.
Which is a bigger lie?
Lying about a blow-job after distorting the attorney's own definition of sex, in a sexual harassment suit so frivolous, it was tossed summary judgment, because the plaintiff failed to advance one instance of workplace harassment in preliminary hearings.
After pleading guilty to Soliciting Sexual Acts and Peeping in a Public toilet, or after soliciting a cop for a $20 blow job in a city park's toilet, stating publicly for the record that you are not gay?
Thus Speaks The Rectaltude of Contemporary Conservatives. But, look out behind you! It's The Penis of The President Past...
When I was trying to figure out what was wrong the first day, I alternated loading a Wordpress and then a Drupal codebase into the docroot. Both installed without a complaint.
The problem is, I'm not exactly sure why JOOMLA finally installed. I'll try and relate to you exactly what happened though.
It was on a Virtual Sever, that has 4 domains and multiple subdomains, all off of one IP, and JOOMLA was installed as a subdomain with its root folder a subfolder of the parent domain's root folder. The virtual domains were setup in httpd.conf:
As far as I could tell, LAMP was set-up default with th exception of PHP.ini, which was a very minimal config, and locked read only by the Host Company, but they allow full PHP configuration override in a file inside/etc/conf.d/, using an Include statement in httpd.conf.
I wget the codebase and exploded it into/var/www/mydomain/joom as is, no extra folder. The browser installer throws an error in the 2nd stage, and only gave the following error message:
Cookies do not appear to be enabled on your browser client. You will not be able to install the application with this feature disabled. Alternatively, there could also be a problem with the server's session.save_path, if this is the case please consult your hosting provider if you don't know how to check or fix this yourself.
The obvious; yes cookies were enabled. phpinfo() showed session.save_path == no value, which should have defaulted to/tmp. I tried setting the variable in the/etc/conf.d/ PHP override, and using.htaccess in JOOMLA doc root; no dice. I attempted just about every combination I could think of, except downloading the PHP.ini for the specific PHP version and using that as the override file. Then I tried a manual install, and it too failed.
I quit for the day, and the next day I decided to comment out the whole PHP configuration override file, and then enable error logging, so the only two PHP configuration commands in the override file were:
error_log =/var/log/phperror.log
log_errors = On
I went back to the browser install, and the god damned codebase breezed through the 2nd and 3rd stage, but hung attempting to initialise MySQL, so I uncommented: mysql.default_character_set = "latin1"; in the PHP configuration override file. That did the trick, it finished the install, and is still running smooth.
It seems funny that turning on PHP error logging was the fix though, but the only other thing I can think of was commenting out: session.auto_start = On; in the PHP configuration override file. Admittedly, I'm no elite PHP coder though, so maybe you or someone else has an opinion about it.
For any who host multiple sites on one server, or are planning to run JOOMLA from a sub-domain, might be a good idea to bone-up on.htacccess and Apache <directory> before attempting to drop the 1.5 codebase into a server folder. I recently did a 1.5 install that required a few default overrides I wasn't expecting (Apache and PHP). Remember, phpinfo() is your friend...
Look, it is the squabbling being done over the issues that should presently be secondary that are going to cost the Democratic Party all of the capital they could have gained, if they had not devolved into the same old infighting over other issues.
I've been non-aligned or LP since Reagan's first term, but I voted for Kerry in 2004. Partly because I owed him a big one for his speech in Congress, 1971. I was looking at the end of my Army conscription then, had just finished a tour in Vietnam, and had opted to serve out the majority of the rest of my time, volunteering to go to a hospital in Okinawa, because I didn't want to go state-side and still have 6 months to go on my commitment to serve doing scut work at some base. When news and a partial transcript of Kerry's VVAW speech got to Okinawa, almost the whole hospital went into a party atmosphere for several days. I was a medic, and Vietnam was a true cluster-fuck. Far too many humans dying, ours, theirs and peasants, tied to their pitiful piece of dirt caught up in the middle of firefights. There was nothing that could have been done to further a better reality. so, yeah, I owed J effin Kerry one just for his speech, and when the Swift Boat asswipes started their attack, the only ones who quickly reacted were the non-partisans. The Democratic faithful took a collective intake of breath, and waited for Kerry to respond. In the 30+ years since I was in the military, I've watched the war-sickness take veterans down. It's not easy to know how bad they've got it, if you don't know them. Over the years I've tamped my reflexes down, when I know I'm dealing with a bro. He can say one hell of a lot of evil nasty things to me, and I'll still walk-away. When Kerry froze at the beginning of the swift boat attack, I saw this sort of a reflex action. Maybe I judged it wrong, but at the same time, where was the god-damned democratic party?
Sorry, at least it wasn't the unabridged version.
Another main reason I voted for Kerry was that it is exceedingly improper to reelect a president who led us into an immoral war, and Iraq was and is just that. It was also an action that turned the military away from the good fight, against the real enemy, at Tora Bora in December, 2001. Don't be deceived, there are without any doubt individuals who must be taken out, because they will cause the US, and the whole world tremendous human grief if they are not. When we invaded Afghanistan, that number was most likely under 10,000 human beings. Because of the hell brought in outrageous decisions by this administration, that number has been greatly increased. All the while this global obscenity was taking place, Congress was stripping away human liberties, which they were never empowered to take. We're Americans, and even the Devil is supposed to get a fair trial under due process of law, and a jury of 12 determining his guilt before he may be hanged by the state. Why would a human, who is an alleged terrorist, only upon the word of the president, be entitled to anything less?
Much of the Democratic traditional platform does not excite me, but had the party aggressively stood up and kept fighting endlessly for liberty and justice for all, I would have gladly given consent for their lesser insanities. Senator Reid is a conservative by Democratic standards, but he has been firm on the liberty side of things all along. On this he has not weaseled. Check out the listed home page on the header of this note if your wonder how I know this. I also live in Nevada. This is why I assumed that your criticism of Reid was based more on the other issues, and not on liberty.
There another not really the long version muse. This isn't about welfare, social security or the economy. It's a fight for the Dreamtime America, a battle for the Nation's soul. If the people do not force Congress to return the liberty they have illegitimately stolen, America will cease to be. and fucking a right terrorists possess habeas corpus rights. It's a universal right that is preeminent to the state power. If they are allowed to take from the detainees at Guantanamo, rest assured the will someday take from the citizenry too.
Slashdot Mirror
Granting religions tax-exempt status is making a law respecting the establishment of religion, because it differentiates between tax liabilities, based solely upon whether the entity is a religion or not. It singles out religion as being a special class, and that is a facial violation of the establishment clause.
Orin Kerr, Professor of Law; George Washington University Law School, who is a supporter of John McCain, questions the legality of the indictment:
So you are describing the rescinding of a "weapon" tax of $0.39 placed upon wooden arrows manufactured for use in children's archery, which cost $0.30 to produce, pork?
Do you support a weapon tax on child arrows? If so, why, and if not, why do you call this pork?
The bail-out bill sucks, and granted, this tax should be rescinded in a different bill, but the bail-out itself should have been in a different bill. It was an amendment to:
H.R.1424: Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
Into the valley of absurdity I rode; ditto heads to the left of me, ditto-heads to my right.
Creekstone wants to test "all of its beef", which is not the same thing as testing all of the cow carcasses. One contaminated cow carcass could taint beef from carcasses which were not infected with mad cow. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is transmitted only through the spinal cord or brain, but meat packing equipment could easily be contaminated.
Even if this is largely a ruse, and unneeded test, it is still an egregious free-market impediment instituted by a conservative administration. Just a Creekstone should be allowed to test and advertise that they test, other meat-packer should be allowed to advertise that the needless testing is nothing more than a increased cost which does not provide extra assurance. The consumers could then decide for themselves.
Contemporary conservatism is but a brutal parody of its former greatness, and need feel the pain to purge its resident evil, or be taken to ground for it intransigence. There is no third way.
"If South Carolina seceded again, but instead of putting up a military, they just stopped paying the feds and accepting help and whatever else they'd have to do...
S. Carolinians would lose $0.35 for every Federal tax Dollar their residents paid. Please go ahead and secede S. Carolina, make my day...
There was once a time in America when Conservatives actually possessed honour, and would stand their ground, come hell or high-water. This has not been the case for a very long time now.
Witness how many contemporary conservatives are willing to renounce G.W. Bush now that he is no longer popular, and many GOP analysts believe association with the Bush brand is poison for Republican candidates.
Did you vote for GW in 2004? He was a well-known brand then.
Contemporary Conservatives don't really believe in accepting personal responsibility for their past actions. That just a ploy they use, enabling them to publicly flog single mothers.
Give me a break. GW is one of yours.
What was alleged was that Obama supported a "hate speech" bill". Do not conflate these two concepts, or prove yourself to be incapable of understanding why they are entirely different concepts.
At the same time, aske yourself, why these god-fearing Conservative Republicans have suddenly gotten ale riled up about differing sentencing standards, when they had no problem with sentence enhancements for a crime tacked-on, when the protected groups were ones they desired to protect. As I mentioned earlier, intentionally targeting a person because they are a law enforcement officer is recommended in the DOJ's sentence guidelines as a 6-step enhancement. Torching SUV's and ski resort construction sites is arson, for which the law has well-defined code and sentences for. It is not terrorism. How about burning churches? Should the perpetrators of acts of arson targeting churches receive longer sentences than a person who torched his own business to hide financial improprieties from the authorities?
The simple facts are that there exists a myriad of U.S. legal code that increases sentencing based only upon the perpetrator's targeting choices. What the true underlying issue here is that these politicians are opposed to protections extended to persons because of gender identity or sexual preferences, but they are just too damn dishonest to say so.
And let's face it, what is there to really fear about transvestites anyway? If you cannot outrun some guy wearing spike heels and a long tight cocktail gown, you really ought to go down to the gym and work out a bit.
None of this has anything to do with speaking within America. You can freely speak about your doubts, but if you speak in a manner that directly incited a violent felony to be committed, you have committed a criminal act. This is the same with or without hate crimes legislation.
Debate and commentary from May, 2007. The mark-up is mine, as is the commentary on the entry page, but the rest of the files in the sub-site are verbatim XHTML mark-ups of The Congressional Daily Record, parsed from Government Printing Office served ASCII source files, and the links to the sources are given on each page.
I don't like hate crime laws, because they cross over a double jeopardy line in my mind. There is something wrong with being punished twice for the same criminal act, which is what hate crimes legislation does, but this has nothing to do with constitutionally protected speech, as many members of the House Republican Conservative Committee were alleging. The crime for being an accessory to an act of violence, for conspiratorial speech which was a part of a felony's commission, or speech which directly incited criminal behavior has never been protected speech. It does not matter that some assholes believe their religion teaches them to hate fags, or if a preacherman said it. It is still a crime, and this law does not change that. It only changes the sentence meted out if the victim of a violent felony was targeted, because they were a member in a listed group.
The argument made about special protected classes is lame too, when considering sentence guidelines promulgated by the DOJ. With violent crimes in which the victim was specifically targeted because of being a law enforcement officer, there is already a 6 step sentence enhancement. With victims targeted because of excessive vulnerability (aged, children, mentally or physically disabled, etc.), it is a 2 step sentence enhancement. For this specific hate crimes legislation, a 3 step sentence enhancement is proposed. It's covered in the entry page at the above link.
"hate speech" bill supported by Obama
Please inform the world about this "hate speech" bill supported by Obama.
The very assertion is laughably in error. Obama does support Hate crimes legislation, which enhances sentences for persons convicted of violent felonies, or being an accessory to the commission violent felonies, when the victim(s) were singled out as being a member of specifically listed groups. There are valid questions, and proper arguments which can be made, regarding the legality and utility of hate crimes legislation, but 1st Amendment speech protection is certainly not one of them. There has never, ever been a 1st Amendment protection for speech which directly incited felonious acts.
The only reason some have decided to attack hate crimes legislation using this argument, is because the newest legislation would add to the list of protected groups, anyone attacked violently because of sexual orientation, or gender identity.
So why don't you just go ahead and spit out your anti-faggotry agenda Mr. AC, instead of hiding behind a 1st Amendment rock? You are free to spew, as long as you do not advocate killing fags in a manner that convinces others to act on your words.
Chicken-shit pissant peeper in the public potties...
but for reasons that should be fairly obvious, given the rules a Slashdot, I am not able to reply without resort to AC or creating a sock, and I hate socks.
Anyway, what is you definition of a handful? On one side: one is less than a handful; and on the other side: 66 is more than a handful.
cheers
What the hell were these two intelligence briefs doing storing sensitive data on boxes that were hard-wired nodes on their personal slices of the US Congressional computer network, that if compromised could easily lead to Chinese dissidents' imprisonment, severe harm, and even death?
These two guys should be publicly flogged for their promiscuous in-office security protocols.
Listen carefully Congressmen Tweedle-Dee, and Tweedle-Dum:
ANY DATA that resides on a server accessible from the internet
SHOULD ALWAYS be assumed to be inherently at risk of being compromised.
Contemporary Conservatives are never willing to accept responsibilities for the negative effects that naturally flow as cause from their past actions, but are always inclined to publicly state, for the record, after being arrested in a pulic restroom facility for solicitation by an undercover law-enforcement officer:
1) for a $20 blowjob; or
2) performing a soft-shoe routine while gesturing suggestively with a hand under a stall wall;
that They Are Not Gay.
It is NOT within the traditional role of the AG to fire U.S. Attorneys, simply because they chose to not pursue frivolous, politically motivated charges, which was a part of the agenda of a vengeful administration.
Yes, U.S. attorneys are chosen based on partisan decisions, but they are supposed to be largely independent after appointment, and not taken to task by a venal AG, whose motivation was electoral gains, because they refused to file charges without substantiating evidence.
Instead of elevating Ashcroft, you should instead be further denigrating the Bush Administration. If Ashcroft had not weaseled immensely when testifying before the 911 Commission, I might have been willing to cut him some slack, but he refused to accept responsibility for his recent acts, and instead heaped disparagement and blame upon "Gorelick's Wall", which he himself had added another brick onto after becoming AG.
If with honour you valiantly defended The Constitution's virtue from Reno's wanton advances upon it;
Why did you turn into a splay-legged slattern, when General JohnBoy, and Dubya came a sniffing round freedom's backdoor,
whistling the theme song from the movie "Deliverance"?
That accompanies my feelings of nostalgia for an idyllic America past when our president's lies were only about consensual blow-jobs, cum-stained dresses, and exotically aromatic tobacco products.
With Failed State Lighting.
Thanks, I should have remembered that. I also should have doubled checked. I keep a listing of congressional member in an easily accessible text file
It could be worse though you know. Both of Oklahoma's Senators voted against the McCain Torture Amendment, and Inhofe is number one Senator A-hole on my scorecard for his defense of human torture. During the Senate investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuses, after General Taguba had delivered the unredacted portion of his report on nationwide TV, in which one of the many findings was:
Inhofe spouted off for the Record:
And that, along with so many conservatives calling the Abu Ghraib abuses "fraternity-style pranks" was where I got the idea for The Official Abu Ghraib Interrogators' Model Chemical Light Stick of GOP Enlightenment ®, because it is very clear that contemporary conservatives are in great need of illumination for their minds' eyes.
What is very sad, is that all 9 nine of the pro-Torture Senators still are in office. With Sessions, the motivation is clear, that little weasel considers having a Bush Man Date forcibly sodomise him with a blunt instrument a compassionate dream come true, because he gets to enjoy a stick being shoved up his ass, and then lie about it later, claiming that he is not a sado-masochistic pervert, but was instead just doing his patriotic chore. I won't lie about it, I dream of urinating on Session's headstone.
If this isn't turned back, friend, then America is lost, forever.
Tell me; how many
Official Abu Ghraib Interrogators' Model
Chemical Light Sticks of GOP Enlightenment ®
need be properly inserted deep up where the sun don't shine by an accredited Bush Man Date each day to keep your mind's eye so sharp?
You did not even visit the proffered link, did you? It was a video in which the first part is Senator Levin questioning Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, February 27, 2008:
It's obvious that you're a Card Carrying Member from The Party of The Public Potty-Peepers, whose closeted name for the interrogatory methodology of forceful sodomy with a blunt instrument is: "Compassionate Conservatism".
Equivocating coward, bloated up full of hot-air like a rutting slime-toad, and croaking false bravado. Even in the exceedingly unlikely event that you could stand to have water forced into your lungs repeatedly; We Have Ways To Deal With Tough-Boys. We'll just switch over to the Bybee Torture Memo protocols, that narrowly define torture as; "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function". Now bring me a dull hand ax, I do believe that the loss of a pinkie finger's first digit is allowed; it won't kill you; it's not an organ, and you can teach yourself new methods of manual dexterity, so no permanent loss either. If that fails, we'll switch over to the Yoo Catch 22, that defines torture as a violation of the 8th Amendment's "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" clause, and then disavows the detainees' possession of their 8th Amendment right; therefore they can not be tortured. Now bring me the tin snips, and we'll go for the family jewels.
Waterboarding is torture. It is inhumane and Un-American. The bar against cruel and unusual punishment is a Human Natural right, not bounded by citizenry, and these detainees are being held by the U.S. Government as criminal actors, without having been tried and convicted in a legitimate tribunal that adheres to due process of law. They are being held by only the word of The Connecticut cowboy, in his 38qt hat, Inbred Spawn of a Carpet-Bagging Family, whose ancestral home is Kennwefukdapoor, Maine. The man who was tasked with America's defense, and asleep at the wheel on September 11, 2001. The man who listened to his repressed Oedipal desires, and turned America's military away from the righteous fight, against our real enemy at Tora Bora in December 2001, when we had the bastards dead in our sights, and could have taken them to ground then and there as the rabid dogs that they are. A man who, all the while falsely preaching his devotion to democratic processes world-wide, played pocket Pool with the Pakistani Military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, slept with Uzbekistan's kleptocrat, Islam "Butcher of Andijon" Karimov, and let a Saudi Prince slip him the tongue deep in the heart of Middling, Texas, at his Crawford ranch.
So c'mon on back, boy; I'm anxious to hear just what the Is_Lamo_Fashionists' "I wannabe a Bauery Boy Too" excuse of the Week is.
Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.
That's a lousy bit of reporting by the Washington Post. No proper sourcing at all. It took a little looking, but I found some data.
First, Senator Sessions (R-MS) is despicable human and an embarrassment to The Nation as a Senator. He was one of the Nine Reprehensible Republicans Senators who voted against the McCain anti-torture amendment to the Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, on October 5, 2005, which passed 90-9. During debate and commentary about the amendment, Sessions defamed West Point Graduate Captain Ian Fishback, 82nd Airborne Division, who had served in combat tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and had come forward, at the cost of his military career, to publicly make a statement with two anonymous Army NonComs about the use of human torture. More recently, Sessions rationalised the use of waterboarding in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing held February 27, 2008. Sessions a a lowlife scum, whose election reflects poorly upon Mississippi voters' discretion. May fortune be so kind that I toast to a better world upon hearing news of his death.
There is however, a bit of counterbalance given as a reason for the amendment. I am not well enough informed on the facts though to make a decent judgment regarding the merits.
The following three citations are from:
Senate Report 110-259 (GPO PDF) - Accompanied S. 1145: The Patent Reform Act Of 2007, January 24, 2008
Here's the official rationale given for the limiting the patent's reach:
I just did a quick look-up on Thomas. The Bill originated in the House:
On the Senate side, the following Senators voiced support in the Congressional Daily Record:
I found no obvious dissent, and there were many other House members who did not speak, but were mentioned as supporting the Bill
The Bill was passed by unanimous consent on a voice vote in both the House and The Senate, indicating that if there was any opposition, it was very weak, and they did not even consider it important enough to order a roll call vote (any legislator can call for a roll-call on any vote)
The legislative branch makes the laws. The President can veto, but given the evidence I found from a skimming search, even if Clinton had been opposed (which I doubt), the veto would have easily been overridden in the legislature. The President usually does not waste his power pissing off legislators in a veto battle he has no hope of winning.
The Slasdot author took a gratuitous baseless shot at Clinton, who hasn't even been in office for over 7 years now, when the congressman who introduced the bill and 5 of the 6 sponsors are still house members, as are 3 of the 4 Senators I listed.
The arrogant naivete of American voters is astounding and obscene. I wasn't a big Clinton fan; in fact anyone who would lie under oath about a consensual blow job has an exceedingly low valuation of his own personal honour. Still the fact remains, that after 7 1/2 years of the Bush tyranny; a president's lies about a blow-job, cum-stained dresses, and exotically aromatic tobacco products is fucking minor league when compared to lies about the causes for War Upon Iraq; the lies about al Qaida licking its wounds in Pakistan, the theft of habeas corpus, the governmental imprimatur upon acts of human torture, and the blood-stained Iraqi sands.
The Democratic Party is The Lamer of Two Evils, and the Republican Party has yet to even begin to feel the level of pain necessary for it to purge its resident evil.
Which is a bigger lie?
Thus Speaks The Rectaltude of Contemporary Conservatives.
But, look out behind you! It's The Penis of The President Past...
When I was trying to figure out what was wrong the first day, I alternated loading a Wordpress and then a Drupal codebase into the docroot. Both installed without a complaint.
The problem is, I'm not exactly sure why JOOMLA finally installed. I'll try and relate to you exactly what happened though.
It was on a Virtual Sever, that has 4 domains and multiple subdomains, all off of one IP, and JOOMLA was installed as a subdomain with its root folder a subfolder of the parent domain's root folder. The virtual domains were setup in httpd.conf:
<VirtualHost *:80> /var/www/mydomain
ServerName mydomain.com
ServerAlias www.mydomain.com
DocumentRoot
</VirtualHost>
<VirtualHost *:80> /var/www/mydomain/joom
ServerName joom.mydomain.com
ServerAlias www.joom.mydomain.com
DocumentRoot
</VirtualHost>
As far as I could tell, LAMP was set-up default with th exception of PHP.ini, which was a very minimal config, and locked read only by the Host Company, but they allow full PHP configuration override in a file inside /etc/conf.d/, using an Include statement in httpd.conf.
I wget the codebase and exploded it into /var/www/mydomain/joom as is, no extra folder. The browser installer throws an error in the 2nd stage, and only gave the following error message:
The obvious; yes cookies were enabled. phpinfo() showed session.save_path == no value, which should have defaulted to /tmp. I tried setting the variable in the /etc/conf.d/ PHP override, and using .htaccess in JOOMLA doc root; no dice. I attempted just about every combination I could think of, except downloading the PHP.ini for the specific PHP version and using that as the override file. Then I tried a manual install, and it too failed.
I quit for the day, and the next day I decided to comment out the whole PHP configuration override file, and then enable error logging, so the only two PHP configuration commands in the override file were:
I went back to the browser install, and the god damned codebase breezed through the 2nd and 3rd stage, but hung attempting to initialise MySQL, so I uncommented: mysql.default_character_set = "latin1"; in the PHP configuration override file. That did the trick, it finished the install, and is still running smooth.
It seems funny that turning on PHP error logging was the fix though, but the only other thing I can think of was commenting out: session.auto_start = On; in the PHP configuration override file. Admittedly, I'm no elite PHP coder though, so maybe you or someone else has an opinion about it.
Good luck...
For any who host multiple sites on one server, or are planning to run JOOMLA from a sub-domain, might be a good idea to bone-up on .htacccess and Apache <directory> before attempting to drop the 1.5 codebase into a server folder. I recently did a 1.5 install that required a few default overrides I wasn't expecting (Apache and PHP). Remember, phpinfo() is your friend...
If you are really curious, here's a couple of links to Senate dissent against the immunity.
Look, it is the squabbling being done over the issues that should presently be secondary that are going to cost the Democratic Party all of the capital they could have gained, if they had not devolved into the same old infighting over other issues.
I've been non-aligned or LP since Reagan's first term, but I voted for Kerry in 2004. Partly because I owed him a big one for his speech in Congress, 1971. I was looking at the end of my Army conscription then, had just finished a tour in Vietnam, and had opted to serve out the majority of the rest of my time, volunteering to go to a hospital in Okinawa, because I didn't want to go state-side and still have 6 months to go on my commitment to serve doing scut work at some base. When news and a partial transcript of Kerry's VVAW speech got to Okinawa, almost the whole hospital went into a party atmosphere for several days. I was a medic, and Vietnam was a true cluster-fuck. Far too many humans dying, ours, theirs and peasants, tied to their pitiful piece of dirt caught up in the middle of firefights. There was nothing that could have been done to further a better reality. so, yeah, I owed J effin Kerry one just for his speech, and when the Swift Boat asswipes started their attack, the only ones who quickly reacted were the non-partisans. The Democratic faithful took a collective intake of breath, and waited for Kerry to respond. In the 30+ years since I was in the military, I've watched the war-sickness take veterans down. It's not easy to know how bad they've got it, if you don't know them. Over the years I've tamped my reflexes down, when I know I'm dealing with a bro. He can say one hell of a lot of evil nasty things to me, and I'll still walk-away. When Kerry froze at the beginning of the swift boat attack, I saw this sort of a reflex action. Maybe I judged it wrong, but at the same time, where was the god-damned democratic party?
Sorry, at least it wasn't the unabridged version.
Another main reason I voted for Kerry was that it is exceedingly improper to reelect a president who led us into an immoral war, and Iraq was and is just that. It was also an action that turned the military away from the good fight, against the real enemy, at Tora Bora in December, 2001. Don't be deceived, there are without any doubt individuals who must be taken out, because they will cause the US, and the whole world tremendous human grief if they are not. When we invaded Afghanistan, that number was most likely under 10,000 human beings. Because of the hell brought in outrageous decisions by this administration, that number has been greatly increased. All the while this global obscenity was taking place, Congress was stripping away human liberties, which they were never empowered to take. We're Americans, and even the Devil is supposed to get a fair trial under due process of law, and a jury of 12 determining his guilt before he may be hanged by the state. Why would a human, who is an alleged terrorist, only upon the word of the president, be entitled to anything less?
Much of the Democratic traditional platform does not excite me, but had the party aggressively stood up and kept fighting endlessly for liberty and justice for all, I would have gladly given consent for their lesser insanities. Senator Reid is a conservative by Democratic standards, but he has been firm on the liberty side of things all along. On this he has not weaseled. Check out the listed home page on the header of this note if your wonder how I know this. I also live in Nevada. This is why I assumed that your criticism of Reid was based more on the other issues, and not on liberty.
There another not really the long version muse. This isn't about welfare, social security or the economy. It's a fight for the Dreamtime America, a battle for the Nation's soul. If the people do not force Congress to return the liberty they have illegitimately stolen, America will cease to be. and fucking a right terrorists possess habeas corpus rights. It's a universal right that is preeminent to the state power. If they are allowed to take from the detainees at Guantanamo, rest assured the will someday take from the citizenry too.