China is communist in name only. Many of the senior members of the party own private businesses. China is best described as a type of totalitarian pseudo-free-market state. There really is no good word for it. Perhaps someone might make one up.
It isn't a favor to me when good jobs are lost to sweat shops in China only to be replaced by part-time minimum wage "associate" positions at your local Wal-Mart.
Outsourcing takes money out of the middle/working class (in the form of good jobs) and redistributes it to the upper class (in the form of increased profits in lieu of decreased labor costs). It is certainly class warfare at its finest.
By saying "the New York Times is liberal," you take something that's really complex and flatten it to a single dimension without gaining any insight into the real interworkings of it.
Do you mean like those people who say "Slashdot is liberal" as if Slashdot had a single opinion on any issue?
NBC, CBS, and ABC announced plans to begin covering news items on their respective reality TV series, since that's all people will watch
Oddly enough, it isn't out of the ordinary to see my local Fox affiliate dedicate 25% of their 11:00pm coverage to American Idol or other such nonsense. The line between news and entertainment is continually being blurred.
The nomination set off a four day filibuster led by Republicans and southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats"). A "cloture" motion to end the filibuster failed. At that time, 66 votes were needed to stop debate. The vote was 45-43, with 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting for cloture and 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voting against cloture.
Let us note that dying in committee is in accordance with the US Constitution. Filibustering is also allowed by the constitution (albeit indirectly). Note Article I, Section 5 (again, to wit):
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings
The senate rules currently allow for a filibuster.
I think your favorite senator is safe to vote their conscience on this one. The Patriot Act has gotten so much bad press and negative publicity that anyone that cares the slightest bit about civil rights won't hold a grudge.
If you look at the PATRIOT Act, its riddled with amendments to existing law. For example Section 502 reads:
Section 36 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (Public Law 885, August 1, 1956; 22 U.S.C. 2708) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking `or' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting `, including by dismantling an organization in whole or significant part; or'; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
`(6) the identification or location of an individual who holds a key leadership position in a terrorist organization.';
(2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2); and
(3) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting `, except as personally authorized by the Secretary of State if he determines that offer or payment of an award of a larger amount is necessary to combat terrorism or defend the Nation against terrorist acts.' after `$5,000,000'.
The House already had overwhelming support for the standalone bill, and there is no reason to believe it would not have passed in the Senate as well.
There is also no reason to believe it would have passed the senate.
"Running into trouble" != not passing
Similarly, "Running into trouble" != passing. So the best either of us can do is to say that we can't know how the stand-alone bill would have done in the senate.
I think you're smart enough to know the point of my arguement. That is, that it is wrong to tack an unrelated rider that may have touble passing onto a bill that is guaranteed to pass. Any laws passed in this way are patently wrong, no matter what they legislate for or against.
It takes no athletic ability to point and shoot. It does take considerable athletic ability to point and shoot well, especially when shooting a high powered gun such as your Desert Eagle.
During a riot, it doesn't matter how well you shoot, just that you are shooting and doing damage.
- The House *already approved* a standalone version of the Real ID bill, so the fact this is attached to military spending is irrelevant
Wrong.
1) Rules for a federally approved ID don't belong with a supplemental military spending bill. 2) It means nothing that it was passed by the house. If you follow the article a bit more (part 2):
It was expected to run into some trouble in the Senate. Now that it's part of an Iraq spending bill, senators won't want to vote against it.
Q: Why did these ID requirements get attached to an "emergency" military spending bill? Because it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops in Iraq and tsunami relief.
As I have already said in a different discussion, this rider crap needs to stop now.
You were modded funny, but I have a feeling you might be right.
Many, many people still use VCRs (gasp!) to record their favorite shows. If you take away their right to record these shows , they may very well start rioting in the streets.
There is a rule in the house that in appropriations bills, there cannot be any riders dealing in new legislation. That is, if the bill is about funding medicare, Rep. Doe cannot try to slip in legislation dealing with guns, copyright, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on.
China is communist in name only. Many of the senior members of the party own private businesses. China is best described as a type of totalitarian pseudo-free-market state. There really is no good word for it. Perhaps someone might make one up.
Hardly.
It isn't a favor to me when good jobs are lost to sweat shops in China only to be replaced by part-time minimum wage "associate" positions at your local Wal-Mart.
Outsourcing takes money out of the middle/working class (in the form of good jobs) and redistributes it to the upper class (in the form of increased profits in lieu of decreased labor costs). It is certainly class warfare at its finest.
Well, your sig is at least quite right.
I own the patent on whitened fluff pulp, you insensitive clod!
By saying "the New York Times is liberal," you take something that's really complex and flatten it to a single dimension without gaining any insight into the real interworkings of it.
Do you mean like those people who say "Slashdot is liberal" as if Slashdot had a single opinion on any issue?
NBC, CBS, and ABC announced plans to begin covering news items on their respective reality TV series, since that's all people will watch
Oddly enough, it isn't out of the ordinary to see my local Fox affiliate dedicate 25% of their 11:00pm coverage to American Idol or other such nonsense. The line between news and entertainment is continually being blurred.
Bread and circuses, my good friend.
For shame! They could have called it "Xenophobia", and the GNAA would have had its own distro.
Add "incriptive" to your list. In a sentence:
The bank says its definitely safe to check my balances online since the connection is incriptive.
Well, depending on your interpretations I can see your point. I'm a die-hard ST fan as well.
One thing we can agree on is that Janeway was a bitch.
You must be joking.
It was Sisko by a long shot. He wasn't afraid to disipline people that needed it.
Abe Fortas
To wit:
The nomination set off a four day filibuster led by Republicans and southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats"). A "cloture" motion to end the filibuster failed. At that time, 66 votes were needed to stop debate. The vote was 45-43, with 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting for cloture and 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voting against cloture.
Let us note that dying in committee is in accordance with the US Constitution. Filibustering is also allowed by the constitution (albeit indirectly). Note Article I, Section 5 (again, to wit):
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings
The senate rules currently allow for a filibuster.
I think your favorite senator is safe to vote their conscience on this one. The Patriot Act has gotten so much bad press and negative publicity that anyone that cares the slightest bit about civil rights won't hold a grudge.
You want to reference H.R. 1268 [RS] (possibly PP). "RS" means reported to Senate, so this is the conference report that the Senate voted 100-0.
I'm not aware of how ID supposedly works, but if it indeed isn't at least a theory, then it shouldn't be given time.
Thanks for your correction.
Isn't issuing and regulating DLs the purview of the states?
Nothing is within the purview of the states when you own all three branches of the federal government.
Hell, I'm bored. Lets have a go.
The House already had overwhelming support for the standalone bill, and there is no reason to believe it would not have passed in the Senate as well.
There is also no reason to believe it would have passed the senate.
"Running into trouble" != not passing
Similarly, "Running into trouble" != passing. So the best either of us can do is to say that we can't know how the stand-alone bill would have done in the senate.
I think you're smart enough to know the point of my arguement. That is, that it is wrong to tack an unrelated rider that may have touble passing onto a bill that is guaranteed to pass. Any laws passed in this way are patently wrong, no matter what they legislate for or against.
You misunderstand.
It takes no athletic ability to point and shoot. It does take considerable athletic ability to point and shoot well, especially when shooting a high powered gun such as your Desert Eagle.
During a riot, it doesn't matter how well you shoot, just that you are shooting and doing damage.
- The House *already approved* a standalone version of the Real ID bill, so the fact this is attached to military spending is irrelevant
Wrong.
1) Rules for a federally approved ID don't belong with a supplemental military spending bill.
2) It means nothing that it was passed by the house. If you follow the article a bit more (part 2):
It was expected to run into some trouble in the Senate. Now that it's part of an Iraq spending bill, senators won't want to vote against it.
To wit:
Q: Why did these ID requirements get attached to an "emergency" military spending bill?
Because it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops in Iraq and tsunami relief.
As I have already said in a different discussion, this rider crap needs to stop now.
I wouldn't speak so quickly. A lot of these so-called "couch potatoes" for recording rights are "gun nuts" for 2nd Amendment rights as well.
It doesn't take too much athletic ability to point and shoot.
You were modded funny, but I have a feeling you might be right.
Many, many people still use VCRs (gasp!) to record their favorite shows. If you take away their right to record these shows , they may very well start rioting in the streets.
There is a rule in the house that in appropriations bills, there cannot be any riders dealing in new legislation. That is, if the bill is about funding medicare, Rep. Doe cannot try to slip in legislation dealing with guns, copyright, etc.
Its not what we're hoping for, but it is a start.
So manufacturers could have, if they wanted, made sets and tuners right up to June 31
I'd like to see them try to manufacture a tuner on the 31st of June. I'd pay big bucks for that.
Just look for the evil bit. The crap flag should be nearby.