In the case of civil liberties, liberal=libertarian. Liberal in this case means "free", and is not the set of political philosophies and positions you think of when you see the word "liberal". A better term for what you just described is socialist progressive.
Wikipedia disagrees. Hoover was an interventionist, even if a pro-innovation one (much like today's Republicans)
When Hoover was Secretary of Commerce:
Hoover aimed to change that, envisioning the Commerce Department as the hub of the nation's growth and stability. He demanded from Harding, and received, authority to help coordinate economic affairs throughout the government. He created a great many sub-departments and committees, overseeing and regulating everything from manufacturing statistics, the census, and radio to air travel.
Nothing changed as president:
It is not accurate, as was routinely claimed by his Democratic opponents, that Hoover "did nothing" in the face of the crisis, nor that he was a believer in laissez-faire policies. He explicitly denounced laissez-faire in his 1922 book American Individualism, took an active pro-regulation stance as Commerce Secretary, and saw tariff and agricultural support bills through Congress. In his memoirs he recalled his rejection of Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach. However, Hoover opposed direct relief from the federal government, seeking instead to organize voluntary measures and encourage state and local government responses. Except for accelerating public works expenditures, Hoover largely shunned legislative relief proposals until late in his term. While his efforts were small in comparison to that of the Roosevelt administration, they exceeded that of any federal administration before him.
So we are willing to bail out big (or in NR's case, influential) corporations who make bad business decisions, so that their mistakes don't hurt the economy.
Maybe if we didn't bail them out, investors and corporations would be more careful with their decisions. Maybe they would even set up an economy that doesn't run the risk of crashing and taking the entire nation down with it. Maybe we should outlaw corporate systems so large they can destroy the economy with bad decisions like this. But I don't think we need to outlaw them - we just need to allow the free market to create a more robust system. Think the original intent of the internet - a distributed economic system, which could take serious blows all over but still function. This can be achieved by allowing a truly free market, rather than relying on the government to create national banks, force everyone to accept a single paper/electronic money, and essentially tie the entire nation to the national bank's economic system.
McCain-Feingold kept me from publishing an advertisement about an issue, during a certain time window, unless I refuse to mention political candidates in the ad. This was determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, meaning that the McCain was willing to write a bill that violated of the constitution.
The act, and other campaign finance restrictions, also give big boosts to incumbents by limiting fundraising and advertisements that result in increased candidate awareness. Voters are more likely to vote for candidates they know about, and limiting funds - essentially limiting peoples' ability to disseminate information - makes it more likely they will default to incumbents with their natural name recognition advantage.
While I realize you're joking, witholding first aid to someone who needs it is usually illegal.
This is true whether you are a professional health care provider or merely a bystander who knows first aid.
go get someone elected who will shut down all scientific research
um, no, scientific research will continue to thrive with private funding. Cutting federal government spending/= outlawing research.
Here's an idea: to help them become self-sufficient and give aid that will be hard to corrupt, we could give them, say, laptops to help educate their children.
idea?
That's right, plus the firemen in question were probably more worried about a UPS battery exploding than getting an electric shock. IAAFF, and we are more concerned about electric shock. After a major fire, fire crews usually tear apart walls and ceilings to look for hidden fire. While doing so, they often end up pulling electrical wires out as well. On a major house fire, my department will shut off the gas and pull the electric meter.
Ron Paul has promised this, but GWB also promised a smaller, less intrusive government. YMMV. Ron Paul has been fighting big government for over 20 years. He is unafraid to stand for his principles and criticize the establishment. In evidence of this, the two-party establishment fears or hates him.
GWB was a member of the establishment by birth. He promised huge new government educational and health programs as part of his first presidential campaign, proving to the casual observer that his commitment to smaller government was poor at best.
So when Democratic candidates don't want no-chance annoyances like Kucinich in on debates, they're stopping the rise of other parties? no, in that case they're fighting intra-party dissent and change.
this is a known and repeatable scientific experiment.
a 2005 attempt by Swedish scientists to replicate Persinger's God helmet findings failed It's repeatable, but it hasn't been repeated yet.
What's interesting about Iran is that after 9/11 they seemed to be the only country in that part of the world that felt bad about what happened. I believe they were one of the few countries that held candlelight vigils that night and prayed for the victims of the attacks. um, no? the whole world felt bad, with the exceptions of (per Wikipedia) the Palestinians, Iraq, and possibly some Chinese.
I don't know about that. Unlike many Republicans (and Dems), Ron Paul when deregulating would take away incentives, subsidies and loopholes for large corporations, and remove impediments to small enterprises, which would counter any increased power of the big people over the little.
I salute you. My company's owner pays below standard and fires anyone who screws up just a little. Of course, he can't keep good employees, but he gets along ok with the felons and drug users he has right now. I guess I could give him some kudos for employing the less desirable who otherwise would be out of work...
The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the "zero line" or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations. This can only reduce the readings: if at power-up, the air sample would indicate a.02% BAC, future readings until the instrument is powered off will be low by.02%.
My friend is in his third year of law school. He's generally pro-law enforcement, but he tells me that on saturday nights, when his wife likes to watch "Cops" on TV, he watches "rights violations" on TV.
to spin off a subsidiary as a wholly independent company, and then when the subsidiary declares bankruptcy, there's no new owner of that part of the business. Don't know about Europe, but this might not work in the US. General Motors did that recently with their parts manufacturing operation, spun off into Delphi. When Delphi declared bankruptcy, US judges made GM to pay for a lot of their defaults.
Slashdot Mirror
Amtrak requires ID as well. Basically, if you're too poor for a car, and don't have a state-issued ID, you have to take the bus or hitchhike.
don't use banks at all. Totally free. Maybe a few hundred each for a safe and a shotgun.
Small cameras can be pretty good, but I read that "5 km" to mean how far the plane can fly from launch.
That requires that I have shoes, food to eat so I don't faint on the way to the bum, and a map so I don't get lost. Have the bum come to me, bitch!
In the case of civil liberties, liberal=libertarian. Liberal in this case means "free", and is not the set of political philosophies and positions you think of when you see the word "liberal". A better term for what you just described is socialist progressive.
When Hoover was Secretary of Commerce: Hoover aimed to change that, envisioning the Commerce Department as the hub of the nation's growth and stability. He demanded from Harding, and received, authority to help coordinate economic affairs throughout the government. He created a great many sub-departments and committees, overseeing and regulating everything from manufacturing statistics, the census, and radio to air travel.
Nothing changed as president: It is not accurate, as was routinely claimed by his Democratic opponents, that Hoover "did nothing" in the face of the crisis, nor that he was a believer in laissez-faire policies. He explicitly denounced laissez-faire in his 1922 book American Individualism, took an active pro-regulation stance as Commerce Secretary, and saw tariff and agricultural support bills through Congress. In his memoirs he recalled his rejection of Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach. However, Hoover opposed direct relief from the federal government, seeking instead to organize voluntary measures and encourage state and local government responses. Except for accelerating public works expenditures, Hoover largely shunned legislative relief proposals until late in his term. While his efforts were small in comparison to that of the Roosevelt administration, they exceeded that of any federal administration before him.
So we are willing to bail out big (or in NR's case, influential) corporations who make bad business decisions, so that their mistakes don't hurt the economy. Maybe if we didn't bail them out, investors and corporations would be more careful with their decisions. Maybe they would even set up an economy that doesn't run the risk of crashing and taking the entire nation down with it. Maybe we should outlaw corporate systems so large they can destroy the economy with bad decisions like this. But I don't think we need to outlaw them - we just need to allow the free market to create a more robust system. Think the original intent of the internet - a distributed economic system, which could take serious blows all over but still function. This can be achieved by allowing a truly free market, rather than relying on the government to create national banks, force everyone to accept a single paper/electronic money, and essentially tie the entire nation to the national bank's economic system.
McCain-Feingold kept me from publishing an advertisement about an issue, during a certain time window, unless I refuse to mention political candidates in the ad. This was determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, meaning that the McCain was willing to write a bill that violated of the constitution. The act, and other campaign finance restrictions, also give big boosts to incumbents by limiting fundraising and advertisements that result in increased candidate awareness. Voters are more likely to vote for candidates they know about, and limiting funds - essentially limiting peoples' ability to disseminate information - makes it more likely they will default to incumbents with their natural name recognition advantage.
While I realize you're joking, witholding first aid to someone who needs it is usually illegal. This is true whether you are a professional health care provider or merely a bystander who knows first aid.
um, no, scientific research will continue to thrive with private funding. Cutting federal government spending
Airships are being used Right Now. Not for boring tasks like freight or villainy, but for Saving Freedom.
ronpaulblimp.com
Ron Paul Blimp FTW!!
Or pay off a couple of months of Iraq. it's sad because it's true.
You mean a +3 Insightful post might not actually be insightful?
Here's an idea: to help them become self-sufficient and give aid that will be hard to corrupt, we could give them, say, laptops to help educate their children. idea?
You should check him out! You'd like what you see. Ron Paul is pro-freedom. You like freedom, don't you?
www.ronpaul2008.com
vote Ron Paul for president!
GWB was a member of the establishment by birth. He promised huge new government educational and health programs as part of his first presidential campaign, proving to the casual observer that his commitment to smaller government was poor at best.
I don't know about that. Unlike many Republicans (and Dems), Ron Paul when deregulating would take away incentives, subsidies and loopholes for large corporations, and remove impediments to small enterprises, which would counter any increased power of the big people over the little.
I salute you. My company's owner pays below standard and fires anyone who screws up just a little. Of course, he can't keep good employees, but he gets along ok with the felons and drug users he has right now. I guess I could give him some kudos for employing the less desirable who otherwise would be out of work...
My friend is in his third year of law school. He's generally pro-law enforcement, but he tells me that on saturday nights, when his wife likes to watch "Cops" on TV, he watches "rights violations" on TV.