So you're upset that you have to pay $20 per volue and that youtube only has to pay $5 per the same volume and you'd rather purchase directly from youtube for the low cost of a $1.4 billion dollar direct line piped from their switch in their server room to your switch?
Your not so local content company wants to be able to use that infrastructure 100% without paying a penny to the company that built that infrastructure or they may go out of business because they can't use someone else's resources for free. Uhh, not sure where that came from as it has nothing to do with net neutrality. And last I heard, local content companies have to lease last mile lines from the owning company. Those companies which were subsidies heavily by the government and our tax dollars.
Your not so local government makes laws that forces your ISP to give their infrastructure to these other companies for free. Still curious on which law this is?
Your local ISP can no longer afford to subsidize the youtubes and vonages of the world and goes out of business. How is my local ISP subsidizing YouTube? YouTube has it's own ISP, they pay hansomely to push their bandwidth out. My local ISP isn't paying YouTube. Sure, YouTube's traffic crosses my ISP's network, but I am paying for that traffic. So I'm not really sure on how my ISP is subsidizing YouTube.
Your local ISP had to change their business model to meet the new regulations and you get to pay for it. Which would likely net-change nothing. They'd use gimmicks like minutes in the cell phone business, and most people's bills would remain relatively unchanged. The could use supply and demand arguements to increase costs to cut down on demand to lower infrastructure growth costs and pad the profit margins. If they get out of line with the billing, it would likely result in further regulation by the government and push ISPs 1 step closer to becoming a municipal service like water, power, gas, etc...
I really like the idea of charging by bit. It should address the whole net neutrality issue very well. As the people that were using 10+ gig of bandwidth a day will now get to help pay for the network upgrades. Everyone wins, except for p2p because not many people will want to pay for you to download from them. I highly doubt it would solve the NN issue. By increasing the price of the same service it would reduce demand. With reduced demand they wouldn't need to improve the infrastructure. With out improvements to the infrastructure, there is nothing to spend the money on except lawyers, lobbyists, and CEOs. Applying a social-economic solution to a technical problem is a pretty crap-tastic way to get around the issue.
If I'm an investor, I'd be less likely to put my money into a company constructing infrastructure resources that aren't in their power to control So you wouldn't consider investing in Power companies? Or Oil/Gas production companies? or telecoms? You're cutting out an awful lot of highly profitable and stable investment opportunities. But I guess if you prefer the unregulated industries, there are a whole lot of penny stock options for you. I've got some SCO shares for sale if you'd like;)
Just trying to follow the dots here.
You are an investor. Your local ISP provides an investment oppertunity. Your local ISP has a near monopoly on the market. The federal government passes a law the limits your ISP's behavior. Your local ISP is still a near monopoly. Your local ISP needs to improve it's infrastructure to meet consumer demand and follow the new limitations. Your local ISP now has a reason to seek more investors. Your local ISP now has more hard assets, a greater total value, a higher market cap, and still next to no competition.
So yeah, maybe there is a year in there where profit margins are cut slightly to offset the cost of improving the infrastructure, but the end result is that the consumers don't get screwed, there are more investment opportunities, and your investment's growth likely remains stable or increases.
Other than a slight change in investment value in the time between the need for money and the acquisition of assets, it really doesn't look (to my armchair forecasting) to be a major problem.
(Similarly, you'd be less likely to put your money in a bank that has a zero percent interest rate, solely for the convenience of using ATM machines.) But would you invest in a consumer bank that did not have ATM's? Probably not, because even though it is your investment that gets them off the ground, it is the consumers who pay to keep it going. And if the bank does not provide the services that the consumers demand, it's going to be unprofitable, which is going to make your investment next to worthless in short order.
I specifically chose those words because Neocon talking point encompass the fact that obama is inexperienced, a liberal, and many other things too.
Not quite. Saying that Obama is liberal or inexperienced is a factual statement (albeit not necessarily true). Such statements could be debated on their merits and a conclusion about their accuracy form. The Neo-con talking point versions would be more along the lines of: "Terrorists will kill your children if a liberal like Obama is elected." The use of fear, divisive topics, and political tools to separate and isolate voters is a political strategy that has been largely refined by the Neo-con political party over the last 20 years.
He is simply bashing the Government, he is bashing america, whether it is true or not, it offends people.
If it offends you, don't watch it. The Reverend has a point(s), but it is wrapped in inflammatory speech (much like your own). When the topic first came up, Obama denounced the specifically inflammatory statements but stood by Reverend Wright. People continued to hammer on him about it, and he continued to denounce the inflammatory statements the Reverend made, and even gave a top notch speech about understanding the divide in race and the more subtle and not so subtle ways that it plagues our country. Eventually, for the sake of his campaign he had to toss the Reverend under the bus, but I believe that to be an entirely political decision.
If he was talking about the Government and not America in general, then why was he advocating innocent civilians being tortured in burning building and dieing at the hands of other thugs who hate america.
Funny enough two of the religious figure heads than McCain actively sought out the endorsement of have said and stood by very similar remarks. I said he wasn't "that out there for a religious zealot", but he is still a religious zealot.
People will get over this reverend thing pretty quickly when Obama's purposed policies are attacked for the weaknesses in them.
I would tend to agree with you, we saw a little bit of this early in the primary season. But for the last 3 weeks with both the Clinton campaign team and the GoP firing on him, they have not been utilizing his senate record against him. Maybe it's because Clinton and McCain both have massive attack vectors in their own senate histories. Maybe they are just saving it. But any attack on his past in the senate by McCain opens a bag of worms that will have McCain painted as a flip-flopper that puts Kerry to shame.
So you think Obama read from a script and didn't mean anything he said about Wright's appearance on TV?
Not at all. I think he very likely is upset at the specific statements the the Reverend said. I believe he is upset by the situation. And it is entirely possible that he had less interaction with the Reverend than the media initially painted him as having. But that doesn't mean the decision to throw him under the bus wasn't purely political. Heck, if it weren't for the political nature of the situation, there wouldn't have been a bus to throw him under.
Hell, it is even valid as of today, if a car dropped half it's purchased value and is still worth $30,000, on your death tomorrow, it will add $30,000 to the valuation of your estate regardless of any depreciation.
Close, but still not quite. If I purchased a $60,000 car, it would likely come attached with a loan amortized over a minimum of 6 years. Which means that if it was assessed at $30,000 after 1 year, I would still owe $50,000 on the loan. Which means that car would adjust my net value for estate tax calculation DOWN $20,000.
When you die, none of that comes into play when addressing the evaluation of your estate.
Which is exactly what I was stating. I am not aware of any depreciation limits on personal property that would be applied to your gross value when calculating your estate tax liability.
I can tell you have difficulty understanding things. So let me explain it for you. You brought up
I can tell you have troubles with the quote tag. Please, work on it.
You see, you pointed to the NeoCon talking points 2 times and alluded to my comments being about them. I said that his paster being a thug doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. Do you understand now? I would hope so.
So let me get this straight. You don't watch the Fox news, but you know the Obama is getting a free pass by the media as a whole? And you are also claiming that the relentless character association assaults (as big of a stretch as they are) are not related to the debate of whether or not Obama is getting a "free pass"? And you are also asserting that specifically injecting the phrase "his pasture being a racist anti american thug" is not a political loaded, and personally insulted statement?
I mean, if you just wanted to clarify your position you could have just says "That is the statement I made. Not about his association with Reverend Wright or the inflammatory things the Reverend has said." You specifically chose words that you knew to be offensive and baiting, and now you are trying to plead innocence when I call you on it?
Also, from the other parts of this conversation I feel fairly comfortable associating you with the agricultural industry and family farming. As such, I am rather concerned by your continued use of the word "pasture" instead of "pastor". I know they sound a lot alike. But it seems rather humorous that a farmer would be referring to another man's grazing land as racist.
It isn't like you can sugar coat it. I have heard more then a 20 second sound bite about the situation. It's entire message wasn't exactly what I would consider positive or even good for America.
It doesn't have to be. It has to be good and positive for the community in which it was delivered in. Us young bucks are more familiar with the advent of the internet and how our public actions can easily be observed by people in any number of cultures with a variety of social norms. Point being, in his sermon, he made a clear point, God is infallible, Governments are not. He then went on to list specific reasons that God would damn the Government. The US Government (the context of the word America in his sermon) is responsible for murders it has committed, therefor, God will damn the Government. The Government is responsible for slavery, therefor God will damn the Government. Etc... He isn't running for political office, he doesn't have to say things that pander to everyone. He is a Reverend. It is his duty to spread the word of God and to inspire people to do right. Yes, he does so in a very heated way, and his statements are objectionable, but for a religious zealot, he's really not that far out there.
Obama threw him under the bus so to speak and made comments that he didn't know the reverend like he thought he did and the Reverend didn't know him (obama) if he thought he (obama) would support the crap he was saying.
An entirely political decision. Barak Obama didn't throw Reverend Wright under the bus, the Presidential Candidate threw him under the bus. If this tape has surfaced in a year when Obama was not running for President, do you think he still would have given the Reverend the boot? Of course not. It was a politically calculated decision that Obama had fought off for weeks.
Considering that a Cadillac cost considerably less 20 years ago then today, how much would they cost 30 years into the future?
Your point on the car is still entirely invalid. Even if it costs $900,000,000,000,000.00 to buy a Cadillac in 30 years, it will be worth $450,000,000,000,000.00 after two years and you will still owe roughly $700,000,000,000,000.00 on the loan. Which means that your super expensive luxury car will still have a NEGATIVE effect on your Net value.
Also, you a bit misunde
Re:Watch for criminal manslaughter charges....
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
I don't think he personally holds that view. I think he, like many other people have already done, are questioning what the outcome would be if this case goes through and sets precedence.
The selection of posts dealing with morbid crimes related to Blizzard's software is for exaggerated samples of possible fall out. The larger the exaggerations, the more inflamed the topic becomes and the more justifiable the stance that the opposition to the ruling becomes, even though that justification is now based on the realm of emotion as opposed to legal and logical argument.
If Blizzard wins though, and loading a copy of software into memory after (or while) violating the EULA becomes a criminal act, it could open the doors for a lot more copyright cases screwing the consumer. IANAL, but I don't see any double edged sword action going on here to bite Blizzard in the ass. But honestly, this thing has a snowball's chance in hell of getting through. And if it did, I would be tempted to send Blizzard pictures of my WoW box and DVD supporting the wobbly leg on my computer desk, as that is not covered under the EULA.
He's not saying that YOU have to buy a car with out air bags, just that he feels that the industry shouldn't be FORCED to install them.
I'd tend to agree with him, were it not for the millions more we would pay for state related expenses in cleaning up the corpses of dead people after accidents. While I'm not a big fan of legislating corporations, there are times when it is the logical and most efficient thing to do.
You don't see that isn't relevant to our discussion? I mean that is the "right wing talking point" right? That is what people on the left and the right are saying. Simply pointing it out instead of maintaining some sterile environment doesn't do anything but express the specifics of what we are talking about. It gives power to the accusations.
There is a difference between pointing out and stating. I can point out that a politically motivated group made some statement, or I can just make that statement. You did the later. If you were to say "The claims that Reverend Wright is an anti-American thug..." I would have been entirely fine with that as a debatable point. Instead of posting a debatable point, you posted an inflammatory insult. Which is still a debatable point, but at that point it's like asking in an interview, "Have you stopped raping babies yet?" where the debate itself is meaningless as the damage of the insult is only reinforced through repetition. Even playing the "so and so claims..." card is rather cliche', but at least that opens the opportunity for debate of the credentials of the claimant.
It was more then a 20 second sound bite. And for the most part, they were made over the course of 20 or more years.
Correct, it was a 10 minute sermon, of which, the 20 second sound bite ("GD America for ") was taken out of context. The full context of that portion of the sermon was God is infallible, Governments are not infallible, America's government has done many reprehensible things, there for, God will damn America. Obviously God can't damn a country, or a government, so the logical implication would be that God would damn those in the government responsible for the government's heinous acts. He is not saying anything new or revolutionary, just heated rhetoric to point out what the people of his religion already know: Abusing the weak is evil, God punishes people who do evil(by damning them to hell). So yes, he has made that point many times over his 20 years of sermons, but that's kind of the point of being a Pastor; to reiterate that very point.
it isn't a stretch, Suppose the car is newer, 1-2 year old. The lawn equipment could be relatively new too. And you get taxed on appraised value. You can't say this is 5 years old, it is worth $1. As for the car, suppose you buy a $40,000 lincoln or cadilac. Older people go more for luxury.
A nicely loaded 2008 Cadillac DTS can be yours for just shy of $50,000. A 1-year used Cadillac DTS can be yours for only $34,000, and a nicely loaded low mileage 2005 can be yours for $25,000. Wow, the value just dropped 50% in 3 years. There are specific guidelines for calculating depreciation, you are not going to be assessed as having a $50,000 Caddy that is 10 years old. Same with your lawn equipment, that $250 self propelled easy glide lawn mower you picked up at sears is worth $150 once it leaves the store, and worth $50 once it sees a few summers.
But most home loans don't go more then 30 years which is why I picked 30 years into the future.
Next time you make such a distinction in your head, it might be worth it to type it out. That way people know what the fuck you are talking about.
Actually, I think you have 7 months to flip the tax bill or was that to file it? I'm not exactly positive at the moment.
I believe it is 7 months to file. Once the estate is settled you have the option of having the debt amortized over 14 years.
Also, The particulars of one circumstance doesn't always dictate to another. Like I said, I saw land that was appraised higher then any bank would give a loan for just foe tax purposes.
So appeal. Get it in front of a judge and show that the value you are being assessed at is not inline with local market values. Hell, my mother in law appeals her tax assessment every time she gets an increase. She demands that the assessor proves the value of her property has increased by the amount stated a
I guess you might be beyond conceded and into the convinced territory if your willing to just dismiss something you don't agree with as a troll
Actually no, I'm not dismissing anything you said because I disagree with you. I'm dismissing it because you honestly seem like a smart guy, but you are mixing in some really stupid statements with your valid and logical arguments.
For instance, you said:
Not about his pasture being a racist anti american thug.
This statement is pure conjecture, and upon any amount of scrutiny becomes obviously false. It is the same type of political jab as my own comments making fun of George W Bush's public speaking ability, with the difference being that GWB does in fact have a public speaking problem.
Pastor Wright is a former Marine. Pastor Wright has been giving Sermons for 20+ years. Pastor Wright has worked as a spiritual counselor to former president Bill Clinton. Pastor Wright has a record of public and religious service that has shown over the years he is a great member of American society. Unfortunately, Pastor Wright said something dumb. We all say dumb things in our lives, some of us are lucky enough to not be on record when we say them, but we all say dumb things at some point in time. As soon as those clips were found, Pastor Wright ceased to be a person in the view of the public and became a tool. A tool with which to attack Barrack Obama. The right wing campaign picked up those 20 seconds of dumb speech, pulled them out of context, and put them on repeat. The media, being the whore that it is (not just Fox, everyone was in for the 'scoop' on this one) played the heck out of those 20 seconds. And thus, the lie becomes a consensus. You either believe what you are being spoon fed, or you dig deeper and realise that it is nothing but a political tool.
This indicates to me at least, that is was more then just a right wing talking point because of the political back tracking done.
This actually has nothing to do with Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright and everything to do with Obama learning how to run to win. I stated long ago, "Obama is in the race to become President, Clinton is in the race to win." Obama knows that Reverend Wright is hurting him in the polls, even though the cause of that pain is entirely fabricated. For weeks he attempted to correct that misconception, but he is just learning what Clinton already knew; you can't explain things in a heated race, you can only distance, minimize, and redirect. Just because something is a right (or left!) wing talking point, doesn't mean it can't have an effect on the political situation.
...Worst case scenario is that your estate can be assessed at a value of $288,000 that without the 2 million exemption and new estate tax rates would put you in the 45% maximum federal bracket for tax valuations. Your dependent would have to come up with somewhere around $130,000 to keep your inheritance and this doesn't include any investment money or retirement money you might have.
$288,000 is a stretch, depreciation on the car, equipment, etc would drop the assessment value significantly. You get taxed on current value, not retail. And the moment you drive a $30,000 car off the lot it's value drops significantly (except for some very specific vehicles). Also, this is where a little more research would have done you well, the Estate Tax is bracketed. At $250-500k your liability is $70k +34% of the amount over 250k. So a $288k estate value would rack up ~$80k in taxes due. At this point, you have a house estimated at $250,000, with no lean (otherwise you wouldn't get taxes on the full $250k). You could walk into almost any bank or credit union with even a crappy credit rating, and using that house as collateral get an 80k loan.
Does the death tax exemptions help me? Ehh, maybe. If my parents were to kick the bucket before 2010, I doubt much would change. Both have build/purchased new homes
Okay, my bust. I fell for it. You might as well have Rick Rolled me; nice troll.
I appreciate the level of dedication you put into your work, it first struck me a little bit sad, but after I took a step back and really took a look at your presentation and message, it became clear. Well done lad, well done. I'll be chuckling about this one for a while.
I don't know if I'd subscribe to your newsletter, but I'll definately toss you on my friends list, I need more humor in my life.
And of the left is useing the talking points, does that still make the right wing?
Lets see, the talking points are designed to divide the listeners, play on their fears, and isolate the person in question. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a Neo-con political tool.
He has flung his share of mud. He's just been able to control it better mostly because of the pass he gets from the press.
Yeah, free pass. That's what it is when every single night Faux news runs the same topics on his pastor and Fericon (sp?). Did you even watch the last debate?! How can you call that a "free pass"?
You want to talk about a free pass? Check out all the publicity that McCain isn't getting. He votes down the GI bill, yet claims to be pro-military. He jokes about bombing and invading Iran, while we're already in 2 wars. He can't keep the difference between Suni and Shitte straight. He wants to continue Bush's tax cuts while he admits he doesn't know much about economics. He has sought after and received two of the most radical Christian fundies approvals. He has refused to release his wife's 1040 tax form.
The tax cuts is the only thing that stopped this recession from happening 5 years ago. It is also the only thing stopping it from being as bad as it could get. And the tax cuts have lowered the tax burden on almost everyone who pays taxes.
How does this magical tax cut aid me? The top 5% of American's get to pass on 100% their riches to their children when they die as opposed to either getting taxed at an extremely high rate (which would reduce my taxes) or donating large amounts to tax exempt organizations (schools, libraries, social organizations, which all receive tax funded subsidies, thus also lowering my taxes). So how, pray tell, does the upper 5% retaining more of their money help me, the middle class American? Sure, I got a $200 check 6 years ago, at the time, I think it almost covered my portion of a rent check, in the years since, it hasn't effected my taxes in any measurable way.
The anti-recession forces of 5 years ago were an exploding demand in the housing market. Job creation, construction, raw materials, services, new tax revenue, it was great. And it had nothing to do with Bush's tax cuts. And had Greenspan not turned a blind eye to the bad loan industry, the current fall out wouldn't be quite so bad. The economy would still suck, but we wouldn't be foreclosing at record rates. The recession forces though have been growing strong since the 80's, although the late 90's and early 2000's where were crediting really started getting out of control. The excessive credit debt in this country is what is really screwing us long term. That and the price correction on gas, but at least that will be somewhat corrected by production of new technologies. I say in part because inflation is already running rampant, even if cheaper fuel becomes available, we are still going to be paying the same per mile average.
ol.. You don't know that. You just want it to be true. Bush's um's and uh's happen mostly during open questioning.
True, they've managed to improve his reading to the point that he doesn't stutter as much when reading from the teleprompter.
I have saw Obama speak in person. I couldn't tell the difference between his off the collar speaking and Bush's.
The irony in that statement made me chuckle. As to your point, next time you see Obama, ask him to say nuclear. I just can't quite see Obama claiming to be the 'decider' either.
Most of Obama's support is along those same lines. It isn't until after he started detailing more of his plans and policies have people started going away from him.
I disagree. I think at first, yeah, he got some of that attention. But Once we got into the thick of the campaign, when He, Hillary, and Edwards were all actually debating on their platforms, he gained a lot of support. He held that support for a long time too. Only re
Wow, first off, flush the douche. I'm here for a semi-intelligent debate, insults is down the hall.
But the objective is a little more then impression a political opinion. So don't hurt yourself concentrating solely on on the definition of terrorism. You will find that you end up lacking the proper context for your uninformed opinions to matter. Terrorism was typically references to things that didn't fit into other definitions which is why it seems open ended.
What I stated is what the USMC was teaching as the definition of Terrorism in the late 90's. Agree with it, disagree with it, what ever, that is what they were teaching. I can probably even dig through my old boxes and find a green monster with the exact definition in it, but, I'm a bit too lazy.;) But there is no need to harp on me for the opinion of the former leadership of one of the branches of military.
War is (loosely speaking) an organized military action used to obtain political objectives. The jump from War to Terror is slim. And it isn't a clear line IMO. It is a gradient where on one side you have two armies standing in a line shooting each other, and on the other end you have rogue operatives setting off dirty bombs in subways. In the middle you have the quagmire that we live in where one man's freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
The titles we assign to military actions and the people who perform them are entirely dependent on our own political and non-objective points of view. To us, the US forces in Iraq are defenders trying to protect a fragile quasi-democracy, while to the people of Iraq the US forces are foreign invaders that have overthrown their government and left them in anarchy. To us, those that fire upon our troops are insurgents and terrorists, but to the Iraqi people, many of them are freedom fighters and nationalist who are trying to defend their nation.
The terms on the whole are inflammatory, so I am more than willing to forgive your heated rhetoric and concentrate on the topic.
Congress declared war before the Iraq invasion. They specifically ok'd going into Iraq and specifically ok'd taking any action going after those behind or helping in 9/11. The supreme court specifically said that this was a declaration of war even though the specific term war wasn't used.
Now, I'm a bit confused by this block. The "specifically ok'd" event (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists) of going after those responsible for 9/11 was a sore mistake IMO. It was one of the first big mistakes of the 2000 Congress as it gave the President expansive powers that he had no reason to have.
The "specifically ok'd" event of "war" with Iraq was a separate bill all together (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002). And it was largely unrequired given the arguments the Bush admin was presenting in the build up to the war.
Only Congress can declare war. But the growth of Presidential power has allowed leaders to circumvent that limitation. So in the 60's we got the War Powers Resolution, which reinforced (albeit weakly) and poked holes in that limitation at the same time. And even with the WPR, there was no safe bet as every President who has served under it has claimed that it is unconstitutional. It has never been tested though, but if a unitarian leaning SCOTUS ever heard the case, it could vacate what few protections it offers. And none of that even matters because on 9/21/2001 the Congress gave the President the authorization to use force as he deemed necessary to protect the US from international terrorists. So all that a President has to do now is to show that there is an international terrorist threat, and they have a free reign with everything but the budget.
So even with out the Iraq Resolution, Bush could have attacked Iraq. Even with out the AUMF bill, he could have attacked Iraq (albeit with a trip to SCOTUS). But with those bills, he has the Right to engage the military at will a
45+ minutes of retarded 'gotcha' questions. He isn't "afraid" to debate Clinton, he just has nothing to gain by it. Another debate would just rehash the same right wing talking points about his former Pastor and some guy he met when he was 8 years old.
Hillary on the other hand has everything to gain. She can go on the offensive and be as nasty as she wants. Sure, some of it will bounce, but as we've seen, negative adds will stick, if she (and the republican party) continues to repeat them long enough. But since Obama is taking the "high" road (err, only needing muck boots instead of waders to walk down), if he gets nasty and offensive, he loses the good guy appeal.
In any case, for the vast majority of Americans, a vote for Hilary (NAFTA) or McCain (Bush tax cuts) is a vote against their financial best interests.
The difference between Obama's "uhms" and Bushes is simple. Obama is THINKING of what he is about to say while Bush is trying to REMEMBER what he was told to say. Really, taking a second to collect your thoughts while talking where any 5 word phrase taken completely out of context can sink the future of your career seems like a pretty acceptable thing to do IMO.
And Obama's elect-ability issues aren't that big. The only reason that it looks so bad at the moment is because he has both the Republican party AND the Clintons firing against him. And he isn't getting all that negative on Hillary. The Republicans have 20 years of dirt on her, and they have the money to put it on every open advertising space that can from June to November. I am far far more worried about Hillary's elect-ability than I am Obama's.
IIRC from my time in the Marine Corps, the definition of Terrorism we used was along the lines of:
"The use, or perceived threat of use, of force to bring about political, idealogical, or religious change."
Terrorism can and HAS be used by state actors and it is not limited to sub-state groups. State actors on the other hand usually have better access to the media and propaganda, so it is easier to re-brand an act of terror as an act of war.
There is a decent legal case to be made under international law that the UN Security Council's Iraq resolutions authorized the use of force to compel Saddam's regime to comply. That case was made. And since that case was made we have found that much of the evidence presented was false. So I will have to object to your use of the word "is". It should be "was", as that same case, were it to be heard today, would not pass.
Further, the US Constitution reserves the right to declare war to the Congress, and Congress authorized the President to use force in Iraq. Which gets to the crux of the problem IMO. Jefferson had his thinking hat on the day he urged for the power to wage war to be limited to the Congress. Alas, we have forgotten his wisdom in the last few generations. The last time Congress passed a Declaration of War was WWII. Everything since then has been a presidential abuse of power coupled with a spineless Congress.
Bush isn't the problem. Bush is a symptom of the problem. Replacing Bush with someone else, no matter how good their intentions, isn't a long term fix. The solution is to once again reduce the power of the Presidency. Put controls on appointies, kill signing statements, and NO MORE MILITARY CONQUESTS with out a true Declaration of War.
Bush et. al. didn't kill 4000 Americans, they sent their all-volunteer military into harm's way. The opposition killed 4000 American soldiers. Compared to most other armed conflicts, American casualties have been very light. If I raise a pit bull, and I teach it to fight, and I take it to an elementary school and let it loose in a class room full of kids, I am going to be held responsible. Bush is the Commander in Chief. He has the power to direct the troops, but he is also to be held responsible for those troops actions. So while Bush may not have personally gunned down 90k Iraqis, he was the one who ordered for their deaths. And while he did not take direct action to kill 4k American service members, it was the actions he did take that resulted in their deaths.
On the other hand, there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the USA since then. Of course, correlation & causation are different things... Actually, there have been. August 28th, 2004 March 3rd, 2006 August 30th, 2006 January 12th, 2007 March 5th, 2007 April 16th, 2007 May 7th, 2007 June 3rd, 2007 October 26th, 2007 February 7th, 2008 February 14th, 2008 March 6th, 2008
And those are just the ones against the US! Tell the Spanish that America's invasion of Iraq has reduced terrorism.
On a bright note, Obama said in a recent interview that if he is elected President, he will open investigations into a number of the Bush administration scandals.
HIPAA is great, it keeps my private medical information safely out of the hands of: Insurance companies Employers Government Agencies the Medical Information Bureau Court publications the CDC "research" groups direct marketers etc...
Oh wait... it doesn't.
All HIPAA does is make it hard for people who are caring for others (with out power of attorney) to take care of paperwork. All of the corporate "bad stuff" it was intended to protect us from has been waived, and even in the cases where gross violations have occurred, the HHS has not slapped a single fine.
Give that "Accountability" aspect a try some time. Call up your primary care provider and ask them who all they have given any part of your medical records to. If they can account for what was given, to who, when, and why, I'll be amazed. And if they can't, go ahead and file a complaint, I'm sure the HHS's "voluntary compliance" program will surely correct your provider's faults.
If you can see $3 gas in a year, you'll never see $1 gas, regardless of production and efficiency improvements. A CEO somewhere will be driving a gold plated Bentley though.
Heck, you can even leave the default GRUB list, just name the environments something obscure or for it to use a Klingon font (much more challenging, but waaay cooler). The be friendly and cordial, help them log in and take a look around.
And with the shrinking size of hard drives, it's really not that much of a stretch to swap drives. Leave the "spare" in a tool kit so even if they find it when you come across the boarder you can say it died while you were over seas and you need to send it in on the warranty.
Most of the TSA agents are just highschool grads looking to work their 8 hour shift and head home. Path of least resistance followed throughout, and when ever someone screws with that easy routine, they get to have a little power trip. So be polite and appear up front, and they will rarely give you a problem.
If the practical bandwidth differences between bleeding edge SCSI and bleeding edge Ethernet over fiber between the physical storage of your data, the controller of the database, and the requester of the data, is the limiting factor of your "reports coming up", there is either a fundamental design issue going on, or your clients are sitting at the terminals with stop watches counting the milliseconds of difference.
Business was not the subject we went to study, if we wanted that we would have taken business systems degress and were struggling to use command line ftp clients in the third year. To be fair, one of my degrees is a bachelors is in IT management, and I am just putting the finishing touches on a dynamic, recursive, multi-threaded FTP application with a command line interface, and a data abstraction layer.
Not all business and management courses are created equal. I learned a fair bit of marketing and online sales legality, along with a good amount of business knowledge for opening a start up. And that god awful business accounting class that I loathed at the time, actually came in extremely useful when I was working on lease tracking and invoicing systems, interacting with banks, and pushing hundreds of millions of dollars a year through a number of integration and automation systems.
Umm, did you miss the bit where I totally failed to say anything about just learning programming? Nope, but you appear to have a more broad interpretation of the word "course" than I was reading.
So where do you draw the line? If you include everything about programming, from assembly to user interfaces, and database design, networking, etc... you're already looking at 4 years worth of course work and that's with stripping the core classes down to minimums.
Do you hit up project management at all? Technical writing? GUI ergonomics? Testing? Business?
Knowing how to code is great, but it's not always the best solution. Time after time I run into people who want a custom application created to meet their needs. 90% of the time, there is an off the shelf product that will do 99% of what they want for a fraction of the cost. And even when working on custom apps, probably 50% of the time there is an off the shelf or open source library that can do exactly what I need and I just have to write a wrapper for it.
Good programmers know how to write code.
Great programmers know how to steal code.
So I say again, if you want to be a good programmer and work in a code factory, focus on learning only about coding.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're upset that you have to pay $20 per volue and that youtube only has to pay $5 per the same volume and you'd rather purchase directly from youtube for the low cost of a $1.4 billion dollar direct line piped from their switch in their server room to your switch?
-Rick
-Rick
Just trying to follow the dots here.
You are an investor.
Your local ISP provides an investment oppertunity.
Your local ISP has a near monopoly on the market.
The federal government passes a law the limits your ISP's behavior.
Your local ISP is still a near monopoly.
Your local ISP needs to improve it's infrastructure to meet consumer demand and follow the new limitations.
Your local ISP now has a reason to seek more investors.
Your local ISP now has more hard assets, a greater total value, a higher market cap, and still next to no competition.
So yeah, maybe there is a year in there where profit margins are cut slightly to offset the cost of improving the infrastructure, but the end result is that the consumers don't get screwed, there are more investment opportunities, and your investment's growth likely remains stable or increases.
Other than a slight change in investment value in the time between the need for money and the acquisition of assets, it really doesn't look (to my armchair forecasting) to be a major problem. (Similarly, you'd be less likely to put your money in a bank that has a zero percent interest rate, solely for the convenience of using ATM machines.) But would you invest in a consumer bank that did not have ATM's? Probably not, because even though it is your investment that gets them off the ground, it is the consumers who pay to keep it going. And if the bank does not provide the services that the consumers demand, it's going to be unprofitable, which is going to make your investment next to worthless in short order.
-Rick
I specifically chose those words because Neocon talking point encompass the fact that obama is inexperienced, a liberal, and many other things too.
Not quite. Saying that Obama is liberal or inexperienced is a factual statement (albeit not necessarily true). Such statements could be debated on their merits and a conclusion about their accuracy form. The Neo-con talking point versions would be more along the lines of: "Terrorists will kill your children if a liberal like Obama is elected." The use of fear, divisive topics, and political tools to separate and isolate voters is a political strategy that has been largely refined by the Neo-con political party over the last 20 years.
He is simply bashing the Government, he is bashing america, whether it is true or not, it offends people.
If it offends you, don't watch it. The Reverend has a point(s), but it is wrapped in inflammatory speech (much like your own). When the topic first came up, Obama denounced the specifically inflammatory statements but stood by Reverend Wright. People continued to hammer on him about it, and he continued to denounce the inflammatory statements the Reverend made, and even gave a top notch speech about understanding the divide in race and the more subtle and not so subtle ways that it plagues our country. Eventually, for the sake of his campaign he had to toss the Reverend under the bus, but I believe that to be an entirely political decision.
If he was talking about the Government and not America in general, then why was he advocating innocent civilians being tortured in burning building and dieing at the hands of other thugs who hate america.
Funny enough two of the religious figure heads than McCain actively sought out the endorsement of have said and stood by very similar remarks. I said he wasn't "that out there for a religious zealot", but he is still a religious zealot.
People will get over this reverend thing pretty quickly when Obama's purposed policies are attacked for the weaknesses in them.
I would tend to agree with you, we saw a little bit of this early in the primary season. But for the last 3 weeks with both the Clinton campaign team and the GoP firing on him, they have not been utilizing his senate record against him. Maybe it's because Clinton and McCain both have massive attack vectors in their own senate histories. Maybe they are just saving it. But any attack on his past in the senate by McCain opens a bag of worms that will have McCain painted as a flip-flopper that puts Kerry to shame.
So you think Obama read from a script and didn't mean anything he said about Wright's appearance on TV?
Not at all. I think he very likely is upset at the specific statements the the Reverend said. I believe he is upset by the situation. And it is entirely possible that he had less interaction with the Reverend than the media initially painted him as having. But that doesn't mean the decision to throw him under the bus wasn't purely political. Heck, if it weren't for the political nature of the situation, there wouldn't have been a bus to throw him under.
Hell, it is even valid as of today, if a car dropped half it's purchased value and is still worth $30,000, on your death tomorrow, it will add $30,000 to the valuation of your estate regardless of any depreciation.
Close, but still not quite. If I purchased a $60,000 car, it would likely come attached with a loan amortized over a minimum of 6 years. Which means that if it was assessed at $30,000 after 1 year, I would still owe $50,000 on the loan. Which means that car would adjust my net value for estate tax calculation DOWN $20,000.
When you die, none of that comes into play when addressing the evaluation of your estate.
Which is exactly what I was stating. I am not aware of any depreciation limits on personal property that would be applied to your gross value when calculating your estate tax liability.
Every year while the Oshkosh air fair is going on, the rest of Wisconsin wears helmets. You never know what, or who, will be dropping by.
-Rick
I can tell you have difficulty understanding things. So let me explain it for you. You brought up
I can tell you have troubles with the quote tag. Please, work on it.
You see, you pointed to the NeoCon talking points 2 times and alluded to my comments being about them. I said that his paster being a thug doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. Do you understand now? I would hope so.
So let me get this straight. You don't watch the Fox news, but you know the Obama is getting a free pass by the media as a whole? And you are also claiming that the relentless character association assaults (as big of a stretch as they are) are not related to the debate of whether or not Obama is getting a "free pass"? And you are also asserting that specifically injecting the phrase "his pasture being a racist anti american thug" is not a political loaded, and personally insulted statement?
I mean, if you just wanted to clarify your position you could have just says "That is the statement I made. Not about his association with Reverend Wright or the inflammatory things the Reverend has said." You specifically chose words that you knew to be offensive and baiting, and now you are trying to plead innocence when I call you on it?
Also, from the other parts of this conversation I feel fairly comfortable associating you with the agricultural industry and family farming. As such, I am rather concerned by your continued use of the word "pasture" instead of "pastor". I know they sound a lot alike. But it seems rather humorous that a farmer would be referring to another man's grazing land as racist.
It isn't like you can sugar coat it. I have heard more then a 20 second sound bite about the situation. It's entire message wasn't exactly what I would consider positive or even good for America.
It doesn't have to be. It has to be good and positive for the community in which it was delivered in. Us young bucks are more familiar with the advent of the internet and how our public actions can easily be observed by people in any number of cultures with a variety of social norms. Point being, in his sermon, he made a clear point, God is infallible, Governments are not. He then went on to list specific reasons that God would damn the Government. The US Government (the context of the word America in his sermon) is responsible for murders it has committed, therefor, God will damn the Government. The Government is responsible for slavery, therefor God will damn the Government. Etc... He isn't running for political office, he doesn't have to say things that pander to everyone. He is a Reverend. It is his duty to spread the word of God and to inspire people to do right. Yes, he does so in a very heated way, and his statements are objectionable, but for a religious zealot, he's really not that far out there.
Obama threw him under the bus so to speak and made comments that he didn't know the reverend like he thought he did and the Reverend didn't know him (obama) if he thought he (obama) would support the crap he was saying.
An entirely political decision. Barak Obama didn't throw Reverend Wright under the bus, the Presidential Candidate threw him under the bus. If this tape has surfaced in a year when Obama was not running for President, do you think he still would have given the Reverend the boot? Of course not. It was a politically calculated decision that Obama had fought off for weeks.
Considering that a Cadillac cost considerably less 20 years ago then today, how much would they cost 30 years into the future?
Your point on the car is still entirely invalid. Even if it costs $900,000,000,000,000.00 to buy a Cadillac in 30 years, it will be worth $450,000,000,000,000.00 after two years and you will still owe roughly $700,000,000,000,000.00 on the loan. Which means that your super expensive luxury car will still have a NEGATIVE effect on your Net value.
Also, you a bit misunde
I don't think he personally holds that view. I think he, like many other people have already done, are questioning what the outcome would be if this case goes through and sets precedence.
The selection of posts dealing with morbid crimes related to Blizzard's software is for exaggerated samples of possible fall out. The larger the exaggerations, the more inflamed the topic becomes and the more justifiable the stance that the opposition to the ruling becomes, even though that justification is now based on the realm of emotion as opposed to legal and logical argument.
If Blizzard wins though, and loading a copy of software into memory after (or while) violating the EULA becomes a criminal act, it could open the doors for a lot more copyright cases screwing the consumer. IANAL, but I don't see any double edged sword action going on here to bite Blizzard in the ass. But honestly, this thing has a snowball's chance in hell of getting through. And if it did, I would be tempted to send Blizzard pictures of my WoW box and DVD supporting the wobbly leg on my computer desk, as that is not covered under the EULA.
-Rick
He's not saying that YOU have to buy a car with out air bags, just that he feels that the industry shouldn't be FORCED to install them.
I'd tend to agree with him, were it not for the millions more we would pay for state related expenses in cleaning up the corpses of dead people after accidents. While I'm not a big fan of legislating corporations, there are times when it is the logical and most efficient thing to do.
-Rick
You don't see that isn't relevant to our discussion? I mean that is the "right wing talking point" right? That is what people on the left and the right are saying. Simply pointing it out instead of maintaining some sterile environment doesn't do anything but express the specifics of what we are talking about. It gives power to the accusations.
There is a difference between pointing out and stating. I can point out that a politically motivated group made some statement, or I can just make that statement. You did the later. If you were to say "The claims that Reverend Wright is an anti-American thug..." I would have been entirely fine with that as a debatable point. Instead of posting a debatable point, you posted an inflammatory insult. Which is still a debatable point, but at that point it's like asking in an interview, "Have you stopped raping babies yet?" where the debate itself is meaningless as the damage of the insult is only reinforced through repetition. Even playing the "so and so claims..." card is rather cliche', but at least that opens the opportunity for debate of the credentials of the claimant.
It was more then a 20 second sound bite. And for the most part, they were made over the course of 20 or more years.
Correct, it was a 10 minute sermon, of which, the 20 second sound bite ("GD America for ") was taken out of context. The full context of that portion of the sermon was God is infallible, Governments are not infallible, America's government has done many reprehensible things, there for, God will damn America. Obviously God can't damn a country, or a government, so the logical implication would be that God would damn those in the government responsible for the government's heinous acts. He is not saying anything new or revolutionary, just heated rhetoric to point out what the people of his religion already know: Abusing the weak is evil, God punishes people who do evil(by damning them to hell). So yes, he has made that point many times over his 20 years of sermons, but that's kind of the point of being a Pastor; to reiterate that very point.
it isn't a stretch, Suppose the car is newer, 1-2 year old. The lawn equipment could be relatively new too. And you get taxed on appraised value. You can't say this is 5 years old, it is worth $1. As for the car, suppose you buy a $40,000 lincoln or cadilac. Older people go more for luxury.
A nicely loaded 2008 Cadillac DTS can be yours for just shy of $50,000. A 1-year used Cadillac DTS can be yours for only $34,000, and a nicely loaded low mileage 2005 can be yours for $25,000. Wow, the value just dropped 50% in 3 years. There are specific guidelines for calculating depreciation, you are not going to be assessed as having a $50,000 Caddy that is 10 years old. Same with your lawn equipment, that $250 self propelled easy glide lawn mower you picked up at sears is worth $150 once it leaves the store, and worth $50 once it sees a few summers.
But most home loans don't go more then 30 years which is why I picked 30 years into the future.
Next time you make such a distinction in your head, it might be worth it to type it out. That way people know what the fuck you are talking about.
Actually, I think you have 7 months to flip the tax bill or was that to file it? I'm not exactly positive at the moment.
I believe it is 7 months to file. Once the estate is settled you have the option of having the debt amortized over 14 years.
Also, The particulars of one circumstance doesn't always dictate to another. Like I said, I saw land that was appraised higher then any bank would give a loan for just foe tax purposes.
So appeal. Get it in front of a judge and show that the value you are being assessed at is not inline with local market values. Hell, my mother in law appeals her tax assessment every time she gets an increase. She demands that the assessor proves the value of her property has increased by the amount stated a
I guess you might be beyond conceded and into the convinced territory if your willing to just dismiss something you don't agree with as a troll
Actually no, I'm not dismissing anything you said because I disagree with you. I'm dismissing it because you honestly seem like a smart guy, but you are mixing in some really stupid statements with your valid and logical arguments.
For instance, you said:
Not about his pasture being a racist anti american thug.
This statement is pure conjecture, and upon any amount of scrutiny becomes obviously false. It is the same type of political jab as my own comments making fun of George W Bush's public speaking ability, with the difference being that GWB does in fact have a public speaking problem.
Pastor Wright is a former Marine. Pastor Wright has been giving Sermons for 20+ years. Pastor Wright has worked as a spiritual counselor to former president Bill Clinton. Pastor Wright has a record of public and religious service that has shown over the years he is a great member of American society. Unfortunately, Pastor Wright said something dumb. We all say dumb things in our lives, some of us are lucky enough to not be on record when we say them, but we all say dumb things at some point in time. As soon as those clips were found, Pastor Wright ceased to be a person in the view of the public and became a tool. A tool with which to attack Barrack Obama. The right wing campaign picked up those 20 seconds of dumb speech, pulled them out of context, and put them on repeat. The media, being the whore that it is (not just Fox, everyone was in for the 'scoop' on this one) played the heck out of those 20 seconds. And thus, the lie becomes a consensus. You either believe what you are being spoon fed, or you dig deeper and realise that it is nothing but a political tool.
This indicates to me at least, that is was more then just a right wing talking point because of the political back tracking done.
This actually has nothing to do with Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright and everything to do with Obama learning how to run to win. I stated long ago, "Obama is in the race to become President, Clinton is in the race to win." Obama knows that Reverend Wright is hurting him in the polls, even though the cause of that pain is entirely fabricated. For weeks he attempted to correct that misconception, but he is just learning what Clinton already knew; you can't explain things in a heated race, you can only distance, minimize, and redirect. Just because something is a right (or left!) wing talking point, doesn't mean it can't have an effect on the political situation.
...Worst case scenario is that your estate can be assessed at a value of $288,000 that without the 2 million exemption and new estate tax rates would put you in the 45% maximum federal bracket for tax valuations. Your dependent would have to come up with somewhere around $130,000 to keep your inheritance and this doesn't include any investment money or retirement money you might have.
$288,000 is a stretch, depreciation on the car, equipment, etc would drop the assessment value significantly. You get taxed on current value, not retail. And the moment you drive a $30,000 car off the lot it's value drops significantly (except for some very specific vehicles). Also, this is where a little more research would have done you well, the Estate Tax is bracketed. At $250-500k your liability is $70k +34% of the amount over 250k. So a $288k estate value would rack up ~$80k in taxes due. At this point, you have a house estimated at $250,000, with no lean (otherwise you wouldn't get taxes on the full $250k). You could walk into almost any bank or credit union with even a crappy credit rating, and using that house as collateral get an 80k loan.
Does the death tax exemptions help me? Ehh, maybe. If my parents were to kick the bucket before 2010, I doubt much would change. Both have build/purchased new homes
Okay, my bust. I fell for it. You might as well have Rick Rolled me; nice troll.
I appreciate the level of dedication you put into your work, it first struck me a little bit sad, but after I took a step back and really took a look at your presentation and message, it became clear. Well done lad, well done. I'll be chuckling about this one for a while.
I don't know if I'd subscribe to your newsletter, but I'll definately toss you on my friends list, I need more humor in my life.
-Rick
And of the left is useing the talking points, does that still make the right wing?
Lets see, the talking points are designed to divide the listeners, play on their fears, and isolate the person in question. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a Neo-con political tool.
He has flung his share of mud. He's just been able to control it better mostly because of the pass he gets from the press.
Yeah, free pass. That's what it is when every single night Faux news runs the same topics on his pastor and Fericon (sp?). Did you even watch the last debate?! How can you call that a "free pass"?
You want to talk about a free pass? Check out all the publicity that McCain isn't getting. He votes down the GI bill, yet claims to be pro-military. He jokes about bombing and invading Iran, while we're already in 2 wars. He can't keep the difference between Suni and Shitte straight. He wants to continue Bush's tax cuts while he admits he doesn't know much about economics. He has sought after and received two of the most radical Christian fundies approvals. He has refused to release his wife's 1040 tax form.
The tax cuts is the only thing that stopped this recession from happening 5 years ago. It is also the only thing stopping it from being as bad as it could get. And the tax cuts have lowered the tax burden on almost everyone who pays taxes.
How does this magical tax cut aid me? The top 5% of American's get to pass on 100% their riches to their children when they die as opposed to either getting taxed at an extremely high rate (which would reduce my taxes) or donating large amounts to tax exempt organizations (schools, libraries, social organizations, which all receive tax funded subsidies, thus also lowering my taxes). So how, pray tell, does the upper 5% retaining more of their money help me, the middle class American? Sure, I got a $200 check 6 years ago, at the time, I think it almost covered my portion of a rent check, in the years since, it hasn't effected my taxes in any measurable way.
The anti-recession forces of 5 years ago were an exploding demand in the housing market. Job creation, construction, raw materials, services, new tax revenue, it was great. And it had nothing to do with Bush's tax cuts. And had Greenspan not turned a blind eye to the bad loan industry, the current fall out wouldn't be quite so bad. The economy would still suck, but we wouldn't be foreclosing at record rates. The recession forces though have been growing strong since the 80's, although the late 90's and early 2000's where were crediting really started getting out of control. The excessive credit debt in this country is what is really screwing us long term. That and the price correction on gas, but at least that will be somewhat corrected by production of new technologies. I say in part because inflation is already running rampant, even if cheaper fuel becomes available, we are still going to be paying the same per mile average.
ol.. You don't know that. You just want it to be true. Bush's um's and uh's happen mostly during open questioning.
True, they've managed to improve his reading to the point that he doesn't stutter as much when reading from the teleprompter.
I have saw Obama speak in person. I couldn't tell the difference between his off the collar speaking and Bush's.
The irony in that statement made me chuckle. As to your point, next time you see Obama, ask him to say nuclear. I just can't quite see Obama claiming to be the 'decider' either.
Most of Obama's support is along those same lines. It isn't until after he started detailing more of his plans and policies have people started going away from him.
I disagree. I think at first, yeah, he got some of that attention. But Once we got into the thick of the campaign, when He, Hillary, and Edwards were all actually debating on their platforms, he gained a lot of support. He held that support for a long time too. Only re
But the objective is a little more then impression a political opinion. So don't hurt yourself concentrating solely on on the definition of terrorism. You will find that you end up lacking the proper context for your uninformed opinions to matter. Terrorism was typically references to things that didn't fit into other definitions which is why it seems open ended.
What I stated is what the USMC was teaching as the definition of Terrorism in the late 90's. Agree with it, disagree with it, what ever, that is what they were teaching. I can probably even dig through my old boxes and find a green monster with the exact definition in it, but, I'm a bit too lazy. ;) But there is no need to harp on me for the opinion of the former leadership of one of the branches of military.
War is (loosely speaking) an organized military action used to obtain political objectives. The jump from War to Terror is slim. And it isn't a clear line IMO. It is a gradient where on one side you have two armies standing in a line shooting each other, and on the other end you have rogue operatives setting off dirty bombs in subways. In the middle you have the quagmire that we live in where one man's freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
The titles we assign to military actions and the people who perform them are entirely dependent on our own political and non-objective points of view. To us, the US forces in Iraq are defenders trying to protect a fragile quasi-democracy, while to the people of Iraq the US forces are foreign invaders that have overthrown their government and left them in anarchy. To us, those that fire upon our troops are insurgents and terrorists, but to the Iraqi people, many of them are freedom fighters and nationalist who are trying to defend their nation.
The terms on the whole are inflammatory, so I am more than willing to forgive your heated rhetoric and concentrate on the topic.
Congress declared war before the Iraq invasion. They specifically ok'd going into Iraq and specifically ok'd taking any action going after those behind or helping in 9/11. The supreme court specifically said that this was a declaration of war even though the specific term war wasn't used.
Now, I'm a bit confused by this block. The "specifically ok'd" event (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists) of going after those responsible for 9/11 was a sore mistake IMO. It was one of the first big mistakes of the 2000 Congress as it gave the President expansive powers that he had no reason to have.
The "specifically ok'd" event of "war" with Iraq was a separate bill all together (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002). And it was largely unrequired given the arguments the Bush admin was presenting in the build up to the war.
Only Congress can declare war. But the growth of Presidential power has allowed leaders to circumvent that limitation. So in the 60's we got the War Powers Resolution, which reinforced (albeit weakly) and poked holes in that limitation at the same time. And even with the WPR, there was no safe bet as every President who has served under it has claimed that it is unconstitutional. It has never been tested though, but if a unitarian leaning SCOTUS ever heard the case, it could vacate what few protections it offers. And none of that even matters because on 9/21/2001 the Congress gave the President the authorization to use force as he deemed necessary to protect the US from international terrorists. So all that a President has to do now is to show that there is an international terrorist threat, and they have a free reign with everything but the budget.
So even with out the Iraq Resolution, Bush could have attacked Iraq. Even with out the AUMF bill, he could have attacked Iraq (albeit with a trip to SCOTUS). But with those bills, he has the Right to engage the military at will a
They've done what, 37 debates already?
And how did that last debate turn out?
45+ minutes of retarded 'gotcha' questions. He isn't "afraid" to debate Clinton, he just has nothing to gain by it. Another debate would just rehash the same right wing talking points about his former Pastor and some guy he met when he was 8 years old.
Hillary on the other hand has everything to gain. She can go on the offensive and be as nasty as she wants. Sure, some of it will bounce, but as we've seen, negative adds will stick, if she (and the republican party) continues to repeat them long enough. But since Obama is taking the "high" road (err, only needing muck boots instead of waders to walk down), if he gets nasty and offensive, he loses the good guy appeal.
In any case, for the vast majority of Americans, a vote for Hilary (NAFTA) or McCain (Bush tax cuts) is a vote against their financial best interests.
The difference between Obama's "uhms" and Bushes is simple. Obama is THINKING of what he is about to say while Bush is trying to REMEMBER what he was told to say. Really, taking a second to collect your thoughts while talking where any 5 word phrase taken completely out of context can sink the future of your career seems like a pretty acceptable thing to do IMO.
And Obama's elect-ability issues aren't that big. The only reason that it looks so bad at the moment is because he has both the Republican party AND the Clintons firing against him. And he isn't getting all that negative on Hillary. The Republicans have 20 years of dirt on her, and they have the money to put it on every open advertising space that can from June to November. I am far far more worried about Hillary's elect-ability than I am Obama's.
-Rick
"The use, or perceived threat of use, of force to bring about political, idealogical, or religious change."
Terrorism can and HAS be used by state actors and it is not limited to sub-state groups. State actors on the other hand usually have better access to the media and propaganda, so it is easier to re-brand an act of terror as an act of war. There is a decent legal case to be made under international law that the UN Security Council's Iraq resolutions authorized the use of force to compel Saddam's regime to comply. That case was made. And since that case was made we have found that much of the evidence presented was false. So I will have to object to your use of the word "is". It should be "was", as that same case, were it to be heard today, would not pass. Further, the US Constitution reserves the right to declare war to the Congress, and Congress authorized the President to use force in Iraq. Which gets to the crux of the problem IMO. Jefferson had his thinking hat on the day he urged for the power to wage war to be limited to the Congress. Alas, we have forgotten his wisdom in the last few generations. The last time Congress passed a Declaration of War was WWII. Everything since then has been a presidential abuse of power coupled with a spineless Congress.
Bush isn't the problem. Bush is a symptom of the problem. Replacing Bush with someone else, no matter how good their intentions, isn't a long term fix. The solution is to once again reduce the power of the Presidency. Put controls on appointies, kill signing statements, and NO MORE MILITARY CONQUESTS with out a true Declaration of War. Bush et. al. didn't kill 4000 Americans, they sent their all-volunteer military into harm's way. The opposition killed 4000 American soldiers. Compared to most other armed conflicts, American casualties have been very light. If I raise a pit bull, and I teach it to fight, and I take it to an elementary school and let it loose in a class room full of kids, I am going to be held responsible. Bush is the Commander in Chief. He has the power to direct the troops, but he is also to be held responsible for those troops actions. So while Bush may not have personally gunned down 90k Iraqis, he was the one who ordered for their deaths. And while he did not take direct action to kill 4k American service members, it was the actions he did take that resulted in their deaths. On the other hand, there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the USA since then. Of course, correlation & causation are different things... Actually, there have been.
August 28th, 2004
March 3rd, 2006
August 30th, 2006
January 12th, 2007
March 5th, 2007
April 16th, 2007
May 7th, 2007
June 3rd, 2007
October 26th, 2007
February 7th, 2008
February 14th, 2008
March 6th, 2008
And those are just the ones against the US! Tell the Spanish that America's invasion of Iraq has reduced terrorism.
-Rick
On a bright note, Obama said in a recent interview that if he is elected President, he will open investigations into a number of the Bush administration scandals.
-Rick
Ahh, excuse my type-o.
HIPAA is great, it keeps my private medical information safely out of the hands of:
Insurance companies
Employers
Government Agencies
the Medical Information Bureau
Court publications
the CDC
"research" groups
direct marketers
etc...
Oh wait... it doesn't.
All HIPAA does is make it hard for people who are caring for others (with out power of attorney) to take care of paperwork. All of the corporate "bad stuff" it was intended to protect us from has been waived, and even in the cases where gross violations have occurred, the HHS has not slapped a single fine.
Give that "Accountability" aspect a try some time. Call up your primary care provider and ask them who all they have given any part of your medical records to. If they can account for what was given, to who, when, and why, I'll be amazed. And if they can't, go ahead and file a complaint, I'm sure the HHS's "voluntary compliance" program will surely correct your provider's faults.
-Rick
Just remember, the 'P' in HIPA stands for Portability not Privacy or Protection.
-Rick
If you can see $3 gas in a year, you'll never see $1 gas, regardless of production and efficiency improvements. A CEO somewhere will be driving a gold plated Bentley though.
-Rick
Heck, you can even leave the default GRUB list, just name the environments something obscure or for it to use a Klingon font (much more challenging, but waaay cooler). The be friendly and cordial, help them log in and take a look around.
And with the shrinking size of hard drives, it's really not that much of a stretch to swap drives. Leave the "spare" in a tool kit so even if they find it when you come across the boarder you can say it died while you were over seas and you need to send it in on the warranty.
Most of the TSA agents are just highschool grads looking to work their 8 hour shift and head home. Path of least resistance followed throughout, and when ever someone screws with that easy routine, they get to have a little power trip. So be polite and appear up front, and they will rarely give you a problem.
-Rick
I have no mod points, I have nothing witty to say, if I had a mod point I'd give you an insightful.
-Rick
Even the non-technical companies I've worked for had enough sense to keep the servers in a locked closet.
Oh wait, this is yet another completely wrong summary...
-Rick
If the practical bandwidth differences between bleeding edge SCSI and bleeding edge Ethernet over fiber between the physical storage of your data, the controller of the database, and the requester of the data, is the limiting factor of your "reports coming up", there is either a fundamental design issue going on, or your clients are sitting at the terminals with stop watches counting the milliseconds of difference.
-Rick
Not all business and management courses are created equal. I learned a fair bit of marketing and online sales legality, along with a good amount of business knowledge for opening a start up. And that god awful business accounting class that I loathed at the time, actually came in extremely useful when I was working on lease tracking and invoicing systems, interacting with banks, and pushing hundreds of millions of dollars a year through a number of integration and automation systems.
-Rick
So where do you draw the line? If you include everything about programming, from assembly to user interfaces, and database design, networking, etc... you're already looking at 4 years worth of course work and that's with stripping the core classes down to minimums.
Do you hit up project management at all? Technical writing? GUI ergonomics? Testing? Business?
Knowing how to code is great, but it's not always the best solution. Time after time I run into people who want a custom application created to meet their needs. 90% of the time, there is an off the shelf product that will do 99% of what they want for a fraction of the cost. And even when working on custom apps, probably 50% of the time there is an off the shelf or open source library that can do exactly what I need and I just have to write a wrapper for it.
Good programmers know how to write code.
Great programmers know how to steal code.
So I say again, if you want to be a good programmer and work in a code factory, focus on learning only about coding.
-Rick