One person's ignored may be another person's vacation, or personal day.
Using your standard of ignoring, Clay also is ignoring the heat, Greece, immigration etc.
I'm liberal to the core, but for the life of me I don't understand how we can bash Romney for buying, leveraging and even scrapping companies for a profit. I may have wish he made different decisions along the way, but as long as he didn't break the law or infringe on the rights of others, I'll give him a pass.
I'm not convinced his experience is in "turning thing around". Sometimes Bain did that, but profit was the motive. Since government is not and should not be in the profit business, I'm not exactly how his experience at Bain will help America.
Clearly he knows how to get richer. The question is what can he do for the country?
Between the two, I do think Obama is foreword thinking. I actually think Romney is pretty liberal at heart. He's acted that way as governor, but not as a candidate.
jesse,
I enjoy your posts, but have to agree that BRP and alprova are not even remotely similar.
The only points BRP score over alprova are for brevity. You can fit BRP's posts on a 3x5 index card.... And I mean ALL of his posts, ever.
As for nature vs nurture, it is doubtful that an explanation of homosexuality is simply genetic. It may be developmental as well. The more we learn about reproductive biology, it is becoming more and more apparent that the hormonal environment that children are exposed to in utero has effects on health and adult tendencies even in behavior. Androgenization of the brain can occur in female animals including humans. Neural function can also be modified after birth. In significant ways, the human brain does not complete development until the twenties.
We have not identified the genes that make people uniquely black, asian, etc. So, if there is a gene, or genes, which predispose indiduals to be homosexual it is no wonder that we have not found it. It may actually be the regulation of a gene influenced by environment that is responsible.
Our understanding of nature vs nurture in homosexuality is beyond our current scientific understanding. That does not disprove a biologic basis, as tu quoque seems to believe.
For now, I think we need to rely on the best evidence we have, which is the personal experience of people who are homosexual. I, for one, trust those who say they were always gay.
I do believe that ultimately we will understand the functional differences in the brain between straight and gay people. Functional MRI and PET scan studies, while in their infancy, are leading us closer to unraveling this mystery, at least in seeing real biologic differences.
Answer the question, please.
You are running from alprova.
If you are right, you don't need to run. Produce the language.
Here is the passage in question:
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection
Very sorry to jump to a conclusion. It's what I understood from your post. Your clarification was much more specific. I imagine you even have specific examples which some of us would find illuminating.
Indeed, it can be difficult to learn if you are in compliance at times because different things are overseen by varied departments at local, state and federal levels.
We have tried to learn if we are in compliance on certain issues and have had conflicting information about to which department we need to report to. Sometimes when we know the correct department, they merely refer us to the inscrutable annotated code which could be interpreted differently.
We have actually been told on one occassion that a department could not tell us if we were in compliance; however, we would find out when we are inspected.... If not in compliance, we could be fined.
So thanks for the clarification. I always welcome dialogue. That's why I ask you questions. I don't blankly assume you are wrong. You have to admit, that unlike face to face conversations, it's a little more laborious to get full understanding of nuance.
So thanks again. Although I'm still not sure how the tax assessment would work.
I'm glad you started posting again. You are a reasonable voice from the right of center.
I deal with banks everyday, too. We have seen requirements tighten on us both professionally and personally.
Certainly new business can be stiffled by making it harder to get loans... no matter what the underlying reason is.
Clearly the banks did not do enough in the past to protect their back doors. Look where that got us.
How did that work out for business? It nearly killed ours.
And don't just blame the banks, while you're at it. Lots of companies are sitting on capital because of this shake up. Despite record profits and increasing reserves, some companies are not expanding or hiring new people. Poor oversight has decreased many people's confidence in the American financial system and the American economy. Rightly so.
Cost benefit analysis is nice. Increasing costs to government do need to be recouped, but are you sure tax increases are needed? Perhaps sometimes they would be, but frequently new regulations expand on industry and create a larger tax base.
There was a time when hospitals and medical offices were allowed to discard blood soaked bandages, needles and syringes into the regular garbage.
It cost more to dispose of these safely, sure. There are oversight costs associated with OSHA etc. But there are also new products created. People had to start making more and more Sharps containers. More incinerators were needed to handle infectious products. Entire businesses (which pay taxes) were created for this regulation.
The workplace was safer, meaning fewer occupational exposures to HIV and other infectious diseases. This would translate to fewer medical bankruptcies and therefore decreased burden on the social safety net.
So, when people (like tu) talk just about the costs associated with regulation, clearly they are missing a great deal of the picture.
You make a good point about regulations being a hidden tax.
What is the cost of not having those regulations?
Keep in mind, the cost is not limited to just $$$$. There can be human costs.
God forbid we deregulate coal mining.
If we followed your sweeping statements, we would be in a terrible mess.
To present a convincing argument about deregulation, you really have to be specific. Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir or talking to hear yourself talk. What's the point?
Cheap Shots
conservative,
Congratulations on predicting something.
One person's ignored may be another person's vacation, or personal day. Using your standard of ignoring, Clay also is ignoring the heat, Greece, immigration etc.
Conspiracy uncovered.
Bulbs, did you mean erstwhile or meanwhile?
Cheap Shots
Ok,
I'm liberal to the core, but for the life of me I don't understand how we can bash Romney for buying, leveraging and even scrapping companies for a profit. I may have wish he made different decisions along the way, but as long as he didn't break the law or infringe on the rights of others, I'll give him a pass.
I'm not convinced his experience is in "turning thing around". Sometimes Bain did that, but profit was the motive. Since government is not and should not be in the profit business, I'm not exactly how his experience at Bain will help America.
Clearly he knows how to get richer. The question is what can he do for the country?
Between the two, I do think Obama is foreword thinking. I actually think Romney is pretty liberal at heart. He's acted that way as governor, but not as a candidate.
jesse,
I enjoy your posts, but have to agree that BRP and alprova are not even remotely similar.
The only points BRP score over alprova are for brevity. You can fit BRP's posts on a 3x5 index card.... And I mean ALL of his posts, ever.
Cheap Shots
Truth is never below the belt.
Sadly, too frequently, politics is not about the truth, but winning.
Bennett Archive: Justice
I thought conservative's joke was kind of funny.
As for nature vs nurture, it is doubtful that an explanation of homosexuality is simply genetic. It may be developmental as well. The more we learn about reproductive biology, it is becoming more and more apparent that the hormonal environment that children are exposed to in utero has effects on health and adult tendencies even in behavior. Androgenization of the brain can occur in female animals including humans. Neural function can also be modified after birth. In significant ways, the human brain does not complete development until the twenties.
We have not identified the genes that make people uniquely black, asian, etc. So, if there is a gene, or genes, which predispose indiduals to be homosexual it is no wonder that we have not found it. It may actually be the regulation of a gene influenced by environment that is responsible.
Our understanding of nature vs nurture in homosexuality is beyond our current scientific understanding. That does not disprove a biologic basis, as tu quoque seems to believe.
For now, I think we need to rely on the best evidence we have, which is the personal experience of people who are homosexual. I, for one, trust those who say they were always gay.
I do believe that ultimately we will understand the functional differences in the brain between straight and gay people. Functional MRI and PET scan studies, while in their infancy, are leading us closer to unraveling this mystery, at least in seeing real biologic differences.
The Trainer
Love this cartoon. Topical. Local. Gives the local trolls a day off from using the number 16.
All kidding aside regarding trolls.... It is really stunning to learn what goes on at Walking Horse shows. Really. It's not big money. It's a triffle.
Just goes to show you that when money and/or pride is at stake, some people will go to great lengths to gain so little.
Deregulation
joneses,
Answer the question, please. You are running from alprova.
If you are right, you don't need to run. Produce the language.
Here is the passage in question:
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. (f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection
Deregulation
Harp,
Very sorry to jump to a conclusion. It's what I understood from your post. Your clarification was much more specific. I imagine you even have specific examples which some of us would find illuminating.
Indeed, it can be difficult to learn if you are in compliance at times because different things are overseen by varied departments at local, state and federal levels.
We have tried to learn if we are in compliance on certain issues and have had conflicting information about to which department we need to report to. Sometimes when we know the correct department, they merely refer us to the inscrutable annotated code which could be interpreted differently.
We have actually been told on one occassion that a department could not tell us if we were in compliance; however, we would find out when we are inspected.... If not in compliance, we could be fined.
So thanks for the clarification. I always welcome dialogue. That's why I ask you questions. I don't blankly assume you are wrong. You have to admit, that unlike face to face conversations, it's a little more laborious to get full understanding of nuance.
So thanks again. Although I'm still not sure how the tax assessment would work.
I'm glad you started posting again. You are a reasonable voice from the right of center.
Deregulation
timbo,
I deal with banks everyday, too. We have seen requirements tighten on us both professionally and personally.
Certainly new business can be stiffled by making it harder to get loans... no matter what the underlying reason is.
Clearly the banks did not do enough in the past to protect their back doors. Look where that got us.
How did that work out for business? It nearly killed ours.
And don't just blame the banks, while you're at it. Lots of companies are sitting on capital because of this shake up. Despite record profits and increasing reserves, some companies are not expanding or hiring new people. Poor oversight has decreased many people's confidence in the American financial system and the American economy. Rightly so.
Deregulation
Harp,
Cost benefit analysis is nice. Increasing costs to government do need to be recouped, but are you sure tax increases are needed? Perhaps sometimes they would be, but frequently new regulations expand on industry and create a larger tax base.
There was a time when hospitals and medical offices were allowed to discard blood soaked bandages, needles and syringes into the regular garbage.
It cost more to dispose of these safely, sure. There are oversight costs associated with OSHA etc. But there are also new products created. People had to start making more and more Sharps containers. More incinerators were needed to handle infectious products. Entire businesses (which pay taxes) were created for this regulation.
The workplace was safer, meaning fewer occupational exposures to HIV and other infectious diseases. This would translate to fewer medical bankruptcies and therefore decreased burden on the social safety net.
So, when people (like tu) talk just about the costs associated with regulation, clearly they are missing a great deal of the picture.
Deregulation
Tu,
You make a good point about regulations being a hidden tax.
What is the cost of not having those regulations?
Keep in mind, the cost is not limited to just $$$$. There can be human costs.
God forbid we deregulate coal mining.
If we followed your sweeping statements, we would be in a terrible mess.
To present a convincing argument about deregulation, you really have to be specific. Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir or talking to hear yourself talk. What's the point?