Now, before you go labeling me, I'm chastising both sides of the aisle, as an INDEPENDENT. (not to mention that come next Sep/Nov, it'll be my vote you're after)
Legislation being pushed in Congress has historical precendence in costing the lives of tens of thousands: civilian and military. In the interest of proving they are "doing something," these politicians are going to get people killed. Regardless of your party, take a look at the historical results and demand that your party set aside partisan politics and vote for the national interests, national security and protection of civilians and troops.|||Makes me ashamed to be from Ohio, but at the same time happy I can help vote this jagoff out of office. If this passes, then the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam will be an accurate one. No army can fight a war with one hand tied behind it's back. Combat decisions need to be left up to the leaders who have actually SEEN the conflict zone. It amazes me that someone can be so pompous as to presume to tell someone how to do their job from thousands of miles away. Imagine the outcry if Marines and soldiers started telling politicians how to run the country? At least they know first hand what the cost is. But unless they are dying, or some jacka$$ is committing a crime, they get little if any press. Gotta love the media, right? Excuse me, I have a letter to write.|||What are talking about? Citing the legislation would help.|||just FYI, we moderate independents get called liberals on here
... I've stopped caring ... some cons have serious issues with not taking sides are just wanting to understand and generate change
the left wing nut jobs seem to be less apt to name call
I agree that if things don't change there will be more senseless death for monetary gain, and with this administration (or one like it) less and less access will be granted to ask "why?"|||You forgot to tell us which legislation. Do that and we can render an answer.
Friday, September 23, 2011
As a windfall profit tax socialist, did Palin pass any conservative legislation as governor?
I know Palin fought for redistribution of wealth in Alaska by fighting for and passing an increase in profit taxes for handouts to the state. What so-called conservative legislation has she passed?|||The governor does not pass legislation, he/she only signs or vetoes what is passed by the state legislature.|||try this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBN9gKErC…|||She tried, but even conservative Alaskans won't stoop to burning books.|||Palin: Uninspiring Tax Policy Record
Posted by Chris Edwards
On tax policy, Alaska governor Sarah Palin has a rather uninspiring, albeit brief, record. The following is some information gleaned from State Tax Notes.
Palin supported and signed into law a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil companies in the form of higher severance taxes. One rule of thumb is that higher taxes cause less investment. Sure enough, State Tax Notes reported (January 7): “After ACES was passed, ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s most active oil exploration company and one of the top three producers, announced it was canceling plans to build a diesel fuel refinery at the Kuparuk oil field. ConocoPhillips blamed the cancellation on passage of ACES [the new tax]. The refinery would have allowed the company to produce low-sulfur diesel fuel onsite for its vehicles and other uses on the North Slope, rather than haul the fuel there from existing refineries.”
There are good reasons for an oil-rich state to tax oil production, but a fiscal conservative would usually use any tax increase to reduce taxes elsewhere. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I see no evidence that Palin offered any major tax cuts. She did propose sending $1.2 billion of state oil revenues to individuals and utility companies in the form of monthly payments to reduce energy bills, but that sounds like welfare to me, not tax cuts.|||isn't that what the libs want , to share the wealth. why do you mock her for lib policy's. oh, that's right she's against abortion.|||Hey, "Reality", seems you edit just like the lamestream media, missing a few details of the article you linked
* A tax credit for film production in the state, offering about $20 million per year in breaks.
* A cut in an annual business license fee from $100 to $25 (the legislature went half way to $50).
* A one-year suspension of the state fuel tax to save taxpayers about $40 million.
* A repeal of tire taxes to save taxpayers $2 million.
* A tax credit for commercial salmon harvesting to save taxpayers about $2 million.
Kinda typical, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBN9gKErC…|||She tried, but even conservative Alaskans won't stoop to burning books.|||Palin: Uninspiring Tax Policy Record
Posted by Chris Edwards
On tax policy, Alaska governor Sarah Palin has a rather uninspiring, albeit brief, record. The following is some information gleaned from State Tax Notes.
Palin supported and signed into law a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil companies in the form of higher severance taxes. One rule of thumb is that higher taxes cause less investment. Sure enough, State Tax Notes reported (January 7): “After ACES was passed, ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s most active oil exploration company and one of the top three producers, announced it was canceling plans to build a diesel fuel refinery at the Kuparuk oil field. ConocoPhillips blamed the cancellation on passage of ACES [the new tax]. The refinery would have allowed the company to produce low-sulfur diesel fuel onsite for its vehicles and other uses on the North Slope, rather than haul the fuel there from existing refineries.”
There are good reasons for an oil-rich state to tax oil production, but a fiscal conservative would usually use any tax increase to reduce taxes elsewhere. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I see no evidence that Palin offered any major tax cuts. She did propose sending $1.2 billion of state oil revenues to individuals and utility companies in the form of monthly payments to reduce energy bills, but that sounds like welfare to me, not tax cuts.|||isn't that what the libs want , to share the wealth. why do you mock her for lib policy's. oh, that's right she's against abortion.|||Hey, "Reality", seems you edit just like the lamestream media, missing a few details of the article you linked
* A tax credit for film production in the state, offering about $20 million per year in breaks.
* A cut in an annual business license fee from $100 to $25 (the legislature went half way to $50).
* A one-year suspension of the state fuel tax to save taxpayers about $40 million.
* A repeal of tire taxes to save taxpayers $2 million.
* A tax credit for commercial salmon harvesting to save taxpayers about $2 million.
Kinda typical, eh?
For a classWrite a letter in support of stronger child care legislation, or programs to strengthen families se?
Advocacy in Action
Write a letter in support of stronger child care legislation, or programs to strengthen families self sufficient, or another issue related to early childhood care and education.
Choose 5 organizations, groups, or individuals to send the letter to. (You do not have to send the letter)
Why did you choose those organizations or individuals? What do you expect to accomplish as a result of your letter?|||What is the question here?|||Got to do your own homework! I did mine, you do yours!
Write a letter in support of stronger child care legislation, or programs to strengthen families self sufficient, or another issue related to early childhood care and education.
Choose 5 organizations, groups, or individuals to send the letter to. (You do not have to send the letter)
Why did you choose those organizations or individuals? What do you expect to accomplish as a result of your letter?|||What is the question here?|||Got to do your own homework! I did mine, you do yours!
Are liberals who claim not to understand that racial equality legislation IS socialism liars or deluded?
Liberals proved they are secret socialists in the 60s when they supported anti-racial segregation legislation.
What right does the govt have to tell private organizations (diners/shops etc) who they can serve? No PRIVATE organization should ever be forced to serve blacks.
Governments interfering in private enterprise IS socialism.
True conservatives don't believe the govt is smarter than the American people or that they are too 'stupid' to make their own decisions. WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM.|||Neither.
They recognize your kind for the liars/hypocrites that you are.
you bleat:
"True conservatives don't believe the govt is smarter than the American people or that they are too 'stupid' to make their own decisions. WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM."
Except for pregnant women and homosexuals. How'd you forget that part of your rant?|||You have no concept of what socialism is, do you?|||If you don't like it here, you are more than welcome to leave at any time.
We have more than enough subhuman racist filth to satisfy our needs for the foreseeable future.|||Honey, the Dixiecrats were not liberals.
And I urge you to look up the term "public accommodations."
Whew! Is there a whiff of troll in the air?
What right does the govt have to tell private organizations (diners/shops etc) who they can serve? No PRIVATE organization should ever be forced to serve blacks.
Governments interfering in private enterprise IS socialism.
True conservatives don't believe the govt is smarter than the American people or that they are too 'stupid' to make their own decisions. WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM.|||Neither.
They recognize your kind for the liars/hypocrites that you are.
you bleat:
"True conservatives don't believe the govt is smarter than the American people or that they are too 'stupid' to make their own decisions. WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM."
Except for pregnant women and homosexuals. How'd you forget that part of your rant?|||You have no concept of what socialism is, do you?|||If you don't like it here, you are more than welcome to leave at any time.
We have more than enough subhuman racist filth to satisfy our needs for the foreseeable future.|||Honey, the Dixiecrats were not liberals.
And I urge you to look up the term "public accommodations."
Whew! Is there a whiff of troll in the air?
Are liberals who claim not to understand that racial equality legislation IS socialism liars or deluded?
Liberals proved they are secret socialists in the 60s when they supported anti-racial segregation legislation.
What right does the govt have to tell private organizations (diners/shops etc) who they can serve? No PRIVATE organization should ever be forced to serve blacks.
Governments interfering in private enterprise IS socialism.
True conservatives don't believe the govt is smarter than the American people or that they are too 'stupid' to make their own decisions. WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM.|||You’re going to get a lot of answers from whiny liberals saying “the Constitution forbids racism” and “the constitution says all men are created equal”.
BS
The Founding Fathers kept slaves so they obviously meant all WHITE men are created equal. They probably thought it as likely that their words would be misused to include blacks as dogs or cattle so they didn’t even think to clarify.
--------------------------------------…
Edit:
And for whiny liberals who think this a minority view-
Every poll before the election showed 10-15% would **ADMIT** they didn't want a black president.
E.g
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?Rele…
(Question 5)
______
And nearly 20% of whites will **ADMIT** they don't support black/white breeding.
19% of whites disapprove of interracial marriage:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Am…
______
And who would want to admit their true opinions to a pollster when faced with the liberal witch hunt - I wouldn't.
SO THE TRUE FIGURE IS MUCH HIGHER.|||I think you are deluded. What does that have to do with the manufacture and distribution of goods?|||People ask questions like this on one account then they answer it on another account in some attempt to boost their low self esteem and get validation from other like minded people.
Next time do a better job in picking your second name.
John W and Will F.
I see you changed your name to CommonSense now to hide the truth.|||Yes, it is socialism. But I don't think there is much secret about the liberals agenda.|||And who are you telling some what and what not they can do with their life?|||Racists have been using the word "socialism" to attempt (and fail) to hide their racist tracks for years.|||You are a bigot and have NO idea what freedom is
What right does the govt have to tell private organizations (diners/shops etc) who they can serve? No PRIVATE organization should ever be forced to serve blacks.
Governments interfering in private enterprise IS socialism.
True conservatives don't believe the govt is smarter than the American people or that they are too 'stupid' to make their own decisions. WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM.|||You’re going to get a lot of answers from whiny liberals saying “the Constitution forbids racism” and “the constitution says all men are created equal”.
BS
The Founding Fathers kept slaves so they obviously meant all WHITE men are created equal. They probably thought it as likely that their words would be misused to include blacks as dogs or cattle so they didn’t even think to clarify.
--------------------------------------…
Edit:
And for whiny liberals who think this a minority view-
Every poll before the election showed 10-15% would **ADMIT** they didn't want a black president.
E.g
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?Rele…
(Question 5)
______
And nearly 20% of whites will **ADMIT** they don't support black/white breeding.
19% of whites disapprove of interracial marriage:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Am…
______
And who would want to admit their true opinions to a pollster when faced with the liberal witch hunt - I wouldn't.
SO THE TRUE FIGURE IS MUCH HIGHER.|||I think you are deluded. What does that have to do with the manufacture and distribution of goods?|||People ask questions like this on one account then they answer it on another account in some attempt to boost their low self esteem and get validation from other like minded people.
Next time do a better job in picking your second name.
John W and Will F.
I see you changed your name to CommonSense now to hide the truth.|||Yes, it is socialism. But I don't think there is much secret about the liberals agenda.|||And who are you telling some what and what not they can do with their life?|||Racists have been using the word "socialism" to attempt (and fail) to hide their racist tracks for years.|||You are a bigot and have NO idea what freedom is
Why is there a need for current health and safety legislation in relation to ICT equipment?
why is there a need for current health and safety legislation in relation to ICT equipment?
thanks!|||Because without it users can get physically damaged.
Suggest that you download and read http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg36.pdf
thanks!|||Because without it users can get physically damaged.
Suggest that you download and read http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg36.pdf
What is the term we use for the setting of a precise time limit on how long legislation will be in effect?
What is the term we use for the setting of a precise time limit on how long legislation will be in effect?|||sunset clause.
Are liberals who claim not to understand that racial equality legislation IS socialism liars or deluded?
Liberals proved they are secret socialists in the 60s when they supported anti-racial segregation legislation.
What right does the govt have to tell private organizations (diners/shops etc) who they can serve? No PRIVATE organization should ever be forced to serve blacks.
Governments interfering in private enterprise IS socialism.
True conservatives don't believe the govt is smarter than the American people or that they are too 'stupid' to make their own decisions. WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM.|||Sorry, but the Commerce Clause give Congress wide leeway in regulating anything that is involved in interstate commerce, even when it just means that the business buys supplies that came from out of state. You lose, because the Constitution wins.
However, a purely private organization, such as a club, cannot be forced by the government to not discriminate.|||You’re going to get a lot of answers from whiny liberals saying “the Constitution forbids racism” and “the constitution says all men are created equal”.
BS
The Founding Fathers kept slaves so they obviously meant all WHITE men are created equal. They probably thought it as likely that their words would be misused to include blacks as dogs or cattle so they didn’t even think to clarify.
--------------------------------------…
Edit:
And for whiny liberals who think this a minority view-
Every poll before the election showed 10-15% would **ADMIT** they didn't want a black president.
E.g
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?Rele…
(Question 5)
______
And nearly 20% of whites will **ADMIT** they don't support black/white breeding.
19% of whites disapprove of interracial marriage:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Am…
______
And who would want to admit their true opinions to a pollster when faced with the liberal witch hunt - I wouldn't.
SO THE TRUE FIGURE IS MUCH HIGHER.|||Neither. I think you are deluded. What does that have to do with socialism?|||And what exactly is wrong with socialism? You say it as a scare word or an insult, but really you don't even know what it is.|||This is why liberals accuse conservatives of not knowing what socialism is. I hate to tell people they don't know socialism is because it sounds arrogant and glib.
Socialism is an economic theory. Socialism refers to the public ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.
That's what it means.|||freedom for whites you mean -- but hay you have the freedom to speak your mind no matter how ugly it is|||Oh, quite contrair. The American people are far to stupid to know what is best for them. I can not stress that enough, if anarchy were to take over our country would be in flames.|||I'm not racist, but I agree with you. If a restaurant doesn't want to serve people of a certain race, nationality or religion, they should have the right to.
I'm sure I'll be called racist, but I assure you that I am not.|||NO your RIGHT WING PHONY TV EVANGELIST CRAP
is border linE NAZI FACSIM
denying 46 millions ameircan healht care|||I hope your house has lead paint and pipes and is situated on a toxic landfill.|||Get a clue. Segregation and socialism aren't even related. I thought a mental giant, such as yourself, would be able to figure out complex ideas like that.
What right does the govt have to tell private organizations (diners/shops etc) who they can serve? No PRIVATE organization should ever be forced to serve blacks.
Governments interfering in private enterprise IS socialism.
True conservatives don't believe the govt is smarter than the American people or that they are too 'stupid' to make their own decisions. WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM.|||Sorry, but the Commerce Clause give Congress wide leeway in regulating anything that is involved in interstate commerce, even when it just means that the business buys supplies that came from out of state. You lose, because the Constitution wins.
However, a purely private organization, such as a club, cannot be forced by the government to not discriminate.|||You’re going to get a lot of answers from whiny liberals saying “the Constitution forbids racism” and “the constitution says all men are created equal”.
BS
The Founding Fathers kept slaves so they obviously meant all WHITE men are created equal. They probably thought it as likely that their words would be misused to include blacks as dogs or cattle so they didn’t even think to clarify.
--------------------------------------…
Edit:
And for whiny liberals who think this a minority view-
Every poll before the election showed 10-15% would **ADMIT** they didn't want a black president.
E.g
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?Rele…
(Question 5)
______
And nearly 20% of whites will **ADMIT** they don't support black/white breeding.
19% of whites disapprove of interracial marriage:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Am…
______
And who would want to admit their true opinions to a pollster when faced with the liberal witch hunt - I wouldn't.
SO THE TRUE FIGURE IS MUCH HIGHER.|||Neither. I think you are deluded. What does that have to do with socialism?|||And what exactly is wrong with socialism? You say it as a scare word or an insult, but really you don't even know what it is.|||This is why liberals accuse conservatives of not knowing what socialism is. I hate to tell people they don't know socialism is because it sounds arrogant and glib.
Socialism is an economic theory. Socialism refers to the public ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.
That's what it means.|||freedom for whites you mean -- but hay you have the freedom to speak your mind no matter how ugly it is|||Oh, quite contrair. The American people are far to stupid to know what is best for them. I can not stress that enough, if anarchy were to take over our country would be in flames.|||I'm not racist, but I agree with you. If a restaurant doesn't want to serve people of a certain race, nationality or religion, they should have the right to.
I'm sure I'll be called racist, but I assure you that I am not.|||NO your RIGHT WING PHONY TV EVANGELIST CRAP
is border linE NAZI FACSIM
denying 46 millions ameircan healht care|||I hope your house has lead paint and pipes and is situated on a toxic landfill.|||Get a clue. Segregation and socialism aren't even related. I thought a mental giant, such as yourself, would be able to figure out complex ideas like that.
What if The President ignores the checks and balances, (Congress) and forces legislation with Executive Orders?
Obama, while Weinergate was blocking all news outlets, pushed through yet ANOTHER big piece of legislation, The White House Rural Council, which is huge, and never got in front of Congress or the Senate. He has used Executive Orders to the point of abuse. What agency keeps the President from abusing and overstepping his power?|||I"ve heard it rumored that the constitution can be used for impeachment if a president has over-stepped his boundaries and gone against his oath to serve the people.
If Obama has any ideas of using the 14 amendment to override the congress on the debt limit I hope this pushes the tea party to a new height and run against the establishment ruling class in washington if nothing is done to stop barry boy.|||"Yeah, that sounds SO subversive!!" ~ Scott b ~
Who said it was subversive? It's the last one he's used and passed, and it involves every agency and dep't of the Federal Gov't. Not subversive, just quite a large encompassing piece of legislation to pass via EX ORDER. Defensive sarcasm unnecessary
|||Yeah, that sounds SO subversive!!
"The Council will begin discussing key factors for growth, including:
Jobs: Improve job training and workforce development in rural America
Agriculture: Expand markets for agriculture, including regional food systems and exports
Access to Credit: Increase opportunity by expanding access to capital in rural communities and fostering local investment
Innovation: Promote the expansion of biofuels production capacity and community based renewable energy projects
Networks: Develop high-growth regional economies by capitalizing on inherent regional strengths
Health Care: Improve access to quality health care through expansion of health technology systems
Education: Increase post-secondary enrollment rates and completion for rural students
Broadband: Support the President鈥檚 plan to increase broadband opportunities in rural America
Infrastructure: Coordinate investment in critical infrastructure
Ecosystem markets: Expanding opportunities for conservation, outdoor opportunities and economic growth on working lands and public lands"|||Oh, you mean like numerous previous presidents that you've never complained about? It's the president's prerogative and within the powers of the executive.|||Well Congress and the Supreme Court will inherently have Constitutional powers to counter the Executive branch. Question is will they use those powers?
There's not a whole lot the Supreme Court can do though. Judicial Review is probably the greatest power they hold, still very limited as far as checking other branches are concerned.|||I agree that he has abused his authority but for clarity, an Executive Order is not legislation.|||It would prevent an economic melt down like happened a long time before you were born known as the great "DEPRESSION"
If Obama has any ideas of using the 14 amendment to override the congress on the debt limit I hope this pushes the tea party to a new height and run against the establishment ruling class in washington if nothing is done to stop barry boy.|||"Yeah, that sounds SO subversive!!" ~ Scott b ~
Who said it was subversive? It's the last one he's used and passed, and it involves every agency and dep't of the Federal Gov't. Not subversive, just quite a large encompassing piece of legislation to pass via EX ORDER. Defensive sarcasm unnecessary
Report Abuse
|||Yeah, that sounds SO subversive!!
"The Council will begin discussing key factors for growth, including:
Jobs: Improve job training and workforce development in rural America
Agriculture: Expand markets for agriculture, including regional food systems and exports
Access to Credit: Increase opportunity by expanding access to capital in rural communities and fostering local investment
Innovation: Promote the expansion of biofuels production capacity and community based renewable energy projects
Networks: Develop high-growth regional economies by capitalizing on inherent regional strengths
Health Care: Improve access to quality health care through expansion of health technology systems
Education: Increase post-secondary enrollment rates and completion for rural students
Broadband: Support the President鈥檚 plan to increase broadband opportunities in rural America
Infrastructure: Coordinate investment in critical infrastructure
Ecosystem markets: Expanding opportunities for conservation, outdoor opportunities and economic growth on working lands and public lands"|||Oh, you mean like numerous previous presidents that you've never complained about? It's the president's prerogative and within the powers of the executive.|||Well Congress and the Supreme Court will inherently have Constitutional powers to counter the Executive branch. Question is will they use those powers?
There's not a whole lot the Supreme Court can do though. Judicial Review is probably the greatest power they hold, still very limited as far as checking other branches are concerned.|||I agree that he has abused his authority but for clarity, an Executive Order is not legislation.|||It would prevent an economic melt down like happened a long time before you were born known as the great "DEPRESSION"
How many new jobs (legislation creating) has the new congress (GOP) created since they took over?
All I have seen is legislation to do with abortion.|||Well, there are 80 new Republicans in Congress, so they got new jobs.
Other than that, let everyone else find their own job.|||Kind of tells you of their mind set doesn't it?The united states is going down the tube and they're worried about some unborn fetes.It's either that or they are taking off their shirt and trolling on the inter-net.If you don't wear a white collar they don't want to create a job for you.|||obombers had three years finally saying a few days ago, 'the last 2 years have been a disaster'
a disaster like the gremlins
2 years =24 months
our boyz arrived in the hood ONE month
and six days
nuts ,said Mcauliffe to the waffen SS
look it up fellas,a wee bit o history|||But that last tax cut extension included credits for companies that invest overseas. So technically they did create jobs. Just not in the United States. Nada, zilch, nothing for the country they claim to love SO much..|||They are more concerned with the definition of rape than jobs, typical politician BS.|||they have made many lobbyist employed ,to further destroy america|||they aren't even trying
Other than that, let everyone else find their own job.|||Kind of tells you of their mind set doesn't it?The united states is going down the tube and they're worried about some unborn fetes.It's either that or they are taking off their shirt and trolling on the inter-net.If you don't wear a white collar they don't want to create a job for you.|||obombers had three years finally saying a few days ago, 'the last 2 years have been a disaster'
a disaster like the gremlins
2 years =24 months
our boyz arrived in the hood ONE month
and six days
nuts ,said Mcauliffe to the waffen SS
look it up fellas,a wee bit o history|||But that last tax cut extension included credits for companies that invest overseas. So technically they did create jobs. Just not in the United States. Nada, zilch, nothing for the country they claim to love SO much..|||They are more concerned with the definition of rape than jobs, typical politician BS.|||they have made many lobbyist employed ,to further destroy america|||they aren't even trying
What single piece of Legislation did Obama write as a US Senator ?
Im talking about proposed legislation he put forth all by himself , not as a so called Co-Sponsor of someone elses work .|||DID YOU KNOW..... Information before the emancipation is strictly prohibited ? Top Secret, the Obama files......Hmmmm.......|||When you are only a senator for 143 days and most of that time you spend campaigning, there isn't any time to do anything except vote "not present." Now look what we got!|||what does it matter? he's not a senator any more.
here's something he did as president--
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2…|||Did he have any .. I thought he was always to busy just campaigning.. just as he is now!|||none
here's something he did as president--
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2…|||Did he have any .. I thought he was always to busy just campaigning.. just as he is now!|||none
What is the uk legislation regarding boycotts in the uk?
I recently started a boycott at my place of work as they for no reason gave my 0hours work for 5 weeks i have just received a letter saying my boycott was gross misconduct and i am dismissed.
What is the uk legislation regarding boycotting in the UK
thanks|||You "boycotted" your work - sorry no you didn't. At best you went on strike - illegally, effectively though you just didn't turn up for work and they have every right to sack you.|||You can't just not turn up for work unless its an official strike sanctioned by a trade union.
If you are in a union, I'd get some advice from them.
What is the uk legislation regarding boycotting in the UK
thanks|||You "boycotted" your work - sorry no you didn't. At best you went on strike - illegally, effectively though you just didn't turn up for work and they have every right to sack you.|||You can't just not turn up for work unless its an official strike sanctioned by a trade union.
If you are in a union, I'd get some advice from them.
Name one piece of legislation sponsored by John McCain that served to reduce government spending?
Not a voting record
Not a promise he's made
Not an endorsement
What legislation has John McCain actually sponsored that would reign in out of control government spending?|||John McCain is George W. Bush....cloned!|||There's a reason there are no answers to this question! LOL|||You stumped us.
But note how concise our answers are as opposed to the long-winded ramblings of a Rodham Clinton apologist.
Not a promise he's made
Not an endorsement
What legislation has John McCain actually sponsored that would reign in out of control government spending?|||John McCain is George W. Bush....cloned!|||There's a reason there are no answers to this question! LOL|||You stumped us.
But note how concise our answers are as opposed to the long-winded ramblings of a Rodham Clinton apologist.
What types of morality legislation should be leveled against Conservatives?
Now that the California Conservatives have succeeded, for the time being, with Prop 8...I am just wondering what type of legislation could be directed at Conservatives...any ideas?
|||Proposition 8 will once again be overturned by the Supreme Court of California as still being discriminatory. Its not about Gay Rights; but Human Rights and liberty that's bestowed on others. |||I think sticking us with most liberal Senator ever as President is enough. |||yea, that will teach them. punitive legislation for not voting the way you like.
and you libs complained when someone writes a book "Liberal Fascism"|||take your best shot.|||You don't direct legislation at people out of spite. You make laws to protect people and their rights. It's not just conservatives who voted down prop 8. It was also people who saw it as unConstitutional, or a law that would impose on already established rights. Constitutionality is not about feelings and opinions....|||Gee, maybe all of the protesting laws that apply only to protests at abortion clinics might qualify..
|||Proposition 8 will once again be overturned by the Supreme Court of California as still being discriminatory. Its not about Gay Rights; but Human Rights and liberty that's bestowed on others. |||I think sticking us with most liberal Senator ever as President is enough. |||yea, that will teach them. punitive legislation for not voting the way you like.
and you libs complained when someone writes a book "Liberal Fascism"|||take your best shot.|||You don't direct legislation at people out of spite. You make laws to protect people and their rights. It's not just conservatives who voted down prop 8. It was also people who saw it as unConstitutional, or a law that would impose on already established rights. Constitutionality is not about feelings and opinions....|||Gee, maybe all of the protesting laws that apply only to protests at abortion clinics might qualify..
Does anti-mexican legislation make Arizona the new third reich?
The Mexican is now targeted and Phoenix is like Auschwitz. Sheriif Joe Arpaio is playing the role of Himler. Jan Brewer is the new Hitler.
This piece of legislation is the cattle care leading to the gas chamber.|||I assume by your comments that you feel the Mexican is being targeted because the Sheriff is looking for illegal immigrants?
How many illegal immigrants in Arizona are non Latina?
If the majority of your illegals belong to a specific race then you have every right to target that race to ask a reasonable question.
I believe that asking a person if they have the privilege (it is a privilege to enter a country, not a right) to be in the US is a reasonable question. It is Bleeding Heart Liberals who feel that we should allow others to enter our countries and live off the sacrifices of others to finance their own, often secular, lifestyle.
Sorry it will not work for me.
BTW. I am a white Englishman. My country, like yours, has benefited enormously from CONTROLLED immigration. Either of them may, finally, be bought to their knees by uncontrolled immigration.
How much of your taxes goes on looking after these people when they have contributed nothing to the common coffers?
Ray|||Yes it does.|||Worst comparison ever.
All Arizona is doing is enforcing the Law,you know the Law those 11 Million CRIMINALS broke by coming into the Country ILLEGALLY.
RWE|||Suh, I have a question!!!
Are you retarded?|||that sheriff is a great guy their is a reason he has been elected over and over
you are comparing him to the third reich?
i assume you are a democrat right?
someone that loves all and does not say something bad about anyone right?
the liberal media says it is the republicans who are like that right?
and yet you ask this question??..|||About so. Racism is stronger than ever.|||Not at all, I have no problem with this law as long as law enforcement officials are willing to start handing out tardy excuses to the hard working people who are legally here and are probably gonna wined up being late to their jobs because of this. Of course, they're gonna have to make another law making employers have to accept these tardy slips without repercussion towards the "illegal immigrant" looking employee.
To: Right Wing Extremist: that's a bull**** law to begin with and you know it. You act like be here illegally automatically makes them high level threats like Al Qaeda terrorists. Thats probably why 9/11 happened. White men like you were trying to keep the people in South (who do the jobs your kids are too lazy to do) away and wound up getting "terrorized" by another minority.
This piece of legislation is the cattle care leading to the gas chamber.|||I assume by your comments that you feel the Mexican is being targeted because the Sheriff is looking for illegal immigrants?
How many illegal immigrants in Arizona are non Latina?
If the majority of your illegals belong to a specific race then you have every right to target that race to ask a reasonable question.
I believe that asking a person if they have the privilege (it is a privilege to enter a country, not a right) to be in the US is a reasonable question. It is Bleeding Heart Liberals who feel that we should allow others to enter our countries and live off the sacrifices of others to finance their own, often secular, lifestyle.
Sorry it will not work for me.
BTW. I am a white Englishman. My country, like yours, has benefited enormously from CONTROLLED immigration. Either of them may, finally, be bought to their knees by uncontrolled immigration.
How much of your taxes goes on looking after these people when they have contributed nothing to the common coffers?
Ray|||Yes it does.|||Worst comparison ever.
All Arizona is doing is enforcing the Law,you know the Law those 11 Million CRIMINALS broke by coming into the Country ILLEGALLY.
RWE|||Suh, I have a question!!!
Are you retarded?|||that sheriff is a great guy their is a reason he has been elected over and over
you are comparing him to the third reich?
i assume you are a democrat right?
someone that loves all and does not say something bad about anyone right?
the liberal media says it is the republicans who are like that right?
and yet you ask this question??..|||About so. Racism is stronger than ever.|||Not at all, I have no problem with this law as long as law enforcement officials are willing to start handing out tardy excuses to the hard working people who are legally here and are probably gonna wined up being late to their jobs because of this. Of course, they're gonna have to make another law making employers have to accept these tardy slips without repercussion towards the "illegal immigrant" looking employee.
To: Right Wing Extremist: that's a bull**** law to begin with and you know it. You act like be here illegally automatically makes them high level threats like Al Qaeda terrorists. Thats probably why 9/11 happened. White men like you were trying to keep the people in South (who do the jobs your kids are too lazy to do) away and wound up getting "terrorized" by another minority.
Why do Republicans always seem to be against education legislation? Do you fear knowledge?
You can't tout that useless "No child left behind" act. When Bush pulled that in Texas as Gov, they just stopped counting the dropouts to inflate the graduation rates. If you don't fund the legislation then you didn't really believe in it. Whenever I hear right wing bashing of "elites" I suspect it's always code for, "I hate and fear people who can read and think independently".|||If they had knowledge they wouldn't be Republicans. Hell, look at the last "president" they got elected.|||Don't you go pretending to be the original Schmecky when everyone knows that I am the original Schmecky you schmuck! And nobody cares about this stupid Republican political krap. They are politically dead and just don't have the sense to lay down so they can get swept up and put in the trash where they belong.|||Because the schools keep getting more and more tax money, and the education quality just keeps dropping. There should be a nationwide voucher program so parents can get a good education for their children.
The public school system stopped teaching children to think on their own many many years ago.
The public school system stopped teaching children to think on their own many many years ago.
What law or legislation is there to stop discrimination of jews?
I need to know the law or legislation is there to stop discrimination of jews?|||Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.|||Discrimination on the basis of religion or race is illegal in many areas of life (education, employment, etc).
There is no such restriction on personal activity, nor are jews singled out for any specific protection.|||The federal statute previously mentioned, as well as numerous state statutes. Don't discriminate against anyone.|||Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimmination based on sex, gender, creed, national orgin, etc|||Penny Pincher Legislation, Himler being the biggest proponent.
There is no such restriction on personal activity, nor are jews singled out for any specific protection.|||The federal statute previously mentioned, as well as numerous state statutes. Don't discriminate against anyone.|||Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimmination based on sex, gender, creed, national orgin, etc|||Penny Pincher Legislation, Himler being the biggest proponent.
Does anyone know a site where I can print off proposed bills or bills in legislation?
I am in a government class and we have to print off bills about certain issues. I was wondering if anyone knew of a site where I can print the texts of bills. They do not have to be nationally recognized yet, they can just be local pieces of legislation, but please help!|||http://www.gpoaccess.gov/bills/index.htm鈥?/a>
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energya鈥?/a>
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c107query.htm鈥?/a>
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r110query.htm鈥?/a>
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vie鈥?/a>
There's a start for ya!
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energya鈥?/a>
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c107query.htm鈥?/a>
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r110query.htm鈥?/a>
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vie鈥?/a>
There's a start for ya!
Is there any legislation to protect drivers when traffic sign is blocked by trees?
Hi all, I drove into a parking control area without seeing the 'parking control area' traffic sign and got a parking fine. The reason is that the traffic sign was blocked by trees and it was at night time. Basically, I was not aware of the area is inside the parking control area because of the blocked traffic sign. Is there any transportation legislation to protect me from the unclear traffic sign? (Note that I am in Brisbane, Australia). Thanks in advance.|||Yes, appeal the ticket .
Before you go to court, take a photo, of the trees blocking the street sign, from a point on the road, where the cars drivers seat would be.
In fact, dont just take one photo, take several photos from different positions.
You will find, if the trees are blocking the road sign, it will be dismissed.|||The usual answer is "no, ignorance of the law is no excuse."
You could try and countersue, claiming they were maintaining (or not) a hazard, and had intentionally allowed the overgrowth to block the sign in order to gain revenue. You'd go to court on your original ticket, include timely photos, and they might just throw it out.
Jurisprudence is about moving cases in and out. If you appear ready to drag this out, they might "negotiate".|||Yes, you can usually appeal a ticket, and take a picture of the blocked sign with you. If the sign is not clearly visible, the ticket will probably be dismissed.|||Sorry I cant really give you a good answer. Here is the US, most states require that a sign be visible...so trees must be kept trimmed etc.|||In America I'd fight this by snapping a photo and showing up in court.
Few judges would try and enforce such a ticket.
Before you go to court, take a photo, of the trees blocking the street sign, from a point on the road, where the cars drivers seat would be.
In fact, dont just take one photo, take several photos from different positions.
You will find, if the trees are blocking the road sign, it will be dismissed.|||The usual answer is "no, ignorance of the law is no excuse."
You could try and countersue, claiming they were maintaining (or not) a hazard, and had intentionally allowed the overgrowth to block the sign in order to gain revenue. You'd go to court on your original ticket, include timely photos, and they might just throw it out.
Jurisprudence is about moving cases in and out. If you appear ready to drag this out, they might "negotiate".|||Yes, you can usually appeal a ticket, and take a picture of the blocked sign with you. If the sign is not clearly visible, the ticket will probably be dismissed.|||Sorry I cant really give you a good answer. Here is the US, most states require that a sign be visible...so trees must be kept trimmed etc.|||In America I'd fight this by snapping a photo and showing up in court.
Few judges would try and enforce such a ticket.
What do you think? are 5 reasons for allowing the general public to vote on legislation as it becomes a law?
5 Pros :for allowing the general public to vote on legislation as it goes through the process of becoming a law.
5 Cons: for keeping te legislative branch as the one making body in the American government.|||Logistics
Cost
Fickleness
State's Rights Infringement
Checks and Balances Dearth|||con: the voting public is made of uneducated slobs.|||Oh please. American's are so lazy and empathetic, they can't even be troubled to make it to the polls to vote for a PRESIDENT every FOUR years. You really think they're going to vote on each and every law? No way.
Also imagine the delays it would cause. Voting takes time. Polls are set up, the public is notified of the voting times, people have to take off work in order to vote, votes must be tallied, challenges can be made against the results. A law that is really needed could get held up.
By the way, you're basically asking for 10 of the same thing: 5 pros FOR letting the American people vote, and 5 cons AGAINST leaving it to the legislative body. Pretty much the same..|||There aren't any pros, and there is one really good con: legislation is simply too complex for the ordinary voter to try to master so as to be able to make an informed decision. The Tax Code runs over 10,000 pages; do you think that anyone other than an expert could conclude whether a proposed amendment is a good thing, or a bad thing -- or even makes sense?|||We have the right of redress, its in the Constittution. Our freedom of speech, the 1st Amendment. What? Do you want to give up this right?|||Pro's
1:The country is owned by the people, they should decide what laws are passed.
2:The laws will be more simple for the common man to understand. Americana's are not stupid, we can make good decisions. Politicians miss lead us to keep us in the dark. This would end that.
3:NO pork will be added to a bill or law just to get another congressman to vote for it.
4:The need for attorneys will be less.
5: Its called Democracy. A rule by the people. Right now we have a socialist republic.
Cons:
1:Will require Americans to get off their lazy butts and take charge of their lives.
2:Will be the end of Social programs as we know them now.
3:Will mean longer times between laws as they are hashed down to the most common factors that will serve all of America.
4:Will put an end to the IRS and taxes. (though this is not a con it will mean a cash strapping for a while, but not for very long)
5:Will cause the unemployment rate to go up as well as the prison rate as we will throw all those blood sucking lawyers and crooked politicians and judges in jail and put a lot others out of work. (I'm not sure how this is a con but I'm sure someone will think it is)
5 Cons: for keeping te legislative branch as the one making body in the American government.|||Logistics
Cost
Fickleness
State's Rights Infringement
Checks and Balances Dearth|||con: the voting public is made of uneducated slobs.|||Oh please. American's are so lazy and empathetic, they can't even be troubled to make it to the polls to vote for a PRESIDENT every FOUR years. You really think they're going to vote on each and every law? No way.
Also imagine the delays it would cause. Voting takes time. Polls are set up, the public is notified of the voting times, people have to take off work in order to vote, votes must be tallied, challenges can be made against the results. A law that is really needed could get held up.
By the way, you're basically asking for 10 of the same thing: 5 pros FOR letting the American people vote, and 5 cons AGAINST leaving it to the legislative body. Pretty much the same..|||There aren't any pros, and there is one really good con: legislation is simply too complex for the ordinary voter to try to master so as to be able to make an informed decision. The Tax Code runs over 10,000 pages; do you think that anyone other than an expert could conclude whether a proposed amendment is a good thing, or a bad thing -- or even makes sense?|||We have the right of redress, its in the Constittution. Our freedom of speech, the 1st Amendment. What? Do you want to give up this right?|||Pro's
1:The country is owned by the people, they should decide what laws are passed.
2:The laws will be more simple for the common man to understand. Americana's are not stupid, we can make good decisions. Politicians miss lead us to keep us in the dark. This would end that.
3:NO pork will be added to a bill or law just to get another congressman to vote for it.
4:The need for attorneys will be less.
5: Its called Democracy. A rule by the people. Right now we have a socialist republic.
Cons:
1:Will require Americans to get off their lazy butts and take charge of their lives.
2:Will be the end of Social programs as we know them now.
3:Will mean longer times between laws as they are hashed down to the most common factors that will serve all of America.
4:Will put an end to the IRS and taxes. (though this is not a con it will mean a cash strapping for a while, but not for very long)
5:Will cause the unemployment rate to go up as well as the prison rate as we will throw all those blood sucking lawyers and crooked politicians and judges in jail and put a lot others out of work. (I'm not sure how this is a con but I'm sure someone will think it is)
What laws and legislation's protect adults with down's syndrome?
Its for my coursework. What laws and legislation's protect adults with down's syndrome in all environments?|||In addition to the ordinary laws there is the Disability Discrimination Act which forbids organisations from discriminating solely on the basis of disability. Obviously there would be objective grounds for not employing an adult with Downs as a professor of theoretical physics but refusing to serve someone with Downs in a shop or restaurant would be illegal if they were behaving appropriately.
There are also provisions for assisting people with Downs to give evidence in a court - they would be vulnerable witnesses - but I think this may not be in legislation but procedural.
There are also provisions to appoint a legal guardian for such an adult without a family member to act for them if they would find it difficult to handle their financial affairs for example - this might mean that the individual would have control over day to day spending but the guardian would cope with the various forms which today's society requires and would counter-sign tenancy agreements etc. partly as a precaution against unfair terms and conditions set by landlords or other organisations.
There are no specific laws for Downs adults, they would be laws which deal with all adults with whose intellectual development makes it difficult for them to manage in today's society on equal terms.|||Hi
I would suggest you take a look at the charter of human rights and quote them all. they apply to everyone irrespective of age sex and ability.
http://www.samaritanmag.com/kids/we-have鈥?/a>
here you will find a simplified version you can quote from.
There are no specific laws for a specific condition except for the mobility laws in your own country.|||The exact same laws as any healthy adult, there exactly the same as other people except they look a little different but have a lot more love to give.|||the little flag under the question says this is UK based, is that correct..the flag isn't always right..
the state/country makes a big difference
There are also provisions for assisting people with Downs to give evidence in a court - they would be vulnerable witnesses - but I think this may not be in legislation but procedural.
There are also provisions to appoint a legal guardian for such an adult without a family member to act for them if they would find it difficult to handle their financial affairs for example - this might mean that the individual would have control over day to day spending but the guardian would cope with the various forms which today's society requires and would counter-sign tenancy agreements etc. partly as a precaution against unfair terms and conditions set by landlords or other organisations.
There are no specific laws for Downs adults, they would be laws which deal with all adults with whose intellectual development makes it difficult for them to manage in today's society on equal terms.|||Hi
I would suggest you take a look at the charter of human rights and quote them all. they apply to everyone irrespective of age sex and ability.
http://www.samaritanmag.com/kids/we-have鈥?/a>
here you will find a simplified version you can quote from.
There are no specific laws for a specific condition except for the mobility laws in your own country.|||The exact same laws as any healthy adult, there exactly the same as other people except they look a little different but have a lot more love to give.|||the little flag under the question says this is UK based, is that correct..the flag isn't always right..
the state/country makes a big difference
What is the definition of "income" given in Australia's income tax legislation?
A quote from the actual legislation please, and a reference for where it is given.|||you sure you want the answer to this question?
ok you asked for it!
assessable income has the meaning given by sections 6-5, 6-10, 6-15, 17-10 and 17-30 Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.
To have a closer look at these sections, go to http://law.ato.gov.au
The problem is, the definition of "income" is linked to caselaw too...|||Yes, visit a library. That is what your lecturer encourages.|||Anything that makes you money.|||yeah. i agree with JD
ok you asked for it!
assessable income has the meaning given by sections 6-5, 6-10, 6-15, 17-10 and 17-30 Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.
To have a closer look at these sections, go to http://law.ato.gov.au
The problem is, the definition of "income" is linked to caselaw too...|||Yes, visit a library. That is what your lecturer encourages.|||Anything that makes you money.|||yeah. i agree with JD
Which pieces of legislation would a pet store need to be aware of?
I'm doing a college assignment, and for one of the questions i need to identify 8 pieces of legislation that a pet store would need to be aware of. Can anyone name any?|||The Health and Safety at Work Act
R.I.D.D.O.R.
C.O.S.S.H.
The First Aid Regulations
Manual Handling Regulations
The Dangerous Animals Act
The Fire Regulations
The Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act|||Hello,
The Pet Animals Act 1951:
This act requires any person keeping a pet shop to be licensed by the local authority. Before this is granted the local authority inspect the shop and must be satisfied that the animals are kept in suitable conditions (have clean accommodation, food, water etc).
The Animal Welfare Act 2006
This act protects the welfare of animals (obviously). It states animals must have suitable accommodation, diet, be able to display normal behaviours, and to be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease.
The law also increases to 16 the minimum age at which a person can buy an animal.
Anyone who is cruel to an animal, or does not provide for its welfare needs, may be banned from owning animals, fined up to 拢20,000 and/or sent to prison.
Hope this helps and good luck with your studies :)
R.I.D.D.O.R.
C.O.S.S.H.
The First Aid Regulations
Manual Handling Regulations
The Dangerous Animals Act
The Fire Regulations
The Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act|||Hello,
The Pet Animals Act 1951:
This act requires any person keeping a pet shop to be licensed by the local authority. Before this is granted the local authority inspect the shop and must be satisfied that the animals are kept in suitable conditions (have clean accommodation, food, water etc).
The Animal Welfare Act 2006
This act protects the welfare of animals (obviously). It states animals must have suitable accommodation, diet, be able to display normal behaviours, and to be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease.
The law also increases to 16 the minimum age at which a person can buy an animal.
Anyone who is cruel to an animal, or does not provide for its welfare needs, may be banned from owning animals, fined up to 拢20,000 and/or sent to prison.
Hope this helps and good luck with your studies :)
What are some examples of very expensive pieces of legislation in history and were they successful?
I read that the healthcare bill is one of the most expensive pieces of legislation in our history, but specifically, does anybody know any really expensive bills that were passed in our nation's history, and were they successful?|||Successful for whom the American people or the government?
Every piece of legislation the government passes is to rape and pilferage the American people. So ALL legislation is successful at soaking the working man out of his hard earned dollar!
I can't think of ONE that is run properly and not managed poorly.
Every piece of legislation the government passes is to rape and pilferage the American people. So ALL legislation is successful at soaking the working man out of his hard earned dollar!
I can't think of ONE that is run properly and not managed poorly.
Does anyone know what legislation or source is used to set speed limits on specific roads in Calgary?
I think it must be provincial legislation for Alberta. Why I ask is that sometimes the posted limit seems to be skewed, IE too fast for some roads, too slow for others. My question pertains to the province of Alberta, not just specifically to Calgary. Thanks.|||Speed limits do not indicate the speed you should travel. They are the maximum speed permitted if conditions are favorable. Any speed that is unsafe under the prevailing conditions is illegal...
In Alberta toll free 310-0000,
(from a cell phone
#310 on Telus, or
*310 on AT%26amp;T), then
780-427-2731
Outside of Alberta 780-427-2731
Monday-Friday 8:15 am - 4:30 pm.
In Alberta toll free 310-0000,
(from a cell phone
#310 on Telus, or
*310 on AT%26amp;T), then
780-427-2731
Outside of Alberta 780-427-2731
Monday-Friday 8:15 am - 4:30 pm.
Explanation of the legislation a manager must be aware of when displaying goods?
I have to write a report for an assignment at college and it says that the report should include 'an explanation of the legislation the manager must be aware of when displaying goods'. This is due in tomorrow and I'm so stuck! Help would be much appreciated. (:|||There are laws against indecent display of certain kinds of goods.
How did relief legislation change from the First New Deal to the Second New Deal?
How did relief legislation change from the First New Deal to the Second New Deal?|||The Second New Deal followed a strikedown of legislation by the Supreme Court. It included relief acts such as Social Security.
Where is the best place to find a book on delegated legislation in Canada?
I am looking for a secondary reference on regulation-making and delegated legislation (sometimes referred to as executive legislation or executive law-making) in Canada.
Does anyone know of a good used bookstore to find some classics on the topic?|||I would try calling a university professor and asking them.|||amazon.com
at a university
library
ebay.com
Does anyone know of a good used bookstore to find some classics on the topic?|||I would try calling a university professor and asking them.|||amazon.com
at a university
library
ebay.com
So now more states are looking to draft legislation for immigration like Arizona?
The person who wrote the bill that is now in place has said that four other states are looking to draft similar legislation as Arizona.
He wouldnt say which states because of client privilage.
Do you think this is the turning point 4 more states and then the whole country.
When will it be Californias turn?|||Haha, what a joke.|||I'm praying to God California is next.|||judging by the uproar from this bill im sure law suits to appeal this law are already in the working|||Sure hope so, and hope it becomes a law in every state...Viva la deportacion de todos illegales bandidos.|||When they get the swarms from Arizona.
I hope all of them do.|||It could be. I hope so. While there are dolts out there who say this law is unconstitutional because it is the job of the Feds to do Immigration, the fact is it is not, and there are a number of excellent discussion on the issue.
Also.. over 70% of the people of this country want the illegal aliens deported. Obama is smoking too much rope if he things they suddenly forgot what they wanted. LOTS of people were looking, and I think you are correct.
In addition, she talked to a lot of lawyers about that law. I think it is going to fly and pretty easily.|||Oh no, lawsuits. Do you morons who support the alien horde know that people have been suing the government for quite some time now, when their children were killed by the hands of illegal aliens?
There are four things certain in this country: death, taxes, illegal aliens, and lawsuits. There will always be lawsuits..the difference is the illegal aliens can't sue since they can't be here in the first place.
We can cut back on taxes and illegal aliens at least.|||The more states, the merrier! BBBBBBBBBuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh鈥? BBBBBBBByyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeee ILLEGALS. Take those who support you with you!!!!!!!...they are not American!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!|||Well,finally someone with backbone,and a lady governor at that,is standing up to the federal government.It's a shame the states have to pass a bill that is already on the federal books.Entering the united states without proper documents is illegal.What part of that law does the federal people not understand.Will the state of Texas be next to pass a similar law.I think not.Governor Perry can see all those legal immigrants turning their back on him if he does.Remember the old saying about birds of a feather legal or illegal flock to gather.This is not a racist opinion,it's just stating the facts.I have to obey the laws of this great nation and I expect anyone coming here to do the same.
He wouldnt say which states because of client privilage.
Do you think this is the turning point 4 more states and then the whole country.
When will it be Californias turn?|||Haha, what a joke.|||I'm praying to God California is next.|||judging by the uproar from this bill im sure law suits to appeal this law are already in the working|||Sure hope so, and hope it becomes a law in every state...Viva la deportacion de todos illegales bandidos.|||When they get the swarms from Arizona.
I hope all of them do.|||It could be. I hope so. While there are dolts out there who say this law is unconstitutional because it is the job of the Feds to do Immigration, the fact is it is not, and there are a number of excellent discussion on the issue.
Also.. over 70% of the people of this country want the illegal aliens deported. Obama is smoking too much rope if he things they suddenly forgot what they wanted. LOTS of people were looking, and I think you are correct.
In addition, she talked to a lot of lawyers about that law. I think it is going to fly and pretty easily.|||Oh no, lawsuits. Do you morons who support the alien horde know that people have been suing the government for quite some time now, when their children were killed by the hands of illegal aliens?
There are four things certain in this country: death, taxes, illegal aliens, and lawsuits. There will always be lawsuits..the difference is the illegal aliens can't sue since they can't be here in the first place.
We can cut back on taxes and illegal aliens at least.|||The more states, the merrier! BBBBBBBBBuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh鈥? BBBBBBBByyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeee ILLEGALS. Take those who support you with you!!!!!!!...they are not American!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!|||Well,finally someone with backbone,and a lady governor at that,is standing up to the federal government.It's a shame the states have to pass a bill that is already on the federal books.Entering the united states without proper documents is illegal.What part of that law does the federal people not understand.Will the state of Texas be next to pass a similar law.I think not.Governor Perry can see all those legal immigrants turning their back on him if he does.Remember the old saying about birds of a feather legal or illegal flock to gather.This is not a racist opinion,it's just stating the facts.I have to obey the laws of this great nation and I expect anyone coming here to do the same.
What EU Legislation is there protecting care service users?
Currently doing A2 Health and Social, need advice on which pieces of Legislation to use. I know the Human Rights Act but others seem to be lost in the blue somewhere..|||there are many, have a look at the Europa website that will answer any question you have about the EU
http://europa.eu/index_en.htm
http://europa.eu/index_en.htm
Is the legislation to force people to do unpaid 'placements' if they receive JSA in place ?
Is it already legal to force people to do unpaid work in the community ?
I hear the Job centre is doing this already. In fact I know they are. I suspect 'volunteering' is being implied to get around the minimum wage act. Is this currently legal or has the legislation yet to go through Parliament.|||Yes it is already legal He who has the gold makes the rules. Tony Blair and the Queen repealed the treason laws in the Crime and Criminal Evidence Act 1998 when they realised the severity of their crimes.
I hear the Job centre is doing this already. In fact I know they are. I suspect 'volunteering' is being implied to get around the minimum wage act. Is this currently legal or has the legislation yet to go through Parliament.|||Yes it is already legal He who has the gold makes the rules. Tony Blair and the Queen repealed the treason laws in the Crime and Criminal Evidence Act 1998 when they realised the severity of their crimes.
Will the timing of the SEC charges against Goldman Sachs help the financial reform legislation?
Financial reform legislation is being debated this week, and the SEC charged Goldman Sachs with fraud on Friday.
Maybe Goldman Sachs will be found guilty eventually, but the timing just seems very interesting. It is like the uproar about one insurer's request for a 39% rate hike in California just before the final vote on health insurance reform.|||No.
This Administration brings out some dirty laundry every time they want to enforce some new
restriction on the populace. Blow something up like a balloon, way out of proportion to the problem, to accomplish their end goal; the end justifies the means. If the laws already in place were enforced, we would need no more but that would not give the Administration more power and that is what those supported by the Unions want, more power. Those who are political are beginning to understand that and the Administration is viewed with less and less respect. Union heavy handed smears and tactics, imo.|||Yes and it is a good strategy.
Maybe Goldman Sachs will be found guilty eventually, but the timing just seems very interesting. It is like the uproar about one insurer's request for a 39% rate hike in California just before the final vote on health insurance reform.|||No.
This Administration brings out some dirty laundry every time they want to enforce some new
restriction on the populace. Blow something up like a balloon, way out of proportion to the problem, to accomplish their end goal; the end justifies the means. If the laws already in place were enforced, we would need no more but that would not give the Administration more power and that is what those supported by the Unions want, more power. Those who are political are beginning to understand that and the Administration is viewed with less and less respect. Union heavy handed smears and tactics, imo.|||Yes and it is a good strategy.
Is there a good website to find legislation on running a children's workshop in the UK?
My Young Enterprise group have had a sizeable amount of interest in us setting up a weekend workshop where children can come along and paint their own canvas with acrylic paints, however, I'm having trouble finding any legislation relating to running a club/workshop, although I know there's a fair bit! Can anybody direct me to a good guide, preferably online? Thankyou :)|||Hi there, you need to make sure that all the staff and adult volunteers have a check run by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB).
www.crb.gov.uk/
your local volunteer bureau would be able to help with this or help signpost you to a local umbrealla body who will help you get the forms completed and sent off.
most of the legislation about running activities for children falls under the OFSTED guidance:
available from
http://www.surestart.gov.uk/publications鈥?/a>
these are the standards that registered out of school providers needs to meet.
there are different sets of standards depending on the ages of the children you plan to work with. even if you are not registered, use them to make sure what you are planning is in the best interests of the children you are working with.
if you are only planning to run a few sessions (less than five in any one rolling year) and they are last less than two hours you do not need to register with OFSTED- but best practise would be to contact your local Early Years and Childcare Service ( part of the local council) and let them know that you are carrying out the activities. They will also be able to give you advice on local support or whatever is availbale.
you will also have to make sure that your insurance covers the activities you are planning to do.
good luck and have fun -
www.crb.gov.uk/
your local volunteer bureau would be able to help with this or help signpost you to a local umbrealla body who will help you get the forms completed and sent off.
most of the legislation about running activities for children falls under the OFSTED guidance:
available from
http://www.surestart.gov.uk/publications鈥?/a>
these are the standards that registered out of school providers needs to meet.
there are different sets of standards depending on the ages of the children you plan to work with. even if you are not registered, use them to make sure what you are planning is in the best interests of the children you are working with.
if you are only planning to run a few sessions (less than five in any one rolling year) and they are last less than two hours you do not need to register with OFSTED- but best practise would be to contact your local Early Years and Childcare Service ( part of the local council) and let them know that you are carrying out the activities. They will also be able to give you advice on local support or whatever is availbale.
you will also have to make sure that your insurance covers the activities you are planning to do.
good luck and have fun -
What can you do when a senior school in the uk breaks government legislation?
My daughters school has broken government legislation with failing to provide her with P.E for the last 2 years is there anything that can be done about this?|||Your first step should be to write a letter to the school, as all schools are required to have a complaints procedure, handled by the governing body. While complaining in this way will not be helpful, you will generally be taken much more seriously "up the chain."
You can complain directly to the Local Authority through this website:
http://local.direct.gov.uk/LDGRedirect/i鈥?/a>
If this fails, you can contact the Department of Education, who will generally only deal with your complaint if you have already contacted the Local Authority, but you feel they have acted unreasonably or entirely failed to answer your complain. This can be done here:
http://www.education.gov.uk/help/contact鈥?/a>
You may be wise to contact OFSTED (enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk) OFSTED cannot and do not take on individual complaints about schools, however they may be able to give you a much better idea of the EXACT requirements that the school must meet. This way, you can show them the exact requirements, and the school cannot "fob you off" by saying they have no obligation.
I hope this helped.|||If all fails after following Michael your option is Judicial Review via the high court. This forces public services to comply with the law as passed by parliament.
You can complain directly to the Local Authority through this website:
http://local.direct.gov.uk/LDGRedirect/i鈥?/a>
If this fails, you can contact the Department of Education, who will generally only deal with your complaint if you have already contacted the Local Authority, but you feel they have acted unreasonably or entirely failed to answer your complain. This can be done here:
http://www.education.gov.uk/help/contact鈥?/a>
You may be wise to contact OFSTED (enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk) OFSTED cannot and do not take on individual complaints about schools, however they may be able to give you a much better idea of the EXACT requirements that the school must meet. This way, you can show them the exact requirements, and the school cannot "fob you off" by saying they have no obligation.
I hope this helped.|||If all fails after following Michael your option is Judicial Review via the high court. This forces public services to comply with the law as passed by parliament.
What do Y/A republicans have to say about the credit card reform legislation passing in the senate 90-5?
Considering the staunch opposition I've seen from republicans to this bill, are you'll surprised to see such GOP support in the senate for this legislation to regulate the credit card industry?|||I agree with the main premises of the bill, although a lot of other snakey things seem to be attached to it that I am not too happy about.
I try not to use my credit card anyway...|||I don't care because I try not to use the money that I can not afford.|||Its a good deal,
Its about time those liberal blue state corporations were reined in.
Just look what the liberal ran blue state banks did to the country.|||As is typical of government forced reforms, this will result in an unwanted consequences.
Fewer people will be eligible for credit, because without the high return based on high risk credit, the financial companies won't be willing to accept the risk.
Of course, we all know who will be most affected by the tightening of credit. And we can all guess what the Democrats will then do.|||All I can say is.. Yahoo! It's about time I think personally.
I try not to use my credit card anyway...|||I don't care because I try not to use the money that I can not afford.|||Its a good deal,
Its about time those liberal blue state corporations were reined in.
Just look what the liberal ran blue state banks did to the country.|||As is typical of government forced reforms, this will result in an unwanted consequences.
Fewer people will be eligible for credit, because without the high return based on high risk credit, the financial companies won't be willing to accept the risk.
Of course, we all know who will be most affected by the tightening of credit. And we can all guess what the Democrats will then do.|||All I can say is.. Yahoo! It's about time I think personally.
What is the single largest issue impacting the middle class and what single legislation could help?
I am really looking to be pointed to the best folks to answer this question (aka - top academic minds from respected universities - expert in field). The rule is, however, they cannot be associated with a corporation that would benefit from the suggested legislation.|||Most "top academic minds" and "experts in the field" never miss a chance to answer such a pearl on Yahoo Answers... so here I go.
The largest issue is the economy. The best legislation would be to promote free market capitalism by reducing government regulation. Additionally, eliminating corporate taxes (which are just passed on to the consumer), and getting rid of most if not all social programs (welfare, medicare, social security e.g.) and using federal tax dollars for the only true thing for which all benefit - defense and border security - would be the best for the middle class. They could then take the additional income (as realized by reduced taxes) and spend it where they best see fit... health care, retirement,a vacation, their kids college, gambling in Vegas, illegal drug use... whatever, I don't care as long as they quit expecting me to subsidize it.|||http://www.buybackamericanow.com was the driver behind this question.
|||Stopping the North American Union , Stopping devaluation of the dollar and Stopping the Welfare state that is Americana|||Universal Health Care
The largest issue is the economy. The best legislation would be to promote free market capitalism by reducing government regulation. Additionally, eliminating corporate taxes (which are just passed on to the consumer), and getting rid of most if not all social programs (welfare, medicare, social security e.g.) and using federal tax dollars for the only true thing for which all benefit - defense and border security - would be the best for the middle class. They could then take the additional income (as realized by reduced taxes) and spend it where they best see fit... health care, retirement,a vacation, their kids college, gambling in Vegas, illegal drug use... whatever, I don't care as long as they quit expecting me to subsidize it.|||http://www.buybackamericanow.com was the driver behind this question.
Report Abuse
|||Stopping the North American Union , Stopping devaluation of the dollar and Stopping the Welfare state that is Americana|||Universal Health Care
If the START Treaty and the DADT Legislation is so important, why doesn't Congress work through Christmas?
If the Democratic Congress feels that it is running out of time and the only reason that they are unable to pass important legislation is that they need to recess for Christmas, why won't the leadership take a bold step and request that they work through Christmas until the bills can be voted on?
In an environment where people are losing jobs and having problems living day to day, Congress can say that they can't pass bills because they have to spend Christmas with their families?
Is there a law saying that they must break for Christmas?|||The republicans don't want to. First because they among the first to whine about working more than normal hours. They didn't even want to work this weekend.
They also don't want to work through the holiday because it's another way to block the bills they don't want until the get the majority in the house. They don't have the guts to actually let the legally elected representatives vote on what the majority wants.
There is no law saying they have to break for anything. That's up them.
It's ridiculous to pretend these are bills being crammed through when they've been around for a long time.
The republicans don't even care if it has to do with national security like START.|||It's chiefly Republican politicians (though certainly not all of them) that I've heard who don't want to work over Christmas - this reeks of a stalling tactic to tarry until the new Congress comes in and thus kill those bills by default (bills outstanding can't be carried over into a new Congressional session).
As for procedure, there's no law that say Congress must break for Christmas - it's a procedural rule that both houses of Congress have adopted for themselves since who-knows-when.|||They knew that those, in addition to the DREAM Act, were unpopular bills, so they never attempted to address them during the two years that they held super majorities. Now it's all about political theater.|||The dems were suppose to pass the budget bill earlier this year, so it's like asking what's wrong with doing an all -nighter ... mistakes will happen.
besides this is a lame duck congress, the new congress should make the laws for now on.|||We've seen the results of legislation that is pushed through Congress without due consideration.
I would much rather see a considered vote than another bill rammed down our throats.|||Christmas IS a Federal Holiday.|||No, but the START treaty and DADT need to be passed.|||because gop into get tax break for people make million dollar year will not let then
In an environment where people are losing jobs and having problems living day to day, Congress can say that they can't pass bills because they have to spend Christmas with their families?
Is there a law saying that they must break for Christmas?|||The republicans don't want to. First because they among the first to whine about working more than normal hours. They didn't even want to work this weekend.
They also don't want to work through the holiday because it's another way to block the bills they don't want until the get the majority in the house. They don't have the guts to actually let the legally elected representatives vote on what the majority wants.
There is no law saying they have to break for anything. That's up them.
It's ridiculous to pretend these are bills being crammed through when they've been around for a long time.
The republicans don't even care if it has to do with national security like START.|||It's chiefly Republican politicians (though certainly not all of them) that I've heard who don't want to work over Christmas - this reeks of a stalling tactic to tarry until the new Congress comes in and thus kill those bills by default (bills outstanding can't be carried over into a new Congressional session).
As for procedure, there's no law that say Congress must break for Christmas - it's a procedural rule that both houses of Congress have adopted for themselves since who-knows-when.|||They knew that those, in addition to the DREAM Act, were unpopular bills, so they never attempted to address them during the two years that they held super majorities. Now it's all about political theater.|||The dems were suppose to pass the budget bill earlier this year, so it's like asking what's wrong with doing an all -nighter ... mistakes will happen.
besides this is a lame duck congress, the new congress should make the laws for now on.|||We've seen the results of legislation that is pushed through Congress without due consideration.
I would much rather see a considered vote than another bill rammed down our throats.|||Christmas IS a Federal Holiday.|||No, but the START treaty and DADT need to be passed.|||because gop into get tax break for people make million dollar year will not let then
What part of the constitution that gives the President the authority to propose Legislation?
I was reading about the recent Supreme Court ruling and how the President disagreed with it. My understanding is that the President's reponsibility is to enforce the law. But he keeps talking about proposing new legislation. Do the President under the constitution have this authority?|||Anyone and everyone can propose a law, proposing a law is by no means a binding action.|||The President can propose legislation but someone in Congress has to actually author it and submit a bill.|||I don't like the ruling of the liberals on the USC either. I believe it places our country at risk.
The courts responsibility is to follow the constitution and bill of rights, then to interpret existing law based on how it fits with the constitution.
That belongs with the Congress.
The court over reached their interpretation.
The courts responsibility is to follow the constitution and bill of rights, then to interpret existing law based on how it fits with the constitution.
That belongs with the Congress.
The court over reached their interpretation.
What current legislation requires an organisation to do to protect their data and ICT system?
plz help
How the different parts legislation ensure data is protected and how individual and companies can be prosecuted for breaking the law|||Protecting their own data is just good business sense, I don't believe it is legislated. Protecting other people's data (personal details, account details etc) is (I think) covered by the Data Protection Act.
How the different parts legislation ensure data is protected and how individual and companies can be prosecuted for breaking the law|||Protecting their own data is just good business sense, I don't believe it is legislated. Protecting other people's data (personal details, account details etc) is (I think) covered by the Data Protection Act.
How would you scientifically approach campaining for emission legislation?
I'm interested in recommendations for an approach to link the cost of health care that relates to air pollution from vehicles and industrial projects and the setting of emission standards and migratory policies specifically in the transportation area to healthier alternatives.
My theory is to cooperate and coordinate between the health, transport and industrial entities to understand what are the causes and the possible long term solutions. Use the environmental agency to set standards and push legislation to migrate buses, taxi's and fleets that the government has a say in to less harmful and more efficient forms somewhat subsidized by the health entities as an investment in reducing health care costs per capital in the future as a return on that investment.
What are your thoughts on the issue? I'm not looking for quick fixes nor do I want to have anything to do with financial gain intentional or otherwise regardless of else does as a side affect.|||Please pardon my cynicism, but I don't think that this initiative would get much support from the traditional health industry.
After all, sick people are their source of business, and you are asking them to contribute funding to DECREASE their clientele?
Ain't gonna happen... at least not in North America.|||I guess you didn't notice, but there are a lot of people already doing what you want to do. Follow their lead.
"Subsidized"....haha, you mean you want me to pay for it, in addition to the taxes I'm already paying and my own bills I pay to support myself. That's funny.
My theory is to cooperate and coordinate between the health, transport and industrial entities to understand what are the causes and the possible long term solutions. Use the environmental agency to set standards and push legislation to migrate buses, taxi's and fleets that the government has a say in to less harmful and more efficient forms somewhat subsidized by the health entities as an investment in reducing health care costs per capital in the future as a return on that investment.
What are your thoughts on the issue? I'm not looking for quick fixes nor do I want to have anything to do with financial gain intentional or otherwise regardless of else does as a side affect.|||Please pardon my cynicism, but I don't think that this initiative would get much support from the traditional health industry.
After all, sick people are their source of business, and you are asking them to contribute funding to DECREASE their clientele?
Ain't gonna happen... at least not in North America.|||I guess you didn't notice, but there are a lot of people already doing what you want to do. Follow their lead.
"Subsidized"....haha, you mean you want me to pay for it, in addition to the taxes I'm already paying and my own bills I pay to support myself. That's funny.
Why hasn't the Republican controlled House created one original piece of legislation to spur job growth?
They have only attempted to repeal the last 2 years of legislation claiming that will "create" jobs.
They obviously do not have original ideas and do not know how to govern.|||Their agenda is to give the wealthy more power over the gov't. Everything else is a means to that end -- including lying to the Tea Party people.|||What makes you think we need more legislation??
Sorry, but Republicans are busy trying to knock down some of the odious regulation that is strangling job creation. Liberals make it so expensive for business to operate, they'll never be able to hire more people. So, if Republicans have their way, jobs will return. Way better than more legislation.|||Because they have to pass the 2011 budget that the lazy democrats should have passed before Oct 1st 2010
This was the first time in american history, a congress refused to pass a budget, before their congress expired.
2. So after the republicans do the job the democrats should have done 6 months ago
Then they can get around to jobs.
3. So you need to be blaming your liberal democratic buddies, for not doing what they were paid to do !!!!!!!!|||Hint : the military industrial complex serves a purpose. Make-work overpaid temporary government jobs do nothing.
Cutting government programs eliminates need for taxes, allowing people to invest and spend their money CAREFULLY AND THOUGHTFULLY, something government NEVER does. YES, that DOES lead to job growth and economic growth.|||first of all, they can't. there's nothing anyone can do to create jobs for Americans, unless we are all willing to work for less money than the chinese and other 3rd worlders, and in worse conditions. this would require the US to relax all of our environmental regulations so we can pump industrial sewage right into the same river the workers drink from just like the chinese. stepping away from manufacturing and brute labor, americans want too much pay and they are frankly too stupid to compete with other high-tech economies.
back to the republicans:
they are doing exactly what the angry people who voted for them want: repealing the evil liberal agenda of evil anti-christ obama.
the entire conservative running model wasn't "we're gonna make jerbs" it was "the other guys ruined our jerbs and now we're gonna get rid of them! this is our america and we don't like that liberal stuff! take back america!"
...the republicans rode in on a crescendo of anger and dissatisfaction, not a positive message of bringing america back to work.
also, the democrats and republicans are on the same side. they are both corporate machines, designed to work with eachother to benefit corporate interests while offering the illusion of free choice and control to american voters.|||Well, they say they can't because the government can't do that. Then they say whenever the democrats do something that they are trying to change the US. They are knuckle heads who want a two-class, one-party system. They will fail, of course.|||" I am LASER FOCUSED " on job creation." - President Obama for the last 2.5 years.
SO out of curiosity when will you hold him accountable ??|||Because they are busy doing the budget that the Democrats were supposed to do but instead decided once again not to do their job, just like the 14 cowardly WI Democrat fleebaggers!|||They also said government jobs are bad, that government should not be used to create jobs,
and "SO BE IT". Which was a lie? I guess the "Jobs are priority one." part.|||No amount of jobs will save us from our own spending, if you can stop the absurd spending, it would be like adding thousands of jobs|||Guess what's causing the unemployment problem Einstein.
15 Trillion and climbing Skippy.|||Nothing happens under your guys watch for 2 years suddenly after 2 months its the GOP's fault?
Yeah right|||They are too busy taking away my free condoms and birth control via the Defund Planned Parenthood Act by Mike Pence (R)
They obviously do not have original ideas and do not know how to govern.|||Their agenda is to give the wealthy more power over the gov't. Everything else is a means to that end -- including lying to the Tea Party people.|||What makes you think we need more legislation??
Sorry, but Republicans are busy trying to knock down some of the odious regulation that is strangling job creation. Liberals make it so expensive for business to operate, they'll never be able to hire more people. So, if Republicans have their way, jobs will return. Way better than more legislation.|||Because they have to pass the 2011 budget that the lazy democrats should have passed before Oct 1st 2010
This was the first time in american history, a congress refused to pass a budget, before their congress expired.
2. So after the republicans do the job the democrats should have done 6 months ago
Then they can get around to jobs.
3. So you need to be blaming your liberal democratic buddies, for not doing what they were paid to do !!!!!!!!|||Hint : the military industrial complex serves a purpose. Make-work overpaid temporary government jobs do nothing.
Cutting government programs eliminates need for taxes, allowing people to invest and spend their money CAREFULLY AND THOUGHTFULLY, something government NEVER does. YES, that DOES lead to job growth and economic growth.|||first of all, they can't. there's nothing anyone can do to create jobs for Americans, unless we are all willing to work for less money than the chinese and other 3rd worlders, and in worse conditions. this would require the US to relax all of our environmental regulations so we can pump industrial sewage right into the same river the workers drink from just like the chinese. stepping away from manufacturing and brute labor, americans want too much pay and they are frankly too stupid to compete with other high-tech economies.
back to the republicans:
they are doing exactly what the angry people who voted for them want: repealing the evil liberal agenda of evil anti-christ obama.
the entire conservative running model wasn't "we're gonna make jerbs" it was "the other guys ruined our jerbs and now we're gonna get rid of them! this is our america and we don't like that liberal stuff! take back america!"
...the republicans rode in on a crescendo of anger and dissatisfaction, not a positive message of bringing america back to work.
also, the democrats and republicans are on the same side. they are both corporate machines, designed to work with eachother to benefit corporate interests while offering the illusion of free choice and control to american voters.|||Well, they say they can't because the government can't do that. Then they say whenever the democrats do something that they are trying to change the US. They are knuckle heads who want a two-class, one-party system. They will fail, of course.|||" I am LASER FOCUSED " on job creation." - President Obama for the last 2.5 years.
SO out of curiosity when will you hold him accountable ??|||Because they are busy doing the budget that the Democrats were supposed to do but instead decided once again not to do their job, just like the 14 cowardly WI Democrat fleebaggers!|||They also said government jobs are bad, that government should not be used to create jobs,
and "SO BE IT". Which was a lie? I guess the "Jobs are priority one." part.|||No amount of jobs will save us from our own spending, if you can stop the absurd spending, it would be like adding thousands of jobs|||Guess what's causing the unemployment problem Einstein.
15 Trillion and climbing Skippy.|||Nothing happens under your guys watch for 2 years suddenly after 2 months its the GOP's fault?
Yeah right|||They are too busy taking away my free condoms and birth control via the Defund Planned Parenthood Act by Mike Pence (R)
Who received the 20 pens that Obama used to sign the health care legislation?
Can you give a list of the 20 people who received the 20 pens that Obama used to sign the health care legislation?|||Here:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201鈥?/a>|||No.
Who PAID for them?
That, I can guess.|||they were randomly passed out as souveniers.
its a true fact.|||I'm sorry, but who cares?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201鈥?/a>|||No.
Who PAID for them?
That, I can guess.|||they were randomly passed out as souveniers.
its a true fact.|||I'm sorry, but who cares?
Why does the Republican party have a defeated attitude toward the stimulus legislation?
OK, I get it. The biggest gripe of the Republican party is that the stimulus legislation is going to spend huge amounts of money. Everyone agrees on that. Nobody is denying that it is going to be an expensive step in an effort to repair the economy. The argument has been made that it may not work. One side believes it will work and the other believes it won't. But, the talking point of the Republicans, aside from the whole fear of socialism, is that the stimulus is going to run up our national debt spending huge amounts of money on government expenses and giving state agencies blank checks to spend however they see fit which inevitably will lead to mismanagement and corruption and ultimately cause a massive debt we may never recover from.
Of course, this is a worse case scenario that is simply being made the most likely scenario according to the Republican argument.
Now, for what I don't get. Republicans made no beef about starting a costly war in Iraq. They defended the idea we may need to stay in Iraq indefinitely at the cost of billions (if not trillions) annually. They supported sending billions of dollars to repair and rebuild the infrastructure of not just Iraq and Afghanistan but many other nations as well. So, why is it ok to spend billions to trillions of dollars on wars and helping other nations, but, if we spend any money helping our own nation then we are going to be 'ruined'? There is a war in America. The war on poverty. The war on unemployment. The war on corporate corruption. The war on a failing infrastructure. Would calling it a war and giving it a fancy operation name like Operation save our nation make it easier for Republicans?|||they're pathological, reptilian brained dinosaurs, that's why. They'll say or do ANYTHING to get their way no matter what it is. Over-compensating perhaps. Don't confuse them with reason.|||so the best way of getting out of debt... is ... to ... spend... more?? thats as retarded as it sounds.. don't let the politicians lie to you.. Spending money is spending money.. and its not EVEN THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY ITS OUR MONEY!!! SO WHILE WE ALL GET BROKE WE ARE GOING TO LET THE GOV SPEND OUR EARNED MONEY!!!?!?!?!?!
seriously where do you people come from?|||Bite Me said We need to spend more to get out of debt . With that logic and lack of
education credit card holders could charge more and pay less monthly .The credit
Card company's would not give you a smaller bill.|||lately, that seems to be their general attitude towards anything.|||Sigh...|||What is wrong with spending lots of money to get US soldiers killed so that hopefully one day those who did not die and are not wounded enough to drive can get cheaper gas prices?
I mean, who would spend lots of money to make people's lives better by allowing them to have things like jobs? Jobs are so overrated, when you can go to Iraq or Afganistan and die why not do that? Seriously, even an education in the US costs you a part of you body!!!|||Lets see, even FDR's economic adviser after WWII said that his policies prolonged the Great Depression. The left ignore this fact. Also, take a look at what the Democrats have done in certain areas. Cleveland Ohio is a good idea of what can happen.
Also, we didn't start the war in Iraq. Saddam did when he invaded Kuwait then not only ignored the UN but also was bribing the Secretary General of the UN along with Russia, France, and Germany. Also, you must not of followed the agreements that Bush made with the new government of Iraq to pull out of Iraq based on need of the Iraqi people.
As for the war on poverty, considering the liberals rewrote the rules in the 1990's to redefine poverty to make it jump from 10% to now around 30% or more and the larger families can have a gross income that is almost considered rich there is a huge problem. There is no war on unemployment. We need a certain amount of unemployment to make sure that everything runs correctly. I could go on but you don't have a clue on what is really going on in the World. Try going to Europe and compare what they have on average compared to what our poor have and it will really open your eyes. Then go to a third world nation and see true poverty.
Of course, this is a worse case scenario that is simply being made the most likely scenario according to the Republican argument.
Now, for what I don't get. Republicans made no beef about starting a costly war in Iraq. They defended the idea we may need to stay in Iraq indefinitely at the cost of billions (if not trillions) annually. They supported sending billions of dollars to repair and rebuild the infrastructure of not just Iraq and Afghanistan but many other nations as well. So, why is it ok to spend billions to trillions of dollars on wars and helping other nations, but, if we spend any money helping our own nation then we are going to be 'ruined'? There is a war in America. The war on poverty. The war on unemployment. The war on corporate corruption. The war on a failing infrastructure. Would calling it a war and giving it a fancy operation name like Operation save our nation make it easier for Republicans?|||they're pathological, reptilian brained dinosaurs, that's why. They'll say or do ANYTHING to get their way no matter what it is. Over-compensating perhaps. Don't confuse them with reason.|||so the best way of getting out of debt... is ... to ... spend... more?? thats as retarded as it sounds.. don't let the politicians lie to you.. Spending money is spending money.. and its not EVEN THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY ITS OUR MONEY!!! SO WHILE WE ALL GET BROKE WE ARE GOING TO LET THE GOV SPEND OUR EARNED MONEY!!!?!?!?!?!
seriously where do you people come from?|||Bite Me said We need to spend more to get out of debt . With that logic and lack of
education credit card holders could charge more and pay less monthly .The credit
Card company's would not give you a smaller bill.|||lately, that seems to be their general attitude towards anything.|||Sigh...|||What is wrong with spending lots of money to get US soldiers killed so that hopefully one day those who did not die and are not wounded enough to drive can get cheaper gas prices?
I mean, who would spend lots of money to make people's lives better by allowing them to have things like jobs? Jobs are so overrated, when you can go to Iraq or Afganistan and die why not do that? Seriously, even an education in the US costs you a part of you body!!!|||Lets see, even FDR's economic adviser after WWII said that his policies prolonged the Great Depression. The left ignore this fact. Also, take a look at what the Democrats have done in certain areas. Cleveland Ohio is a good idea of what can happen.
Also, we didn't start the war in Iraq. Saddam did when he invaded Kuwait then not only ignored the UN but also was bribing the Secretary General of the UN along with Russia, France, and Germany. Also, you must not of followed the agreements that Bush made with the new government of Iraq to pull out of Iraq based on need of the Iraqi people.
As for the war on poverty, considering the liberals rewrote the rules in the 1990's to redefine poverty to make it jump from 10% to now around 30% or more and the larger families can have a gross income that is almost considered rich there is a huge problem. There is no war on unemployment. We need a certain amount of unemployment to make sure that everything runs correctly. I could go on but you don't have a clue on what is really going on in the World. Try going to Europe and compare what they have on average compared to what our poor have and it will really open your eyes. Then go to a third world nation and see true poverty.
Which legislation branch created the federal radio commission?
Which legislation branch created the federal radio commission?|||There is no such thing as the "Federal Radio Commission".
There is an FCC: "Federal Communications Commission".
There is only one legislative branch in our government and that is called Congress.|||FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
http://www.eei.org/about_EEI/advocacy_ac…
There is an FCC: "Federal Communications Commission".
There is only one legislative branch in our government and that is called Congress.|||FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
http://www.eei.org/about_EEI/advocacy_ac…
What legislative decisions have been made in the state since the year 2000? Is there any pending legislation?
What legislative decisions have been made in the state of Texas regarding death penalty since the year 2000? Is there any pending legislation? Describe the legislation.|||Nothing specifically about the death penalty, but several years ago, Texas passed a bill providing for sentences of life without parole, which means that jurors don't have to sentence someone to death to keep them off the streets forever.
Sources:
http://ejusa.org/act/legislation?filter0鈥?/a>
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/mediasvc/con鈥?/a>
http://www.lawcore.com/legal-information鈥?/a>|||Free Beer %26amp; Hot Wings.|||Free Buffalo wings and Coors Light.
Sources:
http://ejusa.org/act/legislation?filter0鈥?/a>
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/mediasvc/con鈥?/a>
http://www.lawcore.com/legal-information鈥?/a>|||Free Beer %26amp; Hot Wings.|||Free Buffalo wings and Coors Light.
Friday, September 16, 2011
What legislation was passed to prohibit children under 10 to work in mines?
im doing a report and i need to know which legislation was passed. PLEASE HELP|||Child labor laws.*
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates鈥?/a>
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates鈥?/a>
Is changing the legal smoking age from 16 to 18 retrospective legislation?
Or would it only be retrospective legislation if they penalised anyone who sold 16-18year olds cigarettes before the change?|||Merely raising or lowering the legal smoking age would not be a retroactive or "ex post facto" law.
You are correct that a retroactive law would be to punish a retailer with the new law for selling cigarettes to 16 year olds when it was legal to do so.
Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution makes ex post facto laws unconstitutional.
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."|||It would be retrospective legislation only if it made it illegal to do something that was legal when it was done. So as long as it only applied after it was passed (i.e., smoking underage before the law was passed would still be legal) it would be fine.|||I think the age that you can buy cigarettes, should be the same as anything else you can legally do as an adult. It makes no sense that in the UK you can leave school and work as an adult at 16. you can consent to any sexual activity at 16, you can even get married at 16. But you are not deemed old enough to drink alcohol. buy pornography or vote or gamble. The age of consent for being an adult should be 16 universally.|||The government of the uk allowed persons from the age of sixteen years to smoke and to buy cigarettes, but then they raised the legal age to eighteen years. What are the kids? of 16 but not yet 18 to do if they were already smoking within the law when this new act was passed. As far as i'm concerned this was without consideration and is totally unlawful, to allow a person to become addicted to a substance and then to threaten them or any person who may help them obtain that substance with prosecution.
You are correct that a retroactive law would be to punish a retailer with the new law for selling cigarettes to 16 year olds when it was legal to do so.
Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution makes ex post facto laws unconstitutional.
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."|||It would be retrospective legislation only if it made it illegal to do something that was legal when it was done. So as long as it only applied after it was passed (i.e., smoking underage before the law was passed would still be legal) it would be fine.|||I think the age that you can buy cigarettes, should be the same as anything else you can legally do as an adult. It makes no sense that in the UK you can leave school and work as an adult at 16. you can consent to any sexual activity at 16, you can even get married at 16. But you are not deemed old enough to drink alcohol. buy pornography or vote or gamble. The age of consent for being an adult should be 16 universally.|||The government of the uk allowed persons from the age of sixteen years to smoke and to buy cigarettes, but then they raised the legal age to eighteen years. What are the kids? of 16 but not yet 18 to do if they were already smoking within the law when this new act was passed. As far as i'm concerned this was without consideration and is totally unlawful, to allow a person to become addicted to a substance and then to threaten them or any person who may help them obtain that substance with prosecution.
Legislation was passed in the 1990s that requires that the public be notified when child molesters are release?
Legislation was passed in the 1990s that requires that the public be notified when child molesters are released from prison. Should the criminal justice system be required to inform the public when certain offenders, like rapists, child abuse offenders, or murderers, are released from prison on parole? Should this notification requirement be expanded to other types of offenses? What rights does the community have to know? What rights do individuals have to remain anonymous?|||No.
No.
None.
Every.
And perhaps if you put all your homework questions today in homework help, you'd get people more willing to do your work for you.|||Certain notices interest some people, not all people really give a hoot.. So in the long run its the mothers with children in early stages that will show some interests.
In all honesty its a political thing, invented to pacify some parents.
The Amber alert is another pacification tool for the Masses. All parents would have to do is be more responsible and these problems wouldnt happen.
Parent today are too busy working, and the child pays the consequences because it is left along. One should think thoroughly the responsibility of bringing a child into the world.
No.
None.
Every.
And perhaps if you put all your homework questions today in homework help, you'd get people more willing to do your work for you.|||Certain notices interest some people, not all people really give a hoot.. So in the long run its the mothers with children in early stages that will show some interests.
In all honesty its a political thing, invented to pacify some parents.
The Amber alert is another pacification tool for the Masses. All parents would have to do is be more responsible and these problems wouldnt happen.
Parent today are too busy working, and the child pays the consequences because it is left along. One should think thoroughly the responsibility of bringing a child into the world.
Do you think the Conservative efforts to overturn Obama’s signature legislation is an appropriate action at?
this time? Keeping in mind that the senate is still controlled by the liberals and this legislation, Obamacare, was opposed by the majority of “We the People” and Obama will veto anything that passes the senate. Does it stand a chance of success?
Yes, I am a troll at times. This is one of them.|||It's bad legislation that will create huge budget deficits while increasing the cost of health insurance for people and putting a signficant burden on states. And it will not result in getting coverage for half the currently uninsured, and it cannot but have a negative impact on the quality of care in the future.
It's a bad bill. It needs to be rejected.
Obama's signature legislation is an Edsel.|||Oh' Yeah it is appropriate,,,,,, and the repeal legislation has passed the house with 3 democrat votes.
Now you must remember many democrat senators are up for re-election and obamacare is proven to be a losing subject.|||It's only a symbolic act but it's a valuable symbolic act so I think it's worthy of attention.|||And once again, the republicans go down in flames!|||Yes, the majority of the people have already said they do not want it, period!|||Yes hope so.|||of course not
Yes, I am a troll at times. This is one of them.|||It's bad legislation that will create huge budget deficits while increasing the cost of health insurance for people and putting a signficant burden on states. And it will not result in getting coverage for half the currently uninsured, and it cannot but have a negative impact on the quality of care in the future.
It's a bad bill. It needs to be rejected.
Obama's signature legislation is an Edsel.|||Oh' Yeah it is appropriate,,,,,, and the repeal legislation has passed the house with 3 democrat votes.
Now you must remember many democrat senators are up for re-election and obamacare is proven to be a losing subject.|||It's only a symbolic act but it's a valuable symbolic act so I think it's worthy of attention.|||And once again, the republicans go down in flames!|||Yes, the majority of the people have already said they do not want it, period!|||Yes hope so.|||of course not
What are some recent changes in legislation that affect poverty?
What are some recent changes in legislation that affect poverty?|||stimulus spending and other barack attacks seems to have increased it substantially!
What would be a good legislation you would want to pass?
I need help making up a good legislation for my class.
what would be a good one?|||A great one, that everyone would benefit from, would be to track government spending.
A website could be established and updated that lists the dollar amounts and intentions included in every bill..
Maybe this way, when we are told, as the general public that we are voting on a bill to protect an endangered species, that somewhere burried in that legislation there isn't an earmark for 400,000 dollars going to the brother of the guy who sponsored the bill for 'research'.
That's what we need. So simple, yet no politician would ever support it, it would show the public what crooks they all are.|||1) A federal law abolishing the states ban on same-sex marriage.
(I bet you won't get extra credit for this legislation.)
2) A federal law requiring the US government to produce a balanced budget each year.
3) A law giving the President the power of line item veto.
what would be a good one?|||A great one, that everyone would benefit from, would be to track government spending.
A website could be established and updated that lists the dollar amounts and intentions included in every bill..
Maybe this way, when we are told, as the general public that we are voting on a bill to protect an endangered species, that somewhere burried in that legislation there isn't an earmark for 400,000 dollars going to the brother of the guy who sponsored the bill for 'research'.
That's what we need. So simple, yet no politician would ever support it, it would show the public what crooks they all are.|||1) A federal law abolishing the states ban on same-sex marriage.
(I bet you won't get extra credit for this legislation.)
2) A federal law requiring the US government to produce a balanced budget each year.
3) A law giving the President the power of line item veto.
Anyone know the legislation on African Pygmy Hedgehogs in Australia?
I know European Hedgehogs are illegal to own as pets in Australia (they are a Category 2 declared pest and the legislation is specific on species), but I couldn't find anything on African Pygmy Hedgehogs. I suspect they would also be illegal, but I'd like to see some legislation if anyone can point me to it.|||Hi Katie... as I understand that all hedgehog species are illegal in Australia, however this may vary from each state.
Australian Govt Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversi鈥?/a>
Australian Govt Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversi鈥?/a>
What rights do disabled parents have to support under UK legislation?
Can anyone tell me any specific pieces of legislation in the UK that give disabled parents rights to support looking after their children?|||Depends and what you mean by rights ?
mostly same rights as adults have which
is very little.
They have the right to hospital care.
If the disability is bad enough you cane
claim care allowance plus mobility allowance
when they reach five i think.You could have
a word with One Stop or Citizens Advise Bureau
to see what other things can be available to help.
PS. my granddaughter has a two year
old boy and little help is forth coming from
the state,but time will tell when he reaches
school age.
Best of luck UK
mostly same rights as adults have which
is very little.
They have the right to hospital care.
If the disability is bad enough you cane
claim care allowance plus mobility allowance
when they reach five i think.You could have
a word with One Stop or Citizens Advise Bureau
to see what other things can be available to help.
PS. my granddaughter has a two year
old boy and little help is forth coming from
the state,but time will tell when he reaches
school age.
Best of luck UK
What government legislation has Peta supported/opposed?
I need specific legislation names for a school project please? Past or current legislations will due.|||Go to PETA.ORG, click on ABOUT US, then click on VICTORIES... They have opposed EPA toxicity testing requirements on animals %26amp; U will probably find some others.|||ain't none
What are some of the advantages , and disadvantages of passing legislation quickly?
What are some of the advantages , and disadvantages of passing legislation quickly?Does fundraising consume too much of the legislators' time and energy? Does it affect their behavior? Why or why not|||What do you mean by "quickly"? In this administration, "quickly" has meant not giving legislators nor the public time to read through the legislation that they are voting on.
Yes, fund-raising does consume too much of legislators time. Do you know why they do this, even legislators that are unopposed? It's because any excess funds go into their personal coffers, to spend as they see fit, without any constraints.
The thing that would affect their behavior more than anything else would be term limits for legislators. The president has a term limit, why not the legislator? If legislators knew that they would have to return to the private sector in 2 or 4 terms, wouldn't they have a different motivation than being in a continual state of "running for office"?|||Passing legislation to quickly is bad, good legisaltion needs to be looked at to try to figure out the consequences. Unfortunately alot of the time the legisaltures say we will revisit it and amend it in the future.
Sometimes the future never comes where they do not get chance to revisit it or make the right changes they wanted to before.
But in no means does this mean the other side should be able to filibuster the bill to death, or delay it enough so the timing is wrong so the bill will not pass.
Fundraising begins of day 1 in office. It takes more and more money to run, and lots more after you make it through the primaries.
Anytime politicians have so much money by lobbyists they will owe them a favor.
This has anegative effect, the politicans where elected for the people, and not the lobbyists or the interest paying the lobbyist.|||Carefully considering the ramifications of any legislation takes time. The Congressmen have staffs to help them go over upcoming laws and make assessments of its qualities, good or bad.
One disadvantage of a long-drawn out process is it gives opportunistic politicians a chance to stick their pork projects onto the bill that has little to do with the original intent.
Also, it could just be that the need truly is immediate. But I think this reasoning should rarely be used. If there is an immediate need, call a church or volunteer relief organization. The response will be faster.
I think a lot of the fund raising they do coincides with dinners and lunches with lobbyists. That's an efficient use of time. They can raise money for their reelection and decide which bills to pass at the same time.|||if it's a radical dangerous agenda, pushing it through congress quickly ensures that our elected representatives do not have enough time to review and digest it. Then we have the unconstitutional conditions of "taxation without representation".
secondly, as our representatives don't have time to review and debate the issues in a piece of legislation, the press will never know about it (and neither will you) until our dear leader chairman MAO-bama signs it into law. Then it's far too late to do anything about it.
Get used to this with one party running both the legislative and executive branch of our government. it's gonna get a lot worse.|||Say you were the government %26amp; it were a private enterprise, and had a great idea for say "a health care store" and you went to the bank and asked for a loan - start up money. The bank would ask you for your business plan, check your credit and determine the risk....BEFORE they give you the money. the government is asking for the money up front before they have a clue how Government Health care is even going to work. Its absolutely ridiculous. This leaves the funds wide open for waste, fraud and default, and unhappy public. So, they need to put on their thinking caps and come up with a plan first. Actually, I like things as they are. We ALL already have access to health care. And someone /some group is going to get rich and taxpayers get shafted.|||John F- I agree with you. Legislation should be reviewed. Time taken to understand the pros and cons, and make an informed decision. You site the Patriot Act. I would point to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a reason not to rush legislation. The bill was rammed down our throats (to put it nicely) and will do far more damage to the United States and it citizens than The government listening to the phone conversations of non US citizens calling overseas. Spending trillions of dollars we dont have, and pushing the nation to the brink of bankruptcy is far more damaging. Give me ONE example of how the \Patriot Act negatively affected YOU.|||If you're a Democrat and in power, it means you can pass a bill without reading it. Of course you can claim ignorance later and thereby blame everyone else when something goes wrong.|||advantage - quick political payback
disadvantage - people still loses job and congress showed they are gullible to the One.|||In most cases there are to many loop holes and the legislation is not worth the paper it is written on.|||Immediacy stops dissent.
Yes, fund-raising does consume too much of legislators time. Do you know why they do this, even legislators that are unopposed? It's because any excess funds go into their personal coffers, to spend as they see fit, without any constraints.
The thing that would affect their behavior more than anything else would be term limits for legislators. The president has a term limit, why not the legislator? If legislators knew that they would have to return to the private sector in 2 or 4 terms, wouldn't they have a different motivation than being in a continual state of "running for office"?|||Passing legislation to quickly is bad, good legisaltion needs to be looked at to try to figure out the consequences. Unfortunately alot of the time the legisaltures say we will revisit it and amend it in the future.
Sometimes the future never comes where they do not get chance to revisit it or make the right changes they wanted to before.
But in no means does this mean the other side should be able to filibuster the bill to death, or delay it enough so the timing is wrong so the bill will not pass.
Fundraising begins of day 1 in office. It takes more and more money to run, and lots more after you make it through the primaries.
Anytime politicians have so much money by lobbyists they will owe them a favor.
This has anegative effect, the politicans where elected for the people, and not the lobbyists or the interest paying the lobbyist.|||Carefully considering the ramifications of any legislation takes time. The Congressmen have staffs to help them go over upcoming laws and make assessments of its qualities, good or bad.
One disadvantage of a long-drawn out process is it gives opportunistic politicians a chance to stick their pork projects onto the bill that has little to do with the original intent.
Also, it could just be that the need truly is immediate. But I think this reasoning should rarely be used. If there is an immediate need, call a church or volunteer relief organization. The response will be faster.
I think a lot of the fund raising they do coincides with dinners and lunches with lobbyists. That's an efficient use of time. They can raise money for their reelection and decide which bills to pass at the same time.|||if it's a radical dangerous agenda, pushing it through congress quickly ensures that our elected representatives do not have enough time to review and digest it. Then we have the unconstitutional conditions of "taxation without representation".
secondly, as our representatives don't have time to review and debate the issues in a piece of legislation, the press will never know about it (and neither will you) until our dear leader chairman MAO-bama signs it into law. Then it's far too late to do anything about it.
Get used to this with one party running both the legislative and executive branch of our government. it's gonna get a lot worse.|||Say you were the government %26amp; it were a private enterprise, and had a great idea for say "a health care store" and you went to the bank and asked for a loan - start up money. The bank would ask you for your business plan, check your credit and determine the risk....BEFORE they give you the money. the government is asking for the money up front before they have a clue how Government Health care is even going to work. Its absolutely ridiculous. This leaves the funds wide open for waste, fraud and default, and unhappy public. So, they need to put on their thinking caps and come up with a plan first. Actually, I like things as they are. We ALL already have access to health care. And someone /some group is going to get rich and taxpayers get shafted.|||John F- I agree with you. Legislation should be reviewed. Time taken to understand the pros and cons, and make an informed decision. You site the Patriot Act. I would point to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a reason not to rush legislation. The bill was rammed down our throats (to put it nicely) and will do far more damage to the United States and it citizens than The government listening to the phone conversations of non US citizens calling overseas. Spending trillions of dollars we dont have, and pushing the nation to the brink of bankruptcy is far more damaging. Give me ONE example of how the \Patriot Act negatively affected YOU.|||If you're a Democrat and in power, it means you can pass a bill without reading it. Of course you can claim ignorance later and thereby blame everyone else when something goes wrong.|||advantage - quick political payback
disadvantage - people still loses job and congress showed they are gullible to the One.|||In most cases there are to many loop holes and the legislation is not worth the paper it is written on.|||Immediacy stops dissent.
Should elected officials votes on legislation push the agenda of a party or the wishes of the American voter?
I see / read a lot of reference to " The Party , The Party, The Party ! "
What about the voter , the voter , the voter ?
Should votes on legislation be cast to satisfy the president and other politicians goals or the wishes of the public majority ?|||It should be the wish of the people who voted him into office, but so often isn't.|||Clinton told Esquire magazine that lawmakers should put together the best health care measure for President Barack Obama, even if it must be fixed later.
"All we have to worry about is getting things done" Clinton said.
NOW..is THAT right? Shouldn't we be doing something FOR the people that they think through and NOT PUSH THROUGH..KNOWING it is wrong ?????
Dems...wow....it isn't for the people...by the people.....not anymore. IT is for the party...and BO does it...and he has his former president who couldn't keep his pants up when he should have been doing his job....telling us that they are going to push something through ..not thought out...not right...but because it has to be done!
WAY TO GO DEMS!!! Make this statement knowing once something is in...there is almost never a redo and fixing of anything wrong. It is as it is!|||Elected officials should satisfy the voters in the majority, just like any good Democracy! Rock on brother!|||The two party system with its inherent checks and balances will see elected officials voting against the majority.. Our Constitution and democratic process insure we do not allow any dictate or proposal to go unchallenged. A matter of trial by fire.. I would expect that if I voted for a certain party, that my elected official would vote the party values; and if voting on something that is not in the interest of the majority would loose.
What about the voter , the voter , the voter ?
Should votes on legislation be cast to satisfy the president and other politicians goals or the wishes of the public majority ?|||It should be the wish of the people who voted him into office, but so often isn't.|||Clinton told Esquire magazine that lawmakers should put together the best health care measure for President Barack Obama, even if it must be fixed later.
"All we have to worry about is getting things done" Clinton said.
NOW..is THAT right? Shouldn't we be doing something FOR the people that they think through and NOT PUSH THROUGH..KNOWING it is wrong ?????
Dems...wow....it isn't for the people...by the people.....not anymore. IT is for the party...and BO does it...and he has his former president who couldn't keep his pants up when he should have been doing his job....telling us that they are going to push something through ..not thought out...not right...but because it has to be done!
WAY TO GO DEMS!!! Make this statement knowing once something is in...there is almost never a redo and fixing of anything wrong. It is as it is!|||Elected officials should satisfy the voters in the majority, just like any good Democracy! Rock on brother!|||The two party system with its inherent checks and balances will see elected officials voting against the majority.. Our Constitution and democratic process insure we do not allow any dictate or proposal to go unchallenged. A matter of trial by fire.. I would expect that if I voted for a certain party, that my elected official would vote the party values; and if voting on something that is not in the interest of the majority would loose.
Hi what is the recent legislation related to psilocybin and the prevalance of use of psilocybin in maryland?
I've looked everywhere for these answers but I can't seem to find them! Please help. I need to know the recent legislation of psilocybin (the mushroom) and the prevelence of use in Maryland, Harford County, and the USA. Thank you so much god bless!|||Maybe go take a look at www.erowid.org. You might be lucky to find something there.
What legislation has passed under Obama?
What legislation has passed while Obama has been president, there were the stimulus packages(I think AIG and the Motor), the energy plan, the abortion thing and the Guantanamo Gitmo Closure.
I know this is an incomplete list, if anyone could list all the legislation passed and/or a link to where I can find it I would be very thankful.|||Be careful. Not every change is considered legislation. The Gitmo closure, for example, is an executive order, not legislation.
As of this time, the THOMAS database only shows 32 pieces of legislation completed.
1. S.J.RES.3 : A joint resolution ensuring that the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of the Interior are those which were in effect on January 1, 2005.
2. S.181 : A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.
3. H.R.2 : To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.
4. S.352 : A bill to postpone the DTV transition date.
5. H.R.1 : Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
6. H.J.RES.38 : Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes.
7. S.234 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, as the "Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building".
8. H.R.1105 : Making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
9. H.R.1127 : To extend certain immigration programs.
10. H.R.1541 : To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.
11. H.R.146 : An act to designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.
12. H.R.1512 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.
13. H.R.1388 : A bill entitled "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws."
14. S.520 : A bill to designate the United States courthouse under construction at 327 South Church Street, Rockford, Illinois, as the "Stanley J. Roszkowski United States Courthouse".
15. S.383 : A bill to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (division A of Public Law 110-343) to provide the Special Inspector General with additional authorities and responsibilities, and for other purposes.
16. H.R.1626 : To make technical amendments to laws containing time periods affecting judicial proceedings.
17. S.J.RES.8 : A joint resolution providing for the appointment of David M. Rubenstein as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
18. S.39 : A bill to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the "Bennett Freeze".
19. H.R.586 : To direct the Librarian of Congress and the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to carry out a joint project at the Library of Congress and the National Museum of African American History and Culture to collect video and audio recordings of personal histories and testimonials of individuals who participated in the Civil Rights movement, and for other purposes.
20. S.735 : A bill to ensure States receive adoption incentive payments for fiscal year 2008 in accordance with the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.
21. S.386 : An Act to improve enforcement of mortgage fraud, securities and commodities fraud, financial institution fraud, and other frauds related to Federal assistance and relief programs, for the recovery of funds lost to these frauds, and for other purposes.
22. S.896 : A bill to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability.
23. S.454 : A bill to improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purposes.
24. H.R.627 : To amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes.
25. H.R.131 : To establish the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission.
26. H.R.663 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta, Georgia, as the "Yv
I know this is an incomplete list, if anyone could list all the legislation passed and/or a link to where I can find it I would be very thankful.|||Be careful. Not every change is considered legislation. The Gitmo closure, for example, is an executive order, not legislation.
As of this time, the THOMAS database only shows 32 pieces of legislation completed.
1. S.J.RES.3 : A joint resolution ensuring that the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of the Interior are those which were in effect on January 1, 2005.
2. S.181 : A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.
3. H.R.2 : To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.
4. S.352 : A bill to postpone the DTV transition date.
5. H.R.1 : Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
6. H.J.RES.38 : Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes.
7. S.234 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, as the "Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building".
8. H.R.1105 : Making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
9. H.R.1127 : To extend certain immigration programs.
10. H.R.1541 : To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.
11. H.R.146 : An act to designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.
12. H.R.1512 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.
13. H.R.1388 : A bill entitled "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws."
14. S.520 : A bill to designate the United States courthouse under construction at 327 South Church Street, Rockford, Illinois, as the "Stanley J. Roszkowski United States Courthouse".
15. S.383 : A bill to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (division A of Public Law 110-343) to provide the Special Inspector General with additional authorities and responsibilities, and for other purposes.
16. H.R.1626 : To make technical amendments to laws containing time periods affecting judicial proceedings.
17. S.J.RES.8 : A joint resolution providing for the appointment of David M. Rubenstein as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
18. S.39 : A bill to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the "Bennett Freeze".
19. H.R.586 : To direct the Librarian of Congress and the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to carry out a joint project at the Library of Congress and the National Museum of African American History and Culture to collect video and audio recordings of personal histories and testimonials of individuals who participated in the Civil Rights movement, and for other purposes.
20. S.735 : A bill to ensure States receive adoption incentive payments for fiscal year 2008 in accordance with the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.
21. S.386 : An Act to improve enforcement of mortgage fraud, securities and commodities fraud, financial institution fraud, and other frauds related to Federal assistance and relief programs, for the recovery of funds lost to these frauds, and for other purposes.
22. S.896 : A bill to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability.
23. S.454 : A bill to improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purposes.
24. H.R.627 : To amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes.
25. H.R.131 : To establish the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission.
26. H.R.663 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta, Georgia, as the "Yv
Is there any current legislation in the works which requires chipping children or adults?
How would one find this legislation if so? Is there a web site to see current laws under consideration? How does one request for laws to be passed? For e.g; laws concerning religious freedom and freedom from chipping?|||Too the best of my knowledge there is not. There is the national ID which I believe carries a micro chip but that is a card and not a sub-cutaneous microchip. The only interest in implanted chips I know of is still in the voluntary research phase. Some people are having chips put in their children voluntarily to track them in case they are lost or taken.|||Not in the US.
Where can I find legislation about the legal drinking age in Australia?
What legislation is it? I dont mind if its federal or state (QLD)|||It's covered by the Liquor Act 1992 (QLD). Section 155A prohibits the sale of alcohol to a minor, and s 157 prohibits consumption of alcohol by a minor in public or on licensed premises.|||http://www.alcohol.gov.au/internet/alcoh鈥?/a>
Might help.|||the legal age to drink is 18 in aus my familys from there and if you drive under 20 you not alowed any alcohol at all in your blood|||Google
Might help.|||the legal age to drink is 18 in aus my familys from there and if you drive under 20 you not alowed any alcohol at all in your blood|||Google
Why do leftists think legislation just makes things happen?
I love it when leftists pass legislation without thinking of the consequences. Like Comrade General Secretary Obama's declaration on miles per gallon. The creep thinks he can just snap his fingers and make it happen, without considering the cost or any other implications. Does it get any more ridiculous?|||It has been estimated that this move will cost more than 4,000 American lives a year right from the start. The only way to increase fuel mileage at the moment is to make cars smaller and lighter.
Smaller lighter car = death trap.
I'll hold onto my 6,000 pound, 11 miles per gallond Tahoe until I die, thank you. God help you if you have an accident in your little Obama-mobile vs. my Tahoe.|||Laws are the desires of Bourgeoisie.|||Why do Republicans think just saying 'No' makes things happen?|||Stay tuned.|||Well...I guess that explains why Republicans never get anything done.|||They believe in that ideology of theirs so much that they have forgotten one very important fact, reality don't work that way.|||I'm not sure you have made a correct assumption. Why do those on the right think that tax cuts for rich people fix every problem that faces our country?|||Well gee, I guess we could just allow our country to fall into a recession and while it's happening ignore it and pretend like it's not till the last minute.
Oh wait, Bush already did that...|||It's not just the 'leftists'; members of Congress (on both sides of the aisle) have passed law after law over the years, believing that just because they made it a law, "it can just happen".
Our idiot legislators pass laws, yet never take any of the old laws off the books. I once had my Congressman admit to me that "if you obey one law, you're probably breaking half-a-dozen others".
Congress has been passing legislation mandating gas mileage for decades, and the big three automakers have figured out all kinds of ways around it. Where there's a law, there's a loophole [and you can bet that loophole is there to benefit a member of Congress and his or her well-heeled 'friends'].
As George Bernard Shaw once said: "Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few". -RKO- 05/24/09|||"The creep thinks he can just snap his fingers and make it happen...."
It will happen. The cost of not doing it is the American auto insdustry going down the toilet. The EPA has been putting MPG requirements on cars for a long time. Obama didn't invent this.|||It's true, the left seems to believe that government can essentially run programs efficiently, which it has proven it can't. But really, when bills like this are passed, it's usually more for show than anything. This way, Obama can campaign for 2012 he cares about the Environment and has taken action, and Congress can do the same when their elections come around. For me personally, it doens't make sense that an already failing industry will now have to face such quick drastic increase in efficiency, when developing such products by being forced into them could send the automakers of America even further into bankruptcy/debt.|||They like 21% inflation, high unemployment (not having to work), social programs that accomplish nothing, and a weak foreign policy that protects terrorists.
Why?|||wrong solution--agreed. taxing the **** out of gasoline is the obvious answer.|||To leftists like Obama, the middle class is the enemy. The poor are good because they will willingly be the victim of marxists in order for some scraps of bread. The rich ar ok as long as theyre liberal. But the middle class roams around in our SUV's going to barbeques producing all this CO2 that is going to make it hotter, run our AC's more, use more electricity, make it even hotter, make terrrorists hate us, offend the green men on mars, you name it. The middle class is a threat to the left because most of them dont play by the rules try to make. IE: They turn to legislation to "save us" from ourselves.
Their other enemy is industry; what empowers the middle class to have our lifestyles. That they attack with regulation.|||They do not stop and think things out, they are addicted to quick fixes, which the government has never once implemented. They also seem to have a blind allegiance to Obama. most of them do not pay income tax and they believe those of us who work hard and pay our taxes should carry their weight, as they have an excuse list for failure longer than Don Vito's rap sheet|||Polar Bear 1 pt.
Right Wing Whiner- Zero
Smaller lighter car = death trap.
I'll hold onto my 6,000 pound, 11 miles per gallond Tahoe until I die, thank you. God help you if you have an accident in your little Obama-mobile vs. my Tahoe.|||Laws are the desires of Bourgeoisie.|||Why do Republicans think just saying 'No' makes things happen?|||Stay tuned.|||Well...I guess that explains why Republicans never get anything done.|||They believe in that ideology of theirs so much that they have forgotten one very important fact, reality don't work that way.|||I'm not sure you have made a correct assumption. Why do those on the right think that tax cuts for rich people fix every problem that faces our country?|||Well gee, I guess we could just allow our country to fall into a recession and while it's happening ignore it and pretend like it's not till the last minute.
Oh wait, Bush already did that...|||It's not just the 'leftists'; members of Congress (on both sides of the aisle) have passed law after law over the years, believing that just because they made it a law, "it can just happen".
Our idiot legislators pass laws, yet never take any of the old laws off the books. I once had my Congressman admit to me that "if you obey one law, you're probably breaking half-a-dozen others".
Congress has been passing legislation mandating gas mileage for decades, and the big three automakers have figured out all kinds of ways around it. Where there's a law, there's a loophole [and you can bet that loophole is there to benefit a member of Congress and his or her well-heeled 'friends'].
As George Bernard Shaw once said: "Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few". -RKO- 05/24/09|||"The creep thinks he can just snap his fingers and make it happen...."
It will happen. The cost of not doing it is the American auto insdustry going down the toilet. The EPA has been putting MPG requirements on cars for a long time. Obama didn't invent this.|||It's true, the left seems to believe that government can essentially run programs efficiently, which it has proven it can't. But really, when bills like this are passed, it's usually more for show than anything. This way, Obama can campaign for 2012 he cares about the Environment and has taken action, and Congress can do the same when their elections come around. For me personally, it doens't make sense that an already failing industry will now have to face such quick drastic increase in efficiency, when developing such products by being forced into them could send the automakers of America even further into bankruptcy/debt.|||They like 21% inflation, high unemployment (not having to work), social programs that accomplish nothing, and a weak foreign policy that protects terrorists.
Why?|||wrong solution--agreed. taxing the **** out of gasoline is the obvious answer.|||To leftists like Obama, the middle class is the enemy. The poor are good because they will willingly be the victim of marxists in order for some scraps of bread. The rich ar ok as long as theyre liberal. But the middle class roams around in our SUV's going to barbeques producing all this CO2 that is going to make it hotter, run our AC's more, use more electricity, make it even hotter, make terrrorists hate us, offend the green men on mars, you name it. The middle class is a threat to the left because most of them dont play by the rules try to make. IE: They turn to legislation to "save us" from ourselves.
Their other enemy is industry; what empowers the middle class to have our lifestyles. That they attack with regulation.|||They do not stop and think things out, they are addicted to quick fixes, which the government has never once implemented. They also seem to have a blind allegiance to Obama. most of them do not pay income tax and they believe those of us who work hard and pay our taxes should carry their weight, as they have an excuse list for failure longer than Don Vito's rap sheet|||Polar Bear 1 pt.
Right Wing Whiner- Zero
What is the goal of climate change legislation?
Do you believe (and does science support) the claim that humans are making any kind of measure-able, threatening impact on the earth's climate as to warrant legislation?
I'm all in favor of protecting the environment and endangered species and I do see the potential harm that could possibly result if we don't. But I also don't think that heavy handed legislation is the answer.|||%26gt;Do you believe (and does science support) the claim that humans are making any kind of measure-able, threatening impact on the earth's climate as to warrant legislation?
Yes and yes. Although I don't think that climate change in its present form will act quickly enough to cause a true threat to human civilization as a whole, I do think there is enough evidence to conclude that at least a good portion of climate change is due to human activity. Besides, burning fossil fuels does more than just change the greenhouse effect. It also pumps carcinogenic chemicals into the atmosphere that make up a threat to overall human health, and of course it also uses up fossil fuels, which are a rapidly diminishing resource that isn't going to last forever...or even for more than a few decades at this rate.
%26gt;I'm all in favor of protecting the environment and endangered species and I do see the potential harm that could possibly result if we don't. But I also don't think that heavy handed legislation is the answer.
I think that if anything, the legislation is just being put in the wrong place. Rather than setting arbitrary limits on how much of specific gases a company can produce, or selling 'pollution credits', we should just put down one single imperative on the basis of economic rent. That is to say, for all the pollution that a company releases into the general environment, they have to pay the government the equivalent cost of the harm that pollution will cause (either by its effect on the public or by the cost of cleaning it up, whichever is more reasonable). And if a company wants to run its factories in other countries and then sell their products here, then they still have to pay the government the equivalent cost of cleaning up whatever of their pollution's harmful effects will enter the environment of this country. That way, the public is compensated for all the pollution pumped into their environment, and there is no loss of competition to foreign corporations.
Unfortunately, like so much else, this requires a government that ISN'T corrupt to the core to start with...|||The goal of the legislation is to transfer more jobs to India and China - which have no limits on pollution.|||The goal of climate change legislation is to destroy the United States Economy.
DTG|||The Left says it is to "save the planet" and when that looks ridiculous they say to get us off of foreign oil. Climate Change caused by humans is BS, Drill here Drill now. This bill will fund Clean Coal projects in China and plant trees in Borneo and Brazil|||The goal is to increase the power of government and to reduce the freedoms of individuals.|||It will create dependency on federal aid - especially with rural Americans, who depend on factory jobs. Since January, nearly everything that has been passed has created greater dependency on federal gov., thus growing the power in Washington.
I also believe that Conaway (R-TEX) was correct that Obama wants to stand up in front of the world in Copehagen and claim that America is making great strides in environmental change. Obama has been more concerned with his international reputation, than the livelihood of Americans.
The simple fact is, we will lose many jobs, and energy costs per household will soar if this is passed. It has not been proven an effective strategy in nations who have implemented similar plans.|||masive taxes on energy will destroy jobs and the economy
when we are all living in caves again, and growing / hunting our own food, liberals think the "climate" will improve
Somehow the sun will stop warming the earth if we pay massive taxes on energy to obama
if this passes - obama will succeed in destroying America just to please the unemployed tree hugers|||It just passed! I can't believe this. Biggest tax hike ever! Change taken straight from our pockets. Get ready for wages to go down even more.
UNBELIEVEABLE!|||I don't believe man has any real effect on our environment. This climate bill is all about getting more tax dollars in Washington.
In America we are already doing much to protect our environment but it will never be enough for the environmentalists. I really believe the environmentalists want us to be riding bikes or walking before they will be satisfied.
Check out the book "Green Hell" by: Steve Milloy.|||the goal is to destroy the us economy|||It's triage to give us enough time to figure out how to actually fix it.
I hope its not too late already.
"Even if there's just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty." -- The Cheney Doctrine|||It's all about money. Politicians worship the dollar, not the trees.|||I believe our climate is changing. And I believe the understanding of those changes, and whether man is the dominant factor, are not completely understood yet.
If what doomsayers say are correct, then yes this is necessary, but if they are wrong, then we are needlessly taxing energy production and making our energy economy less efficient.|||Perhaps The Great Obama will order the construction of a giant bubble to encase the earth protecting us from ourselves. If he thinks it can be done, He will convince the rest of us.|||The goal is control|||All i can say is that anything these scoundrels do involves taxes of some kind.|||The goal is to placate the environmental radicals that have a far louder voice due to their single-minded organization than the disorganized masses. The democrat controlled government has pushed legislation to address every hare-brained radical interest group in record time. It's like there's no tomorrow. And who knows at this point!
Climate change is a fact of life. And it has been for the entire 4.5 billion year history of the planet. There have been more species that went extinct before the advent of humans than after. It's a fact of life on this planet.
We have more to fear from other types of extinction events than we do from global warming. Are we going to be getting an asteroid tax? A super volcano tax? How about a Gamma Ray Burster tax?
And since when did the scientific method change? Is it now acceptable to proclaim something a fact simply by proclaiming a consensus? If you ask me, that's the definition of a theory, not a scientific fact.
This Cap and Trade bs is going to be a very expensive boondoggle. Don't they have even the vaguest idea that passing this will ruin the US economy while China and India and other developing countries laugh their heads off!!!! It's called GLOBAL warming. Not AMERICAN warming.|||I absolutely believe that humans are making an impact upon climate. No question.
We can do nothing and let nature take its course, massively disrupting life on the planet and screwing up a good part of our economy because of shifts in global temps and rising sea levels, or we can do something now to mitigate some of the damage.
Makes sense to me to mitigate it - and its pretty clear that the only legistaltoin that will do that will have to be heavy handed, since this is a heavy issue.|||If it makes the planet a cleaner place to live I'm all for it.
I'm all in favor of protecting the environment and endangered species and I do see the potential harm that could possibly result if we don't. But I also don't think that heavy handed legislation is the answer.|||%26gt;Do you believe (and does science support) the claim that humans are making any kind of measure-able, threatening impact on the earth's climate as to warrant legislation?
Yes and yes. Although I don't think that climate change in its present form will act quickly enough to cause a true threat to human civilization as a whole, I do think there is enough evidence to conclude that at least a good portion of climate change is due to human activity. Besides, burning fossil fuels does more than just change the greenhouse effect. It also pumps carcinogenic chemicals into the atmosphere that make up a threat to overall human health, and of course it also uses up fossil fuels, which are a rapidly diminishing resource that isn't going to last forever...or even for more than a few decades at this rate.
%26gt;I'm all in favor of protecting the environment and endangered species and I do see the potential harm that could possibly result if we don't. But I also don't think that heavy handed legislation is the answer.
I think that if anything, the legislation is just being put in the wrong place. Rather than setting arbitrary limits on how much of specific gases a company can produce, or selling 'pollution credits', we should just put down one single imperative on the basis of economic rent. That is to say, for all the pollution that a company releases into the general environment, they have to pay the government the equivalent cost of the harm that pollution will cause (either by its effect on the public or by the cost of cleaning it up, whichever is more reasonable). And if a company wants to run its factories in other countries and then sell their products here, then they still have to pay the government the equivalent cost of cleaning up whatever of their pollution's harmful effects will enter the environment of this country. That way, the public is compensated for all the pollution pumped into their environment, and there is no loss of competition to foreign corporations.
Unfortunately, like so much else, this requires a government that ISN'T corrupt to the core to start with...|||The goal of the legislation is to transfer more jobs to India and China - which have no limits on pollution.|||The goal of climate change legislation is to destroy the United States Economy.
DTG|||The Left says it is to "save the planet" and when that looks ridiculous they say to get us off of foreign oil. Climate Change caused by humans is BS, Drill here Drill now. This bill will fund Clean Coal projects in China and plant trees in Borneo and Brazil|||The goal is to increase the power of government and to reduce the freedoms of individuals.|||It will create dependency on federal aid - especially with rural Americans, who depend on factory jobs. Since January, nearly everything that has been passed has created greater dependency on federal gov., thus growing the power in Washington.
I also believe that Conaway (R-TEX) was correct that Obama wants to stand up in front of the world in Copehagen and claim that America is making great strides in environmental change. Obama has been more concerned with his international reputation, than the livelihood of Americans.
The simple fact is, we will lose many jobs, and energy costs per household will soar if this is passed. It has not been proven an effective strategy in nations who have implemented similar plans.|||masive taxes on energy will destroy jobs and the economy
when we are all living in caves again, and growing / hunting our own food, liberals think the "climate" will improve
Somehow the sun will stop warming the earth if we pay massive taxes on energy to obama
if this passes - obama will succeed in destroying America just to please the unemployed tree hugers|||It just passed! I can't believe this. Biggest tax hike ever! Change taken straight from our pockets. Get ready for wages to go down even more.
UNBELIEVEABLE!|||I don't believe man has any real effect on our environment. This climate bill is all about getting more tax dollars in Washington.
In America we are already doing much to protect our environment but it will never be enough for the environmentalists. I really believe the environmentalists want us to be riding bikes or walking before they will be satisfied.
Check out the book "Green Hell" by: Steve Milloy.|||the goal is to destroy the us economy|||It's triage to give us enough time to figure out how to actually fix it.
I hope its not too late already.
"Even if there's just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty." -- The Cheney Doctrine|||It's all about money. Politicians worship the dollar, not the trees.|||I believe our climate is changing. And I believe the understanding of those changes, and whether man is the dominant factor, are not completely understood yet.
If what doomsayers say are correct, then yes this is necessary, but if they are wrong, then we are needlessly taxing energy production and making our energy economy less efficient.|||Perhaps The Great Obama will order the construction of a giant bubble to encase the earth protecting us from ourselves. If he thinks it can be done, He will convince the rest of us.|||The goal is control|||All i can say is that anything these scoundrels do involves taxes of some kind.|||The goal is to placate the environmental radicals that have a far louder voice due to their single-minded organization than the disorganized masses. The democrat controlled government has pushed legislation to address every hare-brained radical interest group in record time. It's like there's no tomorrow. And who knows at this point!
Climate change is a fact of life. And it has been for the entire 4.5 billion year history of the planet. There have been more species that went extinct before the advent of humans than after. It's a fact of life on this planet.
We have more to fear from other types of extinction events than we do from global warming. Are we going to be getting an asteroid tax? A super volcano tax? How about a Gamma Ray Burster tax?
And since when did the scientific method change? Is it now acceptable to proclaim something a fact simply by proclaiming a consensus? If you ask me, that's the definition of a theory, not a scientific fact.
This Cap and Trade bs is going to be a very expensive boondoggle. Don't they have even the vaguest idea that passing this will ruin the US economy while China and India and other developing countries laugh their heads off!!!! It's called GLOBAL warming. Not AMERICAN warming.|||I absolutely believe that humans are making an impact upon climate. No question.
We can do nothing and let nature take its course, massively disrupting life on the planet and screwing up a good part of our economy because of shifts in global temps and rising sea levels, or we can do something now to mitigate some of the damage.
Makes sense to me to mitigate it - and its pretty clear that the only legistaltoin that will do that will have to be heavy handed, since this is a heavy issue.|||If it makes the planet a cleaner place to live I'm all for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)