Toyota Hearings
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
US congressmen and congresswomen are too stupid to live. :((
No, the reason you should be crying is that they aren't quite that stupid. :((
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
US congressmen and congresswomen are too stupid to live. :((
No, the reason you should be crying is that they aren't quite that stupid. :((
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
US congressmen and congresswomen are too stupid to live. Cry
So let's put them in charge of our healthcare...
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Unpaid overtime is slavery.
Trollslayer wrote:
Meetings - where minutes are taken and hours are lost.
-
-
I just read a few stories (with some transcripts) about the opening of the Toyota recall / safety hearings going on in Washington DC this morning and all I can do is hang my head in shame. :sigh: US congressmen and congresswomen are too stupid to live. :((
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Sir Winston Churchill Professional Politician
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Services -
Mike Mullikin wrote:
US congressmen and congresswomen are too stupid to live. Cry
So let's put them in charge of our healthcare...
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Unpaid overtime is slavery.
Trollslayer wrote:
Meetings - where minutes are taken and hours are lost.
odd how nobody ever complains that they're in charge of the worlds' largest killing machine.
-
odd how nobody ever complains that they're in charge of the worlds' largest killing machine.
Actually they just finance it. The Executive branch runs it.
-
Actually they just finance it. The Executive branch runs it.
that's really not even close to true. the military is governed by statute. and statutes are laws. and you (should) know where laws come from. the executive controls the day to day operations, but Congress is ultimately in control. one small example: Don't Ask Don't Tell. it's a law, written by Congress, and it governs how the military has to treat homosexuals. the President has no authority to change it. more generally, see US Code Title 10[^] (or 32, or 50[^], etc)
-
that's really not even close to true. the military is governed by statute. and statutes are laws. and you (should) know where laws come from. the executive controls the day to day operations, but Congress is ultimately in control. one small example: Don't Ask Don't Tell. it's a law, written by Congress, and it governs how the military has to treat homosexuals. the President has no authority to change it. more generally, see US Code Title 10[^] (or 32, or 50[^], etc)
Chris Losinger wrote:
Don't Ask Don't Tell. it's a law, written by Congress,
Actually it's a policy... From Wikipedia: "The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military. At the time, as per 1982's Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, it was military policy that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged. Congress, opposing Clinton's proposed changes, included text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 policy. The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993 issued Department of Defense Directive 1304.26, which while following the letter of Congress's restrictions attempted to soften them by focusing on homosexual "conduct" rather than sexual orientation, and stating that military applicants are not to be asked what their sexual orientation is. This is the policy we now know as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"." A policy set forth by a POTUS.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
Don't Ask Don't Tell. it's a law, written by Congress,
Actually it's a policy... From Wikipedia: "The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military. At the time, as per 1982's Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, it was military policy that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged. Congress, opposing Clinton's proposed changes, included text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 policy. The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993 issued Department of Defense Directive 1304.26, which while following the letter of Congress's restrictions attempted to soften them by focusing on homosexual "conduct" rather than sexual orientation, and stating that military applicants are not to be asked what their sexual orientation is. This is the policy we now know as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"." A policy set forth by a POTUS.
err, i wouldn't treat Wiki as if its words were law. here's the very next paragraph:
When passing the DADT bill, President Clinton cited U.S. Navy Radioman Third Class Schindler, who was brutally murdered by shipmate Terry M. Helvey (with the aid of an accomplice), leaving a "nearly-unrecognizable corpse".
bills come from... ? maybe it's fair to say a policy is a regulation trying to follow a law. but you're not going to do away with DADT (in any meaningful way) without changing the underlying law. well, i guess it could be made more aggressive. but the President can't do away with the restriction altogether - which is what most people mean by "ending DADT" - [update] and which is what i meant by it. so strictly speaking, yes, DADT could be changed by a President.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing
modified on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:27 PM
-
err, i wouldn't treat Wiki as if its words were law. here's the very next paragraph:
When passing the DADT bill, President Clinton cited U.S. Navy Radioman Third Class Schindler, who was brutally murdered by shipmate Terry M. Helvey (with the aid of an accomplice), leaving a "nearly-unrecognizable corpse".
bills come from... ? maybe it's fair to say a policy is a regulation trying to follow a law. but you're not going to do away with DADT (in any meaningful way) without changing the underlying law. well, i guess it could be made more aggressive. but the President can't do away with the restriction altogether - which is what most people mean by "ending DADT" - [update] and which is what i meant by it. so strictly speaking, yes, DADT could be changed by a President.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing
modified on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:27 PM
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
i wouldn't treat Wiki as if its words were law.
Yet... you quote them as well - along with provocative text. Nice. :rolleyes: Show me the actual law and I'll agree, otherwise don't hi-jack my anti-Congress OP. ;P
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Yet... you quote them as well - along with provocative text.
i quoted that to show that they can't keep their terms straight, so that going through and bolding individual words as if they were legally precise is silly! sheesh.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Show me the actual law
10 USC 654
-
odd how nobody ever complains that they're in charge of the worlds' largest killing machine.
Chris Losinger wrote:
odd how nobody ever complains t
I think you just did...
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
odd how nobody ever complains t
I think you just did...
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
really? i wouldn't call that a complaint.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Yet... you quote them as well - along with provocative text.
i quoted that to show that they can't keep their terms straight, so that going through and bolding individual words as if they were legally precise is silly! sheesh.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Show me the actual law
10 USC 654
-
I just read a few stories (with some transcripts) about the opening of the Toyota recall / safety hearings going on in Washington DC this morning and all I can do is hang my head in shame. :sigh: US congressmen and congresswomen are too stupid to live. :((
Afraid Toyota guys are really gonna catch it today (2/25) as it's an election year. Legislators will be asking the most stupid, inane questions just to please constituents. That, and go on tangent raves that have nothing to do with the issue. Most of them shouldn't even own a car. If I was buying a car tomorrow, I would still consider Toyota.
Forgetfulness is losing your car keys. Dementia is finding them and not knowing what you should do with them.