More Republicans for states' rights
 

You are confusing me with Less. When am I going to get the chance to get my money back from my brother?

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Sure. Which one?

If it's the first amendment one, about minimum speech:

1) Constitutional limitations are different from statutory/regulatory limitations. We're talking policy decisions to be made, not ones we've committed to continuing in the form of a constitution. I grant that it is permissible under our federalist system to have a federal law that states can make more strict. And you would have to grant it is permissible to have a federal law tht states cannot make more strict. All I've posited that if you have both of those possible policy outcomes, why not the third--federal laws that states can make less strict?

2) When enacted, the first amendment did not apply to the states. It was subsequently incorporated, based on further constitutional amendment. If you can get a constitutional amendment through that specifies that the federal government may enact minimum, but not maximum health and safety standards, go ahead.

Time to Boycott Dominos (again)?
 

But a boycott does punish the guilty. The people of South Dakota elected the yahoos who enacted the abortion bill and the yahoo king of a governor who signed the bill. They should be made to suffer for their evil.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

The one about whether you would view this federal action so favorably if the feds were taking the strictest state food safety standards and applying them nationwide.

What, Me Worry?
 

Looks like the Bush admin was as competent in determining who to put in Gitmo as in, well, everything.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060304/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Untrammeled executive power is good! There is never any potential for mistake or abuse! "Checks and balances" is so 1700s!

Glad I lost that Casio watch....

More Republicans for states' rights
 

I don't recall saying I viewed it favorably other than on the basis that it created nationwide unformity in labeling, which surely reduces the costs of national food distributors. That benefit would exist regardles of the level of standard applied.

Time to Boycott Dominos (again)?
 

Not all the people voted for these yahoos. Many are as responsible for these officials as you are responsible for Tom Delay and George W. Bush. And the companys we were talking about just have their headquarters there. They have people working for them all over the country. You need to go directly after the politicians.

Time to Boycott Dominos (again)?
 

I disagree. The only way to get decent folks elected is to kick moderates in the ass and force them to get off their asses and go to the polls and outvote these virulent minorities of white trash vermin who presently wag the dog.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

isn't the food industry's reaction already to use a uniform label? I think they tend to lump all warnings on all packaging- assuming 1) no one reads it- so big deal and 2) it's cheaper to have one label, not so much for printing but for handling and ditribution.

It's like the bottle deposit notices. The best thing would be that only deposit states have a notice on their bevarage containers, but all containers in all states have the same label. Results in the Kramers and Newmans of the world bringing in out-of-state empties.*



*I worked in a beer store in college- out of state returns are a real problem.

Time to Boycott Dominos (again)?
 

Kinda late to the party on this one, but why is IAMS on this list? IAMS is based in Dayton, Ohio and the company itself was sold to P&G (Cincinnati) in 1999. What is the South Dakota connection?

aV

Time to Boycott Dominos (again)?
 

The only way to successfully go after polticians outside of your own jurisdiction is to hurt the people who put them in office. If you make it too costly for the people in South Dakota to vote for the people they put in office, they will elect other representatives. At least that's the theory, And it's better than buying smear ads.

I Bet The Drop in Ear Piercings is Higher
 

• For all the passions they generate, laws that require minors to notify their parents or get permission to have an abortion do not appear to have produced the sharp drop in teenage abortion rates that some advocates hoped for, an analysis by The New York Times shows.
  
  The analysis, which looked at six states that introduced parental involvement laws in the last decade and is believed to be the first study to include data from years after 1999, found instead a scattering of divergent trends.
  
  For instance, in Tennessee, the abortion rate went down when a federal court suspended a parental consent requirement, then rose when the law went back into effect. In Texas, the rate fell after a notification law went into effect, but not as fast as it did in the years before the law. In Virginia, the rate barely moved when the state introduced a notification law in 1998, but fell after the requirement was changed to parental consent in 2003.
  

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/na...gewanted=print

Who cares? Only the clinically insane will sign up nowadays anyway. Even those in abject poverty know welfare beats jacking off in a tent in 112 degree heat and risking having your cap blasted into a pile of mush.

Seems to me to be a push, but you get paid for doing the time in the ME.

You have to give the Administration credit for their timing: I'm just too tired of all the crap to do more than note the fact that many the detainees at Guantanamo are being held on the scantest of evidence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/in...rtner=homepage

ETA: I see Sidd already posted something, and nobody else can get worked up about it either.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

If that's the concern, it's pretty easy for national food distributors to accomodate it -- just apply the most restrictive/comprehensive standard. States don't prohibit you from doing more than the regs require, and it's not like some states say you must disclose x, while others say that you must not.

Time to Boycott Dominos (again)?
 

What are your views on Iraq?

Time to Boycott Dominos (again)?
 

He said "target" not "hit." Sometimes collateral damage is a necessary cost.

18 Months
 

Barry Posen argues that the US is more a magnet for insurgents than a mechanism for stability in Iraq, and the goal should be to establish a political and military stalemate in Iraq through a variety of internal and external diplomatic and military threats, and scale down our presence over 18 months.

Don't know if I agree with everything he says here, but it does seem to have the advantage of being thought out.

FUCK!
 

FUCK!
 

Whaddaya think they should do?

FUCK!
 

Go into workout. Elect Trump President. He's good with workouts.

FUCK!
 

He is good at creating workouts and he is good at getting himself out of them without any moentary exposure for the Trumpster and (the clincher) it would be a lot of fun to watch him in a pissing match with other world leaders who in his mind have slighted him in some way. Fun right up until the point that somebody pulls out the nukes or biological weapons, that is.

I'd love to see Trump and Saddam in a cage match.

FUCK!
 

True, but Trump is a fan of the negotiating school of thought that "if I owe the bank One Hundred Thousand Dollars, I'm fucked. If I owe the bank One Hundred Million Dollars, the bank is fucked."

Nice for screwing the other side in RE deals, but now I'm visualizing The Donald screaming across the table at Kim Jong Il saying "You think I'm joking? You pantywaist? I'll take my fucking economy DOWN, and then let's see where you are! Your population will starve without the trade the USA gives you, you pieceofshit! You're Fired!"

Not so good.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

So you should let one state determine the rule for all the rest?

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Isn't this effectively what happens already with CA emissions standards for cars?

FUCK!
 

They really have no choice, but it pisses me off every time they do this and further pisses me off that the actually have the nerve to call it a ceiling. It's a fucking speed bump.

FUCK!
 

Well, as Gatti said below, our economy going sideways tanks the whole damn planet. So we are the permanent Trump - or at least the World's Donald for the next 100 years. That's the comedy of all the hand wringing over our debt. Nobody can do anything rash, on either side of the equation, because any domino falling brings down the whole place. We just keep changing the measures and fundamentals of what's acceptable forever.

Nobody whips out the bomb over economic matters except us.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

In part, yes, but not entirely. I think most (or all) manufacturers have given up on having "California emissions", but there are also fleet requirements that result in certain models either not being sold in California or not being sold elsewhere.

So I ask, is having California's ARB determine nationwide emissions requirements consistent with our federalist system? States' rights indeed!

FUCK!
 

You wonder why they don't kick it up like twice as high, take the heat for a few days, and then stop worrying about for a long time.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Audi TT. Not sold in CA. Because it makes total sense to produce a convertible and then fail to meet emissions in one of the 2 biggest convertible sales states in the US. Thankfully there are tons of hipsters in the rust belt who will dole out $40k plus for a toy car for the 30-90 days of convertible weather up there per year.

Say Good Bye to Lawtalkers
 

New NJ Bill belw - Not sure to what extent NJ has jurisdiction:

• 1. As used in this act:
  
  "Information content provider" means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
  
  "Interactive computer service" means any information system, service, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides service to the Internet.
  
  "Internet" means the international computer network of both federal and non-federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
  
  "Internet service provider" or "provider" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that provides individuals, corporations, or other entities with the ability to connect to the Internet through equipment that is located in this State.
  
  "Operator" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that operates an interactive computer service.
  
  
  
  2. The operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish, maintain and enforce a policy to require any information content provider who posts written messages on a public forum website either to be identified by a legal name and address, or to register a legal name and address with the operator of the interactive computer service or the Internet service provider through which the information content provider gains access to the interactive computer service or Internet, as appropriate.
  
  3. An operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.
  
  4. Any person who is damaged by false or defamatory written messages that originate from an information content provider who posts such messages on a public forum website may file suit in Superior Court against an operator or provider that fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required pursuant to section 2 of P.L. , c. (C.) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), and may recover compensatory and punitive damages and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, cost of investigation and litigation from such operator or provider.
  
  
  
  5. This act shall take effect on the 90th day following enactment.
  

Say Good Bye to Lawtalkers
 

Do you have a cite to a website, or at least a bill number?

Any idea on where this is in the process?

Say Good Bye to Lawtalkers
 

Assembly 1327 - http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bi...00/1327_I1.HTM

Say Good Bye to Lawtalkers
 

I imagine there will be a lot of anonymous messages about Peter Biondi in the coming months.

Say Good Bye to Lawtalkers
 

Thank you. Lots of clients will be interested. Lots of clients will be checking to see if they are qualified to do business in NJ and/or will be yanking out equipment if this bill passes.

I'm surprised it's not called the "NJ Don't Need No Stinkin' Technology Companies Act of 2006"

Say Good Bye to Lawtalkers
 

That's the subtitle.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

No. You should let states make determinations on rules above certain minimum standards of safety, and if national manufacturers feel that the cost of complying with differing labelling standards is too high, they can choose to label according to the most stringent requirements.

But the real reason behind the push to federalize these rules is not the cost of complying with different regulatory schemes. It's a desire to reduce regulations, period. They are not interested in uniformity, they are interested in lowering the bar.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

If South Dakota passed stricter requirements than California, do you think manufacturers would change their fleets nationwide?

California has market power; that's why businesses respond. Those who find it too expensive are free not to sell here, or not to sell all models here (as, you point out, some do).