I can't see where you got that impression. Most taxi regulations are about pricing: prices are fixed, mostly so they can't gouge customers or rainy days or at other opportunities; or licensing: taxi licenses are limited to ensure that taxi drivers can still make a decent living despite lost revenue from the first point; or universal service: taxis are required to operate even in those parts of town that are less savory or less profitable.

If your objective is to set up taxis as an alternate means of public transportation, something to complement a subway system, for example, than all of these traits are not just desirable, but necessary.

I don't... I don't get it. Woosh?

Well, no. This isn't like a speedball where you have two drugs fighting each other - the enzyme removes the cocaine from your system. You're still addicted and the cocaine isn't doing anything, so you take more and it still doesn't do anything. If you take so much that you start to feel it, all that means is that you've exceeded the capacity of the enzyme to break it down and you now are responding as normal. It's still possible to overdose, I'm sure, but presumably more difficult.

Since you imply that you're not an American, I'm going to pretend that you're not a troll and that you don't actually know this stuff. Yes, the president decides who is a threat. There's a longstanding tradition of the president unilaterally authorizing military force, the United States has only formally declared war six times in its history and most (not all) other military actions undertaken by the US have happened on presidential authority. This is not always because the president is overstepping himself - congress has tacitly, even explicitly, approved of this authoritarian approach on multiple occasions, in particular the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists of 2001 which gives the president the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force." This is the bill under which the justice department is claiming the strike on Anwar al-Awlaki was authorized.

The "gun" that Anwar al-Awlaki was holding was the planning and direction of new attacks against the United States. This is in TFA. It suffices for the authorization of force that the justice department and the president came to the conclusion that he was a threat. Not that he might be a threat in the future, he wasn't killed because they were worried that he might start planning attacks. Police officers are indeed allowed to decide in cases such as that whether a criminal will get a trail. Or, to be more accurate, police officers are allowed to determine situations where a criminal will not get a trail. To return to this previous example: when a suspect is pointing a gun at a police officer the officer is authorized to come to the conclusion that capture is infeasible and that a trial will not be possible. The infeasibility of capture was also part of the justification for the strike on al-Awlaki.

Your implication that this is unusual, that the United States is the only country which authorizes its law enforcement to use lethal force, is way off base. However, I will certainly agree that the endless march towards authoritarianism that our country has been on is detrimental. This was made abundantly clear by our last president, under whom such sweeping powers as the aforementioned Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists was passed. That said, while I don't know enough to have an opinion on whether the strike on al-Awlaki was justified, I'm not so naive to say that all lethal actions should be forbidden in lieu of a trial. The fact that this particular one is being trotted out as an example of overreach while so many thousands of others are ignored is simple partisanship.

The person in question was wanted for his actions, not for his thoughts. But he wasn't killed for being a criminal, he was killed for being a threat. This is the point. You try criminals, you eliminate threats. Perhaps, in your opinion, he was not really a threat. That's fine. You can certainly question the assessment that they made, maybe it was made poorly, maybe it had insufficient justification, all of that should come out under examination. What you're suggesting though, is that if a suspect pulls out a gun and points it at a police officer than that police officer should not be allowed to shoot that suspect, because that suspect has not had a trial.

Your claim that every bombing is an "assassination" is perhaps technically accurate, but misses some subtleties in what that word implies.

Of course there was no trial. How often does our military try people before they're killed? Seriously, among the dumb criticisms of Obama's presidency this is possibly the dumbest... Well, it's not dumber than Bengahzi. And it's not dumber than Solyndra... and it's not dumber than that stupid IRS controversy... fourth dumbest. This is the fourth dumbest criticism of Obama's presidency.

We kill people without trial all the time and no one says a thing. How many hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan are dead? How many of those got trials? Oh, wait, they're not Americans so they don't count? Non-Americans don't have rights, "All [American] are men created equal" yada yada. Fine. How about Christopher Dorner? He was unequivocally American and had no trial. What made killing him okay?

The answer there is the same as here: 'continued' and 'imminent' threat. It's the same justification used for every single lethal action by law enforcement - if a person poses an immediate threat (perhaps because they're pointing a gun at a police officer) and can't be captured without either making good on that threat or some other, then killing is appropriate and justified.

Now, it's possible that you don't think that Anwar al-Awlaki posed such a threat. That's fine. An examination (a real examination, not a partisan smear) of the events surrounding his death is certainly appropriate and I believe is mandatory whenever law enforcement kills someone. No doubt this particular incident has, and will, be examined far more than it actually needs to be. Ranting about a lack of trial is meaningless though, just another partisan talking point.

Is this really that hard to follow? Human related climate change has raised the average surface temperature by about half a degree over the last hundred years. Natural climate change can indeed change the surface temperature as well, but much less dramatically. You're talking about a six hundred million year time span and trying to make the claim that slow warming over that extremely long period of time is comparable to the rapid warming that we're experiencing right now.

So sayeth the Market. Amen.

From TFS: 'We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be canceled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,'

It certainly seems as though they are considering the historical context. Maybe there's a difference between referring to people as "red skinned" and referring to people as "redskins"? Just as, nowadays, there's a difference between talking about "gay people" and talking about "the gays"? Maybe the people working on this case know more about it than you do?

The rocky mountain locust wasn't eliminated intentionally, that was just habitat destruction - they needed the great plains for breeding and the farmers took care of that. The passenger pigeon was hunted the same way we hunt fish now: with nets and with little regard for conservation. They were seen as a cheap source of protein, to be fed to pigs and slaves.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some poisoning, but that wasn't a concerted effort. Congress did made a half-assed attempt to prevent their extinction towards the end there, so they clearly weren't trying to exterminate them. The last flock of 250,000 was killed by hunters, knowingly and deliberately, but that wasn't about extermination either. Reputedly they did it because they knew that this was going to be the last opportunity

No doubt. Unfortunately, the way it works in the US is that almost everything, including a lot of infrastructure, is privately owned. So despite the fact that building out that infrastructure is so difficult that it can't really be done without assistance, thus precluding real competition, we have statements like these: "I think the Tea Party way would be that anyone who wants to offer better, faster service should be allowed to do so, and the government shouldn't stop them." And the guy is probably right. That probably is the stated ideal of the Tea Party, no matter how foolish it is.

It's not unlawful to run cabling, it's just really difficult. Making it easier for one company is not the same thing as outlawing other companies from doing it.

In order to humor you, I have Googled the term "cable franchise." It seems to be exactly what I said: a grant of privileged status given in exchange for promises of particular service. Something quite different from outlawing competition. However, the legal dictionary had a result pertaining to cable television franchises: "The 1992 Cable Act ... abolished the exclusive franchise agreement."

It then went on to talk about how later deregulation (in 1996) has since led to cable consolidation, less competition, and higher prices.

You were all right until this bit: "Currently, local governments outlaw competition." No local government outlaws competition. Deals can be made for several reasons, but they usually involve enticing companies to offer services where they wouldn't otherwise, or granting privileged build-out rights in exchange for promises of cheaper service or better service or service to less profitable areas. Nowhere do they ever outlaw competition, that would be ridiculous, but granting the privileged rights companies demand (and, to be fair, sometimes genuinely require) implies by their privilege that a competitor would at a minimum be at a disadvantage.

You are doubtless right that the Tea Party way would be towards greater anarchy. I've heard quite a few people lately just blanketly denouncing all regulation, apparently in the hope that the absence of laws will somehow lead to better treatment.

He didn't blame either party for this bill, neither party is to blame - both support and opposition were bipartisan. He did say that one party has made a mission of having no bipartisan bills pass until Obama is out of office, and that this fact might have been a factor in some of the opposition. This is entirely possible. He did not blame the bills withdrawal for this, or claim that this was the only factor.

The bill was withdrawn when its sponsor (D) decided that it wouldn't get enough votes to pass after hearing from an opposition senator (also D).