> it looks very bad for people supporting amnesty right now simply because there looks to be a free for all at the border.
Is that what it looks like at the border, or what it looks like on fox news?
Because Jeb Bush says illegal immigration is "net zero."
I did not know that.
I totally agree.
They came over from another country and then rewrote the laws so they could stay. That's just illegal no matter how you think of it.
It's really time the Europeans go back to Europe.
I saw what you did there.
Open boarder either way?
I like it. I can move to Baja with my US dollars and live like a king.
But... you can't own property within 50 miles of the coast unless you are a natural Mexican citizen.
Rent.
What's wrong is to have state-sponsored open primaries. That's fundamentally anti-democratic. Why should the state organize primaries for only 2 parties? There are dozens of small parties out there which would like to receive the same treatment.
Parties should organize primaries themselves.
Why is it set up this way? If we start the Slashdot Party and it gets really really popular, will we displace one of the two? Are the Dems and Reps actually enshrined by name in legislation?
Yeah.. THIS!! I'm an Independent voter in Nevada, up until the middle of BushyJr's second term I was a life-long Republican.. The Republican party has gotten so FAR from its roots, I couldn't remain a "member"... Since I am no longer a Republican, I'm prohibited from voting for ANY candidate in our primary yesterday other than the non-partisan races, like Judge, Sheriff, etc.. This is a crock of SHIT, so I now do not vote in primary elections.. There were several Republican candidates for state and national office that I'd loved to have voted for, but the State of Nevada has seen fit to prohibit me from voting for them, unless I attach a label to my name.. I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN NOR A DEMOCRAT, I'M AN AMERICAN....
The USA is the only place I am aware of where the "public" has any say in how a political party decides who will run under their banner. In most places I am familiar with, only the card-carrying members of "Party X" get to decide who will be running. Since I am not a member of Party X, I don't pay membership dues or attend conventions, why should I have any say in what Party X does in terms of putting people on the ballot?
Similarly, why is "the state" running (and paying for running) these primary elections? Shouldn't that be something that the political parties run and fund themselves? Do only the Dems and the Reps get this treatment, or does the US Libertarian Party, and the US Communist Party also get their candidate selection process funded by the public?
"The forced movement to the right is only going to mean less compromise..."
Exactly. Because the Democrats never see the need to compromise. They will plow ahead with their agenda (as always) and the media will spin it in their favor.
I was very disappointed that the Democrats did try to compromise on health care reform back when they had the votes to push through whatever they wanted. The removal of the public payer option (ie let people pay into the medicare system if they wanted) was an error. Instead they compromised and passed a marginal reform that still has "the other side" out of their minds with woe. If the other side is going to piss and moan about socialized medicine no matter what, why didn't they actually pass a socialized medicine bill?
Anyhow, from my viewpoint, the Dems have done a lot of compromising, to little effect. Probably however, I am viewing the world through a biased filter. I do feel that pretty much everyone is being pretty ineffective in actually working towards reasonable solutions to problems rather than spending all their efforts demonizing the "other side".
Anyone who makes a business of organising a carpool is a taxi dispach service. Anyone who drives a carpool 8+h a day is a taxi driver.
Don't' like it? Don't make a business of it.
How about 4 hours per day? 1? What if I do it once? What if I pick up a hich-hiker and he offers me some cash? To pay for gas? A doughnut? Where-ever you draw the line, the position is arbitrary as all of this exists on a continuum.
Well the protest backfired - drove more people than ever to download Uber in London
"Uber is reporting an 850% increase in app downloads today"
Oops. I thought that might happen.
Commercial insurance doesn't offer any more protection or security than personal insurance does. They charge more because they can, not because it conveys any real benefit.
In a competitive market, the differences in price between "personal" and "commercial" insurance prices would depend primarily on the statistics - I would not be surprised to find that for a taxi-like business there are more insurance claims per policy per year than for personal insurance claims, if only due to the greater number of miles driven.
I wish countries would use public money to produce some ebooks for their schools. They could distribute it free as an epub file and there would be no royalties or copyright to care about, no heavy schoolbags, or parents / schools who have to buy them. Just some epubs on the end of a link, free to download and use on any tablet or ereader that supports the format.
It seems beyond bizarre that countries are able to specify in exacting detail what content books should contain and are able to write examination papers that test those subjects but they outsource the actual production (and copyright) of textbooks to somebody else.
Hear, hear! (or is that "Here, here!", or maybe "Hear, here!". Certainly not "Here, hear!", yes?)
Best calculus book ever was Calculus Made Easy. It really makes the subject as clear as possible. Everything since is filler.
That does look like a great text. 2nd edition in 1914!
Most criminals are black. That's more than just a coincidence.
Worldwide? I would guess that most criminals are Asian in "ethnicity".
I thought they just had to have a certain fleet average fuel economy,
Given that European and Japanese cars are massively more economical than American ones, it certainly isn't that. The gas 500s do 59MPG (Imp) and the diesels 76MPG (Imp).
Yeah, it looks like California has further requirements of selling a certain fraction of zero-emission vehicles, or buying appropriate offsets. Seems as though Fiat is being treated just like all the other car manufacturers, but complaining about it more.
But they dont HAVE to do any of it, except with a gun to their head. They're not an EV company, they're a car company that is extorted into making EVs. The power of the dollar and the power of the gun are not the same thing, unless I suppose you live in California.
I thought they just had to have a certain fleet average fuel economy, rather than a certain number of electric vehicles. Why are no other companies complaining about how hard this is? Did the other companies just do something else like get better fuel economies on their gas guzzlers? Is everyone else making electric cars without "losing money on each one", or are they just keeping quiet about it?
There is no regulation requiring electric alternatives be less than n% more than gas. There's no way to even enforce it. The Fiat has to be sold for $30k at a loss but the Tesla can go for $80k because the government things its so much nicer? No, Fiat just knows they are competing with the Nissan Leaf and no one would buy their car for 50% more than the Leaf is going for. He just wants to whine and make it sound like the government is ruining him, not that he's being beat in the market.
And as for that Executive Order, its directed at the California government as a goal to strive towards. You are trying to make it sound like he has passed some sort of law directed at car manufacturers which would be illegal, and impossible as there's no legal definition for "cost competitive".
http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=...
There is no law requiring a Fiat 500e to be sold for less than 200% the price of a regular 500.
You mean the article is misleading? Doesn't give a proper context? And a company is trying to blame someone else for their difficulties?
I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
