People often forget that in most countries of the world (including America) that the situation is entirely asymmetric.

If you quit without notice or cause, the employer is entitled to no compensation.
If you are fired without notice or cause, the employer is then liable for some compensation. In many cases that liability is for a lot longer than 2 weeks (13+ in America - we call it unemployment insurance, and employers do pay increased costs for every one of their former employees that is drawing)

So lets not simply assume that the "courtesy" should so simply extend both ways. If you want to justify why it should, then lets hear it.

You seem to be confusing Manning with Wikileaks.

Manning dumped all of the data indiscriminately onto wikileaks lap. It is only a fortunate coincidence that wikileaks (so it appears) acted more responsibly than he did after that.

This statement right here is the problem with most people. They, like you, dont understand what the fuck they are talking about.

All the long-duration proxies (more than a few hundred years) do measure as an average over hundreds and even thousands of years because there is too much short term noise in the signal. Thusly statements about the rate of warming on short time scales cannot be made about periods in the past more than a few hundred years. He doesnt need to look into why this is because its proven within mathematics (more specifically, in the fields of statistics, calculus, and now information theory) rather than physics, chemistry, or "earth science."

Thousand-year running average cannot ever make meaningful statement abouts hundred year derivatives. because its impossible. You just argued that he should re-prove whats already known for an absolute undeniable fact.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-725R

• Download the GAO report. Page 4 lists the total number of employees that were involved in waivers (~3M).
• Of that total, ~50% were union members.
• now, since unions represent ~12% of the US workforce (~65M at last count) = 8M
• It would seem that Unions got a disproportionate amount of the waivers.

Does that mean that of the 1200+ waivers, that Unions got > 600? no.

Before you say that union contracts are negotiated, and therefore cannot be altered, ask yourself if the minimum wage gets increased, do union wages get automatically increased? Isn't that a change in federal law, outside the control of the unions?

Understatement of the year.

It was arguably the largest protest in the history of the world. Some claims are as much as 14 million people, nearly 17% of the Egyptian population.

To put that in perspective, 17% of the American population is more than 50 million people.

If 50 million Americans were protesting in the streets demanding that Obama (or Bush) to be removed from office, and as a response Obama (or Bush) then held a 5 hour television broadcast declaring that he will not only not be leaving office but that additionally that the constitution will never apply to him, then I damn well expect the American military to do the same thing.

If waivers were for the states, then why were waivers granted to labor unions? http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/03/06/labor-unions-get-lions-share-final-aca-waivers

If delays are acceptably part of the law, why then the veto threat and 100% Democrat party nay vote on the House bill that codifies the delay?

The rules on a federal exchange (not state exchanges), which is what the Congress and their staffs would be participating in, state that there is no subsidy. Since the law specifically moved them from their existing plan (so much for keeping the plan you have) to the federal exchange, one could argue that no federal government payment is allowed. Yes, they are only getting back what they had previously, but that is not what the law said.

The second hand nature of these stories is often a huge problem. People could fabricate the story. But if the story is true, other people could fabricate that they investigated it and "found" it was a hoax.

Yes, indeed.

An academic neurosurgeon called Eben Alexander contracted a severe case of bacterial meningitis. After he recovered, he could not, from what he knew of the brain, explain where in the brain he could have been creating the rich experiences he had. The hallucination would have had to happen somewhere in the brain, and he recalls they were very rich, cognitively sophisticated, highly structured experiences.

But those parts of his brain which are normally said to be responsible for rich experience were in a soup of pus, bacteria, and comatose.

Anyway, if one can stomach the book title ("Proof of Heaven") and get past that obvious religious selling point, the actual story he tells is interesting. He could be wrong of course about where in the brain his experiences were happening, or when they were happening, but as he says, when he was operating on people, if they reported anything unusual, he'd just tell them that they had been very sick. Now that he's experienced it himself, he doesn't see how that amount of rich detailed and structured experience could have been generated by a sick brain.

Basically, we don't understand much about the brain, or how it relates to consciousness. The parts of his brain that are known to create rich experience were not available at the time of the sickness. So there's a lot that's not known.

Just to restate for clarity's sake: if the experience he had were really created by the brain, then most of what is known about the brain is wrong.

Well, the conversation just slipped into Godwin's Law. But I'll bite anyway, because I'm bored.

I don't know any specific allegation of selling drugs, but I've heard such rumors in the past. However, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Backing and conducting assassinations? Don't know of any. I do know we have targeted killing of enemy combatants in the current war, but those are not assassinations. Jailing people without charging or trying them? I don't know of any Americans who have been held without trial by the US Government. I do know we hold foreign combatants and properly so without trial. POWs or internees should not be tried for being soldiers, as that is not a crime. They shall be held, without criminal charges for the duration of the conflict. When they have been suspected for violating the laws of war, they have been charged and brought before military tribunals. Perhaps you should read the applicable parts of the Third Geneva Convention. Coups and fabricating evidence to start wars? Well I know some intelligence information about Iraq was misinterpreted, but I don't know of any that was outright fabricated. And that war was to enforce a UN resolution that Iraq was unwilling to demonstrate compliance with. They had only to demonstrate compliance to defuse the causus belli and they refused.

Slavery, while unwise and wrong, was legal at the time, which is the test we are applying here. We are discussing lawlessness versus lawfulness, not your or my personal definition of morality.

What you describe as the spanish-american war of aggression was lawfully declared by our Congress under our constitution and the laws of nations at the time. You fail to explain how it exemplifies systemic disregard of constitution or law, merely that you disagree. BTW, we see this as a war against European colonialism and imperialism.

All the other things you mention, which constitutional principle do they violate?

Congratulations to Finland. But with a population (5.4M) smaller than Missouri (6M), only three ethnic groups (Finn, Swede, and Sami), and a completely different culture from us, its easy to see why you have such a peaceful society. I could pick a small American state with a mostly all-white population, Vermont for instance, and also demonstrate low levels of violence and low infant mortality. I not sure what that proves about respect for the constitution though.

Ummm no. The problem here began because girlintraining just got caught not knowing what he was talking about, again, while acting like an expert about a topic, again.

girlintraiing then just did a complete about-face attempting to salvage the situation, proving as well that honesty and accuracy on the tin isnt as important to him as appearances.

The common theme between the two posts is appearances, accuracy be damned.

The federal government does not have the constitutional power to order the states to do anything. At best, they can coerce them by withholding federal aid, but that part of the ACA was deemed optional by the SCOTUS - hence the 30 states that have refused to create state wide heath exchanges. That forces the federal government to create the federal exchange, but the law says that there will be no subsidies to those in the federal exchanges.

Note that the authority says that the Insurance companies can handle this, it's the fact that there is no real-time connectivity from pharmacy to insurance company that is the major problem.

Insurance Expert explains the problem

None.

But then again, what legal authority did he (or HHS Secretary) have for:

1. waivers
2. delaying employer mandate
3. giving Congress (and their staff) 75% price support

None are legal because the law itself doesn't give anyone the power to change it willy-nilly, as each changes the law without the necessary legislation to modify the existing law.

jerry

Let me turn the question around; can you name a century during which no systemic corruption, disregard for human rights and life, or unjust violation of national sovereignty of a foreign nation condoned by US government did not happen?

Yes, the entire two centuries have been without systemic constitutional irregularity. There have been anecdotal violations of statutes and constitutional provisions, but never systemic. These other things you seem to being trying to introduce into the conversation do not seem to be related to constitution or statute. Are you trying to say any blemish ruins the entire national project? Or are you saying another world power lasting two centuries has a better track record and therefore the US is lacking in comparison? Name the world power? (Its actually irrelevant to the conversation, because we are talking about US law, not foreign powers) I believe you are simply an anti-american who like to shout "You're not perfect, You're not perfect".