Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Ambiguity? (Score 1) 142

When you say Government, why do you assume everything should be a Federal issue? You do realize that the United States is founded as a Federation of States where the States are supposed to handle the majority of powers. This includes Social Welfare.

Perhaps the moderation is overly done, because while we can agree that Social welfare programs I (and the foundering documents and history) would disagree that the onus should be on the Federal government to provide those programs.

Comment You may not like this (Score 2) 142

While you are correct that people need access, and that many people need assistance in getting access, the issue should be at the State level as FCC Chairman states. The Federal Government was never intended to be the source of Welfare systems, that is a function of the State.

For some reason, over the last 70 years or so, all social welfare programs have been pushed to the Federal Government. This has caused a massive amount of bloat and comes with an excessive amount of problems. Social Security is a great example of a good idea, but the bureaucracy has completely destroyed the system. Instead of actually saving the money people put in, it has been spent as discretionary funds. There is no money in Social Security, and nothing has been saved since the very early 1970s. People paying in today are the only source of paying people that collect. There is no interest on the money as was promised, and no guarantee that you will get what you are supposed to get. Being 20Trillion in cash debt and 220Trillion in debt when you include entitlements, there is a good chance that you won't get yours.

People should really read the Federalist papers and see where the Founders said power should go and why. They knew that a bloated Federal Government leads to what we have today. Massive corruption, massive cronyism, massive waste and fraud, and it's extremely difficult to remove at that high of a level.

That is not to say that States don't run a risk of corruption, but the corruption at a more local level has numerous benefits. The Federal Government can investigate and charge for corruption at the State level, where they won't touch their own for fear of harming their own budgets. People unhappy with the State Government have more direct control of the elected officials.

Comment Re:Sure (Score 1) 527

Two problems with your position and example.

1. The US Constitution is a single Government and Country. Rules within the US Constitution are exactly sovereign. Article 5 ensures as much. Second, the Trade Union was not just working on Trade issues. The EU was not founded as a super Government where all members are subjects.

2. The EU was creating and enabling rules that have nothing to do with Commerce. The EU beginning to form their own private Army was one easy way to see that this was becoming a Government with complete control of other Governments, not just a Trade Union ensuring ease of commerce under a standard currency. Another example was the EU Forcing immigration rules onto all members. Those two examples happen to be large issues where it's easy to find substantiating facts. Those were _not_ the only two issues, just the two which are easy to see. Farrage lays out a series of abuses of power throughout his career.

Comment One more point (Score 1) 527

The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible"

So, the main driver of the precursor of the EU was not just trade, but to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible".

Which is why it was never implemented in that way, and nowhere in the EU's founding doctrine will you find this language. That unelected bureaucrats have thwarted the initial agreement is not a surprise. The same should be said for Countries like the Iceland and UK who pulled out of the agreement.

The only country seeing any benefit from the EU for the last decade has been Germany. Which is why Iceland was the first to pull out, the UK was the 2nd, France heavily favors an exit, and Greece Spain and Italy are all either bankrupt or on the verge and would probably pull out if they could.

Comment More moderation censorship attempts (Score 0) 527

You didn't even bother with a half truth, you went with the old FLAT OUT LIE!

Why do you omit more than 50% of the populace who voted for Brexit?

You were saying?

Because the person DID omit more than 50% of the UK who voted Brexit, then came back and lied claiming it wasn't more than 50%. I prove them wrong, which in Slashdot's SJW moderators find to be "flamebait" instead of what it should be. Which is called "informative". The facts were provided from a Left leaning site called the BBC, not Alex Jones.

If the truth hurts, too fucking bad.

Comment Helping my case? (Score 1) 527

Which non-elected bureaucrats are these? The ones that could be dismissed by a vote of the fully elected European Parliament?

Yes, exactly those same bureaucrats!. England can not directly impact the EU parliament, even when their own interests are being trashed by the same. They have to put everything on hold and wait for the EU vote schedule, and hope that the other members of the EU allow the UK to determine it's own positions.

And what dictatorial powers?

What dictatorial powers, the ones you pulled out of your ass as a strawman? I never said dictatorship, I said the EU parliament had gotten involved in much more than _TRADE_ as it was originally founded and agreed to. I gave you two of the easy examples to find, but there are plenty more. If you can't figure it out from the 2 examples given you are simply being dishonest to maintain a delusion (or perhaps just to be a liar for the purpose of propaganda). If you happen to be morally bankrupt, I can't fix your corrupt morality. I can only point out facts for bystanders to protect themselves from people like you.

Comment Shill and Liar (Score 0, Troll) 527

You didn't even bother with a half truth, you went with the old FLAT OUT LIE! It was 53.4% that voted to LEAVE from England, with 73% turnout. If you tally all of the votes including Wales, Scotland, and Ireland tally was 17,410,722 to leave, 16,141,231. Which is still 52% of the vote _TOTAL_ (51.89%).

Ireland and Scotland had the worst turn outs, which means they didn't have a strong enough opinion to vote.

Your opinion denies things we call facts. Your opinion is invalid and based on some fantasy land that does not exist. Only a complete lunatic attempts to deny facts to support their delusional ill gotten opinion.

Citation for the intellectually challenged who can't find results. Don't worry, I know you won't look.

Comment Sure (Score 1, Interesting) 527

Because the only possible way to maintain your sovereignty is to pay non-elected bureaucrats from other countries to dictate every aspect of your country.

The EU was setup as a Trade Union with standard currency, which most people agreed with as a "Trade Union" with standard currency. Once it started making demands on everything from members paying for a private private army to demanding how a country handles immigration the EU failed in it's purpose.

Your position and statement is disingenuous and dishonest.

Comment Shill much? (Score 1) 527

Why do you omit more than 50% of the populace who voted for Brexit? Considering the massive amount of propaganda for "remain" having over 50% for exit is an insanely high number.

It's almost like you are actually ignoring facts to back an ideology. Why does that seem so familiar? Oh, I got it! The elitists in the US did and do the same thing. People have caught on to the game, repeating the lies won't make the true. All it does at this point is expose the amount of people involved in attempting to maintain the charade.

Comment Re:Austin 16 minute commute? (Score 1) 252

Well, as someone else pointed out these are weekly rates, which look more correct. Their number then changes to about 3K/mo. SF proper is about 5K/mo for a 1 bedroom, but some of the areas drop the average as you go west toward Pacifica. I don't know anywhere "decent" in the Bay area within an hour commute that's less than 3K/mo.

Submission + - Bay Area tech executives indicted for H-1B visa fraud (mercurynews.com)

s.petry writes:

FREMONT – Two Bay Area tech executives are accused of filing false visa documents through a staffing agency in a scheme to illegally bring a pool of foreign tech workers into the United States.

An indictment from a federal grand jury unsealed on Friday accuses Jayavel Murugan, Dynasoft Synergy’s chief executive officer, and a 40-year-old Santa Clara man, Syed Nawaz, of fraudulently submitting H-1B applications in an effort to illegally obtain visas, according to Brian Stretch, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California.

The men are charged with 26 counts of visa fraud, conspiracy to commit visa fraud, use of false documents, mail fraud and aggravated identity theft, according to prosecutors. Each charge can carry penalties of between two and 20 years in prison.

While not the only problem with the H-1B Visa program, this is a start at investigating and hopefully correcting problems.

Slashdot Top Deals

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.

Working...