Court: NRC In Violation For Not Ruling On Yucca Mountain 258
schwit1 sends this quote from an AP report: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] to complete the licensing process and approve or reject the Energy Department's application for a never-completed waste storage site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. In a sharply worded opinion, the court said the nuclear agency was 'simply flouting the law' when it allowed the Obama administration to continue plans to close the proposed waste site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The action goes against a federal law designating Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository. 'The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,' Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion (PDF), which was joined Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland dissented. The appeals court said the case has important implications for the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. 'It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,' Kavanaugh wrote. 'The commission is simply defying a law enacted by Congress ... without any legal basis.'"
NIMBY and a big Fuck You (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard. And actually, that is the sum total of the story; everything else is just details. In this case, some people at the NRC (and the President) decided that the only way this was ever going to happen is if they take unilateral action, say fuck you to the NIMBYs, and move forward. Obviously, the courts are butthurt by this, because they want the chance to let every significant government action get bogged down in the qua
Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (Score:5, Informative)
...and why are you giving the NRC and Obama bravo's? They are CLOSING Yucca mountain, not getting it completed and therefore usable.
Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (Score:5, Insightful)
...and why are you giving the NRC and Obama bravo's? They are CLOSING Yucca mountain, not getting it completed and therefore usable.
Umm, maybe this is a bit of an obvious thing to say, but given that you're at a +5 informative and I've been modded troll, perhaps not obvious enough...
Why are they closing Yucca mountain?
Is it perhaps because all the money was witheld due to pressure from the NIMBYs, thus leaving closure the only option? The NRC pushed for years to get this operational and failed time and time again... because they couldn't ride roughshod over the courts. They tried. They failed. I admire that effort, though it failed.
Obama had no choice but to mothball it; It was even part of his 2008 election campaign -- the NIMBYs, led by their commander Senator Harry Reid, vigorously campaigned to kill it. They won. Before Obama even took office, funding was cut, cut, and then gutted, cut some more, and roasted over a fire. Obama is now riding roughshod over the courts to get the money invested in the program back out, because he can't overcome NIMBY.
So you've got the NRC on one side, trying to get past the endless appeals of the court system to get it done. You've got The NIMBYs on the other side, trying to keep it in court forever so it'll never get done... and you've got Obama in the middle saying "Fuck this -- Appeals court; GTFO." All he's trying to do is get some traction one way or another -- he picked pulling out because pressure was too great, not because the project isn't necessary. And yeah, I support that -- politically it's his only option. Just as the NRCs only option was to try to get around the courts before lobbyists got to Congress and killed it. It was a race... they lost. And the whole nation loses too.
All of this because our goddamned court system is a giant monkey wrench in the guts of anything that society needs, but individuals don't want near them: Like prisons, sewage processing plants, nuclear reactors, etc. I bravo both Obama and the NRC because they recognize it's the court system that's fucking things up and they tried to do and end run-around them. They both failed. They were both on opposite sides of the problem... but ultimately, they both agreed on where the problem was: The goddamned courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not say fuck you to the NIMBYs? Aren't there fewer of them than all the rest of us?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not say fuck you to the NIMBYs? Aren't there fewer of them than all the rest of us?
I don't know: Do you want to live next to the national repository for all kinds of highly radioactive waste, knowing it's an ideal terrorist and military target because, if it were ever damaged and the nuclear material released, it would create a cloud of hazardous radioactive shit raining down over a wide area, making it arguably worse than if they'd just dropped a nuke on your head?
Of course not. It's like how pro-lifers are only one unplanned pregnancy away from being pro-choice. Situational politics. Th
Re: (Score:2)
If the NIMBYs won, why does the law still require the NRC to do what this court has ordered it to do?
If you said "because Harry Reid has a problem with the rule of law", you win one eCookie. But you probably said something stupid like "the court is endlessly appealing its earlier rulings", so no points for you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're not completing the site, they're shutting it down. They gave the NIMBYs exactly what they wanted...no nuclear waste storage site even though the law says it is to be completed and used for storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should start recycling it?
Hot nuclear waste that still has a lot of radiation also has a lot of energy left to give.
Also, we have glassification techniques that can neutralize a lot of the danger.
I smell a rat that's getting fattened up as a government contractor.
Re: (Score:2)
Glassification is a bad idea because it just makes it harder to recycle when we finally pull our heads out of our asses and reprocess the fuel. Better solution, cranial-rectal extraction sooner rather than later
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil fuels are not sustainable. Period.
(I think you got 2 more perioids there than you need.) Also, you're assuming that the people in power(who mostly overlap with the group of people who never developed any type of moral backbone or anything resembling ethics) care what happens after theyre gone. Whats in it for them to lessen their gains now to care about what comes in 50, 100 or 200 years? People need to start bringing out the pitchforks and torches again and make them understand the people in power are there to server the public, not the
Re: (Score:2)
I think you got 2 more perioids there than you need.
Better than!!! She's simply saying "end of story" or "the end."
I have to agree with your comment about the powerful, though.
Re: (Score:3)
> And that means we need storage facilities
Or fuel reprocessing plants - we had such things in the early days of fission energy, but then advances in uranium mining made them unprofitable. Pull out the 90% of the high level "waste" that's still perfectly good fuel and what's left will be reasonably safe in only a couple centuries. It is still kinda hot, but a multi-millenia storage facility is necessary.
So which palms do you suppose were greased to make sure that the admittance facility at Yucca Mounta
Re: (Score:3)
Nevada runs the Senate! (Score:2)
You do realize that the head of the Senate is from Nevada right?
Yucca Mountain has had every possible hurdle placed in it's way to gum up the project- all that is left is for officials fighting NIMBY forces to start having accidents... Different stall tactics are tried by everybody who gets into this mess. It's a politically toxic issue.
As for Obama, he isn't simple to follow. He says one thing and then does something "pragmatic" to get along with as many of the powerful forces as possible - it is as if th
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you, but right now is the most corrupt, dysfunctional time in the nations history.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard.
This is mostly because it hasn't been handled and presented right. If the people of Nevada actually engaged their brains, what they should have done is just demanded money. By adding 1% to the cost of building the facility, they could give every single household in Nevada over $1000 -- and by charging other states to store their waste there, they could continue to pay the citizens back.
Make a proposal like that, and it's guaranteed that the people will vote in someone who will make it happen. No way the
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately nuclear waste is a federal issue and the glory of interstate commerce demands that the feds get to do what they want with it and not get taxed for it.
Simply put, the federal government has preempted states on DOE issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I think the people that have gotten the benefit of nuclear power should have to shoulder the burden of storing the waste.
umm.. they are, the american people. except that they aren't, since obama doesn't want to use yucca. having it in one place is much better than distributed everywhere.. if terrorism is your concern. burying it in 100 different sites all around would be just asking for trouble now or later.
and umm what the fuck from around the world? you think we aren't doing our own long term placement plans elsewhere?
you made your long term plans and now are skipping from them.
The short version .. (Score:2)
Fact Sheet on Licensing Yucca Mountain [nrc.gov]
Fast becoming the rule rather than the exception (Score:4, Insightful)
In the past couple of years we've seen the administration declare loudly that they'll refuse to enforce other laws, including immigration laws and the Obamacare employer mandate. Meanwhile, any court challenge to a law the administration doesn't particularly like is sure to succeed, since the administration will refuse to defend it.
Unless something turns around, the rule of law and the separation of powers are on their way out in this country, to be supplanted by the decisions of a dictator and of unelected officials he appoints.
A track-history of lawlessness (Score:5, Informative)
Here are some laws that the administration has famously ignored, instead of pursuing a repeal through the democratic process. There are probably more.
Again, I'm not saying any one of these laws is a wise law, but they are (or were in the case of DOMA until overturned) duly legislated, therefore the executive had a constitutional duty to enforce them until such time the laws are repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts. Where is the Republic going when the executive branch no longer feels constrained by the law or the democracy?
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the Republic going when the executive branch no longer feels constrained by the law or the democracy?
Are you saying there was a period in american history where the government actually did more than play a lip service to the written rules?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A track-history of lawlessness (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, practically the entirety, otherwise the Republic would have fallen long ago. I can not name any other time of SYSTEMIC lawlessness by the executive, not even Watergate. The only thing that come close was Jackson and Indian removal (trail of tears).
Funny, just from my recent memory things like selling drugs to arm terrorists, backing and conducting assassinations, jailing people without charging or trialing them, coups and fabricating evidence to start a war with a neutral nation spring to mind.
Or are you saying those people were trialed and served justice for their crimes against humanity and whatnot as per according to your own constitution, Nuremberg principles, international treaties and basic human decency while I blinked?
To me the fact that these people were not punished is a sign that the whole thing is(and has been) rotten to the core and the insects infesting it are covering for eachother, this is merely just the most recent set of faces.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you care to cite a specific US Statute or US constitutional article and then the specific violating act?
I'm afraid I cannot let Nuremberg defense slide here, Dave.
The Nazis defended their pre-war and war-time actions with national sovreignty and with the fact that everything done to the jews, gypsies, soviet POW's etc was in accordance with the German law at the time. The court - And we as a society of civilized nations decided that certains actions are punisable by death even when perpetrated by the government under laws of the land.
Are you seriously suggesting you've never heard of things I listed in
Re: (Score:2)
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 bee
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the conversation just slipped into Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org]. But I'll bite anyway, because I'm bored.
You dont get to draw that card when the discussion is about government abuse, the princeples applied are the same and comparisons very relevant.
I don't know any specific allegation of selling drugs
Yes, I'm sure its all fiction [wikipedia.org]
Backing and conducting assassinations? Don't know of any.
Stop being retarded.
I do know we have targeted killing of enemy combatants in the current war, but those are not assassinations.
You have not been in a state of war since 1945.
If you talk about your off-papers affairs in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan etc, a rather sizable portion of the victims are civilians murdered by a faction that is not at war with their government without avenue to pursue justice and reparations for their damages and in
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the entire two centuries have been without systemic constitutional irregularity. There have been anecdotal violations of statutes and constitutional provisions, but never systemic.
Slavery never happened then?
The spanish-american war of american aggression and the subsequent colonization and massacring of phillippine populace never happened then?
You didn't inject syphilis and radioactive substances to alive human beings without their consent then?
COINTELPRO is not real then?
MK-ULTRA was not real then?
These other things you seem to being trying to introduce into the conversation do not seem to be related to constitution or statute.
THEY ARE THINGS AMERICANS HAVE PUT OTHER PEOPLE TO DEATH OVER AND DECLARED THESE ACTIONS ARE NO TOLERATED BY CIVILIZED PEOPLES
Are you trying to say any blemish ruins the entire national project?
'any blemish' is an understatement of several magnitudes.
Re: (Score:2)
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 colonia
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Hmmmm, actually constitutional until civil rights act of 1866? I'd count that as a point against not for.. As in I was under the assumption you guys had written declaration of all people being created equal and whatnot since the revolution? Sometime in the 1700's if I have not mistaken?
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.
US declared war over what supposedly was Spanish sinking a US ship, the Maine, in reality blew up on its own yet you feel its OK to declare war over it. The Spanish didn't do it, therefore US didn't have a legimate casus bell
Re: (Score:2)
It is not any more acceptable for United States than for Nazi Germany to say they are free to do these things because they are legal under the current laws.
If you have problem wrapping your head around this issue and understanding why I have an issue with this I'll give you
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A track-history of lawlessness (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't forget:
* The Obama Administration, no doubt with an eye to the 2014 elections, has announced that certain parts of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare) will simply be postponed until after the election. Nothing in the ACA gives this power [bloomberg.com] to the Executive branch.
* President Obama attempted to make "bench" appointments when Congress was still in session. Months later, this one got shot down [washingtontimes.com] in the courts.
* The IRS went after political enemies of the Administration. There may or may not have been direct orders from President Obama. (I am not ruling out something along the lines of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" [redstate.com] instead of direct orders.) Not only is selective enforcement of the law illegal, but the IRS released confidential details of some conservative organizations to those organizations' political enemies, which is absolutely illegal with no possible wiggle room.
* Eric Holder's Department of Justice has a history [frontpagemag.com] of flouting the law.
I read an article that observed that one of the traditional checks on the power of government is the worry that, when the pendulum shifts and the other party is in power, that the other party might start taking advantage of any precedents you set. The article speculated that the Obama Administration isn't worried about this, as the mainstream media is solidly in Obama's pocket and yet implacably opposed to the Republicans. This leaves the Obama Administration free to do things that would get any Republican a firestorm of horrible publicity.
Fans of Bill Clinton, after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, used to chant "Bush Lied, People Died. Clinton Lied, Nobody Died." Remember that nobody died in the Watergate scandal, and think very hard about the Benghazi scandal. But the mainstream media isn't interested in Benghazi or any of the other scandals, any more than they have to be.
I'm not sure why I bothered to write this as somebody will mod it down to -1 really fast, rather than writing a rebuttal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A track-history of lawlessness (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? So suppose a Congress passes and the President signs a nasty law forbidding criticism of the government. Unconstitutional on its face. And they start using it to persecute and silence their political enemies. And in the fullness of time an election comes around, and the tactics backfire -- the party in power is soundly defeated. What should the new president do?
1) Continue to enforce the act until it is repealed or found unconstitutional or
2) Pardon everyone convicted so far, and refuse to cont
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear Waste Policy Act (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] I'm pretty sure this is over. The US was to of had
a permanent storage area for nuclear waste long ago.
This area (East Washington State) would liked to of had the waste and was working on a repository (testing). West Washington State
and the political power didn't; work was stopped and Nevada's Yucca Mountain became the designated (and only)
high level nuclear waste burial site.
Something does need to be done with the nuclear waste, other tha
This is basic politics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If the supreme court wants to keep Yucca Mountain running, they can head out to Nevada and run it themselves!
or Obama could follow the laws he proposes (Score:5, Interesting)
I couldn't believe he unilaterally decided to ignore Obamacare, the law named after him!
Re:or Obama could follow the laws he proposes (Score:5, Insightful)
and he decided
-he could selectively enforce immigration with no real legal backing
-he could create extensions and exemptions for NCLB requirements when the law has no such provisions
-he could simply not determine if a coup had taken place in Egypt so that he could continue sending your tax dollars to them in the form of tanks and planes they can't even use.
And those are just the big clear ones. This president makes a joke of law on a routine basis.
Re: (Score:3)
For some of those there is a different between prioritizing enforcement.
The other day when I looked at deportation stats, I saw that criminal illegals were being deported in increasing numbers while non-violent/young kids who have lived here their whole lives were being deported less.
Another one with increasing numbers - people who had been deported before.
Now the NRC is obviously flouting the law but they'll be forced to change their ways.
In other things Obama talked about not raiding medicinal cannabis p
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...supreme court...can head out to Nevada and run it themselves!
Not their job. The Administration, as the Executive Branch, of the Gov., needs to, you know, do their job of EXECUTING law that the Legislative branch, you know, Congress, the people who MAKE THE LAW, create.
We've never been any further from a representitive government and closer to rule by decree than now.
Re: (Score:3)
"We've never been any further from a representitive government and closer to rule by decree than now."
1863
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between 1863 and now: Obama has actually tried to rule by decree 4 times, and each time was slapped down by the supreme court as in each instance they were "a clear abuse of power."
Re: (Score:2)
Citation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yet another anti-Obama article (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking to State Department personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia, Brazil, on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that "this little thing called the Internet ... makes it much harder to govern."
Re: (Score:2)
"this little thing called the Internet ... makes it much harder to govern."
My heart feels for the poor politicians that are having so much of a problem with people having a medium that provides them a voice.
Or maybe it could be that they're doing their "governing" wrong....
Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (Score:5, Insightful)
The checks and balances in our government are what stands between a successful government of the people and a dictatorship. What powers you give Obama today, or gave Bush yesterday, may be in the hands of a form of Hitler tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear waste? Is Yucca Mountain pronounced "yucky?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(BTW, if I had points you'd get one. +5, nail on head)
yep, what powers Obama is allowed, Palin will have (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I have a hard time seeing your logic. If we don't have universal healthcare, somehow you think that will prevent anti-abortion laws? I don't think that's right. You know that all 50 states used to ban contraceptives, right? Way way back before Obama was even born?
I think that the party you don't like will get ele (Score:5, Interesting)
One of them, or someone like them, will be president.
If you decide to give the feds power over your life, you are deciding to let Palin, Christie, or Paul make those decisions.
Ron Paul might issue an executive order that condoms have to have aluminum tips - your little head needs a tinfoil hat too.
Re: (Score:3)
But I can vote a future President Palin out of office.
Right now, a lot of healthcare choices are coerced by health insurance - which doctors I can visit, where I can go, what is covered. The decisions are made by people I don't know, pe
Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (Score:5, Interesting)
that is what is happening.
over the last dozen or so administrations each has taken a little more power and then a little more. frequently flouting the law and not caring about conseqnuesnces unless it blows up in their faces, and then they do the absolutely least amount to make it go away.
For obama it is the NSA spying program. Obama wants to add checks and balances by letting the NSA monitor themselves monitoring every citizen without warrant or reason.
Bush said torture was not only legal, but expanded Gitmo to house people who he thought didn't deserve the rule of law.
Clinton, created and pushed through the DCMA.
Bush senoir basically covered his tracks while he was VP.
Reagan sold chemical weapons to Saddam. Who used them.
Carter was just a pussy.
Ford was a fill in
Nixon um watergate anyone
Johnson, Vietnam isn't a war it was never declared as such by Congress. Vietnam was a police action.
Kennedy? well he slept with more women(and better looking ones) than clinton did.
Eisnhowser? probably the last decent president we had. it is too bad no bothered listening to his warnings on military industrial complex taking over.
Truman? he nuked a country twice.(for a good reason Japan would not have go down easily)
Roosevelt? he was the first and only president to be elected 3 times breaking the tradition since Washington of only two terms. and he created the Executive office of the Presidency.
Re: (Score:3)
There are only two alternatives to detaining prisoners in Gitmo:
Guess, which of the two Obama has chosen [guardian.co.uk] to expedite closing of the camp? All things considered, I prefer Bush's approach — it is far less bloody [umb.edu].
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure one could try them in civilian courts, considering 'terrorism' is a criminal act, not an act of war. But that would be hideously inconvenient, considering how many of them ended up there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just inconvenient — impossible: we don't even have jurisdiction in most of those cases. Consider pirates [umb.edu] for another — less politically-charged — example... Whenever NATO captures them — off the coast of Somalia, primarily — they are let go...
Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory, Gitmo is for enemy combatants, not terrorists. Or at least that's how it started.
You really don't want to go down the path of civil trials for enemy combatants. Being an enemy soldier and firing at US troops is not illegal, nor is flying a bomber over a US city and dropping bombs on civilians. Doing so without being in uniform violates every treaty governing war for the past 400 year or so, but it's only the "not in uniform" part that's illegal. A downed enemy bomber pilot should be released at the end of the war, not executed for mass murder.
But in 2011 yet another incremental power grab (Obama's in this case, but it's not like the pattern is new) extended "covered persons" (those for which military justice is appropriate) to members of terrorist groups and people giving assistance to them. That crosses the bright line separation between "enemy soldier (in uniform or otherwise)" and "just some guy opposed to the US". For the former to apply to a US citizen, he has to fly to Afghanistan and point a rifle at a US uniform - really hard to abuse to go after local political opponents. The later can be stretched to apply to just about anyone, by submitting "evidence" to the secret courts where there's no defense present.
I have no problem with having P.O.W. camps when we're fighting, whether or not war was officially declared. But to effectively convict someone who clearly isn't an enemy soldier of treason without a trial? That's Star Chamber nonsense right there, the exact sort of thing we had a revolution to get away from.
Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (Score:4, Insightful)
Only countries can wage wars. Since the alleged terrorists are not part of any state military they are not soldiers.
Enemy combatant is a bullshit term invented by the US. Either they are criminals and should be tried in civilian courts, or they are a prisoners of war and should be treated as such (no torture, negotiation with the country whose military they are part of).
Since the latter option is obviously impossible, since they are not part of any military, only the former is available. The US doesn't want to go that route because it would reveal things about the US in court. Officially it is security related stuff that is supposed to be secret, but in reality it is evidence of torture and other human rights violations. The US is now in an almost impossible situation where if it releases anyone they will take legal action against them and publicize the ill treatment and injustice, so the only option is to detain them forever until they die. Or, in Obama's case, until the election when it becomes somebody else's problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Only countries can wage wars. Since the alleged terrorists are not part of any state military they are not soldiers.
Enemy combatant is a bullshit term invented by the US. Either they are criminals and should be tried in civilian courts, or they are a prisoners of war and should be treated as such (no torture, negotiation with the country whose military they are part of).
Not to sound insulting, but you're simply ignorant of centuries of treaty law, tradition, and general agreement on how to fight wars as morally as it is practical to do.
There are three categories, not two. There have been for many, many centuries. There are soldiers, there are civilians, and there are brigands and pirates. There is no legal tolerance for brigands and pirates: those who wage war without ties to a civil state, current, former, or wannabe, are the worst sort of menace, and it has always bee
Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bush's foreign policy resulted in a quarter million dead Iraqis, plus a rounding error of Americans. Obama isn't exactly a pacifist, but he is compared to Bush. It's untenable to say that Bush's approach was less bloody.
Re: (Score:3)
That's only true about Prisoners of War [wikipedia.org] — and we did release all of the captured Iraqi soldiers shortly after the invasion succeeded in 2003, for example. The detainees in Gitmo don't qualify as Prisoners of War however:
.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Four times (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944). He died early in his fourth term, leaving Truman (whom he disliked so much that the existence of the A-Bomb came as a surprise to Truman after he became President) in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The checks and balances in our government are what stands between a successful government of the people and a dictatorship. What powers you give Obama today, or gave Bush yesterday, may be in the hands of a form of Hitler tomorrow.
The checks are what the taxpayers write against hard earned money and the balance is so out of control brought to you by your local CONgressMAN.
As for tomorrow's Hitler, vote for Jeb Bush and get what you deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Clone Hitler!
Neo-Nazi embryologist found the piece of his skull.
Or
Actual Hitler!
His suicide before the battle of Berlin was a ruse, and VonBraun actually had a pact with aliens (like that Star Trek) which ferried Hitler, Eva and some other Aryan women to make a Nazi Hitler army! The first global television broadcast was Hitler's speech at the Berlin Olympics, maybe they liked what they saw?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you so much for teaching me to think for myself. As a result, I will always follow your words and never stray.
Besides, you are so correct, oh wise Internet sage. Who cares that we are talking about a potential madman controlling the most powerful nation in the history of the world. I should never compare such a thing to Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see the corollary to Godwin's Law that says anything about "You're stupid and you lose all debates for ever."
Re: (Score:2)
a person who cannot construct a thought without referencing Hitler is seriously deficient.
I'd argue that anyone who immediately eschews tools that are available to them based on the opinions of someone on the Internet is "seriously deficient". I can couch my meaning in more obscure references...but why bother? Doing unnecessary work is counter-productiv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But that's not what Goodwin's Law [wikipedia.org] says. As originally formulated, it only said that if a discussion went on long enough, somebody would mention Hitler or the nazis. Now, of course, there's a corollary that says that anybody who makes a gratuitous mention of them or calls their opponent a nazi has lost the argument. However, simply mentioning him, especially in a context where
Re: (Score:2)
I chose my words wisely. You quoted my words wrongly.
Re: (Score:2)
In what sense do you have a democracy?
We have a democracy in the sense that we hold elections to choose our leaders. Just because you don't like the outcome of those elections doesn't make them invalid. I voted for Gary Johnson [wikipedia.org]. He didn't win. That isn't because the "system is rigged", but rather because very few people share my viewpoint. You should get out of the basement and talk to real people. Most of them are pretty happy with Obama.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No,
I think it has broader application.
Such as the potential court rulings in the future regarding certain patriotic network connectivity and the collection of data, which were a result from a flouting of the law by various branches of power.
This is an example to use in order to keep the powers that be, to be beholdened to the powers they were granted.
This is an assertion of an important check, to balance the power as it should be.
It does not matter if it is Obama or someone else -- this can set a precedent
Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (Score:4, Interesting)
What makes you think they were wrong? The choice offered us by the political machine was between an obvious sellout, and an obvious sellout who's also a raving misogynistic looney that's utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living. I've met very few people who voted for Obama the second time around, but many, many who voted against Romney. When I'm feeling cynical it almost looks like the Republican party intentionally took a dive. And who could blame them - lots of old vultures coming home to roost - it looks much better for the Rs if a D happens to be in the oval office at the time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think, either of the major candidates last year were misogynists. Both had lovely families — and full backing of their wives. Romney's wife, in particular, did not even have her own political ambition as an incentive to appear backing her husband.
There was nothing "loony" about either candidate, but Mitt Romney would've followed the law in question — and done a
Re: (Score:3)
Oh I have no problem with managers per-se, - I just believe they should have some experience working on the factory floor so they know what they're actually asking of people. I just don't trust someone who has never in their life experienced even a hint of poverty to run a country with consideration for a population where roughly 1 in 4 people is unemployed or underemployed. Romney is modern nobility through and through, and history strongly reinforces the idea that the nobility run things for the benefit
Re: (Score:2)
I think Obama would have to change his stance on pandering to unions.
But outside of that, I think you really might have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not even slightly true; John Huntsman was way more moderate than Romney was. In fact,
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should step off your partisan rant and realize GW Bush started the whole signing statement craze where he would basically rewrite the law with his signing statement. Obama is continuing his tradition just as every president continues the expansion of powers of the previous administration even if they campaigned against said powers.
So the question is when Bush was signing bills and saying he interpreted the law to mean exactly the opposite of what the law said were you as up in arms about it as you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing that people aren't really thinking about when they read this is the bigger picture of certain things like his failure to uphold DoMA, or failure to properly enforce the federal immigration laws by letting illegal aliens out of the jails and back onto the streets instead of shipping them back to their countries of origin, or the most recent debaucle about Obamacare business mandate being delayed a year but individual not.
Obama and his administration does not have the right or the authority to selec
Re: (Score:3)
Are we a nation of men or are we a nation of laws?
Ford's words said "laws", his actions said "men" and we've been going downhill since.
Re: (Score:3)
Yucca Mountain has been the Hot Potato of American politics since it was proposed. If anything was going to be done, it'll be too late.
I didn't even know it was open and processing/storing waste. A friend worked at Hanford and told me how grim things where there and it would need to be relieved of storing any additional waste as it was over capacity and having great difficulty with what it had, something to do with putting leaking vaults into bigger vaults because some old contractor had mixed concrete wrong or the spec was wrong or both (not really too surprising, considering the massive tomes which must be making up 'regulations' these
Re:Oh good, now where were you two decades ago? (Score:5, Informative)
The law (passed in 1983) said that once a location is chosen, the agency is allowed 3 years to make a yes or no determination, with one-year extensions if they become necessary.
All that is required is a simple "Yes" or "No", within three years.
The 3-year clock started ticking in 2002.
Since 2002 over $100M has been spent simply waiting for the yes or no answer.
Both the original court order and this appeals court order are repeating: The law says you must give a yes or no answer within three years. The time is expired, you must give your answer.
The problem is entirely political. They cannot answer either way and still expect to get votes, so they bury their heads in the sand and refuse to do anything other than cash the checks.
In some ways I am jealous; how many jobs can you do nothing for a decade and still collect a tithe of a billion dollars for it? Are they accepting new hires? It seems like a bureaucrat's dream.
Re: (Score:2)
How much more NIMBY can you get? Just build it already!
What's really fascinating is how much crap has already been detonated in the name of research in the Nevada desert and yet this can't seem to move forward, decade upon decade. Not like the place has more faults than California and yet this [google.com] happened. But anything with desert all over the top is wasteland and ideal, right? Rather than some immensely stable place like in the Dakotas. Makes for good popcorn-munching drama after all these years.
Re: (Score:2)
"Wasteland and ideal" is right, I think. Presumably, seismic stability is less important than keeping it away from farmland.
By the way, you should have zoomed in a little more on your map link; it would make the craters more obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Those fuckers took the money... Now it is time to take the waste!!!
In that respect, Yep.