Google introduced Chrome because they want to track users!

The combined URL/Search box means every single character you type is sent to Google.

In Firefox, which has  seperate URL/Search boxes only searches are sent to Google.

Doesn't this bother anyone???

John,

Richard says: " Call this a tax and it has to go through certain Congressional committees"

Since the bill is passed, what does this mean?

" Call this a tax and it has to go through certain Congressional committees"

Since the bill is passed, what does this mean?

Agreed!

I am curious though.  Of all the challenges to ObamaCare I have never heard one that questions the constitutionality of setting what is covered in a health plan.  Have conservatives just accepted an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause to allow this?  Even if the Individual Mandate is overturned, will this power of the Feds continue?

ZeroHedge says

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/implied-unemployment-rate-rises-115-spread-propaganda-number-surges-30-year-high

Zerohedge had a great graphic showing how the concerns of the Davos elite have changed over the past six years.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-davos-shocked-hear-poor-people-exist

God save us from our betters...

Do any of you consider for a millisecond what kind of laws could be passed if there really is a "Constitutional duty to protect innocent life", especially if a fetus is defined as innocent life?

Liberals would not need a Commerce Clause to Do-Good they would claim they are using the Constitution's "protect innocent life" clause.

Who does the protecting?  Federal police?  Protect against what?  Smoking?  Drinking?  Driving too fast?  Eating Ice Cream? Working too hard?  Living near chemical plants?  Global Warming?

BTW, as far as I know, except in special situations, murder is a state crime.

There is no "Constitutional duty to protect innocent life"

If you guys are so opposed to abortion, then convince your fellow citizens to outlaw it.  Abortion was legal in California, where I live, before Roe and it would remain legal even if Roe were repealed.

Don't get me wrong, Roe is bad law, but it is not responsible for abortion.

The reason abortion exists is because most citizens think it should exist and the pro-life movement has utterly failed to convince them otherwise.

Blaming Roe is just scapegoating and excusing failure.

Troy, its deeply disappointing to see you blame Roe for abortion.  Abortion existed before Roe and even if Roe were overturned, that would simply return the decision to the states, most of which would legalize abortion.  If some states made abortion illegal, people would simply go to states where it was legal.

Blaming Roe for 60M deaths is intellectually dishonest.

Tommy De Seno,

I think that the only constitutional requirement is that each district have a similar population.

When you start dealing with the actual process of defining a district you will be inundated by groups that want a district defined so that Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Gays, Hispanics, Mormons, Fishermen, Mountain dwellers, Farmers, etc get their own representative.

Their demands are not unreasonable.  You cannot just dismiss them.

This is why an "algorithm" is a nonsensical solution.  It ignores the question, who defines the rules encoded in the algorithm?

BTW, the same difficulties surround defining boundaries for cities, counties, districts, states and even countries.  Think of Kurds included in Iraq, etc.

Ultimately the determination of boundaries is a political process, not because its the best, but because the current alternatives are worse.

They do, of course, but what each party tries to do is cram all of their opponents into a few highly concentrated districts.  Take two examples in a state that has four districts and is 50/50 D/R

Ex1: 4 districts each 50/50 D/R

Ex2: 1 district 80/20 D/R, 3 districts 40/60 D/R

I wonder if you could make an argument that courts could object if districts did not "roughly" yield the same number of Democrats and Republicans as their representation in elections.

If a state has a 60/40 D-to-R split in election turnout but a 90/10 D-to-R split in elected reps could a court say "something is wrong" and tell the legislators to redistrict?

Can of worms, problems with independents, but avoids the courts actually creating districts.

The Heinlein position is untenable in modern war.

The purpose of a draft is to prepare soldiers before you need them.

If you are suddenly attacked you need a TRAINED military who knows where to go and what to do.  Saying you will sign up after we are attacked is just ignorant.

I think a lot of conservatives have fantasies about heading off into the woods and fighting off the bad guys from their cabin.  They are so clueless.  A modern ruthless military would run right over them and their family.

This is not as easy as it sounds.

Rightly or wrongly the debate about district boundaries always raises the question what constitutes a community.  Should farmers be mapped into a single community or should they be split up and added to cities?  What about religious groups, say the Amish?

Other absurdities of Intellectual Property

Copyright a meal and sue people for making it

Patent a way of shopping at a store and sue people for using it

Copyright a phase and sue people for uttering it.

Patent a way of studying, a method of dog walking.

It never stops...

Is your objection to recess appointments in general or these specific appointments?

Should the Senate be allowed to never go into recess (even when no one is there) and thus prevent all recess appointments?  This will work against both parties.