Shortest game I ever played was less than 3 minutes.
On my first turn I bought St. Charles Place.
On the other player's first turn he bought on of the light blue properties.
On my second turn I bought Virginia.
On the other player's second turn he bought States Ave.
I mortgaged my 2 properties and traded him them for his one property and all his cash.
On his next turn he landed on Community Chest and couldn't pay the school fees.
While I could see why you'd offer the deal (he wouldn't be able to build on his new monopoly until he passed Go a couple times to unhock), I'm not sure why he'd take it. I would think he'd know that being out of cash would keep him from getting any new properties for a long time...
You did make sure he had the money to pay the 10% interest fee on transfer, right?
Yes he paid the 10%. He likes to play with rules I don't like: Free Parking pot, double money for landing on Go, and no even build rule. So he may have been lucky and I may have been unlucky. He took a chance and it could have paid off for him. Either way it was probably going to be a short game.
When talking about Supreme Court nominees it is often repeated that the person has to be a lawyer.
Every possible nominee that is being mentioned is a lawyer.
IANAL, but there is nothing that I can find in the constitution to support this.
Article 2. Section 2.
[the president] "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... Judges of the supreme Court".
This is the only qualification I can find in the constitution for a member of the Supreme Court.
It would be a good idea to have someone with other knowledge and experience on the court.
How about a governor or a legislator?
What would be good qualifications for a justice who is not a lawyer?
A client of mine wanted to automate her invoicing. As part of that project I used the USPS API to get the postal rate.
First of all, their documentation is just plain wrong. It will not work if you follow their documentation. After a frustrating few hours I googled it and found a site that explained everything that was wrong with it. http://www.marksanborn.net/php/calculating-usps-shipping-rat...
Secondly, my client complains that the USPS should have someone she can contact that gives her all the info she needs to use their services. But instead what she has found is some info from one person, conflicting info from another, and no one who can explain everything.
The USPS does a terrific job of delivering mail at a very reasonable rate, but they need to fix the problems outlined above if they want to compete.
I am someone who is proud to not be blindly partisan and proud to be someone that always votes.
But for many people, if there party tells them something they accept it as truth. My party says it, I believe it, that settles it.
Two things the GOP are very good at is branding and riling up their base. Here are direct quotes from e-mails from "Michael Steele, RNC Chairman" <ecampaign@gop.com>. I only went back about 1 month)
"socialist health care takeover scheme"
"socialist nightmare"
"past the liberal media filter"
"health care experiment"
"trillion dollar health care gamble"
"the liberal media's biased coverage"
"impose socialism on America's health care"
"Obama Democrat scheme to seize a fifth of our economy"
"put Washington bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors"
"their leftist goal of controlling every facet of American life."
"the American people don't want to surrender their health care freedoms to Big Government."
"Republican senators are on the side of the American people"
When I try to tell people that the proposed reforms have much in common with proposals passed by the house under GOP leadership they don't believe me. It doesn't fit the narrative their party has extolled AND I tried to explain, I don't have a nice easy story to tell.
I argued with those in OFA that they should be selling health care reform as a moral issue. But they don't listen to me either. At least in the e-mails from the Dems there is a textarea where I can express my opinion. GOP e-mails contain push polls and only once did they have a textarea (the form didn't work the first time I tried it).
The Dems believe in governing with PHD's, the GOP in governing with MBA's. MBA's are better at marketing.
The answer is simple: corporations only have the rights they are granted by their owners.
I have the right to free speech and and I can use my possessions to exercise this right. I can criticize Obama verbally, in a document on my computer or I can publish that document to my website. Why can't I use my corporation to pursue the same goal?
I also have the right to vote. I don't get a second vote for my computer, however. Similarly, my corporation doesn't give me another vote.
Corporations don't have free speech. Their owners have free speech, and they can use their corporation to exercise those free speech rights.
What you are missing is that the people pushing regulations also want to prevent 5 guys spending their poker profits on political speech.
Some history: Back in 2000, a bunch of guys decided to use their money to run political commercials. These commercials persuaded people vote against McCain in the Republican primary. 2 years later, McCain pushes a law which tries to prevent this.
The goal of political speech limitations is to prevent anyone besides certain elites (and not other elites) from affecting an election. Since spending money is necessary to get a message out, they try to restrict spending money on political speech.
Bingo. Look at how Washington State persecuted the DeFoley8 people or in California the people who waged a campaign against Roberti and Roos.
With any luck this ruling will eventually result in an environment where people like the above who are merely expressing their dislike of powerful politicians will find it easy to follow a straightforward set of disclosure rules (and only that) and therefore the establishment won't be able to then ruin their lives.
Just to make sure I understand the point, are you suggesting that small businesses should drop insurance as a benefit and encourage their employees to move to the public option, or is it that the existence of a public option itself will assist?
