Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 649
MoneyManMatt 490
Jon Bon 400
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
Starscream66 282
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 270
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70821
biomed163684
Yssup Rider61264
gman4453353
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48813
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino43221
The_Waco_Kid37406
CryptKicker37231
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-06-2014, 05:40 PM   #1
Whirlaway
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Here.
Posts: 13,781
Encounters: 28
Default THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE.....THE ENEMY WITHIN

The [Federal Trade] Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. This Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semi-autonomous Commission administrative law judge. If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission. If the Commission ultimately finds a violation, then, and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an Article III court. But the agency decision, even before the bona fide Article III tribunal, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and of law.

Thanks to Steven Hayward at Powerlineblog.com

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-paragraph.php
Whirlaway is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 05:53 PM   #2
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlaway View Post
<B>
The [Federal Trade] Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. This Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semi-autonomous Commission administrative law judge. If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission. If the Commission ultimately finds a violation, then, and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an Article III court. But the agency decision, even before the bona fide Article III tribunal, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and of law.
</B>

Thanks to Steven Hayward at Powerlineblog.com

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-paragraph.php

posted on April 15, 2014 by John Hinderaker in 2014 Election, Campaign finance regulation
We Need Another Koch Brother!



nuff said about powerline
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 06:24 PM   #3
i'va biggen
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 28,773
Encounters: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlaway View Post
The [Federal Trade] Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. This Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semi-autonomous Commission administrative law judge. If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission. If the Commission ultimately finds a violation, then, and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an Article III court. But the agency decision, even before the bona fide Article III tribunal, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and of law.

Thanks to Steven Hayward at Powerlineblog.com

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-paragraph.php



Ban any over site let 'em run amok.
i'va biggen is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 09:47 PM   #4
timpage
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 7, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlaway View Post
The [Federal Trade] Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. This Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semi-autonomous Commission administrative law judge. If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission. If the Commission ultimately finds a violation, then, and only then, the affected private party can appeal to an Article III court. But the agency decision, even before the bona fide Article III tribunal, possesses a very strong presumption of correctness on matters both of fact and of law.

Thanks to Steven Hayward at Powerlineblog.com

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-paragraph.php
Do you think Steven will be responding personally to you after he sees you've posted up his quotes from a 1994 Harvard Law Review article on a hooker board? This is stupid on so many levels, it is impossible to know where to start. Is it truly your assertion that anyone adversely effected by an FTC reg should get immediate access to an art. III court judicial proceeding? Can you even imagine the number of legal challenges? As usual, you are an ideologically driven non-thinking idiot..p

I hope Steve gets back to you though. Then you can keep pretending you're Drudge. Douchebag.
timpage is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 09:54 PM   #5
Jackie S
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 15,054
Encounters: 15
Default

Judge, jury, and executioner.
Jackie S is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 09:57 PM   #6
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Commission sheeple love Commissions... it's kind of like Communism.
IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 10:56 PM   #7
i'va biggen
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 28,773
Encounters: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB View Post
Commission sheeple love Commissions... it's kind of like Communism.
Banks love no over site they can sheer the sheeple.
i'va biggen is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 06:29 AM   #8
Whirlaway
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Here.
Posts: 13,781
Encounters: 28
Default JACKIE S GOT IT RIGHT !!!!!!!!!

The Administrative State doesn't want individuals to have fair access; the Administrative State is designed to quash the individual; they are judge, jury and executioner. But, Timmyboy is okey dokey with that arrangement.

Timmyboy is the "non-thinking idiot" for believing our only choice is the current paradigm. He should think outside the box for once. But I got to hand it to Timmyboy; being the loyal foot soldier for the cause...keep up the goose-stepping Timmyboy.

=== TrannyTim looks very comfortable wearing a skirt and goose steping for his Overlords !



Quote:
Originally Posted by timpage View Post
Do you think Steven will be responding personally to you after he sees you've posted up his quotes from a 1994 Harvard Law Review article on a hooker board? This is stupid on so many levels, it is impossible to know where to start. Is it truly your assertion that anyone adversely effected by an FTC reg should get immediate access to an art. III court judicial proceeding? Can you even imagine the number of legal challenges? As usual, you are an ideologically driven non-thinking idiot..p

I hope Steve gets back to you though. Then you can keep pretending you're Drudge. Douchebag.
Whirlaway is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 09:26 AM   #9
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 61,264
Encounters: 67
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB View Post
Commission sheeple love Commissions... it's kind of like Communism.
Please explain HOW, Slobbrin. Your statement makes no fucking sense.

And I don't think it has to do with anybody sucking dick or eating shit.

Try to be lucid.
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 01:18 PM   #10
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider View Post
Please explain HOW, Slobbrin. Your statement makes no fucking sense.

And I don't think it has to do with anybody sucking dick or eating shit.

Try to be lucid.

Get someone to read this to you... Shit Eater



http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-uncle-sam.php
POSTED ON MAY 7, 2014 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN BUREAUCRACY
THE WORST MONOPOLIST: UNCLE SAM
Concentrations of wealth and power are what keep liberals awake at night, but just once I’d like to hear a liberal notice, even glancingly, that the biggest unchecked concentration of wealth and power is the government. Except the government doesn’t directly create much wealth itself (sell off federal assets—go ahead, make my day—and see how little of the total national debt it would actually retire), and increasingly it grabs power by means intended to skirt the consent of the governed, which it then usually uses to confiscate more wealth for itself, or prevent new wealth from being generated.

As mentioned here once before, about 15 years back I recall reading an article in Barron’s about when the FAX machine was first being brought to market, the U.S. Postal Service argued to the FCC that since FAX machines would be used to transmit the equivalent of first class mail, the legal monopoly of the Postal Service to deliver first class mail meant therefore that FAX machines could only be located and operated in Post Offices (for a fee in addition to phone charges, of course). In other words, to send and receive fax, you’d have had to go to a Post Office. Oh goody. Fortunately the FCC was not amused at the idea.

This is prelude to the latest installment of the Postal Service’s anti-competitive behavior. The Fiscal Times noted recently how the Post Office decided to squash a startup called “Outbox” that would collect your first class mail, scan it for you, and deliver it to your smart phone or tablet. Here’s the business model:

They wanted to allow consumers to digitize all of their postal mail so that individuals could get rid of junk mail, keep important things organized and never have to go out to their mailbox again. They set out to “redefine a long cherished but broken medium of communication: postal mail.” Customers would opt-in for $5 a month with “Outbox” to have their mail redirected, opened, scanned and available online or through a phone app. Consumers could then click on a particular scanned letter and ask that it be physically delivered, or that certain types of letters not be opened (e.g., bills etc.).

They started out small, testing their hypothesis that consumers would want to limit or eliminate their junk mail, save a copy of their mail forever like e-mail, and be able to access their most recent mail anywhere in the world while traveling.

And they were right.

The Launch
They launched in Austin, Texas, and grew quickly. They were limited mainly by their ability to expand and meet demand. Users were gushing with positive reviews and Outbox had hundreds of paying users signing up and loving their service. Once customers had experienced digital mail, they didn’t want to go back. As one customer, Marcia Navratil, explains “I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t get their mail this way, unless you just really like having paper delivered to your house.”

The whole story is worth reading, but this is the heart of the matter:

When Evan and Will got called in to meet with the Postmaster General they were joined by the USPS’s General Counsel and Chief of Digital Strategy. But instead, Evan recounts that US Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe “looked at us” and said “we have a misunderstanding. ‘You disrupt my service and we will never work with you.’” Further, “‘You mentioned making the service better for our customers; but the American citizens aren’t our customers—about 400 junk mailers are our customers. Your service hurts our ability to serve those customers.”’

According to Evan, the Chief of Digital Strategy’s comments were even more stark, “[Your market model] will never work anyway. Digital is a fad. It will only work in Europe.”

I always love it when the government is so much smarter than the marketplace. And good thing Ubercars isn’t trying to carry any letters.

P.S. Despite early customer enthusiasm, opposition from the Post Office has caused Outbox to fold. As the Fiscal Times notes, “In February 2014, the same month that Outbox shut down, the Post Office incurred a net loss of $354 million, following a fiscal year 2013 loss of $5 billion. With comments like “digital is a fad,” it’s no wonder that the USPS is bankrupt.”
IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 03:17 PM   #11
Don't Be Daft!
Valued Poster
 
Don't Be Daft!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 20, 2012
Location: DFW, Manchester U.K. , Tel Aviv
Posts: 1,171
Encounters: 15
Default

The photo is lol funny. Look at the bird in the second row, all the way down, she's the last one. I swear to G-d she looks as if she just took a huge nob in the ass! Sorry to get off topic. Personally I'm still laughing over the "weasel & popcorn" post. Still haven't the foggiest WTF that meant.
Don't Be Daft! is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 09:59 PM   #12
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don't Be Daft! View Post
The photo is lol funny. Look at the bird in the second row, all the way down, she's the last one. I swear to G-d she looks as if she just took a huge nob in the ass! Sorry to get off topic. Personally I'm still laughing over the "weasel & popcorn" post. Still haven't the foggiest WTF that meant.

Come on man, use your imagination. LOL
IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 10:17 PM   #13
Jackie S
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 15,054
Encounters: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB View Post
Come on man, use your imagination. LOL
I guess he never gave his girlfriend, wife, or SO a "popcorn surprise" in a movie theater.
Jackie S is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 10:32 PM   #14
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

never knew a GF that ate like popcorn eats ... you?
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 12:40 AM   #15
Munchmasterman
Valued Poster
 
Munchmasterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 3, 2011
Location: Out of a suitcase
Posts: 6,233
Encounters: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timpage View Post
Do you think Steven will be responding personally to you after he sees you've posted up his quotes from a 1994 Harvard Law Review article on a hooker board? This is stupid on so many levels, it is impossible to know where to start. Is it truly your assertion that anyone adversely effected by an FTC reg should get immediate access to an art. III court judicial proceeding? Can you even imagine the number of legal challenges? As usual, you are an ideologically driven non-thinking idiot..p

I hope Steve gets back to you though. Then you can keep pretending you're Drudge. Douchebag.
Douche-bag.
Longing to be hyphenated.
Munchmasterman is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved