Crack Para Bf2 1.50 Round-up Of The 2018 Grammy

So, let's be REAL now and, using our American-Chinese example of calculations of the Status S(t), go directly to the inherent weakness of this X M which we assumed equal for the United States and China. In reality, this index is radically non-equal, with the United States (for now) holding an overwhelming advantage over China in some key military aspects. If you go back to the formula you will see that it is not well thought out. We start, of course, with one thing which actually reduces large advantage the United States has over everybody else, since.

American military budget is colossal and on this merit it, as many math and economic purists would suggest, should clearly indicate American overwhelming military advantage over anyone. Indeed, if to follow SIPRI's numbers US military budget is $610 billion/$228 billion = 2.68 times larger than that of China and, considering the fact that in this formula. X with M1 subscript (these are military expenditures) multiplies everything within the bracket (simplest distributive property) look at how Chinese and American XM, that is militaries, would compare. Assuming China's all Ms equaling 1 and equaling the same on the American side, it goes without saying that American XM, that is military potential, will be 2.68 times larger on the merit of military expenditures alone. Compare now American military expenditures to those of Russia—Russia's military expenditures are dwarfed by those of the United States, with the US having them 10 times larger. But things are NOT as they seem and let US Marine Corps Captain Joshua Waddle speak. Once those things, INSUFFICIENTLY spread among M2, M3 and even M4 (nukes) 'potentials' (where Air Forces and Air Defenses have been lost in this formula—is a mystery), are considered one begins to really question the whole wisdom of a direct monetary relation between expenditures.

Here is a demonstration of a fallacy of such an approach which absolutely, even when using a 'Potential' index, reflects a complex relation between real capability and 'Potential'. Dell drivers optiplex 3010. Let's get away from China for a second and get to a now classic example of highly misleading M1 index.

The US Navy has both active, building and orders for 29 of those Littoral Combat Ships. We are going to round up costs of these ships to about for either version and based on that we may calculate the cost of the whole program: $650 mil. 29 = $18.85 billion. Everyone knows by now that these ships are known sarcastically as 'self-propelled 45-mm gun'. A very expensive, I may add, 45-mm gun. This is not to mention never-ending issues with Combat Modules these, otherwise nice looking ships, became known for.

This ship, which boasts not only deadly long range anti-shipping and land-attack missile complex, it also has a very respectable air defense and is equipped with 76-mm gun, not to mention a state-of-the art EW complex among many other features. Currently 9 of 18 planned are already afloat or are being built.

So, the cost of the whole program, thus, is $300. 18 = $5.5 billion. Let us recall here also 11 active or being built, even less expensive, albeit still very impressive Project 21631 Buyan missile corvettes—those will run within (plus-minus) $200 million price-range.

The program cost: $200. 11 = $2.2 billion. Add two programs (incidentally—same 29 ships as LCS) together: $5.5 + $2.2=$7.7 billion. Comparing the two classes (programs) is easy: US Navy spends $18.9 billion for ships none of which would survive encounter with any group of Russian missile corvettes which will meet LCS precisely where LCS title (Littoral Combat Ship) suggests it should operate—enemy's littorals.

This is, of course, if we are talking about a completely improbable scenario of LCS engaging Karakurts in naval combat, since such an engagement is simply inconceivable—in case of serious war LCSs will be sunk, with no chance of defending themselves, by modern long-range anti-shipping missiles from platforms hundreds of nautical miles away. But comparison of the 'potential', however, is legitimate here and precisely for the purpose of getting anywhere close to some numerical coefficient which will be appropriate for comparison and adjustment of the 'potentials' or 'combat capabilities'. Comparison of LCS and of Karakurts (and Buyans) is simply a good example and here is the issue—yes, we may easily come to the monetary ratio of the costs: $18.9 billion/$7.7 billion = 2.45. That is, Russian Corvettes program is to LCS program (in US Dollars) as 1 to 2.45. But that is the issue here and that what Captain Waddle talks about and that is what I wrote the book about—combat capabilities of Karakurts dwarf those of LCS, which are way more expensive than those incomparably more capable, and less expensive, and dangerous Russian ships. If you think that the comparison here must go by mere counting of missiles on the ships (well, LCSs do not have any), or by caliber of the gun—think again.

Real comparison starts with those funky and highly classified mathematical expectations for each of the missions and those vary wildly and dramatically. About this—later but some hint-it is not at all linear.

A cannabis plant. Earlier today, Republican Senator Cory Gardner and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, a bill that would largely eliminate the federal law banning marijuana in states where it is legal under state law. The states that federal law banning marijuana 'shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State law relating to the manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.' In other words, if your posession, distribution, or sale of marijuana is legal under state law, it will - if this bill passes - be legal under federal law, as well. For reasons I outlined in on Senator Gardner's efforts on this issue, the passage of the STATES Act would be an important victory for both marijuana legalization and federalism.

Nine states and the District of Columbia have already legalized recreational marijuana, and twenty-nine states and DC have legalized medical marijuana. Both figures are highly likely to increase.

In all of those jurisdictions, the STATES Act would largely eliminate the federal ban on marijuana possession and distribution. Gardner and Warren deserve credit for reaching across partisan lines to make progress here. In two respects, I wish the bill would go further. It would be better if it simply eliminated the federal ban on marijuana entirely. If states want to forbid or restrict marijuana possession, let them do so on their own dime, without federal assistance.

In addition, the STATES Act an exemption for distribution of marijuana to persons under the age of 21. That will still be illegal under federal law, even if state law permits it. In my view, this issue should also be left to the states. This is especially true when it comes to people over the age of 18. If 18-year-olds can be trusted to vote, drive a car, and serve in the military, they should also be allowed to possess marijuana subject to any conditions imposed by state law.

That said, the best should not be the enemy of the very good law. If it passes, the STATES Act would be a major improvement over the status quo.

The introduction of this legislation is the result of in April. In January, that limited federal prosecution of marijuana user and distributors in states that had legalized pot under their own state laws. In retaliation, Gardner, who represents the first state that legalized recreational marijuana,. Under the deal, Gardner lifted his blockade on the Justice Department nominees and Trump apparently agreed to support the passage of legislation similar to that which Gardner and Warren have now introduced. While the STATES Act stands a good chance of passing, its success is not certain.

In my earlier post on the deal, I noted two potential obstacles: Celebration may yet turn out to be premature. Trump has a history of unreliabiility and it is not yet clear whether he will uphold his end of the bargain with Gardner. As Democratic Senator Ron Wyden (a supporter of marijuana legalization), this could be 'another episode of telling somebody whatever they want to hear, only to change directions later on.' Jeff Sessions and other drug war hardliners in the administration might yet undermine the deal, just as. Even if Trump does not back out, it is not yet certain that Gardner's proposed legislation can get through Congress. It is highly likely that it could win a majority vote in both the Senate and House, given the support of the overwhelming majority of Democrats,. But it is at least questionable whether it can secure the support of a majority of the House GOP caucus.

If it does not, lame-duck House Speaker Paul Ryan might apply the so-called under which legislation cannot come to a vote unless it has the backing of a majority of the majority party - not just a majority of the House as a whole. Nonetheless, legalization supporters at least have good reason for cautious optimism. Public opinion is, and the Gardner-Warren bill is likely to attract substantial bipartisan backing. If the STATES Act does pass, hard-core drug warrior Jeff Sessions will have unintentionally made an important contribution to the demise of the very policy he champions.

Had Sessions not acted as he did in January, Cory Gardner would not have held up the Justice Department nominees in retaliation, and there probably would not have been a deal between Gardner and Trump. UPDATE (June 9): Since I wrote this post on June 7, he will 'probably end up supporting' the STATES Act. This is far from a definitive commitment. But it's certainly a step in the right direction. If President Trump is behind this bill, shouldn't he prepare the way by denouncing the UN drug treaties?

The drug treaties themselves allow parties to withdraw from ('denounce') their treaty obligations. Then if Trump really likes the idea of being bound by an international treaty (and he never struck me as that kind of guy), he can use the Bolivian Option - resubmit the treaty to the Senate with a reservation with respect to marijuana (Bolivia's reservation involved Indians chewing coca leaves). I hope one of the Conspirators will do a post on this. Silly to pass a bill requiring DOJ to do that (except possibly contingently, but then you have the same problem) when the bill could instead do it directly.

Better yet, add cannabis to the list of articles which are 'not controlled substances' so DOJ couldn't add it back. The original placement of cannabis in schedule 1 was said by statute to be 'temporary', with the bill passing with a report saying they expected the control status to go by the eventual recommendation of the commission that'd been inaugurated to study it.

In The commission reported, but neither DOJ nor Congress followed its recommendation to demote cannabis to schedule 5 or thereabouts. Who, or what institution, would be the determiner of whether an individual's conduct is in accordance with state law? If federal prosecution is brought against an individual on marijuana related charges then a threshold issue would be whether the individual's actions were or were not in accordance with state law.

But to decide this issue requires interpreting state law. Is this then done by federal courts using statutory construction, or by reliance on the decisions of state courts? While a law such as this would likely be a relief to the casual marijuana user, it could also be a source of anxiety for larger manufacutering and distribution centers that must comply with a complex system of state regulations. If marijuana is flatly illegal under federal law (setting aside past amendments attempting to limit federal prosecutions through spending) then everyone is on notice that they are in violation of federal law, no matter what. This law would seem to add a different angle of uncertainty, as failure to comply with just a single regulation, whether intentionally or not, moves the business owner to criminal enterprise. Maybe that's 'good' in that it adds incentive to complying with state regulations, or maybe it's 'bad' if the regulations fill a library and not everyone of them can, in practicality, be satisfied to a certainty.

Crack Para Bf2 1.50 Round-up Of The 2018 Grammys

So, state legalization of marijuana shall override federal criminalization? When I point out to gun ban supporters that my state constitution Article I Section 26 protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and militia service and by extension all other traditional lawful uses of arms, their pat answer is Federal Supremacy: once they get the federal Second Amendment repealed and a federal gun ban imposed, 40+ states' legal protections will rendered moot. US Constitution, Article VI. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. How the hell does state legalization of marijuana override the federal ban on marijuana when state protection of citizen's right to keep and bear arms will be overridden by repealing Second Amendment and imposing a federal gun ban?

Sounds like somebodies want it both ways depending on whose sacred ox is getting gored. The correct answer would be to admit that that 1937 Marihuana Tax Act and classification of MJ as no medical benefit were wrong, more cost than benefit, like the 1920 Volstead Act, the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban and several other Malum Prohibitum laws, and repeal the darnned mistake. Support for gun rights is at the highest point it has ever been, since they started polling on the matter in the 1950s.

Crack Para Bf2 1.50 Round-up Of The 2018 Grammys

Granted there is a dip every time there is a mass shooting, but then it just goes right back to where it was before the shooting after 6 months to a year. It's maybe peaked in the past few years, but the way it stands now, roughly 20-25% of people would ban all if they could, but there is little support for such an extreme position. Predicting the end of the 2nd Amendment as the result of a right wing coup attempt is, uh, interesting and purely speculative fiction. Further, the era of gun banners getting slice after slice of the remaining loaf of gun rights is over, because gun owners know their end game (a total ban), and with Heller and McDonald decisions to lean on, they won't compromise anymore. What you will see, absent the Supreme Court asserting itself on the 2nd Amendment, is a bifurcation of state gun control laws.

Since Heller, states that were pro-gun have relaxed gun laws and expanded the right to keep and bear arms, while simultaneously, state's that were anti-gun will continue to pass more and more restrictions up to the very line (and perhaps over) what the Court said was acceptable in Heller. This prediction, assumes, that Congress and the President will continue to be shy on the issue, and not pass items like Concealed Carry reciprocity. Ignoring the Constitution when convenient, embracing it when convenient, is not democracy.

o As a high profile example, back in the 1980s the Bruder Schweigen (Silent Brotherhood, aka The Order) murdered talk show host Alan Berg with a MAC-10 submachine gun manufactured by the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, who ran an underground factory manufacturing full-auto weapons for the right wing underground. After receiving death threats from The Order, Alan Berg had applied for a handgun carry permit and his application was denied.

Gun control disarmed the victim, not the criminal right wing group targeting him. Doing to guns what has failed with alcohol and marijuana would be a big mistake. Australian biker gangs make MAC-10s from steel and sheet metal in their machine shops. No legal guns does not mean no guns, any more than no legal alcohol means no alcohol or no legal marijuana means no reefer. Malum Prohibitum is a failed basis for controlling bad behavior by bad people. If they banned guns, it wouldn't happen with them rounding them up. They would be made illegal, and every time one was found on account of something else (like say an angry ex-girlfriend calls the cops), then.wham.

felonies up the wazoo for the guy that kept grandpa's old guns in the back of the closet. Examples would be made of the poor sods, like the big bust for tax evasion of a celebrity that happens every year near April 15th. Before long, a majority of people would dispose of them, and the only ones who would have guns would be career criminals or non-authoritarian types. A victory, yes, but for federalism?

Many things wrong with the USA today could be corrected if that concept, federalism, were tossed into the garbage where it belongs. Remember, there are two interpretations of federalism. One has the federal government subservient to the states in all matters except matters that threaten the nation. The other has the federal government sovereign over the states in nearly all matters. The former southern states in 1860 and following corrected the problem of federalism when they organized a new confederated American nation. A tyrannical 'federalist' nation could not tolerate the loss of federal revenues from the former states and destroyed the new American nation, using federalism as its justification. If you take a look at the declarations of secession, you notice that the Northern states were accused of.abusing.

their state rights by sheltering fugitive slaves. In their Constitution, the Confederates placed new restrictions on the states beyond what was in the original constitution (no voting for aliens, slaveowners have the right of sojourn in another state regardless of that states's law).

When the North won, the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, referred to the United States in the plural. The Northern victory ensured that the Union was unbreakable, and that the states would be under some new obligations (13th, 14th an 15th amendments) which generally involved civil rights, but the supremacy of the Union does not entail the supremacy of the federal government, simply that secession is not a remedy for what the feds do. Your proposal that the federal law be simply eliminated has sense, but would be much more controversial, as it would make it hard for states which wish to ban marijuana from doing so. Their residents would easily be able to buy cannabis online from another state. By keeping a ban on interstate commerce but not criminalizing people (at the federal level) for intrastate commerce this proposal allows for marijuana to be legal in some states and illegal in others. Like you, I would prefer it to be legal everywhere, but that is a bigger ask for Congress.