Originally posted by Petrus
Or maybe they are deleted scenes precisely because they aren't meant to be canon... And that's why they deleted them.
Can't really speculate on why they were deleted(or actually never completed in this case).
Originally posted by NephthysHe powered through Sidious' lightning with his lightsaber and then pinned Sidious halfway up a wall with his TK for a good amount of time.
Powered through his Lightning? I thought it was him and Opress blocking it with their Lightsabers together? So the two of them together doing what Windu did on his own.
And we don't know how long he had Sidious pinned for, as it's still in the animatronic version.
Also it may be non-canon because it's deleted, but it's not non-canon because you guys think it's retarded. Fact is they were making that scene. And it still fits in the missing parts.
Have to say, don't like how Maul is portrayed in TCW. First he's hinted as an appropriate heir to Sidious, now this?
Even if Sidious was caught off guard or whatever hoers, Maul should not be able to do anything to Sidious. He's been Sidious' ***** in all the novelizations both have appeared in, and that's the way it should be.
Originally posted by Nai
The Representatives (Congressmen) are elected directly by the citizens. The problem here is, that their is just one candidate voted per district with no influence of the actual party-system, with the districts being - more or less - randomly assigned. So during the last elections (Nov. 2012) Democrat candidats had by far more votes in total than the Republicans, yet, they only got 201 seats in the House of Representatives, while the Republicans got 234.One of the flaws in the political system, I'd say.
The districts aren't randomly assigned so much as Frankenstein'd. Then there's this: Gerrymandering.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
What effects?BTW, Beefy: you ever hear of Thomas Sowell?
http://www.hpe.com/opinion/x559273386/Thomas-Sowell-Who-shut-down-the-government
That is some horrid formatting. Also:
[list]There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for Obamacare.
This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives’ right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.[/list]
Granted, this is oversimplifying things, but I find it hilarious that the government can opt to not fund passed laws because one party "doesn't like them". Can you imagine if, instead of having a healthcare exchange to benefit the uninsured, the law in contention was anti-slavery? "Sorry, but we can't be bothered to enforce anti-slavery laws because one party doesn't like it and has a stanglehold on the budget at the moment. Ethics is irrelevant."
[list]If Sen. Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run Obamacare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.[/list]
As the head of the executive branch of the government, it's within the president's rights to object to a blatant non-funding of a part of passed legislation. Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. If a law is deliberately sabotaged via budget restrictions despite being upheld as constitutional, this is obstruction of his job.
[list]Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.
Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.[/list]
Actually, it means that the government cannot pay on its bonds of which are held by investors and directly impact global economy. Japan and China, in particular are large holders of US bonds and if we don't pay them it impacts our credit standing and their GDP as well. And if that occurs, the government must fall back on taxes which do not cover everything (in fact, perhaps little over half of regular government functionality). Hence why US bonds exist in the system to help the shortcomings of taxation.
It's not like "Oh, we need to stop spending ruthlessly and just balance our budget and not raise the debt limit". The reality is that inflation and increased spending because of growing of government and the fact that our population increases exponentially. Even if the government had its shit together (which it does not) with regards to spending, it would still increase steadily over the years. The chart above even implies as much.
So of course government misspending is a reality, I'm not denying that. But this idea that the debt ceiling should never be raised is something of a fallacy. Furthermore, this debacle is because the vocal minority that is the Tea Party is getting their way in a rabid attempt to defund ObamaCare without consideration to the collateral damage.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.
I missed that part. Tax money doesn't begin to account for what we owe. It's not even close.
So of course government misspending is a reality, I'm not denying that. But this idea that the debt ceiling should never be raised is something of a fallacy.
Originally posted by DanBrown19118
I missed that part. Tax money doesn't begin to account for what we owe. It's not even close.While it may be a fallacy, I would be concerned with raising our ceiling based on what I've seen the past 20+ years.
The alternative, defaulting on our loans and debts, would be far worse at this junction. Especially since the world economy is just barely getting out of the pitfall of the '08 slump. And since the US dollar effects a lot of economies besides our own (take Zimbabwe for example, which recently switched to it as official state currency and would tank alongside us) doing such is amazing foolishness, not even bordering on pragmatic.
The alternative, defaulting on our loans and debts, would be far worse at this junction. Especially since the world economy is just barely getting out of the pitfall of the '08 slump. And since the US dollar effects a lot of economies besides our own (take Zimbabwe for example, which recently switched to it as official state currency and would tank alongside us) doing such is amazing foolishness, not even bordering on pragmatic.