Slashdot Mirror
The Dangers of One Party Rule
Marxist Hacker 42 writes "Now that the Politics section is up and running, I can submit this story. Back in February, The American Prospect ran a speculative article on The Danger of NeoConservative One Party Rule. A quote: 'Benjamin Franklin, leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, was asked by a bystander what kind of government the Founders had bestowed. "A republic," he famously replied, "if you can keep it." There have been moments in American history when we kept our republic only by the slenderest of margins. This year is one of those times.'"
Everyone in the United States should think very carefully about the past four years, and also remeber what the United States was like before the current administration. Once you've come to your conclustion, start telling everyone you know to vote Kerry. This is serious.
I think they were edited out because this is Politics, not Ask Slashdot (and yes, I promise to pick my topics more carefully in the future).
Will this lead to a Stalin-like hard right rule in the United States, and the warned curtailing of rights that a single, right-wing party is feared to be? Or will it be neoconservative utopia, ushering in an era of low taxes, small government, trickle down economics, and an end to labor law disputes?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If there's one thing I've learned in my (admittedly relatively short) life, it's that things are never as bad (or as good) as others would have me believe.
Am I upset about the direction our country is heading? Of course. Do I think we're in danger of "losing" our republic? Hell no.
This space intentionally left blank.
Wolfowitz scares the hell out of me, and it's not just his policies but also his aversion to sunlight.
-dameron
One of the things I was reviewing was how much damage was done during the Clinton administration. The civil rights violations, while more subtle, added up to being more telling in my mind. A perfect example is the so called Assault Weapons Ban that sunsets Monday. The gutting of the United States Intelligence community and military is another.
We are screwed either way we look at it. There are no great choices right now, only the lesser of two evils. And that certainly is not Kerry.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Democrats have been losing because the Gore and Kerry are wooden bores.
The solution is not to field a wooden bore. We Republicans did that with Bush Sr and Bob Dole and were trounced soundly, and deservedly so. Now it's your guys' turn.
Kerry spent his whole convention talking about bravery and Vietnam even though he didn't think Vietnam was such a brainy scheme at the time. In other words, he lied, either now or while testifying about his experiences.
At least when we talk to George W Bush, we know where he stands, and we know he'll do his level best to keep his promises.
I can't even tell what John Kerry is promising, it seems to change every other day.
Bush's a better candidate. Get over it, and for God's sake find someone half-decent in four years.
D
PS The US is sufficiently divided that I don't buy the allegations in the article that Republican dirty tricks are going to keep the House and Senate in Republican hands. We're a divided nation, tending right at this point. That's Democracy.
I'm not entirely sure if there was a Democratic Senate, House and President that they wouldn't do the same. The issue is not that the political authorities are asserting power, because yanno, it's politics. The problem is that the Republicans are more aggressively pushing their agenda [than normal] without much opposition.
Of all the political quotes I could use here, I'm going to use Dr. Ian Malcolm via Jurassic Park: "Life finds a way." What I mean is, if a majority of people in four years find their life is worse, they vote Bush out. They vote a Democratic congress. People have phenomenal capacity. If you think the people are voting for all the wrong reasons, go back to 11th grade: all men are created equal. People have the right to vote for Bush on an uneducated opinion just as much as people have the right to vote for Kerry.
(For the tin-foil crowd, no, I don't think elections will be made illegal or term limits extended in the next four years. Sorry.)
Often times in a democracy, other people win.
Mac-Brother's comment on trickle-down economics:
Yes, the money trickles down. But it gushes up.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"There have been moments in American history when we kept our republic only by the slenderest of margins. This year is one of those times" quipped Franklin, only moments before attending a Hell-Fire orgy followed by an all expenses paid (by the American tax payer) trip to the most expensive hotel in France, during which he induldged himself in the most expensive wines, cheeses and prostitutes.
Ummm.. I am stunned that this would even be accepted by an article reviewer. From their own description: "The American Prospect was founded in 1990 as an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas..." I'll stick to objective journalism versus obvious partisan information thank you.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I haven't. At least, I don't think so. Somebody's always saying that.
Yep, they don't live forever. The problem we have with the Supreme Court right now is that they are making new law at times, not measuring law as compared to the Constitution. Rowe versus Wade is a perfect example. There is no way you can suggest abortion is a right. There is nothing in the Constitution (Bill of Rights, etc) to suggest it is. We need more conservative members on the Supreme Court, thought that is what the democrats want to block. They want to consider the Constitution a "living document" and changeable by their wims.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
that /. can get back to the "News for nerds" part. This bitching and vote-mongering is hardly "stuff that matters." Our country is hardly different from where it was four years ago, except that we have an economy that has a firmer foundation than an extremely volatile bubble (which was put firmly into place by the economic policies of the Clinton era). We're just as arrogant as ever, we're just as whiny, and we still demand everything while giving nothing. It hasn't changed a bit.
So tell me. Why does it matter who we vote for? The American culture isn't going to change at all. We're still going to be just as damn greedy as we used to be. We won't be humanitarian much at all... just like we weren't really under Clinton.
The problem isn't the leaders that we elect, even though they are the easiest to blame. The problem is ourselves, and our reluctance to do anything about it.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
From the article: Reform legislation, the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), may actually facilitate Republican intimidation of minority voters and reduce Democratic turnout.
I was reading the article and I came across this. Searching for it leads to here and here amongst the millions google returns. I don't understand how Republicans can use this to intimidate minorities. I could see point #3 from the second link "Develop a statewide, centralized, electronic list of all eligible voters" could be viewed upon as an attempt to exclude but then the next bullet point states "Ensure that ID requirements are fair and nondiscriminatory."
I know nothing about HAVA. Could someone comment on this?
This site does not become another leftist hate fest...
1 party rule, and it is happening as we speak, and has been happening for a while: The constitution is set up assuming that all 3 branches of the government would be constantly suspicious of what the other ones are doing. However, with the solidifcation of political parties, this isn't happening. Everyone is just toeing the party line, and that is dangerous. The supreme court justices aren't supposed to like the president, congress isn't supposed to depend on the president for inspiration for legislation. The president isn't supposed to just sign everything that his party passes. (I can't seem to think of one veto that George W. Bush has had overrided) That to me is dangerous, it signals that the checks and balances are erroding.
Monstar L
So does anyone know why, if I have both politics sections in the prefs dialog checked for exclusion, this appears on my front page? (And why there are two in the first place?)
I was with for your first three sentences. The left often engages in hyperbole. No one rational here thinks Bush is in any substantial way like Hitler.
Then I get to sentence four. I am not giving my civil liberties up, even a little bit, not because of Al-Qaeda or for any other reason. I'm probably the nine-millionth person to quote Ben Franklin on this, but "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
And then I see sentence five: "The only thing we would gain from John Kerry is a government that's a slave to France." And your credibility is shot.
a) Do you honestly think that?
b) If so, why?
c) What the hell?
spreer
I prefer my information presented with an obvious and admitted slant. It's much easier to take in the grains of salt that way. What really peeves me is when a news source tries to pawn itself off as being impartial or balanced when it really isn't. I can totally deal with bias if you'll just be upfront with it.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
I pine for the day... that /. can get back to the "News for nerds" part. This bitching and vote-mongering is hardly "stuff that matters."
True, but I think the editors have made a brilliant stroke by creating the "Politics" section. It's a heat sink.
The heat generated by a power transistor is an inevitable part of its operation. Unfortunately, it tends to degrade the component's operation, to the point where it's no more than a two-legged* blob of molten silicon. To prevent this, we use a Heat Sink. The transistor can then function normally, with the waste heat dissipated somewhere other than the silicon.
Slashdot generates heat, too, in the form of strong opinions that don't actually contribute to the discussion at hand. Post a story about the next release of Knoppix, and someone will say something about the government supporting/restraining Open Source, then someone will say something about the current administration, and pretty soon you're looking at a hole in the screen where a discussion used to be.
The Politics section is Slashdot's heat sink. People like me who have strong opinions can vent them here, where they don't affect the articles in the Games, Science, and Apple sections. The heat is inevitable, but you can at least make sure it doesn't interfere with your performance.
* I know transistors have three connections. I'm thinking of the power transistors where the body is the ground connector. And Bush sucks, by the way.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Now that's the first real defense I've heard for NOT meeting those jetliners in the air. I'm glad I asked for this story today!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
In response to your comments, I'm sure you're aware that calling John Kerry a "slave to France" is equally as inane as calling Bush Hitler.
Sigh.... I don't know why the hell I expect intelligent political discussion on slashdot anyway....
For the past sixty years the United States have been tilting heavily in one direction, and now that they are snapping the other way, people assume that we'll end up with a one party system?
What do you call the Democrat control of both houses of Congress for as long as they did--almost 30 years? How close were we to a one-party system then? And you complain only because for the past decade the Republicans have been on the rise.
Even if the Republicans do gain control of all three Branches, they won't have it perpetually. Just as the power swing has now gone Left to Right, it will swing Right to Left. But, what you haven't noticed is that Leftward swings have moved this country further than the Rightward.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
There is little variation between the two parties on the major issues, such as environmentalism and actual social change to a less repressively boring, materialist society. Both parties also swear by the Christian God. Most NeoCons are either rabid Christians or rabid Jews. Could two-party rule be effectively one-party rule? I think so.
The Republicrats (or is it the Demopublicans?) differ on most fundamental topics so little as for it to be irrelevant. That is the essence of Clintonian triangulation. It existed long before it had that name and has been used by both parties. The Republicans want to launch neo-colonialist wars and enslave those of us back here in the Heimat (sorry, homeland). The Democrats want to do it more slowly, and to try to smile benevolently rather than sneering while doing it. But this is mainly a difference of style, not substance. Neither questions their corporate masters. And neither accepts limitations on state power in times of crisis. The only difference is which corporations get their snouts into the public trough first.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
I thought your post was serious till I got to the "slave to France" bit. Then I realized that it had to be a put on - nobody literate enough to write could be that stupid.
I suspect the comparison between the current administration and Hitler would not seem at all far-fetched to defendants in the criminal justice system facing sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines.
I'm laughing at clouds.
No more info needed.
I don't remember hearing any complaints when the Democrats held all 3 offices of the government... All I heard was cheering and applause about how this would usher in a brand new utopian ideal government for the US. (That would be Clinton, '92) Oh.. but it's a "neoconservative" one party government... that's bad.
Well, judging by how things are going, we can look to the future and be reassured: two out of three ain't bad. No trifecta, but not bad.
This site has a lot of vocal fans of libertarianism as well (which are socially liberal, politically conservative). They're likely to dislike being called "leftist" -- though I suspect that since the Bush administration has been socially conservative, politically liberal, they're unlikely to be huge fans at the moment.
May we never see th
What crap - In essense you said "I have never been in the military - but I know better because of that fact." Incredible, you have raise hubris to a new height - insulting a verteran because you have no military experience. Vote Bush, he is a moron draft doger as well.
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
No, I never said that at all. I simply said that being in the military is not the only way of knowing something that affects the military. And that there are other ways to serve one's country than wearing a uniform. I choose a different way.
And being a veteran does not exempt him from being called on his bullshit.
Bush did not dodge the draft. He is also a veteran. He served in another segment of the armed forces and received an honorable discharge from that service.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
The Fine Article makes an assumption that may not be accurate. It assumes that the current minority party is unable to gain power because of political chicanery on the part of the majority party.
Ten years ago the current minority party held the Presidency, House and Senate. They had held the House and Senate for decades. It was just as hard to defeat an incumbent back then as it is now.
The danger to the USA is not a NeoConservative monoparty. That sounds like FUD to me. The danger to the USA is that we have learned to vote ourselves funds from the public checkbook.
sigs, as if you care.
And the missing year vs the Kerry issues are equal right?
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
*I* RTFA... They admit that *YOUR* party pulled the same dirty parliamentary tricks. The difference now is that *YOUR* party is too weak to mount a parliamentary counter-offensive, get the press involved, or really take the issues to the streets. Which is odd considering how Dan Rather has just put his reputation on the line to get *your* party some edge in this election.
ooh, it's Tom DeLay, he's so strong and powerful that he ramrods legislation through and he's SOOO clever that they Gerrymandered control of the Senate for the next 10 years. The party of light and purity cannot stop him. Well, kimosabe, how do you think the Democrats kept control of both the house AND senate for OVER 40 YEARS?!? Well, let's RTFA: Oh! through "broad based popular support". Oh c'mon, what kind of cheesy intellectual response is that to a guy who spends 3 paragraphs pointing out how DeLay is a "Dictator" That's a fairy-tale. The Democrats maintained their own control through gerrymandering, parliamentary measures and a WEAK Republican party all the while ramrodding their own liberal agenda of the "Great utopian society" into the social conscience. It is NOT the end of the US if the Republicans' maintain control of all 3 houses of the government (which I doubt will happen this election unless Kerry continues to implode his campaign more than he already has.)
You wanna debate issues, let's debate issues. But the only posting going on around here is scare-tactics by the left.
(and yeah I'm posting anonymously. It's all too obvious around here where the moderators' hearts lie)
...and Taco said the Politics section would be balanced.
No offense, but "the $GUYS_I_DONT_AGREE_WITH are going to outlaw elections" is not what I'd call balanced.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
This is a politcal discussion. Not everything is going to be unbiased I'm afraid. Slashdot posts stories about RMS on open source. Is it going to present a biased view towards MS? But it also posts stories about/by Gates/Balmer. Frankly it's nice to have an article that presents a strong position and supports its points. That's why I'm not voting for John Kerry. (I'm probably going to write-in Howard Dean at this point, since he's the last polician I agreed with and actually did what he talked about).
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
How do I turn off the BLINKING Politics section?
I checked it off in the "Exclude" list. It was there TWICE, actually. The only thing I hate more than politics is having to see geeks talking about politics.
Democrats and Republicans are two factions of one party - we have been under 1 party rule for over a century.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr07 1003.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003
Neo - CONNED !
The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who's really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?
Someone is responsible, and it's important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they're wrong--and I believe they are--we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it's the government's responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.
One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.
The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down--even if we vote to lower them. They can't, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced--and they certainly should have been--but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.
When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or "printing" new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the "tax" is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a "tax" burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.
"Marxist Hacker 42 writes"
-You don't think he could be biased do you?
Creative Demolition
"I'm not entirely sure if there was a Democratic Senate, House and President that they wouldn't do the same."
but the Dems would be much less likely to trample civil liberties as the Gang Of Bush is doing.
How is this a troll?
"Our country is hardly different from where it was four years ago".
Wow.
The complacent inaccuracy of this view is stunning.
Just one example of many (and not even the saddest):
today (versus four years ago) your library and bookstore records can be seized without traditional search-warrant safeguards, and the librarians can be imprisoned for revealing it.
LOL surely you jest
Kerry tried to suprress the first amendment rights of the seift boat vets before he was even president. Right, Wrong, or just plain bald faced lies those people have the right to say them and to print them, if Kerry didn't like it he can retaliate with Libel and slander torts.
Just as an upside the Democrats are now suing to take Nader off the Ballot in Arkansas. In effect trying to disenfranchise an entire state.
If you want to vote your conscience vote Nader.
Why the fuck doesn't checking the exclude box on the "politics" category in the main page config for my account block these stories? I have no fucking interest in reading propeganda from either side of the arguement.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot - we will not- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population.
You can also listen to the an actual audio clip of the quote above. There is an important web site with other quotes and audio clips.
Is anyone shocked by La Raza and the Hispanics who support La Raza? La Raza is the Hispanic equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan.
I am extremely concerned that La Raza will become the "one party" that controls America in 2025. Our refusal to control our borders has led to an explosive political dynamic that will be hostile to anyone who is not Hispanic.
Write the following candidates on the presidential ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
Please check out this article that I wrote about La Raza. The danger of one-party rule is not a neo-conservative party. The danger is La Raza.
From an American viewpoint. In the grand scheme of things, Europe is left of center. The Liberals are just more left wing and WAY MORE AUTHORITARIAN.
Ok, I did.
I'd like to see George W. Bush reelected.
(Shields up!)
sigs, as if you care.
That's it! I'm now filtering the Politics Topic!
I get enough of this from the media, don't need to see it on a techie site. News for Nerds is one thing but Politics from Nerds? Now that's something I'd rather not read.
I read a heck of a lot of political blogs, closely follow the news, study history and I can clearly state that this particular forum is filled with ignorance, anger and hate from both sides.
Frankly the comments made in the Politics articles that get rated up and the ones that get filtered are completely bogus. Calling Stalin Right-Wing is just plain stupid! Comparing Bush with Hitler is equally stupid. Publishing a forum discussion on a leftist document warning about one party rule by neo-conservatives is ridiculous. Of course one party rule is a bad idea, that's why this country was founded in a balanced way. The democracy of the USA was designed to prevent this very thing from happening. Power is counter balanced and the people get to vote for 2/3rds of the structure. Trying to claim that pre-WWII Germany was a balanced government prior to Hitler's rise to power is just plain wrong! Sure someone didn't say that exactly but it was implied.
It's ironic how people who can be so scientific about things can completely throw out the concept of making a statement and backing it up with facts that actually checkout. Geeks are very logical in most matters but when it comes to politics it suddenly becomes all emotion and the logic goes out the window.
Sorry, but I will have no part in party politics, at least not with this crazy history starved group. I don't have the time to contribute to moderation nor due I have time to read the senseless drivel either.
Whatchamacallit will boycott the Politics channel from now on.
Well, I will, but that's because I'm Canadian. Not that my own government isn't in love with censorship and neoconservatism, as recent events have shown.
..."no big deal, it has happened before",
/. story,
"it really doesn't matter which party",
etc.:
see today's
"Republican Senators May 'Go Nuclear'"
We're talking about consequences which may persist for an entire generation (or longer),
quite possibly leading to permanent public acceptance of frightening and dangerous encroachments upon our civil liberties, traditional freedoms, and constitutional rights.
I wouldn't envision these same risks from Dem-controlled government.
Are you really a Marxist? If so, you are an idiot, Marxism is a failed political philosophy that has cost hundreds of millions of lives.
If you are NOT a Marxist, you are still an idiot.
So are YOU, Nazi Hacker, and YOU, Racist Hacker, and YOU, Eugenicist Hacker, and YOU, Fascist Hacker, and so on.
But if you want to be an idiot, and name yourself after something horrible, feel free. You can do that in the USA.
Unlike, say, FRANCE.
The latest Slashdot meme.
Been a little frustrated by the state of American politics. On a trip the last week I took along Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. America could use a good dose of Thoreau right now.
In particular I recall something to the effect of... The government exists to serve the people not the people to serve the government.
These old codgers don't get enough credit
No, the Dems will trample different civil liberties. Read the earlier story about the assault weapons bad expiring. Something the Dems are more likely to renew (though a number of Reps would too). Kerry is also the one trying to silence the swift boat vets, (true or false, they have a right to speak) while Bush hasn't tried to silence the equally annoying moveon.org guys.
Bush wanted the patriot act. Kerry was in the senate when it passed though, and AFAIK he didn't speak out against it.
Who is trampling civil rights? Looks like both, sometimes in slightly different ways, sometimes not.
"If we had sent home the H-1bs at the crash of the bubble, nobody would have lost their jobs..."
And there was NO way you were going to see Kerry at the DNC.
They'll know I checked out Green Eggs and Ham!
Or better yet, they'll know when I checked out the Anarchists cookbook...
Public pressure yeah... but the Supreme Court itself determines what cases it sees. No government body has the power to dictate the court docket.
(Or were you being facetious? I can't tell I'm having trouble with my sarcasm meter on this board...)
Please say this was a mischeduled April fools post. I mean with a guy like Marxist Hacker making the submission. Or has this place joined the Kur05hin leftward spiral?
Ohh right, I must be new here.
He said they "would try to be fair".
:)
Emphasis on "try".
Personally, I have a conspiracy theory that they're intentionally NOT fixing the Politics showing up on the headlines so as to keep their personal agendas up.
Or, alternatively, I have a conspiracy theory that says they're trying to boost their ad hits on this site.
Do you argue with the facts of Rush Limbaugh or do you just disregard it because of the source?
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"
Here's the historical evidence that term limits and elections will continue to happen. Well, just one data point, but I think it bears some weight.
Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was an election day in New York City. Because of the terrorist attack, that election was postponed for two weeks until September 25, 2001. The general election was held on schedule on November 6, 2001.
Rudy Giuliani's name was not on the ballot. He had served two terms and was prohibited by New York State law from serving a third term.
So, combine these elements: a large terrorist attack, a popular Republican mayor who wanted to continue to serve, and term limit law. As is proper, the law was upheld, the general election took place on schedule, and the term-limited incumbent was not on the ballot.
I think that the American electoral system istough enough to run the elections on schedule in 2008. Of course, we'll be voting in our gerry-mandered winner-take-all districts, which will still suck.
And if you want more swing districts: term limits. We added a constitutional amendment to term-limit the President and Vice President, and that's worked out pretty well.
GASP!
Not 10 years ago, Clinton & co swept all 3 houses of the government and tried to ramrod a Canadian style universal health care system onto the US.
It would've turned ALL medicine into a government bureaucracy with Doctor's no longer being independent practitioners but working for the government. Patients would not be allowed to pay for their medical care out of pocket they would have to accept what the government doled out. Certain Pharmaceutical companies would be given "preferred vendor" status and lucrative contracts to be THE companies to distribute drugs in the US. And we'd all get brand spanking new ID cards and all of our medical information would be tracked in a CENTRALIZED DATABASE that only certain people would have access to.
Bill and Hillary had invested their stock portfolios to sell short on medical stocks while this was occuring. (Bill was required by law to put his stocks into a blind trust but it'd been so long since a Democrat had been President that he didn't know the rules!)
Meanwhile, Hillary was in charge of setting up the legislation and had PRIVATE MEETINGS with all the medical companies, HMO's and insurance companies about how this was going to work. When asked for the notes of the meetings and/or the companies she had meetings with she said that was confidential. (Sound familiar?)
It took a concentrated PR campaign over TWO YEARS to get the thing stopped and resulted in the Republicans gaining control of the House and Senate.
Couldn't envision the same risks?
(Hint: it's not a Democratic conspiracy against him.) Take a look at this: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/wo rld/9627161.htm?1c
Bush won by 537 votes in Flordia. Nader got over 97,000 votes in Flordia. Don't tell me Democrats will do everything in their power to keep him on off the ballot.
Might I also say that Republicans have been "supporting" Nader and trying to keep him on the ballot.
I usually like reading long, intellectually stimulating articles, but WOW, that was just too much.
Now, contrast that with the Republican's message: reduce taxes on the people who have capital to encourage them to invest and create new jobs. Or even shorter, "trickle down."
That's all a huge pile of crap, as we all know, but the message works in part because it's very simple. Nobody's going to read and understand 20 pages of dense prose with hundreds of perfectly rational arguments, leading to a beautiful well-supported conclusion.
Everyone, take a lesson from this. If you write about politics, keep it short. Keep it simple. Use simple words. Short sentences are nice. Make your point quickly, and wrap it up.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
Parent is an informed, reasonable post. It gets modded down troll, because it's not left leaning. Fine if foxnews is slanted right, but dont pretend slashdot is anything less than hard left.
I see so many bush is hitler, or stalin (see grandparent) comments that get modded +5 informative as if its written-in-stone truth. Yet a post like the parent is like a troll?!?!?!
Okay, mod me down now cause I defended a right winger. (nevermind that Im not voting for Bush)
Crashmarik & bluGill --
YOU'RE talking about one politician (Kerry) and his campaign cohorts.
I'M talking about the likely behavior (and overall consequences) of an entire Dem-controlled govt, VERSUS a govt controlled by the CURRENT OVER-ALL make-up and mentality of the Reps.
And yes, everyone is guilty of getting carried away immediately after 9/11.
But it's MAINLY Dems who are now trying to pass bills correcting Patriot excesses.
And it's MAINLY Reps who are trying to extend Federal powers even further, far beyond fighting terrorism.
Also, I'm having difficulty conceptualizing the perspective and overall political philosophy of a person who opposes the govt restricting his right to bear arms, but is unconcerned about
-- the govt's new powers to secretly grab his library records, gag the librarian, deny ALL public overview of the entire judicial procedure,
-- attempt to detain *citizens* INDEFINITELY without right to counsel or any other contact with someone outside of law-enforcement
-- etc.
I say this in all sincerity:
don't you remember WHY the right to bear arms was traditionally so important in our national mentality?
remeber what the United States was like before the current administration
Yes, the United States was on the verge of attack and didn't know it. Ignorance is bliss, right? Gee, that's so much better than now when we have a clearer idea of who our enemies are.
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
The whole concept of trickle-down economics was just a feeble excuse to cut taxes for the wealthy.
Yeah, because the wealthy never buy anything with their money. Oh, and they shouldn't be allowed to save it, either. How dare they think it's their money? Gimmie!
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
House Roll Call for HAVA
Senate Roll Call for HAVA
This was a bipartisan job. Kerry and Edwards both voted for it, and Bush signed it.
We are in desperate need major voting reform in the US.
This is a prime example that two major political parties have way to much control on the whole election and legislative system.
I feel that Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) can truly help to give the power back to the voters.
Take a look at these sites:
IRV Info
IRV Flash Demo
If you are a Green, or other third party, supporter please help to get the the following, or similar message out.
"If Kerry supports IRV, Greens will support Kerry"
There are IRV initiatives going in most of the states now. Please investigate IRV and if you agree that is could help bring about positive changes please support the local action in your area and help spread the word.
We have to take the power back - RATM
Oh, come on. You're asking for objective evidence that a political group which you don't like will NOT commit crimes in the FUTURE.
Let me introduce you to two concepts of American justice:
(1) We judge people based on what they've already done, not based on things they haven't done yet.
(2) The burden of proof is on the accuser. That means it's up to you to produce evidence first, not ask other people "do you have any evidence that they WON'T."
If you wanna talk about crimes that Republicans -- or Democrats -- or anybody else -- have already committed, and you want to present evidence, fine. But violating both (1) and (2) is really breathtaking.
I have a feeling you might steal my stereo next month. Do you have any objective evidence that you are NOT going to steal my stereo next month?
"The crash of the bubble happened on Bush's watch".
The bubble peaked in March 2000. Bush was inaugurated in January 2001.
And bubbles are distortions in the economy. The bubble happened during Clinton's presidency, and it started correcting during Clinton's presidency, too.
Not that Clinton was responsible for either the bubble or its collapse. The forces driving the bubble were independent of who was President at the time.
Also check out the electronics bubble of the 1960's (the "Nifty Fifty", "One-Decision Stocks"), and the biotech bubble of the 1980's.
Give the poor $1000 and they'll spend it on food, clothing, and bills. Give $1000 to the wealthy and they might buy a watch or shoes with $500, and put the other $500 into their savings account. $500 in a savings account does nothing for the economy, so if the goal is economic stimulus, give the money to the poor.
The wealthy should be able to save. It's much easier for them too since even 50% taxes on $300,000 still leaves them with $150,000 to spend or save. A person earning $30,000 even without taxes is going to spend much of that on necessities like food, housing/utilities, health care, transportation.
One Party to Find Them,
One Party to Bring Them All,
And in the Darkness Bind Them.
Ashcroft is obviously an Ork. Cheney dwells in a secret, fortified lair at the center of the earth. Watching him strain to smile before his speech at the convention reminded me of Monty Burns nearly spraining facial muscles to crack a Grinch-like grin.
It might be more tolerable if any of them could fathom dropping their comical arrogance and self-righteousness -- qualities that, ironically, I'd always attributed to left-wing clowns like Ted Kennedy. They're going full circle and don't seem to see it.
All this from a life-long Republican. McCain is my man and a true Republican. He seems to be setting himself up for 2008. It'd be nice to start voting Republican again...
Wait a minute, didn't you mean take $1000 less from the wealthy. The government doesn't "give" tax cuts. It's a matter of "taking" less. Saying that the government gave you a $1000 tax cut is like saying that after a theif robbed you at gunpoint, he gave you back $20.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
The German government agreed to payout billions of dollars in compensation in lieu of going through the courts and the US Government was negotiating on behalf of the NY attornies who were bringing the case. When the settlement was reached, the ATTORNIES agreed to drop the charges and the courts where the cases were being setup AGREED to the drop.
The legislative and executive branches don't have the authority to order a case stopped.
Yeah, because the wealthy never buy anything with their money.
If you cut the taxes of the wealthy, it's more likely that they will invest in overseas firms than it is that they will rush down to Best Buy to get that new DVD player they have been wanting. If you cut the taxes of the middle class, there will be immediate purchases, whether it's paying for a new garbage disposal, buying clothes, or getting a new PC.
Oh, and they shouldn't be allowed to save it, either.
What melodramatic bullshit! The wealthy can save money whether they are taxed at 10% or 50%. Give me a break! It's the middle-class and below that are struggling to save any money. Bill Gates' kids aren't going to have to go to a community college if daddy's taxes go up by 20%
How dare they think it's their money? Gimmie!
How dare you think that they should reap the greatest benefit from our society and not pay the most in taxes? You just want tax policies that make the wealthy wealthier while leaving average Americans struggling to make ends meet. You are probably happy that there has been an ever-widening disparity between the haves and the have-nots. You probably think that it's great that CEO salaries have been skyrocketing while workers' salaries are spiralling downwards. Talking to people like you really makes me understand how the Bolsheviks felt.
Marxist Hacker 42 is considered by the editors of Slashdot to be an enlightened voice of political reason. And then the editors of
Now filtering political.
The danger of one-party rule is not a neo-conservative party. The danger is La Raza.
How dare you think that they should reap the greatest benefit from our society and not pay the most in taxes?
Explain how they reap the greatest benefit from "our society"? I get my money by selling my labor to an employer, who is not "society", but a specific group of individuals. Everyone else is free to market their skills and labor just like I am. Some do better, some do worse. But the fact that some individuals have more valuble skills or ideas than others doesn't mean they owe "society" the time of day. I got my skills at my own expense, not "society's".
You just want tax policies that make the wealthy wealthier while leaving average Americans struggling to make ends meet.
Um, tax policies don't make anyone wealthier besides the government. Money the government doesn't tax isn't a gift, it's money you earned that you get to keep.
I take it you favor tax policies that penalize people for hard work and success?
You are probably happy that there has been an ever-widening disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
As a matter of fact, yes, I'm delighted!
$0 is still worth $0. So if there's a ever-widening disparity between $0 and max-dollars, that means that means more wealth is being created, and the potential for acquiring wealth is greater than ever. If people are able to earn ever greater sums of wealth relative to $0, that's a Good Thing!
You probably think that it's great that CEO salaries have been skyrocketing while workers' salaries are spiralling downwards.
As far as I know, companies are paying CEO's with their own money, not with mine, so, truthfully, I don't give a rat's-ass what they pay them.
And slavery was outlawed a long time ago. If you don't like what you're getting paid, you're free to find an employer who is willing to pay you more. If you can't find an employer who will pay you more, that's a pretty good sign you're already earning what you're worth.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
The danger of one-party rule is not a neo-conservative party. The danger is La Raza.
The danger of one-party rule is not a neo-conservative party. The danger is La Raza.
The danger of one-party rule is not a neo-conservative party. The danger is La Raza.
The danger of one-party rule is not a neo-conservative party. The danger is La Raza.
You probably went to a public school at some point. If not, you were born rich (through no fault of your own) and someone somewhere back there went to a public school that gave them the leg up that they needed to get rich enough to send all their kids to private school.
The danger of one-party rule is not a neo-conservative party. The danger is La Raza.
The danger of one-party rule is not a neo-conservative party. The danger is La Raza.
The danger of one-party rule is not a neo-conservative party. The danger is La Raza.
The danger of one-party rule is not a neo-conservative party. The danger is La Raza.
The danger of one-party rule is not a neo-conservative party. The danger is La Raza.
Explain how they reap the greatest benefit from "our society"?
Because our society provides the entire infrastructure needed for them to gain wealth. It provides roads for transporting the goods that they produce and use. It provides them with police protection so that they aren't constantly in fear of kidnapping, murder, etc. It provides them with educated workers for their businesses. The list goes on and on.
I got my skills at my own expense, not "society's".
So you never went to a public school? You never went to a museum the received federal funds? Your teachers weren't educated in public schools? Your parents never got a tax credit that helped pay for your education? You didn't get to school using taxpayer funded roads, sidewalks, public transportation, etc.? My, you must have an interesting story to tell.
Um, tax policies don't make anyone wealthier besides the government.
Untrue. It costs money to run the government. If tax policies are such that the rich are not as burdened as the middle-class and poor, then they policies are helping to make them wealthier. If the taxes force many lower-income people to seek out part-time work, there is a labor glut which drives down wages, helping make the wealthy wealthier when they hire people at the deflated wages.
And don't tell me that you are entitled to keep everything that you are paid, because you are not. It's not "your money", despite what the Bushies would have you believe. If you want to live in this society, then you are legally and morally obligated to contribute to it in the form of taxes.
Money the government doesn't tax isn't a gift, it's money you earned that you get to keep.
When you get the government services and Bush takes out a $400+billion dollar loan to pay for them, a cut in your taxes is a gift.
I take it you favor tax policies that penalize people for hard work and success?
Don't give me this bullshit about "hard work" by the wealthy. You want to see hard work? Go watch coal miners at work. Watch garbage collection people. Watch janitors. Watch the single mother of two who works for 8 hours as a waitress and then works another 4 hours as a maid in a hotel. Watch someone who is doing manual labor at a construction site. Don't waste my time with stories about some guy sitting in an air-conditioned office.
To answer your question, I favor tax policies which do the least harm. I favor tax policies which make it possible for the working poor to better their lives. I favor tax policies which don't take food off of tables. I favor tax policies which allow a middle-income family to send their children to good colleges. That means getting the lion's share of the money from the people who can most afford it. If it's a choice between taking money from someone who then won't be able to afford health insurance or taking money from a millionaire, I favor a tax policy which takes from the millionaire.
As a matter of fact, yes, I'm delighted!
So you are happy that people of moderate income are having to work more hours to make ends meet? You are happy that CEOs are getting more and more money while custodians, restaurant workers, agricultural workers, people who work in poultry processing plants, etc. are working more hours for less pay? You're happy that there are parents who have had to take a second job just to keep from being homeless? If so, then I hope you die soon. There's something very sick about someone who takes glee in the suffering of the working poor.
As far as I know, companies are paying CEO's with their own money, not with mine, so, truthfully, I don't give a rat's-ass what they pay them.
So you don't care if the CEO at your firm gets a raise while the workers, including you, take a pay cut? You don't care that the CEO of your firm get's a raise while outsourcing your job to India? You don't care what Johnson & Johnson
You think you've made a point with your pedantry, but you haven't. The grandparent post never actually mentioned tax cuts as the mechanism by which the money was "given". If it had, you might have a minor point (which is a simple distraction from the overall point that money spent by poor people does more to improve their quality of life than the same amount of money spent by rich people).
Anyone can give anyone money, for any reason. The grandparent only specified that the rich person and the poor person were both "given" $1000. It doesn't specify that the government gave the money to both people, or that this "giving" was in the form of tax breaks.
To reformulate his point in such a way that sidesteps your distraction, let's say that I am the United States Government. I need $1000 to fund the draping of the naked breasts of a judicial statue. Who is it better for me to take that $1000 from? The rich guy, who would have used it to upgrade from coach to first class on his annual vacation to Bermuda? Or the poor guy, who would have used it to make rent and utilities for two months, and maybe buy a bus pass because his rustmobile finally gave up the ghost?
Assuming the old economic theory that we spend money in such a way as to maximize its benefit to us, who is benefitted more by the having of the $1000? It's simple economics: The first dollar you earn is always the most valuable to you, because it will be put towards the things you need the most.
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people, soak the rich seems like a sensible economic policy.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Because our society provides the entire infrastructure needed for them to gain wealth. It provides roads for transporting the goods that they produce and use.
I fail to see why creating roads needs to be government function. Private airlines and railroads are also available to transport goods. In fact, government subsidizing the highway system was one of the things that backrupted many railroads. And I fail to see why the wealthy should be any more responsible for the upkeep of infrastructure than anyone else.
The public roads are available to anyone. The fact that a businessman was smart enough to take better advantage of an infrastructure that was built just as much for your benefit as for his, it doesn't follow that he owes you anything for it.
It provides them with police protection so that they aren't constantly in fear of kidnapping, murder, etc.
Oh, give me a break! Who's in a better position to afford his own security, you or Bill Gates? Obviously, he can afford his own security. Maybe you should be reimbursing him for having to pay for yours as well?
So you never went to a public school? You never went to a museum the received federal funds? Your teachers weren't educated in public schools? Your parents never got a tax credit that helped pay for your education? You didn't get to school using taxpayer funded roads, sidewalks, public transportation, etc.? My, you must have an interesting story to tell.
You haven't explained why those things are necessarily a function of government. There are plenty of privately funded schools, museums, roads and forms of transportation. The fact that I've used some that were publicly funded doesn't necessarily mean they had to be, or should be.
Untrue. It costs money to run the government. If tax policies are such that the rich are not as burdened as the middle-class and poor, then they policies are helping to make them wealthier. If the taxes force many lower-income people to seek out part-time work, there is a labor glut which drives down wages, helping make the wealthy wealthier when they hire people at the deflated wages.
Well then, the obvious solution to that is to cut taxes so that low income people aren't put in that position.
Come to think of it, most lower income people aren't paying income taxes anyway. So how does giving the rich a tax cut harm the poor again?
And don't tell me that you are entitled to keep everything that you are paid, because you are not. It's not "your money", despite what the Bushies would have you believe. If you want to live in this society, then you are legally and morally obligated to contribute to it in the form of taxes.
Sez who?
Yes, it is my money, despite what parasites like you would have me believe. If I have no claim to it by virtue of working for it, you certainly have even less claim to it by virtue of not working for it.
Don't give me this bullshit about "hard work" by the wealthy. You want to see hard work? Go watch coal miners at work. Watch garbage collection people. Watch janitors. Watch the single mother of two who works for 8 hours as a waitress and then works another 4 hours as a maid in a hotel. Watch someone who is doing manual labor at a construction site. Don't waste my time with stories about some guy sitting in an air-conditioned office.
You're in serious need of a class in economics.
Not all "hard work" necessarily creates value. Simply because you work hard doesn't necessarily mean you're entitled to compensation for it. You can spend your days digging a hole to China in your back yard, but while digging a hole to China may be hard work, it creates no value to anyone. Nobody is going to pay you anything to do it.
So let me re-phrase that: Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?
Most of the examples you provided were work that produces little value. Which is why it's lowly compensat
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Sure it does. It gets loaned out to someone who then uses it to buy a house or a car, or even start a company (which might then lead to the creation of more jobs and wealth). Banks don't stick your money in a vault and swim in it, Scrooge McDuck-style. If they did, they'd go out of business. They have to loan your money out to others in order to make interest, and thus earn a profit.
$500 spent is just that, $500 spent. $500 saved, though, is $500 in the bank for one person and $500 spent by someone else (yeah, it's a little more complicated than that, and it's not a 2x multiplicative factor exactly, but that's the basic idea).
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
One way to combat this is, of course, by negative feedback: let the party who does *not* control the legislature control the redistricting. One problem leaps to mind: to what degree is there a Constitutional limit on *whom* may do redistricting?
This site: www.fairvote.org/redistricting lays out some possiblities. Taking a cue from their 2nd point:
"Take the redistricting process out of the hands of the incumbents and their parties by either instituting clear criteria that mapmakers must follow or by establishing independent, nonpartisan commissions. Iowa and Arizona use such approaches."
I call for "open source" approaches to redistricting. For example, truly fair redistricting would take into account *only* population and *not* perceived party bias of the locality. This element alone would make more districts fair by including individuals of all political persuasions.
Perhaps physics can help us. If each individual is considered a point mass, it should be possible to divide up each state so that *the sum of the net distances of each point mass from the center of the mass of each district* is at a minimum. If there are 2 possible maps which meet this criterion, impose the additional requirement that *the sum of all boundries of all districts in a state shall also be at a minimum* as well (this encourages more "rounded" districts).
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Nader received 2.4% of the popular vote in 2000! If this were a poll and not an election, that would be called a margin of error, and certainly cannot be used to justify your outrageous claim of "a sizeable chunk of Democratic voters cast their ballots for Nader". If you're going to state an opinion, for ghusake; start with some easily verified facts else you are unintentionally supporting the very partisanship you decry!
You're right, and like you say it's not 2x. As far as I know the banks in this country are in solid financial shape and have plenty of money to lend out. It's not like they're running out of money to lend out and need another $500, 500,000, or 5,000,000. Maybe 5,000,000,000 for a mid-small bank. So how much the 500 in a savings account really helps the economy probably pales compared to spending it at the local bakery. Of course spending it at WalMart doesn't help as much. The store pays minimum wage to the workers, local and state taxes, then the profit goes to Arkansas instead of staying in the state.
US-VISIT law: "It does not apply to U.S. citizens"
t i_image/content_multi_image_0006.xml
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/content_mul
France and Germany didn't say "Don't go to war", they said "Give us more time to work on a diplomatic solution, and if it doesn't work, we'll go with you".
Twelve years wasn't enough?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The thing is, the Hussein Iraq regime wasn't a fundamentalist Islamic regime at all. As a matter of fact, it was one of the most secularized Middle Eastern countries, and before Gulf War I, one of the most wealthy.
By crushing the best alternative, a secular government, to Islamic theocracy, we may have set back the clock in the Middle East for a long time.
Sure, we installed a new government, but US-installed governments have a tendency to fall apart. Saddam Hussein wasn't a very nice person, but he had the tough to hold onto his government despite Islamic fundamentalists and others trying to chew him up. He represented stability for the region, did not attack US-based targets, and provided a compelling alternative to theocracy, as well as progressive civil rights, like equal roles for women. We condemned him for killing people that tried to rise against him (like the Kurds, who the CIA helped encourage to revolt). The problem is that whatever government we install is likely to have to do the same. Saddam's greatest crime was constantly thumbing his nose at the West. However, by doing so, he gained credibility among a people that have little trust for the United States, and have long been exploited by western powers (watch Lawrence of Arabia and consider for exactly how long the people in the area have been exploited as political tools, and why there is so much anti-western sentiment).
I don't agree that Afghanistan had more to do with 9/11 than Saudi Arabia, but I'll agree that targetting regimes didn't make much sense -- we just really didn't have anything else to do, and had to do *something*.
May we never see th
I *just* read this http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1072 142004 before I saw this story. Really I think the 22nd century will see the Western world relapse yet again into a dark age. Perhaps it will the Arabs and the Chinese to rise. However, has technology progressed to the point a police state can never be toppled? I'm not some fanatic but I'm pretty sure that in 200 years America will be in a dismal state. It will also be interesting how the arts and philosophy will change. As-is America is the biggest influence right now. Sorry this kinda got OT.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
Thereby causing nuclear retaliation and counter-attacks, ensuring the death of humanity. Including you. But then it would be too late for the rest of us to kick your ass for being such an extremist as to go nuclear in the first place. We'd be dead too. Thanks, Sparky.
So you're saying that Bush is responsible for al-Qaeda making such an impact in our consciousness? I agree.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Question: If you had a choice of these two economic potentialities, which one would you choose?
A) 50% make $110,000.00 a year and 50% make $10,000.00
-or-
B) Everyone makes $60,000.00 a year
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Here is some clarification.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
I should have known better than to venture into the politics section on Slashdot, but so far it appears the moderation is being done by untrained monkeys.
The parent post simply reads like a rant written by a 12 year old on AOL, and it gets modded "Insightful."
Then again, I guess this kind of thing may actually be insightful to those with limited intelligence.
Dameron supports Gutierrez.
Ergo, Dameron is a racist. Likely a racist Hispanic.
What's wrong with that view?
I fail to see why creating roads needs to be government function. Private airlines and railroads are also available to transport goods. In fact, government subsidizing the highway system was one of the things that backrupted many railroads. And I fail to see why the wealthy should be any more responsible for the upkeep of infrastructure than anyone else.
You really are out there. You honestly believe that the entire country should be enmeshed in a tangle of privately funded roads, probably one in which there would be toll booths every 3 miles and one in which multiple parallel roads were built for economic gain? Wow. As to why the wealthy shoul be more responsible for the costs: Because they can afford it.
Oh, give me a break! Who's in a better position to afford his own security, you or Bill Gates? Obviously, he can afford his own security.
So why are wealthy people constantly being kidnapped in South America and held for ransom? Personal security guards don't save your ass when there is anarchy all around. Just ask anyone who's been to Iraq.
Come to think of it, most lower income people aren't paying income taxes anyway.
Lower income = people below the median, most of whom pay taxes.
So how does giving the rich a tax cut harm the poor again?
Worse schools, fewer police, cuts in programs like Head Start, increased federal debt (meaning that more future tax dollars will be supporting that debt rather than paying for needed services), fewer needs-based scholarships, etc.
Not all "hard work" necessarily creates value. Simply because you work hard doesn't necessarily mean you're entitled to compensation for it.
You're the one who used the phrase "hard work," so don't attack me for addressing my argument to your terms. And lose the new-age BS about "creating value." Just what "value" is being created by some kid who is heir to some fortune? What value is being created by some guy who moves money around playing the market?
So let me re-phrase that: Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?
If they violate the tax code, they should be subject to the same tax penalties that anyone would be.
Explain to me how a CEO's earning more money translates to a laborer earning less money?
Let's play a game. I'll be the CEO and you be the laborer. The company payroll will be a big bucket of money in between us. I'll take my salary out first and you get what's left.
Better still explain to me how a CEO paying less taxes produces that outcome.
Because if he pays less taxes, those with lower incomes pay more. That means that take-home pay for the laborer is less.
If I'm getting my pay cut to less then what the market is willing to pay for my skills, then I go find a job that's paying the current market value for them.
Then you are obviously someone in the lower end of the job market. Sure, you can go from your job at Walmart to one at Food Lion fairly easily and your employer will provide on-the-job training. For thos
He wouldn't like either. He wants a system where 1% of the people get 99% of the money. He wants the Donald Trumps of the world to be deified while those who lack the education or intelligence to compete for upper-level, white collar jobs to get just enough so that they don't die (and stop working for his company).
Damn I wish that I could mod you up!
I'm disgusted by right-wing whiners who view taxes as some kind of punishment being doled out. They want police patrolling their neighborhoods. They want their kids going to good schools. They want mandatory minimums for drug users (except Rush Limbaugh). They want to wage war in every country where English isn't the primary language. They want to increase the size of the military, add entire new agencies like the Department of Father^h^h^h^h^h^hHomeland Security, and install filtering software in every library so that poor women can't read about breast cancer and teens can't learn about birth control. They want cops on overtime each time the color-coded terrorism warning level is ratcheted up in response to finding a three year old vacation video taken by a Muslim. But they don't want to pay taxes.
By the way, it was $7000 to cover up the breasts on the statue. And the right-wing has the audacity to claim the Democrats are wasting our tax dollars!
The big assumption of the article is that anything Republican is evil. Hate to say it but we are not.
/. are Republicans. We just don't feel like putting up with the BS so either we don't post or post Anonymous.
And something to think about: A divided country means that half of the people who read
I'd like to know about experiences of **USA**citizens** in *leaving* the USA.
It must be recent and must involve travel directly to another sovereign nation.
The whole point of this, is to learn if it is the USA's future plan,
or current policy or practice (even if ineffective),
to comprehensively track/record, and/or control in real-time,
*departures* by *all* persons, including USA citizens.
I'm not concerned if the destination countries' officials demanded your ID.
But I'd like to know if the logistics/mechanics of the exit procedure,
make it possible for a USA citizen to pass
-- from USA jurisdiction,
-- completely through debarkation and then on to mingling anonymously in the destination country,
-- without any USA authority first having the opportunity to decide to bar your exit
-- or decide to have you detained upon debarkation,
-- and without violating USA law.
I realize this sounds conspiratorial. I'm asking in order to resolve a civil-liberties question arising from discussions in slashdot politics/rights stories.
It would be helpful to hear from at least one person in each of the five categories of:
(1) by commercial flight
(2) by commercial ocean cruise (e.g., US to Jamaica or Latin America)
(3) by rail
(4) by private auto
(5) on foot (and not in a tour group).
Those last two are especially important, since commercial cross-border travel is (I believe) virtually impossible without presenting ID to *someone* before departure.
It would be ideal if you were crossing without any concrete evidence of an intention to return to the USA (i.e. no return ticket or reservation).
I'd also like to hear about at least one auto/pedestrian crossing to Canada, because of the Canada-USA "Smart Borders" pact.
Please tell me where you exited, your vehicle, your destination, and how recently.
IS IT possible for a USA citizen legally to exit the USA absent from real-time control by USA authorities?
And finally: is the answer any different compared to before 9/11?
I'll help you out by ruling some one.
I'd like to know about experiences of **USA**citizens** in *leaving* the USA.
The whole point of this, is to learn if it is the USA's future plan,
or current policy or practice (even if ineffective),
to comprehensively track/record, and/or control in real-time,
*departures* by all persons, *including* USA citizens.
It must be recent and must involve travel directly to another sovereign nation.
I'm not concerned if the destination countries' officials demanded your ID.
But I'd like to know if the logistics/mechanics of the exit procedure,
make it possible for a USA citizen to pass
-- from USA jurisdiction,
-- completely through debarkation and then on to mingling anonymously in the destination country,
-- without any USA authority first having the opportunity to decide to bar your exit
-- or decide to have you detained upon debarkation,
-- and without violating USA law.
I realize this sounds conspiratorial. I'm asking in order to resolve a civil-liberties question arising from discussions in slashdot politics/rights stories.
It would be helpful to hear from at least one person in each of the five categories of:
(1) by commercial flight
(2) by commercial ocean cruise (e.g., US to Jamaica or Latin America)
(3) by rail
(4) by private auto
(5) on foot (and not in a tour group).
Those last two are especially important, since commercial cross-border travel is (I believe) virtually impossible without presenting ID to *someone* before departure.
It would be ideal if you were crossing without any concrete evidence of an intention to return to the USA (i.e. no return ticket or reservation).
I'd also like to hear about at least one auto/pedestrian crossing to Canada, because of the Canada-USA "Smart Borders" pact.
Please tell me where you exited, your mode of transport, your destination, and how recently.
IS IT possible for a USA citizen legally to exit the USA absent from real-time control by USA authorities?
And finally: is the answer any different compared to before 9/11?
They got kicked off their land, that's what they were doing there. The industrial workforce was built through a series of vicious landgrabs, which displaced large segments of the peasant population and forced them into the factories.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
After all, if you're in the 100K+ bracket, and don't have any immediate family / friends in the military, it's beneficial to vote for the guy who is going to cut taxes (or at least keep them the same) on the rich.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
As is typical for right-wingers who believe capitalism is the be-all-end-all of existence, you ignore what you can't easily answer:
To answer your question, I favor tax policies which do the least harm. I favor tax policies which make it possible for the working poor to better their lives. I favor tax policies which don't take food off of tables. I favor tax policies which allow a middle-income family to send their children to good colleges. That means getting the lion's share of the money from the people who can most afford it. If it's a choice between taking money from someone who then won't be able to afford health insurance or taking money from a millionaire, I favor a tax policy which takes from the millionaire.
What's wrong with that view?
Actually, I can answer it easily, the problem being I don't really want to waste about 6 posts teasing out what you really mean by "tax policies which do the least harm", because, what you are positing has nothing to do with tax policy, per se, that is, equitably distributing the legitimate cost of government doing the things it has a Constitutional authorization to do, such as providing a common defense and running the post office.
What you are actually saying is that you favor Government by Robin Hood - you propose to confiscate wealth from those who justly acquired it to provide goods and services for those who didn't.
I favor tax policies which make it possible for the working poor to better their lives.
Since the working poor already pay little if anything in taxes already, tax policy has little if anything to do with their condition. So I have to assume that "tax policy" is merely a euphemism for "wealth transfer".
Please explain why you think the poor should have first claim over everybody else? Why does being poor amount to a right to other people's property?
I favor tax policies which allow a middle-income family to send their children to good colleges. That means getting the lion's share of the money from the people who can most afford it.
I favor people taking responsibility for their own actions and living within their means. Meaning if you can't afford to feed, clothe, educate and supply your children with health care, don't have them.
Exactly, where do you get the idea that "the people who can most afford it" should be responsible for other people living beyond their means?
If it's a choice between taking money from someone who then won't be able to afford health insurance or taking money from a millionaire, I favor a tax policy which takes from the millionaire.
I favor everybody paying for what they consume. The fact that Bill Gates may have an ungodly amount of money doesn't make him your daddy. You are still responsible for meeting your own obligations.
What's wrong with that view?
I'll tell you what's wrong with that: what you're saying is that if I make good decisions, such as pursuing a lucrative career, you want to share in my success without having to make the sacrifices I made to pursue that success. If we're going to be re-distributing the consequences of my decisions and actions, why don't we be a little more equitable about it?
Try this on for size: if, instead of working my ass off and earning a pile of money, I decide to get myself royaly drunk, get in my car and run over an old lady. Are you equally willing to share my jail cell with me as you are to share my wealth if I make good decisions rather than bad ones?
I didn't think so. What you're saying is, you want the benefits of my efforts without having to incur any of the costs of them. Conversely, you are also saying you want me to incur the costs of your decisions and actions, without having any of the benefits. It doesn't do a damn thing for me if you decide to propogate your DNA, but you still expect me to absorb the cost of it's education and health care. Not a good deal from my perspective.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
I need $1000 to fund the draping of the naked breasts of a judicial statue. Who is it better for me to take that $1000 from? The rich guy, who would have used it to upgrade from coach to first class on his annual vacation to Bermuda? Or the poor guy, who would have used it to make rent and utilities for two months, and maybe buy a bus pass because his rustmobile finally gave up the ghost?
How about charging a flat fee to everyone who's a beneficiary of the service?
When I go to buy a loaf of bread, no one asks me how much money I have. A loaf of bread costs what a loaf of bread costs. And if I want a loaf of bread, I have to pay what it costs whether I'm Bill Gates or Joe Ditchdigger.
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people,
Who said that it was? It sure isn't my goal!
soak the rich seems like a sensible economic policy.
In that case, I propose we re-implement the institution of slavery. While I acknowledge that some individuals will have their right to liberty compromised, there can be little doubt that the benefits accrued to the majority will justify the sacrifice on the part of the enslaved. Indeed, the South has never recovered economicly as a result of it's eradication. Besides, if the slaves want to live in this society and enjoy it's benefits, then they obviously have a moral obligation to make this small sacrifice in the interest of the Common Good.
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people, slavery seems like a sensible economic policy.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
I offer a different goal:
While minimizing the decrease in happiness to some, we should increase the happiness of as many people as possible.
Your slavery example doesn't work here.
As for charging a flat fee, would the poor and middle class approve that? I think not because they'd want their money going to more important things. The wealthy who can pay more can pay to cover the breasts. The have-not's certainly won't approve their taxes going up to 30% to make up for the wealthy dropping from 36%. The result is all kinds of federal programs being cut. Funding for National Parks, transportation projects, arts, space, education. That'll be a fast way to send the country into the toilet. Only the wealthy living in Malibu, the Hamptons, and other expensive towns will have the property tax base to make up the difference.
Whups, just read the long exchange you're having a few comments down. Don't bother replying to the last two sentences as I can guess your arguments.
I can spend 5 minutes googling:
d dam/
t ml
/
q .abbas.arrested/
Financial support of palestinian suicide-bombers:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/06/time.sa
Financial and logistcal support, and training, of terrorist organizations:
http://www.terrorismanswers.org/groups/abunidal.h
Attacks against the US, ignoring 10 years of anti-aircraft fire and the attempted assassination of a former US president:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/cfr/stories/iraq
This article also points out careful selective support of ogranizations that are not a threat to him.
Providing safe harbor for a terrorist who killed a wheelchair bound American:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.ir
Not bad for 5 minutes googling, give it a try.
why don't you shut the fuck up and listen to what he said instead of being a gay faggot attack robot. Stop your faggoty "well kerry did this!" lameness and reread what he said and see if it can sink into your fucking pathetic tiny head. Child.
Commie!/p.
I wouldn't like it any more than I like the fact that a knucklehead like you is allowed anywhere near a voting booth.
Since we've sunken to name calling, I'll be blunt: I am more intelligent, informed, and ethical than you will ever be. What saddens me is that people like you, who care only for themselves and not a wit for their fellow man, get to place votes which affect us all.
What you are actually saying is that you favor Government by Robin Hood - you propose to confiscate wealth from those who justly acquired it to provide goods and services for those who didn't.
Or couldn't (e.g., the handicapped, war widows, etc.). Yes. You've got it. There is a reason that Robin Hood is viewed as a heroic figure by millions. You need to do some soul searching when you detest him.
So I have to assume that "tax policy" is merely a euphemism for "wealth transfer".
"Tax policy" means policies having to do with the collection and expenditure of tax revenue.
Please explain why you think the poor should have first claim over everybody else? Why does being poor amount to a right to other people's property?
Because we are a society, not a bunch of pack animals that abandon the weak among us to die (as you would do). As to your "property", it's untouched. Only a portion of your money is paid in taxes.
I favor everybody paying for what they consume.
I don't. I don't believe that someone in poverty should be charged a fee to have the police investigate the burglary of their home. But, unlike you, I don't like kicking people when they are down.
I favor people taking responsibility for their own actions and living within their means. Meaning if you can't afford to feed, clothe, educate and supply your children with health care, don't have them.
And what happens when the family breadwinner is killed in Iraq and suddenly mom has a six year old and a three year old and nothing but a meager surviviors' benefits to live on? Yeah, nothing ever is unplanned. Nothing ever goes wrong. No one has ever had a family member develop cancer or suffer a debilitating injury. It's all just lazy welfare mothers trying to steal your precious money.
Since the working poor already pay little if anything in taxes already, tax policy has little if anything to do with their condition.
Isn't tax policy the reason that they pay very little in taxes? If the policy were changed to one you would favor, it would do them harm. See, tax policy affects us all.
Kindly explain why someone would incur the expense of building a parallel road if there wasn't a need for it.
Because Bob's road has a toll of $4 and Tom thinks that he can make money by building a parallel road with a toll of $3. Then Joe thinks that he can undercut them both for $2.50 and then buy them out when they go under. And then there are three side-by-side toll roads.
And how many people are traveling to Iraq with personal security guards, anyway?
Our troops are serving as personal security guards for many in the Iraqi government.
Really? I seem to recollect that congress passed an all-around tax cut several years ago at the behest of the President. Whose taxes went up? Nobody's that I know.
Yeah. That $400+billion dollar deficit this year will be paid down by people shitting money out their asses. Just because Bush is willing to spend us into unfathomable debt doesn't mean no one will ever have to pay.
Obviously, he was valuable enough to his parents that they saw fit to leave him the money. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what the rest of us consider valuable. Nor do you have any business imposing your sense of what's valuable on us.
So who are you to decide who's "creating value"? You said that the rich create value, so what value is he creating by inheriting money?
Telling me that the doctors of sub
Name a mode of transportation that does not rely heavily on government subsadies.
He's arguing for "user fees" for all government services. But you can bet that he would be the first one whining if he owned a company and suddenly had to pay user fees to transport his goods on government-subsidized railroads, airlines, roads, and waterways.
I'll tell you what's wrong with that: what you're saying is that if I make good decisions, such as pursuing a lucrative career, you want to share in my success without having to make the sacrifices I made to pursue that success. If we're going to be re-distributing the consequences of my decisions and actions, why don't we be a little more equitable about it?
What about the CS grads who started in 1997 when the market was heating up? Their senior year, the bubble has burst, and they can't get a job. The people who graduated a year or three before them got a little experience and were among the first to lose jobs. What jobs are available go to those with 10 years, then 5, 3, 2, even a year of experience. The new grads are just screwed because of bad luck?
Sometimes good decisions, even outside of IT, get trumped by bad luck. See 9/11 and how it effected promising careers in the airlines. See anyone who couldn't find a job in cities where airline layoffs sent thousands competing in the non-airline markets.
Since we've sunken to name calling, I'll be blunt: I am more intelligent, informed, and ethical than you will ever be.
Um, okay. If you say so.
What saddens me is that people like you, who care only for themselves and not a wit for their fellow man, get to place votes which affect us all.
I wouldn't worry about it, as I usually vote for the candidate most likely to go away and leave me alone. You're the one who wants a government that constantly meddles in our lives and our wallets. I submit I have more to worry about from you're vote than you do from mine.
There is a reason that Robin Hood is viewed as a heroic figure by millions. You need to do some soul searching when you detest him.
If a thief is your idea of a role model, I submit you need to do some soul searching yourself. So much for your alleged ethical superiority. Some people considered Al Capone to be a public benefactor as well. I'm not one of them.
Because we are a society, not a bunch of pack animals that abandon the weak among us to die (as you would do).
Exactly, what "society" are you refering to? The Amish? The Hutterites? The Native Americans? You seem to have a problem distinguishing between political jurisdictions and society. As a country, we are not "a" society, we are an aggregate of societies, many of which have little to do with each other. I can assure you, your government programs are of little value to the Amish, since they don't participate in them. Likewise, unless you are Amish yourself, the doings of Amish society probably don't affect you in the least. As Margaret Thatcher put it, "There is no "society", there are only individuals and families".
Because Bob's road has a toll of $4 and Tom thinks that he can make money by building a parallel road with a toll of $3. Then Joe thinks that he can undercut them both for $2.50 and then buy them out when they go under. And then there are three side-by-side toll roads.
See? Competition is a wonderful thing for the consumer. And what's the problem with parallel roads? Go to any city and you'll find plenty of 'em, exactly one block away from each other. That's why they call 'em blocks.
That $400+billion dollar deficit this year will be paid down by people shitting money out their asses. Just because Bush is willing to spend us into unfathomable debt doesn't mean no one will ever have to pay.
Oh, I agree - but you said it yourself, that's a problem with spending beyond our means, not an inherent problem with the tax reduction.
And that still doesn't answer my question - whose taxes went up?
So who are you to decide who's "creating value"? You said that the rich create value, so what value is he creating by inheriting money?
The point is, I don't presume to decide who's creating value, I'm contented to let everyone decide what's valuable themselves, and spend their money accordingly. I assume that a lot of people believe Microsoft creates value, because they give them a lot of money in exchange for their products. Apparently a lot of people think Anheuser-Busch creates value, because a lot of people drink Budwiser. Personally, I think it tastes like piss, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean I want to stop Anheuser-Busch from selling their product, or that I'm going to decide they don't "deserve" their money and insist the government confiscates it to give to the poor. What value their product has is between them and their customers. It's none of my business. Nor your's, for that matter.
I'm trying to get through to you that a person's value to society is not measured by the size of their paycheck.
Society, my ass! "Society" doesn't write any paychecks. And there's no such thing as an intrinsic "value to society". Let me ask you this: when you hire a kid to mow your lawn, do you pay him according to his "value to society", or do you pay him according to what having your lawn mowed
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
What about the CS grads who started in 1997 when the market was heating up? Their senior year, the bubble has burst, and they can't get a job. The people who graduated a year or three before them got a little experience and were among the first to lose jobs. What jobs are available go to those with 10 years, then 5, 3, 2, even a year of experience. The new grads are just screwed because of bad luck?
Well guy, it's like this - I wound up in I/T because I majored in music and philosophy, and I hate machines. Them's the breaks.
Cry me a river, already!
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
So do you admit that the haves can become have-nots by misfortune and no fault of their own? To help have-nots improve their lives I support many of the social programs government funds.
Also, by fortune/luck have-nots can become haves. It can also help haves do even better. So using some wealth from the haves to help the have-nots seems reasonable instead of leaving the fallen to suffer.
You're the one who wants a government that constantly meddles in our lives and our wallets.
No, I want a government that spends responsibly, taxes adequately to cover the spending, and does not meddle in people's lives. Unfortunately, the Republicans spend vastly more than is covered by taxes, cut taxes anyway, and then waste time meddling in people's lives by trying to outlaw gay marriage and abortion while pushing legislation that gives them secret police powers to spy on us without even getting warrants.
If a thief is your idea of a role model, I submit you need to do some soul searching yourself. So much for your alleged ethical superiority.
He was considered a heroic figure because he stood up to an oppressive ruling class who was making the lives of the average person miserable.
Exactly, what "society" are you refering to?
The people of the United States, which Lyndon Johnson referred to as "Great Society."
See? Competition is a wonderful thing for the consumer. And what's the problem with parallel roads?
When they aren't needed? Quite a lot. Flooding and erosion are some examples when you block rainwater's access to the ground under the roads. Quality of life for people living near the roads.
Oh, I agree - but you said it yourself, that's a problem with spending beyond our means, not an inherent problem with the tax reduction.
And that still doesn't answer my question - whose taxes went up?
No ones taxes went up -- yet. But they will and by a lot as we, and future generations, have to pay down the debt accrued under this administration.
The point is, I don't presume to decide who's creating value
Then why did you ask: "Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?"
Anyway, who died and left you as the spokesman for "society"?
I was appointed the task by a higher authority.
What I said was: I'd say that given most of our elected government officials are Republicans. The president aside, that's a majority in the House and the Senate, plus 2/3 of the state governerships.
But you ignore the fact that conservative states like Utah with very low populations get one governor and two senators just like populous states like California and New York. I chose the Presidential election because that's the one office that all Americans can vote for. For three straight Presidential elections, the Democratic candidate got more votes than the Republican.
That's less than 0.06%, which any pollster can tell you is well within the margin of error.
Try again. A poll's margin of error has nothing to do with the accuracy of a vote count in an election. They are unrelated. When Gallup says that a poll has a margin of error of 2%, it is based on statistical analysis of the sample size. An election has a sample size of 100% (or should) in that all votes are counted. The larger the number of votes, the less chance there is that a recount will significantly change the results.
Although, I must say, considering some of your comments, I find your contention that you're any better informed than the rest of the American electorate to be laughable, at best.
Given that the comment is coming from someone with misconceptions about everything from margins of errors to the use of insurance company firemarks, I'm not going to get too worked up about it.
Um, and what is it that you call it when Democrats buy votes through the creation of wealth redistribution programs?
Democrats get votes by proposing government spending to better the lives of people. They don't say "elect me and I'll send you a check for $300 out of the Treasury."
Look up "oligopoly."
Um, yeah. While you're at it, look up "Grassy Knoll" and "Space Aliens".
Since you are obviously unfamiliar with standard terms used by economists, an "oligopoly" is a
And in that time we've maintained the best quality of life on the planet.
According to who? Certianly not the UN.
Norway has been ranked as having the top quality of life for the past four years in a row. Before that Cnaad won for several years in a row.
The US currently sits in eighth place. It often isn't even in the top 10.
Get your facts straight.
You don't have to be rich to go to a private school. My daughter has gone to a private school for years, and I am far from rich. At best, upper middle-class, more realistically middle middle-class.
And I pay taxes to support public schools every year.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
One might think you are unaware that Robin Hood was stealing from the tax-collectors, and returning the money to the ones it was collected from.
Nah, that couldn't be, though...;)
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
And that would be...?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
No, I think the Kerry issues are far, far worse. His bogus medals and his treasonous actions following Vietnam far outweigh the so called "missing year."
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Wrong.
Banks are legally required to keep a fairly small percentage of their current deposit total on hand. The rest gets loaned out via various means. Thats HOW THEY MAKE MONEY. Do you really think that banks are going to sit on large sums of money that they could instead be using to make a larger profit? I'd be a little surprised if Chase Manhattan had $5 billion dollars on hand at any given point in time, let alone a mid to small sized bank.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
He's either a liar or he's grossly incompetent - which of those options is more comforting?
His administration has been wrong on so many things and yet it's always someone else's fault. Just once, i'd like to hear them say, "We acted on bad intelligence and we take responsibility for the results. We should have had it double-checked. We should have required a minority position report. We've learned from that mistake and we'll do better in the future."
They can't even admit that they have ever made a mistake, much less take reponsibility for the repercussions.
To Bush & Co, saying the same thing over and over again, even if it's wrong, is better than acknowledging a mistake and changing your position. The concept of learning from one's mistakes is unknown to them. In their world, it's called flip-flopping.
Someone else is responsible for claiming that Iraq tried to buy Uranium from Nigeria. Someone else is responsible for saying that Saddam had lots of WMD's and that we knew right where they were. Someone else leaked the identity of an undercover CIA operative. Someone else is responsible for the mistaken assumption that Iraqis would welcome us with open arms and thank us for invading their country. Someone else is responsible for "Mission Accomplished." Someone else allowed prisoners to be tortured. Someone else is turning this election into the sleaziest, dirtiest mud-slinging campaign ever.
If "someone else" really is responsible for all that, then i still blame Bush for not checking to see if "someone else" was full of shit. Where does the buck stop?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
One might think you are unaware that Robin Hood was stealing from the tax-collectors, and returning the money to the ones it was collected from.
I was very much aware of that, having long ago read the story of Robin Hood (in addition to seeing various adaptations on the screen).
One reason that I felt it particularly appropriate is that my adversary in this debate is very much of the mindset of Prince John, the Sheriff of Nottingham and Sir Guy of Gisbourne, believing that it is wholly appropriate to tax the poor to the point of starvation.
I have no idea how much demand there is for loans. If demand were only 50% of assets they could potentially keep 50% right? Is this at all related to the national debt? As in, if the US had 7 trillion more dollars locally, would demand for loans still be such a large percentage?
Thanks for clearing up where he stands on these things.
I think his biggest complaint would be with the inevatable cost of the calculation of fees, shirkers, transaction costs (think of toll booths, they are not fun places, or the alternative EZpass where they track where you are and send you tickets for speeding based on your average speed between booths), incorrect calculations...
Wait a minute, didn't you mean take $1000 less from the wealthy. The government doesn't "give" tax cuts. It's a matter of "taking" less. Saying that the government gave you a $1000 tax cut is like saying that after a theif robbed you at gunpoint, he gave you back $20.
Not necessarily- there are lots of other ways than tax breaks that the government can give money to the wealthy. Just a few: sweetheart contracts with the military, privatisation of water supplies, cheap access to natural resources, etc.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people,
Who said that it was? It sure isn't my goal!
Then you don't believe in the Declaration of Independance and the basic principles of Constitutional Government?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Then you don't believe in the Declaration of Independance and the basic principles of Constitutional Government?
In the first place, the Declaration of Independence is just that - a declation of independence. It has no standing whatever in law. It is not the Constitution.
In the second place, even if it did, the Declaration merely states we have a pre-existing (unalienable) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it state that these rights are dependent on the government, and it certainly doesn't guaruntee that it's the government's responsibility to make a single soul happy, let alone "maximize the happiness of most people". It simply states that we all have the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't state that happiness is birthright, nor that the government's job is to provide it.
Maybe you should try reading those venerable documents before arguing their contents.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
So do you admit that the haves can become have-nots by misfortune and no fault of their own?
Of course they can. I can get run over by a bus through no fault of my own, too.
If that happens, is it okay if my relatives send you the bill for my funeral? After all, if it's not my fault I get killed, that means it's a total stranger's responsibility to cover my expenses, right?
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
I didn't know I said that. And the idea that Bush is responsible for al-Qaeda's shenannigans, when al-Queda declared its war on us when he was Texas governor, is quite laughable. Or too convoluted to parse. Your pick.
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
You couldn't be more wrong. When it comes to failing to keep a Republic, there is NO difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Lincoln, a Republican, destroyed the republic, and substituted "Democracy", meaning majority rule, which really is rule by special interests (see rational apathy and public choice). He jailed all opponents who spoke out against him,suspended the Constitution, deported a senator (twice), and violated every tenet of the brand-new Geneva Conventions by killing and plundering civilians as well as soldiers on his way through the South. His successors continued this successful strategy with the Plains Indians. In both cases, the principle beneficiaries were railroads, shipping companies, and Northern manufacturers. Least helped were the southerners, and the former slaves themselves, who never received the grants of land and money they were promised. A brief respite occurred under Grover Cleveland (a Democrat) who was probably the last president who understood what the Constitution said. He vetoed everything that wasn't clearly authorized by the constitution. Teddy Roosevelt (Republican)led us into the Spanish-American War, and turned the basic character of our nation from a democracy to an empire. Wilson (Democrat) extended the empire and entrenched the military-industrial complex fully within the government. He also created the conditions for the rise of Hitler and the fall of the Chinese nationalists. Hoover (Republican) destroyed trade, followed by Roosevelt (Democrat) who destroyed capitalism and replaced it with state-managed capitalistic socialism. Truman is a war criminal, the only person ever to use nuclear weapons in conflict (against civilians). Eisenhower and Kennedy got us into useless wars. Nixon controlled wages and prices, and introduced huge amounts of regulation (EPA, OSHA). Carter deregulated (partially) a couple of industries, while Reagan eliminated gas price controls but doubled the size of government and developed our republic's habit of interfering in things not our business. Clinton killed thousands in Iraq through sanctions, which Madeline Albright said was "worth it". He repeated this performance in Bosnia and Kosovo. He also destroyed the economy by prosecuting Microsoft and leaving Alan Greenspan in charge of the Fed. His attorney general was also the first federal officer to stage a military assault on US citizens since Lincoln. And finally Bush and Co. , elected, like Clinton, without a majority, are busy dismantling the last vestiges of our Republican liberty, while killing tens of thousands. And so on. It matters very little which of the two parties is in office - both have an abysmal record of killing and stealing in the name of "democracy" (note, not "republic"). The Republic bequeathed to us by the founders is long gone. Get over it already.
No, I want a government that spends responsibly, taxes adequately to cover the spending, and does not meddle in people's lives.
Dude, when a government takes it upon itself to decide how much of your wealth you "deserve", it is meddling in your life.
Unfortunately, the Republicans spend vastly more than is covered by taxes, cut taxes anyway, and then waste time meddling in people's lives by trying to outlaw gay marriage and abortion while pushing legislation that gives them secret police powers to spy on us without even getting warrants.
I have no problem agreeing with that statement.
He was considered a heroic figure because he stood up to an oppressive ruling class who was making the lives of the average person miserable.
As the other poster pointed out, he stood up to a government that was forcibly redistributing other people's property. In other words, he was defending private property, not negating the right to it. However, in the popular conception, he is remembered as "robbing from the rich, and giving to the poor", as if that were a just and noble pursuit in it's own right. Unfortunately, that conception is used by people like yourself to justify what amounts to parasitism on the part of the poor.
The people of the United States, which Lyndon Johnson referred to as "Great Society."
Lyndon Johnson was wrong. The United States is a country, not a "society". Which is why most of his Great Society programs fell on their faces and wound up getting repealed by subsequent administrations. Like you, Johnson was unable to understand the distinction between the population inhabiting a given political jurisdiction, and a society, which exists apart from and prior to any political institution.
When they aren't needed?
What determines "need"?
Flooding and erosion are some examples when you block rainwater's access to the ground under the roads.
I think it might be time for you to go out and look at a road. Most of them are paved with a crown, which allows the water to run off to the sides.
Quality of life for people living near the roads.
Uh, I think most people consider access to roads a feature rather than a bug. And as I pointed out before, in most cases roads are built in parallel by design, anyway. How many miles do you usually have to drive on any given road to cross any number of roads that are built parallel to each other? Again, as I pointed out, in any city, they will be approximately one block away from each other.
No ones taxes went up -- yet. But they will and by a lot as we, and future generations, have to pay down the debt accrued under this administration.
I grant that that's an entirely possible outcome, but it isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion. I heard the same kind of bitching and moaning under Reagan, and within 12 years Democrats were crying about how Clinton left us a budget surplus (which actually never materialized, it was merely projected). Note that I've never said I was a fan of the Bush administration.
Then why did you ask: "Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?"
Perhaps I made an erroneous assumption - I assumed if you own something like a car, a house, or a computer, you would grant that an Evil Rich corporation or individual had provided you with something of value.
If, however, you live in the woods in a lean-to, I'm prepared to retract the statement.
But you ignore the fact that conservative states like Utah with very low populations get one governor and two senators just like populous states like California and New York.
The last time I checked, both California and New York had Republican governors. Proving that, even in those bastions of parasitism, there are still sufficient votes to elect Republicans.
I chose the Presidential election because that's the one office that all Americans c
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
The law of supply and demand applies to bank loans, the same as everything else. If there is a huge supply of loans and little demand, the interest rate will go down as banks compete with each other to get the borrowers, and as the interest rate goes down, more borrowers will enter the market until a median is reached.
Also, I believe most banks actually loan out more money than they take in, by borrowing from the Federal Reserve Bank at low rates and then loaning out at slightly higher rates.
Banks can also loan out money in excess of their deposits by selling their loans once they have made the loan (which is done in almost every case with mortgages, which are sold to someone like Fannie-Mae). By doing that, banks are able to make more loans without putting themselves at as much personal risk (Fannie-Mae can withstand a lot more defaulted loans than your small-town local bank).
In practice, the percentage of the economy that exists in hard currency is actually very low (I'm thinking something like 20%).
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
Bad example since your relatives can sue the bus company. If a deer runs in front of your car and there was nothing you could do, I wouldn't be opposed to there being some sort of government assistance. I don't think government or myself should pay the entire bill, but some part of it to ease your family's burden.
What currently happens when a family in a ghetto or living out of a car is too broke to pay for a funeral? What happens to the body? Does the city, county, or state pay for cremation and disposal at a landfill?
Besides, there is no way for the dead (have-nots, live-nots) to become alive (haves). So do you still want the unlucky haves-to-have-nots to be SOL if you or other haves chose not to help?
I have no problem agreeing with that statement.
I knew if we argued enough, we'd eventually find something to agree on.
As the other poster pointed out, he stood up to a government that was forcibly redistributing other people's property.
Poor people's property. That's the key. He was standing up to a government that was taking money from those who could least afford it. Do you think he would have been viewed as a hero if he took money from the government and gave it to Dukes, Earls, and Lords?
Lyndon Johnson was wrong.
No, he was right. We've been referred to as a society by many, many learned people.
I think it might be time for you to go out and look at a road. Most of them are paved with a crown, which allows the water to run off to the sides.
Where the water faeries make it disappear harmlessly. I think you need to talk to any road engineer who will set you straight on the problems of flooding and erosion caused by road building. In brief, "urbanization" drastically alters the drainage characteristics of natural drainage areas by increasing the volume and rate of surface runoff. While the impact on major river systems may be minimal, the carrying capacity of small streams is often quickly exceeded, causing flooding and erosion problems.
Uh, I think most people consider access to roads a feature rather than a bug.
Good. I hope that they build a freeway through your back yard and you can have the joy of easy access to that road.
Again, as I pointed out, in any city, they will be approximately one block away from each other.
And in public restrooms, urinals are approximately two feet from each other, so your bathroom at home should have a row of urinals two feet apart? That's the advantage of having governments build roads: They can plan and build where appropriate, not just where some rich guy can collect the most tolls.
I grant that that's an entirely possible outcome, but it isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion.
It's too dangerous an outcome to risk.
And in the previous 2 elections, neither the Republican or the Democrat earned a majority of votes. Clinton won with a plurality each time.
So your earlier statement about most Americans agreeing with your position was wrong.
Since were talking about less than 1% of the vote, there doesn't need to be a significant change in the result to alter the outcome of an election. Are you arguing that every state except Florida counted their votes with 100% accuracy?
No, I'm arguing that the errors would have been very evenly distributed due to the total number of votes.
I understand that. I also understand that no such situation exists, outside of the skulls of conspiracy theorists.
Ivy League professors and respected economists would giggle at that statement.
Thank you, now tell me what part of that article contradicted my statement. In fact, given that it stated quite clearly that volunteer fire departments would fight fires even in abscence of a fire mark, I'd say it strengthens my position.
Your position was that individual insurance carriers provided firefighting while it was clearly not the case and that, even in the absence of insurance, the fire would be put out.
There's no guaruntee now that the police would even show up, even as a publicly funded institution.
But in your world, it's guaranteed that they wouldn not if you didn't have the cash to pay them to. Women who were victims of domestic abuse would have to have the cash to get the police out to their home. Yeah, that's a pretty picture.
If Tommy's parents took it upon themselves to have children without being able to provide for them properly, they should be tossed in jail for criminal negligance.
So why do you believe that the kid should suffer for it? He did nothing wrong. But you want t
EZpass where they track where you are and send you tickets for speeding based on your average speed between booths
What state do they do this in? I've never heard of it happening and have been using EZ-Pass (and speeding) since it debuted in the NYC/NJ area.
And that still doesn't answer my question - whose taxes went up?
A lot of peoples'. While Federal taxes may have gone down, the States responded to lower Federal funding by jacking up sales taxes, property taxes, luxury/vice taxes, and other government fees. For most families, these increases far outweighed the couple hundred bucks they got from Bush.
In the first place, the Declaration of Independence is just that - a declation of independence. It has no standing whatever in law. It is not the Constitution.
Agreed- it's a mere declaration of the principles of the revolution. I personally think it's time for those principles again- because we've gotten so far away from them.
In the second place, even if it did, the Declaration merely states we have a pre-existing (unalienable) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it state that these rights are dependent on the government, and it certainly doesn't guaruntee that it's the government's responsibility to make a single soul happy, let alone "maximize the happiness of most people". It simply states that we all have the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't state that happiness is birthright, nor that the government's job is to provide it.
The problem is that the corporations (which have become the real government, the Consititution is effectively a sham document at this point, our so-called democracy nothing more than a puppet of the corporations) are actively denying people the right to the persuit of happiness. In fact, if you've ever read "The Sleeper Awakes" by H.G.Wells, you'll see that corporations BY THEIR VERY NATURE deny happiness to their customers and the people who work for them. The reason for this is simple and goes right back to the Bible- it's the mortal sin of greed, of course, brought to supremacy and worshiped as a god.
Maybe you should try reading those venerable documents before arguing their contents.
Maybe you shouldn't assume automatically that I haven't. What I'm saying is that at this point, we've lost the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to persue happiness almost completely- therefore it's time for a revolution (Thomas Jefferson said we should have one every 20 years or so; I'd say we're long overdue.)
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
They just haven't started doing it to you yet. Eventually, someday, with increased congestion and traffic fatalities and/or government "need" for more money, the government may decide that charging you for speeding by tracking your fastpass will be worthwhile.
Agreed, but they don't have the votes to get all three branches YET. They will one day if the whites and Kwakiutal don't get busy and start expanding their population, but not this round just yet.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yawners. Spare me the paranoia. If they started using EZPass for enforcement, there would be a revolt. In NJ, they specifically said it would never be used for enforcement, for one. Furthermore, a large portion of the populace speeds on the highway, so it would be a hugely unpopular move politically. Finally, there's a logical hole in your argument. You can't speed in congestion. Citing congestion as a justification to use EZPass for speed enforcement is silly. It's just not gonna happen.
Let's put aside the fact that it would be impossible to figure out who actually benefits from it, as well as the fact that you've created a world where everyone who thinks they have done me some "service" are now sending me bills. The real problem is, the faintest whim of a rich person is valued as much as the fondest dream of a poor person.
Say I'm a very wealthy individual. I want the statue's boobies draped. How much do I have to want it in order to make it happen? Not much. I'm rich enough that I can simply speak the word, and some hireling will take care of all the details.
Now say I'm a very poor person. Scraping together $1000 would be a huge deal. It might even be impossible. Yet I'm as horrified by the sight of Justice as anyone. Because I'm living in a libertarian system, my opinion matters zero, because I don't have the capital to enforce it.
Under a system where dollars are essentially votes--which is what I feel you are proposing--the opinions of the rich matter, and the opinions of the poor don't.
It isn't? I thought that the reason you were pushing libertarianism was because you thought it the most just, equitable system, and that everyone would be better off living under its precepts.
Now, are you saying that the only reason you're promoting libertarianism is because you believe that you could cash in big time? If so, I'm ignoring any further displays of moral outrage.
To me, your attempt to equate taxation to slavery is simply further indication that you're a libertarian just because you think taxes suck. In reality, there is no comparison. With slavery, the basic rights of a human being are being violated. You would be hard pressed to get more than a few people to agree that taxation is inherently immoral.
If you're a slave, there is nothing you can legally do to end your enslavement. If you're a rich person who thinks he is being charged an unfair share of taxes, all you have to do is quit whatever employment provides you your income, and live like the rest of us shmucks.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I say, well argued. When I was much younger, I formulated thoughts of libertarianism, only to grow up and realize that their is a greater society. The more I learn about I guess some people haven't advanced their thinking beyond their narrow self-centered world view and haven't yet suffered through hardships to understand that poverty can be a thin line away when you had some bad luck.
FYI, I've worked through poverty and brought myself back up to middle/upper middle class. I count myself fortunate to have been able to bring myself out of poverty on my own and understand the need for public services for the public good. Rich people don't need the same tax breaks that the borderline poor need to help them get out of poverty. They have a much harder time to earn their wages.
There is no easy way for the poor to live below their means when the basic necessities of life are out of their reach. The self centered viewpoints of libertarian minded folks have just never experienced poverty themselves to understand how difficult it is to get out of poverty once they are poor, so they are always smug in the belief that they earned their own way and that anyone who works hard can earn their own way.
Castastrophes can happen, completely out of your personal control. I believe in hard work and earning your own way, but I've been hit with circumstances out of my control to make me poor. I understand the benefits of handouts and I am willing to help others in need. We had a strong, well educated middle class, and that is being slowly eroded by libertarian minded folks who believe in the survival of the fittest kind of society where only the strong and lucky survive - if you happened to be poor, well, you weren't strong enough or lucky enough so tough luck. We have evolved beyond the law-of-the-jungle existance.
We have evolved into a society where we help each other. We have evolved into a society where the weak can still succeed and we have become better for it. Everyone has a place in society. The idea that someone who's been disabled, whether from some accident or born that way, is worthless. Everyone and anyone can contribute to the greater good of preserving our entire species. We are no longer simple animals just fending solely for ourselves. We have the means of preserving or entire species. This is more advanced than just preserving your own self worth. I'm tired of selfish libertarian nuts who believe that they are follwing some sort of simplistic darwinian ideals and that supply and demand is just an extension of darwinism.
I'm also tired of the silly libertarian notion that we are no longer evolving as a species because we are not letting the disabled die off. We have evolved. We are still evolving. That is nature. We our the fittest. We have survived. Darwin was talking about species and not individuals. Indviduals are only a cog in the scheme of things. We have developed new ideas to promote our species survival. We communicate. We can eventually escape the bounds of our solar system. Our species is the current one that is capable to preserve itself beyond our star's demise, assuming we don't destroy ourselves first. We are not dependent solely on the whims of nature.
Let's put aside the fact that it would be impossible to figure out who actually benefits from it,
In this case, I think it's quite clear who the one and only beneficiary was: John Ashcroft. Do you have a problem with sending him the bill for his prudish indulgence?
as well as the fact that you've created a world where everyone who thinks they have done me some "service" are now sending me bills.
I have no idea where that came from. Why would that happen any more than now? How do you bill someone for a service they didn't contract to recieve?
In fact, the only case that I know of where you're forced to pay for services you didn't ask for, is government services, through taxes. That's one bill that isn't negotiable, whether you were satisfied with the service or not.
Say I'm a very wealthy individual. I want the statue's boobies draped. How much do I have to want it in order to make it happen? Not much. I'm rich enough that I can simply speak the word, and some hireling will take care of all the details.
Now say I'm a very poor person. Scraping together $1000 would be a huge deal. It might even be impossible. Yet I'm as horrified by the sight of Justice as anyone. Because I'm living in a libertarian system, my opinion matters zero, because I don't have the capital to enforce it.
If what you're saying is that wealth gives you the ability to make choices not available to you otherwise, I'd agree. When has that ever not been true?
But in this case, it's a spurious argument. Justice's boobies got covered not because a rich person desired it, or a poor person desired it, but because a politician with the power to enforce his whims desired it. Not only that, he has the power to stick the taxpayers with the bill for it.
Personally, I think it was stupid. I expect Hugh Hefner does too, and he's a far, far richer man than I. But for all his money, how much influence was he able to exercise over the decision?
Under a system where dollars are essentially votes--which is what I feel you are proposing--the opinions of the rich matter, and the opinions of the poor don't.
*sigh* How is that any different than now? Who do you think government really caters to? You with your shitty one vote, or PAC's and special interest groups and corporations and wealthy individuals that contribute to politicians? That's the whole point here - take away the power of the politicians to hold sway over your life. Nobody is going to pay for influence that a politician doesn't have.
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people,
Who said that it was? It sure isn't my goal!
It isn't? I thought that the reason you were pushing libertarianism was because you thought it the most just, equitable system, and that everyone would be better off living under its precepts.
Not quite. We have the system we have now because, obviously, some people benefit from it. But it clearly isn't to everyone's advantage. Likewise, a libertarian alternative would be more to some people's advantage, and less to other people's advantage. The idea isn't to make everyone happy (obviously, that would be a fool's errand under any political system), but it would certainly more justly distribute rewards and punishments. Which is why I am fairly confident you will never see a libertarian system - justice is the last thing most people want. It would require them to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
And no, my goal isn't "to maximize the happiness of the most people". My goal is to empower them to make their own choices. Whether they make choices that make them happy is up to them. Happiness isn't my gift to give them (nor yours), they'll have to manage that on their own.
Now, are you saying that the only reason you're promoting libertarianism is because you believe that you could cash in big time? If so, I'm ignoring any further displays
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Poor people's property. That's the key. He was standing up to a government that was taking money from those who could least afford it. Do you think he would have been viewed as a hero if he took money from the government and gave it to Dukes, Earls, and Lords?
That's an over simplification. What services were the poor receiving in return for their support of the government? Nothing. They were simply being extorted for living, breathing, and going about their business. In our time, the reverse is true. Through the democratic system, the poor are able to extort the rich minority for simply living, breathing, and going about their business (and you ought to know, since that's exactly what you're advocating). I'll point out that in our time, Ronald Reagan is considered a hero by many for allowing our modern equivilent of Dukes, Earls, and Lords to keep their own money. Enough, in fact, to have gotten him elected president twice.
Lyndon Johnson was wrong.
No, he was right. We've been referred to as a society by many, many learned people.
I think our founders would disagree - look at our Constitution. Not only is the word "society" not found in there, neither are the words "nation" or "country". What is described there, is a "union" of sovereign states.
This is a Good Thing. Note that most rich countries are small countries with homogenous cultures, such as Switzerland, Sweden and Hong Kong. Most large countries with diverse cultures, such as Russia, China and India, are chronicly poverty-stricken. We are the exception. The reason we are an exception is that operatively, due to our federalist system, we are not "a" country or "a" society at all, but an aggregation of 50 small countries and a multitude of societies which largely govern themselves.
It always cracks me up that you advocates of the "Common Good" never seem to be able to recognize that in order to serve the common good, you first have to have a consensus on what the common good is. In a country with a population of under 9 million, with a homogenous culture, such as Sweden, that type of consensus might be reached. In a country of over 280 million, with radicaly diverse cultures and societies, that kind of consensus is unlikely to ever emerge. All you ever get is various factions battling for dominance over each other. As much crying as liberals do about the benefits of "diversity", it is, in fact, the biggest obstacle to acheiving their political goals.
And in public restrooms, urinals are approximately two feet from each other, so your bathroom at home should have a row of urinals two feet apart?
Hey, that'd be great during football games when all my beer buddies are over! I don't think the wife'll go for it, though.
That's the advantage of having governments build roads: They can plan and build where appropriate, not just where some rich guy can collect the most tolls.
Surely you jest. Do you really think governments allocate resources based on the "greatest good for the greatest number"? Take a look at the state of Illinois - where are most state development funds spent? In the poorer, rural downstate regions, or in the commercial areas around Chicago, which I submit has plenty and enough of a tax base to subsidize it's own development? I have a friend who's a town planner in Massachusettes. She tells me concessions are granted to businesses for locating in her town, such as tax breaks and agreements to provide public infrastructure, such as roads, as a matter of course. Tell me, where would a rich guy get the most bang for his buck? Having to purchase the properties from their owners for his building projects at market price, or influencing government to use eminent domain to force buyers to sell at whatever price the government decides is "fair"?
It happens all the time. For an example, do a quick Google on Donald Trump. Or, in the state of Illinois, try "Peotone Airport".
And in the previous 2 elections, neither the Republican
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
It is a basic human right to direct your labors to the achievement of your own ends. A slave is someone whose labors are forced to serve the ends of others, not himself. To the extent that your boss is taking the fruits of your labors to achive it's ends, rather than yours, you are enslaved.
Difference? I think not. So long as people are allowed to profit off the labour of others, there will always be slavery. The best we can hope for is a system in which every employee is given a vote for business practice, and ONLY employees are given said vote.
Actually, the second progressive party in the US was the Republican Party if you define "liberal" in the way I define it (a liberal government must stand for re-election periodically and is generally and genuinely representative of the will of the voting public; the franchise is not restricted by law or custom). They were so progressive that they broke from the former party, which was the party of the moneyed elite and the banking interests in favor of human rights.
That would be the party of Lincoln.
The first progressive party was, of course, the party of Jefferson who would suggest that, at this point, the US is overdue for another revolution, complete with spilled blood. He would have considered what went on in the late 1960s and early 1970s to be a revolution that didn't quite take hold.
Jefferson opposed the Federalists, who wanted more centralized power, so much so that they passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 which look a whole lot to me like the "Patriot" act of 2002. Jefferson was elected by a landslide over one-term John Adams, who signed the bill, because the public felt that the Federalists were trying to install a military dictatorship.
It was a near-run thing in my estimation.
The progressive stance of the Republicans was wholly ended by "Rutherfraud" B. Hayes, whose election was through Congress, not through the Electoral College. Congress, in this previous election must have let out a huge sigh of relief when the Supreme Court decided to ignore the Constitution and select Bush as President.
Much to the chagrin of most Republicans, Theodore Roosevelt assumed the Presidency upon the death of William McKinley and introduced progressive reforms in the United States during his Presidency.
So there is a history of progressive measures taken by Republicans.
I would assert that the Republican Party is no more. They have gone the way of the Federalist party and the Whigs in the Political scene. They have ceased to be but there are still those who call themselves Republicans without thinking too hard.
The Republican party that I grew up with was the Party of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. It was a moderate party that was capable of initiating detante with our neighbors as well as our "enemies." It was largely centrist and passed legislation that helped out normal Americans. It also tended to vote against spending that would break federal budgets.
These Republicans are the party of the extreme right only. They want to limit civil liberties. They want to make all entitlements go away by increasing Federal deficits to the point where the only way they can be paid for is by raising taxes -- something they wish to blame the other party on. They won't raise the taxes, they'll end the entitlements. These entitlements include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Aid to the Disabled, support for AIDS patients, all welfare programs.
They also want to allow big businesses unfettered access to "develop" land held by the US for prices that might have been charged for the land back in the 1830s. Never mind that this "development" strips the land of its current qualities and makes it into barren wasteland. This land held by the US is called "National Parks" and was set aside by Theodore Roosevelt (you will remember, he was a Republican, but a Progressive).
They also want former lobbyists in charge of enforcing federal laws regulating the very businesses they used to work for. After all, who better to understand these businesses then those familiar with their struggle against government regulations, right?
They also want to give your tax money to churches so that they can take over the role of teaching our children and serving the poor and needy and disabled (because the government is getting out of that business, you know). That way, in order for us to receive
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
I love /. I check it fifteen times a day. But does anyone find it interesting that /. jumped on the chance to post an obviously Pro-Kerry article, but has completely failed to report on Dan Rather and forgerygate. That, to me at least, seems one of the most important internet culture stories of the year. Rather suspicious to me.
___ For example, if American Airlines cuts pilot pay, then United and Southwest know that they can do the same thing.
Not if there isn't a greater supply than demand for pilots, they can't, or American Airlines will quickly find it's best pilots have accepted offers from United and Southwest. That's got nothing to do with an oligopoly, that's merely a reflection of the fact that there's less demand for pilots now that less people are flying. We call that "the law of supply and demand". You may have heard of that one.
The pilots are on a seniority system at each airline. Any captain going to a rival airline will be at the bottom of the pay scale. Couple that with the CEO's taking their money from the bucket first, and the pilots get screwed.
Delta's pilots are the highest paid of the domestic airlines. If they accept a cut, dropping them to second highest paid, the newly highest paying will use that as a reason to cut their pilot's pay.
I grant that that's an entirely possible outcome, but it isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion. I heard the same kind of bitching and moaning under Reagan, and within 12 years Democrats were crying about how Clinton left us a budget surplus (which actually never materialized, it was merely projected). Note that I've never said I was a fan of the Bush administration.
It also isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion that we're going to keep paying out social security payments for the next decade or two, but that's an entirely possibe outcome. However, we have to plan budgets and spending as though we are. Figuring WWIII or another event will free us of paying 7 trillion dollars and the constant interest is as irresponsible as not setting aside money for SS. Of course that's currently happening. We still need to start with the assumption we will pay back the debt, with that assumption all deficit spending will eventually hurt us.
Through the democratic system, the poor are able to extort the rich minority for simply living, breathing, and going about their business (and you ought to know, since that's exactly what you're advocating).
Did you ever think that it's indicative of a real problem when the poor make up that large a voting block? Easy solution: Pay people a living wage. Require that employers provide health insurance or (God forbid) that the government do it. Penalize companies that lay off American workers.
Not quite. While they may not have cared for the Republican presidential candidate, note that they have elected a Republican majority to Congress since 1994. We won't even mention state governerships.
Let's drop this line of argument. It was weak to begin with and still is. Polls consistently show the people vote for politicians who don't share their views. Election results are more based on personality and popularity than policy. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, and John Glenn did not get elected to office because of their astute grasp of the issues and because their views were in line with the constituents. They got elected because they were celebrities.
Neither did the taxpayers, but you want to punish them for the irresponsibility of the kids parents.
Taxes aren't punishment. They are the way that we fund our government. Not everything which affects you in a negative way is a "punishment."
No, I want the parents to pay for their own mistakes. If the state has to be responsible for the kid's welfare, then the state should take custody of the kid.
So if one of the parents makes the "mistake" of contracting cancer, losing their job, and draining the family's resources, the kid should become a ward of the state? Are you trying to manufacture psychopatic killers or what?
What sort of message do you send by letting the parents have their cake and eat it, too?
Thank you Marie Antoinette! Yeah, life's like a big cake when you've lost your job and can't feed your family.
Is that the typical case, or is that the exceptional case?
In case you've not looked around, the last four years have seen many people slip from the middle class into poverty, losing their jobs, houses, cars, and the ability to support their family. When some middle-class guy is out of work for a year or more, I'd rather that the government give him assistance than have his family out on the street.
I'm willing to bet that if government stopped subsidizing parents who popped out little Tommys and expected the taxpayers to assume responsibility for his welfare, you'd soon have a lot less parents popping out little Tommys.
I'm willing to bet that a lot more welfare recipients would get jobs if that didn't mean the loss of health insurance and a lower income. If they take a job at Walmart, they lose the insurance and take home a lower paycheck. Maybe we should make the minimum wage a living wage. I'd be happy to pay ten cents more for my McDonald's hamburger rather than paying taxes to keep someone on welfare.
Also, if you made the parents work for 40 hours a week in order to receive welfare, you'd have a lot fewer welfare recipients and you'd have kids growing up with the idea that all grown-ups put in a week's work for a week's pay. I don't care if the person spends the 40 hours looking for work from a government-supplied office, taking government-subsidized job training, or picking up trash off of the street.
This from a guy who publishes a rant in his journal about outsourcing jobs and denying H1-B visas to workers from poor countries. Apparently you think it's "compassionate" to provide for parisites by robbing from the rich, but it's treasonous to give the capable, skilled and hard-working poor an opportunity to improve their own lives.
When we have capable, skilled and hard-working Americans being laid off a
Not really. I think it's more indicitive of the fact that people will try to get something for nothing.
"Poor" is a relative term. I'll point out that, in this country, the poor aren't exactly starving to death. In fact, of all demographics, the poor have the greatest incidence of obesity.
Easy solution: Pay people a living wage.
I'm not even going to get into the economic reasons why minimum wage laws are a bad idea, but I will point out that everyone has the right to accept or reject a job offer if they don't like wage. If you can't find someone to pay you what you think you're worth, that's a good sign you're not worth what you think. As a software engineer, when was the last time someone even thought about offering you a minimum wage? They don't, because your skills justify significantly more than that.
Require that employers provide health insurance or (God forbid) that the government do it.
Why should that be the employer's responsibility? Dude, an employer is someone that gives you a mutually agreed upon compensation for providing an agreed upon service. They aren't your nanny. They only pay you for providing a service, as long as it's mutually beneficial. They didn't agree to adopt you.
Penalize companies that lay off American workers.
Why?
Taxes aren't punishment. They are the way that we fund our government. Not everything which affects you in a negative way is a "punishment."
Okay, I'll refrain from calling it a "punishment". But in this case, it's certainly a penalty. You're proposing to make Party A pay a penalty for Party B's decisions and behavior. Personally, I think everybody should bear the responsibility for their own decisions and behavior. And, yes, I understand that not all circumstances are under the control of the individual. But that in itself is a fact an individual needs to take into account before they act.
So if one of the parents makes the "mistake" of contracting cancer, losing their job, and draining the family's resources, the kid should become a ward of the state?
As I've said before, those things are an unalienable part of the human condition. Everybody is subject to those possibilities, and you ought to take them into account before assuming responsibilites.
I'm willing to bet that a lot more welfare recipients would get jobs if that didn't mean the loss of health insurance and a lower income. If they take a job at Walmart, they lose the insurance and take home a lower paycheck.
A lot more welfare recipients would get jobs if welfare wasn't an available option. A fact that's been bourne out by the results of Clinton's welfare reform.
When we have capable, skilled and hard-working Americans being laid off and their jobs being handed over to foreign workers, yes, I do think that's treasonous. When there's no one in this country that can do the job, then hand it to an overseas worker, but Americans should get the first crack at the jobs. It's shameful when American workers who have helped build up huge, profitable companies like Dell Computers suddenly find themselves out of work and their job shipped overseas.
So you want to burden employers with minimum wages, taxes, regulations, labor unions, force them to provide health care, etc., and then you're surprised when they decide you're more of a pain in the ass to deal with than you're worth, and ship your job overseas?
I'm not. If I were an employer, I'd leave, too. I think it's the smartest thing they've done in a long time. In fact, I'd like to see them all leave, and take out a full page ad in the New York Times:
so let me get this straight...President Bush has his family connections get him into the national guard, which at the time was the way to dodge Vietnam seeing as how less than 2% of the guard ever got called up to the War and aside from the fact he flew a plane that was near becoming obsolete hence would see no action in the War, and Sen. Kerry actively volunteers for the War, not only engages the enemy during his tours, but is injured, and has the fucking shrapnel lodged in his leg to prove it, and Kerry's a fucking traitor??
......
in the famous words of an honorable War Veteran in response to an infamous Senator,who had the same level of integrity you currently display in your posting,
"have you no decency sir?"
Not really. I think it's more indicitive of the fact that people will try to get something for nothing.
Like the wealthy who don't want to pay taxes even after they've used almost every aspect of the tax-funded infrastructure in their acquisition of wealth.
"Poor" is a relative term. I'll point out that, in this country, the poor aren't exactly starving to death. In fact, of all demographics, the poor have the greatest incidence of obesity.
Having just paid $7 for a salad for lunch, I'm not surprised. For a fraction of that, the poor can get empty calories at McDonalds or Taco Bell. And it's not like most of them have a keen understanding of nutrition.
I'm not even going to get into the economic reasons why minimum wage laws are a bad idea, but I will point out that everyone has the right to accept or reject a job offer if they don't like wage.
Then don't bitch when welfare recipients aren't willing to take jobs at McDonalds for less than they get on welfare (while losing medical benefits and having no way to afford daycare).
Why should that be the employer's responsibility?
Because too many people in this country are without health insurance and that's the most expeditious way of solving the problem. Also, because companies like Walmart and McDonalds would have much better time success negotiating for good health insurance rates than individual employees would.
Penalize companies that lay off American workers.
Why?
Because their layoffs are harming the U.S. economy.
And, yes, I understand that not all circumstances are under the control of the individual. But that in itself is a fact an individual needs to take into account before they act.
So no one should ever have children because they don't know what the future holds and they could become paralyzed, blind, be killed, or otherwise unable to provide for the child? Or are you saying only the incredibly wealthy should reproduce because only they can have a reasonable certainty of never hitting hard times?
So if one of the parents makes the "mistake" of contracting cancer, losing their job, and draining the family's resources, the kid should become a ward of the state?
As I've said before, those things are an unalienable part of the human condition. Everybody is subject to those possibilities, and you ought to take them into account before assuming responsibilites.
Okay, so suppose that you're a middle income guy with an average job. You've got health insurance through your work, have a few thousand in the bank, and have a modest 401K. You and your wife want to have a child. Should you? No waffling here.
A lot more welfare recipients would get jobs if welfare wasn't an available option. A fact that's been bourne out by the results of Clinton's welfare reform.
Or, if we tortured people for being unemployed, then there would be fewer welfare recipients. Maybe we could make them watch as we let pedophiles sodomize their children. Yeah, anything to avoid you having to pay taxes...
So you want to burden employers with minimum wages, taxes, regulations, labor unions, force them to provide health care, etc., and then you're surprised when they decide you're more of a pain in the ass to deal with than you're worth, and ship your job overseas?
Let's not leave out laws preventing them from hiring 14 year olds (something Nike does in Vietnam), requiring that they not expose U.S. workers to asbestos, and that their factories not belch pollution into the air and waterways.
I'm not surprised at all. I've long ago accepted that most corporations do not operate in an ethical manner. Like some people, their only concern is money. That's why we need laws to protect the interest of the American people.
Remember, at one time talented people emigrated to the United States to start their companies and develop their ideas, and hire w
Interesting that an attack on the US political system is launched by a Marxist! Stalin would be proud!
Throw out your misconceptions about IRV, it only disguises the same problem we already have without solving it. We need Condorcet's method so that all preferences are counted. Throwing away someone's first preference (as in a run-off system) just because enough other people didn't share it is not indicative of their true vote any longer! All preferences must be evaluated simultaneously, not sequentually. The definition of winner is not "who has more votes than anyone else" but the more generalized "who could beat all the other candidates in head-to-head races".
Constitutionally Correct
Generalize that to "a coalition of the parties who do not control the legislature" and I'd be on board. Destroy "two-party" thinking. It would be fun to see the Libertarians and Greens drawing the district lines that the Duopoly has to live with during the next race.
Many states have laws that require geographically simple districts, like your latter suggestions. Look at the districting in IA or MN. Why couldn't that be done everywhere? It's not a difficult concept.
Constitutionally Correct
you are right that for now they can not issue the tickets. What happens when they have 100% of people using EZ pass? Then they have nothing to loose.
How about charging a flat fee to everyone who's a beneficiary of the service?
And that would be...?
Thus, the law is asinine and the government doesn't need the money at all.
What you are actually saying is that you favor Government by Robin Hood - you propose to confiscate wealth from those who justly acquired it to provide goods and services for those who didn't.
Actually, just to put things in a bit of perspective here, Robin Hood confiscated wealth from the government who unjustly acquired it from the governed in order to return it to the governed who could then procure goods and services for themselves. Robin Hood was a vigilante tax cutter, not a socialist.