Slashdot Mirror
How the GOP (and the Tea Party) Helped Kill SOPA
Hugh Pickens writes "Strengthening intellectual property enforcement has been a bipartisan issue for the past 25 years, but Stewart Baker writes in the Hollywood Reporter that when the fight went from the committees to the floor and Wikipedia went down, the Democratic and Republican parties reacted very differently to SOPA. 'Despite widespread opposition to SOPA from bloggers on the left, Democrats in Congress (and the administration) were reluctant to oppose the bill outright,' writes Baker. 'The MPAA was not shy about reminding them that Hollywood has been a reliable source of funding for Democratic candidates, and that it would not tolerate defections.' That very public message from the MPAA also reached another audience — Tea Party conservatives. Most of them had never given a second thought to intellectual property enforcement, but many had drawn support from conservative bloggers and they began to ask why they should risk the ire of their internet supporters to rescue an industry that was happily advertising how much it hated them." (Read on, below.)
Pickens continues: "Pretty soon, far more Republicans than Democrats had bailed on SOPA, the Republican presidential candidates had all come out for what they called 'Internet freedom,' and now for Republicans, opposition to new intellectual property enforcement is starting to look like a political winner. 'It pleases conservative bloggers, appeals to young swing voters, stokes the culture wars and drives a wedge between two Democratic constituencies, Hollywood and Silicon Valley,' concludes Baker, adding that unfortunately for Hollywood, as its customers migrate to the Internet, it is losing not just their money but their hearts and minds as well."
made popcorn as soon as I saw this come up in red - have at it kids.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I want to mod this article as Flamebait.
The Democrats have been Hollywood's party for a long time now, so of course they would support this sort of bill more than the Republicans. These "two" parties are differentiated only by which set of corporations they work for the benefit of, after all (and the two sets are not even disjoint).
Palm trees and 8
Dems backed by Hollywood and green tech, Repubs backed by fossil energy and military tech; parties found attacking opposition's supporters. Film at 11.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Tea Party types like myself HATE HATE HATE SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. We see them for what they are: power grabs by BOTH the MPAA/RIAA et all AND the government. As a generally conservative/libertarian group of people, we want LESS government intrusion and regulation of our lives. Not more.
So the Tea Party HAMMERED the GOP over this one and unlike the Dems, the GOP LISTENED and responded in the way the people wanted.
There are alot of people on /. that consistently say that there is no difference between the parties. I think this serves as an excellent example of why these people are wrong.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Politicians don't want to tick off their funding sources, will do anything to score a cheap point.
This is a surprise to anyone, anymore?
It truly is.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Did some politicians just say that it sometimes helps to listen to the electorate?
MY HEAD A SPLODE.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Seriously, the guy who introduced the bill is in the GOP. Give me a break slashdot.
http://lamarsmith.house.gov/
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
We are forgetting that Lamar Smith, a Republican first proposed this thing, correct? Face it, it wasn't Tea Party supporters or Republicans that stopped this. It was all of us that wanted Internet freedom. It was the threat of being voted out of office that made these politicians reject it, not one party or another. You bet your ass either side would pass it if they thought they could get away with it.
The movie industry is deeply engaged with labor unions. The Democrats tend to favor labor unions, so the movie industry often pushes for Democrat candidates to keep their status quo union agreements.
That's odd, the article says:
Ever since GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole claimed that Hollywood produced "nightmares of depravity" that coarsened American culture and made "deviancy" mainstream, movie studios and record labels have enjoyed a spectacularly uneasy relationship with the Republican Party.
So it appears that the "think of the children" supporters of Republican candidates made them tough to buy by the MPAA and RIAA which like to sell "indecent" materials if it will turn a profit.
I'm quite confused by your assertion that the companies and corporations support those who support labor unions. Um, I thought that labor unions allowed workers to band together to turn the screws on the companies that employ them -- thus detracting from the company's massive profits and gaining more benefits and pay for the workers? Why would the CEOs and lawyers that feed off those profits pay into politicians that support the labor unions that could have them shrinking those profits? Is there something special about MPAA/RIAA unions that actually shifts the capital up to those companies like Universal Music Group and the big studio executives?
My work here is dung.
I agree with the Tea Party position here. What's next? Pigs flying? Snowballs in hell?
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
I don't know if it is a good thing but it shouldn't be shocking that there are "party discipline" differences between the Dems and GOP. It just happens that this time it was pointed towards something popular to hate.
...my ass. MPAA and RIAA have been using the Constitution for toilet paper for a long time now. Individual rights? Bill of rights? Certain rights to Creators? Ex post facto? Perpetuities for starters (over 100 yrs? Intellectual - Hollywood?
This is the geek-world "Truth That Dare Not Speak It's Name," namely that it is the liberal/democrat machine that continues to give oxygen and sustenance to that e-e-e-e-e-e-evil content distribution industry. Maybe it's because so many of the artists themselves usually espouse left-wing politics, support the democratic candidates, and will not know how to earn a dime if technical progress continues to chip away at the struts in the old content/contract/distribution/residuals system.
"Popcorn," indeed...
Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.
In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster than the Democrats do.
As far as your commentary on restricting rights, BOTH parties have their issues, and I do not see the Democrats as being worse than the Republicans by a long shot, especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The framers of the constitution designed-into its bosom: protection to those who engaged in commercial corruption. Those who wrote it, intended it so, it was their way, back them. The real failures in the constitution are two: both pointed to by the article: 1. failure to include, provide for and deliver to every human citizen- American full and fair disclosure about the activities of the humans that operate in or for USA, Inc. (DBA Constitutional Government), and 2. failure to provide the governed human Citizen-Americans an independent [of the USA, Inc. scope and authority], an exclusive right of the governed human citizen-American to investigate, depose witnesses, charge, indite, prosecute, convict and punish those persons[human or corporate] acting in, or for, or under color of our government. In other words, if the governed, who are subject to the government, watch-dogged, those who run the government or who contract with those who run the government: the interest the government serves would be better balanced between democracy and commerce. The theory of democratic assurance is that oversight by the governed is required to preserve the integrity of those who represent the governed. Oversight is different from socialism because oversight does not empower the governed to direct the government, but proper oversight would empower the governed to protect democratic integrity and to prevent corruption or abuse by those who operate or contract with the government.
That is how opposition parties and groups are supposed to behave - to point out and oppose stupid things being promoted by the other side.
Shear opposition without selection is stupid, but so is a bought-and-paid-for bipartisanship.
You do realize that is how some of the most dangerous people ever were voted into office?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Propose a bill that will stir negative public opionion then let your offshoot political branch be the "ones against it". Does anyone really believe the tea baggers want free access to any content.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
ACTA, PIPA, SOPA could make Americans most hated nation on the planet. Get a look at latest events in Poland, Ukraine and other counties.
Also both are CHAIRS of both of their respective committees, House Judiciary committee and House Judiciary Intellectual Property Sub-Panel. (I would imagine that unless you are the Chair, it is pretty hard to get something out of committee.)
That said, there must be something to this story; the Hollywood Reporter is a well known publication. Perhaps, the Dems (of which I am one) WERE more reluctant to withdraw their support for this bill. All I can say is, nobody's perfect (and there are many many other times when the Repubs supported bad bills) and intellectual property laws ARE seriously lacking/screwed up and need fixing.
Just not in this way!
Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.
When the entire POINT of political parties is to lump people into categories so that their positions become similar, broad generalizations come with the territory. Assume that everyone of a particular race or creed has a drinking problem and you're a bigot. Assume that everyone who attends AA has a drinking problem and you're likely pretty close to on target.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I know how you feel, but I don't think that the Republicans are any better. I don't make enough money to feel restricted by the Democrats, but the Republicans :
A - Want a presence in my bedroom, and I absolutely can't stand that.
B - Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.
I don't like what the Democrats are doing either, but I feel more personally threatened by the Republicans.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The problem is just that the Democrats have more or less taken over the GOP and Ron Paul is the only real Republican left.
I know it's hard to believe after 12 years of Bushes, but the GOP used to be a party of small government, non-interventionism and individual rights.
When Clinton reduced social spending while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?
So as far as I am concerned, it is either Ron Paul or a big-government-pro-war-bread-and-circuses president. It does not matter whether his name will be Obama, Romney or Gingrich.
People often say that money buys elections, but it doesn't. Money buys voters, who decide elections. It's just that it can be very difficult to influence voters, so if someone offers a politician money, he takes it. If you can truly offer that politician, voters, he'll drop the money people without a second thought.
The trick is to get enough voters on your side, then convince the politician that you actually speak for that group, and they will actually vote your way. Much, much easier to write a check.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans
I'm not sure why you say this, it sounds like Dem/Repub propaganda. Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters. You may not agree with much the Tea party platform, but the protests did demonstrate that a popular movement (even when they are later co-opted by a major party) and non-mainstream candidates actually can affect the outcome of elections.
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice, and it's criminal that the State Department is blocking the return of surplus WWII-era M1 Rifles and Carbines from Korea (which would then be administered by the Civilian Marksmanship Program and sold participants in its programs)
who was... wait for it... A democrat.
I'm not going to blame either side for this... I think we can agree that both parties have been on both sides of this issue.
Lets just be happy SOPA died and remember in the future that MAYBE the "other" party which ever that might be for you MIGHT not be made up entirely of vampire demon nazis... and might just be okay people with a different perspective on things.
Honestly, most of the political disagreements would go away if we stopped trying to impose things on people that don't want to participate. If you have a great idea... great. Anyone that actually likes that idea will support it. If your idea involves forcing people at gun point to do what you say though... maybe it isn't such a great idea.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I'm curious - which rights are you referring to, specifically? I mean, surely you have some examples of them trying to do that?
Sounds like a simple case of, "We don't like them, and we don't like you, so since they give you money, we'll oppose it."
They took a shot at a populist win and ran with it. I can't fault them for that.
When Clinton reduced social spending [wikipedia.org] while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?
The Republican who worked closely with Clinton to pass PRWOA? Hint: he's a 2012 presidential contender.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I'm a libertarian at heart but I just can't stand the Democrats anymore - especially the new bunch whose main objective is to restrict every right of everybody on this planet.
What do you mean 'anymore'? You make it sound like you used to love them. If you're a Libertarian who used to love "lunatic Democrats who are doing everything to restrict everybody's rights," you're doing it wrong :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans
I know I mentioned Tactical Voting the other day in another article and I know some of the responses indicated it's a very effective tool. However, I still maintain that if everyone who felt like you do on this actually just voted for who they actually wanted to be president, we might end up with someone in office other than the mainstream Dem and Rep candidates we always end up with.
Food for thought.
The Republicans deserve credit for how they stand up for freedom in general and against SOPA in particular. If I were a single-issue voter, this would make me vote republican. They have the correct position on this issue.
Of course, I'm not a single-issue voter, and the Republicans are pants-on-head-retarded about almost everything else. But give them credit for being right this once.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
I think the point should be to focus on the CANDIDATE instead of the party affiliation.
I'm registered with one party for the sole purpose of being able to vote in their primaries (Which is all ANYONE really gets for party registration unless they are a candidate). However, I've spread my vote pretty evenly across the two parties over the years because at the end of the day I vote for the best person for the job. It doesn't matter what the local comptroller or county commitioners view on abortion? global warming? evoloution? etc. What does matter is their qualification for, and ideas about topics relevant to the job they are asking me to hire them for. If that job has no chance of touching on those topics, then their oppinions are irrelevant.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
You obviously didn't notice the distinct lack of concern over social conservative issues at most Tea Party rallies. The uniting issues across the Tea Party movement are fiscal policy, civil liberties, immigration control and strong national defense. In fact, some of the major Tea Party figures have openly said that the Tea Party as a movement is welcoming to social conservatives, but that it simply does not have a social issue stance as a movement.
Yes, the democrats have taken over the GOP, by moving steadily to the right for the past 30 years. Todays Democrat party is very much like the Republican party of 30 years ago. Obama is a conservative somewhere between Reagan and Nixon.
The GOP was never a party of small government, non-interventionism, and individual rights. Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency. Who started the War on Drugs? Nixon coined the term, Reagan made it policy. Nixon, pre-presidency, was a hawk on Vietnam. Hell, the "Reagan Doctrine" was explicitly interventionist!
How is it that you can get the basic facts of our political history so utterly wrong, and still be 100% correct when you say this:
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Go back far enough, say the civil war, and it was the democrats who wanted small government and wanted to break away from the US to get out from under 'big' government of the time. Both parties change over time and consider the US is only 200 years old they are very fluid indeed. Eventually the GOP will be the liberal ones again just as at some point the Democrats will be considered change averse.
I don't think it's so much that the Democrats took over the GOP, but that the religious right has. The GOP candidates, except for Ron Paul, seem to think that laws should be made based on religious views. Santorum really scares me with some of his talk about banning abortion even in cases of life of the mother (he thinks it's an "excuse") and banning contraception. For the latter, he would leave it's legality "up to the states." Translation, you'd have states where posessing a condom would be a crime even if you were married and simply didn't want another child. Is it any wonder that the Duggars support him? (For the record, I'm religious - Jewish - but don't feel the need to force my religious views on anyone. I want my politicians to be religiously neutral.)
I wish there were more Ron Paul-style GOP members. I might actually vote Republican then. As it stands, I vote Democrat because I agree with them more. Not 100%, but more than with the usual Republican offerings. Maybe Ron Paul and other classic small government Republicans should leave the GOP and form a new centrist party. A good centrist party would quickly pull voters from the Republicans and Democrats. (Precisely why both parties would make sure said centrist party never happens.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Your explicit salary has increased more slowly than executive salaries. Your total compensation, factoring in health benefits (provided you're not a top-decile earner) has increased more quickly than executive compensation.
Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters.
Except in a system where every vote is plurality takes all (sometimes called "first past the post"), even a 10% share (which Libertarians poll at but rarely get) is unnoticed by the main parties. They're not worried about attracting Libertarian votes, they're worried about getting 45%+1 out of the 90% who vote for one of the two main parties, and they don't give a shit about the rest.
And they're entrenched. Gerrymandering has made it even LESS necessary to have a majority. Look at Texas: Republicans are maybe 35% of the electorate, but thanks to careful gerrymandering they control 2/3 of the state legislature and 2/3 of the congressional delegation, and careful disenfranchisement - witness their neutering of early-voting this year after they realized enhanced access to the polls meant democrat voters, who actually have to work on election day rather than being greedy lazy assholes, went and voted on the available weekend days and almost threw a number of the GOP-constructed "52/48" districts to the Dems - takes care of the rest.
Alomst every intrusion Bush pushed; Homeland Security, NoNock warrants, NoTell warrants, warrantless searches, control of the Internet, indefinite arrest without charges - The Obama administration has enlarged on.
And I not only voted for him, I campaigned for him.
civil liberties
how about liberty from religion ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Both Parties are scum, so PLAYING THEM AGAINST EACH OTHER is what to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It isn't that the republicans get corrupt faster so much as they wear it on their sleeves more. Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich. This is very easy to see and very easy to blame. The democrats on the other hand are just more subtle, but no better overall. They tend to serve special interest through either restriction of rights or providing broad funding to over-bloated graft. It doesn't become readily apparent until you look at their spending habits. Republicans don't like to tax for what has to be spent and democrats like to spend what they don't have, all to try and serve their special interests without upsetting anyone enough to raise a shit storm.
AJ Henderson
"Strengthening intellectual property enforcement has been a bipartisan issue for the past 25 years," You give the folks in Washington far, far more intellectual prowess than they deserve.. It's only been in recent years that, they finally discovered how to play solitaire on their puter...
There's nothing liberal or progressive about curated computing, it's a fascist concept.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Ron Paul is the only real Republican left.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He just happens to run under the "R" flag because they're less unlike Libertarians than the "D"s, and the two-party system is pretty entrenched, especially in the presidental race with its goofy Electoral College runoff thing (which actually might have made sense in the 18th century before high speed communication and transportation).
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
That one is a Godwin waiting to happen... ;)
I now have a problem who to vote for. I mean the Republican Right and Tea Party are as mad as a box of frogs and seem to want to oppose freedoms on issues like abortion, whereas the Democrats seem to be the Pro Hollywood party. May as well flip a coin now.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
You do realize that is how some of the most dangerous people ever were voted into office?
Yep, I concur. After all, the timing is just perfect to appease the masses. Forget parties, look at the public reaction to SOPA - If I wanted to a government position in the upcoming elections, with a topic this hot I'd side with the people voting for me, not necessarily the ones who have/will sign me checks. A few bold statements shunning SOPA/PIPA, and I wind up getting all the advertising I need across newspapers nationwide.
Is that increased payment to lower earners a product of getting more actual value in the form of better health care and benefits? Or is it just from the rising cost of those benefits -- as their actual usable return value stagnates or even drops?
The poor having more and more of their economic gains eaten up by the rising cost of benefits -- while what they actually get from those benefits stagnates -- is *not* something to brag about. That's just more money creeping from the powerless to the powerful.
Porquoi?
Yes, there is corruption in both parties, yet every time I watch Fox News or hear people like Glent Beck, Sarah Palin, or Rush Limbaugh talk, I wonder how it is possible for any sane person to support the Republican Party.
There are some decent folks in it, for sure. But the signal to bullshit ratio is so extremely low.
Also I believe that Republicans are the worst offenders in partisan politics. Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle. There is no common ground in the interest of the american people, ever.
Also, Republicans like to preach how they want to have a smaller government, cut expenses, less debt, etc. In reality what they do is funnel public tax money directly into their favorite corporations, usually oil and military-industrial, with contracts, subsidies and wars. All the time speaking of tax cuts, never mentioning that they apply only to the rich and corporations.
The Republican Party is the political wing of rich America, nothing else. Their tactics are fear mongering and ignorance.
Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. He's a States Rights-er. Big difference.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Well, no, it probably won't. I had some doofus argue with me a couple days ago about how the GOP was the party of civil rights even though all the Southern Dem bigots left that party during the Johnson era and were welcomed into the Republican Party as part of the Southern Strategy.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The GOP candidates, except for Ron Paul, seem to think that laws should be made based on religious views.
On the contrary, he thinks that there should be no separation between church and state, and rather that laws should be based on Christian religious views. Ron Paul is pro-life because of his religious views. And, rather than thinking the government shouldn't be involved in private medical decisions, he thinks it should be criminal, and investigated and punished.
Ron Paul also doesn't believe in evolution.
especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.
How about the Assassination of American citizens without a trial for the fifth amendment violation, or Indefinite detention of US citizens without being charged with a crime for your 5th and 6th amendment violations? Does the federal government assuming the ability to detain you indefinitely without charging you with a crime, or even to assassinate you, hit you closer to home than denial of marriage to a class of people, or refusal to take down some hundred year old religious display?
Not trying to point the finger at you specifically or put words in your mouth, but as a general rule the people in this country have their priorities so fucked up it enrages me sometimes. These two policies recently exercised and or implemented under the demopublican rule can potentially affect any or every individual in the country, whereas the inability for gays to marry affect what, 10% of the population at most? And let's be honest, who really gives a rosy red rats ass if the supreme court has the 10 commandments on it or if some veteran memorial has a cross? FFS.
Republicans may experience it faster but Democrats experience it way longer. Democrat voters don't care how long a politician serves (Byrd), how corrupt (Dodd) or stupid (Frank) they may be. As long as they keep getting re-elected and can keep telling their people at election time, how much of a fight they are putting on for you.They say that they are fighting the good fight, that our country would be going to hell in a hand basket if they weren't there and they will continue to fuck you over with a smile.
I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
Sure, in places with real functioning political parties like Europe this is the case, but not so in the US. There are just too many variables to make a case that Republicans believe X and Democrats believe Y. Case in point: wars. Out of the 5 major contenders in the 2012 race (Obama, Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich) which is the only one that is anti-war? That would be Paul who is running as a Republican in the primaries. But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war, but yet Obama is a very pro-war president.
In our 2 party system it is impossible to lump people together in different categories based on which of the 2 parties you vote for, unlike Europe which has a more functional political party system.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Liberal != Liberty.
Step through the YRO section here - the vast majority of stories about liberties being screwed with are happening at the hand of democrats. Sad state of affairs.
I vote for every libertarian on the ballot no matter the views or qualifications. Due to the fact, they are not going to get elected anyway, but if another candidate sees that they lost because of a libertarian it 'may' get them to rethink their position and move slightly away from the totalitarian principals that the two current dominant parties have.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Problem with the Libertarian party is cannibas. Everytime I see a booth, every time I see anything from the Libertarian party - all they talk about is pot.
I'm like "Hey you bloody f***tards, don't you realize our country is falling apart. And all you care about is getting stoned. Can we please talk about real issue!"
And that alone is the comment I hear from almost everyone I meet who has been turned off by the Libertarian party.
Most of us just don't give a damn about your pot. We couldn't care less one way or the other, and that seems to be the primary issue talked about by party members promoting the party.
Seriously?
- can't make your own toys
- can't grow and sell your own food
- control what you watch, what you play
Granted their are christians on the right who want to protect marriage, and oppose a few other social issues. That's about it...
The Democrats/socialists want to control everythign else.
Like whether you have healthcare, who it's from, etc.
Whether you can protect yourself.
Whether you can allow smokers in your business.
On and on...and on...
This made me think of one of my favorite Douglas Adam's quotes from So Long and Thanks for All the Fish:
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
Oh gee, you put it that way and I'm freaking estatic that I'm now paying an arm and a leg to keep my arms and legs.
Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.
And who fought them tooth and nail, and are still trying to get it anulled? Yep, that's the republicans.
So THANKS.
Everyone else, fyi:
The Cato Institute is a proprietarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States
Just so you know where this little blurb is coming from. Corporate Kochs.
..Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry,...
Let me preface my reply by saying that I am born and raised New York City liberal.
What good are you "closer to home issues" if the inalienable right to defend your very life and possibly defend your country and constitution from tyranny if your right to arms are severely curtailed or outright banned?
I'm a libertarian at heart
I cannot be. The first reason is that I believe corporations need strong regulation in order to prevent them from screwing the general public. The second reason is that I believe taxation should be aggressively progressive to the point that salaries are for the most part only used for luxuries or buying better quality non-luxuries (itself a kind of luxury), the extra taxes would go to non-luxuries and shared infrastructure. The third reason is I think anything that uses shared infrastructure should have the infrastructure provided by the government.
As for SOPA and Republicans, I don't know how this will play out. Typically I find the internet to be left-leaning, but that's partly to do with the involvement of non-Americans (on average the American middle is to the right of the rest of the developed world) and partly to do with where I spend my time. My hope is that getting more involved in something like this would shift Republicans more towards libertarianism (which means I still wouldn't vote for them, but we would have less regulation of personal freedoms). I tend to support the Democratic party, but they tend to drop the ball on some issues. My problem is that outside of Vermont there is no significant left party other than the Democratic party.
He effected a bored affect.
Vote for individuals. In any given debate across the aisle there are defectors. Not all Democrats will vote the same and neither will all Republicans. Vote for, not against. Voting for someone only because you are against the other side only reinforces the nonsense that is Washington.
what? you mean the party that supports full on law enforcement against marijuana? or the party that wants to institute christian religion into science classes? or the party that wants to change the tax code so that the filthy wealthy consolidate power and influence?
i'm not claiming the Ds to be any better (because they're not), but you claiming to be a libertarian and then declaring your support for the GOP, who are anything but libertarian these days, is absurd.
Depends on how you mean it.
If you mean: freedom to be an Atheist, then yes. Absolutely. Freedom of Religion also means the freedom to be an Atheist or an Agnostic or simply not care one way or the other.
If you mean: Freedom from ever having to hear or be influenced by anyone else's religion and actively preventing religious people and politicians from acting upon their religious conscience or proposing laws in line with that conscience, (IE: Freedom FROM Religion) then no. That would mean impinging upon someone else's freedom of religion and freedom of expression and would be a violation of the Constitution.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
The Democrats are currently to the right of Ronald Reagan on most policies, but that is not because they have taken over the GOP. It's true that Democrats are now championing formerly Republican platforms, but the GOP is moving things even further to the right.
Actually I am in the top decile. My bigger beef with executives is that I don't believe they're giving good value for their pay. Seems like most of them are one-note-ponies on a short-term path. They cut costs, frequently by moving jobs overseas, and sell anything that isn't bolted down.
Notable exception, Steve Jobs. From everything I've heard, he was a real SOB, and I really dislike Apple's IP stances. But as a corporate executive he knew how to grow the company, and ran it on the basics of products rather than just money.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Really, that's funny. Cause that's how I feel when I listen to David Letterman, Barbara "pass it then we can decide what's in it" Boxer. Chris "congressmen should do what the campaign donors tell them" Dodd.
"Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle."
Really, really, are you that blind. How many of President Bush's top judge appointments were blocked. Versus how many of President Obama's.
You think this, because you only hear when Republicans block stuff, because you read news from sources biased to your views. Likewise, Republicans feel the same way, cause they get news biased toward their view. So they feel the Democrats are always blocking things.
Like President George W. Bush's request to regulate Fannie & Freddie years before the collapse.
"The Republican Party is the political wing of rich America, nothing else. Their tactics are fear mongering and ignorance."
Serious, that's the tactic of both parties. I've listened to Democrat politicians tell inner city folk that Republicans want them dead and their children in prison.
Oh, and let's not talk about fear mongering. George Bush's medical lawsuit reform would leave you with only $250,000 if you lost your sight or a limb from malpractice. Total BS lie, but it was what the Left propigated.
Lies, fear, are how politics works. Both parties are guilty of it. Only a moron is too stupid to realize that BOTH do it at, and pretty much so at the same rate.
Right. Today's Republican party has more in common with the John Birch society that was shunned by the Republican establishement for decades.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I somewhat agree with your concerns about social conservatives. They don't actually seem to control the republican party, and definitely do not control tea partiers. Since overall on those issues government is getting better, not worse, while on the issues I have with democrats the government is getting worse, I tend to vote republican unless there's an actual libertarian option. I do find that displaying a cross or celebrating christmas for government agencies is much, much, less intrusive into my life than decreeing that I'm not allowed to cary a gun, or that I have to agree to a virtual strip search to fly on a plane, or that insurance companies aren't allowed to offer low cost high deductible personal medical insurance plans, or that employers can't decide who to hire/fire based entirely on an objective merit, etc.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Except that Hitler was appointed, not voted, into power initially.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Most of your comment is spot on, but this one little point jabbed me:
Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich.
Here we have Republicans supporting consumers over business and small business over big business, which is the exact opposite of what you said. It's not just you, but it seems to me that no matter what Republicans or conservatives do, they are going to have the standard criticisms heaved upon them. If they do anything enforcing existing and Constitutional immigration laws, they are labeled racists. If they oppose abortion, they are labeled as anti-woman bigots. If they support a strong defense, they are accused of supporting the "military industrial complex". If they want to lower taxes for everyone, they are accused of only supporting the rich. If they they give workers the right to accept a job without joining a union, they are labeled as being anti-worker and in the pocket of big business. If they want to improve education and/or cut educational costs, they are accused of being anti-teacher.
No matter what conservatives do, those opposed the conservatives, not even necessarily their programs, will find a hyperbolic stereotype to label them with. Even when conservatives do something that is completely counter to the stereotype, the old stereotypes as still applied. Granted, the Shiite is flung both ways, but I tend to see a lot more of being flung at conservatives.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Wow, that will help them buy half a bumper sticker.
It's not about your support or my support any more. It's about the support of the super rich.
The average donation to a Super PAC starts at $100,000, and you don't have an extra $100,000 you can donate. Do you know why the number of commercials run by campaigns this year is DOWN by almost 75%? Because they don't have to run them any more, since the Super PACs are doing their work for them.
I'm not saying there is no difference between the parties, I'm saying they don't matter. Parties don't matter, elections don't matter. This has become a game of RISK between groups of billionaires. Our fucking country has become a LAN party for the super rich and the rest of us can only look on in horror.
I don't care what your political affiliation is, the only way an individual is going to affect the outcome is to GET IN THE WAY. You have to take your body, and move it off your couch, and get in the faces of politicians. And you have to do it with a group of 5000 of your closest friends.
TacoCowboy, if you throw your "support" on the Republicans, you are a fool. Throw your support to your community. To your family. To those 5000 of your closest friends who will go stand in front of your congressman's office and demand that they do something or not do something. Your "support" doesn't mean anything, to anybody. Now, if 5000 of your closest friends come to honestly believe that Mitt Romney (or Barack Obama) is actually going to have any impact on anything (historical data says no) then go in peace and line up 5000 strong to support him. It makes you a fool, and delusional, but I support the right to be foolish and delusional almost religiously. But your "support", coming from a computer keyboard, is pissing in the wind. The political discourse on the Internet is nothing but jacking off, unless the goal is to meet up with those 5000 friends and GO OUT and do something. Anything else done by a non-billionaire is just energy you could be using to do something good and throwing it down the shitter.
You are welcome on my lawn.
He's a libertarian and pro-states rights. He happens to be pro-life, so thinks state governments should have laws against abortion (because it's murder), but nonetheless things the federal government shouldn't be involved.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
What does Apple have to do with the GOP and the TEA party? Or the "progressives"?
1) Discount previous post because of generalizations.
...
2) Make your own generalization.
3)
4) Get modded 5 Insightful!
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money
This is sheer genius - sheer fucking genius. Here's what we do: we start an organization and solicit funds to portray the incumbents as lizards. Everyone at every level who's up for re-election gets their own web page, flyer, mailer, poster, TV ad, every major form of promotional material, where they look like lizards. The tag-line: "Why would you vote for a lizard? You don't like lizards. Lizards don't like you. Why would you vote for a lizard?"
Ok, it needs polish, but this could actually make a dent in the voting process - as well as drive up the need for pictures of lizards. That'll be my task. I'm a gonna dust off my camera and start snapping lizard pics. You organize the organization and round up the funds while I'm shooting lizards.
BOTH parties have their issues, and I do not see the Democrats as being worse than the Republicans by a long shot, especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.
I agree, I support equal rights. I don't like the term 'gay rights', it isn't like they are asking for anything I don't have. If they want to get married I say fine, you don't want that in your church, Fine. Marriage stopped being a religious act a long time ago. If you want to split hairs, if there wasn't an ordained priest you've got a civil union not a marriage, hence the paperwork for the state.
I am also a gun owner and a member of the NRA, but I don't support unfettered access. I don't mind the paperwork, I just wonder why I am required to report the sale of my car within 30 days, under penalty of law, but I can sell a gun at a garage sale and no one cares. It is this kind of political blind spots that annoy me. I'm good, I work hard, pay my taxes and yes it annoys me when someone who sits on their ass and get paid $20 million pays lower taxes than me. Don't give me the double taxation crap either, only 3 of the Fortune 500 actually paid any tax in 2010.
I support equality and opportunity. I support religious freedom but if you are a hospital religious or not you must provide services and benefits in allignment with your employee's faith not your own.
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." ~Ozzy Osborne
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things
In defense of reasonable Republicans, not all of them feel the only way to address disagreements on policy is with guns. The few that are left believe compromise is better than violence.
The above comments are for the most part well thought-out, reasonable, conversational in tone, and not the typical /. idiocy from both sides of an argument. I really enjoyed reading them even if I didn't agree with all of them. Thanks!
*points to signature*
And that does include voting for something because they're "the lesser of two evils". There are more than two people running, and if there truly aren't any candidates that match your views, you should either be pushing to get someone who does to run, or run yourself.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Alomst every intrusion Bush pushed; Homeland Security, NoNock warrants, NoTell warrants, warrantless searches, control of the Internet, indefinite arrest without charges - The Obama administration has enlarged on.
And I not only voted for him, I campaigned for him.
Okay, so you have an emotional attachment, and you're angry and want to punish him. I get that. I voted for him too, and I'm disappointed.
But take a minute and look at this from a financial standpoint. Think about all the wrong things he's done, and consider them all sunk cost. They're done and (at least this election) you can't get them back.
Then focus on future costs. Of the two available options, which one will be worst moving forward? I see no indication that the Republican nominee would undo any of those things. Indeed, comparing Obama and Romney/Gingrich, I think Romney/Gingrich would trample first and fifth amendment rights faster than Obama would. Romney/Gingrich want smaller government, but only where it regulates business or taxes rich people or helps poor people. Neither of them have any interest in stopping the things you hate about Obama, and I suspect both of them would further intensify those things so as to pander to the warhawk/"nothing to hide"/"with us or against us" base.
So by reacting with your emotions, I think you'll end up making things even worst. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face", so to speak.
Obviously your opinions about Obama's second term versus Romney/Gingrich's first might differ, but at least make sure you've thought them through before you vote.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Well to me, the democrats are
A - in my gas tanks = forcing green energy before it is commericaily economical is costing us all, rather than waiting for the technology to mature. Can you imagine if the government mandated that the model T had to have 10 airbags, and get 50 MPG?
B -favor union leadership over workers rights. See when I work directly for an employer, I negotiate with said employer. The company is my boss. But if I am in a union, than I pay my "boss" for the ability to work for a 3rd party?? It almost sounds like the soparanos "oh, you want to work for ford? well you need to pay us protection money if you want to work for ford, every paycheck. If we decide we dont like what ford does, than we force you to stop working,even if you agree with what ford is doing."
so while you may look at it that the democrats are the ones "for the people" I see them, using the same information you have to draw a different conclusion
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I'm a libertarian at heart but I just can't stand the Democrats anymore - especially the new bunch whose main objective is to restrict every right of everybody on this planet.
Oh, you mean like a woman's right to abortion - wait, that's the Republicans constantly introducing legislation to limit that. So you must mean the right to clean water and air - wait, that's the Republicans who want to dismantle the EPA. So you must mean the right to safe medication - wait, that's the Republicans who want to kill off the FDA. So, you must mean the right to equal protection under the law - wait, that's the Republicans who cut taxes for the wealthy, increased prison sentences for crack vs powder cocaine, and want to ask all brown people to show their papers, etc.
Sorry, that's not guaranteed. That's akin to me saying "How about liberty from muslims."
The Constitution allows you liberty of religion, that means you can worship as you please...or not at all (atheist). That you won't be required to worship a certain way.
It does not give you the protections nor the right to eradicate any other beliefs from around you. This is a logic fallacy many atheists fall into.
No, you can be an atheist. And I can be a Jedi. But you have no right to say I can't worship as a Jedi nor express, you just have a right to say "I'm doing my own thing..."
Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.
And yet they were still lower than when he took office. this is the stupidest quote I've ever heard trying to say he was against big government. He lowered taxes farther than he should then slowly raised them to help find the sweet spot, which is how it should be done.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice
For the record, Operation Gunrunner was started by the (G.W.) Bush administration; it wasn't until a border patrol agent was killed that it garnered public attention.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Except that Hitler was appointed, not voted, into power initially.
He was leader of the largest party in a democratically-elected parliament (don't know how fair the election was) and thus was given first chance to form a coalition (which he did, before rapidly sidelining his coalition partners through assorted shenanigans). That was the way the German system officially worked at the time; Chancellor was (and is) an appointed position where the appointment is made by the (largely ceremonial) head of state, with convention being to put someone in post who can form a stable government somehow, and that in turn is typically determined by how well they did at the election.
The system is very different in the US, where the head of state is also the head of the executive branch, but those are separate roles in most european countries. (In fact, I can't think offhand of anywhere where this isn't true. Byelorussia maybe?)
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Okay, I agree with all that - but the original poster's point was that due to the Democrats' restriction of rights, he's supporting the Republicans.
As you say, all of those things were initiated by Republicans and expanded upon by Democrats; thus, none of those things are rights that Democrats are restricting and Republicans aren't.
Not in a meaningful way.
Wages as a proportion of GDP peaked in 1972 and have been going down ever since.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
That would be Paul who is running as a Republican in the primaries. But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war, but yet Obama is a very pro-war president.
If Paul were somehow to win he'd rightfully be classed as a non-interventionist. Were the United States directly attacked I have no doubt that he would respond forcefully and decisively. Interventionism is an entirely different animal and much harder to classify than simply saying someone is "pro" or "anti" war. For better or worse both major parties have been interventionists since FDR and WW2. Pearl Harbor and the specter of Communism after WW2 conspired to neuter the isolationist/non-interventionist wing of both major parties. I doubt that's likely to change in the next generation or so.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Show me this on a RNC site and not just something someone put together. Your cite doesn't hold water.
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice, and it's criminal that the State Department is blocking the return of surplus WWII-era M1 Rifles and Carbines from Korea (which would then be administered by the Civilian Marksmanship Program and sold participants in its programs)
You do know that "Fast and Furious" was an extension of a Bush-era program, right?
Term limits need to be implemented. I thought I read somewhere the founding fathers wanted people in Congress to serve for a while then return to public life so they did not lose touch with the people. Or something to that effect. If there was a say a term limit, a lot of this would go away. The players would change. Sure there would be groups trying to get their like minded people elected over and over, but that (hopefully) would be seen and acted on accordingly.
It is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people FOR the people. Not a government for themselves.
I think the point should be to focus on the CANDIDATE instead of the party affiliation.
Unfortunately, that doesn't really work. The candidates are so beholding to their party that they must do what the party insists.
Limited immigration is crypto-racism.
It has nothing to do with the economic conservatism that you are proposing as the core Tea Party value.
you do remember how obama said he was going to end marijuana raids in cali and other states where it is legal right?? that lasted literally a week before they started up again, only now they dont make the headlines because than the general people will know he lied again....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Smaller difference than you may think. I am very libertarian when it comes to federal government, less and less so as government gets closer to me down to being 100% for a benevolent dual-dictatorship within my own house over my family.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
so yeah, I guess it doesn't matter who is in office--they're all the same. right?
The problem the Tea Party has is being represented by absolute fraking loons like Michele Bachmann. As an outsider, it gives us a foreigners yet another reason to point and laugh at the colony of crazy that is America.
Limited immigration is a core need of every nation-state on the planet. Why not check out the immigration policies of some other countries before you pass judgement on those who would simply like to enforce ours?
Also, "crypto-racism"? Wow. If that's not a far-leftist Orwellian newspeak style word I don't know what is. Creepy.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
So, to restate: More than a decade after the technical experts on the implementation side began explaining that centralized inhibition of copyright infringement is a costly boondoggle which will do far more to harm the public than to prevent copyright infringement, and more than a year after more fiscally minded people started asking whether we should be reducing copyright grants and enforcement instead of increasing them on a pure GDP maximization basis, the Tea Party decide to test the waters of supporting the rational, societally beneficial side. They did so when we technologists finally got so fed up that we started turning off the Internet. Actually, it wasn't just that -- they also realized (and frankly it was mostly this) they could use it as a political wedge issue to angle a few more seats in the power-and-pork circus.
Yeah, that's great. Nice work guys. Today you are truly statesmen.
I'll make you a deal -- you start showing some actual leadership on this issue. Start doing some research on the cost effectiveness, publishing the results, and using your offices as a serious bully pulpit to explain why the very spirit of America demands unhindered free speech on the Internet. You show that you understand why every step we have taken on digital copyright enforcement from the DMCA forward has been a direct violation of America's most sacred principles. You start trying to explain that to the populace, instead of just flapping in the breeze of popular emotionalism. You do that, then I'll stop thinking you are shameless opportunists who are only slightly less despicable on this particular issue than any of the other corrupt vermin in D.C.
Oh, and one more thing: You better make it clear that free speech means radical Muslims and American dissidents too. Everyone gets to speak, even if they are insane, evil, violent assholes.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
You do realize that Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit, is probably not the most accurate source for political positions? For example, within the link you posted you will find the following statement:
"In October 2011, Paul released a federal budget proposal for 2013, entitled the “Plan to Restore America.” The plan calls for cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget in the first year, along with other measures which Paul says would balance the federal budget within 3 years. To achieve these ambitious goals, the plan would seek [to]... privatize the Federal Aviation Administration and the TSA"
That statement is a blatant lie, easily disputed by those who actually pay attention to the candidate's positions. Paul wants to eliminate the TSA, not privatize it.
One can only guess how much of that particular Wikipedia entry is also dubious.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Oh, you must mean how the Republicans stonewalled on confirmation of a head of the Consumer Protection Bureau.
Oh that's cute! You think a government bureau will do what their name says, even with no oversight. I wish I lived in your world!
captcha - precise (make an adverb out of it, and we're spot on)
I voted for Nader in 2000. In Florida.
D'oh!
I drank what? -- Socrates
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things
Guns have their place, but why does every defender of the second amendment have to sound like they've got all the intellectual maturity of an 8-year old that just watched Red Dawn? Please leave the crazy militia uprising bullshit at Free Republic --you're lowering /.'s collective I.Q.
Please allow me to reply as a conservative.
A - Want a presence in my bedroom, and I absolutely can't stand that.
No one really cares what you do in your bedroom or with who. It's what you do on the park bench that offends us. It's what you want to teach our children. It's Girl Scouts admitting gender confused pre-teens. It's the banning of communities from renting public land to Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts' parents don't want gay men taking their boys camping. It's the handing out of contraception or sexual literature to elementary school kids. It's explaining to first graders that it is OK to explore your sexuality.
It's not what you do to whoever or whatever in your bedroom. It's the fact that you want to force me and my kids to accept it, and before we can do that, you have to tell us what it is. Frankly, we don't want to know.
B - Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.
I assume you are talking about "right to work" laws. Right to work laws allow workers to accept a job at place where unions exist without being forced to join the union, or paying union dues whether they join the union or not. It also prevents companies from taking retaliatory actions against workers who want to start or join a union.
What's the problem? Do you really believe that I should I be forced to pay union dues that will contribute political money to an organization I disagree with just so I can have a job? That's a clear violation of my rights in favor of unions, which is exactly of what you are accusing the Republicans of doing.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
"Sure, in places with real functioning political parties like Europe this is the case, but not so in the US."
I contradict that assertion with my assertion that the political parties here are indeed real and functioning, representing the actual dispersal of ideas in a populace, and that the European model is simply a decayed version of familial alignment via aristocracy support.
Or are you saying that Europeans actually only think in terms of black and white?
He's a States Rights-er.
You say that as if you think that's a bad thing; it's not. In fact, if you actually read the damn Constitution, you'll note that the founders were also big supporters of state's rights and limited federal government.
*sigh* How far we've fallen from the lofty ideals of our Republic's fathers...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And yet it continued under Obama.
Stop trying to blame one party or the other. Both are at fault, and both should be punished. Vote third party.
You assume that Gore would have been different from Bush. That is unlikely, especially given the degree to which Obama has been no different from Bush.
If you believe that is an actual document, you have serious problems.
That would be Paul
Paul is not "anti-war". He is anti-MIC (Military Industrial Complex).
But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war,
Democrats are only "anti-war" to people that don't read history books. Here is a list of the major wars of the 20th century, along with the party in power when the US went to war:
err, you missed the part where i said Dems are no better. this country sorely needs third parties.
Uhhh...what planet you been living on friend? PATRIOT, Gitmo, these ring any bells? BOTH sides happen to loooove the way they look in jackboots friend, the ONLY difference is what excuse they use to take freedoms from you, one to protect their corporate masters precious copyrights and the other to get them thar terrist.
That is why you need to urge everyone around you to vote third party right down the middle. in my own state the greens pick up more seats each election so you can slowly but surely make a third party viable in your neck of the woods. But if you think Mittens and his paying 15% taxes while talking about how he ain't worried about them poor people none cause they got safety nets, which ignores the fact that the nets have holes the size of Texas, if you think he will be ANY better than worthless Nobama you might be interested in this bridge to nowhere i have for sale. Both Mittens and Nobama are total sellouts!
Not that it matters because the MSM will pick your next POTUS just as it has for decades and they have spoken that the rep WILL be Mittens, who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. McSame will have put up better numbers than Mittens when the final count is done, mark my words. Not only is mittens too smarmy he's been uberrich for so long he can't help opening his big fucking mouth and telling folks what he really thinks which frankly isn't very nice like his "More people need to be foreclosed on, it'll be good for the banks to clear out the stragglers" or his little smartass "I'm unemployed too" horseshit. The man couldn't be elected dogcatcher which is EXACTLY why the SOPA loving MSM picked him, he's born to lose.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You might want to check into A there. The Dems simply want a different presence.
Probably not. In the case of Libertarians, one needs to realize that a truly Libertarian society is pretty much alien to the current system we have. So much so that we would probably have to have some sort of serious upheaval, disaster or revolution before it could even happen. I'm serious, you'd probably have to have blood in the streets.
That's not an indictment of Libertarianism, it's a situation due to inertia. People may know that things like Social Security and government sponsored health care have serious potential problems in the long term, but the fact is that we now rely on those things due to the fact that other alternatives eventually dry up.
Consider Social Security. What did people do when they got old in the past? Did they die en masse in the streets? No. They generally had families support them or there were private charities that helped out. However, now we are so used to the government taking care of things, there has been a social shift away from families taking care of their elders and now that is firmly ingrained in our society. So now, we couldn't go back now if we tried, unless we accept the pain that it will cause.
That said, that pain doesn't mean that Social Security is the best idea, it just means that the costs of moving to some other solution are prohibitive. And frankly, as government gets bigger and these programs get harder to reform, we're in real trouble going forward.
atheism is not a religion, so freedom of religion is not entirely correct for me.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
who modded this insightful? The republicans (since the tea party formed) havent had the power to repeal any of these things. The tea party IS against the TSA, The PATRIOT act, not so much but they want to rid us of the TSA.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
He's not talking about Reagan. Reagan betrayed his values when he got into power, setting the precedent for all future Republican presidents--campain on small government, increase the size of government when you get in.
PRIOR to Reagan, however, they WERE like that. I don't know if you recall or not, but Nixon ENDED the Vietnam War. And he was a fucking crook.
But who cares? That shit is far in the past. Let's make some actual reasonable policy decisions. To do that, we are going to have to get most of the Democrats and most of the Republicans. Basically, leave Kucinich and the Pauls, and kick everyone else to the curb. Then we can start to have a reasonable conversation about the future of this country.
Obviously not a libertarian. I mean, Saint Adam Smith never called for a regulation of the market place and was perfectly fine with rent-seeking. As for transparency so that all could operate from a level playing field; ludicrous!
I drank what? -- Socrates
Congressional Republicans were all for SOPA/PIPA until the big backlash starting last December. Quite a lot of that backlash was organized by progressive groups, though certainly not all of it. It's true that Congressional Democrats suck on copyright and mostly they ignored even the backlash. But out among the people, I saw a lot more opposition from people aligned with no party and from progressives than I saw from any Tea Party organization.
There was however a substantial Tea Party opposition, too. I quibble with the framing of this story as "Tea Party vs Democrats", because it looked like a lot more Democratic party members (voters, not politicians) than Tea Party "associates" (or whatever they are). Tea Partiers are generally quick to anger at any government action at all, so riling them up against law that uses any government power is no great feat or news. Progressives are more selective about government exercises.
But it's just a quibble. Really the story here is the great common ground Tea Partiers have with progressives. Almost any progressive position that opposes a government action is compatible with the Tea Party agenda. The notable exceptions are putting people in jail, invading/bombing other countries, and outlawing abortions - but there isn't even complete Tea Party consensus on those issues.
Americans are partisan only when organized into factions by parties; outside the tribalism there's far more consensus on every issue than we ever see among our elected "representatives". When we organize into political action according to an issue, not according to loyalty to some group, we agree far more than we disagree. Getting Congress to back away from copyright tyranny is a good example of our common ground. I hope we can use it to not only roll back copyright tyranny, especially its latest escalations. I hope we can use the lesson to see that we stand united mostly, and our differences can be disputed in debate rather than the war we've been in too long.
--
make install -not war
Fuck Godwin's law. All it was was a silly Usenet post decades ago, and we've allowed it to arbitrarily constrain debate ever since. Comparisons with the Nazis are forbidden (maybe I should say verboten) forever more. Nothing could ever be that bad again, right? Until it is, and then we forbid ourselves from realizing it because of some stupid fucking comment made in jest by a guy none of us have ever met. No, fuck Godwin's law. I don't operate my mind according to rules of thumb like that, because I'm not a fucking idiot.
Well played, sir. Well played.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Not being able to stand Democrats doesn't mean supporting the Republicans. In fact, standing against restricting the rights of everbody on the planet would mean standing at least as hard against the Republicans.
Everyone knows Republicans act far more as a unit, voting with their party, than Democrats ever do. Democrats are much more a case of "rotten apples" than Republicans are - Republicans are a rotten apple tree.
You call yourself "libertarian", but you're just like every other Republican who denies your loyalty to the Republican Party - while standing behind it 100%. It's irrational, no matter what mask you put on it.
--
make install -not war
Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier.
Oh gee, you put it that way and I'm freaking estatic that I'm now paying an arm and a leg to keep my arms and legs.
Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.
And who fought them tooth and nail, and are still trying to get it anulled? Yep, that's the republicans.
So THANKS.
I assume you are against giving the government too much power over the lives of the people. Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If government is paying for your health care, they make the rules covering your health care. Note ELECTED officials, mind you, but those appointed by various "super committees" whose members are also appointed and not responsible to voters. How long do you think it will be before the committees realize that tax dollars are paying for cancer treatments because someone chose to smoke? How long before the outrage over the billions spent on heart medication because these people are too lazy to exercise and don't have the self control to stay away from cup cakes? How long before treatment depends on your government mandated health lifestyle score and how do you think that score will be determined?
You don't want government in your bedroom. Can you imagine government at your dinner table, prodding your to get off your couch or monitoring your alcohol consumption and workout schedule? How long until someone asks a smoker, "Why should I pay the medical bills for your poor life decisions?" At what point does good health become the law?
Maybe a better idea would be to allow consumers to pool their resources together, much like a company does, to get better rates or allow consumers to buy insurance out of state.
Everyone else, fyi:
The Cato Institute is a proprietarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States
Just so you know where this little blurb is coming from. Corporate Kochs.
So? Ad hominem much?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
That still says more about the opposition.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
It's not what you do to whoever or whatever in your bedroom. It's the fact that you want to force me and my kids to accept it, and before we can do that, you have to tell us what it is. Frankly, we don't want to know.
hey, when heterosexuality is kept quiet and no one mentions it in public, I'll accept your argument here as legitimate. Until then, allowing one view point to be expressed as openly as desired and requiring a different view point to only be held in private is not equality.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Except that members of each parties routinely defy their party's published platform. Democrats do it out of diversity, since Democrats often don't even vote with the majority of their party's congressional delegation. Republicans do it all together, much more unified in saying one thing and then doing the opposite.
--
make install -not war
When Clinton reduced social spending [wikipedia.org] while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?
That's why I cast my vote for anarchy.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.
And yet they were still lower than when he took office. this is the stupidest quote I've ever heard trying to say he was against big government. He lowered taxes farther than he should then slowly raised them to help find the sweet spot, which is how it should be done.
And yet in today's Republican Party the vast majority of politicians have taken an explicit public oath never to raise taxes at all. Net rates can only ever go down, never up. How can you "find a sweet spot" when only a one-way ratchet is permitted to exist?
Oh, and Reagan equalized the treatment between capital gains and regular income in the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
The point is dead-on: today's Republicans's exhibit an ideological rigidity, and a preference for special treatment for the rich, that was absent with Ronald Reagan, who would be mocked as a RINO today if judged by his actual policies.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Speaking of broad generalizations that are often correct, European Slashdotters love to take shots at America whenever they can. And when they see the term America to reference the Unites States, they will say how Canada is part of (North) America and thus use the term "USian."
Prove me wrong, guys! :D
I think this is doubly true now that "the two parties" seem to be largely defined by opposition to each other rather than any clear political platform intended to benefit the country and its general citizenry.
These days, "The Democratic Party" doesn't really have a clear platform, as it is really made up more or less of everybody who, regardless of their real political views, doesn't want to be "Republican(tm)" but still wants to be affiliated with a large enough political corporation to have a chance of being allowed to win an election (c.f. "Blue Dog" democrats, and President Barack Obama, who is often accused/praised as a good "moderate Republican president"). In short, they're really only definable these days as "not-Republicans". "The Republican Party", on the other hand, does seem to have a very concise and well-enforced political platform. Unfortunately, that platform is "the opposite of whatever 'The Democrats(tm)' want". They're "The Anti-Democrat Party".
tl;dr: "The Two Parties" are the "Not-Republicans" and the "Anti-Not-Republicans". Also: the US political system is a complete fustercluck, or perhaps just a circus put on by whoever is really running things...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier.
Hate to break it to you but guaranteeing a right to healthcare is probably about the best way possible to raise premiums.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I was simply responding to your part about "the party that supports full on law against marijuana" with that comment. I do concur that we need more 3rd parties in America but my response was pretty clearly on the 1 sentence.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
my main objective now is to stop that bunch of lunatic Democrats who are doing everything to restrict everybody's rights
There are lunatic Republicans that want to restrict rights against unreasonable search and seizure, rights against cruel and unusual punishment (torture), and rights to privacy (warrentless wiretapping), and the right to speak your mind without being labeled a terrorist suspect.
mfwright@batnet.com
Term limits was debated during the constitution conventional. IIRC Franklin and Jefferson were supporters and there were others. Eventually, they decided to leave it out mostly on the basis that it was not needed because the congressional pay was so low that no-one would want to stay in office overly long.
And yet it continued under Obama. Stop trying to blame one party or the other. Both are at fault, and both should be punished. Vote third party.
Re-read my post. I was NOT blaming Bush. I was merely pointing that the OP was blaming Obama, when it was a continuation of Bush-era stuff. Obama just gets the blame because the program went bad under his watch.
s/was/wasn't/
"wasn't against big government"
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Assume that everyone of a particular race or creed has a drinking problem and you're a bigot. Assume that everyone who attends AA has a drinking problem and you're likely pretty close to on target.
So, you're saying that certain races and creeds have a high percentage of problematic drinking behaviors?
I know it's unwise to make statements about things you have no real knowledge of, it's something you should learn as well... You see, my Father had a drinking problem. As a small child I sometimes had to go to AA meetings with him. There was also Al-anon meetings in the same establishment. Could you detect who was "there" to attend either meeting?
Furthermore, since many support groups have a similar 12 step program Narcotics Anonymous, and Sex Addicts Anonymous, and even Gambling Addicted folks -- who have no problem with booze -- FREQUENTLY attend AA meetings.
Nature abhors a mono-culture and prefers diversity to combat extinction. Considering that "broad generalizations" and "lumping people into categories" are what creates LESS political diversity, It's clear that such practices are bad in general. Your ignorant statement about AA proves the opposite "POINT" than you were trying to make.
Additionally, regardless of the "POINT" of political parties, I think their EFFECTS are far more important to consider.
You are absolutely correct and its been working. The left has been using that strategy forever. The 'genius' if you will of the likes of Karl Rove during the Bush era and now as well as some of the new anti-Obama super PACs and similar is that Conservatives have started to do the same thing to and about liberals.
You can't have an intelligent debate when the other side is permitted to get away with name calling and baseless hyperbole that is not subject to challenge. The right finally figured out its not worth holding the moral high ground if it means losing the election. The result is the political discourse in this nation has been reduced to level children on playground exercise. Until the public demands better and everyone gets together and agrees to something better the right thing to do is whatever it takes to win.
If Romney wants to win this thing the moment the GOP primary ends he SHOULD go hard negative on Obama. He should adobt Newt's nonsense about the food stamp president, label the president an apologist who hates America, etc etc. He should set the PACs about going after Obama's family. Tell people how even Michelle is a totalitarian who hates your freedom to even decided what to eat or feed your children. Remind people how Obama told his daughter she'd make her first million before 18, and accuse the entire family of just having their hand in the cookie jar, of nepotism, of looting.
None of it needs to be true, fair, or reasonable. Newt's SC success is proof of this. The more vapid and empty the better, in fact. I'd make this the UGLIEST election this Nation has ever seen, first because its the way to win and second because maybe just maybe when the dust finally settles people would wake up and decide they are truly tired of it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I think they're probably about as good as .38 against a tank.
I'm not sure if the American revolutionary idea of an armed militia overthrowing an oppressive government has much basis in reality now, if it ever did. The American Revolution was only possible because Britain was engaged in a much more important war close to home. More importantly, the last time that I checked the U.S. spent more on it's military than every other nation combined. A successful revolution against the government is going to have to involve inciting a substantial part of that military to defect to the revolutionary side. Shooting at them is not going to achieve that aim.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'd like to see some of the alt-history folks take a swing at a Gore presidency. I mean, I couldn't vote for him after researching him back to his state legislature days (talk about flip-flopping on issues) but I figured that, like Bill Clinton, he'd actually be ok as president. Knowing Bush W's past, oh HELL no was I gonna vote for him. I just figured I'd do my part for third party representation like I'd done in earlier elections (I tried to get students at my college interested in any candidate running, even as write in's, showing them just how diverse the alternatives were to the two parties out there). Who knew the election coulda' been swung by just a few thousand votes.
I drank what? -- Socrates
You mean states' rights supporters supported a bill which puts welfare responsibility on the individual states? Shocking. Also, it was more than one 2012 Republican Candidate who worked on it. And the one you're pointing at had to work closely with Clinton on it -- he was the Speaker of the House. His job is to work closely with the Senate and the President on legislation.
You do realise the Republicans proposed the SOPA bill, don't you?
have you completely forgotten what bush/cheney did? Like waterboarding torture and it just gets worse the more you know about what they did.
At what point has a major point of tea party rallies been shoving religion down your throat? Individual supporters, yes. Because the tea party is a cross section of people who care about government size, it includes both social conservatives and social liberals.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Why would they? The libertarian got 1% of the vote. Their actual opponent got close to 50%, the bigger prize is in prying away voters from the opposition that matters.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I have a few doubts about what you said.
If they do anything enforcing existing and Constitutional immigration laws, they are labeled racists.
If they want to lower taxes for everyone, they are accused of only supporting the rich.
If they they give workers the right to accept a job without joining a union, they are labeled as being anti-worker and in the pocket of big business.
These may or may not be the case, obviously, though one can argue that usually #2 is made in a way that rich people get way more cuts and #3 invariably leads to workers being put in a disadvantageous position when not united (I don't even know if it's a good argument, not having access to relevant data, but it's the idea behind unions and, thus, the rationale behind the labeling). #1 seems to be, more often than not, just economic policy. However, how can
If they support a strong defense, they are accused of supporting the "military industrial complex".
not be true? Really, when people say "strong defense", what they mean is "big military". And that means supporting the "military industrial complex". I'd personally argue that non-interventionism is a better defensive strategy in the long run, but I know that's not what any politician means by "strong defense".
If they want to improve education and/or cut educational costs, they are accused of being anti-teacher.
This one puzzles me. I can understand wanting to cut spending and not being "anti-teacher", by, say, cutting bullshit spending like iPads for the students. I can also understand wanting to improve education, but I cannot see how wanting to improve education would lead someone to being labeled anti-teacher. Unless they do ir moronically, like mandating a stupid curriculum change or high rates of approval. I also have a little difficulty thinking of ways to "improve education and cut educational costs". I suppose it's possible in some way, but in a world where teachers are already grossly underpaid, I cannot fathom them both happening concomitantly. As for
If they oppose abortion, they are labeled as anti-woman bigots.
I'm not even going to enter the debate, but it's pretty obvious how wanting to criminalize abortion would make them be viewed as male chauvinists by women. They are the ones who might need abortions, after all, and some old guy is taking away their right to decide.
I think one of the causes for the difference is most European Countries are on a form of Parliamentary Government, and in a Parliamentary Government minority parties can wield power through coalitions; right now this happens mainly in the conventions. Now if we moved to a system where a portion of our House of Representatives were elected by popular party votes and you would start see Libertarians, Greens, Socialists and Communists sitting in congress with Democrats and Republicans, now that would considerably change the way power worked in our country. The Tea Party and Occupy might even become full fledged political parties. Democrats really aren't as anti-war as you think, to me it seems their anti-Big Business leanings teaming up with the competitions of their beloved social programs for tax money makes them more anti defense-contractor than anti-war.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Of course, he still did move their production overseas and apparent it is kept there because of the benefits of employing wage slaves who can be roused out their beds at midnight and forced to work 18 hour shifts to meet arbitrary corporate deadlines.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The only union dues that a worker can be forced to pay are those that go towards collective bargaining. You can never be forced to pay money that is used for political contributions.
Obama's an American moderate on the left-right spectrum. Everywhere else that makes him somewhere between moderately and extremely right wing.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
To me republicans are....
A - too uneducated to realize the technology IS there and IS mature. but they throw around dumb statements like " Can you imagine if the government mandated that the model T had to have 10 airbags, and get 50 MPG? " And the US government DID require safety things on the Model T, the hand crank was mandated to be a cam type that would kick out when the motor started instead of whipping around and breaking an arm.
B - You are complaining about something that is not "Union" but general Politician. The Republicans do this as much as the dems. Hell your Republican Christ figure,Ronnie Regan himself said, "union labor is important to the United states" It seems you guys cant see the corruption and stink that is all over in your own party, but it's clear as day in the Democrats. Everything you say about unions are the fault of lobbying and ALL politicians being dirty. Republicans are as at fault as the Dems on this.
Both parties are nothing but corrupt scumbags. And you are foolish to align yourself with such people, it degrades what others think of you.
How about stop frothing at the mouth and regurgitating what others tell you to say and speak for yourself. Learn about something before you spout half truths and outright lies as if they were fact. You end up looking far more credible and people will actually pay attention to what you say.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Some of the ghouls of the Civil Rights movement, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, claim that the concept of states' rights within our republican form of government is responsible for slavery and prejudice. They don't seem concerned about the tyranny of the majority, which could result in the same evils.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Your explicit salary has increased more slowly than executive salaries. Your total compensation, factoring in health benefits (provided you're not a top-decile earner) has increased more quickly than executive compensation.
+1, informative, and a very good find. Readers, scroll down to "Wage Inequality" in the reference.
Godwin's law doesn't 'forbid' anything. It's not a legal law, it's a law of nature, like Murphy's law.
Way to totally miss the GP's point and go off on a rant.
If you're talking about a meeting for ALCOHOLICS Anonymous, it's perfectly valid to assume that most attendees are alcoholics.
In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power.
Why did parties come into the equation? Democrats and republicans don't have exclusive rights on being greedy or corrupt. Most corrupt politicians are one of the two, but that's a sampling error. There are, what, two independent congresspeople this year out of about 530?
I think it's a common mistake to think it has anything to do with democrat or republican. Abolish the parties, and you'll still get corruption, you will have just wasted a lot of time.
You are the problem. You list a bunch of politician with no real evidence of wrong doing and assume they are wrong because you heard about it in the media.
You know making a stink out of nothing and then constantly feeding news source with information they know to be incorrect has been SOP for the pubs for about 15 years?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh please. The argument of "we need to be able to defend ourselves from a tyranical government" is such a moot point! If there was a tyranical government in the United States, do you think your colt .45 or at best your M4 is going to be able to do much against the amassed strength of the United States Armed Forces?
There is no -1 disagree
You talked about the government for the people in the same post where you say that people should not be allowed to vote for someone simply because they held that office for an arbitrary amount of time? Do you listen to yourself?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There are term limits, they're called elections.
There is no -1 disagree
It was never about overthrowing an internal tyranny. It was about not being able to afford a standing army.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
An armed populace very well may win a war against the military. Look at what's happening overseas, you have largely illiterate, uneducated guys often with poor vision with Soviet Bloc rifles successfully fighting a war of attrition against the U.S. military. A hundred thousand soldiers with planes and tanks and drones can't kill those guys, how are they expected to take on tens of millions of people armed similarly?
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
For example, Anne Coulter has written books that accuse anyone who disagrees with conservatives is a traitor to America.
Have you read her books? Until then, you don't really know what you are talking about.
But to get back on topic, how much air time does Ann Coulter get? Quite a bit, I'm sure. She writes a book every two to three years and gets a few minutes on a few TV talk shows to promote her new book or being the conservative "talking head" on a panel full of liberals. This lasts for a couple of weeks until the next book comes out. How much time does Rachel Maddow get? How about Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg or Ed Schultz or Bill Maher or Christiane Amanpour or the entire cast of Glee? For every minute Ann Coulter calling liberals traitors on television, any one of these liberals are calling conservatives racists for more than 20 hours. Do your own math.
I'm inclined to believe, in fact, that the flow is the opposite direction that you believe it flows in (and of course, that could be a result of my own confirmation bias).
Granted, on both our parts.
1) Limiting access to abortion and birth control is literally part of the subjugation of women.
Wrong. You say that, but deep down, you know it's a lie. I'm conservative. I don't want to "subjugate" women. For that matter, I have no problem with contraception. I agree with the President that they should be covered by insurance, at no additional cost to the insurer and no copay. Where I don't agree is that insurances companies must be forced to provide birth control. At the very least, it should have an "opt-out" clauses, even if opting out of insurance provided contraception will not reduce premiums (and it should not).
Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not? What gives anyone the qualification to determine that? History is full of bad things happening when one group of people determined that another group of people was no longer human, freeing their conscience to justify whatever evil they determined to be necessary.
Also, you will note that those against embryonic stem cell research are against it because it takes a human life. How is the destruction of a discarded human embryo for scientific research "subjugating" women?
And finally, and if you read nothing else, read this. WHY WOULD 51% OF WOMEN BE AGAINST ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL?
Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications.
Are you saying that 51% of women support the "subjugation" of women?
3) If the Republicans lower taxes for everyone but a disproportionate amount of that tax break goes to rich, then it's pretty obvious that they are favouring the rich.
So if you cut everyone's taxes by 2%, that favors the rich? Seems to me that everyone would get the same percentage of tax cuts. How about if a president, say, gave everyone who pays taxes $600? Would that be more fair? Actually, GWB, a Republican, did just that, but he was favoring the rich, right?
Tell you what. I'm sure you make more than me. Why don't you figure out what you saved from any tax cuts you say favor the rich, and simply send it to me. See, because compared to me, you are RICH! So why shouldn't I have the RIGHT to take what is yours? If you think for some reason I make more than you, you are still still rich compared to someone. Go give them whatever you think you have saved from tax cuts over the last 20 years, because YOU, being rich, has benefited more from Republican tax cuts that whoever is poorer than you.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Doesn't look like those salaries stayed low. At the time, the amounts were comparable to a lower middle class living. These days, they''re heading for the 1% and not slowing down yet.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
No, it's a good reminder to stop people from going to unreasonable extremes in discussions. It also reminds us tat emotional debates can sway opinions unreasonably.
It doesn't mean you can't compare NAZI and/or Hitler in the relevant discussions.
If you think Godwin's law is arbitrarily constraining actual debate, and the comparison with the NAZI are forbidden, then you are a fucking idiot.
Remember, the stupid you are, the less likely you are to believe you are ignorant.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Obama being pro-war is a consequence of reality -- he inherited a pro-war situation in America and he has no choice but to continue. Ron Paul can talk about being anti-war but if he became president he would have to deal with the same momentum. If I remember Obama did the same thing.
But otherwise you're right, there's too many nuances among people or special interests the politicians represent to just say Republicans believe X and Democrats believe Y.
I'm not seeing the proof though: if that hypothesis was correct, then one would expect that some of the GOP candidates would attempt to gain some votes from the Ron Paul crowd by parroting some of his positions. He's done pretty well, he has enough supporters to really tip the scales.
Instead, they seem to have all decided to completely ignore the issues his supporters hold dear and go after the bible-thumper vote. Newt, Santorum, Romney, or anyone else, do you support small governments, states rights, legalizing marijuana, or ending the patriot act? Well no, but I in favor of the government telling people they can't have abortions or have gay marriage. That's close enough, right?
- can't make your own toys
What? I know that there was that stupid lead scare for Chinese toys and they instituted this horrible rule that all toy productions SOLD need to be inspected. At something like $1,000 a pop. Which essentially killed handy-craft toy sellers on e-bay and the like.
But that's a far cry from being unable to make your own toys.
What were the four slogans of IngSoc?
War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is power. Democrats and Republicans are opposed to each other.
My dear US-ians... You live under a single party system. Yes, a bit disguised as two parties, but so close to each other that they mean exactly the same in the end. And there are more parties, sure, but the system is crafted so that none of them will ever achieve anything. With a 48% vs. 47.5% (or whatever...) effective support, nothing will ever change, while it gives the illusion of balance and competition. Which is completely bogus.
The USA is about as democratic as the countries whose political systems it has subverted over the past century.
But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war,
Democrats are only "anti-war" to people that don't read history books. Here is a list of the major wars of the 20th century, along with the party in power when the US went to war:
Perhaps Democrats are seen as anti-war, and thus other governments feel greater license to do more provocative things when they are in power. I've known kids who pull stunts around Mom that they wouldn't around Dad, because they know their Dad draws the line sooner. But eventually they cross the line even for Mom, who is forced to act. If Dad had been around, he wouldn't have had to act because his reputation acts as a deterrent.
The UK. The PM is head of the executive branch, but the monarchy is still officially head of state, isn't she?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Missed one:
4) If they give workers "the right to accept a job without joining a union" they are labelled as being "anti-union" because that policy weakens unions, by encouraging workers to free-load. They get to enjoying the benefits of the union's negotiations without paying for them.
Really? Because I work in a "right to work" state and we don't have that problem. While working at Kroger many years ago, union members received one set of benefits and pay scale. Non-union members received another.
There is no union at my current job. I enjoy full health benefits for me and my family, decent salary, fair treatment, plenty of vacation and sick days, maternity, 401k and a slew of other benefits I'll probably never use. Don't assume that without unions, the worker gets screwed. The worker only gets screwed when there are 20 other workers willing to take his place for less money. If that's the case, you need to find a new line of work.
But that doesn't matter. Are you saying that I should be forced to give my money to a union, that will turn around and give to the Democratic party? Would you feel the same way if getting a job meant you had to support the Republican party? I would be much more receptive the idea if unions were banned from politics, but that's not the case.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
>> the new bunch whose main objective is to restrict every right of everybody on this planet.
You should stop watching fox news and get out more. Nut job.
Oh dear. I guess I'm a troll for challenging the fact that Ron Paul is anything less that a God-King.
Rather than engaging your turd-mined example of untruth from an unrelated portion of my source, let's find sources for the on-topic claims I actually made about Ron Paul's political positions:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-18/ron-paul-limit-military-to-national-defense/
Would allow prayer in schools: "The federal government has no authority to tell your public schools whether you have a prayer in school or not"
Church and state: "But, as far as church and state goes, the first amendment gives us a pretty hint: the Congress shall write no law, there are no prohibitions." Personally I find that interpretation naive to the point of idiocy -- or possibly one taken with full knowledge that it closes the door on explicit theocracy while opening one to a much more dangerous implicit one.
Sexual harassment: He wrote this in a book: "Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."
Non-acknowledgement of the right to privacy in the bedroom: He wrote this on the website of Lew Rockwell: "there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution."
Gay marriage: He sells cards of talking points in favor of DOMA on his website.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/protect-marriage-issue-cards-pack-of-100/
Abortion: He sells similar talking point cards that dismiss even the possibility of a medically necessary abortion.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/a-pro-life-champion-issue-cards-pack-of-100/
DADT: He voted to repeal it, but has now taken up the stance that it should be repealed...because he's so consistent and courageous, right?http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal
Seriously, he's not the savior you people think he is.
Porquoi?
I'm not saying it like it's a bad thing, idiot; you're reading what I said and assigning a meaning according to your own prejudices.
The difference is that a mere states-rightser will say "OK, you states can be just as tyrannical as you like, the federal government shouldn't be able to stop you", which is the vibe I get off Ron Paul, while an actual libertarian will say "OK, you governments can't be tyrannical".
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Because Obama is supposed to review every policy and action in every agency that had existed?
It is only in the spotlight because the pubs push it through their media channels. If Obama had lost, you never would ahve heard this muvch about the program. You notice that it gets brought up in discussion that aren't relevant to it? and do you notice how abruptly the subject changes is if someone mentions it started with Bush's approval?
Search Google, hos comes up on top? Fox and The Blaze.
Now while the program is horrible, it it is still the person who pulled the trigger that is at fault for the killing. People seem to overlook the fact that those people are already armed. Why doesn't anyone question the fact that the agent was killed, and the killer left behind assault weapons at the seen? why?'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
" It doesn't matter what the local comptroller or county commitioners view on abortion? global warming? evoloution? etc. "
it does matter. Local representatives an impact the schools. The get infected and overrun by religious zealots trying to shove there beliefs down' everyone's throat. SO instead of learning science and critical thinking, kids get fed bullshit.
The impact local health efforts
So, yeah, there views are critical to whether or not they should be in office.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Back then, corporations were not the same kind of thing as they are today. Those that did exist were government chartered companies by act of legislature. Over the 19th century, restrictions on corporations was reduced, and corporations were allowed to grow larger. And with it gradually came political corruption through donations and bribery, which today is virtually unlimited. The "pay" is now no longer so low; it's in the millions of dollars counting all the legalized and illegal money congressional reps and senators get.
Rather than term limits, if we completely sever all other sources of pay besides what their government paycheck is, maybe we can restore true representation of the people (which in term represents the non-government corporations by way of the people who own stock in these corporations).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Also, note that the appointment was made by the President, who had hated Hitler (the feeling was mutual) and resisted appointing him as chancellor for years. He was old and getting senile, and had a lot of pressure from close advisors, including his own son, to make the appointment.
Gore cores stance are fundamental different, so of course it would have been different.
The biggest difference is that Cheney wouldn't have been determining what the president gets to see.
And if you think Obama is the same, then you are the medias bitch.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The United States already has a limited immigration policy. This is not what the Tea Party proposes. They propose police harassment of anyone who looks like he might be an immigrant, denial of basic human rights to anyone who looks like an immigrant, denial of rights guaranteed in the Constitution to anyone who looks like an immigrant, denial of the benefits of the society they pay taxes in to anyone who looks like an immigrant and so on.
NONE of this has anything to do with the concept of fiscal conservatism. It's a warped social agenda just like the idea of pushing religion in schools, preventing the teaching of scientific concepts that conflict with superstitions promoted by religions, attempting to limit tax benefits to heterosex married couples when the equal protection clause specifically makes this sort of behavior unconstitutional etc.
If you want to try to slap a label on what I am saying like 'liberal', go ahead. It just further exposes your position that the Tea Party is just about fiscal conservatism, which is something I am in favor, of as being baloney.
You are absolutely correct. The perfect example is the No Child Left Behind law. It was essentially written by Senator Ted Kennedy (well, his staff), yet the "left" derided it as a terrible law enacted by George W. Bush. It is a terrible law, yet many of the things in it that the "left" condemned had long been on their list of proposed education reforms.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Its obvious that most leftists are against this. Espcially most grass roots orgs.
Its really time for the grass roots leftists to realize that celebrites and the media industry does NOT have their best intrests at heart and just plays them.
The Republicans are in bed with their own corporate agendas, and no one is suggested they aren't. but ever since the tea party has been around they've had an angry populist base to keep them in line.
While the democrats are busy getting their grass roots activists worked up and paranoid about the tea party, what they really should be doing is making their own grass roots organization instead of bitching about the tea party.
Its also funny to point out there is a grain of truth in republican propaganda about "liberal elitests". By that we can soley mean the democratic party and its agents in other leftist organizations. Instead of fixing the issue, they just throw their base under the bus. The solutiuon isn't swallowing republican values hook line and sinker, but instead forcing the democrats to listen to their base, not their source of bribes. That said, they make a valid point of bold face democrat hypocracy. This won them elections in 2010.
I'll go further. The media machine is also what sells votes to special intrest groups, being that most PR firms have heavy ties to washington AND hollywood. Money would NOT be able to buy votes without the paid work of advertising men who learn their trade at the same schools and institutions as movie dirrectors. They are the same source. They do the same thing. There is no diffrence.
The republican party in the last 5 years has been quick to adapt to new a new base. They've gotten good with new media. The Obama campaign was an exception to the democrat rule.
again the solution is more grass roots movements, and to keep all special intrests out peroid. While free speech on line is only an issue, its been pointed out its a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. Its a new tool for coreting the horrible ballance away from a few elites to the populace at large. This lets people talk to people without a middleman to censor and mix up ideas.
It also makes it harder to "buy" an election with advertising money. I mean what would the point be if not one really took the TV seriously? You can buy out every blogger. There are potentially unlimited blogs. Nothing from keeping the people of speaking about "sell outs"
Except that you are allowed, by law, and the employer is required to allow, time off for voting. That includes travel time and time spent. I would love to be a lawyer for the guy that got fired for voting.
Only in America is changing a view with new data considered flip flopping. Bush and Cheney would , literally, go to one place and say one thing, and then 2 hours later be saying the exact opposite to a different group. Thtat's flip flopping, and the media never called them on it. They did this over and over again.
remind me which news source called it flip flopping? oh, right Fox.
Florida is why any race that falls withing the margin of error should be declared invalid and a stricter revote should happen. I wonder why those people that dump votes and intimidated vote counters were never brought to court?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.
Before you accept that conclusion, you might want to look at who most of those executives give their campaign contributions to...hint, it usually isn't the Republican candidate.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
To varying degrees that change with time. Right now, if you don't lock step with the pubs, you are effectively put in the corner. I mean, huntsman was pretty much destroyed because he had the audacity to look at the science in issues before making policy opinions.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
My sincere advice is to try not to read EVERYTHING ideologically. I speak from experience.
Nobody is "bragging" about anything in either the post or the reference. It's a point of data analysis which not many are aware of. It's a truth. That is all.
We have a health care problem. A health SYSTEM problem. Neither party has done anything to fundamentally improve it. Not the recent 100% Democrat health care monstrosity, and certainly not the Republican or bipartisan prescription drug program or anything else which preceded it.
The poor having more and more of their economic gains eaten up by the rising cost of benefits -- while what they actually get from those benefits stagnates -- is *not* something to brag about. That's just more money creeping from the powerless to the powerful.
A couple of points. Operation Gunrunner was not started by the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration had a similar program, but that program was much smaller. Additionally, there was a key difference with the program under the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration ran their program in cooperation with the Mexican government. When a straw purchaser made a gun purchase under the Bush Administration, they tracked the gun until it moved to Mexico, whereupon they informed the Mexican government with the plan calling for the Mexican authorities to pick up the gun smuggler and the person for whom the gun(s) were intended and confiscate the weapons. Under the Obama Administration, the Mexican government was never informed AND when the straw purchaser passed the gun off to someone else (even while still in the U.S.), the agents continued to follow the straw purchaser and did not follow the gun.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
seriously, it's taken the gop & tea nuts HOW many years to figure this out?
...
who knows? maybe there's hope that in another few decades they'll figure out fraud & forgery actually ARE crimes when committed by banks (not just individuals) or that molesting children & microwaving their parents doesn't make flying any safer or maybe even that spending $ arresting/prosecuting/incarcerating people for THC is basically setting it on fire...
Yeah, but once you've convinced the GOP of that then you have to go and convince the Dems. It'd probably be more efficient to teach both wings of the party at the same time.
Yes, I know what it says. It says the probability of a comparison with the Nazis goes to one as thread length goes to infinity. First of all, it's only mildly humorous (it's actually kind of stupid). Second of all, that's NOT how people use the "law" in debates. When a Nazi comparison is drawn, the response will be "Godwin, you lose, sucker!"
So you can tell me all you want that's not what the "law" says, but it is how it is used and you can't deny it.
my main objective now is to stop that bunch of lunatic Democrats who are doing everything to restrict everybody's rights
The reason it's Democrats doing that is because the Democrats are in charge. If you put the Republicans back in charge, the only change is that it's now lunatic Republicans restricting everybody's rights. Have you forgotten what it was like under Bush? Does the PATRIOT act ring a bell? Warrantless wiretaps? The attacks on online pornography?
The truth is both parties suck. They just suck in subtly different ways. The Democrats pass trillion dollar healthcare legislation that's been sufficiently neutered by insurance carrier to be next to pointless. The Republicans start trillion dollar wars, increase military spending and funnel public money to defense contractors (and the financial industry, though the Democrats are fully behind that too.) If you want change, you can throw your support behind Ron Paul, but supporting Romney or Gingrich won't help the situation one bit. The only long-term solution is to vote in candidates from outside the two major parties. So far, only Vermont has been able to do that (I don't count Lieberman.)
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
You're honestly blaming the Democrats for responding to Pearl Harbor? lame, really lame
Derp. Forgot to log in. That was me.
...right here.
...fuck Godwin's law. I don't operate my mind according to rules of thumb like that, because I'm not a fucking idiot.
Your use of profanity to try to bolster your point shows that, indeed, you are a "fucking idiot"
It hurts. I know it hurts. But exactly what did you expect, voting for a big government tyrant to follow another big government tyrant? Everything was on the table in plain view before Bush won election, and everything was on the table in plain view before Obama won election.
Which is why the government should also be the insurer.
Then it would be cheaper. NO bonuses, no profit motivator, less over head, and a record of great medical service over all.
Did you notice how the private industry went into panic mode when Obama suggest the government also be an insurer?
The quickly went from 'The government can't do it cheaper' to 'THAT'S UNFAIR!'
The VA system is consistently rated on of the best in the world..so when someone says the government can't do it, it's laughable...or would be if it wasn't so sad.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What good are you "closer to home issues" if the inalienable right to defend your very life and possibly defend your country and constitution from tyranny if your right to arms are severely curtailed or outright banned?
Without getting into the merits of the 2nd Amendment, let me just point out that no major politician (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) has proposed to "severely curtail or outright ban" your right to bear arms.
The NRA, however, does raise a lot of money by scaring people with the idea that the evil liberals are secretly plotting to take away their guns.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Hmmm...
You left out
Iraq 1 - Republican
Afganistan - Republican
Iraq 2 - Republican
Just saying.
I think you need to figure out what "grassroots organization" means. If the party gets it together, or a few rich guys fund it, then it isn't grassroots........
In case you hadn't noticed, the OWS movement is a grassroots movement that didn't need something like Freedom Works to bus people in to their events.
Operation Wide Receiver was the initial program that ended around the 2007 period. Operation Fast and Furious started in the 2009 window and was responsible for the overwhelming percentage of guns that ended up in the Mexican Cartels.
Just because the initial operation started under one President does not mean that it was potentially corrupted by his successor. The program had good intent but was just completely co-oped and taking down a completely screwy road.
Oh dear. I guess I'm a troll for challenging the fact that Ron Paul is anything less that a God-King.
Yes, you are; and apparently quite the drama queen to boot.
Rather than engaging your turd-mined example of untruth from an unrelated portion of my source, let's find sources for the on-topic claims I actually made about Ron Paul's political positions:
Ooh, a high-and-mighty drama queen, even better!
Would allow prayer in schools: "The federal government has no authority to tell your public schools whether you have a prayer in school or not"
It doesn't; According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" What part of that statement are you having trouble comprehending?
Church and state: "But, as far as church and state goes, the first amendment gives us a pretty hint: the Congress shall write no law, there are no prohibitions."
Again, read the Constitution. It states very clearly that the federal government is prohibited from passing laws in regard to religion; it does not, however, extend that limitation to the states. Therefore, if, say, Texas wanted to become a theocracy, that's Texas' business.
Personally I find that interpretation naive to the point of idiocy
Only because either A) you lack a basic understanding of context and the English language, or B) you disagree with it.
Sexual harassment: He wrote this in a book: "Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."
Source citation or it didn't happen.
Gay marriage: He sells cards of talking points in favor of DOMA on his website. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/protect-marriage-issue-cards-pack-of-100/
Ron Paul quote from the aforementioned cards:
I will stand against unconstitutional federal power grabs and will fight to protect each State's right not to be forced to recognize same-sex marriage against the will of the people."
Sounds like more of a state's rights issue to me. Nice misrepresentation there, tho; The question is, was your mistake intentional or out of ignorance?
Abortion: He sells similar talking point cards that dismiss even the possibility of a medically necessary abortion. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/a-pro-life-champion-issue-cards-pack-of-100/
Well, surely you're right on this one, and not again misrepresenting Paul's platform to support your own agenda... let's see...
From the card:
Ron Paul's "We The People Act" effectively repeals Roe v. Wade and would prevent activist judges from interfering with state decisions to protect life.
So again, we see that you are (likely intentionally) misrepresenting Paul's words to make his platform of state's rights seem more onerous than it actually is.
DADT: He voted to repeal it, but has now taken up the stance that it should be repealed...because he's so consistent and courageous, right?http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal
Yea, sounds like it; unless, of course, you're an abject failure at the basic art of proofreading... since surely someone who thinks as highly of themselves as you do
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Consider history. Back in the day, when the elderly were taken care of by their families, families tended to run to 5+ children. It was a relatively nontechnological time. Let's look at some of the implications.
There was more work to be done than there were people to do them. Hell, they had to import Chinese to build the railroads because there just weren't enough Americans, blacks, and Irish immigrants free to do the job Without that immigrant labor, they just couldn't have been built.
Less technology means more people were employed farming. It was extremely labor intensive, and over 65% of the people were involved in it at the 'grab a hoe and whack these weeds' level. And this was in the most technological society on the planet at the time. People who worked off the farm made damned good money for that time, though the hours were long and the work was hard. If you didn't have enough kids to help you do what needed to be done, you had to hire somebody on, and they wanted real money for real work. Your parents and surviving grandparents would help raise the kids, educate them up to maybe a 3rd grade level, and free up an adult for work. There were no heart transplants, no bypass surgeries, no cancer treatments that were better than useless. People just didn't live as long.
Today, almost nobody is farming other than corporations. There are approximately 140 million jobs in the US (extrapolated from a news article saying 7 million jobs lost equated 5% of the job market, can't remember where I saw this), and approximately 280 million people of job age and reasonably healthy who can do them. Families need 2.5 jobs to make ends meet. In the US, they tend to have 2 or less kids. People on the average here live into their late 70's early 80's and beyond. Medical expenses tend to take an even larger slice of any available funding the older you get. It's been said the worst thing you can do is grow old in America.
Seeing all this, you want people's kids to take care of their parents while holding those 2.5 jobs. What happens if they don't have any kids? When are the kids going to get time to do this? Homeschool their own kids? Not a viable option, really.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I always liked the original, http://www.iamm.com/mouseland.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouseland
Mouseland
It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.
They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats.
Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of Canada for last 90 years and maybe you'll see that they weren't any stupider than we are.
Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws--that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds--so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.
All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.
Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said: "The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.
And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat.
You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.
Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up!" So they put him in jail.
But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea.
The Moral of the Story "Mouseland" is a political fable, originally told by Clare Gillis, a friend of Tommy Douglas. Tommy has used this story many times to show in a humorous way how Canadians fail to recognize that neither the Liberals or Conservatives are truly interested in what matters to ordinary citizens; yet Canadians continue to vote for them.
The story cleverly deals with the false assumption by some people that CCF'ers (NDP'ers) are Communists. The ending shows Tommy Douglas has faith that someday socialism, which recognizes human rights and dignity, will win over capitalism and the mere pursuit of wealth and power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I know Bhuddists who would say it's not a religion. Many Christians would say Christianity isn't a religion. But the basic usage of religion in context is as a "set of beliefs". Atheism is a belief system. To deny such would be irrational.
When you say someone can't follow the beliefs they want, then you're stepping over the bounds.
When you say you should be free to follow your belief system, I will support you in that.
I'm not Wiccan, but I think they should have the right to have their 5 point star on the military graves.
Or none...
But atheists get to the point of extreme irrationality, as all dogmatic belief systems tend to do. And you get people who think there should be no crosses on grave stones in government owned cemetaries.
Crazy stuff like that....is just as crazy as any other religious nut job.
Likewise,
when did I say I was a republican? If you have issue with what I claimed, than say so but no need to ASSume things about me that you do not know for a fact.
as I said before, If the government went with crazy mandates that were ahead of their time (cali wants 15% of all cars sold to be electric in 13 years for example) its boneheaded, it adds extra cost to the consumer because the cost of those 15% are going to be SO high, that to be able to sell them they will have to sell them at a loss, and they will have to increase the cost of the rest of the lineup.
and the hand crank on the model t was known to break more than a few arms
so stop frothing at the mouth and regurgitating what you assume you know about where I am coming from and speak to the facts.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Term limits need to be implemented.
We implemented term limits in California, and it didn't help matters. The main effects of term limits have been:
1) More gridlock and inefficiency, as the people who know how to do things go away, and the legislature fills with newbie legislators who don't have any experience with how the system works and don't know how to write legislation or get it passed.
2) Politicians playing musical chairs so that they can remain in politics. (Termed out as a legislator? No problem, run for some other position!)
I think the real problem with term limits is the assumption that newbies (or "outsiders" as the populists like to call them) will on average do a better job for their constituents than long-time incumbents, because the newbies haven't been "corrupted by the system" yet. I don't think reality bears that out -- while experience may corrupt some legislators, it also makes legislators more effective in their job. A seasoned legislator benefits both from personal experience about what works and what doesn't, and also from building up a network of contacts that s/he can call on to help get things done.
In what other profession would it be seen as reasonable to demand inexperience? Would you demand that your dentist be fired after 4 years so that you can have the benefit of a fresh-out-of-dental-school graduate? Would you fire your veteran programmers because you expect that hiring some newbie college students (at the same salary) will result in better code? I think "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" may have been a little too influential on people's views about government. ;^)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Fair 'nuff.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yeah, unfortunately some of their lofty ideals had dirty, dirty undertones, and we had to fight a war to sort those out. States Rights lost that war.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
If you have a source citation for that info I would appreciate it.
I was merely parroting what I heard on NPR the other morning.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Maybe a better idea would be to allow consumers to pool their resources together, much like a company does, to get better rates or allow consumers to buy insurance out of state.
You know, you're right! We should come together as individuals to form groups that would be bigger and more powerful to demand better rates. JUST LIKE A COMPANY DOES.
HEY! I have a FANTASTIC IDEA!
How about we ALL band together to form the BIGGEST group to demand the BEST rate from the insurance companies! All of us. Together. Of course, someone will have to lead this new-found group of insurance buyers. Since we're all in this together, how about we be democratic about and elect someone. Well, not just one person, there are a lot of sub-groups and interests among us, so how about a system of representatives along with the main dude. Well this is kinda complicated, so how about we have a side-group that's entirely dedicated to settling squabbles.
GEE, if only something like this ALREADY EXISTED.
So? Ad hominem much?
Not as much as you try to ignore the tainted nature of that guys links. The Koch family is typical pro-corporate wealthy republican. And boy are they pushing their agenda. You can't take anything they say about commoners' income seriously because they are so disconnected from that entire class. Facts like the GP's don't exist in a vacuum. There really is a difference between a poor starving child telling you to suck it up and be happy, and a wealthy businessman doing the same.
The pary stance is that two peopel of the same gener shoudn't be allowed to be together.
70 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about black people.
". It's Girl Scouts admitting gender confused pre-teens"
so?
" It's the banning of communities from renting public land to Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts' parents don't want gay men taking their boys camping."
They want to discriminate, so no, they shouldn't have access to government funded programs. Add to that they are a religious organization.
" It's the handing out of contraception or sexual literature to elementary school kids.
because pregnancy is better? Since it has been shown convulsively that abstinence programs do not work, what do you prose? For me, and presumable you, we tlak to our kids. We help them learn and make decisions. Many, many kids never even have the talk with there parents, much less learn how to make good decisions.
Bottoms line: YOU want to shove your religious beliefs down the public's throat.
"Right to work laws allow workers to accept a job at place where unions exist without being forced to join the union,
which would be fine if they didn't get any representation or participation in union contracts. But that doesn't happen.
It also creates an environment where people are hired based on a perception of whether or not they will join an union.
Why should I pay dues and not you even though you get the benefits?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Please tell me when there GOP was a party of small government?
Most government size increases have happened during a republican control.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, unfortunately some of their lofty ideals had dirty, dirty undertones, and we had to fight a war to sort those out. States Rights lost that war.
So, then, the Constitution was changed to reflect that?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
>You think this, because you only hear when Republicans block stuff, because you read news from sources biased to your views.
Not really. I'm not american, but I'm interested in politics and keep up to date. I keep an eye on CNN, FoxNews, and NBC. Without exception, "leftist" commentators make a much saner impression on me than conservatives. I also remember quite a few instances in the last 3 years in which Obama tried to garner support in order to work with Republicans. All they did in return was hijack the event by trying to look good on TV and confronting Obama with ludicrous, populist statements and accusations ("Mr. Obama - show me your birth certificate!"). Yes, remember that time at the Republican convention? It was painful to watch.
A good example of how the Republican party "works" is the tax policy. Even well known rich people have been telling the government to tax them more. The Bush-era taxcuts for rich people is unfair. Yet the Republican party refuses to let them go, all the while over simplyfing the situation on TV by claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes.
No sir, I am not blind. I am well aware that the Democratic party is not a party of selfless saints. But all what I have said about the Republican party is in plain sight of any neutral observer. It's not a coincidence that if Europe were to vote for an american party, 90% would vote Democrat.
You realize that the United States is an extension of a George Washington-era program, right? Fool.
The problem is that when they say they want to "lower taxes for everyone", typically 90+% of the "tax break" goes to the top 1% who can actually afford to pay more taxes.
The "military industrial complex" is a real problem. I'm for a strong defense, don't get me wrong. Paying "contractors" multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars a year is bullshit. They're mercenaries, short and simple. We're using our military to protect the interests of the corporations that are buying our politicians. This seems to be a much stronger trend on the Republican side, though that may be due to the differing rhetoric of the parties.
I think our country would be much better served by a parliamentary-style replacement of our current Congressional mess. Spread the power out amoung more than two parties. Give the vote percentages from each state to presidential candidates, instead of winner-take-all (I know this is state-by-state). Term limits in congress. Lots of things that will never happen because it would be the lawmakers legislating themselves out of a job.
Lower for the rich and corporations. Not for anyone else.. you know most of us.
We are talking about a guy that would say the rich should be taxed more, and then the next day make there taxes lower.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Who said anything ideological? I was simply questioning if that particular data point is actually useful, or if it's had important context stripped away.
Maybe that loss of context was intentional? Cato aren't exactly ideologically neutral, and cherry picking that particular statistic out of context paints a pretty rosy anarcho-capitalist libertarian talking point.
Porquoi?
Nixon was forced to end the war. He didn't want to. Listen to the tapes.
The Paul's are insane and haven't bothered to read history. No thanks. I like the fact that the air and water is cleaner. I don't want to be stuffed back into the gilded cage. I would be surprised if any of the Paul's could clearly explain why we left the gold standard.
The Paul's want to allow corporation to police themselves.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
03 February 2012, Moryath
I'm like "Hey you bloody f***tards, don't you realize our country is falling apart. And all you care about is getting stoned. Can we please talk about real issue!"
I'm not a libertarian or a pot smoker, but I think legalization of marijuana is an important issue. Look at what's happening in Mexico right now -- the drug gangs are becoming more powerful than the government, decapitated bodies are left in the streets, and the whole country lives in fear.
Meanwhile, in the US, we spend billions a year in a futile effort to stem the tide of imported marijuana, we ruin the lives of thousands of harmless marijuana users by putting them in jail, and we are deeply in debt.
Legalizing marijuana would be a big step towards reducing all of those problems. The drug gangs would lose a lot of their income (and hence a lot of their power); the marijuana users (both recreational and medical) could live their lives without the constant fear of being thrown in jail, the money we spend on marijuana interdiction could be saved or spent in some other, more beneficial way, and a thriving, legal, domestic marijuana industry would provide jobs and tax revenue to the USA.
So even if you think smoking pot is a silly thing to do, there's still a lot of very good reasons to decriminalize marijuana.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Because they are MY stem cells, MY DNA, and MY eggs. The government doesn't get to tell me what to do with MY cells that make up MY body.
No, they are NOT! Go give a "fetus" a DNA test. You will find that it is NOT YOUR DNA. Roughly half of it came from you, but it is different than yours. Your DNA was yours when you were a fetus. It has not changed. Is your DNA the same as your mother's? Your child is your body just as you are currently your mothers.
And yes, the mother donates the egg. But the father donates the sperm. Just as much DNA is from the father than the mother. So, using your logic, shouldn't the father have just as much of a right to FORCE you to have an abortion? Since you are claiming ownership gives you the right to kill the child, the father is just as much an owner as you are, and, based on YOUR logic, should have the same rights. Or do you think that one sex should have more rights than others?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Apparently you've never been to California. Try that as a teacher out here (from the union that took an 8-figure loan to pay for the previous bond initiatives) and see how fast the brown shirts appear. I particularly liked watching the police ignore a woman teacher being beat on TV by the union thugs while they pretended to do something else. Got to love them unions!
I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Project Gunrunner was the Bush Administration program. The Obama Administration program is Operation Fast & Furious. I cannot currently find the articles that talked about both the Bush Administration communication with the Mexican government and the lack of such communication by the Obama Administration.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Here we have Republicans supporting consumers over business and small business over big business, which is the exact opposite of what you said.
The entertainment industries are not the Republicans' good buddies, so they don't mind looking like they support the "small guy" over these big companies, because it gives them support. The entertainment industries have always been the good buddies of the Democrats, so the Reps aren't losing anything by stabbing them in the back; that's why they do it.
The Reps and the Dems each have certain big industries they're beholden to. The Dems are whores for the MAFIAA; the Reps are whores for the defense contractors and the oil companies. So if this were something about Big Oil, the Reps would be screwing the little guy as much as they could in favor of their Big Oil buddies. Since this is about the Dems' favorite customer, they're using it as an opportunity to screw over their political opponents.
If they want to improve education and/or cut educational costs, they are accused of being anti-teacher.
Actually, they're anti-education; they've come out and said they want to eliminate public schools altogether, and just have private schools paid by parents. That doesn't exactly help kids stuck with poor parents, does it?
I think they're probably about as good as .38 against a tank.
They guy in the tank has to come out to pee eventually.
The guy in the tank relies on gas from a guy who is not in a tank.
Modern military hardware cannot crush an armed populace wholly against you.
They can easily control an unarmed populace, even without a tank.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He lowered taxes farther than he should then slowly raised them to help find the sweet spot, which is how it should be done.
He lowered them in the expectation that Congress would find ways to restrict spending to match revenues. Instead, they decided to decouple spending from revenues, and Reagan spent the rest of his tenure trying to catch revenue up with spending. Federal spending was 28% of national income in 1980 and 29% of national income in 1988. The notion that congress might manage to restrain spending, just because they didn't have any money, proved woefully naive.
Consider Social Security. What did people do when they got old in the past? Did they die en masse in the streets? No. They generally had families support them or there were private charities that helped out.
This is only accurate for a subset of old people, who were fortunate enough to have had families or charities that were willing and able to support then.
Many, many people died quietly in their homes, due to lack of medical care, or chronic hunger, or both. The idea that old people received benefits equivalent to Social Security and Medicare through other means is quite simply wrong.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Yep, this sounds exactly like every other parliamentary system in the world. The Prime Minister is appointed by the other politicians in the parliament.
Even here in the US, our Senators used to be appointed by other politicians (the state legislatures), rather than popularly elected. A lot of people think the Amendment changing that should be repealed.
It isn't that the republicans get corrupt faster so much as they wear it on their sleeves more. Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich. This is very easy to see and very easy to blame.
I'm sure it is "very easy to blame". The problem is, the logic that's what good for the rich is bad for everyone else is crap. In fact, the "rich" are largely the job providers in this country. Just think of some of the tech leaders that are popular on Slashdot...like Bill Gates! (lol, just kidding) Truthfully though, Gates, Jobs, Brin, Zuckerberg and others started companies that directly employ thousands, and indirectly employ millions. The other thing you're missing is that the "pro rich" policies of the Republicans are also "pro business". Watch and see after November (presuming the Republicans win, which I do think is highly likely), you will see a real boom in the economy as business heave a sigh of relief and really get going.
The Tea Party is also a very healthy movement, since it will hold the Republicans feet to the fire and make sure that "regular folks" are considered as well.
The democrats on the other hand are just more subtle, but no better overall. They tend to serve special interest through either restriction of rights or providing broad funding to over-bloated graft. It doesn't become readily apparent until you look at their spending habits. Republicans don't like to tax for what has to be spent and democrats like to spend what they don't have, all to try and serve their special interests without upsetting anyone enough to raise a shit storm.
Well you're sort of close, but you've missed the fact the the Dems have massively expanded the government under 0bama. He's run up over twice the deficit GWB did in eight years, in only a bit over three. Plus he's made some very stupid mistakes with government money, one of the biggest being massive investment in "green" energy when many of the beneficiaries had no viable business plan and went bankrupt. His desire to keep his "green" constituents also made him oppose, and so far block, the Keystone pipeline which from any rational perspective would be a great thing to build.
Anyone on the younger side should be extremely concerned about the level of debt the government has accumulated, because it will have a major impact on economic progress and the standard of living in the US for many decades - and it will be a disaster if it's not reduced in the near future.
At any rate, this will be a crucial election - vote Republican because if 0bama is elected he will get to stack the Supreme Court with lefties, and then this country will be in for a world of hurt. You don't want to see what a "fundamental transformation of America" looks like, trust me on that one. ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Even Godwin himself has come out and said it was just meant to be funny, and not make Nazi comparisons off-limits. Since it was such a bad period in history, it's important to look for parallels to make sure we don't go down that road again, and it's utterly stupid to ignore it. Those who don't learn from history end up repeating it.
You realize I never actually endorsed the guy nor said I'd be voting for him, right? All I said was that his foreign policy platform is properly classified as non-interventionist, not anti-war.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster
Note SEEMS.
You know what that is? Because as soon as a Republican is elected, the press are at them hammer and tongs to find anything that even LOOKS like corruption.
Meanwhile a Democrat elected has a press that buries stories about ACTUAL corruption or anything negative until it is so blindingly obvious that bloggers are embarrassing the media with reports (Edwards, Fast & Furious, etc).
If you are truly against corruption you should vote in the candidates the press actually looks for corruption in. Otherwise, you are just part of the coverup.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wow, how does it feel to think one thing while you ignore the evidence in front of you. I see many of the masses crediting Obama with killing Osama. Funny how no one attributes him killing Brian Terry by an even closer association.
Roseanne Barr for President!!
No, seriously. :D
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/idUS62365029920120203
There is a war going on for your mind.
I think the point should be to focus on the CANDIDATE instead of the party affiliation.
I don't think that's a good idea. Candidates don't come into office in a vacuum -- they are elected by their supporting party, and in the process of the election they make promises to their supporters that will hugely effect how they govern while in office.
Take Mr. Romney as a case in point. I think as a candidate he's a decent moderate, and if left to his own devices would govern as such. But in order to win the support of this year's Republican Party, he's had to swing far, far to the right, to the extend that he has publicly repudiated and condemned his own previous policies on health care, global warming, abortion, and a host of other issues. Do you really think that if elected, Romney will revert to his old, moderate self? Even if he wanted to, his Republican supporters would never allow it -- he'd either be impeached, or at best he'd become powerless after the Republicans turned on him.
So yes, the party a politician is affiliated with something to focus on. Even the best politician is not a dictator, and will have to defer to some extent to his party's positions, and it's folly to expect otherwise.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Why, /yes/, it was. See: 14th Amendment, which made the Bill of Rights explicitly apply to the states, and the 13th, which said the states can't make slavery the law anymore,
It's been taken too far in various places, but the Civil War forever settled whether the states or the federal government had supremacy.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I believe the media narrative.
GOP = Nazis, friendless losers, authoritarians, cops, religious fanatics, boring, bad
Dems = Frodo and Sam, revolutionaries, the hippest kids in town, sexy, intelligent, wise, exciting, good
If you deny the media narrative, you'll end up a friendless loser.
Futurist Traditionalism
Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
More importantly, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
It's probably because Jobs never got an MBA. People who get those never do anything good.
The difference being, of course, that under Bush it was managed correctly.
Oh, by all means Ralph; vote 3rd party so we can have another Florida 2000.
It's clear that Republicans want to lower taxes on the rich. For example, it's Republicans who push for flat taxes. This would shift the tax burden off the rich (who pay a higher percentage) and on the poor (who pay a lower percentage in taxes). Isn't it FOX news that was complaining last year about all the people who "aren't paying taxes" because they're too poor? (Actually, they didn't pay INCOME taxes, but they still paid FICA taxes and property taxes and sales tax.) Last year, one of my neighbors, who was a die-hard TEA party fan, was complaining about this and starting saying how everyone should pay a flat tax with no standard deduction. I said: "So, if taxes are set at 25%, then someone earns a million dollars a year they should have to pay 25% or $250,000 in taxes and someone who earns $20,000 should have to pay 25% or $5,000 in taxes?" Yes, she said. Obviously, compared to the current system, it should shift the tax burden onto the poor (who are trying to pay for food and housing) and off the rich (who will be able to buy another yacht).
Also, several of the Republican candidates this year had tax plans that would eliminate capital gains taxes. Capital Gains taxes are paid almost exclusively by the rich because they're the ones who own stock (the richest 20% of Americans own 91% of the stock). Right now, capital gains taxes are 15% (which is historically low). The reason Romney only paid 15% of his income in taxes last year was because he made virtually all his money from stocks - almost all rich people do. Warren Buffet said the same thing - he makes most of his money from stocks, and that's why he only paid 17% in taxes. Now, we've got Republican candidates talking about eliminating the capital gains taxes? This would mean that ultra-rich people like Romney and Warren Buffet will see their tax rates drop to almost ZERO. Everytime I see Republicans do something like this, I just can't believe how crazy they are, and they just keep managing to get crazier and crazier from year to year.
And Santorum - who's one of the top four Republican candidates - is talking about the dangers of birth control even when it's used by married people?
No, because what you say is incorrect. Unless by "core" you mean two old guys who are now dead.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Except the article you point to says he wants to privatize it:
The congressman from Lake Jackson said the TSA should be abolished and airport security should be privatized.
"Well, it shouldnâ(TM)t be government,â he said. âoeYou know, the people who protect very dangerous chemical plants, theyâ(TM)re private sources, you know. They have their police guards. They have their fences. And they have their security. And they do a very good job.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules.
That's a good rule of thumb, but there's an even more important one that overrides it in this case: When you're sick, whomever has the power to provide (or deny) you health care makes the rules.
So previously, unless you are rich, that would be the insurance industry, which was free to deny you coverage, cancel your coverage, price coverage as high as possible to drive you into bankruptcy, and/or refuse to pay for needed services even if you had coverage, using whatever technicality they could dream up.
So while it's fun to imagine potential health care dystopias where faceless bureaucrats control your life through health care, let's not lose sight of the fact that we were already living in such a dystopia beforehand -- it's just that the bureaucrats' primary motivation was to "increase shareholder value". At least when the government is in control, non-rich people have a means to change unpopular policies through voting and political pressure. When it's a private company that's controlling your life, there is no democratic recourse. You take what you get and like it. The standard capitalist remedy of "don't like the service? Switch to a better competing company" doesn't work for health insurance, when you're already sick and no competing company is willing to cover you, and the insurance companies all know that.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
In that he thinks the states should do what every they want, even when it impacts other states.
If you had read the letters our founding fathers wrote along with reading and understanding the constitution you would see the the founding fathers know states rights end when what they do impacts other states.
Paul would be perfectly OK with a state having no environmental protections, even though the resulting pokluttion would flow into other states.
He would have no problem with a state making it illegal to travel to another state to get an abortion.
He would have no problem with a state deciding to enslave a portion of their population.
And just so you know, I would be surprised if there where more the 10 people on slashdot that have studied the constitution, it' creation,it's context, and the letters more then I have. SO keep your fucking flip comment about reading the constitution to yourself,
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier. Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.
You do realize that the whole reason healthcare costs are so high is because of lawsuits, right? Malpractice insurance rates are so high in some areas, you simply won't find certain types of doctors there. They simply can't charge enough for their services for their medical practice to remain solvent. Socialized health care won't make any difference without fixing the cause of the costs being so high. Of course that would mean putting a lot of lawyers out of a job, and lawyers tend to be Democrats...
Great, I'll be sure to shoot you from 500 yards. Cause, you know, anarchy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"The Obama administration has enlarged on."
false.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When I became of age, my first part time job was working at Kroger as a sacker. Being the naive teenager that I was, I let myself get duped into signing for the union. The signup meeting among all employees was full of "rah rah rah", you'll never get fired because we will be there for you. Come first few paychecks, I noticed a substantial amount detected to pay for the union dues. As a teen looking for spare income from a suck-ass job, I was pissed.
As for the folks who are full time employees in the Kroger union. Well... Let's just say they're mentally disadvantaged. I'm not talking down on them. I'm simply stating that I did not belong with that group of people if I wished to further my life's goals. God bless them.
Life is not for the lazy.
I think Republicans these days would burn him at the stake for that. Afterall, the new buzzword is "economic freedom" which roughly translates as "any taxes at all are an attack on freedom".
I voted for him, but i am not disappointed, because I know what he was up against. Many people seem to think the president can sweep away everything immediately.
They usually can not. And sine many of Bushes implementation after the war on terror are buried beneath a layer of management and the opposition will do anything to stop anything you want to do, regardless if they had agreed with it in the beginning, it makes it even harder.
Remember, the pubs stance is all about making Obama a 1 term presidency, NOT about helping Americans.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
More importantly, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
Excellent point. I'll err on the side of caution and assume that if it has human DNA, independent brain waves and a heart beat, then it is a living human being.
Or, we could wait a few years and ask it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
And for the first time the national debt skyrocketed in peacetime. Reaganomics was badly broken, despite what conservatives say.
Don't mistake this for supporting Dems - to me Democrats and Republicans are the same low hanging fruit with just a slightly different flavor. I mean, for f*@ks sake, SOPA had Lamar Smith and Al Franken backing it, and if the conservative Republican and crazy liberal see eye-to-eye and fail to see how it will cause mass censorship to legitimate sites we have a problem. SOPA's potential impact on foreign public domain servers scared me most, since some of these have copyrighted content in the US (and say it is!) even though it is public domain in their country. Now imagine wikipedia and google having to delist any of those a US copyright holder wanted blocked. It isn't fair to users in that country since they can't use US based tools like google to find this legally obtainable content and much of the content may even be legal to US users, so it isn't fair to them, either, especially if the site goes out of their way to say where it is legal.
You realize that the United States is an extension of a George Washington-era program, right? Fool.
That is the dumbest POS argument on the planet.
The difference being, of course, that under Bush it was managed correctly.
Bullshit. The management didn't change at all. The program just went south after Bush left office.
I make my own toys, so please explain how I can't do that?
DId you miss the big push from the Obama's to grow your own food?
Control what I watch? no they don't.
Christians want to tell what people who aren't part of their faith what they can do. They want to keep people ignorant, they want special rights, and they want a free ride.
"Whether you can protect yourself."
False.
"Whether you can allow smokers in your business."
gosh, they don't want people to force poison onto other people, what a travesty.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Did they die en masse in the streets? No.
actually they did.
"They generally had families support them or there were private charities that helped out."
yeah, the depression proved that to be folly.
BTW, My elderly mother lives with me and my family. With SS we still barely get by.
SS is a great idea.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Jeez man you don't have to be such a Nazi about it.
Yeah, unfortunately some of their lofty ideals had dirty, dirty undertones, and we had to fight a war to sort those out. States Rights lost that war.
So, then, the Constitution was changed to reflect that?
Indeed it was. The 14th amendment empowered the federal government to restrain rights infringements by the states. That makes a lot of sense. The Civil War also stripped the states of one other right they thought they had, the right to secede but I think they actually have recovered that right, because I don't think we have the stomach for another Civil War.
However, what we've done since then is to further, and massively, increase the power of the central government, sometimes via constitutional processes (e.g. 16th and 17th amendments) but more often by stretching the language of the constitution beyond recognition (e.g. Commerce Clause) or by simply ignoring constitutional questions (c.f. Court Packing).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about all republicans or the good things that some do. I'm talking about the prevalent types of corruption. In this case, you see republicans behaving in a non-corrupt manner. My commentary only applies to prevalent corruption, not to when they are honestly making their best judgement. What you won't often see though, is a republican trying to serve a little guy focused special interest in what could be considered a corrupt manner.
AJ Henderson
Once again I'm reminded of a little section I got out of David Brin's "Earth". Whatever else you think of Brin, that book, or any of his other books, he touched on an interesting topic. He attempted to come up with three "culturally neutral" definitions for sanity. He boiled it down to:
1 - Able to be satiated. The ability to say, "enough" and stop eating, drinking, or whatever.
2 - The ability to adjust your plans based on changing circumstances.
3 - I still can't remember this one. Once I re-borrowed the book, found the section and reread it, specifically looking for this. I found it, read it, and as promptly forgot it. It didn't impress me as much as the first two did.
Draw any conclusions you wish, including that both are complete crap. I think they're an interesting point of view.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Here we have Republicans supporting consumers over business and small business over big business, which is the exact opposite of what you said.
It's a Strategic withdrawal. A feigned retreat. Losing the battle but winning the war is just fine by them.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
This might be a dup post. I posted as an AC mistakenly the first time: The operation under Bush was called "Wide Receiver", not "Gunrunner". It was a much smaller operation and included working with the Mexican government to capture the gun-walkers. Estimates are that 200 weapon got through untracked as a result of the Mexican government not properly intercepting the smugglers they were informed of (including when and where they crossed the border). Those failed interceptions caused a recommendation that the weapons no longer be allowed to go south across the border. This is opposed to the estimated 2000 weapons that F&F allowed to walk across with no attempt to track or involve the Mexican government in any way. Comparing the two operations is disingenuous. One's purpose was to allow the Mexican government to intercept and arrest the gun-walkers. The other...well, no one seems to be able to explain how it had any valid law-enforcement purpose for it. In fact, the whistleblowers said that was nothing they could do from a law-enformcement viewpoint once the weapons went across the border. I'm usually not a conspiracy-type of person, but I've come to believe that I have a pretty good idea what Obama meant when he told the Brady group that he was working "under the radar" on gun control.
"Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle."
we are talkign abotu a party that when they propose a bill, and Obama AGREES WITH IT, they pull their support form the bill they created.
Nice of you to selective choose 'judges'
look at all the appointees. the republican stall in filibusterer on even the most mild appointee positions. sometime appointees they had wanted under the previous administration.
It's HORRID. IT isn't normal politics. It's the worse EVERY. and it's controlled by a group that wants everyone to be forced to their own religious views. THAT ALONE should scare people away.
I"m not talking about outliers, or one or two talking stupid shit. I'm talking about a complete party stance to stop ANYTHING they come from Obama. IT's shocking in its extremest.
George Bush did propose a cap of 250K. I"m not sure why you think that is a lie.
He did so because insurance companies were, and continue to, lie about Tort.
Yes, both do it, but the pubs FUD has basically gone to unprecedented level, and as moved into media ownership..
To say the do it the same is ignorant.
I listen to many sources, as well as keep up to date on congress action and check sources. so, yes I do know what I am taking about.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"All". Really? The first "racist" southern Democrat that I could think of was George Wallace. Wallace was a life-long Democrat, except for 1968 when he ran against Nixon and Humphrey as the American Independent Party candidate. Before that, he ran for the 1964 nomination of the Democrat Party. After that he served for 12 more years as a Democrat Governor. He even ran for President twice more attempting to get the Democrat nomination against George McGovern and then Jimmy Carter.
Of course, there is Robert Byrd, longtime West Virginia Senator. Even if you don't consider West Virginia a southern state (which Wikipedia does do, in fact), Byrd was from North Carolina, so he counts. Of course we all know that the Democrats kept re-electing and celebrating him, despite the fact the he was a former Ku Klux Klan "Exalted Cyclops" and that he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The next prominent "racist" southern Democrat that I can think of is Lester Maddox. He stayed a Democrat for his entire career, except again for one attempt at the Presidency as the American Independent Party nominee. After that failed, he went back to serving as a Democrat.
I'm sure that there are some, but I really can't think of any "racist" southern Democrats that switched to the Republican Party. It looks to me like the Republicans lost the propaganda campaign and people believe that it is what happened.
And just a reminder, only 64% of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans.
In the end, yes, I agree with you that both are largely about helping out those who are powerful. The difference is how they go about it, not what the actual intent is. Let's be clear, whether corrupt or pure, whether democrat or republican, the goal is to keep their job and power. The only differences are how they go about it. The pure (seemingly frustratingly rare) follow their philosophies, genuinely hoping it will lead to a better world. The corrupt follow an agenda to justify their behavior in trying to accomplish whatever their real goal is. For the republicans, they are very direct in action and try to explain it away. For the democrats, they would rather try to make it look like doing something for the everyman while feeding graft and bloat that can be siphoned off of. It's just a strategic difference for the same goal.
AJ Henderson
Without getting into the merits of the 2nd Amendment, let me just point out that no major politician (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) has proposed to "severely curtail or outright ban" your right to bear arms.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
Outstanding. The thing is, admirable men though they were in many ways, the founding fathers are dead. Have been for about two hundred years now. So there are good technical reasons why they aren't in charge of current policy. Sure, we could try to run our country based on competing interpretations of their surviving writings. But that's not politics, it's religion.
Trickle down economics don't work. This is well established. When money isn't moving, giving money to people who have enough to sit on already isn't going to do shit. Giving the money to people who have to spend it to get by will get things moving again because they don't have the resources to sit on it. The problem is republicans would rather say, give the money to the rich (who will continue to sit on it) while the democrats will often say to simply give it away. The much more pragmatic approach is to put the money directly in to improvement work. In this case, the money goes to help everyone. The improvements can be selected to help business create jobs in the long term while producing short term jobs to act as a jump start. The trick is to find these projects and invest in them without graft getting strapped on and starving the process.
As for your criticisms of Obama, I largely agree. Things like the approach to health care which simply throw more money to enable a broken system instead of actually fixing the underlying problems can only be disastrous. Not that universal health care is a bad goal, but simply throwing government money at it doesn't fix the cost issues. Things like waste in pharmaceutical research and overlap in expensive equipment beyond saturation in an area, as well as an overly sue happy malpractice environment leading to overly cautious diagnostics all combine to a hugely wasteful system and until that waste is cut down, universal health care will always be impossible to afford in the US. I would actually point to many of Obama's ideas as showing exactly what I'm describing. (Feed the broken system instead of fixing the system, because fixing the system makes powerful people angry.)
AJ Henderson
Never mind the fact that the reason your employer offers such benefits is largely because they must compete against companies that offer similar or better benefits...which only offer them because a union in that other shop demanded them.
The existence of unions has drastically improved the benefits, security, and quality of life of all workers in all fields, reguardless if they are unionized or not. The workers rights and benefits unions fight for extend far, far beyond just the workers and shops that are unionized.
My
Why, /yes/, it was. See: 14th Amendment, which made the Bill of Rights explicitly apply to the states, and the 13th, which said the states can't make slavery the law anymore,
It's been taken too far in various places, but the Civil War forever settled whether the states or the federal government had supremacy.
No, it (the 14th) doesn't; The 14th Amendment establishes the following:
- Birthright citizenship [Section 1]
- Equal treatment [Section 1]
- Basis of representative apportioning (Congressional districting) [Section 2]
- Criminalization of insurrection [Section 3]
- That "The validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned." (so... no federal audits? how onerous...) [Section 4]
- Gives Congress blanket "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." [Section 5]
Nothing in the 14th implies that states have lost any rights, outside the right to secede.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Actually, as I'm thinking about it more, just about the best economic recovery plan right now might actually be massive investment in science and engineering with results being public access. This would provide a lot of middle class workers in jobs with long term economic benefits from the results of the research. It could also start a base for common funding of medical research where pharmaceutical companies would compete on quality of product instead of research (which currently renders substantial amounts of research useless). It could even be directed at things like energy, medicine and infrastructure to push our development forward and rebuild our ailing infrastructure for this century.
AJ Henderson
Except the article you point to says he wants to privatize it:
Except that I didn't point to an articles specifically, but rather Google search results. If you want an actual article regarding Paul's platform regarding the TSA... I was going to provide a link, but then I noticed the last part of your post is pulled from that very reference:
The congressman from Lake Jackson said the TSA should be abolished and airport security should be privatized.
“Well, it shouldn’t be government,” he said. “You know, the people who protect very dangerous chemical plants, they’re private sources, you know. They have their police guards. They have their fences. And they have their security. And they do a very good job.
Just what is so far fetched about the concept of a private companies paying for and running their own security operations, anyway? How is it more rational that I, as a taxpayer who has never and, God willing, will never take a commercial flight, be forced to pay for the 'security' (and subsequent 4th Amendment violations) of those who do?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
"Consider Social Security. What did people do when they got old in the past? Did they die en masse in the streets? No. They generally had families support them or there were private charities that helped out. However, now we are so used to the government taking care of things, there has been a social shift away from families taking care of their elders and now that is firmly ingrained in our society. So now, we couldn't go back now if we tried, unless we accept the pain that it will cause."
Actually, the truth is people died at an earlier age and had many more children than we have today. In some societies, the old simply wandered off to die to avoid being a drain on their families. If you had no/not enough children, and were not in reach of a charity, you did die...though probably not on the street. Just alone/with your spouse, usually of disease or starvation or both. We also used ot have debtors' prisons, but did away with them as well if you are interested in going back to the olden days.
Social Security was/is a forced pension scheme to ensure that old people have some income post retirement. This means that some can seek careers that are not financially rewarding but does benefit society.
Right. I've never thought about that, and anarchists have never thought about that. I must be some idiot who missed this blinding hole in my plan, right? :)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Why do I need to care which party is bailing out more than the other? The bill is exploitable by certain group of people and should be dismissed forever that what I care for. Giving credit to a political party is just plain politic... What is your real intention?
(1) That quote is 17 years old.
(2) That quote isn't a proposal to ban guns, it is an admission of the political impossibility of banning guns.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
So letting religious folks make laws to restrict freedom for non-religious is okay, but non-religious making laws to restrict freedom of the religious is not okay?
What the hell? That's insane.
Religion in a nutshell. (Damn... that's an O'Reilly title just begging to be written.)
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Paul would be perfectly OK with a state having no environmental protections, even though the resulting pokluttion would flow into other states.
He would have no problem with a state making it illegal to travel to another state to get an abortion.
He would have no problem with a state deciding to enslave a portion of their population.
What.
A.
Gigantic.
Crock.
Of.
Bullshit.
I pray that the majority of people who read your comment have the intellelectual fortitude to see how full of shit you are. No problem with a state enslaving the populace? Seriously? Have you been smoking crack or watch FOX News? Or are you just one of those immature, self-important assholes who fancies themselves infallible and thinks their own shit smells like a fucking rose garden?
And just so you know, I would be surprised if there where more the 10 people on slashdot that have studied the constitution, it' creation,it's context, and the letters more then I have. SO keep your fucking flip comment about reading the constitution to yourself,
Ah, I see - the latter. Well, cockbag, just so you know, you are not the be-all-end-all expert on Constitutional law, not to mention are likely some 13 year old shut in in his momma's basement who doesn't even fucking know 10 people, so you can keep your ego maniacal bullshit fest to yourself.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Well yeah. Keep calling one party 'traitors' and 'hippies' long enough, and they'll bend over backwards to kill brown people.
Also, Empires behave imperially. News at 11.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
If you can provide source citation for that snippet I would appreciate it.
Gun laws and related news are always of interest to me.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Sure, we could try to run our country based on competing interpretations of their surviving writings. But that's not politics, it's religion.
Lol, sometimes, considering the vitriolic way people tend to react to political topics, I fail to see any difference.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'm a libertarian at heart but I just can't stand the Democrats anymore - especially the new bunch whose main objective is to restrict every right of everybody on this planet.
[citation needed]
What's that? You don't actually have credible sources to support this ridiculous assertion? The STFU already. Parroting right-wing talk radio nut jobs is well past annoying now.
Uhhh, yes, that would be nice, and be part of being president.
If presidents would work to get rid of the terrible policy of their predecessors rather than just piling on their own terrible policy, maybe the world would be a better place than the Orwellian bordering on Lovecraftian world we find ourselves in.
for their efforts. Normally, I'm opposed to most of what they do and stand for, but it's nice that we can find common ground (which is sorely lacking in our modern political discourse). Yes, a lot of asshole Democrats kept supporting it and will get their ass handed to them in November if they keep this shit up. I hope progressive candidates challenge those recalcitrant Dems who still support SOPA/PIPA/ACTA the way Tea Partiers challenged incumbent Republicans did in 2010 (although there's was an astroturf campaign funded by the likes of the Koch brothers and FreedomWerks).
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Name three significant policy differences between Bush and Obama.
Keep in mind that Bush expanded health care under the prescription drug benefit.
I see, so Libya doesn't count, eh? Nor does Yeman, or Pakistan, or God knows how many other places we have gone into to enforce "democracy"? Fuck, nevermind the war drums they are beating for Iran.
Nice job forgetting about the prescription drug benefit. Both love buying votes with our money.
Nice job forgetting about continuing and expanding on the Bush tradition of bailing out the banks.
"Try" doesn't count. Neither does "fair". He's trying to raise taxes, and lied about who it would effect.
The two are the SAME. Both TORTURE. Both trample our civil liberties. Both start wars. Both increase spending. Both expand the powers of the executive.
If you can't see it, then you deserve what is coming.
Why not? Obama invaded Libya and is trying his best to justify invading Iran. Clinton invaded plenty of nations to further his own goals.
You need to stop lying to yourself.
I assume you are against giving the government too much power over the lives of the people. Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If government is paying for your health care, they make the rules covering your health care. Note ELECTED officials, mind you, but those appointed by various "super committees" whose members are also appointed and not responsible to voters. How long do you think it will be before the committees realize that tax dollars are paying for cancer treatments because someone chose to smoke? How long before the outrage over the billions spent on heart medication because these people are too lazy to exercise and don't have the self control to stay away from cup cakes? How long before treatment depends on your government mandated health lifestyle score and how do you think that score will be determined?
As a brit who lives under a system of state funded health care I always find you guys horror stories about it as a bit absurd.
The first thing that you never get is that it is a fall back system. It is a very good fall back system but plenty of people still pay for better private care. If I want to see an NHS doctor or dentist I have to find one near my home, wait several weeks for an appointment then take time off work. I can go and see a doctor just near my office during my lunch break and pay for private care on a one off basis or get insurance to cover it ahead of time.
The state care does force the private healthcare industry to keep its prices very low though, and that is a definite plus in my book. I have no problem with the proportion of my taxes that funds the state fall back system even though I do not use it as it saves me watching people dieing on the streets. It also kind of balances out as I could not always afford private care, when i was a student I paid nothing in taxes but did break my hand and get treated for zero cost by the NHS.
Now, on to your main point about poor lifestyle choices. This is interesting as we are now having a debate along these lines in this country, and I am not entirely decided one way of the other. In the case of smoking surely if someone is warned that they are getting emphysema or cancer but still carry on smoking there is an argument for making them pay for their own care? I am 37 years old and we have known smoking was bad for you for as long as I can remember.
Being a lard arse (fatty) is not quite so clear cut as the fattiest foods are often the cheapest but I am still not entirely against encouraging people to lead healthier lives in return for treatment. Maybe not forcing them to pay for all their medical bills but at least some small contribution is good idea. That contribution can be deducted via taxes in order to not have to withhold treatment.
The thing is though, this is a perfectly reasonable debate to have as a society. Our politicians can then push back down the various civil servants the priorities we suggest.
Of course, maybe this is all much harder in your society due to how utterly bent your political system is but that is another issue. The way your politicians are blatantly bought and sold by campaign donations is very different to here where that sort of thing has to be done much more carefully on the sly. A politician taking money in return for voting in a particular way would be a very serious thing over here if you are caught. All it would take would be one undercover journalist getting proof of this going on and criminal charges may follow, getting booted out of parliament and your party certainly would. This is an example although in this case it was only asking a question, not actually voting in parliement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair
I dont read
An excellent and very valid post. You sir (or ma'am) are right on track.
Power is the only want to phase people in government now. And power comes from money or numbers. Period.
Just another ignorant American.
You forgot the American Civil War / War Between The States...
You appear to have forgotten that the Civil War wasn't in the 20th Century. My view on this is that one has to reach back to the creation of the Republican Party, 150 years back, to find a major war that started while a Republican was in office.
Lies, fear, are how politics works. Both parties are guilty of it. Only a moron is too stupid to realize that BOTH do it at, and pretty much so at the same rate.
As an outsider looking in (I am British) I always think this is certainly the case. The only solution in my book though involves actually looking at your political system and trying to change it for the better (ours too). The thing is though whenever I suggest this to most Americans they always come back to the constitution and the founding fathers. Surely, they were not right about every thing and somethings may have moved on since they lived.
The first thing I always want to change in the case of the UK is moving away from a two party, purely adversarial system. Proportional Representation is much better idea as smaller parties get more influence into government policy. This also forces the bigger parties to work together much more. Your system used to do this when you elected a president from one party and congress and the senate dominated by the other but this seems to have broken down of late.
By the way though, when the founding fathers did come up with your system it was a very good one and a very good example for the rest of the world to follow.
I dont read
Democrats are only "anti-war" to people that don't read history books. Here is a list of the major wars of the 20th century, along with the party in power when the US went to war:
[...]
Vietnam - Democrat
And to anyone who reads history past the 1960s, you'll note that the Vietnam war triggered a major shift in the political establishment that, combined with the Civil Rights movement in the same time period, completely upended and shifted around the balance of issues between the two parties. The Hippie movement captured the Democratic Party, leading to its current, relatively dovish stance, while the Conservative Backlash moved all the hawks into the Republican Party during the 70s and 80s. Combine that with the effects of the War on Terror, and the political lines are *very* different from where they were 40 years ago, when Vietnam ended.
I mean, if you read history that shallowly, you might as well accuse the modern Democrats of supporting slavery and prohibition and praise the Republicans for trust busting and support of labor movements. Honestly, I don't know why more people don't describe us as in the middle of the Sixth Party System than still in the Fifth.
Didn't say I wanted to punish him, or even that I was going to vote for his opponent.
Just that I feel stupid for having believed that he might have stood behind the things he was saying.
Just that I can empathize with the people who have given up, because anyone who has a chance of being elected is a fucking sellout.
But no, I'll dutifully trot down to the polls in June and November and vote for whatever candidates make me gag the least.
It's like the response letters I've gotten back from BOTH of my senators, dutifully explaining to me why we must protect the rights of the MPAA and RIAA to the exclusion of mine. But I can vote for them, or I can vote for someone worse, who is against rights that I hold even more dearly.
Sooooooo tired.
You list a bunch of politician with no real evidence of wrong doing and assume they are wrong because you heard about it in the media.
There's also the politicians' words and deeds. This sort of opinion isn't formed in a vacuum.
Hardly.
Godwin's law just means that you shouldn't compare just anything to Nazi Germany. If the comparison is apt, by all means. But when it becomes overused for the purposes of sensationalism, then it loses meaning.
And that's probably the worst that could happen.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Then I'll go ahead and assume that you're okay with morning after pills through abortions up to at least several weeks in?
lol, and where EXACTLY do you think we are headed NOW?
You are trying to treat the symptoms with corporate "regulations". You need to get to the source. End the Fed, and the gravy train stops rolling, and the corporations (especially banks) must stand or fall on their own.
It's that or collapse, chaos, military rule, or any number of other nasty things that happen when governments grow too large and take on too much debt.
And if you want to know why we left the gold standard, it's simple. We spent more dollars than we had gold to back it up, so we suspended redeemability, first to our own citizens, then to foreign nations. All this overly complicated nonsense about money supply "flexibility" is just that, nonsense. Gold is money, but the government didn't want to live within its means, so they chose the path to destruction, which almost killed the country in 1980. We were saved by Volker's steel balls, raising rates to 20+% in the face of massive unemployment, bringing on the recession that was needed to clear out the excesses of the government. Killed Carter's career, and Reagan got the credit for the boom that followed, even though he took on TERRIBLE policy which has continued to this day, where we once again stand on the precipice, but this time as the world's largest debtor rather then the world's largest creditor. If we raise rates to 20+%, the nation will collapse instantly. Hell, we'd probably collapse with rates at 4%.
That was exactly the point that that was supposed to convey.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
OWS does take donations for large anonymous donors. Its also not been around nearly as long as the tea party, and it hasn't had nearly as many hijacking attempts. Its not without ethical flaws either. what movement is though. That said I support OWS for the most part. Lot of good people. But you can tell there are a lot of party spoilers in the crowd.
I think it can be said that George Soros, MoveOn, and Al Franken, and the same media and financial industry goons support our rights just as much as the Kotch brothers, and their associated PACs. (your going to tell me there money, or support won't show up at OWS?)
The tea party was around before the big money and many of them have independant ideas. No I'm not a tea party supporter, but it still was a grass roots movement at some time. If anything rhetoric like yours is what drives them to the republicans and the funding machine for "protection". I also never been to a tea party event, but I've talked to some online and they seem pretty genuine. reciting democrat, and democrat agent FUD does nothing for anyone but the democrat party. The same assholes who accused the green party of being republican agents for not standing down. Its easy to say the democrats say that about anyone who is a less than loyal democrat.(Republican says say the same thing, I know).
Also the more allies against SOPA and PIPA the better. Its proponents are strong with what was bi-partisan support. I really don't think I owe the democrats anything, and I am OK with feeding them to the dogs. If they don't like it, they can try listening to the populace instead of their corporate sponsorships. If they wanna so viciously defend corporate sponsorship(bribes), they are no better than the republicans.
Its also noted the republicans who initally did support this bill, largely dropped it when their voters complained harshley. we need either more democrat voters who do the same, or a new leftist party.
The uniting issues across the Tea Party movement are fiscal policy, civil liberties, immigration control and strong national defense
Why is my dog barking so incessantly? Are you blowing a whistle of some kind?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Each of those wars would have happened had a Republican been in office.
All you did is flip a coin 4 times and get heads 4 times.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
As far as I can tell, the main difference between Republican and Democrat politicians is which set of freedoms they want to destroy at the behest of their corporate masters.
WALSTIB!
Your used car will likely be worth 10-20k and will be taxed at a goodly percentage of that. Your used gun is chickenfeed in comparison and the numbers traded on the used market are likely much less than for cars.
So by reacting with your emotions, I think you'll end up making things even worst. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face", so to speak.
Obviously your opinions about Obama's second term versus Romney/Gingrich's first might differ, but at least make sure you've thought them through before you vote.
You know, a good idea might be to get involved with the primaries and get your say in on who should be the candidate. The more people who just sit back and wait for the November election, the more extreme candidates we're going to get (because only the extremists care enough to show up to the primaries). My state hasn't had its primary yet, but when it does, I intend to vote for someone who is not among the front runners. Will my vote "count?" Yes, because it's one more vote out there that says "I'm in favor of this guy over these career politicians." It may not mean much yet, but as more people say that, it will.
Seriously, you have two choices:
1. Fundamentalist Christians intent on restricting what women do with their body, enforcing the teaching of ridiculous bullshit in science classes, selling out to the military.
2. Pretend Christians who are so beholden to the media companies and "green" businesses they rewrite laws to suit their mates, at the same time trying to control the flow of money amongst civilians to do "what is best" (e.g. using it to pay off banks, give to others).
I think they're probably about as good as .38 against a tank.
I'm not sure if the American revolutionary idea of an armed militia overthrowing an oppressive government has much basis in reality now, if it ever did. The American Revolution was only possible because Britain was engaged in a much more important war close to home. More importantly, the last time that I checked the U.S. spent more on it's military than every other nation combined. A successful revolution against the government is going to have to involve inciting a substantial part of that military to defect to the revolutionary side. Shooting at them is not going to achieve that aim.
I'm sure the Vietnamese, Iraqis and the Afghanis would like to disagree with you.
Bush gun walking was done with the intention of interdicting the guns at the boarder using tracking devices and aircraft. It was botched and ended up allowing 450 guns through to Mexico. It could be called a failure, no problem there.
Obama era gun walking was done without any effort or intention to interdict the guns but rather allowed between 2000 and 12000 guns into Mexico.
One was a botched law enforcement operation, the other seems outright criminal. This explains the cover up.
No matter where you go, there you are.
I think they're probably about as good as .38 against a tank..
Then you know little about warfare. Tanks are *never* sent in without supporting infantry. A tank without infantry is a sitting duck. Google: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=EWEsT7CmDKbV0QGTh6nHCg&ved=0CB0QBSgA&q=tanks+with+infantry+support&spell=1&biw=1320&bih=698
(1) That quote is 17 years old.
(2) That quote isn't a proposal to ban guns, it is an admission of the political impossibility of banning guns.
Really?
""I agree with you. I wouldn't bring it up now," she replied. Feinstein said she's going to hold off, for now, but vowed she would eventually push the issue. "I'll pick the time and the place, no question about that," she told Stahl.""
Article is from 2009. Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml
The VA system provides healthcare to people who put their lives on the line for the sake of the US. People wouldn't put up with a small fraction of the corruption and graft that would go on in a national system (though there's plenty enough of that as it is)
Wrong. The 14th says the states no longer have the rights to deny to their citizens
1) the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and
2) other rights as enumerated in federal law.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
By that logic, eggs and sperm have the same rights you do.
My GOD! What is wrong with people today? The first dumbass stated that her child's DNA is the same as hers, now this moron is saying that eggs and sperm have the same DNA as a person.
Let me help you out here. There are 23 genes in an egg and 23 genes in a sperm cell. There are 46 genes in a human. Now, since it is obvious that math is not your best subject, let me give you a hint:
23 != 46
An intelligent argument can be made for the idea that abortion is wrong. Yours is not such an argument.
Great! The math major is judging the intelligence of my argument.
there are too many points where you have to make a judgment call about why things are moral.
Judgment call? Um, do a DNA test, listen for a heartbeat, scan for brain activity. Where's the judgment call?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice
For the record, Operation Gunrunner was started by the (G.W.) Bush administration; it wasn't until a border patrol agent was killed that it garnered public attention.
Wrong. Operation Gunrunner was very different from Fast and Furious. Gunrunner actually tried to track guns *AND* involved the Mexican law enforcement authorities.
Fast and Furious let the guns just walk. Walk away without a care in the world. Walk away whilst keeping the Mexican in the dark.
And yes, Fast and Furious was a ploy to enable sever gun control like the permanent reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.
"In an April 2010 e-mail to a colleague, Burke predicted that the operation would have a huge public impact: âoeItâ(TM)s going to bring a lot of attention to straw purchasers of assault weapons,â he wrote. âoeSome of these weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby.â
Article at Of Arms & The Law: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2012/01/us_attorney_den.php
Except that the CPB actually is doing that. But why distract you Republicans with the actual facts in reality, when you can just say whatever suits the babbleflow from your talkradio puppeteers?
Wow, the Republican puppets have a lot of mod points today.
Here we have Republicans supporting consumers over business and small business over big business, which is the exact opposite of what you said.
Oh, you must mean how the Republicans stonewalled on confirmation of a head of the Consumer Protection Bureau.
Hilarious how many "troll" and "flamebait" mods this got - you Republican puppets have a lot of mod points to burn today. OP claimed R's support customers, whereas they have stonewalled the CPB. That is not trolling; that is fact.
Unfortunately it's not a pension scheme, it's simply a wealth transfer scheme. It too suffers from demographic issues.
Thanks for the history lesson but I was talking primarily about Democratic voters, not politicians. The minority of Democrats from the South who voted for the civil rights legislation were voted out of office by their racist constituents as a result of their votes.
Ever since then the GOP has owned the South. Surely you don't think all those new Republican voters didn't suddenly appear out of thin air?
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
You are not in recession for the same reason that Australia and a list of others is not in recession. China is buying your stuff. What your government and mine does doesn't really make much of a difference to that either way.
No. By "core" I mean the children and grandchildren of all the Democrat voters who switched to the GOP after the civil rights legislation was passed.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I see the game, the "major" prefix is so that Iraq, Iraq, Afganistan, Grenada, Panama and a long list of other military actions can be excluded. Please play your little game elsewhere quietly and let the grown ups continue to talk.
From the other side of the sea it looks like Obama was spending most of his time trying to push through a vastly stripped down version of Nixon's health reform and had to try hard to get even that through due to the money being thrown around by insurance companies that opposed it. While it would be nice if he shut down the TSA and a pile of other mistakes it does look like it's only one tough fight at a time or nothing will happen at all.
Blame your lobby system. I've got no idea how anyone can fix that one though.
I just do not understand the concept of "libertarianism" in the USA. Didn't Washington have a revolution so that you didn't have to submit the the will of hereditary aristocrats that could control everything because there was a "small government"? Do you guys even understand the long term consequences or do you all just aspire to be the aristocrats?
Even Jesus spoke about the separation of Church and State.
What do they teach you in the schools these days?
Oh that's cute! You think a government bureau will do what their name says, even with no oversight.
Oh that's cute! You think businesses will just oversee themselves and do the right thing.
So let me get this straight: Basically, you're concerned with who will be overseeing the overseers? What about who will be overseeing the overseeing of the overseers? Or who will be overseeing the overseeing of the overseeing of the overseers?
And you want smaller government?
Or, we could wait a few years and ask it.
Or how about we ask the person who is currently keeping it alive whether or not she wants to take on this task?
You're right--she might not agree with what your God tells her to do. That would be bad for...her immortal soul. Dear God, Won't Somebody Think About the Immortal Souls?!
Ronald Reagan at the end of his final term with progressing mental illness is seen as the the ultimate Republican by some at the loony end of the party so we end up with a lot of people trying to be a parody of an old, sick Reagan.
Some serious borderline treason rot definitely set in at the time of Ford (bribe from Indonesia, making the CIA more political than useful etc), but I think they see Reagan at his worst as the symbol of the "good old days".
Why copy something like that? Do they know they way he was thinking?
Hezbolla blew up how many Marines? They must have used a lot of explosives. I wonder if they'll buy some from us? Ollie North can sell it via Iran and nobody will find out.
Do you remember one of the useless little inexperienced puppets he suggested? Now while that sort of thing happens in boardrooms it has no place in a judicial system.
It's the handing out of contraception or sexual literature to elementary school kids. It's explaining to first graders that it is OK to explore your sexuality.
I think I'd want to see a citation on the first grader thing. It wouldn't surprise me if it's true, don't get me wrong, but I'd want to see where a government agency is calling for this rather than a group calling for a government agency to consider this.
The other part? Well, it depends on your definition of "elementary school."
The "elementary school" I went to was K-6. And it probably wouldn't have been a big deal to give the 6th graders some info on this--people were definitely dating in 6th grade and they would have been considered "elementary school students." I don't remember a whole lot going on in 5th grade--I think we'd decided that girls didn't have cooties, but we weren't really sure we wanted to associate with them. 4th grade, probably not--though I had a massive crush on our 4th grade TA, Miss Skinner (and I was heartbroken when she brought her boyfriend in one day). Before that? Girls definitely had cooties and you did not want to associate with them.
Meanwhile, the neighboring school district's "elementary school" was K-5. Junior high was grades 6-8. Our school district actually paired up with them for grades 7-8.
So it sort of depends on what "elementary school" grades you're talking about.
Obama most assuredly did NOT inherit a war in Libya. He went in freely like any other warmonger would have.
The Bible also says 'thou shalt not kill' if I am not mistaken. Now, we can quibble about when life begins.
The pity appears to be that when you were an infant your parents did not keep a sufficiently ferocious dog in the house.
Supporting consumers and advocating a government nanny organization to 'look over them' are two different things.
When money isn't moving, giving money to people who have enough to sit on already isn't going to do shit.
What in lord's name are you talking about? 'Giving' people money? The issue is the government taking it away from them. No matter how much you may think it is the case, the government produces NOTHING and anything it 'gives' it has taken away from somebody first.
Wow, that wasn't Flamebait. Perhaps the kind person who rated your comment meant to click the "I disagree" rating.
And Godwin's law applies to Usenet threads that run on and on and on for months. Whereas here on Slashdot we have a little discussion and in two days or so we move on to another little discussion.
No, Godwin's law is very very poorly applied in any instance it is attempted here on Slashdot. Threads don't need to be 'declared over' the way threads that have gone on for months on Usenet occasionally have had to be.
At the time, before 9/11, I had a prediction about how a Gore presidency would have gone.
If you remember, the first real 'foreign policy' crisis of the Bush administration was when the Chinese forced down a US Surveillance plane packed full of top secret instrumentation.
The Bush administration held strong and demanded the return of the plane.
If Gore had been President, he would have airlifted in the blueprints for the plane and the docs for all of the instruments, with a heartfelt apology letter to the Chinese for 'invading their air space.'
You assume that Gore would have been different from Bush. That is unlikely, especially given the degree to which Obama has been no different from Bush.
That is a very strange thing to say. No one can really know what a Gore presidency would have been like, and it surely might have sucked, but there can't be much doubt that it would have been very different from Bush's. For one thing, President Bush's 2000 platform involved tax cuts, which were one of the first things he did. Gore's platform did not involve any tax cuts. So one big difference is that public debt would be about $1.8 trillion dollars less than it is, unless Gore similarly passed policies that he was not willing to pay for (Democrats, though, have tended to include means of payment into their legislation).
Also, Gore would have had a White House staff made up of Clinton veterans and a handful of new people. This would have been very different from President Bush's staff of neoconservatives, who were the driving force behind the Iraq war, so even if September 11th had happened identically during a Gore presidency, it probably would not have resulted in a conflict with Iraq. On the downside, Saddam Hussein and the Baathists would still be in power there, though fewer Americans would have been killed and we'd be about ... $800 billion? $1 trillion? more? ... less in debt than we are now. Afghanistan might also have played out very differently without a second conflict running.
We have no idea what the housing crisis would have been like under Gore, and I suspect it would still have happened because the foundational problems of the banking and finance industries were introduced during the Clinton Administration. But it is interesting to speculate whether the SEC would have acted differently in its enforcement between 2001 and 2008 if it possessed a different, and larger, staff. It is that agency's job to call foul if, say, popular and lucrative securities are actually backed by risky mortgages and ratings agencies are giving those securities AAA thumbs-up for no discernable reason. President Bush had a very clear anti-regulatory stance. The SEC under his presidency was understaffed and full of people with similar opinions. Would a Gore SEC have caused the housing bubble to pop earlier? Magic 8-ball says ... murky. But quite possibly.
These are mainly speculations based upon what Bush did that Gore would not have done, based upon his platform. Trillions of dollars, an entire eight-year war, and regulatory oversight might not seem like big differences to you, but I think they count pretty highly.
Your comment about Obama is also very strange. He's further to the right than Gore, but he has very different policies on stem cell research, gays serving in the military, and health care. He's conducting the response to the recession much differently than I think Bush would have. In particular the Affordable Care Act is much more of an industry overhaul than Bush's Medicare Part D changes, and again, they pay for themselves rather than just add to debt.
Just like the party of "secret racists" appointed the first black judge on the Supreme Court in the middle of the crucial, decisive Civil Rights Campaign of the 1960s, Mr Thurgood Marshall.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Both are closer on the authoritarian axis to Mao than to a libertarian (left or right) ideal. Both have sold out to special interests who would happily plunge us all into poverty for their own profit.
This is part of the paradox of a two-party political system designed towards gridlock / consensus.
The Democrats will always get the support of the Republicans going to war, but not vice versa.
The Republicans will get the support of the democrats in ending wars.
So, its Democrats who are in power when wars start, Republicans when they end ... (mostly)
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
Indeed. But Republican puppets can't do anything about the CFB actually doing its job protecting consumers:
--
make install -not war
Also, the South experienced a population boom after the '60s as Northerners fled their labor-controlled states to come to the Southern states with right-to-work laws. I think that one could argue that it was that influx of individualists that swung the South into the Republican fold.
Supporting consumers and advocating a government nanny organization to 'look over them' are two different things.
It's only two different things when you don't really want to support them. How does a government support them without an agency to do it?
Google and Facebook are small business? Discover? American Express?
It's only in one person's body and is nothing and nobody has a right to be in her body if she doesn't want it there.
...Something good came out of the GOP.
Health insurance is not a fallback system in the US; it is the only system, unless you are among the very rich. Private care is too expensive. That is why the debate is so fierce and alarmist. We only have the one basket for all our eggs.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
So then obviously the solution is too make these officials elected. Like my local insurance commissioner.
Already the case. Smoking? Heart medication? These all crop up later in life. And are covered by my tax dollars, in the form of Medicare. Basically, this has already been the scenario my entire life. Where's the outrage?
I am not being scored now, am I? And my treatment once I hit retirement is not being determined by my health habits now, is it?
But by your arguments, all of this should have already taken place in the years since the Baby Boomers have really started to impact the financial bottom line. It hasn't. You are fear-mongering.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
If the Tea Party can't get it together enough to have someone sane represent them, then they don't have what it takes to be a contender.
I suppose that statement applies to the Republican Party, too...
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
that the newbies in congress aren't quiet as bought-off as the rest.
Yet.
You're the one missing the point. The problem with Godwin's law is that anytime someone makes a comparison with Nazi's, no matter how relevant or irrelevant,you inevitably end up with a bunch of people who have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion hopping in to bring up Godwin's Law yet again. Which has the effect of completely derailing the discussion.
Ok, I think you may be very confused as to what I was saying. First off, I was saying that it doesn't work. Second, I never said the government produces anything, they can however take out loans and give that money away to produce a short term increase in the economy. The strength of an economy is based on how much money is moving through it. The number of dollars in existence doesn't change, but if they move around a lot, more work gets done and people have more money to spend (and they spend it faster). The problem with a recession is that money stops moving so there isn't money to do things with because it is all tied up. Somebody, somewhere has to get things moving again and often the government steps in to do this by injecting finances on a loan to jump start and then (in theory) paying it back over time by taking money back out of the economy once others start moving money.
The question is where do you put the money. If you put it in the hands of the rich, who have buying power, but aren't buying because of the state of the economy, it will simply continue to do more of the same. The money sits there and nothing happens, except you get a government with more debt and an economy that isn't healthy enough to pay it back. On the other hand, if you put the money in the hands of those who wish to spend, but do not have the economic means to do so thanks to the economic situation, they will spend it and things get moving again.
AJ Henderson
I know this canard is popular among the modern political left, but it's bunk.
Robert Byrd was a Democrat until the day he died. Al Gore Sr. Voted against the civil rights acts.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Thanks for the history lesson but I was talking primarily about Democratic voters, not politicians.
Who in the fuck do you think is voting for those southern Democrats? DEMOCRATS!
Ever since then the GOP has owned the South.
Please turn off the Daily Show. Have you ever heard of a Bluedog Democrat? THEY own the south. Two of our last three Democrat Presidents were southern governors. Basically, you're just making things up and repeating things you heard other people say.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
After losing the Civil War, the Dems have voted against every Civil Rights Bill that has come up.
Right, so the party of "secret racists" nominated and elected a black president.
There's nothing secret about it. They are the party of racists. They nominated Obama because just like everyone else, they were tired of the Clinton circus.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
or that I have to agree to a virtual strip search to fly on a plane.
Interesting, as a Canadian outsider I always understood this was a Bush Republican mistake. Care to explain?
The extent to which the candidates bow to party demands, sponsors, and other interests is part of the calculus used to pick a candidate to support. Also important is which issues he remains strong on in the face of opposition.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
That was why I intended to vote for Huntsman in the primaries. He was the most practical in his views on my profession, Science. He was also willing to defend that stance against fellow party members.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I have to disagree. It's only an issue if their job has some ability to affect policy on that issue. Besides, I'm of the opinion that many on both sides of divisive issues pick sides because they are forced to, not because it matters much to them.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I'm sure they would, however, the Iraqis were unable to start a revolution against their armed government without American intervention. The Afghanis could not throw off the yoke of the Taliban without American intervention and Vietnam was a quagmire where nearly 60,000 American soldiers died and between 1 and 3 million Vietnamese.
None of them fit the bill for showing how a citizen army can overthrow an armed government with vastly superior forces. The revolutionaries in Libya almost lost and without NATO intervention likely would have. Likewise the government appears to be winning the Syrian conflict even with defections from the military.
America's supposed failures in each of the theatres you list has more to do with America unwillingness to pay for wars with little relevance to Americans than to real failures of the American forces. A situation which would be altogether different if the U.S. were torn again by revolution or civil war.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The TSA rollout of full body scanners came in 2010.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Stem cells and gays in the military are niche issues. Bush also wanted and got more money for health care in the form of the prescription drug benefit.
His response to the "recession" (its a depression) is exactly the same as Bush's. More money printing, more spending, more bailouts, more power for the executive. Funny that you claim that ANYTHING of Obama's pays for itself given the radical increase in debt that has occurred under his leadership.
The real point here is that politicians don't make policy anymore. They just spend whatever scraps the Fed flings to them (after giving zero interest loans to their banker buddies with zero oversight). Both parties support the Fed, therefore both parties are at fault. Get rid of both of them.
What that boils down to is that people pushing the idea of having a church run state should not be trusted.
It's not OMG HES RELIGIOUS BURN HIM, but instead OMG he wants to micromanage our lives or OMG he doesn't have a fucking clue of the consequences of what he's suggesting.
And you think China and the US were comparable in the 30's?
I'm pretty sure the Japanese didn't either.
They had an opportunity (European colonial powers either occupied or on the ropes) and a problem (US forces could interdict them from bases in the Philippines). So: a gamble. Try to take out a good portion of the US Pacific fleet for naval supremacy, then take out the Philippines, and *then* start acquiring European colonies (focus there because that's where the raw materials, either as minerals or as plantations, were.). It looked like a reasonable bet because the US looked to be somewhat embroiled in the European war (yeah, OK, that was FDR's doing) *and* they had a promise from Hitler that Germany would support them if they became embroiled in a war. That promise seems to have come about (read Shirer's Rise&fall: this from captured Nazi documents) because the Nazis were trying to get the Japanese to attack the USSR - but the Japanese had a non-aggression pact with the Russians, which they were abiding by.
If they do anything enforcing existing and Constitutional immigration laws, they are labeled racists. If they oppose abortion, they are labeled as anti-woman bigots. If they support a strong defense, they are accused of supporting the "military industrial complex". If they want to lower taxes for everyone, they are accused of only supporting the rich. If they they give workers the right to accept a job without joining a union, they are labeled as being anti-worker and in the pocket of big business. If they want to improve education and/or cut educational costs, they are accused of being anti-teacher.
Well, be a little more honest about what sort of legislation we've seen coming out of Republican houses in the States the last couple years.
Enforcing immigration laws: Arizona's "papers please" law? Get pulled over for speeding and you have to show proof of citizenship? Yeah, how many white country folks are going to have to show their papers? The complaint of racism was quite valid given the new law's potential for abuse. Putting up a fence is neutral. Adding more border patrols is neutral. Giving local cops the ability to check for citizenship is just a horrible way of enforcing immigration laws.
Opposing abortion: Opposing abortion is one thing, but requiring a woman have a medically unnecessary ultrasound of the fetus and wait three days before the procedure? That is pretty much the definition of 'anti-woman' legislation. Or the many new proposed laws attempting to ban birth control? I could list dozens of more really, really stupid ideas that have come out of the states in the last couple years. It isn't the opposition to abortion that is the issue, it is the way in which Republicans have attempted to oppose.
Lowering taxes for everyone: Yeah, except every proposed tax plan favors the rich. Again, it isn't the concept of lowering the taxes that makes people label the Repubs as 'only rich supporters'. It is the fact that they clearly do support the rich more than the middle/lower in their tax plans.
You can honestly look back at the last couple years of abortion-related laws in the States and not see serious issues with them? Or that it is alright for a cop to ask you "papers please" for proof of citizenship? Or honestly see the Romney tax plan, or the Bush tax plan, or pretty much any Republican tax plan for the last 30 years and say that it didn't favor the rich?
Your post makes no sense. Sorry I can't give it a better reply.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I don't think states have regained the right to secede. The only state remotely stupid enough to try would be Texas, and only 60.9% of its residents are natives. (Per http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/05/17/3083057/in-many-northeast-tarrant-cities.html)
The other 39.1% - many of which are all the educated engineers and professionals that got their quality public eduction somewhere else in the U.S. then moved to Texas for their career - aren't that likely to go with the secession. Nor, more importantly, would be all the corporations doing business in Texas. I think that would kill any real effort right there.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I don't think states have regained the right to secede. The only state remotely stupid enough to try would be Texas, and only 60.9% of its residents are natives.
The Montana state legislature passed a resolution when the Supreme Court was deliberating the DC vs. Heller case, saying that if the court did not find that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, that it would constitute a violation of the written agreement under which Montana entered the union and Montana would therefore withdraw. I could definitely see some of the other Mountain West states joining them, especially Idaho and Wyoming, and if all three of them went, many of the Mountain West and Southwest states might go as well.
I don't think any of that is at all likely, but it's possible and I don't see the rest of the country being willing to resort to military force to prevent it. I agree that Texas isn't likely to secede.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
What about passengers? Driving is one thing, as that isn't a right, that is a privilege. Standing on a corner and being approached for proof of citizenship is quite another.