I just didn't want to make any assumptions about your problem or the way you thought about it.
And so this preexisting health condition is so large a problem that if you didn't have health insurance you would die, or be severely limited?
So you have this job at a company that takes care of your health insurance, and you complain that you can't start your own business?
Not really counting your blessings there in my opinion.
As comical as it may seem, I'm sure Ron Paul would have no problem what so ever if your school came to a consensus that FSM should be taught for what ever reason. He would still have a problem with a Federal mandate saying yay or nay to it though. And you are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. He doesn't give a hoot what one locality does with its local laws, or what it mandates as education from its public schools. He just doesn't want the Federal government telling people yes or no, because under the Constitution it's completely within the local government's authority to do what they want as long as the rights of the individual aren't Infringed. So being a concerned citizen I could vote in my own locality yay or nay, and have a real impact. And a lasting solution instead of these huge, large schisms that we have in national politics. I mean think about if each state government could decide things like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Drinking Age, etc. it would kinda work out better wouldn't it?
About health care:
Maybe our government can provide awesome health care. Maybe it could be cheap and affordable. That still doesn't make me feel easy that the fate of my health care and my ability to care for my own well being would be explicitly tied to our Government. I'd rather I paid for it so I can call the shots.
Also why can only the wealthiest percentile have access to the most expensive cars? This is just a hunch but, I think it has something to do with supply and demand. I don't think it should be any different across the board. To do other wise is to ignore another science in my opinion.
I think what Dr. Paul would oppose is a federal mandate that ID or Evolution be taught or not taught in a public school. Why take the decision out of your hands and the hands of parents in the community and put it in the hands of 535 people who don't know you or your school? One last thing that you maybe didn't think about: (doesn't oppose ID in the classroom) != (doesn't believe in Evolution)
But I agree on most of the Obama's other points that you have put forth. I just can't agree with Universal Health Care through the government. The price will bloat because it is subsidized instead of market force working upon it. And guess who will pay for it in the long run? Middle Class Me, That's who.
Take away that and add a sensible foreign policy(which he already has), and control of the Federal Reserve(which no one besides Dr. Paul talks about), and I might have Caucused for Obama.
My god. I wish there were more Americans like you. Where are you from? If there are others like you there, I might consider relocating because you seem to have found some of the same moral fiber that used to be a big part of America.
I think you take Ron Paul's message to the extreme.
My point is that Ron Paul is not going to choose the company you give money to. If you aren't getting Net Neutrality and you want it, don't buy service through someone who doesn't offer it. Pretty simple really. And it comes to this, You will have to make up your own mind about who and what you spend your money on, instead of everyone just 'trusting' the government made sure you get a fair shake. It puts more onus on the consumer to be informed, but it also leaves more dollars in your pocket.
Besides do you really trust the government of today to "police for privacy" AT&T? I mean they are most likely in the same bed today, so how would removing government from that cozy system be bad?
And I really don't think Ron Paul's ideology would cause corporate anarchy, but rather corporate meritocracy. As it is now, some companies (or businesses) just game the system of government to get ahead. I think Ron Paul's brand of economics would prevent that, and force them to actually compete.
Putting our political beliefs aside, don't you think we are fast becoming prisoners with very little choices in our voting options? I watched almost all of the debates and these politicians for the most part agreed with each other on mainly everything and just squabbled over technicalities and their record. I hope this isn't an indication of the consensus with in the party system, other wise we already have railroad of a future already laid out before us by the parties. And that is what truly saddens me. The fact that no one will pay attention to any thing not considered the 'norm' is dogma. Is that what you want?
municipalities should be able to override federal law with more stringent restrictions should they choose to do so.
I'm pretty sure the Fourteenth Amendment would have something to say about that in the event it goes to far:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
So while a total gun-ban would be out, I guess I could see the point of full-auto ban. But the idea that a semi-automatic pistol can do more harm to more people than a man with a bolt action sniper rifle is kinda silly don't you think? But yea like your retraction said... moot point.
But you also for get the 'Intellectual Property' issue.
When I talked to Ron Paul in Iowa about this he was most in favor of going back to the way things were, code under Copyright and mechanical/chemical inventions under Patents. That would do the software industry a world of good don't you think?
As for the AT&T "police the Internet for piracy" thing, I think Paul would allow us to police any company for any reason we wanted to with our dollars. That's something you can't really do with the amount of government subsidizing these days. It may take more time and effort on our part, but at least it would be under our control instead of only 535 people in a place that's far removed from the realities of the situation.
It starts with semi-automatic but where does it end?
But good point on the lawyer perspective. Its pretty clear that Bush and Company don't really get the concept of civil rights.
I think you missed the point of being a Libertarian.
If you think the government can do any thing it wants but it just has to tell you, that's not Libertarian.
Libertarian politics is all about the government having its hands off the economy and its citizen's endeavors.
I doubt Obama would be libertarian enough to abolish the IRS or the Social Security System.
Therefore, Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to lead our nation.
But not the best candidate to get rid of the nanny state. I don't want to be led by my president.
I want to lead my own life and my own endeavors. I don't want to be spied on by the Government, and
I don't want to give it a 3rd of my income so it can redistribute it however someone in Washington sees fit.
Redistributing my wealth is my own damn business. Not the Governments.
If you suffer for your cause, but your suffering has no impact, why make yourself suffer?
I would suffer because it makes a difference to me. This is why the US is sliding into the crap-hole, its because everyone shrugs and says "Well that's just the way it is." Fuck that. And if you are going to be one of those people who doesn't stand up for themselves, well fuck you too. By giving up like that you just made it harder for anyone who does give a damn.
You can't forget to vote then...
These days voting might be a more powerful weapon for overthrowing the government than the 2nd Amendment.
But I sleep better with the 2nd Amendment.
What will we do about this? Nothing. Just throw up our hands in frustration and get up at 6AM monday morning and drive our 4 dollar a gallon car to work where we will complain about it next to the coffee machine.
I went to my Caucus and voted. If you roll-over why you are angry and still don't do any thing its just as bad as putting your head in the sand in the first place. Except now you are mad and you have your head in the sand, so after a while you won't know why you are mad anymore... Almost sounds like what the government wants you to do doesn't it?
In regards to the "How is that news" comment: This is down right shameful. Regardless if we expect it or not, we should know what they are lying about and why.
I would recommend the opposite of careful skepticism. Anger shown about even the slightest hint of any secrecy in government will let the government know that we won't stand for that kind of BS anymore. Or would you rather put your head in the ground and know that the government lies and that you or no one else cares to hold them accountable? Yea that will go along way to reducing the amount of lying. Let's just ignore it and hope they don't do it again. Seems like a great idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I just didn't want to make any assumptions about your problem or the way you thought about it.
And so this preexisting health condition is so large a problem that if you didn't have health insurance you would die, or be severely limited?
So you have this job at a company that takes care of your health insurance, and you complain that you can't start your own business?
Not really counting your blessings there in my opinion.
As comical as it may seem, I'm sure Ron Paul would have no problem what so ever if your school came to a consensus that FSM should be taught for what ever reason. He would still have a problem with a Federal mandate saying yay or nay to it though. And you are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. He doesn't give a hoot what one locality does with its local laws, or what it mandates as education from its public schools. He just doesn't want the Federal government telling people yes or no, because under the Constitution it's completely within the local government's authority to do what they want as long as the rights of the individual aren't Infringed. So being a concerned citizen I could vote in my own locality yay or nay, and have a real impact. And a lasting solution instead of these huge, large schisms that we have in national politics. I mean think about if each state government could decide things like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Drinking Age, etc. it would kinda work out better wouldn't it? About health care:
Maybe our government can provide awesome health care. Maybe it could be cheap and affordable. That still doesn't make me feel easy that the fate of my health care and my ability to care for my own well being would be explicitly tied to our Government. I'd rather I paid for it so I can call the shots.
Also why can only the wealthiest percentile have access to the most expensive cars? This is just a hunch but, I think it has something to do with supply and demand. I don't think it should be any different across the board. To do other wise is to ignore another science in my opinion.
So if I agree with his stated opinion you would ascribe to me the same characteristics?
... Can you connect the dots between starting your own business and having health care for me?
Classic Straw Man Argument. I LOL'd.
I think what Dr. Paul would oppose is a federal mandate that ID or Evolution be taught or not taught in a public school. Why take the decision out of your hands and the hands of parents in the community and put it in the hands of 535 people who don't know you or your school? One last thing that you maybe didn't think about: (doesn't oppose ID in the classroom) != (doesn't believe in Evolution)
But I agree on most of the Obama's other points that you have put forth. I just can't agree with Universal Health Care through the government. The price will bloat because it is subsidized instead of market force working upon it. And guess who will pay for it in the long run? Middle Class Me, That's who.
Take away that and add a sensible foreign policy(which he already has), and control of the Federal Reserve(which no one besides Dr. Paul talks about), and I might have Caucused for Obama.
My god. I wish there were more Americans like you. Where are you from? If there are others like you there, I might consider relocating because you seem to have found some of the same moral fiber that used to be a big part of America.
I think you take Ron Paul's message to the extreme.
My point is that Ron Paul is not going to choose the company you give money to. If you aren't getting Net Neutrality and you want it, don't buy service through someone who doesn't offer it. Pretty simple really. And it comes to this, You will have to make up your own mind about who and what you spend your money on, instead of everyone just 'trusting' the government made sure you get a fair shake. It puts more onus on the consumer to be informed, but it also leaves more dollars in your pocket.
Besides do you really trust the government of today to "police for privacy" AT&T? I mean they are most likely in the same bed today, so how would removing government from that cozy system be bad?
And I really don't think Ron Paul's ideology would cause corporate anarchy, but rather corporate meritocracy. As it is now, some companies (or businesses) just game the system of government to get ahead. I think Ron Paul's brand of economics would prevent that, and force them to actually compete.
But we can agree to disagree.
Putting our political beliefs aside, don't you think we are fast becoming prisoners with very little choices in our voting options? I watched almost all of the debates and these politicians for the most part agreed with each other on mainly everything and just squabbled over technicalities and their record. I hope this isn't an indication of the consensus with in the party system, other wise we already have railroad of a future already laid out before us by the parties. And that is what truly saddens me. The fact that no one will pay attention to any thing not considered the 'norm' is dogma. Is that what you want?
I'm pretty sure the Fourteenth Amendment would have something to say about that in the event it goes to far: So while a total gun-ban would be out, I guess I could see the point of full-auto ban. But the idea that a semi-automatic pistol can do more harm to more people than a man with a bolt action sniper rifle is kinda silly don't you think? But yea like your retraction said... moot point.
The fact that you are not American but that we can agree on this point gives me hope for the world yet.
But you also for get the 'Intellectual Property' issue.
When I talked to Ron Paul in Iowa about this he was most in favor of going back to the way things were, code under Copyright and mechanical/chemical inventions under Patents. That would do the software industry a world of good don't you think?
As for the AT&T "police the Internet for piracy" thing, I think Paul would allow us to police any company for any reason we wanted to with our dollars. That's something you can't really do with the amount of government subsidizing these days. It may take more time and effort on our part, but at least it would be under our control instead of only 535 people in a place that's far removed from the realities of the situation.
Prisoners always grow an affinity towards their Captors.
It starts with semi-automatic but where does it end?
But good point on the lawyer perspective. Its pretty clear that Bush and Company don't really get the concept of civil rights.
I think you missed the point of being a Libertarian.
If you think the government can do any thing it wants but it just has to tell you, that's not Libertarian.
Libertarian politics is all about the government having its hands off the economy and its citizen's endeavors.
I doubt Obama would be libertarian enough to abolish the IRS or the Social Security System.
But I do agree that transparency is welcome.
I want to lead my own life and my own endeavors. I don't want to be spied on by the Government,
and I don't want to give it a 3rd of my income so it can redistribute it however someone in
Washington sees fit. Redistributing my wealth is my own damn business. Not the Governments.
Most of the candidates did interviews at Google.
You could... uhh... Google it... like this
You can't forget to vote then...
These days voting might be a more powerful weapon for overthrowing the government than the 2nd Amendment.
But I sleep better with the 2nd Amendment.
I'm glad some one got to the recommendation before I did. It means there is still hope in the world.
If you roll-over why you are angry and still don't do any thing its just as bad as putting your head in the sand in the first place. Except now you are mad and you have your head in the sand, so after a while you won't know why you are mad anymore... Almost sounds like what the government wants you to do doesn't it?
I don't know about that. I work on an embedded team of 4 people, and we enforce OO in C. We get along just fine. Most days.
In regards to the "How is that news" comment: This is down right shameful. Regardless if we expect it or not, we should know what they are lying about and why.
I would recommend the opposite of careful skepticism. Anger shown about even the slightest hint of any secrecy in government will let the government know that we won't stand for that kind of BS anymore. Or would you rather put your head in the ground and know that the government lies and that you or no one else cares to hold them accountable? Yea that will go along way to reducing the amount of lying. Let's just ignore it and hope they don't do it again. Seems like a great idea.
seems like a good idea for a new sig to me.