They build absolute garbage printers, that hardly work after a month or 2. Now they want to force you to use their ink at $80 (avg for both color and B&W) a refill.
How can this be illegal? How can artificially restricting the consumables a device uses be anything but illegal and/or abuse of some sort. Of course you can always say that the manufacturers who decide on this will stay on shelves while those that don't will sell their products. But what if the becomes the new standard or is mandated to protect these unfortunate companies bottom lines.
This isn't Burger King, it's America. You'll have it their way. Or at least that is the road we're on.
Sounds like business as usual here in the Corporate States of Amerika. That's like saying I can only use Dodge Brand gas in my car, and my wife could only use Toyota.
But the risk of getting caught with electronic eavesdropping is percieved to be much lower.
consider your waiter theory, If that waiter were to write down your credit card number, it would certainly be traced back to him. Your table number is usually printed on the check and everything is tracked electronically.
Unencrypted broadcast of my credit card information can be read by anyone with the right tools... say the guy at the next table can just pull that info out of the sky and I would never know, till I got my credit card bill.
If it was encrypted and maybe limited or maybe monitored for suspicious activity. I personally would never sign up for it, but I can certainly see why people would. But if you don't have time to hit up an atm or whatever you probably don't have time to scrutinize your bills like this would probably require.
all users is directly comparable to/etc/skel except that/etc/skel is only copied over once, while the "all users" directory structure is merged with "current user"
... the FCC sanctions the wholesale looting of public property by media tycoons for their personal enrichment... and they're part of the fucking government. Who else but the government would or could loot public property for their personal enrichment. This is not news, this is standard operating procedure.
I'm pretty sure they were the craptastic apple's you're talking about. and everything I would have seen up to then would have been both low end and slightly obsolete.
But by best I guess I mean what I considered the best because it was the best I had seen up to that point.
and for the record I hated 95 when it first came out, I only finally installed it (27 floppies) about 3 years later. So I could network another machine I got.
At that point in time I was 13, and Win95 didn't even exist yet. I had used a Mac at school and hated it. A buddy of mine had an amiga that totally sucked. At that point in time Unix were in ancient Egypt and didn't have balls.
What I could afford at that time was a cheap system that my family and I could learn on. A P90 w/8MB and 500MB HDD
Had I bought a Mac, amiga, os/2, solaris/unix, or anything else I would not be in the position I am in right now. That computer coming in the mail broken forced me into becoming computer literate. I had to fix the damn thing before I had ever touched it's keyboard. I now feed my family fixing computers.
So yeah, at the time it was the Best there was to get.
There will always be alternatives. Look closely, in the beginning the only alternatives to Windows were clunky, difficult to use, non-hardware supporting, command line driven, *nix Operating systems. or The fisher price Macs with the:) everywhere you look.
With the advent of collaboration, those *nix operating systems have been slowly and surely improved where they are usable to a much larger minority of people.
In the not too distant future I see a very similar thing happening in the web search market. 1 will rule them all, but there will always be a select few that refuse (for whatever reason) to go with the flow, and use what is best. These few will create their own damn system if they have to, just so long as they don't have to use what everyone tells them is the best. It will probably start the same, a difficult to use, quirky search will be built upon and improved by the masses to become a "decent" alternative to what most consider "the real thing".
The only major difference that I can see is the means to the end. MS, was at the time the Best Operating System. (circa 1994) but they gained their market share through deceptive and certainly unfair practices.
Google on the other hand, has gained it's market share by being the Best. There is no better search engine, and when gmail came out there was NOBODY offering 2G email storage for free, let alone anonymous.
I drink Coke, I smoke Marlboro, I eat Purdue Chicken, I use Sharpie Magic Markers, I search google, and I run GNU/Linux all for the same reason. I believe these to be the best. Not because the corporations tell me they're the best, but because as a consumer I tend to stick with the things that I like.
Just so I don't get flamed, Best is used subjectively throughout this post. If you happen to disagree with me, save it. I really don't care what you think, you'll not change my mind on what I decide to purchase any more than the government or the RIAA.
If you disagree with the underlying logic, I welcome intelligent debate.
The (desktop) OS market is already a little saturated.
You have Windows XP, which in it's own right is a decent OS. After tons of patches and service packs, it actually runs pretty darn smooth if you know how to administer it, or if you don't know enough to break it.
You have several hundred flavors of GNU/Linux to contend with, every one of them has a different goal and a slightly different way of doing things. (which IMHO will be the undoing of the whole damn sub-culture) and You have OSX "safari" (have to say with a lisp or it doesn't sound right) or whatever Apple's flavor of the month is.
Another mainstream OS would only appeal to uber-geeks, and those with a penchant for pain. (and I think Linux has that demographic well in hand)
A google OS would also cement it's current reputation as being the next "Evil-Empire" That is the last thing they want, also privacy advocates would go crazy with all the hoo hawing over one company doing the search, and desktop search, and OS, and monopoly this and Park Place that, and nobody ever wants Baltic, what's up with that. A hotel on baltic is worth more than a house on Boardwalk and costs the same amount of money.
Does she seriously expect the courts to award such a devastating judgement against one of the richest IP holding organizations in the country?
If they broke the law then yes. She expects the courts to uphold the law. Besides, since they are so rich, they can afford to pay when they violate the laws they claim to follow. Spelling correction, you meant to say Besides, since they are so rich, they can afford to pay when they violate the laws they write.
Do you really believe for 1 second that McDonald's would not keep slaves if it were legal.
What about coal mines? or How about Trash companies, or any company that pays minimum wage. If there was a legal way to pay people less, they would. If you don't believe that, you're only fooling yourself.
Case in point, any company that offshores their manufacturing to China, they pay pennies on the dollar for the same work, knowing that the working conditions are terrible, usually coerced, if not forced child labor etc...
Human nature has not changed, what is considered acceptable behavior has changed slightly for some parts of the world, but not many.
it would be flair. Flare is always related to fire in some way, shape or form. Flare -verb (used without object) 1. to burn with an unsteady, swaying flame, as a torch or candle in the wind. 2. to blaze with a sudden burst of flame (often fol. by up): The fire flared up as the paper caught. 3. to start up or burst out in sudden, fierce activity, passion, etc. (often fol. by up or out): Tempers flared at the meeting. Violence flared up in a new section of the city. 4. to shine or glow. 5. to spread gradually outward, as the end of a trumpet, the bottom of a wide skirt, or the sides of a ship.
flair -noun 1. a natural talent, aptitude, or ability; bent; knack: a flair for writing rhymes. 2. smartness of style, manner, etc.: Their window display has absolutely no flair at all. 3. keen perception or discernment. 4. Hunting. scent; sense of smell.
"asynchronous collaboration"
That's great. I love it when vendors tout the flaws in a product as features.
Did you call him on it, or did you let him get away with the BS?
I have personally always thought that we should have a board of presidents- 5 presidents and a cabinet of policy made up of ranking vice presidents- it would force the office of the president to come to a consensus on policy before it is made and takes away the 1 vote veto that the president holds.
I mean think about it- how many corporations have 1 guy that makes all of the decisions- every company no matter how bad has a board of directors that are held accountable for some form of consensus on major company decisions- the office of the president should be like this. spelling corrected
I disagree totally. A country needs to be led by 1 man(or woman), not a board or conglomeration of any kind. There is one person who is ultimately responsible for any and all of the actions his country takes. I think this is just the natural way of government.
Corporations are completely different though, a corporation is not a natural thing. A corporation is where a small group can get a shit load of people to work for them and make just a small amount of money off each one of those people. A corporation is a disease where the mediocre rise to places of influence because the top tier is afraid of competition. A corporation exists for the sole purpose of making money.
The end goals of the government and a corporation are (should be) vastly different. A government "should" have singular goal of making it's citizens lives better.
That is (should be) the only goal of any government. Certain groups will always get preferential treatment. Some governments will give the poor a break (welfare type programs, tax breaks for the poor, etc...) other governments will give the very rich a break (see america 2000~2008).
A board would reduce the power of the office of President. It would also complicate elections tremendously. (and really, we need that like a hole in the head remember Florida in 2000)
don't want to get shot by police either. and I'm sure that many in the military will do what they are told no matter what. The marines might be the cream of the crop and/or the best of the best, but soldiers are trained to obey orders, and I would have to agree with an order to eliminate civilians who are trying to overthrow the government. all enemies foreign and domestic right. That would include me.
and protesting and fighting are 2 very different things. I can protest all I want, see how good it did in the viet nam era. Lots of protests, little action. and groups that eventually did start some kind of action were quickly eliminated. (I assume, I can only assume that. not much was taught to us about that subject in school)
Shut the fuck up and go back to my cable TV. Ummm, I don't watch tv, well other than comedy central (the real news aka The Daily Show) and cartoon network.
But Standing on the sidelines bitching, that does just about sum it up doesn't it. I agree, I'm not currently a part of the solution. But what is the solution, if you had any idea you would have posted so we would know who you are, and maybe offered up a suggestion. I'm up to suggestions. You want revolution... I'm no leader, and while willing to fight 1 man against an army would not last long, and I've already stated my enjoyment of not getting shot. A better politician... Without money it's pretty hard to run a campaign. and again, I'm no leader. I'm more of a thinker. But I could find someone who is a leader and promote with my loudest voice who I think is best for the job... Adding to the problem, now there is a solution we haven't tried... oh wait yeah we did.
I'm in favor of smaller government, a true "For the PEOPLE" government. With fewer laws, and less restrictions on what can and cannot be done. I favor a government with no central point of failure, but then trying to get a crowd to agree on anything important is near impossible. (see congress) And you would still have the probability that some of those people vote with their wallets and not with their hearts or heads.
In short I do not have the solution. I don't know what will work, I only know what hasn't.
"If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. But it better work this time". -Dave Mustaine
p.s. grammar nazi's I'm not sure if the " goes on the outside or inside of the . I apologize in advance for any annoyance this may cause you.:)
Something like 70% of Americans do demand a change in government.
Forming an opinion is not "demanding change". The French are the butt of jokes by Americans who call them "surrender monkeys", but if the French government did half the things the USA government has been doing lately then there would be riots every single day of the week.
You aren't demanding change, you are sitting there passively accepting all the shit the government is doing.
I agree 100%, but rioting gets in the way of my daily not getting shot. I'd like to keep up the streak, I've gone almost 10 years straight without catching a bullet. And them military guys have a lot better aim than the junkhead who put a bullet in my leg when I was 17. And the French would only riot because they know their military would eventually surrender. In America we know that our military will fight an unwinnable war for years no matter what the cost in lives/money/respect/etc... (see war on drugs, war on poverty, VietNam war, war on homelessness etc...)
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom is what it is. Keep that in mind at all times." -Maynard J Keenan
There are no legal means to remove a corrupt government. The checks and balances that are there to provide the necessary legal action has been paid for. Probably by the oil companies.
Why is anyone a "card-carrying" anything? Why don't they assess each issue and position as it arises regardless of which party is presenting it?
Maybe that's just too much of an ideal scenario?
I usually don't chime in on political topics, because frankly I just don't care. I know I'm going to get it in the "end". Any politician is going to screw you, it's part of the job.
But this question begs to be answered, and I think I can give it a little bit of justice.
I think it's because everyone knows that politicians are corrupt. But they want to be on the the "winning team" In the late 80's Bush the Senior was ruining things... opps Running things. and after 12 years of Republican rule the country wanted something a little different. So the majority of people found some flaw in the republican platform. Anything at all they could disagree with. They would build on this one thing(or 2 small things you get the idea) and eventually talk themselves into being a Democrat. (i'm too young to cite any specific examples... poor schools I guess)
Clinton had his fair share of scandal, whether deserved or not (not up to debate in this post) is irrelevant. Many people claimed to "think of the children" or Family Values or whatever judeo-christian BS the Moral Majority is shoving down our throats. These people now identified with the Republicans more because they would never (get caught) cheat(ing) on their wives. Or Lieing under oath. Or even would never be confused as to the legal definition of "is". These people were slowly but surely shown the benevolent side of the Republican agenda. As their following got stronger they branched out into more legally/morally obscure areas. The people are already going to vote republican because they agree you should (get caught) cheat(ing) on your wife, you shouldn't (get caught) stealing from children etc... wow that turned into a rant.
I am an American. At one point I thought this country was great, we had freedoms many other places didn't enjoy. We had a great document that limited the power of any one individual, we even had a system of checks and balances so that in the off chance that one individual or group became too powerful it could never truly take away our inherent rights.
This system probably worked rather well for quite some time. Maybe even 50 years.
With the current system, there is no possible way to get back to what this country is about. We are too far gone.
But I cannot think of any alternative. Power breeds corruption. I cannot honestly say that I have never used my job to further my own personal goals. I drove cab for 4 years, I used that job to meet loose women, and score drugs. I'm now in the IT field. I use this job to keep with current trends in the industry and meet contacts that will further my personal agenda. I'm not saying that if I was a politician I would burn schools down to create parking lots for my fleet of Mercedes-Benz vehicles, but some people do not have high moral standards I do.
If there is a way to use a position of authority, any authority at all it will be abused, more often than not. This is the new American dream. Lie, Steal, Cheat, Blame your predecessor.
The Constitution is a great piece of work, sad to think of it more as a work of fiction these days.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, America has to go through some kind of radical change. IMHO nothing short of revolution will bring this country even close to the splendor that it once was. I'm not talking about riches and wealth splendor, I'm talking about freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to feed the trolls but, How is it different?
Explain to me in your anonymous wisdom how it is any different.
You could say the the manufacturer is in the business of selling ink and only puts out a printer so that there is a market for their real product...
Not my fucking problem, if they can't make a profit ethically, then they need to find a new market.
If they made a decent product, I might be inclined to pay more than $30 for a printer. But I know it will break within the first 6 months.
If official in cartridges were less than $35 I might actually buy the brand name... Ok, I would probably buy generic anyway, but I'm cheap.
I could only imagine the results of this lawsuit were before congress openly sold laws to the highest bidder.
see keyword openly.
They build absolute garbage printers, that hardly work after a month or 2. Now they want to force you to use their ink at $80 (avg for both color and B&W) a refill.
How can this be illegal?
How can artificially restricting the consumables a device uses be anything but illegal and/or abuse of some sort. Of course you can always say that the manufacturers who decide on this will stay on shelves while those that don't will sell their products. But what if the becomes the new standard or is mandated to protect these unfortunate companies bottom lines.
This isn't Burger King, it's America. You'll have it their way. Or at least that is the road we're on.
Sounds like business as usual here in the Corporate States of Amerika.
That's like saying I can only use Dodge Brand gas in my car, and my wife could only use Toyota.
But the risk of getting caught with electronic eavesdropping is percieved to be much lower.
consider your waiter theory,
If that waiter were to write down your credit card number, it would certainly be traced back to him. Your table number is usually printed on the check and everything is tracked electronically.
Unencrypted broadcast of my credit card information can be read by anyone with the right tools... say the guy at the next table can just pull that info out of the sky and I would never know, till I got my credit card bill.
If it was encrypted and maybe limited or maybe monitored for suspicious activity. I personally would never sign up for it, but I can certainly see why people would. But if you don't have time to hit up an atm or whatever you probably don't have time to scrutinize your bills like this would probably require.
That wasn't a relationship, that is called a one night stand.
all users is directly comparable to /etc/skel /etc/skel is only copied over once, while the "all users" directory structure is merged with "current user"
except that
... the FCC sanctions the wholesale looting of public property by media tycoons for their personal enrichment... and they're part of the fucking government. Who else but the government would or could loot public property for their personal enrichment. This is not news, this is standard operating procedure.I'm pretty sure they were the craptastic apple's you're talking about.
and everything I would have seen up to then would have been both low end and slightly obsolete.
But by best I guess I mean what I considered the best because it was the best I had seen up to that point.
and for the record I hated 95 when it first came out, I only finally installed it (27 floppies) about 3 years later.
So I could network another machine I got.
what was this thread about?
What the fuck is wrong with me,
At that point in time I was 13, and Win95 didn't even exist yet.
I had used a Mac at school and hated it. A buddy of mine had an amiga that totally sucked. At that point in time Unix were in ancient Egypt and didn't have balls.
What I could afford at that time was a cheap system that my family and I could learn on. A P90 w/8MB and 500MB HDD
Had I bought a Mac, amiga, os/2, solaris/unix, or anything else I would not be in the position I am in right now.
That computer coming in the mail broken forced me into becoming computer literate. I had to fix the damn thing before I had ever touched it's keyboard.
I now feed my family fixing computers.
So yeah, at the time it was the Best there was to get.
There will always be alternatives. :) everywhere you look.
Look closely, in the beginning the only alternatives to Windows were clunky, difficult to use, non-hardware supporting, command line driven, *nix Operating systems. or The fisher price Macs with the
With the advent of collaboration, those *nix operating systems have been slowly and surely improved where they are usable to a much larger minority of people.
In the not too distant future I see a very similar thing happening in the web search market. 1 will rule them all, but there will always be a select few that refuse (for whatever reason) to go with the flow, and use what is best. These few will create their own damn system if they have to, just so long as they don't have to use what everyone tells them is the best. It will probably start the same, a difficult to use, quirky search will be built upon and improved by the masses to become a "decent" alternative to what most consider "the real thing".
The only major difference that I can see is the means to the end. MS, was at the time the Best Operating System. (circa 1994) but they gained their market share through deceptive and certainly unfair practices.
Google on the other hand, has gained it's market share by being the Best. There is no better search engine, and when gmail came out there was NOBODY offering 2G email storage for free, let alone anonymous.
I drink Coke, I smoke Marlboro, I eat Purdue Chicken, I use Sharpie Magic Markers, I search google, and I run GNU/Linux all for the same reason. I believe these to be the best. Not because the corporations tell me they're the best, but because as a consumer I tend to stick with the things that I like.
Just so I don't get flamed, Best is used subjectively throughout this post. If you happen to disagree with me, save it. I really don't care what you think, you'll not change my mind on what I decide to purchase any more than the government or the RIAA.
If you disagree with the underlying logic, I welcome intelligent debate.
The (desktop) OS market is already a little saturated.
You have Windows XP, which in it's own right is a decent OS. After tons of patches and service packs, it actually runs pretty darn smooth if you know how to administer it, or if you don't know enough to break it.
You have several hundred flavors of GNU/Linux to contend with, every one of them has a different goal and a slightly different way of doing things. (which IMHO will be the undoing of the whole damn sub-culture)
and
You have OSX "safari" (have to say with a lisp or it doesn't sound right) or whatever Apple's flavor of the month is.
Another mainstream OS would only appeal to uber-geeks, and those with a penchant for pain. (and I think Linux has that demographic well in hand)
A google OS would also cement it's current reputation as being the next "Evil-Empire" That is the last thing they want, also privacy advocates would go crazy with all the hoo hawing over one company doing the search, and desktop search, and OS, and monopoly this and Park Place that, and nobody ever wants Baltic, what's up with that. A hotel on baltic is worth more than a house on Boardwalk and costs the same amount of money.
If they broke the law then yes. She expects the courts to uphold the law. Besides, since they are so rich, they can afford to pay when they violate the laws they claim to follow. Spelling correction,
you meant to say
Besides, since they are so rich, they can afford to pay when they violate the laws they write.
It's an easy enough mistake to make.
Do you really believe for 1 second that McDonald's would not keep slaves if it were legal. What about coal mines? or How about Trash companies, or any company that pays minimum wage. If there was a legal way to pay people less, they would. If you don't believe that, you're only fooling yourself. Case in point, any company that offshores their manufacturing to China, they pay pennies on the dollar for the same work, knowing that the working conditions are terrible, usually coerced, if not forced child labor etc... Human nature has not changed, what is considered acceptable behavior has changed slightly for some parts of the world, but not many.
it would be flair.
Flare is always related to fire in some way, shape or form.
Flare
-verb (used without object)
1. to burn with an unsteady, swaying flame, as a torch or candle in the wind.
2. to blaze with a sudden burst of flame (often fol. by up): The fire flared up as the paper caught.
3. to start up or burst out in sudden, fierce activity, passion, etc. (often fol. by up or out): Tempers flared at the meeting. Violence flared up in a new section of the city.
4. to shine or glow.
5. to spread gradually outward, as the end of a trumpet, the bottom of a wide skirt, or the sides of a ship.
flair
-noun
1. a natural talent, aptitude, or ability; bent; knack: a flair for writing rhymes.
2. smartness of style, manner, etc.: Their window display has absolutely no flair at all.
3. keen perception or discernment.
4. Hunting. scent; sense of smell.
"asynchronous collaboration" That's great. I love it when vendors tout the flaws in a product as features. Did you call him on it, or did you let him get away with the BS?
I mean think about it- how many corporations have 1 guy that makes all of the decisions- every company no matter how bad has a board of directors that are held accountable for some form of consensus on major company decisions- the office of the president should be like this. spelling corrected
I disagree totally. A country needs to be led by 1 man(or woman), not a board or conglomeration of any kind. There is one person who is ultimately responsible for any and all of the actions his country takes. I think this is just the natural way of government.
Corporations are completely different though, a corporation is not a natural thing. A corporation is where a small group can get a shit load of people to work for them and make just a small amount of money off each one of those people. A corporation is a disease where the mediocre rise to places of influence because the top tier is afraid of competition. A corporation exists for the sole purpose of making money.
The end goals of the government and a corporation are (should be) vastly different.
A government "should" have singular goal of making it's citizens lives better.
That is (should be) the only goal of any government. Certain groups will always get preferential treatment. Some governments will give the poor a break (welfare type programs, tax breaks for the poor, etc...) other governments will give the very rich a break (see america 2000~2008).
A board would reduce the power of the office of President. It would also complicate elections tremendously. (and really, we need that like a hole in the head remember Florida in 2000)
so in short, I guess I disagree.
don't want to get shot by police either. and I'm sure that many in the military will do what they are told no matter what. The marines might be the cream of the crop and/or the best of the best, but soldiers are trained to obey orders, and I would have to agree with an order to eliminate civilians who are trying to overthrow the government. all enemies foreign and domestic right. That would include me. and protesting and fighting are 2 very different things. I can protest all I want, see how good it did in the viet nam era. Lots of protests, little action. and groups that eventually did start some kind of action were quickly eliminated. (I assume, I can only assume that. not much was taught to us about that subject in school)
statistics can be made up to prove anything 14% of all people know that
Why change it when it can be so easily ignored.
I'm sure you're right. My apologies to Mr. Hicks.
Shut the fuck up and go back to my cable TV.
:)
Ummm, I don't watch tv, well other than comedy central (the real news aka The Daily Show) and cartoon network.
But Standing on the sidelines bitching, that does just about sum it up doesn't it. I agree, I'm not currently a part of the solution.
But what is the solution, if you had any idea you would have posted so we would know who you are, and maybe offered up a suggestion. I'm up to suggestions.
You want revolution... I'm no leader, and while willing to fight 1 man against an army would not last long, and I've already stated my enjoyment of not getting shot.
A better politician... Without money it's pretty hard to run a campaign. and again, I'm no leader. I'm more of a thinker.
But I could find someone who is a leader and promote with my loudest voice who I think is best for the job... Adding to the problem, now there is a solution we haven't tried... oh wait yeah we did.
I'm in favor of smaller government, a true "For the PEOPLE" government. With fewer laws, and less restrictions on what can and cannot be done. I favor a government with no central point of failure, but then trying to get a crowd to agree on anything important is near impossible. (see congress) And you would still have the probability that some of those people vote with their wallets and not with their hearts or heads.
In short
I do not have the solution. I don't know what will work, I only know what hasn't.
"If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line.
But it better work this time". -Dave Mustaine
p.s. grammar nazi's I'm not sure if the " goes on the outside or inside of the . I apologize in advance for any annoyance this may cause you.
Something like 70% of Americans do demand a change in government.
Forming an opinion is not "demanding change". The French are the butt of jokes by Americans who call them "surrender monkeys", but if the French government did half the things the USA government has been doing lately then there would be riots every single day of the week.
I agree 100%, but rioting gets in the way of my daily not getting shot. I'd like to keep up the streak, I've gone almost 10 years straight without catching a bullet. And them military guys have a lot better aim than the junkhead who put a bullet in my leg when I was 17.You aren't demanding change, you are sitting there passively accepting all the shit the government is doing.
And the French would only riot because they know their military would eventually surrender. In America we know that our military will fight an unwinnable war for years no matter what the cost in lives/money/respect/etc...
(see war on drugs, war on poverty, VietNam war, war on homelessness etc...)
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom is what it is. Keep that in mind at all times." -Maynard J Keenan
There are no legal means to remove a corrupt government. The checks and balances that are there to provide the necessary legal action has been paid for. Probably by the oil companies.
Why is anyone a "card-carrying" anything? Why don't they assess each issue and position as it arises regardless of which party is presenting it?
Maybe that's just too much of an ideal scenario?
I usually don't chime in on political topics, because frankly I just don't care. I know I'm going to get it in the "end". Any politician is going to screw you, it's part of the job.
But this question begs to be answered, and I think I can give it a little bit of justice.
I think it's because everyone knows that politicians are corrupt. But they want to be on the the "winning team" In the late 80's Bush the Senior was ruining things... opps Running things. and after 12 years of Republican rule the country wanted something a little different. So the majority of people found some flaw in the republican platform. Anything at all they could disagree with. They would build on this one thing(or 2 small things you get the idea) and eventually talk themselves into being a Democrat. (i'm too young to cite any specific examples... poor schools I guess)
Clinton had his fair share of scandal, whether deserved or not (not up to debate in this post) is irrelevant. Many people claimed to "think of the children" or Family Values or whatever judeo-christian BS the Moral Majority is shoving down our throats.
These people now identified with the Republicans more because they would never (get caught) cheat(ing) on their wives. Or Lieing under oath. Or even would never be confused as to the legal definition of "is".
These people were slowly but surely shown the benevolent side of the Republican agenda. As their following got stronger they branched out into more legally/morally obscure areas.
The people are already going to vote republican because they agree you should (get caught) cheat(ing) on your wife, you shouldn't (get caught) stealing from children etc...
wow that turned into a rant.
I am an American. At one point I thought this country was great, we had freedoms many other places didn't enjoy. We had a great document that limited the power of any one individual, we even had a system of checks and balances so that in the off chance that one individual or group became too powerful it could never truly take away our inherent rights.
This system probably worked rather well for quite some time. Maybe even 50 years.
With the current system, there is no possible way to get back to what this country is about. We are too far gone.
But I cannot think of any alternative. Power breeds corruption. I cannot honestly say that I have never used my job to further my own personal goals. I drove cab for 4 years, I used that job to meet loose women, and score drugs. I'm now in the IT field. I use this job to keep with current trends in the industry and meet contacts that will further my personal agenda.
I'm not saying that if I was a politician I would burn schools down to create parking lots for my fleet of Mercedes-Benz vehicles, but some people do not have high moral standards I do.
If there is a way to use a position of authority, any authority at all it will be abused, more often than not. This is the new American dream.
Lie, Steal, Cheat, Blame your predecessor.
The Constitution is a great piece of work, sad to think of it more as a work of fiction these days.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, America has to go through some kind of radical change. IMHO nothing short of revolution will bring this country even close to the splendor that it once was.
I'm not talking about riches and wealth splendor, I'm talking about freedom.