Aye, there's a bit of a thuggishness to a lot of what these Obama supporters say. Their words drip with the premise that your life and destiny is something that rightfully belongs in the hands of others.
I can't say I'm very fond of this. It looks like they're using.gov to SELL Obama even more to the population. IMO,.gov should be used to government functioning, not "propaganda" (if that's the best term here)
I know this is probably gonna get me marked down from some of Obama's more, ehm, "faithful"--and I'm not excusing anything past politicians have done, in either party, oh no--but this seems too much like propaganda. "Ministry of Change", heh.
It also seems like he's unveiling things he didn't talk about that much:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nationâ(TM)s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
Mandatory community service? Great, let's send a bunch of unmotivated kids to do stupid work. Hell, that kind of shit would have been a nightmare for me at that age when I had massive social anxiety and was extremely uncomfortable in such situations.
Of course, people will come out of the woodwork to say how because it's something that people "should" do (because helping people IS nice, after all...) that Obama should MAKE you do it. Please, someone explain to me how you justify that leap.
Google's privileged position and the wealth it has provided them, I would argue, makes them have a special duty to society to CONTINUE to provide us with free, effective search engines. If Google were to suddenly require payment for their search service or were to even, for some inexplicable reason, decide to close up shop tomorrow, the federal government should step in and ensure they remain doing their duty until at least some real competition arises, or the government could just nationalize it if needed.
Companies like Google need to be watched like hawks and yes, even they need to be HEAVILY regulated to ensure they play nice with society. We do let them become as rich as they are already, after all.
It's a good thing my government are protecting my right to competing internet search engines; Google has a very special place in society now given their success and they have a social duty--an obligation if you will--to provide society with quick and effective searches. A monopoly at this point would be bad for society, even though a new search engine could always spring up, it would hurt us too much in the short-term and be anathema to our right to access to Google's search servers. We've made people at Google filthy rich, and if they make things too difficult to us we should go as far as to even spread the wealth around.
Just imagine what would happen if a ton of different, say, "devices" used the same range of frequency for day-to-day communication. It'd be a nightmare; they wouldn't be able to communicate at all.
I agree with you on the fact that people treat what the founding father's said as gospel too much, however, the constitution can be amended AND, well, do you really want the ultimate law of the land to be whatever the government says it is at the time? It's bad enough as it right now with the current flagrant abuses.
I suspect it's that pesky 2nd amendment you want to get rid of the most.
As an American, I would throw a fit I was required to vote. I suspect those laws are passed to get people that think it will benefit them elected again.
Obama vs. McCain... I do NOT want to justify either of their campaigns and I do not want to vote for them (or any of the ridiculous third party candidates).
Well, it's kind of iffy. They're technically against it, but basically for it because they want to nationalize every industry and THEN control it "for the greater good".
Slashdot Mirror
Which we don't support, either.
Aye, there's a bit of a thuggishness to a lot of what these Obama supporters say. Their words drip with the premise that your life and destiny is something that rightfully belongs in the hands of others.
Good question. I was wondering that myself.
I can't say I'm very fond of this. It looks like they're using .gov to SELL Obama even more to the population. IMO, .gov should be used to government functioning, not "propaganda" (if that's the best term here)
I know this is probably gonna get me marked down from some of Obama's more, ehm, "faithful"--and I'm not excusing anything past politicians have done, in either party, oh no--but this seems too much like propaganda. "Ministry of Change", heh.
It also seems like he's unveiling things he didn't talk about that much:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nationâ(TM)s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
Mandatory community service? Great, let's send a bunch of unmotivated kids to do stupid work. Hell, that kind of shit would have been a nightmare for me at that age when I had massive social anxiety and was extremely uncomfortable in such situations.
Of course, people will come out of the woodwork to say how because it's something that people "should" do (because helping people IS nice, after all...) that Obama should MAKE you do it. Please, someone explain to me how you justify that leap.
Just wait until he gets home from the coffee shop to reply to you. You're really gonna get it then, mister (fuckface).
No, I'm just practicing my rhetoric to fit in with the upcoming Obama presidency, so I'm not left behind the times.
Google's privileged position and the wealth it has provided them, I would argue, makes them have a special duty to society to CONTINUE to provide us with free, effective search engines. If Google were to suddenly require payment for their search service or were to even, for some inexplicable reason, decide to close up shop tomorrow, the federal government should step in and ensure they remain doing their duty until at least some real competition arises, or the government could just nationalize it if needed.
Companies like Google need to be watched like hawks and yes, even they need to be HEAVILY regulated to ensure they play nice with society. We do let them become as rich as they are already, after all.
It's a good thing my government are protecting my right to competing internet search engines; Google has a very special place in society now given their success and they have a social duty--an obligation if you will--to provide society with quick and effective searches. A monopoly at this point would be bad for society, even though a new search engine could always spring up, it would hurt us too much in the short-term and be anathema to our right to access to Google's search servers. We've made people at Google filthy rich, and if they make things too difficult to us we should go as far as to even spread the wealth around.
He doesn't believe in his own bullshit. He's just trying to win court battles to further his own career.
Well, now we know where your attention was...
Isn't WoW a prison unto itself?
He gets out in 2012
Right in time to fulfill the prophecies.
Change? More like Chains.
Do be sure to read the DailyKoS or Huffington Post in abundance, though.
That's not the sky, that's a BSOD.
Just imagine what would happen if a ton of different, say, "devices" used the same range of frequency for day-to-day communication. It'd be a nightmare; they wouldn't be able to communicate at all.
I don't think write-ins are actually counted...?
Obama supporter spotted.
The only message it sends is one to the guy that has to throw it out. Nobody else knows about it.
I agree with you on the fact that people treat what the founding father's said as gospel too much, however, the constitution can be amended AND, well, do you really want the ultimate law of the land to be whatever the government says it is at the time? It's bad enough as it right now with the current flagrant abuses.
I suspect it's that pesky 2nd amendment you want to get rid of the most.
As an American, I would throw a fit I was required to vote. I suspect those laws are passed to get people that think it will benefit them elected again.
Obama vs. McCain... I do NOT want to justify either of their campaigns and I do not want to vote for them (or any of the ridiculous third party candidates).
Don't forget, who knows if they are even in prison for a good reason?
Well, it's kind of iffy. They're technically against it, but basically for it because they want to nationalize every industry and THEN control it "for the greater good".
Well, cities are, some states might be, I haven't checked. It doesn't matter; the simple fact is is that they will do what is necessary to cut costs.
The USA is already starting to ban smoking and regulate the content of fast foods.