Why can't America just face the reality as it is - that it is spending way too much money than it is making??
When the two major parties have based their political strategy on buying votes from different groups, it's hard to face that reality. Until we can no longer pay the interest on the debt, it'll keep on motoring along.
We learned metric as a part of our high school curricula, but because it was never used outside of school only those in STEM fields (and car mechanics) tend to use it with any frequency.
There may or may not be anything "special" about the US, but we are still essential to the world economy. China is arguably more important, but unless you're talking about a religious devotion to metric by the rest of the world, ignoring the US just isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future.
I don't have much of a problem with metric, but I don't think in metric. My children might be young enough to make the transition to metric thinking but this isn't going to happen in their lifetime because...
1. Baby boomers are the biggest demographic group and they will reject a metric transition. 2. If we have to wait for the baby boomers to die off, Gen X and Gen Y will be too entrenched in imperial thinking to make the transition. 3. When the baby boomers die off Gen X and Gen Y will be the demographic groups driving elections and when we're in our 50s, there's no fucking way we'll go along with a metric transition. 4. A lot of Americans like to keep doing things our way precisely because the rest of the world doesn't.
Thank you. I was lazy and didn't fully flesh out my point. I didn't intend to imply that the German people voted for "Fuhrer Hitler" in a general or even a parliamentary election. I meant that the Nazi party gained power in Germany through legitimate elections and that lead to Hitler becoming Chancellor.
In my state, a heavily agricultural one, the major problem is agricultural vehicles. But not only do they cause more wear and tear on the roads, but they are also exempt from paying state taxes on fuels! Good to know the farmers have good lobbyists.
They are only exempt if they are not on public roads. Untaxed diesel is dyed red and if someone is caught with red diesel on a public road it's a ridiculously large fine.
Truckers sometimes get over by using untaxed fuel and blending it with regularly taxed diesel fuel. I don't remember the exact percentage that's allowed but if you see agricultural equipment on public roadways, either they're buying taxed diesel fuel or they're risking catastrophe.
I live in Pennsylvania, most of our population is concentrated around the edges of the state. For a lot of people, it's possible to do all or most of their refueling in other states because gasoline is sometime cheaper there. Even though nearly all of the driving is in state, they almost never pay Pennsylvania fuel taxes.
I suppose it balances out because of the number of out-of-state people who routinely come into the state to work and do business that buy gas here.
Why the fuck do you think that the alternative to Christian-based laws is Sharia law? How about a rational, secular system?
Way to miss the point.
I'm not looking to live in a theocracy. I'm just saying that it's not the end of the world that you can't marry another dude. You want to bitch about real oppression and theocratic tyranny, look elsewhere because it ain't here.
If your point was that the gun advocates didn't want to talk or address the concerns
Now, you're getting close. To put it more directly, to hell with your "concerns". I'm as likely to engage in a dialog about the surrender of my rights as you are to engage in a dialog about the surrender of your anal autonomy.
Too many fuckers running around thinking they have a right to tell everyone what they can do. Why are obsolete Christianity-based laws against gay marriage, prostitution, gambling, etc allowed to exist in the 21st century?
If you think that a Christianity based legal system is bad, then you have no clue what they'd be like if the laws were based on Islam.
Please understand that I'm not bashing Muslims or Islam, I'm just pointing out that in Muslim countries the penalties for these transgressions are far more severe than in in de facto Christian countries.
If someone is going to threaten deadly force to compel compliance, there will be people prepared to respond to it with deadly force.
My central point, again, is that the only people who want a dialog about your rights are people who want to violate them. Whether we're talking about out right to keep and bear arms, or our right to bodily autonomy, some discussions are beyond the pale.
Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.
Hitler was elected.
Sorry for the Godwin, but this is appropriate.
Tyranny is often the tyranny of the majority. Turkey massacred Armenians. Germans massacred, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other despised minorities. The Chinese and Soviets slaughtered millions of their political opponents.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't America just face the reality as it is - that it is spending way too much money than it is making??
When the two major parties have based their political strategy on buying votes from different groups, it's hard to face that reality. Until we can no longer pay the interest on the debt, it'll keep on motoring along.
LK
We learned metric as a part of our high school curricula, but because it was never used outside of school only those in STEM fields (and car mechanics) tend to use it with any frequency.
LK
There may or may not be anything "special" about the US, but we are still essential to the world economy. China is arguably more important, but unless you're talking about a religious devotion to metric by the rest of the world, ignoring the US just isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future.
LK
All you've done is demonstrate that you don't know how things work here.
Americans respond negatively to being dictated to. For politicians to back a forced switch would be political suicide.
LK
True
You don't understand.
Politicians want to be reelected and pissing off old people is the best way to lose your job.
LK
I don't have much of a problem with metric, but I don't think in metric. My children might be young enough to make the transition to metric thinking but this isn't going to happen in their lifetime because...
1. Baby boomers are the biggest demographic group and they will reject a metric transition.
2. If we have to wait for the baby boomers to die off, Gen X and Gen Y will be too entrenched in imperial thinking to make the transition.
3. When the baby boomers die off Gen X and Gen Y will be the demographic groups driving elections and when we're in our 50s, there's no fucking way we'll go along with a metric transition.
4. A lot of Americans like to keep doing things our way precisely because the rest of the world doesn't.
LK
It's a religion. Speak ill of it and you shall face the wrath of the monks.
LK
No. You are just ignoring the fact that our Talibani are relatively harmless at present.
Please, enough with the hyperbole. Even our most disgusting Fred Phelps-types have never been out there beheading people for non-belief.
Our Zealots seem relatively harmless precisely because we have a relatively secular state at this point.
A nation where secular humanists have to pretend to be Christians in order to get elected?
LK
Thank you. I was lazy and didn't fully flesh out my point. I didn't intend to imply that the German people voted for "Fuhrer Hitler" in a general or even a parliamentary election. I meant that the Nazi party gained power in Germany through legitimate elections and that lead to Hitler becoming Chancellor.
LK
I do not.
I believe that our national security would be better served by not acting as Israel's protector.
LK
In my state, a heavily agricultural one, the major problem is agricultural vehicles. But not only do they cause more wear and tear on the roads, but they are also exempt from paying state taxes on fuels! Good to know the farmers have good lobbyists.
They are only exempt if they are not on public roads. Untaxed diesel is dyed red and if someone is caught with red diesel on a public road it's a ridiculously large fine.
Truckers sometimes get over by using untaxed fuel and blending it with regularly taxed diesel fuel. I don't remember the exact percentage that's allowed but if you see agricultural equipment on public roadways, either they're buying taxed diesel fuel or they're risking catastrophe.
LK
I live in Pennsylvania, most of our population is concentrated around the edges of the state. For a lot of people, it's possible to do all or most of their refueling in other states because gasoline is sometime cheaper there. Even though nearly all of the driving is in state, they almost never pay Pennsylvania fuel taxes.
I suppose it balances out because of the number of out-of-state people who routinely come into the state to work and do business that buy gas here.
LK
EV drivers still cause wear and tear on the roadways. They should pay their fair share of maintenance costs.
LK
How regressive. Punish the people who are least able to afford a newer car.
LK
Why the fuck do you think that the alternative to Christian-based laws is Sharia law? How about a rational, secular system?
Way to miss the point.
I'm not looking to live in a theocracy. I'm just saying that it's not the end of the world that you can't marry another dude. You want to bitch about real oppression and theocratic tyranny, look elsewhere because it ain't here.
LK
But gang rape is okay if it's a liberal movement like OCCUPY and they need women for chattel.
And their religious devotion to abortion on demand helps them to keep the herds available.
LK
If your point was that the gun advocates didn't want to talk or address the concerns
Now, you're getting close. To put it more directly, to hell with your "concerns". I'm as likely to engage in a dialog about the surrender of my rights as you are to engage in a dialog about the surrender of your anal autonomy.
LK
Too many fuckers running around thinking they have a right to tell everyone what they can do. Why are obsolete Christianity-based laws against gay marriage, prostitution, gambling, etc allowed to exist in the 21st century?
If you think that a Christianity based legal system is bad, then you have no clue what they'd be like if the laws were based on Islam.
Please understand that I'm not bashing Muslims or Islam, I'm just pointing out that in Muslim countries the penalties for these transgressions are far more severe than in in de facto Christian countries.
LK
And without the armed resistance of the American colonists, the French would have had no one to assist, buddy boy.
LK
The most venerated of them owned slaves. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners.
You might want to point to obscure quotes that were opposed to the concept of slavery but their actions speak much louder than any words.
LK
The US is the example.
LK
That's congruous to my point.
If someone is going to threaten deadly force to compel compliance, there will be people prepared to respond to it with deadly force.
My central point, again, is that the only people who want a dialog about your rights are people who want to violate them. Whether we're talking about out right to keep and bear arms, or our right to bodily autonomy, some discussions are beyond the pale.
LK
Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.
Hitler was elected.
Sorry for the Godwin, but this is appropriate.
Tyranny is often the tyranny of the majority. Turkey massacred Armenians. Germans massacred, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other despised minorities. The Chinese and Soviets slaughtered millions of their political opponents.
LK
How many of the US citizens will willingly DIE for freedom?
Would you die to prevent your children, wife or siblings from being gang-raped?
Would you die to prevent them from becoming slaves?
I would.
LK
An "assault rifle" is an unofficial term for a scary-looking (military in design) carbine rifle with more magazine loading capabilities.
You seem to be using "assault weapon" which is a contrived term that can include semi-automatic firearms. That's not the same as "assault rifle".
LK