Your post is nothing but a succession of bad logic, typos, and off-topic strawmen.
Have you traveled around the United States? In many places we have geology for that too.
Geology is irrelevant. We have highways that go straight through mountains. If we wanted to, we could do the same thing with trains. The problem is that our population distribution is so spread out.
Unfortunately, many of these cutting edge ideas won't get off the ground because of the current deficits and millions of Joe Plumbers who will fight for every cent spent outside their pocket.
Governmental bodies in the U.S. consistently piss away taxpayer money in obscene ways. I don't make much more than my expenses, yet the government takes 30% of my paycheck. And where does it go? A Social Security program that will be insolvent long before I retire. Bridges to nowhere. Bailouts. Pointless wars. And both major party candidates whole-heartedly support these and want more of the same.
will not be surprised to hear that things like high speed trains and ability to use cell phones for purchases will be linked to socialism and "'em Asians."
That's a really weak attempt to inject racism into it. How often do you hear rednecks bashing Asians for having excellent cell-phone service and fast trains?
You can put a train between San Francisco and Los Angeles without fighting the terrain too much. Will Californians do it? Does not look like it because nobody wants to give money.
I don't blame them. California is completely incapable of managing money. Your solution is to give them more and to hope that they manage it responsibly? By the way, I just mailed in my ballot, and it has a very dark square next to the "No" option for Prop 1A.
Hell, even if somebody put a high speed train between Silicon Valley and some place in low Sierra I would love to commute on that every day. If I can spend one hour on a train and live 250 miles away from my place of work, that would be awesome.
You want taxpayers to lay you a high-speed rail directly from an exurb to the place you work? I guess you'll want another track going from your neighbor's house to L.A., and another to Sacramento? This is the exact opposite of what needs to happen. Move closer to where you work.
You make a semi-coherent point after that: High-speed rail would be a viable replacement for airline travel. But it would be better if we waited until the technology is more mature. Let the smaller, denser countries work out the bugs and we can implement it when it works well.
But yeah, leave it to Japan and other socialist countries to leave the world. Let's focus on 9/11, terrorism and THAT ONE with his ties to Arabs and Muslims.
That's an absolutely pathetic attempt to inject U.S. Presidential politics into the discussion. Go back to Digg.
Except those are both burst-throughput speeds. In a large USB2.0 file transfer, you find that it occasionally hits the rated speed but it spends quite a lot of time stalled out. Firewire generally has a much more consistent rate of transfer.
From the perspective of the rest of the world, Barak "Let's Talk to Both Our Friends and Our Enemies" Obama is a lot less of a worry than John "Bomb-bomb-bomb, Bomb-bomb-Iran" McCain.
Yeah, because that was a statement of policy from McCain. Your definition of "using your brain" involves deliberately misinterpreting a joke?
Your entire comment consists of misrepresenting McCain's positions and emotional smears that are unfounded in reality. And the point? You just end up saying that, though their records are basically identical, Obama will be better than McCain because you have this gut feeling he will be.
There's no doubt Obama has engaged in plenty of compromising. As you would be well aware, the nature of your political system is such that there are plenty of times when a vote is going to pass anyway so moderates on either side of the aisle will vote for it. It's stupid and it shouldn't be that way, but it also means that voting records are not an accurate reflection of ideology.
And this is retarded. What kind of excuse is that? Voting Yea on something because it's going to pass anyway?
If you think Obama will be any different from McCain, you're a fool. If you want to vote for actual change, pick the most viable third party in your state and vote for them. Nader has my vote.
Civ 4 works fine on my May 2007-era Macbook. I'm not sure what revision it is, but it has integrated graphics, the 2Ghz Core 2 Duo, and a gig of RAM. I imagine it'd work fine on a new machine.
It could have been prevented by the voting population of the US, too. It's a lot easier to pretend it had nothing to do with your choices, of course.
Pelosi and friends gained control of Congress in 2006 by lying about their intentions. The first thing they did after the election was take impeachment off the table and get on their knees. I'd say that voting third party is the only excusable choice under these circumstances, since voting for Democrats accomplished nothing. So yeah, it mostly has been independent of my choices.
Do you even believe this excuse yourself?
Yes. From their voting records, they both want to tap my phones, they both want to:
-Piss away $850 billion plus dollars on idiots that can't manage it. -Piss away even more on social programs and pork so they can maintain their hold on power. -Regulate what I can and cannot put into my body. -Regulate the interactions of consenting adults. -Continue the conflict in the Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely.
I don't really know enough of the NDP or the other parties to form a worthwhile opinion. I only got here a month ago and I'm still trying to make sense of the factions and what they represent. I know more than the average American about the British parliamentary system, and that has helped a little with my comprehension of it all, but I'm still pretty clueless. If I wasn't already so burned out on politics from the last year in the US, I might be a more informed spectator.
Plus, it doesn't help that most of the newspapers I read have conflicting accounts of who is doing well. I've seen a lot of "A vote for Jack Layton is a vote for Stephen Harper" business, so I get the impression that the liberals and the NDP are wasting their efforts fighting over the same demographic. At the same time, I'm seeing all of these dire reports predicting that the Conservatives are due likely to suffer a defeat on the 14th.
I did get a kick out of this article, though. I'm completely pro-drug but if anyone in the US accused a politician of committing genocide on drug users because he refused to continue funding a supervised injection site, the accuser would be laughed out of town and I'd be there laughing at him.
Nonsense. My entire ballot is going to third party candidates, from the dogcatcher to the president.
Your responsibility in this election is to chose the better of two candidates. It's about an immensely powerful position - it's about a life and death for many people, it's about war, about economic wellbeing, about issues concerning the whole planet. You have some power in electing a president - your decision contributes to something affecting many millions of lives. That's your responsibility - live up to it.
So, I assume that means me voting exactly how you'd like me to? This election is about two candidates that are basically the same. They both want to do things I don't want and they both threaten my freedom and my paycheck in slightly different ways. We'll end up with one of them, but it won't really matter which one it is.
Also, the President isn't our emperor. If, at some point, we'd had a Congress that actually wanted to stop him much of the wrong that's been done by Bush in the last seven years could have been prevented. But we had both parties, and both 2008 presidential candidates, happily rubber-stamping his policy the entire time. I can't realistically expect that they're going to change their behavior this time.
Then vote for a third party, preferably the one that is polling best in your district. Once third parties get past a certain threshold, they have access to matching funds and don't have to go to the effort and expense of getting signatures to even appear on the ballot.
I'm voting for Nader this fall. A vote for actual change is better than one pissed away on the bailout twins.
Yes. Given the context of the thread, the US definition of "liberal" would be appropriate.
I'm up in Vancouver right now and watching your election for amusement. What does your liberal party have to do with the classical definition of the word, which is fairly laissez-faire?
And what's up with the $14 six-packs? If that's the cost of socialized medicine, no thanks.
But with Obama, you can actually watch him support Net Neutrality. Especially if you actually vote for him for president. With McCain, all you'll get is the short end of the stick: he's never even offered anything else.
I seem to recall that in the run-up to the primaries, Barack Obama pledged to filibuster any bill that included retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Now, I guess I must have the details wrong, but I was under the impression that he was a Constitutional law professor. What kind of Constitutional law professor mixes up "filibuster" with "eagerly voting 'Yea' after winning the nomination"?
This is an election year. Believe nothing that emerges from the mouths of Tweedledee or Tweedledum. If you want change or some form of improvement of our system, vote for a third party. They might not win this year, but if they pass various thresholds in this election, they'll have fewer barriers to entry in the next election. Who knows, some day we might have a better choice than the lesser of two evils.
Good point. I was kind of a dick to them when I realized that my car was getting searched regardless of what I did or said, but I guess they could have fucked up my car if they wanted to.
I dunno. I was planning on saying that I was storing high entropy noise on those drives for a crypto project or some other bullshit. The guys on the border aren't all that bright.
It might have been released in the US later, but I had to special-order it at the time. I guess I don't keep up with DS games as much as you, dickface.
I'm a US citizen visiting Canada in the Vancouver area. I had all of my crap in my car when I crossed the border to B.C., and I'll have to cross the border again to get back home relatively soon. I've gone across the border twice since to get some essentials down in Washington, and I've been picked out and had my car searched going both ways. I can only assume that I'll get searched when I'm coming back for good and have a car full of crap.
Among my possessions is about 2.5 Tb of storage containing several life sentences of copyright infringement. Should I bother encrypting it before I go back?
"... and general welfare of the United States." Note how it doesn't say that of the people. To say that nationalized heath care was part of the originality intent of the framers is a pretty ridiculous stretch of the truth.
Similarly broad interpretations of the interstate commerce clause got us fun things like the "War on Drugs".
However, nobody's forcing you to get healthcare. You can choose not to participate. It simply gives you another option.
Really? I was under the impression that participation was mandatory. If I had the option to completely opt out of it and also not pay a dime of taxes into it, I'd have no problem whatsoever..... However, nobody's forcing you to get healthcare. You can choose not to participate. It simply gives you another option.
You have two options when it comes to a limited resource: high costs due to scarcity or waiting lists due to the artificial suppression of that scarcity.. I'd prefer the former.
So, let me get this straight: You think that that phrase means that it is the Federal government's responsibility to provide health insurance? You'd think the founding fathers would have implemented it in their day if that was the case.
If you interpret things that broadly, the document ceases to mean anything at all. The Constitution was about limiting the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government explicitly. If you want to make up new responsibilities, why stop there? Can I get someone else to pay for my car insurance? My car note? My apartment? My food?
If you want to socialize medicine, do it at the state level so people like me that definitely don't want it don't have to deal with it. It won't make for a healthier public, it'll make for another third rail of politics that will grow in scope and cost until we're even more bankrupt than we already are.
Oh, he was. But so was Richard Russell, who filibustered it. So was the esteemed Robert Byrd, the Klan member that stalled it with a fourteen hour speech. Total legislative percentages:
Slashdot Mirror
Methane is quite harmless in the absence of an oxidizer. As it is underwater.
A six-pack of domestic beer at the State Liquor store costs $14. Free healthcare, indeed.
Your post is nothing but a succession of bad logic, typos, and off-topic strawmen.
Have you traveled around the United States? In many places we have geology for that too.
Geology is irrelevant. We have highways that go straight through mountains. If we wanted to, we could do the same thing with trains. The problem is that our population distribution is so spread out.
Unfortunately, many of these cutting edge ideas won't get off the ground because of the current deficits and millions of Joe Plumbers who will fight for every cent spent outside their pocket.
Governmental bodies in the U.S. consistently piss away taxpayer money in obscene ways. I don't make much more than my expenses, yet the government takes 30% of my paycheck. And where does it go? A Social Security program that will be insolvent long before I retire. Bridges to nowhere. Bailouts. Pointless wars. And both major party candidates whole-heartedly support these and want more of the same.
will not be surprised to hear that things like high speed trains and ability to use cell phones for purchases will be linked to socialism and "'em Asians."
That's a really weak attempt to inject racism into it. How often do you hear rednecks bashing Asians for having excellent cell-phone service and fast trains?
You can put a train between San Francisco and Los Angeles without fighting the terrain too much. Will Californians do it? Does not look like it because nobody wants to give money.
I don't blame them. California is completely incapable of managing money. Your solution is to give them more and to hope that they manage it responsibly? By the way, I just mailed in my ballot, and it has a very dark square next to the "No" option for Prop 1A.
Hell, even if somebody put a high speed train between Silicon Valley and some place in low Sierra I would love to commute on that every day. If I can spend one hour on a train and live 250 miles away from my place of work, that would be awesome.
You want taxpayers to lay you a high-speed rail directly from an exurb to the place you work? I guess you'll want another track going from your neighbor's house to L.A., and another to Sacramento? This is the exact opposite of what needs to happen. Move closer to where you work.
You make a semi-coherent point after that: High-speed rail would be a viable replacement for airline travel. But it would be better if we waited until the technology is more mature. Let the smaller, denser countries work out the bugs and we can implement it when it works well.
But yeah, leave it to Japan and other socialist countries to leave the world. Let's focus on 9/11, terrorism and THAT ONE with his ties to Arabs and Muslims.
That's an absolutely pathetic attempt to inject U.S. Presidential politics into the discussion. Go back to Digg.
Opposing Bush is good, isn't it?
Not if one supports the equally corrupt Democrats.
Except those are both burst-throughput speeds. In a large USB2.0 file transfer, you find that it occasionally hits the rated speed but it spends quite a lot of time stalled out. Firewire generally has a much more consistent rate of transfer.
From the perspective of the rest of the world, Barak "Let's Talk to Both Our Friends and Our Enemies" Obama is a lot less of a worry than John "Bomb-bomb-bomb, Bomb-bomb-Iran" McCain.
Yeah, because that was a statement of policy from McCain. Your definition of "using your brain" involves deliberately misinterpreting a joke?
Your entire comment consists of misrepresenting McCain's positions and emotional smears that are unfounded in reality. And the point? You just end up saying that, though their records are basically identical, Obama will be better than McCain because you have this gut feeling he will be.
There's no doubt Obama has engaged in plenty of compromising. As you would be well aware, the nature of your political system is such that there are plenty of times when a vote is going to pass anyway so moderates on either side of the aisle will vote for it. It's stupid and it shouldn't be that way, but it also means that voting records are not an accurate reflection of ideology.
And this is retarded. What kind of excuse is that? Voting Yea on something because it's going to pass anyway?
If you think Obama will be any different from McCain, you're a fool. If you want to vote for actual change, pick the most viable third party in your state and vote for them. Nader has my vote.
Civ 4 works fine on my May 2007-era Macbook. I'm not sure what revision it is, but it has integrated graphics, the 2Ghz Core 2 Duo, and a gig of RAM. I imagine it'd work fine on a new machine.
It could have been prevented by the voting population of the US, too. It's a lot easier to pretend it had nothing to do with your choices, of course.
Pelosi and friends gained control of Congress in 2006 by lying about their intentions. The first thing they did after the election was take impeachment off the table and get on their knees. I'd say that voting third party is the only excusable choice under these circumstances, since voting for Democrats accomplished nothing. So yeah, it mostly has been independent of my choices.
Do you even believe this excuse yourself?
Yes. From their voting records, they both want to tap my phones, they both want to:
-Piss away $850 billion plus dollars on idiots that can't manage it.
-Piss away even more on social programs and pork so they can maintain their hold on power.
-Regulate what I can and cannot put into my body.
-Regulate the interactions of consenting adults.
-Continue the conflict in the Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely.
They're indistinguishable.
I don't really know enough of the NDP or the other parties to form a worthwhile opinion. I only got here a month ago and I'm still trying to make sense of the factions and what they represent. I know more than the average American about the British parliamentary system, and that has helped a little with my comprehension of it all, but I'm still pretty clueless. If I wasn't already so burned out on politics from the last year in the US, I might be a more informed spectator.
Plus, it doesn't help that most of the newspapers I read have conflicting accounts of who is doing well. I've seen a lot of "A vote for Jack Layton is a vote for Stephen Harper" business, so I get the impression that the liberals and the NDP are wasting their efforts fighting over the same demographic. At the same time, I'm seeing all of these dire reports predicting that the Conservatives are due likely to suffer a defeat on the 14th.
I did get a kick out of this article, though. I'm completely pro-drug but if anyone in the US accused a politician of committing genocide on drug users because he refused to continue funding a supervised injection site, the accuser would be laughed out of town and I'd be there laughing at him.
Nonsense. My entire ballot is going to third party candidates, from the dogcatcher to the president.
Your responsibility in this election is to chose the better of two candidates. It's about an immensely powerful position - it's about a life and death for many people, it's about war, about economic wellbeing, about issues concerning the whole planet. You have some power in electing a president - your decision contributes to something affecting many millions of lives. That's your responsibility - live up to it.
So, I assume that means me voting exactly how you'd like me to? This election is about two candidates that are basically the same. They both want to do things I don't want and they both threaten my freedom and my paycheck in slightly different ways. We'll end up with one of them, but it won't really matter which one it is.
Also, the President isn't our emperor. If, at some point, we'd had a Congress that actually wanted to stop him much of the wrong that's been done by Bush in the last seven years could have been prevented. But we had both parties, and both 2008 presidential candidates, happily rubber-stamping his policy the entire time. I can't realistically expect that they're going to change their behavior this time.
When McCain voted for the bailout, it was like eating a live rattlesnake. When Obama voted for it, it was more like a eating an unseasoned potato.
There's no difference between them.
Then vote for a third party, preferably the one that is polling best in your district. Once third parties get past a certain threshold, they have access to matching funds and don't have to go to the effort and expense of getting signatures to even appear on the ballot.
I'm voting for Nader this fall. A vote for actual change is better than one pissed away on the bailout twins.
Obama is "US liberal".
Yes. Given the context of the thread, the US definition of "liberal" would be appropriate.
I'm up in Vancouver right now and watching your election for amusement. What does your liberal party have to do with the classical definition of the word, which is fairly laissez-faire?
And what's up with the $14 six-packs? If that's the cost of socialized medicine, no thanks.
But with Obama, you can actually watch him support Net Neutrality. Especially if you actually vote for him for president. With McCain, all you'll get is the short end of the stick: he's never even offered anything else.
I seem to recall that in the run-up to the primaries, Barack Obama pledged to filibuster any bill that included retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Now, I guess I must have the details wrong, but I was under the impression that he was a Constitutional law professor. What kind of Constitutional law professor mixes up "filibuster" with "eagerly voting 'Yea' after winning the nomination"?
This is an election year. Believe nothing that emerges from the mouths of Tweedledee or Tweedledum. If you want change or some form of improvement of our system, vote for a third party. They might not win this year, but if they pass various thresholds in this election, they'll have fewer barriers to entry in the next election. Who knows, some day we might have a better choice than the lesser of two evils.
Good point. I was kind of a dick to them when I realized that my car was getting searched regardless of what I did or said, but I guess they could have fucked up my car if they wanted to.
I dunno. I was planning on saying that I was storing high entropy noise on those drives for a crypto project or some other bullshit. The guys on the border aren't all that bright.
It might have been released in the US later, but I had to special-order it at the time. I guess I don't keep up with DS games as much as you, dickface.
I'm a US citizen visiting Canada in the Vancouver area. I had all of my crap in my car when I crossed the border to B.C., and I'll have to cross the border again to get back home relatively soon. I've gone across the border twice since to get some essentials down in Washington, and I've been picked out and had my car searched going both ways. I can only assume that I'll get searched when I'm coming back for good and have a car full of crap.
Among my possessions is about 2.5 Tb of storage containing several life sentences of copyright infringement. Should I bother encrypting it before I go back?
One of the most innovative games I have for the DS, Electroplankton was import-only because the distributors though Americans wouldn't like it.
"... and general welfare of the United States." Note how it doesn't say that of the people. To say that nationalized heath care was part of the originality intent of the framers is a pretty ridiculous stretch of the truth.
Similarly broad interpretations of the interstate commerce clause got us fun things like the "War on Drugs".
However, nobody's forcing you to get healthcare. You can choose not to participate. It simply gives you another option.
Really? I was under the impression that participation was mandatory. If I had the option to completely opt out of it and also not pay a dime of taxes into it, I'd have no problem whatsoever. .... However, nobody's forcing you to get healthcare. You can choose not to participate. It simply gives you another option.
You have two options when it comes to a limited resource: high costs due to scarcity or waiting lists due to the artificial suppression of that scarcity.. I'd prefer the former.
By shitting on the Constitution. Just like Social Security and everything else that's happened in the last century.
So, let me get this straight: You think that that phrase means that it is the Federal government's responsibility to provide health insurance? You'd think the founding fathers would have implemented it in their day if that was the case.
If you interpret things that broadly, the document ceases to mean anything at all. The Constitution was about limiting the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government explicitly. If you want to make up new responsibilities, why stop there? Can I get someone else to pay for my car insurance? My car note? My apartment? My food?
If you want to socialize medicine, do it at the state level so people like me that definitely don't want it don't have to deal with it. It won't make for a healthier public, it'll make for another third rail of politics that will grow in scope and cost until we're even more bankrupt than we already are.
Oh, he was. But so was Richard Russell, who filibustered it. So was the esteemed Robert Byrd, the Klan member that stalled it with a fourteen hour speech. Total legislative percentages:
The original House version:[9]
* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
From Wikipedia, of course.
Please see the Tenth Amendment. It's unconstitutional.