Hey, since you bring up kids, protection of children is a place where i think the local governments do have a role to play. But you can't own people in a free society. They are responsible for themselves, and certainly no decent goverment would allow kids to be traded, even if you are responsible for them. But let's not compare kids to the free market, because it's a different beast. THe free market functions on people making their own choices, and living with the consequences of their own choices. You are in charge of yourself.
And your situation, you want the government to do what? regulation comcast because you put yourself into a situation, that relies on comcast? You still have options, you can move, you can get another job or whatever. sorry the situation isn't what you want.
But let's go further, let's say you get regulations passed. Then what happens? well your prices will go up(maybe not by much), and in the future the market's will be limited by these regulations. SO you MIGHT benefit int he short run. that is the best case scenario. In the long run you are hurting competition and you are basically increasing the likeliness an incompetent company (comcast) will remain in existence.
there's a few companies with DSL, there's satalite, there's dialup and there's the option of not having internet. quite a few options for me.
Of course, i live in a suburb of seattle, not everyone has as mayn options. But they still have choices. And if people like me make the right choices, they'll soon have better choices to make anyways, as I'll reward the companies doing the right thing.
You're right, big government is the solution. Government in control is what we need. This is perfect. Instead of letting competition decide who wins, we let government hurrah!!!!
Do people not understand how capitalism works? And no, we don't have a capitalistic system in the US, we have big corporations and unions who get legislature passed, that is the exact opposite of capitalism. But the solution isn't to just go hogwild with stupid regulations that hinder improvement and innovation and meanwhile don't even achieve the results they desire?
and moreover, what are we btihcing about? throttling? geez. you know what? i had comcast, i started to hate them, they are incompetent(beyond throttling), so you know what i did? I did my business elsewhere. And don't tell me there aren't other options, because there are in almost all cases, other options.
The solution is rather simple, get rid of almost all regulations on business. Let individuals decide what their choices are and where to go. Let people vote in the best way, with our dollars, on what services are good, and what are bad. But nope, won't be done, all those regulations are supposed to help right? hahahahaha. they rarely help, and even when they do it's a short term, and in the long term are much worse for the consumer. The worst thing to do is judge legislation by it's intentions rather than it's results. Which is what we always do. At some point we'll learn freedom of choice, really does work. Well, we'll learn it again, we used to know it back in the 1700's and 1800's and even into the early 1900's. Which were our most productive times, but ah well. Hell, as recently as the 50's we had decent medical care, and shockingly, there was little regulation and government involvement.
Socialism does not work. Even in cases like this, where you want it to. The only exceptions, are literally where there are no other alternatives, but those cases are few and far between. And i'll put my mod prediction in the last part so no one will read it, either this post gets ignored or modded down, never know tho, occasionally some 'kook' libertarian posts do get modded up.
Who determines? It's not that hard to figure it out with the internet.
If you go back through my comments sometime in mid-December (I think) I laid out the costs to get an iPhone in the UK and US. You can get a better model iPhone for free on a contract with more minutes, unlimited internet and more texts (I think the UK deal offered unlimited texts even). The US option you had to pay something for the phone, pay a setup fee and pay more per month.
To top this off, Europe (and afaik the rest of the world) doesn't pay to receive a call either.
Unlike the US, it's unheard of to pay the same exact fee for a contract whether or not you get a new phone.
Considering Europe pays more tax and the US *still* pays more for an iPhone means you're getting fucked.
In fact in 99.9% of cases the US pays less for software and electronics so to be paying more for mobile phones means you're probably not getting the best deal.
I'm not sure why US consumers find it acceptable to pay to receive a call on a mobile but not a land line. I suspect it comes down to ignorance. No ATT and Verizon aren't going to tell you that they're giving you a raw deal because you phone won't work on every US network let alone every international network or that you're paying more than countries that pay tax out the ass. At least T-Mobile (who are international) are starting to bring over better options like paying less per month if you have your own phone. The problem is you're fucked if your old phone is incompatible.
So basically you don't think the cell phone is worth paying in the US, so you shouldn't buy it. That's really my point. To have the government interfer with people making trades they want to, does no one any really good. Price controls, caps, regulations all make things worse, even if you don't see it. Why is the US more expensive? i have no clue, but i've made the determination to own a simple phone that meets my needs on a price i'm willing to pay.
You failed to explain why it would be awful for every mobile phone company to use the same standards as everyone else enabling you to use your phone anywhere in the world, to be able to buy any phone from around the world for the best price will some how make things worse you as a consumer.
I did in one of my posts, which is the unseen costs. And there's no reason to force anyone to do something, when no one is getting harmed.
How has your life been held back by the FCC taking on a standard like NTSC to ensure all TVs worked anywhere in the US or by them moving to ATSC?
I'm sure it's had some affect. You cannot just force some entity to do something different than it otherwise would, and say there will be no side affects.
Consoles aren't compatible and they're growing. If Sony, for instance, were in a position of having a near monopoly on TVs and decided to come up with some sort of connection that only works with their TV, do you think people are just going to give up TV? I don't think so.
Consoles are different than what we were talking about. And consumers have made the choice that consoles are doing fine, thus companies get rewarded with profits. Thanks to mostly unregulated competition in the tech sphere, monopolies are pretty hard to form. But even if they did, if sony did somethign that was a big enough deal, people would find alternatives. They always do.
If things were left up to the free market completely then there would very likely be huge chunks of the US without telephone service or even electricity. Everyone who didn't want to live in the stone age would have to live in a city. What good would that be for anyone? Being a farmer would be like being Amish and like being Amish it would be a dying breed and the US would be more dependant on other countries.
I really doubt that. People who lived farther away would just have to pay more to recieve the same service. Or they would deem the service uneces
WTF? I think that the above electrical socket analogy is a decent one. Even in the US you have a standard electrical socket. Not to mention a standard mains voltage. And even the US has laws enforcing that (requiring builders to use that kind of socket, and power companies to supply that voltage of power). That is just common sense, not socialism. I think you keep using this word without knowing what it actually means.
If it was really common sense the US comapnies wouldn't need to do it. There's really no argument here to support you. Other than you think all hell would have broken loose if nothing were to be forced. Yet, the free market always seems to solve things. Often times, in better ways. ANd BTW I've looked up the definition of socialism many times, and i've stated it in the above. Government controlling is socialism, like i said a minor form of it, but that's what it really is.
I'm sorry if that offends people, but the reality is the government controlling things rarely works out like people think it does. Whether its hardcore communism or softer forms in europe and the US, there are almost always unintended consequences and unseen costs.
Oh and incidentally, it's not "every website", but US laws already require all government and corporate websites (and most commercially available software) to confirm to certain accessibility standards. In fact these standards are known as being some of the strictest in the world. Companies can face stiff fines if they attempt to sell stuff in the US without conforming to these.
to see software to the US government, yes, there are rules like that. To sell any software? I really doubt that's the case. Which in the first case is fine, they are a customer and they are demanding something of a supplier. That's fine. If they were to demand every page everywhere comply that's not fine.
There are heaps of standards that the US follows. At the moment, cell phones are not one of them. There is nothing inherently more socialist about enforcing a standard for cell phones, as there is for enforcing a standard type of electrical socket, a standard efficiency rating for appliances, standard nation-wide road rules... etc etc.
Let's go to wikipedia: Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.
I don't quite see how you can say that the government forcing a private company to do something isn't socialism.
There are heaps of standards that the US follows. At the moment, cell phones are not one of them. There is nothing inherently more socialist about enforcing a standard for cell phones, as there is for enforcing a standard type of electrical socket, a standard efficiency rating for appliances, standard nation-wide road rules... etc etc.
there are many standards i'm sure. You think all these things are needed and they're really not. You know what gets you a decent selection of produce to shop from at the grocery store? It's not the government. It's competition. competition for profit. It's people persuing their own self interests. And it's good for everyone involved.
What a load of shit. Americans are getting shafted on mobile phones. Your plans are expensive, you pay to receive calls most if not all instances and your phones don't work with ever provider.
right a load of shit? hahaha. and i get modded flamebait. OK then. Who determines plans are expensive? HUH??? you do? ok then don't pay for it. pretty simple, basic economics 101 stuff. I'd rather it was cheaper, but in time the prices will fall.
Just image if your TV and land line phone was like that or that houses had different electrical sockets depending on who built it.
just imagine how people wouldn't buy TVs then. and certainly not multiple TVs in a house.
Standards are not socialism, it's common fucking sense because as clearly proven by the mobile phone market in the US that a free market with no standards has left the US in an awful state.
Forcing someone to comply with a standard is socialism. Government ownership/control is socialism, and that is obviously exerting control, albeit somewhat minor. imagine the government forcing every webpage to comply with some shitty standard. OH wait i can already hear it, how great that'd be and how pages would work in eveyr browser and such. But it'd slow down innovation at the least. It might make other things impossible. It would certainly cost people a lot of money for the time they'd have to spend making sure their webpages are compliant. It would probably put some webpages out of commission. These are the unseen costs and side affects. And all this is assuming the standard was good.
You're not any more free in the US because you're letting mobile companies shaft you.
The mobile companies are not shafting people. people are CHOOSING to get cell phones. Do you understand how capitalism works? I would not buy and pay for a cell phone, unless it was worth my money. Thus companies would not profit if i didn't make that choice. I've made the choice it is, like many people.
Maybe it seems like it's working in this case, but what are the unseen costs? The problem with the government controlling things, is often these sort of unseen costs or unintended side affects. I have a cell phone, in the US and don't have much of a problem with it. Who cares if my provider uses it's own scheme? How is it, we still have not learned that socialism does not work?
The problem is that our company relies on a fair bit of "rockstar" technology talent to make things happen, and even with so many people unemployed, it's not that easy to find qualified people at that level (there is, however, a metric ton of mediocre talent, and people who think they're way better than they really are out there).
offtopic, but it seems like about 50% of the jobs out there in the software industry have this idea behind them. that only the best can work there. I personally think it's almost all hogwash and shows the arrogance of a lot of people. Of course, maybe i'm wrong.
And we should stop the stupid ban on drugs because it doesn't work, makes the problem worse, and who the hell are you to tell me what i can or cannot do with my own body. So yes, we have a precedent, and it doesn't work.
first 2 definitions of socialism i found via google define: socialism
# a political theory advocating state ownership of industry # an economic system based on state ownership of capital
Obama is promoting government controlling health care. We already own a lot of businesses. How is this not socialism?
We're not in a full scale socialist government yet, but geezez, we have CEO's reporting to government officials, how can anyone say that's not socialism, is beyond me. This is not just Obama's fault. This whole mess is causes by in a large group of people. And ultimately, the blame falls upon ourselves.
The point of me taking a car loan, is it's something in small payments i can pay off easy, while in one large chunk, becomes quite a bit harder, so I take a loan to pay for somethign i need, and in return i give the bank more money over the course of the loan, than i paid for it. Thus we're all happy. Now our deficit is huge. We can't even afford to pay the interest. And the worst part is, so much of our deficit is not for stuff we need.Our deficit spending is for bailouts and health care. It's not investing on stuff that will generate more money. The US economy is a house of cards and it's going to collapse in the not to distant future. Of course, how it actually collapses remains to be seen, it could just mean the dollar loses half it's purchasing power (hello 8 dollars for a gallon of gas) Or it could mean good bye dollar all together (Hello Zimbabwe). and another problem is, our economy is not robust as it has been during past depressions. We are in a huge pile of crap, and having huge deficits is a big part of the problem.
socialism implies government control/ownership. How is it a stretch to call the health care bill socialized? Or the bailouts? Perhaps your own stubbornness betrays your judgment.
And you don't think companies would have a vested interest in not losing a hundreds of millions/billions of dollars if another similiar terrorist attack occured or something? the TSA is worthless and should be abolished and let airlines provide their own safety. not to mention they take it upon themselves to do police work which they shouldn't.
Economy - Same as bush, even more, bailing out companies, printing money, ect ect. Civil Liberties - the same as bush. so he's closing down gitmo, so what? enemy combatants can still be held indefinitely. So, just a political move with no real change. Wars - mmm same iraq policy as bush's!!!! oh and shipping more troops to afghanistan, i guess that's a slight change Healthcare - well instead of uncle sam paying for 50%, he'll pay for 100%, of our national medical expenses. This is his biggest change.
There's not a lot of a non superficial differences between their administrations. Of course, feel free to enlighten me.
those things you listed, i would hardly say that's a lot. it's a bit of paper work. But even then, i'm for eliminated patents and probably corporate charters as well.
yes you get property rights through the government, but again, hardly a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
and if you get a government option you will eliminate competition and thus eliminate any chance for options for you.
Hey, since you bring up kids, protection of children is a place where i think the local governments do have a role to play. But you can't own people in a free society. They are responsible for themselves, and certainly no decent goverment would allow kids to be traded, even if you are responsible for them. But let's not compare kids to the free market, because it's a different beast. THe free market functions on people making their own choices, and living with the consequences of their own choices. You are in charge of yourself.
And your situation, you want the government to do what? regulation comcast because you put yourself into a situation, that relies on comcast? You still have options, you can move, you can get another job or whatever. sorry the situation isn't what you want.
But let's go further, let's say you get regulations passed. Then what happens? well your prices will go up(maybe not by much), and in the future the market's will be limited by these regulations. SO you MIGHT benefit int he short run. that is the best case scenario. In the long run you are hurting competition and you are basically increasing the likeliness an incompetent company (comcast) will remain in existence.
there's a few companies with DSL, there's satalite, there's dialup and there's the option of not having internet. quite a few options for me.
Of course, i live in a suburb of seattle, not everyone has as mayn options. But they still have choices. And if people like me make the right choices, they'll soon have better choices to make anyways, as I'll reward the companies doing the right thing.
AH oh, here we go again.
You're right, big government is the solution. Government in control is what we need. This is perfect. Instead of letting competition decide who wins, we let government hurrah!!!!
Do people not understand how capitalism works? And no, we don't have a capitalistic system in the US, we have big corporations and unions who get legislature passed, that is the exact opposite of capitalism. But the solution isn't to just go hogwild with stupid regulations that hinder improvement and innovation and meanwhile don't even achieve the results they desire?
and moreover, what are we btihcing about? throttling? geez. you know what? i had comcast, i started to hate them, they are incompetent(beyond throttling), so you know what i did? I did my business elsewhere. And don't tell me there aren't other options, because there are in almost all cases, other options.
The solution is rather simple, get rid of almost all regulations on business. Let individuals decide what their choices are and where to go. Let people vote in the best way, with our dollars, on what services are good, and what are bad. But nope, won't be done, all those regulations are supposed to help right? hahahahaha. they rarely help, and even when they do it's a short term, and in the long term are much worse for the consumer. The worst thing to do is judge legislation by it's intentions rather than it's results. Which is what we always do. At some point we'll learn freedom of choice, really does work. Well, we'll learn it again, we used to know it back in the 1700's and 1800's and even into the early 1900's. Which were our most productive times, but ah well. Hell, as recently as the 50's we had decent medical care, and shockingly, there was little regulation and government involvement.
Socialism does not work. Even in cases like this, where you want it to. The only exceptions, are literally where there are no other alternatives, but those cases are few and far between. And i'll put my mod prediction in the last part so no one will read it, either this post gets ignored or modded down, never know tho, occasionally some 'kook' libertarian posts do get modded up.
Who determines? It's not that hard to figure it out with the internet.
If you go back through my comments sometime in mid-December (I think) I laid out the costs to get an iPhone in the UK and US. You can get a better model iPhone for free on a contract with more minutes, unlimited internet and more texts (I think the UK deal offered unlimited texts even). The US option you had to pay something for the phone, pay a setup fee and pay more per month.
To top this off, Europe (and afaik the rest of the world) doesn't pay to receive a call either.
Unlike the US, it's unheard of to pay the same exact fee for a contract whether or not you get a new phone.
Considering Europe pays more tax and the US *still* pays more for an iPhone means you're getting fucked.
In fact in 99.9% of cases the US pays less for software and electronics so to be paying more for mobile phones means you're probably not getting the best deal.
I'm not sure why US consumers find it acceptable to pay to receive a call on a mobile but not a land line. I suspect it comes down to ignorance. No ATT and Verizon aren't going to tell you that they're giving you a raw deal because you phone won't work on every US network let alone every international network or that you're paying more than countries that pay tax out the ass. At least T-Mobile (who are international) are starting to bring over better options like paying less per month if you have your own phone. The problem is you're fucked if your old phone is incompatible.
So basically you don't think the cell phone is worth paying in the US, so you shouldn't buy it. That's really my point. To have the government interfer with people making trades they want to, does no one any really good. Price controls, caps, regulations all make things worse, even if you don't see it. Why is the US more expensive? i have no clue, but i've made the determination to own a simple phone that meets my needs on a price i'm willing to pay.
You failed to explain why it would be awful for every mobile phone company to use the same standards as everyone else enabling you to use your phone anywhere in the world, to be able to buy any phone from around the world for the best price will some how make things worse you as a consumer.
I did in one of my posts, which is the unseen costs. And there's no reason to force anyone to do something, when no one is getting harmed.
How has your life been held back by the FCC taking on a standard like NTSC to ensure all TVs worked anywhere in the US or by them moving to ATSC?
I'm sure it's had some affect. You cannot just force some entity to do something different than it otherwise would, and say there will be no side affects.
Consoles aren't compatible and they're growing. If Sony, for instance, were in a position of having a near monopoly on TVs and decided to come up with some sort of connection that only works with their TV, do you think people are just going to give up TV? I don't think so.
Consoles are different than what we were talking about. And consumers have made the choice that consoles are doing fine, thus companies get rewarded with profits. Thanks to mostly unregulated competition in the tech sphere, monopolies are pretty hard to form. But even if they did, if sony did somethign that was a big enough deal, people would find alternatives. They always do.
If things were left up to the free market completely then there would very likely be huge chunks of the US without telephone service or even electricity. Everyone who didn't want to live in the stone age would have to live in a city. What good would that be for anyone? Being a farmer would be like being Amish and like being Amish it would be a dying breed and the US would be more dependant on other countries.
I really doubt that. People who lived farther away would just have to pay more to recieve the same service. Or they would deem the service uneces
my first line should read US companies would need to do it.
WTF? I think that the above electrical socket analogy is a decent one. Even in the US you have a standard electrical socket. Not to mention a standard mains voltage. And even the US has laws enforcing that (requiring builders to use that kind of socket, and power companies to supply that voltage of power). That is just common sense, not socialism. I think you keep using this word without knowing what it actually means.
If it was really common sense the US comapnies wouldn't need to do it. There's really no argument here to support you. Other than you think all hell would have broken loose if nothing were to be forced. Yet, the free market always seems to solve things. Often times, in better ways. ANd BTW I've looked up the definition of socialism many times, and i've stated it in the above. Government controlling is socialism, like i said a minor form of it, but that's what it really is.
I'm sorry if that offends people, but the reality is the government controlling things rarely works out like people think it does. Whether its hardcore communism or softer forms in europe and the US, there are almost always unintended consequences and unseen costs.
Oh and incidentally, it's not "every website", but US laws already require all government and corporate websites (and most commercially available software) to confirm to certain accessibility standards. In fact these standards are known as being some of the strictest in the world. Companies can face stiff fines if they attempt to sell stuff in the US without conforming to these.
to see software to the US government, yes, there are rules like that. To sell any software? I really doubt that's the case. Which in the first case is fine, they are a customer and they are demanding something of a supplier. That's fine. If they were to demand every page everywhere comply that's not fine.
There are heaps of standards that the US follows. At the moment, cell phones are not one of them. There is nothing inherently more socialist about enforcing a standard for cell phones, as there is for enforcing a standard type of electrical socket, a standard efficiency rating for appliances, standard nation-wide road rules ... etc etc.
Let's go to wikipedia: Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.
I don't quite see how you can say that the government forcing a private company to do something isn't socialism.
There are heaps of standards that the US follows. At the moment, cell phones are not one of them. There is nothing inherently more socialist about enforcing a standard for cell phones, as there is for enforcing a standard type of electrical socket, a standard efficiency rating for appliances, standard nation-wide road rules ... etc etc.
there are many standards i'm sure. You think all these things are needed and they're really not. You know what gets you a decent selection of produce to shop from at the grocery store? It's not the government. It's competition. competition for profit. It's people persuing their own self interests. And it's good for everyone involved.
What a load of shit. Americans are getting shafted on mobile phones. Your plans are expensive, you pay to receive calls most if not all instances and your phones don't work with ever provider.
right a load of shit? hahaha. and i get modded flamebait. OK then. Who determines plans are expensive? HUH??? you do? ok then don't pay for it. pretty simple, basic economics 101 stuff. I'd rather it was cheaper, but in time the prices will fall.
Just image if your TV and land line phone was like that or that houses had different electrical sockets depending on who built it.
just imagine how people wouldn't buy TVs then. and certainly not multiple TVs in a house.
Standards are not socialism, it's common fucking sense because as clearly proven by the mobile phone market in the US that a free market with no standards has left the US in an awful state.
Forcing someone to comply with a standard is socialism. Government ownership/control is socialism, and that is obviously exerting control, albeit somewhat minor. imagine the government forcing every webpage to comply with some shitty standard. OH wait i can already hear it, how great that'd be and how pages would work in eveyr browser and such. But it'd slow down innovation at the least. It might make other things impossible. It would certainly cost people a lot of money for the time they'd have to spend making sure their webpages are compliant. It would probably put some webpages out of commission. These are the unseen costs and side affects. And all this is assuming the standard was good.
You're not any more free in the US because you're letting mobile companies shaft you.
The mobile companies are not shafting people. people are CHOOSING to get cell phones. Do you understand how capitalism works? I would not buy and pay for a cell phone, unless it was worth my money. Thus companies would not profit if i didn't make that choice. I've made the choice it is, like many people.
Maybe it seems like it's working in this case, but what are the unseen costs? The problem with the government controlling things, is often these sort of unseen costs or unintended side affects. I have a cell phone, in the US and don't have much of a problem with it. Who cares if my provider uses it's own scheme? How is it, we still have not learned that socialism does not work?
I would forgo almost all my perks/benefits and just take an increase in pay if i could. but unfortunately uncle sam and company make that expensive.
The problem is that our company relies on a fair bit of "rockstar" technology talent to make things happen, and even with so many people unemployed, it's not that easy to find qualified people at that level (there is, however, a metric ton of mediocre talent, and people who think they're way better than they really are out there).
offtopic, but it seems like about 50% of the jobs out there in the software industry have this idea behind them. that only the best can work there. I personally think it's almost all hogwash and shows the arrogance of a lot of people. Of course, maybe i'm wrong.
How is this joke not old yet? It's not so old it's funny, it's just old, and wildly inaccurate.
you had me until the that part.
And we should stop the stupid ban on drugs because it doesn't work, makes the problem worse, and who the hell are you to tell me what i can or cannot do with my own body. So yes, we have a precedent, and it doesn't work.
and unfortunately the dollar could soon be the same way.
And with the millions more they could collect by simple security measures, i don't think that's much of a problem.
first 2 definitions of socialism i found via google define: socialism
# a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
# an economic system based on state ownership of capital
Obama is promoting government controlling health care. We already own a lot of businesses. How is this not socialism?
We're not in a full scale socialist government yet, but geezez, we have CEO's reporting to government officials, how can anyone say that's not socialism, is beyond me. This is not just Obama's fault. This whole mess is causes by in a large group of people. And ultimately, the blame falls upon ourselves.
OK how have I, as someone who wants government totally out of the medical industry, been lied to? And how has that affected my decision?
The point of me taking a car loan, is it's something in small payments i can pay off easy, while in one large chunk, becomes quite a bit harder, so I take a loan to pay for somethign i need, and in return i give the bank more money over the course of the loan, than i paid for it. Thus we're all happy. Now our deficit is huge. We can't even afford to pay the interest. And the worst part is, so much of our deficit is not for stuff we need.Our deficit spending is for bailouts and health care. It's not investing on stuff that will generate more money. The US economy is a house of cards and it's going to collapse in the not to distant future. Of course, how it actually collapses remains to be seen, it could just mean the dollar loses half it's purchasing power (hello 8 dollars for a gallon of gas) Or it could mean good bye dollar all together (Hello Zimbabwe). and another problem is, our economy is not robust as it has been during past depressions. We are in a huge pile of crap, and having huge deficits is a big part of the problem.
I cannot see how much of any republican would have won the 08 election.
socialism implies government control/ownership. How is it a stretch to call the health care bill socialized? Or the bailouts? Perhaps your own stubbornness betrays your judgment.
And you don't think companies would have a vested interest in not losing a hundreds of millions/billions of dollars if another similiar terrorist attack occured or something? the TSA is worthless and should be abolished and let airlines provide their own safety. not to mention they take it upon themselves to do police work which they shouldn't.
i use hay bales and create nintendo characters.
OK then.
Let's take some of the main points.
Economy - Same as bush, even more, bailing out companies, printing money, ect ect.
Civil Liberties - the same as bush. so he's closing down gitmo, so what? enemy combatants can still be held indefinitely. So, just a political move with no real change.
Wars - mmm same iraq policy as bush's!!!! oh and shipping more troops to afghanistan, i guess that's a slight change
Healthcare - well instead of uncle sam paying for 50%, he'll pay for 100%, of our national medical expenses. This is his biggest change.
There's not a lot of a non superficial differences between their administrations. Of course, feel free to enlighten me.
Bad choice, choking will only make the hardon stronger. Go for the eyes next time.
Go for the eyes, Boo!
sorry.
those things you listed, i would hardly say that's a lot. it's a bit of paper work. But even then, i'm for eliminated patents and probably corporate charters as well.
yes you get property rights through the government, but again, hardly a lot.