Consequences can only be "unintended" for so long. We've known for decades, arguably centuries, that creating a large/popular black market will divert economic strength away from the general populace toward criminals.
This entire nation coalesced around the dream of reaching the Moon. We bonded together for a common goal.
If there's anything this nation could use right now it's a common goal and a reason to be allies rather than trying to burn each other to the damn ground.
Today, yes. Tomorrw? Who the hell could possibly know without trying.
There may be a million barriers (or more) standing in the path of exploration beyond our solar system, or the galaxy. But if we sit here on this rock and never attempt jumping that first barrier, it will forever remain an impediment to jumping the last. You can decide it's possible to reach the goal and resolve to make incremental steps toward it, or you can become complacent with sitting on your hands determined to fail. You may be right, and maybe we wont make the discoveries that allow a person to travel between galaxies in a single lifetime. But if you at least try to move in that direction the discoveries that CAN be made can improve the lives of 100's of millions of people.
300 years ago telling someone that we would eventually have boxes that would allow us to talk to millions of people at once all over the world would have gotten you laughed at, or locked up, or both. 200 years ago a suggestion that the skies would be filled all hours of day an night with man-made flying machines woud have been a joke. 100 years ago putting a man on the moon and returning him safely would have been pure fiction. And yet with the exponentially accelerating discoveries by mankind, and the exponentially increasing means by which man can discover those achievements and millions more have been attained.
We got to the moon in a decade, and you're unwilling to even consider that centuries of incremental progress could present the possibility of exponentially greater successes.
People who say stuff like this usually have no idea the distances involved. It would probably take us MILLIONS of years to reach the nearest planet that's even remotely habitable. We don't have any kind of technology that could possibly survive that long, much less that could keep fragile human bodies alive that long.
We're just stuck here. Don't feel bad, though. We're going to go extinct eventually, even if we made it out into space. If an asteroid doesn't get you, the heat death of the universe certainly will.
And people who say things like ^ this are the type who will never be accused of being a visionary.
We never will have that tech if we just sit here worrying about what we cant do with our current tech. This is precisely why a question like "What if the Apollo program never happened?" is relevent. How about, "What if people believed it was impossible to reach the moon on 1970's technology?".
Applied Socialism:
Public Schools
Public Roads
Public Police Force
Public Fire Departments
You mean all the things funded by state and municipal taxes?
State Income tax, paid into at a higher rate the more a person makes?
Sales tax, where those who buy more contribute more because they are purchasing more luxuries rather than the bare neccessities, so they are funding more of all of the above whether they use them more than others or not?
Property tax, paid into more by the more wealthy who own more valuable property, and which is not paid at all by those renting and dont own property of their own (usually the less wealthy)? Property taxes which are used heavily for schools whether those paying that tax have children or not?
Use tax, such as fuel use taxes being allocated to roads. IE those who buy more fuel contribute more to the costs of the roads and being taxed on their consumption of fuel means they contribute more to the upkeep on the roads?
How about development taxes, paid by those building homes and given directly to school districts under the assumption that the home will someday hold at least one child?
In theory you are correct. In practice I can cite multiple states as examples of the negative of socialism. Which states can you cite as true failures of free market?
This President instead put $500,000,000 into a bloated and failing green energy company. Repeatedly. His administration loves to explain how unemployment and welfare benefits are the best form of stimulus...
Cancellation of the Ares program is estimated to kill 40,000 jobs when all is said and done. Solyndra had 3000 employees. At least the "Bush" program had 37,000 more people working, and by Obama administration logic that makes the Ares program 12x more effective in helping the nation.
At this point I believe we need someone that's completely detached from the Washington "game". Someone who hasnt developed their history of compromises and backroom promises that brought them through a political career culminating at the White House. WIth historically low record of favorability, having served in Congress anytime in the last 20 years should be a detractor for a candidate, not a credential.
The problem of course is that when your state slides more and more toward socialism the economy of that state is on increasingly rocky ground. The state begins to build such enormous deficits that they cannot support the multitude of socialist programs it has established and must either raise taxes or turn to the federal government for funds to prevent bankruptcy. Or, more likely, both. California is a prime example of how this decline manifests.
The real tradegy is that when that state collapses the evacuations start, and the people leaving go to other states and promote the same socialist programs that collapsed the first.
It takes either ignorance or purposeful deciet to present a false choice like that. It's like saying that a person must either support Barrack Obama, or hate African Americans. There are additional choices.
I am not for discrimination. I'm also not for window dressing just so people like you have a false sense of civility at the cost of billions of dollars that we dont have and a slow erosion of our civil liberties.
So we, um... we profile people of age X and nation Z to allow them easier passage through security screening, in order to gain their trust to give us information about people in the terrorist organizations.... that almost assuredly match the profile of age X and nation Z?
Has an 80 year old woman with a colostomy bag ever killed anyone? Nope. But the TSA makes it a point to harrass that type of person to give the illusion that they are unbiased. What makes more sense? Hassling people of a profile who have never been any form of threat so that you can, under the guise of political correctness, question those that have historically been a threat? Or being honest about where the statistically likely threat will come from?
If there's a 25 year old white male from the US in line wearing a lumpy coat in July, by all means, ask some questions. You'd be irresponsible not to. But strip searching a 25 year old white male from the US because he accidently left a quarter in his pocket just so that everyone feels warm and fuzzy about asking a 25 year old middle-easterner from Yemen to remove his lumpy coat is a bit ridiculous, dontcha think? Especially when the latter will be a headline story on CNN as a civil rights violation, and the former will go entirely unnoticed as another "if you have nothing to hide..." condemnation of a xenophobe.
It's a false premise to suggest that the TSA makes us safe. How many terrorists have been prevented by the TSA? And how many times have we heard about knives, guns, fake bombs moved as tests agains the system by DHL getting through TSA screening?
They safety of the skies is a product of inept terrorists and pure dumb luck, not because the TSA adds value.
Actually that's the best possible security. If statistics prove repeatedly that terrorists are exponentially more likely to be males of age X, from nation of Z, and there's a nervous looking X year old guy with a Z passport wearing an oddly lumpy coat in July you'd be pretty irresponsible not to ask some questions.
Slashdot Mirror
Consequences can only be "unintended" for so long. We've known for decades, arguably centuries, that creating a large/popular black market will divert economic strength away from the general populace toward criminals.
Like gun laws...
This entire nation coalesced around the dream of reaching the Moon. We bonded together for a common goal.
If there's anything this nation could use right now it's a common goal and a reason to be allies rather than trying to burn each other to the damn ground.
Today, yes. Tomorrw? Who the hell could possibly know without trying.
There may be a million barriers (or more) standing in the path of exploration beyond our solar system, or the galaxy. But if we sit here on this rock and never attempt jumping that first barrier, it will forever remain an impediment to jumping the last. You can decide it's possible to reach the goal and resolve to make incremental steps toward it, or you can become complacent with sitting on your hands determined to fail. You may be right, and maybe we wont make the discoveries that allow a person to travel between galaxies in a single lifetime. But if you at least try to move in that direction the discoveries that CAN be made can improve the lives of 100's of millions of people.
300 years ago telling someone that we would eventually have boxes that would allow us to talk to millions of people at once all over the world would have gotten you laughed at, or locked up, or both. 200 years ago a suggestion that the skies would be filled all hours of day an night with man-made flying machines woud have been a joke. 100 years ago putting a man on the moon and returning him safely would have been pure fiction. And yet with the exponentially accelerating discoveries by mankind, and the exponentially increasing means by which man can discover those achievements and millions more have been attained.
We got to the moon in a decade, and you're unwilling to even consider that centuries of incremental progress could present the possibility of exponentially greater successes.
People who say stuff like this usually have no idea the distances involved. It would probably take us MILLIONS of years to reach the nearest planet that's even remotely habitable. We don't have any kind of technology that could possibly survive that long, much less that could keep fragile human bodies alive that long.
We're just stuck here. Don't feel bad, though. We're going to go extinct eventually, even if we made it out into space. If an asteroid doesn't get you, the heat death of the universe certainly will.
And people who say things like ^ this are the type who will never be accused of being a visionary.
We never will have that tech if we just sit here worrying about what we cant do with our current tech. This is precisely why a question like "What if the Apollo program never happened?" is relevent. How about, "What if people believed it was impossible to reach the moon on 1970's technology?".
ooh! Ohh! I'll play!!
Applied Socialism:
Public Schools
Public Roads
Public Police Force
Public Fire Departments
You mean all the things funded by state and municipal taxes?
State Income tax, paid into at a higher rate the more a person makes?
Sales tax, where those who buy more contribute more because they are purchasing more luxuries rather than the bare neccessities, so they are funding more of all of the above whether they use them more than others or not?
Property tax, paid into more by the more wealthy who own more valuable property, and which is not paid at all by those renting and dont own property of their own (usually the less wealthy)? Property taxes which are used heavily for schools whether those paying that tax have children or not?
Use tax, such as fuel use taxes being allocated to roads. IE those who buy more fuel contribute more to the costs of the roads and being taxed on their consumption of fuel means they contribute more to the upkeep on the roads?
How about development taxes, paid by those building homes and given directly to school districts under the assumption that the home will someday hold at least one child?
Care to play again?
I didnt realize Italy was a American state. Thanks for educating me.
In theory you are correct. In practice I can cite multiple states as examples of the negative of socialism. Which states can you cite as true failures of free market?
Into a tank of sharks.
This President instead put $500,000,000 into a bloated and failing green energy company. Repeatedly. His administration loves to explain how unemployment and welfare benefits are the best form of stimulus...
Cancellation of the Ares program is estimated to kill 40,000 jobs when all is said and done. Solyndra had 3000 employees. At least the "Bush" program had 37,000 more people working, and by Obama administration logic that makes the Ares program 12x more effective in helping the nation.
At this point I believe we need someone that's completely detached from the Washington "game". Someone who hasnt developed their history of compromises and backroom promises that brought them through a political career culminating at the White House. WIth historically low record of favorability, having served in Congress anytime in the last 20 years should be a detractor for a candidate, not a credential.
Lincoln was a tyrant?
The problem of course is that when your state slides more and more toward socialism the economy of that state is on increasingly rocky ground. The state begins to build such enormous deficits that they cannot support the multitude of socialist programs it has established and must either raise taxes or turn to the federal government for funds to prevent bankruptcy. Or, more likely, both. California is a prime example of how this decline manifests.
The real tradegy is that when that state collapses the evacuations start, and the people leaving go to other states and promote the same socialist programs that collapsed the first.
It takes either ignorance or purposeful deciet to present a false choice like that. It's like saying that a person must either support Barrack Obama, or hate African Americans. There are additional choices.
I am not for discrimination. I'm also not for window dressing just so people like you have a false sense of civility at the cost of billions of dollars that we dont have and a slow erosion of our civil liberties.
So we, um... we profile people of age X and nation Z to allow them easier passage through security screening, in order to gain their trust to give us information about people in the terrorist organizations.... that almost assuredly match the profile of age X and nation Z?
I'll admit they'd never see that coming but...
An unjust law applied evenly is no less unjust.
Has an 80 year old woman with a colostomy bag ever killed anyone? Nope. But the TSA makes it a point to harrass that type of person to give the illusion that they are unbiased. What makes more sense? Hassling people of a profile who have never been any form of threat so that you can, under the guise of political correctness, question those that have historically been a threat? Or being honest about where the statistically likely threat will come from?
If there's a 25 year old white male from the US in line wearing a lumpy coat in July, by all means, ask some questions. You'd be irresponsible not to. But strip searching a 25 year old white male from the US because he accidently left a quarter in his pocket just so that everyone feels warm and fuzzy about asking a 25 year old middle-easterner from Yemen to remove his lumpy coat is a bit ridiculous, dontcha think? Especially when the latter will be a headline story on CNN as a civil rights violation, and the former will go entirely unnoticed as another "if you have nothing to hide..." condemnation of a xenophobe.
Would we be saying the same thing if he was detained while on his way to vote against funding the TSA?
It's a false premise to suggest that the TSA makes us safe. How many terrorists have been prevented by the TSA? And how many times have we heard about knives, guns, fake bombs moved as tests agains the system by DHL getting through TSA screening?
They safety of the skies is a product of inept terrorists and pure dumb luck, not because the TSA adds value.
And having another man grab my crotch in private is better why?
My point is that one can refuse the pat-down and leave. Our rights have been eroded, but we can still do that much.
Try it and let us know how that works out for you. I'm sure they will simply let you walk away...
I wont concede that this is a logically invalid argument against the TSA.
The kind that understands and defends the Constitution. Rare, but not an impossibility.
Actually that's the best possible security. If statistics prove repeatedly that terrorists are exponentially more likely to be males of age X, from nation of Z, and there's a nervous looking X year old guy with a Z passport wearing an oddly lumpy coat in July you'd be pretty irresponsible not to ask some questions.
The rules themselves are what is contemptable. It has little to do with a particular screener.
Yeah, I bet he deliberately had knee surgery and asked for extra metal so he could set the TSA up fo a fall.
Hanlon's razor : Never attribute to malice (Paul) that which is adequately explained by stupidity (TSA).