- what's called 'property rights'. Tangible property, but you would be actually surprised with my stance on it - I am against government police being used for this as well, I am pretty much against government meddling in these affairs, it's a private matter. Do you understand my position? Theft is a private matter, not a matter for public protectionism.
I am not surprised that this is your stance, given the rest of your opinions here. However, I do want to hear you explain your position. How do you propose we privately settle matters of theft? If somebody moves into my house when I step out for a cup of coffee, it's now my job to drag them out of there or shoot them dead and bury the body somewhere? What if they moved in with a few buddies and are armed? Now I need to go get more buddies and more guns because theft of property is a "private matter." I suppose it truly is an anarchist point of view, but I don't see how it is possible to have a civil society and a government that can protect our liberties and freedoms when you don't allow it to protect our property.
But, as I said above, in November, in aggregate, you'll just vote for the same rascals and go back to whining when they (predictably to anyone with an IQ over room temperature) behave as they always have.
What, you'd rather we let the wrong rascals in!?!?!
It's actually not too far off. Far better to let a hundred scoundrels go free than to lock up one innocent... (butchered, paraphrased, un-cited... I'm bad at quotes).
I don't think anybody likes how health care ended up in the States. We went from an overpriced system with too many middle men to a mandatory overpriced system with too many middle men. It's a combination of the worst of public and private systems.
Back off topic though... American's have been partaking in "trickle-up" economics for the last thirty years. Notice the collapse of small business and the concentration of all of our purchasing at the Targets and Wal Marts? To save that extra couple bucks we're happily sending our money to the big guys knowing *full well* that the people in their employ can't earn a decent wage. You want to spark off a new deal? Take that money to a local store to buy your clothes. Get that lawnmower repaired instead of tossing it and buying a new one from the Lawnmower Depot. We'll happily spend hours price shopping to save that extra two dollars, put ten minutes of that toward seeing where the rest of the money you would have spent ends up going.
I didn't read enough in depth to know the case here - but "keeping people in their homes" is only a good goal for people who bought homes they could afford in the first place. Heaps of foreclosures in my area are a direct result of variable rate or interest only loans that the purchasers had no business getting into in the first place. Sure, some folks got unlucky and lost their jobs. Some got unlucky and had unexpected medical expenses. Most simply saw a rising market and assumed it would keep going forever - bought the house knowing that staying in that home was dependent on the prices of real estate rising.
If you bought a home you couldn't afford in the first place, I do not want society to pick up the slack to keep you there. I want you to downgrade to something more in line with your earnings. I know full well that downgrading is extraordinarily difficult with the current market - if you're already upside down and can't afford it you don't have much choice but to foreclose or short sell.
And who knows, maybe these guys made a heroic performance before falling to the safety net and still couldn't quite pull it off. Bad things happen sometimes.
I'm not sure if you've been awake through the last several elections... Most politicians pick a single cause crusade and ride that all the way through. That works because most people don't want to put forth the effort to find the right candidate - they want an issue they can stand behind or against.
Perhaps you would also recall some history on what the world was like when the constitution was written - and how much of our current electoral system has changed since the constitution was written.
For plenty of people, they are everything you claimed (fast, cheap, goes everywhere they need to be and carries everything they need to carry). For you, they aren't. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Buses are simply an efficient way to move *people* between common business places. Stating that they're a pretty great form of transportation doesn't mean they're the only form. I don't want somebody that chooses to drive a car to be forced to ride a bus by regulations, but I do think there are plenty of people that might be better served by public transportation than using a privately owned vehicle and they shouldn't be afraid to explore that option. My main point though, was that your typical American suburban sprawl is poorly suited for public transport.
Do you have the same attitude about rape victims who happened to wear a short skirt that day? Motorcyclists aren't going to pretend that their mode of transportation is any safer than others on the road. Most of us go to great lengths to make ourselves more visible and protected. However, just because we are taking on additional risk doesn't excuse an inattentive driver. Every time you put that key in the ignition you are taking on the responsibility of being aware of *all* roadway users: cars, motorbikes, cyclists, pedestrians, and so on.
Moreso than that, pilots go through an extraordinary amount of training compared to drivers. How many drivers do you know have actually taken a driving course?
I don't know if I'd go that far - buses are a pretty great form of transportation - just not for how American cities are laid out (or for the amount of walking us lardy Americans are willing to do;) ). That said... I don't ride the bus.
If your windshield goes black, then you are clearly at fault for not washing it. There is a reason even the most advanced aircraft with the newest glass cockpit avionics *still* have windows to use a plain old mark I eyeball. Hell, with the exception of the most advanced ILS, the FAA doesn''t allow landing an aircraft if you can't see the runway, the DoT will be no different.
The first cars might still crash, but the dozens of cars behind them could have time to stop. Hence why multiple car pileups are almost exclusively associated with a degraded visual environment.
My only point was that this chickenhawk attitude of sending "loads of bombs" from the nice clean safety of a drone control station where you don't need to experience the destruction and impact on the lives of people (many of whom would be innocent and uninvolved) is an extremely dangerous path. You end up with armies that no longer fight each other, and instead just fight the civilian population of the opposing nation.
That's why I asked if you would be willing to pick up a rifle and lead the charge. You want to bring war to somebody else, but not go there yourself.
Open it up to who? Flip the roles here... Say Iran had a carrier sitting off the coast and was going to bomb the office you work at unless you let their inspectors in to make sure you aren't doing something they don't like. After all, by definition it's all military because somebody in your office voted for the guy who bombed them first.
Have you ever been to a military base? How are you going to know it's something you want to hit? Do you even care or do you just want to bomb something?
Slashdot Mirror
I know, but sometimes it's fun to poke the crazy people with sticks just to see what comes out.
- what's called 'property rights'. Tangible property, but you would be actually surprised with my stance on it - I am against government police being used for this as well, I am pretty much against government meddling in these affairs, it's a private matter. Do you understand my position? Theft is a private matter, not a matter for public protectionism.
I am not surprised that this is your stance, given the rest of your opinions here. However, I do want to hear you explain your position. How do you propose we privately settle matters of theft? If somebody moves into my house when I step out for a cup of coffee, it's now my job to drag them out of there or shoot them dead and bury the body somewhere? What if they moved in with a few buddies and are armed? Now I need to go get more buddies and more guns because theft of property is a "private matter." I suppose it truly is an anarchist point of view, but I don't see how it is possible to have a civil society and a government that can protect our liberties and freedoms when you don't allow it to protect our property.
But, as I said above, in November, in aggregate, you'll just vote for the same rascals and go back to whining when they (predictably to anyone with an IQ over room temperature) behave as they always have.
What, you'd rather we let the wrong rascals in!?!?!
It's actually not too far off. Far better to let a hundred scoundrels go free than to lock up one innocent... (butchered, paraphrased, un-cited... I'm bad at quotes).
There's nothing "nanostrain" about the great basin...
I don't think anybody likes how health care ended up in the States. We went from an overpriced system with too many middle men to a mandatory overpriced system with too many middle men. It's a combination of the worst of public and private systems.
Back off topic though... American's have been partaking in "trickle-up" economics for the last thirty years. Notice the collapse of small business and the concentration of all of our purchasing at the Targets and Wal Marts? To save that extra couple bucks we're happily sending our money to the big guys knowing *full well* that the people in their employ can't earn a decent wage. You want to spark off a new deal? Take that money to a local store to buy your clothes. Get that lawnmower repaired instead of tossing it and buying a new one from the Lawnmower Depot. We'll happily spend hours price shopping to save that extra two dollars, put ten minutes of that toward seeing where the rest of the money you would have spent ends up going.
I didn't read enough in depth to know the case here - but "keeping people in their homes" is only a good goal for people who bought homes they could afford in the first place. Heaps of foreclosures in my area are a direct result of variable rate or interest only loans that the purchasers had no business getting into in the first place. Sure, some folks got unlucky and lost their jobs. Some got unlucky and had unexpected medical expenses. Most simply saw a rising market and assumed it would keep going forever - bought the house knowing that staying in that home was dependent on the prices of real estate rising.
If you bought a home you couldn't afford in the first place, I do not want society to pick up the slack to keep you there. I want you to downgrade to something more in line with your earnings. I know full well that downgrading is extraordinarily difficult with the current market - if you're already upside down and can't afford it you don't have much choice but to foreclose or short sell.
And who knows, maybe these guys made a heroic performance before falling to the safety net and still couldn't quite pull it off. Bad things happen sometimes.
Gorrammit, there's more to life than ruttin' sci-fi slang.
I'm not sure if you've been awake through the last several elections... Most politicians pick a single cause crusade and ride that all the way through. That works because most people don't want to put forth the effort to find the right candidate - they want an issue they can stand behind or against.
Perhaps you would also recall some history on what the world was like when the constitution was written - and how much of our current electoral system has changed since the constitution was written.
For plenty of people, they are everything you claimed (fast, cheap, goes everywhere they need to be and carries everything they need to carry). For you, they aren't. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Buses are simply an efficient way to move *people* between common business places. Stating that they're a pretty great form of transportation doesn't mean they're the only form. I don't want somebody that chooses to drive a car to be forced to ride a bus by regulations, but I do think there are plenty of people that might be better served by public transportation than using a privately owned vehicle and they shouldn't be afraid to explore that option. My main point though, was that your typical American suburban sprawl is poorly suited for public transport.
...How? Her family lost their home. They were supported (by that abysmally failing society...) for a short time until they found another.
Pretty much working exactly as it should.
Don't be ridiculous, there's no money in that.
Do you have the same attitude about rape victims who happened to wear a short skirt that day? Motorcyclists aren't going to pretend that their mode of transportation is any safer than others on the road. Most of us go to great lengths to make ourselves more visible and protected. However, just because we are taking on additional risk doesn't excuse an inattentive driver. Every time you put that key in the ignition you are taking on the responsibility of being aware of *all* roadway users: cars, motorbikes, cyclists, pedestrians, and so on.
Moreso than that, pilots go through an extraordinary amount of training compared to drivers. How many drivers do you know have actually taken a driving course?
I'd prefer he keep his bullshit to himself...
I don't know if I'd go that far - buses are a pretty great form of transportation - just not for how American cities are laid out (or for the amount of walking us lardy Americans are willing to do ;) ). That said... I don't ride the bus.
Obviously this local resident was *very sorry* and will *never do it again*
...and is a member of an influential local family
If your windshield goes black, then you are clearly at fault for not washing it. There is a reason even the most advanced aircraft with the newest glass cockpit avionics *still* have windows to use a plain old mark I eyeball. Hell, with the exception of the most advanced ILS, the FAA doesn''t allow landing an aircraft if you can't see the runway, the DoT will be no different.
There is a reason your car doesn't have radar-augmented vision: cost.
The first cars might still crash, but the dozens of cars behind them could have time to stop. Hence why multiple car pileups are almost exclusively associated with a degraded visual environment.
Mostly agree - *except* if you drive an econobox for practicality (or economic) reasons, there's nothing wrong with that being a manual.
My only point was that this chickenhawk attitude of sending "loads of bombs" from the nice clean safety of a drone control station where you don't need to experience the destruction and impact on the lives of people (many of whom would be innocent and uninvolved) is an extremely dangerous path. You end up with armies that no longer fight each other, and instead just fight the civilian population of the opposing nation.
That's why I asked if you would be willing to pick up a rifle and lead the charge. You want to bring war to somebody else, but not go there yourself.
Well now aren't we demanding! I will not cite sources for my jokes, it would ruin the humor.
Open it up to who? Flip the roles here... Say Iran had a carrier sitting off the coast and was going to bomb the office you work at unless you let their inspectors in to make sure you aren't doing something they don't like. After all, by definition it's all military because somebody in your office voted for the guy who bombed them first.
Have you ever been to a military base? How are you going to know it's something you want to hit? Do you even care or do you just want to bomb something?
Unless of course you want to make sure you hit the right targets. Instead of, y'know, accidentally bombing families...
Don't call for war unless you're honourable enough to do the dirty work yourself.