Libertarian is where republicans who are disenfranchised (either with the religious right taking over the party or the move to bigger gov. just like the dems) should move to.
The problem is that the Libertarian party as it exists is too extremist crazy (like, selling off the national parks, privitizing the fire department, etc). Perot's party, before he went into the straight jacket, actually looked like it might be a successor to the Republican party. He seemed to believe in "moderately" limited government, privacy, and no religious wing in the party. He got 33% of the vote.
When is someone going to start a MODERATE third party?
VOTE THIRD PARTY! For my third party of choice see my sig, but really please just vote for anyone but the Republicrats.
The reason no one votes for the third parties is that the US does not have a moderate third party; they're all extreme left or extreme Libertarian. Note what happened the last time we had a moderate third party... Perot won 33% of the vote (or whatever the number was).
All of the reasonable people tend to join the Republicans or the Democrats, since that's their only path to making any sort of difference. That leaves only the extremist dregs to join the third parties.
Bush has failed to turn the country into a stable democracy; therefore we have lost. This is neither horseshoes nor hand grenades; close doesn't count.
Let me get this straight... you're criticizing Bush for lacking a magic wand that makes the country a perfectly stable democracy in the incredibly short time they've had?
Let's get a little perspective here. Iraq has gone from an iron-grip murderous dictatorship to having free elections, with a functioning government. Is it pefect? Hell no. But it's silly to argue that democracy is black or white ("close doesn't count" -- WTF does that even mean in this context?? Nice use of a cliche you don't understand).
Europe seems to have done a reasonable job of uniting - what, 25? - different countries (most of which have been killing each other since before knives were invented), in the space of about 50 years. What has the USA done that compares to that?
Well, considering the fact that it's the US MILITARY that united Europe over the last 50 years by PREVENTING YOU from launching another war, what has Europe done compared to that?
Why do you think all those US troops have been stationed over there for the last 50 years? For a vacation?
Yes, our current Stay and Lose strategy is much better.
This is another thing I don't understand. How exactly do you (and others like you) define "lose"? We've already won. Hussein is gone. The country has been turned into a democracy.
Of course, it's not that simple -- the government is extremely unstable. There is an unofficial civil war going on, fighting for power. Not all of the country is represented in the government, creating a lot of tension. There are still a lot of terrorists aiming at American soldiers.
There's the short term "win" (which we've already done) and the long-term "win", which is establishing a stable democracy. I don't know if it's going to last. But it's a glorious and noble experiment to bring true democracy to that part of the world. If nuclear war begins, it will begin in the middle east. We NEED a beacon of freedom that other countries can emulate. And there are far too many racists (not accusing you) who think that arabs are not capable of it. I think they are, and I think if it holds together, this period in history will be seen as a turning point in that part of the world, just like how Japan became a modern power.
PNAC's goal is to build and expand the American empire smiliar to the Third Reich of Nazi Germany.
Exactly what I'm talking about. -sigh- That, sir, is simply silly. Unless you can show exactly how we're going to make any other country a new state of the US by force, it's just silly.
And just because someone writes a book doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. There are a hell of a lot of books "proving" UFOs, too. Not to mention books about religion.
And we europeans aren't jealous of you americans, we are just sick and tired of your arrogance and disrespect of International laws. And I also have to say you are more politicial stupid, at least when it comes to your own foreign policy.
The trouble with Europe is that you can't concieve of having any power anymore. World War II (started by Europe, by the way, in case you forgot) destroyed so much of your national identity -- and dare I say -- your BALLS that you the only political philosophy you're able to embrace anymore is "hide your head and hope for the best." Well, except for when you come grovelling to the US to fight your wars for you (e.g., Serbia).
I mean, if Europe doesn't like American arrogance, maybe Europe should quit being such crybabies and take part in the world. American arrogance is a just a symptom in response to European hand-wringing and powerlessness (e.g. Spain, who cuts and runs out of Iraq because, like children, they don't want to make the bullies angry).
These sorts of things very nearly have me convinced that the vast majority of Americans are oblivious to the world; fast asleep, perhaps, with visions of iPods and SUVs dancing in their head.
Indeed, and on the other side we have utter morons who think the current era is like Nazi Germany and Bush is preparing to do a "Hitler" and seize power.
Is there (not accusing you personally of this, but for rhetorical sake) no one who actually THINKS and sees things relatively clearly? No, there wasn't massive election fraud in the last election. Yes, Bush was legimitately elected -- twice. No, your rights haven't been taken away to any great extent. Yes, Bush isn't that great of a president. Yes, he got Iraq wrong, but he didn't lie -- he convinced himself of the truth even if the facts weren't quite right. But no, the Iraq war probably wasn't a bad idea, and will ultimately bring a hell of a lot of stability to the middle east if they can get their act together. No, Americans aren't any more politically stupid than Europeans, who are equally stupid. Yes, Europeans are jealous of the fact that the US can influence world events more than they can. Yes, Bush is obnoxious about that fact and should be more respectful of Europe and the rest of the world. Yes, Republicans have squarandered their opportunity the last eight or so years and shouldn't be spending like drunken sailors. No, the Democrats don't have better ideas and are just acting like "anti-Republicans". No, we should just cut and run from Iraq. Yes, we need to get that under control and probably need to send a lot more troops.
When you don't have the numbers, the honest thing is to say that you don't have the numbers, but IF the numbers were X, which seems plausible, then blah.
No, that's just lying of a different sort. "I don't know if Joe is a child molester, but if he was, he comes into contact with at least 15 different children every day, which would bracket a plausible number of criminal acts."
The HONEST answer is, "We do not have sufficient evidence at this time to argue for or against the premise of the paper." The fact that he went off and made baseless speculations means that he had an agenda.
For a good background on the Global Warming issue and the dangers of consensus opinion, I highly recommend reading this article (as a starter) on how politics influences science.
The objective was to illustrate the broad range of possibilities in the ignorance of how forcings would actually develop. The extreme scenarios (A with fast growth and no volcanos, and C with terminated growth of greenhouse gases) were meant to bracket plausible rates of change.
Er, another way to phrase that is, "we made a bunch of sh** up." I'm shaking my head right now. That's EXACTLY what says! "Ignorance of how forcings would actually developed." Hell, I can give you "extreme" scenerios that would "bracket" plausible rates of change without knowing a damn thing!
Note that the article in question actually quotes NUMBERS and SCIENCE, versus the typical, "W-w-w-well, what if THE SKY STARTED FALLING!!! WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION JUST IN CASE!!!!"
Just look at information airlines and banks have been demanded to hand over to the US govt. Look at the secret, illegal wiretaps Bush has authorised. And you want me to believe the US would block this? The current administration is leading the charge to wipe out privacy.
Yeah, because someone being in favor of better identification of easy terror targets like airlines, and being in favor of better money tracing, automatically means they are in favor of no privacy in society at all.
I hate the "slippery slope" argument. It's stupid and should be added to the list of Logical Fallacies.
Yeah, it would totally suck if a decision like this got stuck in committee for 20 years while 50 different countries' representatives argued over it before it finally got permanently vetoed by China for the express purpose of pissing another country off.
More like it gets approved for the express purpose of pissing the US off, and after the US vetoes it, the rest of the world whines that the US is "forcing their values on the rest of the world."
Yes, I was indeed referring to criminals rather than the mother of an unborn child in my post above.
Oh, sorry. Anyway, the difference is that an unborn child is innocent, while a criminal is not. We've judged the criminal to have deserved punishment, but it doesn't make sense to punish an unborn child for the mistakes of the mother.
Putting someone in prison is not the same as kidnapping, and taking money from someone who stole is not the same as stealing.
If you say that all killing is equivalent, then the above is exactly what you're saying.
Killing someone is neither measured nor corrective, and certainly not a punishment.
Of course it's a punishment (duh), and of course it's corrective. If we kill someone as a penalty for a crime, then they will never commit that crime again.
Also, it's pretty damned hard to appeal against killing, and as every single legal system around the world is capable of making a mistake...
Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but you said the death penalty was "hypocritical", not "ineffectual" or "unfair". If you want to argue the latter points, then you have a debate.
Remember - Saddam was in power when he killed, so he was killing those folks with as much right as the Judge sentenced him to be put to death now. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.
That's where the whole concept of "crimes against humanity" comes in. He used his power as an abuse against civilization, not within the context of a system of justice. That's like saying that the Nazi's medical research and modern medical research are morally equivalent since both were legal in the eyes of the state.
You can argue whether the death penality is good or bad, but there is no hypocrisy.
What you're missing is that jail is sufficient to stop him from killing again, so your principle doesn't hold.
I didn't state any principle, only that the death penality is not hypocritical. But nice job ignoring the subject so you can turn the thread into an argument against the death penalty.
Do you seriously not see the difference between taking the life of a grown human with their own personality and experiences and capability to act independently
The only problem with that is that I didn't say anything about sacrificing the mother's life. In fact, I think I specifically named "convenience."
Republicans preach daily about how awful abortions are. Yet they're the foremost supporters of executing people, be they criminals (who many times have been wrongfully found guilty), or political enemies such as Hussein.
Do you seriously not see the difference between executing criminals who committed heinous crimes and executing innocent lives for the convenience of the mother?
Punish kidnapping by putting someone in jail! Go hypocrisy!
ALL punishments of a criminal would be considered illegal if performed by someone on an innocent person. Therefore, by your logic, all punishing of criminals is hypocritical.
I've heard people post this before, and it's really a bizarre notion. And easily proven wrong -- I have two groups of people. One group evolves the behavior that anyone over child-bearing age gets a overwheming desire to sacrifice their life at any cost to protect a child. The other group evolves a behavior that once you get beyond child-bearing age, you have an overwhelming desire to kill children. Which group is going thrive better? By your logic, it shouldn't matter, since the only difference is among people past child-bearing age.
No, you are right. He invests it in other companies so it gets passed around between CEOs. So it never makes it down to us regular people.
I should just let this go, but it's so absurd that I can't stop. Explain to me exactly how this works. The CEOs get together in a room with cigars blazing and give each other money??
How do you think jobs are created? How do you think the economy expands?
(and you need to do more research about how much Gates gave away)
Done correctly, paper voting is the exact same way. I've taken a LOT of multiple choice tests where I haven't had any question of how to use the test.
You and I are not the general public. Hey, I had no problem understanding the butteryfly ballot. It's easy to say, "Well, if people would just do it correctly, we'd have no problem." Yeah, and...? As history has shown, it's very easy for people to do something dumb. The difference between paper and a computer is that paper is not self-verifying. A computer can be.
What is wrong with paper ballots? Anyone? Bueller?
Really, it's the lack of consistency and irregularity of the analog paper ballot. In Florida, you had the "confusing" butterfly-style ballots. You also had precincts with the "hanging chad" problem where you had double-votes and "half votes" (where the hole in the paper wasn't completely punched).
Done right, the biggest benefit of the electronic voting machine is that it totally eliminates ambiguity. No double votes, no half votes, no having to guess at voter intent.
Slashdot Mirror
Libertarian is where republicans who are disenfranchised (either with the religious right taking over the party or the move to bigger gov. just like the dems) should move to.
The problem is that the Libertarian party as it exists is too extremist crazy (like, selling off the national parks, privitizing the fire department, etc). Perot's party, before he went into the straight jacket, actually looked like it might be a successor to the Republican party. He seemed to believe in "moderately" limited government, privacy, and no religious wing in the party. He got 33% of the vote.
When is someone going to start a MODERATE third party?
VOTE THIRD PARTY! For my third party of choice see my sig, but really please just vote for anyone but the Republicrats.
The reason no one votes for the third parties is that the US does not have a moderate third party; they're all extreme left or extreme Libertarian. Note what happened the last time we had a moderate third party... Perot won 33% of the vote (or whatever the number was).
All of the reasonable people tend to join the Republicans or the Democrats, since that's their only path to making any sort of difference. That leaves only the extremist dregs to join the third parties.
Bush has failed to turn the country into a stable democracy; therefore we have lost. This is neither horseshoes nor hand grenades; close doesn't count.
Let me get this straight... you're criticizing Bush for lacking a magic wand that makes the country a perfectly stable democracy in the incredibly short time they've had?
Let's get a little perspective here. Iraq has gone from an iron-grip murderous dictatorship to having free elections, with a functioning government. Is it pefect? Hell no. But it's silly to argue that democracy is black or white ("close doesn't count" -- WTF does that even mean in this context?? Nice use of a cliche you don't understand).
AMEN AMEN, I say, AMEN!
Thank you! I guess that makes two reasonable people, heh.
Can I vote for you today?
You wouldn't want me as a politician. I've often said that I'd make a great king, but a lousy politician. :D
Europe seems to have done a reasonable job of uniting - what, 25? - different countries (most of which have been killing each other since before knives were invented), in the space of about 50 years. What has the USA done that compares to that?
Well, considering the fact that it's the US MILITARY that united Europe over the last 50 years by PREVENTING YOU from launching another war, what has Europe done compared to that?
Why do you think all those US troops have been stationed over there for the last 50 years? For a vacation?
Yes, our current Stay and Lose strategy is much better.
This is another thing I don't understand. How exactly do you (and others like you) define "lose"? We've already won. Hussein is gone. The country has been turned into a democracy.
Of course, it's not that simple -- the government is extremely unstable. There is an unofficial civil war going on, fighting for power. Not all of the country is represented in the government, creating a lot of tension. There are still a lot of terrorists aiming at American soldiers.
There's the short term "win" (which we've already done) and the long-term "win", which is establishing a stable democracy. I don't know if it's going to last. But it's a glorious and noble experiment to bring true democracy to that part of the world. If nuclear war begins, it will begin in the middle east. We NEED a beacon of freedom that other countries can emulate. And there are far too many racists (not accusing you) who think that arabs are not capable of it. I think they are, and I think if it holds together, this period in history will be seen as a turning point in that part of the world, just like how Japan became a modern power.
PNAC's goal is to build and expand the American empire smiliar to the Third Reich of Nazi Germany.
Exactly what I'm talking about. -sigh- That, sir, is simply silly. Unless you can show exactly how we're going to make any other country a new state of the US by force, it's just silly.
And just because someone writes a book doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. There are a hell of a lot of books "proving" UFOs, too. Not to mention books about religion.
And we europeans aren't jealous of you americans, we are just sick and tired of your arrogance and disrespect of International laws. And I also have to say you are more politicial stupid, at least when it comes to your own foreign policy.
The trouble with Europe is that you can't concieve of having any power anymore. World War II (started by Europe, by the way, in case you forgot) destroyed so much of your national identity -- and dare I say -- your BALLS that you the only political philosophy you're able to embrace anymore is "hide your head and hope for the best." Well, except for when you come grovelling to the US to fight your wars for you (e.g., Serbia).
I mean, if Europe doesn't like American arrogance, maybe Europe should quit being such crybabies and take part in the world. American arrogance is a just a symptom in response to European hand-wringing and powerlessness (e.g. Spain, who cuts and runs out of Iraq because, like children, they don't want to make the bullies angry).
Oops -- we should NOT just cut and run from Iraq.
These sorts of things very nearly have me convinced that the vast majority of Americans are oblivious to the world; fast asleep, perhaps, with visions of iPods and SUVs dancing in their head.
Indeed, and on the other side we have utter morons who think the current era is like Nazi Germany and Bush is preparing to do a "Hitler" and seize power.
Is there (not accusing you personally of this, but for rhetorical sake) no one who actually THINKS and sees things relatively clearly? No, there wasn't massive election fraud in the last election. Yes, Bush was legimitately elected -- twice. No, your rights haven't been taken away to any great extent. Yes, Bush isn't that great of a president. Yes, he got Iraq wrong, but he didn't lie -- he convinced himself of the truth even if the facts weren't quite right. But no, the Iraq war probably wasn't a bad idea, and will ultimately bring a hell of a lot of stability to the middle east if they can get their act together. No, Americans aren't any more politically stupid than Europeans, who are equally stupid. Yes, Europeans are jealous of the fact that the US can influence world events more than they can. Yes, Bush is obnoxious about that fact and should be more respectful of Europe and the rest of the world. Yes, Republicans have squarandered their opportunity the last eight or so years and shouldn't be spending like drunken sailors. No, the Democrats don't have better ideas and are just acting like "anti-Republicans". No, we should just cut and run from Iraq. Yes, we need to get that under control and probably need to send a lot more troops.
Bleh. Everyone sucks. I'm going home. :)
When you don't have the numbers, the honest thing is to say that you don't have the numbers, but IF the numbers were X, which seems plausible, then blah.
No, that's just lying of a different sort. "I don't know if Joe is a child molester, but if he was, he comes into contact with at least 15 different children every day, which would bracket a plausible number of criminal acts."
The HONEST answer is, "We do not have sufficient evidence at this time to argue for or against the premise of the paper." The fact that he went off and made baseless speculations means that he had an agenda.
For a good background on the Global Warming issue and the dangers of consensus opinion, I highly recommend reading this article (as a starter) on how politics influences science.
The objective was to illustrate the broad range of possibilities in the ignorance of how forcings would actually develop. The extreme scenarios (A with fast growth and no volcanos, and C with terminated growth of greenhouse gases) were meant to bracket plausible rates of change.
Er, another way to phrase that is, "we made a bunch of sh** up." I'm shaking my head right now. That's EXACTLY what says! "Ignorance of how forcings would actually developed." Hell, I can give you "extreme" scenerios that would "bracket" plausible rates of change without knowing a damn thing!
Note that the article in question actually quotes NUMBERS and SCIENCE, versus the typical, "W-w-w-well, what if THE SKY STARTED FALLING!!! WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION JUST IN CASE!!!!"
Just look at information airlines and banks have been demanded to hand over to the US govt. Look at the secret, illegal wiretaps Bush has authorised. And you want me to believe the US would block this? The current administration is leading the charge to wipe out privacy.
Yeah, because someone being in favor of better identification of easy terror targets like airlines, and being in favor of better money tracing, automatically means they are in favor of no privacy in society at all.
I hate the "slippery slope" argument. It's stupid and should be added to the list of Logical Fallacies.
Yeah, it would totally suck if a decision like this got stuck in committee for 20 years while 50 different countries' representatives argued over it before it finally got permanently vetoed by China for the express purpose of pissing another country off.
More like it gets approved for the express purpose of pissing the US off, and after the US vetoes it, the rest of the world whines that the US is "forcing their values on the rest of the world."
Yes, I was indeed referring to criminals rather than the mother of an unborn child in my post above.
Oh, sorry. Anyway, the difference is that an unborn child is innocent, while a criminal is not. We've judged the criminal to have deserved punishment, but it doesn't make sense to punish an unborn child for the mistakes of the mother.
Putting someone in prison is not the same as kidnapping, and taking money from someone who stole is not the same as stealing.
If you say that all killing is equivalent, then the above is exactly what you're saying.
Killing someone is neither measured nor corrective, and certainly not a punishment.
Of course it's a punishment (duh), and of course it's corrective. If we kill someone as a penalty for a crime, then they will never commit that crime again.
Also, it's pretty damned hard to appeal against killing, and as every single legal system around the world is capable of making a mistake...
Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but you said the death penalty was "hypocritical", not "ineffectual" or "unfair". If you want to argue the latter points, then you have a debate.
Remember - Saddam was in power when he killed, so he was killing those folks with as much right as the Judge sentenced him to be put to death now. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.
That's where the whole concept of "crimes against humanity" comes in. He used his power as an abuse against civilization, not within the context of a system of justice. That's like saying that the Nazi's medical research and modern medical research are morally equivalent since both were legal in the eyes of the state.
You can argue whether the death penality is good or bad, but there is no hypocrisy.
What you're missing is that jail is sufficient to stop him from killing again, so your principle doesn't hold.
I didn't state any principle, only that the death penality is not hypocritical. But nice job ignoring the subject so you can turn the thread into an argument against the death penalty.
Do you seriously not see the difference between taking the life of a grown human with their own personality and experiences and capability to act independently
The only problem with that is that I didn't say anything about sacrificing the mother's life. In fact, I think I specifically named "convenience."
Republicans preach daily about how awful abortions are. Yet they're the foremost supporters of executing people, be they criminals (who many times have been wrongfully found guilty), or political enemies such as Hussein.
Do you seriously not see the difference between executing criminals who committed heinous crimes and executing innocent lives for the convenience of the mother?
Punish killing by killing! Go hypocrisy!
Punish kidnapping by putting someone in jail! Go hypocrisy!
ALL punishments of a criminal would be considered illegal if performed by someone on an innocent person. Therefore, by your logic, all punishing of criminals is hypocritical.
After that, you don't really matter to evolution.
I've heard people post this before, and it's really a bizarre notion. And easily proven wrong -- I have two groups of people. One group evolves the behavior that anyone over child-bearing age gets a overwheming desire to sacrifice their life at any cost to protect a child. The other group evolves a behavior that once you get beyond child-bearing age, you have an overwhelming desire to kill children. Which group is going thrive better? By your logic, it shouldn't matter, since the only difference is among people past child-bearing age.
No, you are right. He invests it in other companies so it gets passed around between CEOs. So it never makes it down to us regular people.
I should just let this go, but it's so absurd that I can't stop. Explain to me exactly how this works. The CEOs get together in a room with cigars blazing and give each other money??
How do you think jobs are created? How do you think the economy expands?
(and you need to do more research about how much Gates gave away)
Done correctly, paper voting is the exact same way. I've taken a LOT of multiple choice tests where I haven't had any question of how to use the test.
You and I are not the general public. Hey, I had no problem understanding the butteryfly ballot. It's easy to say, "Well, if people would just do it correctly, we'd have no problem." Yeah, and...? As history has shown, it's very easy for people to do something dumb. The difference between paper and a computer is that paper is not self-verifying. A computer can be.
What is wrong with paper ballots? Anyone? Bueller?
Really, it's the lack of consistency and irregularity of the analog paper ballot. In Florida, you had the "confusing" butterfly-style ballots. You also had precincts with the "hanging chad" problem where you had double-votes and "half votes" (where the hole in the paper wasn't completely punched).
Done right, the biggest benefit of the electronic voting machine is that it totally eliminates ambiguity. No double votes, no half votes, no having to guess at voter intent.
Is there a standard procedure that I've been unaware of?
Absentee ballot.