However, I'm all in favor of as many 3rd party people getting votes as possible.
When a president wins less than 1/3 of the vote, things will change. Perhaps back to where First place was awarded president and second place awarded the VP slot, like the original Constitution had it.
I think it would be interesting if the VP was the true voice of dissent. Perhaps we wouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place.
The problem with Bush, is he didn't frame who we are at war with properly. We are at war, but it isn't national war, like Britain(1812), WWI, II, Korea, Vietnam....
We are at war with an ideology, militant Islamic fundamentalism. It is the same war (more or less now) in both countries. We can't win that war any more than we can win the war on "drugs", "poverty", and "racism". Those things will always exist.
And to that degree, I'll agree with my leftist friends. However, I doubt they'll agree that we can't win the war on a few of those things. Which is a shame.
I'll agree, that we have our troops in places they shouldn't be. But to call it a "war" is nothing more than trying to make a stupid point that doesn't exist. AND it dilutes the notion of what a WAR really is.
So, who are we at war with? Do tell me who you think we are at war with? Yes, we are those two places, with our troops, but if we are at war, who with? I'm curious if you can or will answer that question.
IF you are so sure we are at war, then you should know who we are at war with!
What two wars are we fighting? I don't see any declared hostility with any nation.
That is the problem with you lefties, is that you see wars where there aren't any. Wars are going on, Russia Just invaded Georgia. If Russia stays in Georgia permanently, even after hostilities cease, would you say that Russia is at war with Georgia????
Did you say that during the "Cold War" when USSR had puppet states all over the place?
One after another Constitutional bound has been overstepped and ignored.
Well, the Leftists in America are just as bad as the Righties are in this regard. I dare you to own a gun in San Fransisco or DC. When your side ignores the Constitution on some issues, and while protesting the other side for ignoring the Constitution, that is called HYPOCRISY. And whenever a single Judge decides that there is a new "Right", not enumerated in the Constitution, whereby taxes are leveled to provide said right to everyone (I'm talking HEALTHCARE), then you ignore the Constitution.
So, before you start talking about Over stepping the bounds of the Constitution, you better be sure that your views are Constitutional.
The Constitution was framed for a VERY limited scope government. The (D) and (R) are just as bad as each other. Both are for BIG Government. (D) wants to "do it for the children", while the (R) are to protect us from evil doers.
Good engineering accommodates the errors and omissions of users.
This is my Anti-thesis:
Make something idiot proof, and only idiots will use it.
Your Round About solution is flawed, because you have no idea how it is flawed. Suppose you build a round about, on a road without much traffic, and you build it small, because there isn't much traffic. Now an increase in traffic (rush hours especially) causes increased delays because the round about cannot accommodate the amount of traffic with any sort of efficiency.
Likewise, a Large Round About is inefficient for light traffic areas. With lights, one can tailor the light change frequency to the needs of the traffic. Properly designed One Way streets are way better than having round abouts every block, in all but very rare cases.
More traffic necessitates larger round abouts. Once a round about is installed, it makes it very difficult to enlarge.
If you want government intrusion for ideal #1, but not ideal #2, then you're a hypocrite. It doesn't matter what #1 or #2 is, or the sub-groups that propose them are.
Whatever argument you make in support of #1 could be used to support #2. The problem is that NEITHER is right, because they both entail FORCED TAKING by the hands of the government to support a small minority group who can't make it under the current system.
The only difference is that some people think that one is okay, but the other isn't. Who gets to decide which one is okay?????
Actually it wasn't. It was the Liberal Judges telling the Reagan Administration that they couldn't lock up people who are mentally ill, unless they were a danger to society. No need to have facilities open if you couldn't put people in them.
Of course you don't remember the one judge who made the decision. And also, Reagan didn't cut funding, he couldn't. It was congress who authored the bill, and it was Democratic throughout Reagan's term. But you wouldn't know about that because it is much easier to blame the (R) bad people and praise the (D) good people.
Now don't get me wrong, the (R) have their issues, but this isn't one of them.
Funny how you are so full of heart, that you had to resort to insults. Talk about hypocrisy.
The people F'ng the world are all the do-gooders that have more heart for the criminal class than they do for anyone else. Which is why you have all your f'ed up brothers in SF saying that they need to protect illegal aliens who've committed violent felonies, by providing them tax payer housing, food and education.
Unmonitored public bathrooms are a health and saftey hazard. I wouldn't want to go into one. However, we took low risk jail inmates and made them clean them and take ownership of them in some way, I'm sure that we could change both the prisoner's outlook, and the condition of the bathrooms. Seriously, we don't need expensive solutions. I'm sure some liberal constituency group (Public Empolyee Unions) would complain about taking away a job or some such thing.
As for where do they go... well there's the rub. We can't lock them up because they are some holy untouchable class (Homeless oooh ahhh) but then again, we get blamed because they are on the streets because they can't or won't hold a job, or otherwise can't live in civilized society. And I'm not talking about the poor kids stuck with parents in the above class either. I'm talking adults here. Please don't blame me when they can't fit into civil society.
Poverty and Homelessness DO NOT lead to crime. I know plenty of people who didn't commit crimes when they were "poor". And I didn't commit crimes when I was "homeless" and poor. That is a cop out. If you don't expect the poor to behave, then that is what you'll get, poor and misbehaving people. And Most disease is preventable with nutrition and sanitation. One can be a criminal and be sanitary and eat properly, and quite healthy.
No, what really affects us all, is people making bad decision and others making excuses for those poor decisions, enabling them like a co-dependent to an alcoholic. "he can't help it" is a lie 99% of the time.
Point 1: Yes it does. It cost a lot of money to have sick people in the Hospital, a lot more money than keeping them locked up. I wouldn't presume to ignore one because it is expensive at the result of the other.
Additionally, incarceration is a disincentive (or should be) to such behavior. Our current system isn't much of a disincentive because there is no "requirement" to do anything useful while in custody. Time to have the bums clean up the gutters and alleys under guard, rather than living in them.
Point 2: Untreated Mental Illness isn't an excuse to let them loose on the streets. If they have mental issues, they should be put into a place where they can be productive, and get the care they need, rather than ignoring them in the gutters and alleys. But thanks to Liberal Do-Gooders, we can't force people to take care of themselves. However it is okay to force the rest of us to actually have to pay for it. Remember, it was the liberals that closed the mental hospitals down to everyone but the "dangerous".
People with moderate to severe mental problems shouldn't be wondering the streets. But we're not allowed to lock them up. Now, figure that one out.
If people urinate and defecate in public places, you arrest them for health hazards. The homeless will not just take a crap wherever and whenever they feel like it, they will learn not to do it in public.
As for drugs and prostitution, those too are "Health Hazards" and should be treated as such, and not as Moral issues (which they are as well).
And I don't care about people's "deeper problems". Not unless they care about their own "deeper problems" themselves. If they don't care about their own problems, why should I????
I can't fix their problems for them, and neither can the government. It is called SELF RESPONSIBILITY, and should be the basis for all laws. It should be RARE, especially in this country (US) that someone isn't capable of taking care of themselfs to the point that society comes in to rescue them.
I'm kinda sick of all the excuse makers giving people the easy way out, and rescuing people who don't want to be helped, but just want a handout.
I've seen plenty of people capable of working who DON'T or WON'T, because of some reason or another. I have little or no sympathy for people who don't want to work hard to get out of their situation.
You arrest the homeless person caught in the act of urinating / defecating in public. If a NON - HOMELESS person did it, we'd be hauled off to the clink.
The Homeless are untouchable and holy to the Liberal Elite. "they can't help it" is a tired old excuse, and part of a sick co-dependency that should be treated by mental health professionals.
Slashdot Mirror
A dingo ate my baby.
And I don't care.
I didn't vote for any of the three you speak of.
However, I'm all in favor of as many 3rd party people getting votes as possible.
When a president wins less than 1/3 of the vote, things will change. Perhaps back to where First place was awarded president and second place awarded the VP slot, like the original Constitution had it.
I think it would be interesting if the VP was the true voice of dissent. Perhaps we wouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place.
Your post is my case against your intelligence, and proves your lack of any rational thought.
Though, I wonder if you think there are any leftwing fundie Eco-religious Terrorists? You know, like ELF?
Or is blowing people up for a cause you believe in okay?
so, you agree with me that we aren't really at "war" with anyone, but don't want me to say it. Gotcha.
Reality is perception, and perception is reality.
Women aren't happy unless they are miserable.
I don't think you ought to underestimate the dangers of *E*X*T*R*E*M*E* *F*R*A*G*G*I*N*G*!!!!
who are we at war with, if we are at war?
Are we at war with Afghanistan? Iraq?
The problem with Bush, is he didn't frame who we are at war with properly. We are at war, but it isn't national war, like Britain(1812), WWI, II, Korea, Vietnam ....
We are at war with an ideology, militant Islamic fundamentalism. It is the same war (more or less now) in both countries. We can't win that war any more than we can win the war on "drugs", "poverty", and "racism". Those things will always exist.
And to that degree, I'll agree with my leftist friends. However, I doubt they'll agree that we can't win the war on a few of those things. Which is a shame.
I'll agree, that we have our troops in places they shouldn't be. But to call it a "war" is nothing more than trying to make a stupid point that doesn't exist. AND it dilutes the notion of what a WAR really is.
So, who are we at war with? Do tell me who you think we are at war with? Yes, we are those two places, with our troops, but if we are at war, who with? I'm curious if you can or will answer that question.
IF you are so sure we are at war, then you should know who we are at war with!
yes it does. :-D
Vote third party.
Only way to break the cartel of (D) and (R) is vote for someone who isn't (D) or (R).
we're now fighting two wars in the Middle East
What two wars are we fighting? I don't see any declared hostility with any nation.
That is the problem with you lefties, is that you see wars where there aren't any. Wars are going on, Russia Just invaded Georgia. If Russia stays in Georgia permanently, even after hostilities cease, would you say that Russia is at war with Georgia????
Did you say that during the "Cold War" when USSR had puppet states all over the place?
One after another Constitutional bound has been overstepped and ignored.
Well, the Leftists in America are just as bad as the Righties are in this regard. I dare you to own a gun in San Fransisco or DC. When your side ignores the Constitution on some issues, and while protesting the other side for ignoring the Constitution, that is called HYPOCRISY. And whenever a single Judge decides that there is a new "Right", not enumerated in the Constitution, whereby taxes are leveled to provide said right to everyone (I'm talking HEALTHCARE), then you ignore the Constitution.
So, before you start talking about Over stepping the bounds of the Constitution, you better be sure that your views are Constitutional.
The Constitution was framed for a VERY limited scope government. The (D) and (R) are just as bad as each other. Both are for BIG Government. (D) wants to "do it for the children", while the (R) are to protect us from evil doers.
This is your thesis:
Good engineering accommodates the errors and omissions of users.
This is my Anti-thesis:
Make something idiot proof, and only idiots will use it.
Your Round About solution is flawed, because you have no idea how it is flawed. Suppose you build a round about, on a road without much traffic, and you build it small, because there isn't much traffic. Now an increase in traffic (rush hours especially) causes increased delays because the round about cannot accommodate the amount of traffic with any sort of efficiency.
Likewise, a Large Round About is inefficient for light traffic areas. With lights, one can tailor the light change frequency to the needs of the traffic. Properly designed One Way streets are way better than having round abouts every block, in all but very rare cases.
More traffic necessitates larger round abouts. Once a round about is installed, it makes it very difficult to enlarge.
Okay, Here I go again.
If you want government intrusion for ideal #1, but not ideal #2, then you're a hypocrite. It doesn't matter what #1 or #2 is, or the sub-groups that propose them are.
Whatever argument you make in support of #1 could be used to support #2. The problem is that NEITHER is right, because they both entail FORCED TAKING by the hands of the government to support a small minority group who can't make it under the current system.
The only difference is that some people think that one is okay, but the other isn't. Who gets to decide which one is okay?????
I reed slashdot, witch is why I spell gooder than any won els.
Actually it wasn't. It was the Liberal Judges telling the Reagan Administration that they couldn't lock up people who are mentally ill, unless they were a danger to society. No need to have facilities open if you couldn't put people in them.
Of course you don't remember the one judge who made the decision. And also, Reagan didn't cut funding, he couldn't. It was congress who authored the bill, and it was Democratic throughout Reagan's term. But you wouldn't know about that because it is much easier to blame the (R) bad people and praise the (D) good people.
Now don't get me wrong, the (R) have their issues, but this isn't one of them.
Funny how you are so full of heart, that you had to resort to insults. Talk about hypocrisy.
The people F'ng the world are all the do-gooders that have more heart for the criminal class than they do for anyone else. Which is why you have all your f'ed up brothers in SF saying that they need to protect illegal aliens who've committed violent felonies, by providing them tax payer housing, food and education.
Talk about f'ed up.
Get off my lawn you whipper-snapper.
XP was an upgrade from Win2k, not 98
And in that regard, XP is faster than 2000 is.
Unmonitored public bathrooms are a health and saftey hazard. I wouldn't want to go into one. However, we took low risk jail inmates and made them clean them and take ownership of them in some way, I'm sure that we could change both the prisoner's outlook, and the condition of the bathrooms. Seriously, we don't need expensive solutions. I'm sure some liberal constituency group (Public Empolyee Unions) would complain about taking away a job or some such thing.
As for where do they go ... well there's the rub. We can't lock them up because they are some holy untouchable class (Homeless oooh ahhh) but then again, we get blamed because they are on the streets because they can't or won't hold a job, or otherwise can't live in civilized society. And I'm not talking about the poor kids stuck with parents in the above class either. I'm talking adults here. Please don't blame me when they can't fit into civil society.
Poverty and Homelessness DO NOT lead to crime. I know plenty of people who didn't commit crimes when they were "poor". And I didn't commit crimes when I was "homeless" and poor. That is a cop out. If you don't expect the poor to behave, then that is what you'll get, poor and misbehaving people. And Most disease is preventable with nutrition and sanitation. One can be a criminal and be sanitary and eat properly, and quite healthy.
No, what really affects us all, is people making bad decision and others making excuses for those poor decisions, enabling them like a co-dependent to an alcoholic. "he can't help it" is a lie 99% of the time.
Two points.
Point 1: Yes it does. It cost a lot of money to have sick people in the Hospital, a lot more money than keeping them locked up. I wouldn't presume to ignore one because it is expensive at the result of the other.
Additionally, incarceration is a disincentive (or should be) to such behavior. Our current system isn't much of a disincentive because there is no "requirement" to do anything useful while in custody. Time to have the bums clean up the gutters and alleys under guard, rather than living in them.
Point 2: Untreated Mental Illness isn't an excuse to let them loose on the streets. If they have mental issues, they should be put into a place where they can be productive, and get the care they need, rather than ignoring them in the gutters and alleys. But thanks to Liberal Do-Gooders, we can't force people to take care of themselves. However it is okay to force the rest of us to actually have to pay for it. Remember, it was the liberals that closed the mental hospitals down to everyone but the "dangerous".
People with moderate to severe mental problems shouldn't be wondering the streets. But we're not allowed to lock them up. Now, figure that one out.
You've done more to increase the reputation of lawyers everywhere than any person I've ever met before.
There, fixed it for you.
No no no no.
If people urinate and defecate in public places, you arrest them for health hazards. The homeless will not just take a crap wherever and whenever they feel like it, they will learn not to do it in public.
As for drugs and prostitution, those too are "Health Hazards" and should be treated as such, and not as Moral issues (which they are as well).
And I don't care about people's "deeper problems". Not unless they care about their own "deeper problems" themselves. If they don't care about their own problems, why should I????
I can't fix their problems for them, and neither can the government. It is called SELF RESPONSIBILITY, and should be the basis for all laws. It should be RARE, especially in this country (US) that someone isn't capable of taking care of themselfs to the point that society comes in to rescue them.
I'm kinda sick of all the excuse makers giving people the easy way out, and rescuing people who don't want to be helped, but just want a handout.
I've seen plenty of people capable of working who DON'T or WON'T, because of some reason or another. I have little or no sympathy for people who don't want to work hard to get out of their situation.
You arrest the homeless person caught in the act of urinating / defecating in public. If a NON - HOMELESS person did it, we'd be hauled off to the clink.
The Homeless are untouchable and holy to the Liberal Elite. "they can't help it" is a tired old excuse, and part of a sick co-dependency that should be treated by mental health professionals.
Oh go cry in your kleenex and put a bandaid on it, and get over it already. Sheesh
Let me just say, I'm a geek. I know plenty of Geeks. I don't know a single one that fits the Slashdot meme of a geek. Not even close.
I know a few lawyers, and I can probably point to a couple three that are of the evil kind that are stereotypical of the type I was speaking of.
I think the profession itself attracts a certain kind of Asshat that loves the adversarial position that is necessary in the current legal climate.
Ray is a rare credit to his profession.
Wall-E