There is no one in the United States that doesn't pay taxes. There are sales taxes and there are state taxes, to name a few. Perhaps theoretically there is someone who is only using food stamps and doesn't buy ANYTHING except tax-exempt goods and services don't pay taxes, but it's certainly not 50%.
In other words, federal taxes aren't all taxes.
BTW, I like your idea of nominal taxes. It would possibly help educate lower-income citizens on why it is not OK to have their legislators vote for anything and everything that costs money because people should understand that everything has a cost. On the other hand, it could also be seen as punitive... taxing an extremely poor person who is struggling, just because we want to teach them a lesson.
I make 100% of my income overseas. I live overseas. I still have to pay US income tax on my income (as well as income tax overseas). I don't use any US public infrastructure, however...
You don't have to. You choose to because you want to keep your American citizenship, which is apparently worth the taxes you are paying otherwise you would stop paying it.
Also, I would argue that the overseas taxation is a bit muddled in the U.S. tax code (to say the least), however, your argument is besides the point of this Slashdot discussion - debating the merits of various taxation levels at different incomes.
Taxation is about power. It's about taking money from one group, and using it to buy the votes of another group to maintain your own position.
This could be said about any democratic society. That being said, our tax expenditures are especially messed up due to the way we have disproportionate representation, by population, in our upper house of legislation - the Senate. Remember that there are 2 senators for the state of California (pop. ~50M) and 2 senators for the state of Wyoming (pop. ~300K).
No, it isn't. The primary purpose of society is to continue the existance of the society.
Although I don't disagree with the point of your post, I would point out that this statement is rather bold. Who defines what the primary purpose of society is? Different Americans, Chinese, Englishmen, etc. would all probably give different answers of what the primary purpose of society is.
But in the end, we all know what happens when Democrats proposed tax increases and spending cuts together. The tax increases happen and the spending cuts don't
Historically, this is not true. Although you may find cherry-picked instances of it, in general, Democratic legislation has paid for itself (which is where the tax in tax and spend comes from). The Clinton years spring to mind. Republican legislation has generally been deficit spending for the past 30-40 years - spending without the tax part.
The recent "bailouts" and "stimuli" from the Bush and Obama administrations are not good examples - they had to do with fighting a "Great Recession" and as such were atypical.
Then why does the US tax every dollar you make overseas, even if you are overseas for the entire year? If I live in Thailand the entire year and earn my salary over there, I still have to pay US taxes on it - even though I didn't use any US public services. It's not about paying for what you use - it's about paying for what Government wants.
That is an interesting, but separate, problem from the one we are discussing - which is the merit of different tax rates for various income brackets. Don't get them confused.
Lets assume it was a Republican president and a Republican lobby for the benefit of, say, the oil industry. What would you call it then? Maybe 'bailout' is the wrong word but it would still smack of corruption and crony-ism.
Corruption is the word I'd use. Another example that our government works more for corporations and/or the rich than the average middle class Joe Shmoe.
P.S. Corporations and/or the rich are not bad entities at all. It's bad if the they have a disproportionate amount of power in our democratic government. Let me say "too much of a disproportionate amount of power", because in any society the rich generally already have a higher amount of power.
RTFA dumbass. You know you're wrong when you post anonymously.
The company ALREADY GOT THE PATENT. There's no retroactive granting here. A judge has already decided that the company did NOT miss the patent deadline. The law simply clarifies the fact that the deadline will be before the next business day if the deadline falls over non-business hours, which is exactly as the judge ruled.
That being said, and I hate to add any sense of purpose to your vitriol, but I'm sure there is corruption involved in our government. That sucks. The way things work is shady. But this certainly isn't a case of a bailout.
No it didn't. The NY Times reported that a Republican called it a bailout. RTFA... it's not.
It has already been determined by two judges and the government has not appealed the decision that the above statement is correct - the company did not miss their patent deadline. This bill is only going to clarify the rules that agrees with the two judges that already said.
WTF passes for the definition of a "bailout" nowadays? Even if this story was changing the patent filing decisions retroactively, no government money was going to be given to any companies involved either way.
You are a liar. They are not applying the patent retro. They are clarifying the deadline rules, so that the rules in law (on paper) are explicit to what two judges have already ruled is the case.
"[The company] had received F.D.A. approval for Angiomax after the customary close of business on a Friday, the 60-day clock should not have started ticking until the next Monday."
It has already been determined by two judges and the government has not appealed the decision that the above statement is correct - the company did not miss their patent deadline. NOTHING THIS BILL DOES IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING FOR THAT LAWFIRM AND COMPANY. It is only going to clarify the rules. (Actually, on second thought, it will remove the threat of APP Pharmaceuticals's appeal)
Even if this did retroactively give the patent to this company (which is won't), that wouldn't be a bailout - no government money would be given to them (you might have an argument for corruption, but it's not a bailout).
Finally, the funny thing in the NYT article is that two Republicans want the patent protection for the company to go away because "...the extra patent protection on Angiomax could cost hospitals and consumers $1 billion.". Well, Republicans, that's EXACTLY what you wanted when you opposed "socialized" healthcare! That very argument was the left's argument for the healthcare overhaul. Patents are what help drug companies make lots of money "at the expense of hospitals and consumers", because they will in turn fund new R&D for new medicines.
Once again, all great points. I don't have a perfect answer, and I expect no one does.
Any government is subject to the whims of the majority. I feel like the steps towards a more perfect government is as I stated - less ability for others/government to restrict your personal freedoms. I also feel like a self-governing society needs to be educated in order for it to work well (and then I teeter down the route of restriction of voting rights, also bad news... I keep sounding more and more like I'd like an oligarchy).
Perhaps the suggestion of Magius_AR would be a step in the right direction - require a three-fifths majority or a super majority for all laws.
I guess my problem is the last point you made - we are still subject to the whims of the majority. What I would like is there to be MORE restrictions on what governments can't do to its citizens (government can be thought of in this case as 51% of the population). The US Constitution was revolutionary in that aspect - it was a list of things the government can't do. Well, I'm saying that we need to add to the list of things the government can't do.
Why pushing it up to fed level is any better?
The federal level can place farther-reaching restrictions.
Clearly there cannot be a moral difference in percentages alone - either it is okay, or it is not. But if you say that it's not, then you're basically saying that democracy itself is worthless, and you'd rather see a dictatorship where the ruling elite shares your view.
That's one way. Another way would be to have a democracy but put more "rights"* to which its citizens have and the government can't do. The penultimate solution would be to say "It cannot be made illegal that which does not hurt anyone else. Things that the population can vote to be made illegal are those things which have the possibility of hurting others".
* don't get caught up on the definition of what rights really are, that's another topic...
Bin Laden was actually counting on the idea that we wouldn't retaliate.
Absolutely. More accurately, he was counting on the idea that we wouldn't succeed in retaliation. He wanted to use the Soviet-Afghanistan war strategy against America. He even explained his strategy before the attacks.
This idea that the past 10 years have all been part of his awesome plan is just a liberal hippie-minded peace-and-love myth.
WTF? Where did you get the information and believe it which says 10 years of war and economic problems was part of OBL's plan is "liberal", "hippie-minded", and "peace-and-love"? Liberal philosophy has nothing to do with terrorist mastermind strategies. Hippie-minded has nothing to do with terrorist mastermind strategies. Peace-and-love myths have nothing to do with it either.
As far as the "past 10 years" idea, what you are in almost complete certainty referring to is the American left's opposition to the war in Iraq. These are quite unrelated.
As far as the "liberal hippie-minded peace-and-love" idea, you are probably referring to the economic toll of the September 11th attacks on America and how leftists didn't want to do all the things the rightists did in the past 10 years and spend so much money/blood and the leftists blame the rightists for it. I'm going to remove "hippie-minded peace-and-love" from your vitriolic hatred of the left and just use "liberal". The economic toll of September 11th was quite immense, but the following 10 years of war was exponentially larger. The "liberals" didn't/don't agree with the methods of said 10 years, nor with the inability to pay for them.
You may not like the fact that Osama bin Laden succeeded in fucking the USA over 1 trillion dollars, but he did. And the "liberals" would have very, very likely lost less than 1 trillion dollars.
Who ever claimed the Russians were behind the Taliban?
The OP never claimed the Russians were behind the Taliban. In fact, the OP was insinuating that the Russians had troubles in Afghanistan (some would say "lost" to the Taliban government), and now they are watching America in troubles in Afghanistan from a distance, and laughing... quite the opposite of being "behind the Taliban".
I see your point, but I disagree... maybe it's just semantics, and I apologize if so, but I still think it's worth stating.
The US has dealt critical blows to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and has utterly destroyed the organization which existed in 2001 as Al-Qaeda. Don't get me wrong, the Taliban/Al-Qaeda brand is still alive and there are still terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But the military organizations that previously existed has been destroyed.
Only a completely myopic, brainwashed person without a shred of intellect could possibly think that attacking countless civilians day in and day out is anything but institutionalized terrorism.
From what you say, general war is institutionalized terrorism.
I disagree with the Iraq war vehemently. But I would argue that you're pushing semantics here: the public agrees that the definition of war is separate from terrorism, in a hard to conceptualize manner. War terrorizes civilians, yes, but the general concept, while quite similar, is nonetheless distinct.
You make a reasonable and sane point. I, however, disagree that America has dismissed the Western World's shared danger in the struggle of terrorism. Today America grieved about the loss of its own lives, but I don't think that the American government has been dismissive of the rest of the Western World at all. Disagreed about the means and methods to the struggle regarding terrorism, yes, most especially about the Iraq War. But not about 9/11.
I routinely interface with non-native Americans/foreigners almost every day, in work and in play. I even remember the taxi I took the week following 9/11 and the driver talking about how someone from his African country had been killed. Yes, it's just a personal anecdote, but I think it's fair to say that both "America" as in the people and "America" as in the government does not dismiss the rest of the world when it comes to 9/11.
afghanistan absolutely was the fight for 9/11 and continues to be.
How so? Afghanistan was invaded because talibs refused to unconditionally hand over Osama, but they themselves didn't play any significant part in 9/11.
I'm no expert, but the basic answer to your question is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan was the only government in the world that supported the 9/11 terrorist attacks and harbored people who would continue to make more terrorist attacks. Even Palestine officially condemned the 9/11 attacks.
So, in a very simple explanation, the Taliban government would harbor more attacks like 9/11 against the world, so it needed to be destroyed.
Of course, the real solution is more complicated than that, and you have correctly pointed out major problems in the war in Afghanistan which are not the optimal outcomes (except for #2 - I think that is an explicit goal of the war, to stop #2 from happening... yes the #2 objective isn't complete yet, nor is the war, and the objective may never be completed).
The states must go "less nuts" with more federal restrictions.
Freedom of movement, to me as a gay man, doesn't matter if 100% of the states voted 51%-49% which legislated gays as second class citizens. That means 49% of the national population is okay with treating me as an equal, but 100% of the laws in 100% of our states says otherwise. Freedom of movement doesn't help here.
I don't believe everything should be up to the states. In Alabama, you can't buy sex toys. Why is it that a 51% vote to 49% vote prevents 49% of the population from purchasing a dildo? The federal government should do more to restrict what states can't restrict on personal freedoms.
An extreme example is that states-right supporters back in the day said that slaves should be legal in some states even if illegal in others - it is up to the individual state. I don't think that freedom of movement is a strong enough argument for allowing some states to restrict freedom in varying degrees.
The poster said that the OP "[jumped] in and defend a Fascist dictatorship ruled over by a mass murdering psychopath" when he clearly didn't. Is it left-of-center to deny that? If I said it sucked for the ~100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, would I be left-of-center? If you made the accusation that I was defending a Fascist dictatorship ruled by a mass murdering psychopath, and then I defended myself by saying I didn't, would I be left-of-center?
I think you're wanting to see something that isn't there. The poster you are defending was wrong, regardless of right/left politics. And what exactly do you think would have happened on Slashdot 10 years ago if such a post was made?
I'm somewhat interested in what you've said, however...
I didn't read the OP's post as a defense against a Fascist dictatorship ruled over by a mass murdering psychopath. I think you wanted to see that in the post, but it wasn't there. It was clearly a post about innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of war.
1. There is already an international standard of that format (YYYY-MM-DD). There's no need for the US to wake up for it. 2. I always put my phone number in my work e-mail signatures as "999.123.4567" because it is more aesthetically pleasing. The reason it is OK to do so is because there is no communication ambiguity... people still know it's a phone number. 3. "wake up, US!" - We have a national standard, which is MM-DD-YYYY. We don't need two national standards. When communicating internationally, people use the appropriate communication methods. I don't ever use MM-DD-YYYY when communicating to the people in Taiwan and South Korea at work, I use plain English such as "September 11th". I presume other Americans don't use MM-DD-YYYY when communicating internationally, at least not twice - especially after encountering an ambiguous communication faux pas.
I think everyone in this thread is confusing the topics. "September 11th" is how we say "September 11th" in (American) English, and everyone knows exactly what it means. There is no ambiguity. When serializing dates programmatically, we probably most use the ISO-8601 standard. When communicating internationally, we (hopefully and usually) use a format that is unambiguous.
TLDR - you're giving a solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
Then you are a likely a computer programmer or someone who uses dates with computers often.
Regardless of what others have said here about the variations in English, dates are most commonly said "September 11th, 2001". There's a reason why it isn't called "The 11th of September, 2001" because that's not how (most) people say dates in (American) English.
Behavior is absolutely embedded in genes. The children of an extremely smart couple is likely to be smart, even if the child isn't raised by the same couple and is raised in a different environment. The same goes for the opposite: the children of an extremely stupid couple is likely to be stupid, even if the child is raised in a perfect environment.
And if you're getting caught up on the word "behavior", well, a child knows to suck on a nipple without being "taught" by anyone; that behavior was embedded in the child's genes.
IANAL, but just because something isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it can't be made in a law. The US constitution mostly spells out what the government cannot do; everything else is theoretically able to be legal. There's a term for this, but I forget it now... something like "liberal constitution".
Do you really believe that the government shouldn't have the authority to protect the life of everyone else, even if it goes against the belief of one person? Think about this example: a black plague is discovered somewhere in a village. There is a cure, but in order for it to work, EVERYONE in the village has to take it. Otherwise, this particular black plague will mutate and kill everyone else anyways. One single person in the village doesn't want to take it for religious beliefs. It doesn't matter to him, he says, because he's going to heaven anyways. Do you think the government shouldn't be able to force that person in the village to take it to save everyone's life? If not, then everyone dies.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no one in the United States that doesn't pay taxes. There are sales taxes and there are state taxes, to name a few. Perhaps theoretically there is someone who is only using food stamps and doesn't buy ANYTHING except tax-exempt goods and services don't pay taxes, but it's certainly not 50%.
In other words, federal taxes aren't all taxes.
BTW, I like your idea of nominal taxes. It would possibly help educate lower-income citizens on why it is not OK to have their legislators vote for anything and everything that costs money because people should understand that everything has a cost. On the other hand, it could also be seen as punitive... taxing an extremely poor person who is struggling, just because we want to teach them a lesson.
I make 100% of my income overseas. I live overseas. I still have to pay US income tax on my income (as well as income tax overseas). I don't use any US public infrastructure, however...
You don't have to. You choose to because you want to keep your American citizenship, which is apparently worth the taxes you are paying otherwise you would stop paying it.
Also, I would argue that the overseas taxation is a bit muddled in the U.S. tax code (to say the least), however, your argument is besides the point of this Slashdot discussion - debating the merits of various taxation levels at different incomes.
Taxation is about power. It's about taking money from one group, and using it to buy the votes of another group to maintain your own position.
This could be said about any democratic society. That being said, our tax expenditures are especially messed up due to the way we have disproportionate representation, by population, in our upper house of legislation - the Senate. Remember that there are 2 senators for the state of California (pop. ~50M) and 2 senators for the state of Wyoming (pop. ~300K).
No, it isn't. The primary purpose of society is to continue the existance of the society.
Although I don't disagree with the point of your post, I would point out that this statement is rather bold. Who defines what the primary purpose of society is? Different Americans, Chinese, Englishmen, etc. would all probably give different answers of what the primary purpose of society is.
But in the end, we all know what happens when Democrats proposed tax increases and spending cuts together. The tax increases happen and the spending cuts don't
Historically, this is not true. Although you may find cherry-picked instances of it, in general, Democratic legislation has paid for itself (which is where the tax in tax and spend comes from). The Clinton years spring to mind. Republican legislation has generally been deficit spending for the past 30-40 years - spending without the tax part.
The recent "bailouts" and "stimuli" from the Bush and Obama administrations are not good examples - they had to do with fighting a "Great Recession" and as such were atypical.
Then why does the US tax every dollar you make overseas, even if you are overseas for the entire year? If I live in Thailand the entire year and earn my salary over there, I still have to pay US taxes on it - even though I didn't use any US public services. It's not about paying for what you use - it's about paying for what Government wants.
That is an interesting, but separate, problem from the one we are discussing - which is the merit of different tax rates for various income brackets. Don't get them confused.
Lets assume it was a Republican president and a Republican lobby for the benefit of, say, the oil industry. What would you call it then? Maybe 'bailout' is the wrong word but it would still smack of corruption and crony-ism.
Corruption is the word I'd use. Another example that our government works more for corporations and/or the rich than the average middle class Joe Shmoe.
P.S. Corporations and/or the rich are not bad entities at all. It's bad if the they have a disproportionate amount of power in our democratic government. Let me say "too much of a disproportionate amount of power", because in any society the rich generally already have a higher amount of power.
RTFA dumbass. You know you're wrong when you post anonymously.
The company ALREADY GOT THE PATENT. There's no retroactive granting here. A judge has already decided that the company did NOT miss the patent deadline. The law simply clarifies the fact that the deadline will be before the next business day if the deadline falls over non-business hours, which is exactly as the judge ruled.
That being said, and I hate to add any sense of purpose to your vitriol, but I'm sure there is corruption involved in our government. That sucks. The way things work is shady. But this certainly isn't a case of a bailout.
No it didn't. The NY Times reported that a Republican called it a bailout. RTFA... it's not.
It has already been determined by two judges and the government has not appealed the decision that the above statement is correct - the company did not miss their patent deadline. This bill is only going to clarify the rules that agrees with the two judges that already said.
WTF passes for the definition of a "bailout" nowadays? Even if this story was changing the patent filing decisions retroactively, no government money was going to be given to any companies involved either way.
You are a liar. They are not applying the patent retro. They are clarifying the deadline rules, so that the rules in law (on paper) are explicit to what two judges have already ruled is the case.
"[The company] had received F.D.A. approval for Angiomax after the customary close of business on a Friday, the 60-day clock should not have started ticking until the next Monday."
It has already been determined by two judges and the government has not appealed the decision that the above statement is correct - the company did not miss their patent deadline. NOTHING THIS BILL DOES IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING FOR THAT LAWFIRM AND COMPANY. It is only going to clarify the rules. (Actually, on second thought, it will remove the threat of APP Pharmaceuticals's appeal)
Even if this did retroactively give the patent to this company (which is won't), that wouldn't be a bailout - no government money would be given to them (you might have an argument for corruption, but it's not a bailout).
Finally, the funny thing in the NYT article is that two Republicans want the patent protection for the company to go away because "...the extra patent protection on Angiomax could cost hospitals and consumers $1 billion.". Well, Republicans, that's EXACTLY what you wanted when you opposed "socialized" healthcare! That very argument was the left's argument for the healthcare overhaul. Patents are what help drug companies make lots of money "at the expense of hospitals and consumers", because they will in turn fund new R&D for new medicines.
Once again, all great points. I don't have a perfect answer, and I expect no one does.
Any government is subject to the whims of the majority. I feel like the steps towards a more perfect government is as I stated - less ability for others/government to restrict your personal freedoms. I also feel like a self-governing society needs to be educated in order for it to work well (and then I teeter down the route of restriction of voting rights, also bad news... I keep sounding more and more like I'd like an oligarchy).
Perhaps the suggestion of Magius_AR would be a step in the right direction - require a three-fifths majority or a super majority for all laws.
You make great points.
I guess my problem is the last point you made - we are still subject to the whims of the majority. What I would like is there to be MORE restrictions on what governments can't do to its citizens (government can be thought of in this case as 51% of the population). The US Constitution was revolutionary in that aspect - it was a list of things the government can't do. Well, I'm saying that we need to add to the list of things the government can't do.
Why pushing it up to fed level is any better?
The federal level can place farther-reaching restrictions.
Clearly there cannot be a moral difference in percentages alone - either it is okay, or it is not. But if you say that it's not, then you're basically saying that democracy itself is worthless, and you'd rather see a dictatorship where the ruling elite shares your view.
That's one way. Another way would be to have a democracy but put more "rights"* to which its citizens have and the government can't do. The penultimate solution would be to say "It cannot be made illegal that which does not hurt anyone else. Things that the population can vote to be made illegal are those things which have the possibility of hurting others".
* don't get caught up on the definition of what rights really are, that's another topic...
Bin Laden was actually counting on the idea that we wouldn't retaliate.
Absolutely. More accurately, he was counting on the idea that we wouldn't succeed in retaliation. He wanted to use the Soviet-Afghanistan war strategy against America. He even explained his strategy before the attacks.
This idea that the past 10 years have all been part of his awesome plan is just a liberal hippie-minded peace-and-love myth.
WTF? Where did you get the information and believe it which says 10 years of war and economic problems was part of OBL's plan is "liberal", "hippie-minded", and "peace-and-love"?
Liberal philosophy has nothing to do with terrorist mastermind strategies.
Hippie-minded has nothing to do with terrorist mastermind strategies.
Peace-and-love myths have nothing to do with it either.
As far as the "past 10 years" idea, what you are in almost complete certainty referring to is the American left's opposition to the war in Iraq. These are quite unrelated.
As far as the "liberal hippie-minded peace-and-love" idea, you are probably referring to the economic toll of the September 11th attacks on America and how leftists didn't want to do all the things the rightists did in the past 10 years and spend so much money/blood and the leftists blame the rightists for it. I'm going to remove "hippie-minded peace-and-love" from your vitriolic hatred of the left and just use "liberal". The economic toll of September 11th was quite immense, but the following 10 years of war was exponentially larger. The "liberals" didn't/don't agree with the methods of said 10 years, nor with the inability to pay for them.
You may not like the fact that Osama bin Laden succeeded in fucking the USA over 1 trillion dollars, but he did. And the "liberals" would have very, very likely lost less than 1 trillion dollars.
Who ever claimed the Russians were behind the Taliban?
The OP never claimed the Russians were behind the Taliban. In fact, the OP was insinuating that the Russians had troubles in Afghanistan (some would say "lost" to the Taliban government), and now they are watching America in troubles in Afghanistan from a distance, and laughing... quite the opposite of being "behind the Taliban".
I see your point, but I disagree... maybe it's just semantics, and I apologize if so, but I still think it's worth stating.
The US has dealt critical blows to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and has utterly destroyed the organization which existed in 2001 as Al-Qaeda. Don't get me wrong, the Taliban/Al-Qaeda brand is still alive and there are still terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But the military organizations that previously existed has been destroyed.
Only a completely myopic, brainwashed person without a shred of intellect could possibly think that attacking countless civilians day in and day out is anything but institutionalized terrorism.
From what you say, general war is institutionalized terrorism.
I disagree with the Iraq war vehemently. But I would argue that you're pushing semantics here: the public agrees that the definition of war is separate from terrorism, in a hard to conceptualize manner. War terrorizes civilians, yes, but the general concept, while quite similar, is nonetheless distinct.
You make a reasonable and sane point. I, however, disagree that America has dismissed the Western World's shared danger in the struggle of terrorism. Today America grieved about the loss of its own lives, but I don't think that the American government has been dismissive of the rest of the Western World at all. Disagreed about the means and methods to the struggle regarding terrorism, yes, most especially about the Iraq War. But not about 9/11.
I routinely interface with non-native Americans/foreigners almost every day, in work and in play. I even remember the taxi I took the week following 9/11 and the driver talking about how someone from his African country had been killed. Yes, it's just a personal anecdote, but I think it's fair to say that both "America" as in the people and "America" as in the government does not dismiss the rest of the world when it comes to 9/11.
afghanistan absolutely was the fight for 9/11 and continues to be.
How so? Afghanistan was invaded because talibs refused to unconditionally hand over Osama, but they themselves didn't play any significant part in 9/11.
I'm no expert, but the basic answer to your question is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan was the only government in the world that supported the 9/11 terrorist attacks and harbored people who would continue to make more terrorist attacks. Even Palestine officially condemned the 9/11 attacks.
So, in a very simple explanation, the Taliban government would harbor more attacks like 9/11 against the world, so it needed to be destroyed.
Of course, the real solution is more complicated than that, and you have correctly pointed out major problems in the war in Afghanistan which are not the optimal outcomes (except for #2 - I think that is an explicit goal of the war, to stop #2 from happening... yes the #2 objective isn't complete yet, nor is the war, and the objective may never be completed).
The states must go "less nuts" with more federal restrictions.
Freedom of movement, to me as a gay man, doesn't matter if 100% of the states voted 51%-49% which legislated gays as second class citizens. That means 49% of the national population is okay with treating me as an equal, but 100% of the laws in 100% of our states says otherwise. Freedom of movement doesn't help here.
I don't believe everything should be up to the states. In Alabama, you can't buy sex toys. Why is it that a 51% vote to 49% vote prevents 49% of the population from purchasing a dildo? The federal government should do more to restrict what states can't restrict on personal freedoms.
An extreme example is that states-right supporters back in the day said that slaves should be legal in some states even if illegal in others - it is up to the individual state. I don't think that freedom of movement is a strong enough argument for allowing some states to restrict freedom in varying degrees.
The poster said that the OP "[jumped] in and defend a Fascist dictatorship ruled over by a mass murdering psychopath" when he clearly didn't. Is it left-of-center to deny that? If I said it sucked for the ~100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, would I be left-of-center? If you made the accusation that I was defending a Fascist dictatorship ruled by a mass murdering psychopath, and then I defended myself by saying I didn't, would I be left-of-center?
I think you're wanting to see something that isn't there. The poster you are defending was wrong, regardless of right/left politics. And what exactly do you think would have happened on Slashdot 10 years ago if such a post was made?
The OP didn't say it.
I'm somewhat interested in what you've said, however...
I didn't read the OP's post as a defense against a Fascist dictatorship ruled over by a mass murdering psychopath. I think you wanted to see that in the post, but it wasn't there. It was clearly a post about innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of war.
1. There is already an international standard of that format (YYYY-MM-DD). There's no need for the US to wake up for it.
2. I always put my phone number in my work e-mail signatures as "999.123.4567" because it is more aesthetically pleasing. The reason it is OK to do so is because there is no communication ambiguity... people still know it's a phone number.
3. "wake up, US!" - We have a national standard, which is MM-DD-YYYY. We don't need two national standards. When communicating internationally, people use the appropriate communication methods. I don't ever use MM-DD-YYYY when communicating to the people in Taiwan and South Korea at work, I use plain English such as "September 11th". I presume other Americans don't use MM-DD-YYYY when communicating internationally, at least not twice - especially after encountering an ambiguous communication faux pas.
I think everyone in this thread is confusing the topics. "September 11th" is how we say "September 11th" in (American) English, and everyone knows exactly what it means. There is no ambiguity. When serializing dates programmatically, we probably most use the ISO-8601 standard. When communicating internationally, we (hopefully and usually) use a format that is unambiguous.
TLDR - you're giving a solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
Then you are a likely a computer programmer or someone who uses dates with computers often.
Regardless of what others have said here about the variations in English, dates are most commonly said "September 11th, 2001". There's a reason why it isn't called "The 11th of September, 2001" because that's not how (most) people say dates in (American) English.
unwise behavior is not genetic.
Behavior is absolutely embedded in genes. The children of an extremely smart couple is likely to be smart, even if the child isn't raised by the same couple and is raised in a different environment. The same goes for the opposite: the children of an extremely stupid couple is likely to be stupid, even if the child is raised in a perfect environment.
And if you're getting caught up on the word "behavior", well, a child knows to suck on a nipple without being "taught" by anyone; that behavior was embedded in the child's genes.
IANAL, but just because something isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it can't be made in a law. The US constitution mostly spells out what the government cannot do; everything else is theoretically able to be legal. There's a term for this, but I forget it now... something like "liberal constitution".
Do you really believe that the government shouldn't have the authority to protect the life of everyone else, even if it goes against the belief of one person? Think about this example: a black plague is discovered somewhere in a village. There is a cure, but in order for it to work, EVERYONE in the village has to take it. Otherwise, this particular black plague will mutate and kill everyone else anyways. One single person in the village doesn't want to take it for religious beliefs. It doesn't matter to him, he says, because he's going to heaven anyways. Do you think the government shouldn't be able to force that person in the village to take it to save everyone's life? If not, then everyone dies.