I agree. The USA has had socialized health care since before anyone alive today was old enough to vote. To say that federal health systems lead to tyranny is evidently wrong.
You're not going to stop me from supporting a good law by inventing hypothetical situations about bad laws. I'm not quite stupid enough to fall for that.
I'm not exactly a student of history, but I would focus more on the suspension of habeas corpus. But yeah, "taking the property" of slave owners counts, too. Sometimes the world is made better when Presidents lead with strength against bad laws -- but not always.
I don't think that's the case. People might support changing the rules but that doesn't mean they stop playing by the rules as they are. Personally I support a change to approval or ranked voting, but that doesn't mean I'm going to select multiple ballot candidates.
Bush's foreign policy resulted in a quarter million dead Iraqis, plus a rounding error of Americans. Obama isn't exactly a pacifist, but he is compared to Bush. It's untenable to say that Bush's approach was less bloody.
I have a hard time seeing your logic. If we don't have universal healthcare, somehow you think that will prevent anti-abortion laws? I don't think that's right. You know that all 50 states used to ban contraceptives, right? Way way back before Obama was even born?
That's an odd way to describe an election where one candidate got zero electoral votes. You know who else got zero electoral votes? Me. Ross and I got the same number of electoral votes.
By the way I actually liked Perot a lot and supported him in both elections, because I'm a pie-in-the-sky nuttypants idealist.
Not at all, it's just that you are even off the deep end compared to Republicans, even more like then than they are. It's hard to imagine from way over here so I apologize for slandering you with the moderation of the Republican party.
"a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes."
Boom. Done. Gore got the most votes. The only way to say otherwise is to not count all the votes, which is the only standard that any court ever should have considered. Of course you have to count all the votes, not just some of them, no matter what the candidates want! Of course! Obviously! A statewide tally favored Gore, the elected President. The rest is just part of the sordid corrupt history of the State of Florida and the USA.
Every single last one of these people, the government agents who run the security apparatus, have already given up all shades of privacy in their own lives, right. I mean, they all take lie detector tests, they all take drug tests, they all walk though metal detectors at work, they all submit their taxes and debts to their bosses. So from their perspective it's a small loss to give up a small amount of out-of-sight privacy [somebody auto-monitoring our email contacts and searches] in order to save thousands of citizens from a terrorist attack. It's not hard to imagine why a slim majority of Americans agree with them -- even if you and I have our doubts.
What do you mean? The hope and change has turned out awesome. Obama passed a major food safety bill, instituted universal health care, repealed DADT, refused to defend DOMA thus hastening its demise, prevented a bank run, saved America's largest manufacturing industry, ended a terrible war, fired a bad General, secured the Mexican border, killed Osama bin Laden without a ground invasion, improved international relations -- and that's just the big stuff. Sure I would have liked to see even more, but that's a metric shit-ton of change which has given me hope like I never had during the dark days of the Cheney administration.
I understand your point, but consider that the Senate was specifically designed for low turnover. It's sort of the whole point of the institution. Not that the original design is necessarily optimal, but it's not without reason.
Yes, it matters, because "some jackass said something stupid" doesn't have the same cachet as quoting a great thinker. Here let me try and see if you are totally convinced by what I pull out of my ass here:
"Democracy is awesome and has no flaws! Big government is great and I think progressive taxation is very fair!" -- Jesus
I figured out why you vote Republican: it's because you use internal argumentation to arrive at conclusions instead of looking at reality. Therefore, nobody who cares about reality needs to listen to you, nor to argue with you, because we can't use reason to change your mind when you don't use reason in the first place.
If you ever decide to open your eyes, there are a lot of us out here who will help show you things that are true. Until then, I hope you remain in the 47%-and-shrinking minority.
Any time you couch things in terms of good and evil, you have already long since lost all perspective. Grow up, man, the world isn't a battleground between Jesus and Satan, okay? this good/evil stuff is nonsense.
"I'll still be able to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure."
I hope you don't plan on coming back again, because of course your daughter will be prosecuted for first-degree murder, and you will be prosecuted for aiding the conspiracy. Don't try to pretend like this won't happen. We already have laws to prosecute people who travel abroad in order to have sex with children [which in my opinion is a good law], and Ireland already (sometimes) prosecutes women who travel abroad for abortion. It is absolutely certain that such a law would be part of a Republican comprehensive abortion ban. And that's all well and good if you oppose abortion, but I don't.
"There is nothing stopping people from voting third party."
Yes, there is, and you should stop pretending otherwise. The thing stopping them is their understanding of game theory, which apparently you lack, or pretend to lack. A third-party vote is, in almost all circumstances, in fact a wasted vote, and everyone knows that -- even, I suspect, you.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. The USA has had socialized health care since before anyone alive today was old enough to vote. To say that federal health systems lead to tyranny is evidently wrong.
You're not going to stop me from supporting a good law by inventing hypothetical situations about bad laws. I'm not quite stupid enough to fall for that.
I'm not exactly a student of history, but I would focus more on the suspension of habeas corpus. But yeah, "taking the property" of slave owners counts, too. Sometimes the world is made better when Presidents lead with strength against bad laws -- but not always.
I don't think that's the case. People might support changing the rules but that doesn't mean they stop playing by the rules as they are. Personally I support a change to approval or ranked voting, but that doesn't mean I'm going to select multiple ballot candidates.
Why not say fuck you to the NIMBYs? Aren't there fewer of them than all the rest of us?
Bush's foreign policy resulted in a quarter million dead Iraqis, plus a rounding error of Americans. Obama isn't exactly a pacifist, but he is compared to Bush. It's untenable to say that Bush's approach was less bloody.
I have a hard time seeing your logic. If we don't have universal healthcare, somehow you think that will prevent anti-abortion laws? I don't think that's right. You know that all 50 states used to ban contraceptives, right? Way way back before Obama was even born?
"We've never been any further from a representitive government and closer to rule by decree than now."
1863
That's an odd way to describe an election where one candidate got zero electoral votes. You know who else got zero electoral votes? Me. Ross and I got the same number of electoral votes.
By the way I actually liked Perot a lot and supported him in both elections, because I'm a pie-in-the-sky nuttypants idealist.
Not at all, it's just that you are even off the deep end compared to Republicans, even more like then than they are. It's hard to imagine from way over here so I apologize for slandering you with the moderation of the Republican party.
Here it is in black and white from the uber-conservative Washington Post itself. Even though they tried to spin the headline in favor of Bush, even the ideologues there were forced to admit the truth, plainly stated:
"a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes."
Boom. Done. Gore got the most votes. The only way to say otherwise is to not count all the votes, which is the only standard that any court ever should have considered. Of course you have to count all the votes, not just some of them, no matter what the candidates want! Of course! Obviously! A statewide tally favored Gore, the elected President. The rest is just part of the sordid corrupt history of the State of Florida and the USA.
Every single last one of these people, the government agents who run the security apparatus, have already given up all shades of privacy in their own lives, right. I mean, they all take lie detector tests, they all take drug tests, they all walk though metal detectors at work, they all submit their taxes and debts to their bosses. So from their perspective it's a small loss to give up a small amount of out-of-sight privacy [somebody auto-monitoring our email contacts and searches] in order to save thousands of citizens from a terrorist attack. It's not hard to imagine why a slim majority of Americans agree with them -- even if you and I have our doubts.
He probably didn't "miss" the point so much as "ignore" it.
What do you mean? The hope and change has turned out awesome. Obama passed a major food safety bill, instituted universal health care, repealed DADT, refused to defend DOMA thus hastening its demise, prevented a bank run, saved America's largest manufacturing industry, ended a terrible war, fired a bad General, secured the Mexican border, killed Osama bin Laden without a ground invasion, improved international relations -- and that's just the big stuff. Sure I would have liked to see even more, but that's a metric shit-ton of change which has given me hope like I never had during the dark days of the Cheney administration.
I understand your point, but consider that the Senate was specifically designed for low turnover. It's sort of the whole point of the institution. Not that the original design is necessarily optimal, but it's not without reason.
I once read a comparison of Ranked Voting to Approval Voting. As a former fan of Ranked, I was persuaded toward Approval. You might find it interesting whether or not you agree.
A republic is a democracy; what you said is nonsense.
Also, republics are the most sensible forms of democracy.
Yes, it matters, because "some jackass said something stupid" doesn't have the same cachet as quoting a great thinker. Here let me try and see if you are totally convinced by what I pull out of my ass here:
"Democracy is awesome and has no flaws! Big government is great and I think progressive taxation is very fair!" -- Jesus
Although I agree with you, keep in mind that Adelson's $150,000,000 didn't even dent Obama's votes.
Yeah, especially when a majority of those Americans don't think they did anything clearly, willfully wrong.
Man, it sucks to be in the minority, huh? Hey, at least we can sit here and say how stupid other voters are.
"No[me] it[me] isn't[me]. "
I figured out why you vote Republican: it's because you use internal argumentation to arrive at conclusions instead of looking at reality. Therefore, nobody who cares about reality needs to listen to you, nor to argue with you, because we can't use reason to change your mind when you don't use reason in the first place.
If you ever decide to open your eyes, there are a lot of us out here who will help show you things that are true. Until then, I hope you remain in the 47%-and-shrinking minority.
Any time you couch things in terms of good and evil, you have already long since lost all perspective. Grow up, man, the world isn't a battleground between Jesus and Satan, okay? this good/evil stuff is nonsense.
"I'll still be able to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure."
I hope you don't plan on coming back again, because of course your daughter will be prosecuted for first-degree murder, and you will be prosecuted for aiding the conspiracy. Don't try to pretend like this won't happen. We already have laws to prosecute people who travel abroad in order to have sex with children [which in my opinion is a good law], and Ireland already (sometimes) prosecutes women who travel abroad for abortion. It is absolutely certain that such a law would be part of a Republican comprehensive abortion ban. And that's all well and good if you oppose abortion, but I don't.
"There is nothing stopping people from voting third party."
Yes, there is, and you should stop pretending otherwise. The thing stopping them is their understanding of game theory, which apparently you lack, or pretend to lack. A third-party vote is, in almost all circumstances, in fact a wasted vote, and everyone knows that -- even, I suspect, you.
Ha! Good one. The last sentence is the punchline. Awesome, I lolled.