The post office delivers letters. Public schools teach children. Food stamps are used to buy foods. Thus, all those programs are doing what they are supposed to do. Any other examples?
I just want to be clear about this: it's fine if you think the government shouldn't be delivering mail, educating children, or helping feed the hungry; but it's not fine to claim that those programs don't do what they are supposed to, because that is wrong.
If your premise is true, then that's a good example. Is reducing oil dependence really it's primary mission? Here, I'll check... here's what Wiki has to say
Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production.
I'm pretty sure they actually do those things. I haven't heard about anybody stealing our nukes, and I see lots of info from the gov about energy conservation.
So, I guess without a better source to your claim that the DOE is only supposed to be reducing oil use, I reject your conclusion that they have failed to do what they are supposed to be doing.
But, to be clear, it's still fine to oppose the DOE if you don't want the government involved in nuclear safety or energy conservation.
The TSA is supposed to provide security at airports (and wherever else). When I fly, the TSA scans my bags and pats me down. Thus, they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Shown. Anything else?
All of those agencies do what they are supposed to. Are you complaining because they aren't 100% absolutely perfect in every way? If that's your standard, then I concede the point.
But it's not my standard. The EPA has successfully helped the environment by a huge margin since it started. Social Security in fact helps millions of people every day. As a child I received medical care through Medicare (or was it Medicaid? whichever, the point stands).
That's what I'm saying. Hey, if you (the general "you", not necessarily you specifically, Mr Mouse) oppose health care for the needy, then it's fine to oppose Medicare, but it's plainly WRONG to say that it doesn't do what it is supposed to. Same with the other things you have mentioned.
NCLB isn't a program or an agency, and I also don't support it, but it has had the intended effect of putting pressure on schools, rearranging funding, and blah blah whatever other details. I oppose it, but not because it hasn't been effective.
Really? Where do you read this view that people shouldn't pay taxes into the health care system? I've never heard anyone say that. Or do you mean, people who support progressive taxes, which is actually nothing at all what you describe? No, seriously, I can't tell what you mean.
That's what I'm saying: the people who care WON'T stop using the company, for anything short of egregiously offensive behavior. That statement is born of a non-evidence-based pseudo-religious commitment to the tenets of libertarianism. It's not a true statement, but it is necessary for the legitimacy of libertarian policy goals. Sure, the statement makes sense, but it doesn't actually turn out to be true of human beings on planet earth.
But, I concede that if it were true, then libertarian conclusions and policies wouldn't be total balderdash. But it's not, so they are.
As an American citizen, says me. As a person who knows how democratic governments have always worked, says me. There has never been a democratic government which didn't provide that variety of service for its voting citizens, and I certainly wouldn't want my democracy to be the first in the history of the world to abandon that responsibility.
And I want to point out something you said which is obviously false, but strangely accepted as gospel by religiously libertarian people:
eventually a company's reputation for abusing the data that it collects will spread and the people that care about how having their data abused will stop using that company
I'm not sure why any thinking person would ever say this, because nothing like it has ever been true. (To be clear, I do consider free-market ideologues to be thinking people, but for some reason they don't think in terms of truths and falsehoods, but rather in terms of wishes.) It is false, with only a tiny hint of truth. Business behavior has to be not only annoying, not only bad, not only terrible, but exceptionally, extremely egregious before market pressure even begins to work. That is why free markets pretty much always fail to deliver solutions which are good for consumers. Now, hey, if you are a producer then the free market is very good at providing good solutions for you; but for the only 998/1000 who are consumers, it's not so good.
My thesis is that markets are good; free markets are bad.
Oh, damn, since I'm at it I'll point out another one:
that is most certainly NOT one of the jobs of the (federal) government
This is not true. If you ever have time, consider reading the Constitution, and pay special attention to the commerce clause. Once you are done reading that, go read about the 250 years of jurisprudence interpreting that clause, so you have an idea of what it means in our country, instead of only having your one lonely opinion with which to guess at what it might mean.
Luckily, people like you have an option if you want the above statement to be true, which is to amend the Constitution as follows: "The federal government shall not have the authority to regulate interstate commerce." I wouldn't support that, but if you can get two thirds of America on your side, then you can outvote me.
One of the jobs of the government is to lend a helping hand to people who don't want to read pages and pages of legal language for every new website they go to. The unregulated market will certainly fail to provide a reasonable solution to that problem, so it is proportionally reasonable for the government to take action. Whether or not government action is a good idea in this specific case is a separate question, but we should all be able to agree that it is at least reasonable to consider it.
I hear a lot of people say that, but I think the answer is that access is so much easier that the entire question is shifted substantially, and for most people it is shifted across the threshold of acceptable privacy. Yes, in the past a random person could take my picture in a public place and show their friends; now they can take my picture, tag me, put it on the internet, and show the whole world that I specifically was at a certain place specifically at a certain time specifically. Although those situations are on the same continuum, they are so far apart along that continuum, that it is reasonable to consider that there could be meaningful tipping points in between those two points on that continuum.
But as for this specific rule, I don't have an opinion. I merely consider it reasonable that a person could perhaps arrive at that conclusion.
Starvation, zero; but many homeless die from exposure. We've solved the first problem, and housing is much more difficult, but we have moved on to trying to solve it. It'll be a long time, but things slowly get better.
Hmmm. Interesting. You are sure it will be repealed? In its entirety, or partially? It is both true that the Dems didn't campaign on that success, but also that the Pubs didn't campaign on repealing it. The way I see it, the Republicans got their cake and can eat it too: they love big government, too, but they can make a rhetorical play for small-government voters, who for some keep voting for the Pubs, who consistently outspend even the Dems. But no, I guess I don't think it will be largely repealed.
I get a choice between the party that wants to take all my money and give it to business, and the party that wants to take all my money and spend it on social services
Um, is this a hard choice for you? Providing social services is the #2 thing I want my government to do, after #1 shoot at people who try to invade us. Giving money to private companies isn't even on my list, with the rare exception of when it is required to prevent economic meltdown.
One major candidate (McCain) wanted to expand both wars. The other major candidate (Obama) wanted to slowly and carefully wind down one war while massively expanding the other. What candidate in 2008 was telling you he would end two wars and bring the soldiers home? FWIW, the elected candidate did what he said he would with the two wars.
The Gitmo snipe is fair.
The medical insurance snipe is not fair -- the Dems passed what they could, which was a fifty-year effort. Sure, I wanted socialized medicine, but I'm happy enough with nearly-universal coverage and coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Be careful. Republicans talk about expanding citizen rights and shrinking government, but they never actually do that. For the last 77 years every single Republican administration has not only grown the government, but grown it *faster* than the previous Democrat. So, what exactly would you be voting for?
Are you willing to share how it worked? Was it more complicated than checking to see if the ad was downloaded, though perhaps not displayed? I've heard of that strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
The post office delivers letters. Public schools teach children. Food stamps are used to buy foods. Thus, all those programs are doing what they are supposed to do. Any other examples?
I just want to be clear about this: it's fine if you think the government shouldn't be delivering mail, educating children, or helping feed the hungry; but it's not fine to claim that those programs don't do what they are supposed to, because that is wrong.
If your premise is true, then that's a good example. Is reducing oil dependence really it's primary mission? Here, I'll check... here's what Wiki has to say
Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production.
I'm pretty sure they actually do those things. I haven't heard about anybody stealing our nukes, and I see lots of info from the gov about energy conservation.
So, I guess without a better source to your claim that the DOE is only supposed to be reducing oil use, I reject your conclusion that they have failed to do what they are supposed to be doing.
But, to be clear, it's still fine to oppose the DOE if you don't want the government involved in nuclear safety or energy conservation.
The TSA is supposed to provide security at airports (and wherever else). When I fly, the TSA scans my bags and pats me down. Thus, they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Shown. Anything else?
All of those agencies do what they are supposed to. Are you complaining because they aren't 100% absolutely perfect in every way? If that's your standard, then I concede the point.
But it's not my standard. The EPA has successfully helped the environment by a huge margin since it started. Social Security in fact helps millions of people every day. As a child I received medical care through Medicare (or was it Medicaid? whichever, the point stands).
That's what I'm saying. Hey, if you (the general "you", not necessarily you specifically, Mr Mouse) oppose health care for the needy, then it's fine to oppose Medicare, but it's plainly WRONG to say that it doesn't do what it is supposed to. Same with the other things you have mentioned.
NCLB isn't a program or an agency, and I also don't support it, but it has had the intended effect of putting pressure on schools, rearranging funding, and blah blah whatever other details. I oppose it, but not because it hasn't been effective.
My guess is that it's because you haven't thought about it very hard, but it's difficult to say based only on your brief misstatement of tired myths.
Really? Where do you read this view that people shouldn't pay taxes into the health care system? I've never heard anyone say that. Or do you mean, people who support progressive taxes, which is actually nothing at all what you describe? No, seriously, I can't tell what you mean.
programs that don't do what they were supposed to do
Like which ones? I can't think of any agencies that don't do what they are supposed to.
That's what I'm saying: the people who care WON'T stop using the company, for anything short of egregiously offensive behavior. That statement is born of a non-evidence-based pseudo-religious commitment to the tenets of libertarianism. It's not a true statement, but it is necessary for the legitimacy of libertarian policy goals. Sure, the statement makes sense, but it doesn't actually turn out to be true of human beings on planet earth.
But, I concede that if it were true, then libertarian conclusions and policies wouldn't be total balderdash. But it's not, so they are.
As an American citizen, says me. As a person who knows how democratic governments have always worked, says me. There has never been a democratic government which didn't provide that variety of service for its voting citizens, and I certainly wouldn't want my democracy to be the first in the history of the world to abandon that responsibility.
And I want to point out something you said which is obviously false, but strangely accepted as gospel by religiously libertarian people:
eventually a company's reputation for abusing the data that it collects will spread and the people that care about how having their data abused will stop using that company
I'm not sure why any thinking person would ever say this, because nothing like it has ever been true. (To be clear, I do consider free-market ideologues to be thinking people, but for some reason they don't think in terms of truths and falsehoods, but rather in terms of wishes.) It is false, with only a tiny hint of truth. Business behavior has to be not only annoying, not only bad, not only terrible, but exceptionally, extremely egregious before market pressure even begins to work. That is why free markets pretty much always fail to deliver solutions which are good for consumers. Now, hey, if you are a producer then the free market is very good at providing good solutions for you; but for the only 998/1000 who are consumers, it's not so good.
My thesis is that markets are good; free markets are bad.
Oh, damn, since I'm at it I'll point out another one:
that is most certainly NOT one of the jobs of the (federal) government
This is not true. If you ever have time, consider reading the Constitution, and pay special attention to the commerce clause. Once you are done reading that, go read about the 250 years of jurisprudence interpreting that clause, so you have an idea of what it means in our country, instead of only having your one lonely opinion with which to guess at what it might mean.
Luckily, people like you have an option if you want the above statement to be true, which is to amend the Constitution as follows: "The federal government shall not have the authority to regulate interstate commerce." I wouldn't support that, but if you can get two thirds of America on your side, then you can outvote me.
Almost no laws apply to the government which passes them. COPA comes to mind, but pretty much all laws have sovereign exceptions.
One of the jobs of the government is to lend a helping hand to people who don't want to read pages and pages of legal language for every new website they go to. The unregulated market will certainly fail to provide a reasonable solution to that problem, so it is proportionally reasonable for the government to take action. Whether or not government action is a good idea in this specific case is a separate question, but we should all be able to agree that it is at least reasonable to consider it.
I hear a lot of people say that, but I think the answer is that access is so much easier that the entire question is shifted substantially, and for most people it is shifted across the threshold of acceptable privacy. Yes, in the past a random person could take my picture in a public place and show their friends; now they can take my picture, tag me, put it on the internet, and show the whole world that I specifically was at a certain place specifically at a certain time specifically. Although those situations are on the same continuum, they are so far apart along that continuum, that it is reasonable to consider that there could be meaningful tipping points in between those two points on that continuum.
But as for this specific rule, I don't have an opinion. I merely consider it reasonable that a person could perhaps arrive at that conclusion.
Why would he give cites for an opinion?
Starvation, zero; but many homeless die from exposure. We've solved the first problem, and housing is much more difficult, but we have moved on to trying to solve it. It'll be a long time, but things slowly get better.
Hmmm. Interesting. You are sure it will be repealed? In its entirety, or partially? It is both true that the Dems didn't campaign on that success, but also that the Pubs didn't campaign on repealing it. The way I see it, the Republicans got their cake and can eat it too: they love big government, too, but they can make a rhetorical play for small-government voters, who for some keep voting for the Pubs, who consistently outspend even the Dems. But no, I guess I don't think it will be largely repealed.
Fuck Mickey Mouse. That guy is a fucking socialist.
I get a choice between the party that wants to take all my money and give it to business, and the party that wants to take all my money and spend it on social services
Um, is this a hard choice for you? Providing social services is the #2 thing I want my government to do, after #1 shoot at people who try to invade us. Giving money to private companies isn't even on my list, with the rare exception of when it is required to prevent economic meltdown.
People who can't be bothered to vote won't likely be bothered to go into the streets to protest
Are you purposely, or not purposely, describing the Tea Party in and after 2008?
Uh, then you weren't paying attention.
One major candidate (McCain) wanted to expand both wars. The other major candidate (Obama) wanted to slowly and carefully wind down one war while massively expanding the other. What candidate in 2008 was telling you he would end two wars and bring the soldiers home? FWIW, the elected candidate did what he said he would with the two wars.
The Gitmo snipe is fair.
The medical insurance snipe is not fair -- the Dems passed what they could, which was a fifty-year effort. Sure, I wanted socialized medicine, but I'm happy enough with nearly-universal coverage and coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Be careful. Republicans talk about expanding citizen rights and shrinking government, but they never actually do that. For the last 77 years every single Republican administration has not only grown the government, but grown it *faster* than the previous Democrat. So, what exactly would you be voting for?
1. what the hell is a prime minister?
2. you can't identify your prime minister by sight?
(#1 is a joke.)
Sonofabitchwrongarticlesorryguys.
I couldn't visualize it from the description, but this video shows how it works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UesbkO3NvoY
Pretty crazy. It'll come down to whether they can actually make something like that reliable.
Nope.
Are you willing to share how it worked? Was it more complicated than checking to see if the ad was downloaded, though perhaps not displayed? I've heard of that strategy.