people should have to pass the exact same naturalization exams as any immigrant
Having gone through naturalization myself, I must reject the idea — too much in the exam is subject to the officer's interpretation. You'll need humans to verify the answers, which makes it both dangerous and impractical for voting.
The things I listed are apolitical and objective — and the test can be performed by a computer at not even today's, but yesterday's level of technology and sophistication.
That may be an acceptable replacement for (or an addition to) the second item, but it may get dangerously close to being partisan in itself. For example, some Americans today find it hard to accept Trump/Pence as the Administration — forcing them to spell out the name(s) to a computer could make them unnecessarily uncomfortable.
without political change such as a tax, the outcome will range from bad to apocalyptic
Hear, hear... Have the Illiberals at Guardian ever saw a tax, they didn't like? Surely, the omniscient and benevolent government officials — who know, what's best for us, how everything should operate, and what everything ought to cost — are much better positioned to decide, how to spend the monies confiscated from the taxpayers, than the taxpayers — bless their pretty little heads — know themselves.
No, if it pleases the Crown, I'd like to make my own decisions. You can take, what you and I agree is necessary for the country's defense — but I will not willingly finance your coercive changes to society.
Crap, of course, I meant the former... Really ought to re-read the entire post before submitting — spoiled by other forums, where it is possible to edit after submission...
a government having a braindrain and becoming incapable of properly overseeing related aspects like elections, security systems or nuceal launch codes can become a huge liability.
I'm more worried about officials of the government — which is already a monopoly, by its very definition and function — turning those things into private cash-cows and sources of other undue influence, than I am about a corporation doing same.
The latter has already happened — numerous times in different countries, including the US. The former — not so much. And, even if/when it does happen, that standing army you mentioned will still be there to take over the miscreants.
With the braindrain you fear and lament, maybe, you and I and, indeed, anyone in the world will be able to buy a smartphone as secure as the President's. Secure not only against the US government's unwarranted searches, but against those of the really oppressive regimes. And the government's spies will be able to use the same off-the-shelf tech for their purposes...
I want the voters to prove their eligibility — in addition to being citizens — by the following:
Solving a computer-generated quadratic equation;
Reciting — by typing into computer — a Bill of Rights' Amendment of their choice. (Other countries may substitute Bill of Rights with similarly venerated documents of their own.)
You want companies to be able to outperform governments?
For a certain meaning of "outperform". Of course. And they already do that in most markets — including, gasp, weapons. If one can already buy a very good firearm and/or body-armor — better than what the government is using — why should encryption be different?
Oh, the government is welcome — just as it is with other weapons — to buy the same technology as well...
Holy crap, from bad to worse
You aren't explaining, but I smell Statism... Is that what ails you? The conviction, that only the government is ultimately able to provide for citizens' real needs — and to determine, which needs are real?
That's something that should be checked before issuing a Visa, not after they're already on the fucking plane here.
That's true, but a passport with the visa could've been taken away from the rightful owner. Border guards remain the last line — and have always been empowered to revoke any earlier-granted permissions/visas.
I was once grilled about the shopping malls around my house (or where I allegedly) live — and I am a US citizen... Of course, buying most things online, I was not well familiar with the malls. I guess, my facial expressions and body-language convinced the guy, I was not lying...
Nobody gives a fuck if you use Uber about your obsession with Obama.
Wow. So much anger and hate for someone, who professes to "not give a fuck"... Not just downmod, but shitpost underneath to vent it all — then spend the night with a bowl of cookies and ice-cream sobbing, how could someone be so unkind to Obama?...
Kamel: "Competitors? You had the business model in your hands you could have the prices you want but you choose to buy everybody a ride."
What? That's just idiotic. Of course, Uber had competition — even before the rise of Lyft, they had taxis to compete with. And, in some cities, the "limos" or "black cars".
Personally, I forswore Uber, when they hired David Plouffe — the jerk, that helped impose an incompetent nincompoop on our country for eight years — who started spamming the customers (such as myself) with bullshit like how "Uber helps minority drivers" (I imagine, it must've been a hit with the pro-Obama crowd!) So, from then on I always start with Lyft, when searching for a ride.
But now, seeing this evident ganging-up on Uber, maybe, I'll try to use them first again...
I don't think, I said, I care, who marries who. Only that the word "marriage", after meaning one thing for thousands of years, changed meaning in a matter of a decade.
Words change meaning all the time, why pick on just one?
My very point in this subthread was, the meaning of the term "chicken" can change — with an even greater speed, than what the term "marriage" already displayed. You seem to agree with that... So, why are you changing the subject to my opinion on homosexuality — which I haven't expressed and don't particularly care to discuss?
If you want to reduce gay sex [...] youre probaby just a religious homophobe
Whah? What in the word lead you to either of these conclusions?
The ancient term "marriage" was a euphemism for "chattel," as you well know.
No, I do not know that. On the contrary, I am pretty sure, it never meant that. For example, whichever variant of the vows I look at, I do not see any asymmetry. Who owns who?
But that's all besides the point. "Chattel" or "partnership" or whatever, it never meant homosexual. Not in any culture — however tolerant and accepting of the homosexuality itself. It took, as I said, a judicial change of the definition... The English word used to mean one thing, and now it means another.
Make sure your attempt is done in consideration of that, and can't be taken as a threat, otherwise you're walking a fine line of with assault charges.
Sure, sure. But all of this caution should not be necessary — unless you are really threatening. It should not be any easier ruin a man's reputation (and life) with sexual assault accusations, than it is to do the same with any other suspicions of criminality.
And perhaps more importantly to you
Let's not apply the conversation to the present company, shall we? I'm a happy father — of more than one child...
Also, be a F-ing professional and don't shit where you work.
Another strange prohibition. While I agree, that one should not attempt to court anyone below them in a corporate hierarchy (the rule which automatically bans courtship up the same ladder), approaching a colleague may be Ok.
However, we are concerned by the alleged findings you had conducted
Piffle! That's a totally wrong spin! According to TFA, most of the other 50% is soy — the famously humane and environment-friendly replacement for meat.
Restaurants should proudly admit to being ahead of their customers on both counts — and wow to make their sandwiches 90% meat-free by 2050, or something like that.
Those Cuban fellows have spent their whole lives, from long before puberty, learning how to flirt aggressively and attractively, while picking up the subtle cues that let them know when their attention isn't wanted so they can disengage gracefully and keep the door open for future possibilities. It's a dance to make the Tango look trivial in comparison, and they've been steeping in it their whole lives as a cultural pastime.
Whether the rest of us are able to do it as well as those phenomenal Cubans or not, it can not be illegal (nor even immoral) for us to try.
You might also want read what Appeal to Authority means, since you clearly don't understand how it works...
Yours was a classic manifestation of the fallacy. To prove your point on changes to language — to support your claim, that the definition of the term "race" changed since 19th century — you appealed to the authority of geneticists...
I don't think you understand the difference between Single Payer, and Single Provider.
In theory there may well be a huge difference, in practice there will be none — the Payer's regulation will go into every nitty-gritty detail of Provision ensuring uniformity. And absence of choice — look at what has already happened with the public schools...
OMG, appeal to authority is all you can do? Pathetic... BTW, the article you cited says nothing about the meaning of the word "race" changing. Even if it is a social construct, it must've been that in the 19th century as well — your claims remain wrong either way.
my local media don't care about your local news
The very point is, it is only "local news" here, because it is Black-against-White discrimination. Had it been the other way around, it would've been on the front pages of major newspapers — and foreign media would've reprinted it too.
This has nothing to do with single payer anything.
Creating a monopoly, where the consumers/users not only can not switch to a different provider, they can not even point out at how things can be done differently, is certainly very similar to what the proponents of Single Payer wish to happen.
There are too many different ministries, agencies and departments with too many different data requirements and laws governing who can be provided with certain information.
Are there really more of such "ministries, agencies and departments", than there are patients?
IT failures have increased by 129 per cent since Shared Services Canada took over tech support for the entire government five years ago. Not only that, the memo says, the duration of each outage has increased by 98 per cent. "Its 'one size fits all' IT shared services model has negatively impacted police operations, public and officer safety and the integrity of the criminal justice system," reads the memo.
But Single Payer eliminates redundancy, thus lowering the costs while improving the services. Does it not?
Slashdot Mirror
Having gone through naturalization myself, I must reject the idea — too much in the exam is subject to the officer's interpretation. You'll need humans to verify the answers, which makes it both dangerous and impractical for voting.
The things I listed are apolitical and objective — and the test can be performed by a computer at not even today's, but yesterday's level of technology and sophistication.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...
That may be an acceptable replacement for (or an addition to) the second item, but it may get dangerously close to being partisan in itself. For example, some Americans today find it hard to accept Trump/Pence as the Administration — forcing them to spell out the name(s) to a computer could make them unnecessarily uncomfortable.
Hear, hear... Have the Illiberals at Guardian ever saw a tax, they didn't like? Surely, the omniscient and benevolent government officials — who know, what's best for us, how everything should operate, and what everything ought to cost — are much better positioned to decide, how to spend the monies confiscated from the taxpayers, than the taxpayers — bless their pretty little heads — know themselves.
No, if it pleases the Crown, I'd like to make my own decisions. You can take, what you and I agree is necessary for the country's defense — but I will not willingly finance your coercive changes to society.
Crap, of course, I meant the former... Really ought to re-read the entire post before submitting — spoiled by other forums, where it is possible to edit after submission...
I'm more worried about officials of the government — which is already a monopoly, by its very definition and function — turning those things into private cash-cows and sources of other undue influence, than I am about a corporation doing same.
The latter has already happened — numerous times in different countries, including the US. The former — not so much. And, even if/when it does happen, that standing army you mentioned will still be there to take over the miscreants.
Supposedly, NSA created a special Blackberry for President Obama — but they would not make one even for the Secretary of State. Today, aghast at the choice made the country's voters — the "little people", who "don't know any better" — the security apparatus are leaking embarrassing details about Trump's team. What hope do you and I have of prevailing against such organizations, if the POTUS is struggling against their sabotage?
With the braindrain you fear and lament, maybe, you and I and, indeed, anyone in the world will be able to buy a smartphone as secure as the President's. Secure not only against the US government's unwarranted searches, but against those of the really oppressive regimes. And the government's spies will be able to use the same off-the-shelf tech for their purposes...
I want the voters to prove their eligibility — in addition to being citizens — by the following:
For a certain meaning of "outperform". Of course. And they already do that in most markets — including, gasp, weapons. If one can already buy a very good firearm and/or body-armor — better than what the government is using — why should encryption be different?
Oh, the government is welcome — just as it is with other weapons — to buy the same technology as well...
You aren't explaining, but I smell Statism... Is that what ails you? The conviction, that only the government is ultimately able to provide for citizens' real needs — and to determine, which needs are real?
That's true, but a passport with the visa could've been taken away from the rightful owner. Border guards remain the last line — and have always been empowered to revoke any earlier-granted permissions/visas.
I was once grilled about the shopping malls around my house (or where I allegedly) live — and I am a US citizen... Of course, buying most things online, I was not well familiar with the malls. I guess, my facial expressions and body-language convinced the guy, I was not lying...
Wow. So much anger and hate for someone, who professes to "not give a fuck"... Not just downmod, but shitpost underneath to vent it all — then spend the night with a bowl of cookies and ice-cream sobbing, how could someone be so unkind to Obama?...
So sad...
Yeah, stop leaking the White House staff's communications to press, you "Deep Throat" wannabes...
This part, actually, sounds great — consumer's technology gets a chance to improve beyond the government's ability to spy on us.
And not just American Government's — by far the most benign of the three — that of Russia and China as well.
What? That's just idiotic. Of course, Uber had competition — even before the rise of Lyft, they had taxis to compete with. And, in some cities, the "limos" or "black cars".
Personally, I forswore Uber, when they hired David Plouffe — the jerk, that helped impose an incompetent nincompoop on our country for eight years — who started spamming the customers (such as myself) with bullshit like how "Uber helps minority drivers" (I imagine, it must've been a hit with the pro-Obama crowd!) So, from then on I always start with Lyft, when searching for a ride.
But now, seeing this evident ganging-up on Uber, maybe, I'll try to use them first again...
I don't think, I said, I care, who marries who. Only that the word "marriage", after meaning one thing for thousands of years, changed meaning in a matter of a decade.
My very point in this subthread was, the meaning of the term "chicken" can change — with an even greater speed, than what the term "marriage" already displayed. You seem to agree with that... So, why are you changing the subject to my opinion on homosexuality — which I haven't expressed and don't particularly care to discuss?
Whah? What in the word lead you to either of these conclusions?
It is the law, but only in New York City. Not even the State, AFAIK.
No, I do not know that. On the contrary, I am pretty sure, it never meant that. For example, whichever variant of the vows I look at, I do not see any asymmetry. Who owns who?
But that's all besides the point. "Chattel" or "partnership" or whatever, it never meant homosexual. Not in any culture — however tolerant and accepting of the homosexuality itself. It took, as I said, a judicial change of the definition... The English word used to mean one thing, and now it means another.
If the ancient term "marriage" can be redefined by the judiciary to include same-sex couples, the term "chicken" stands no chance...
Sure, sure. But all of this caution should not be necessary — unless you are really threatening. It should not be any easier ruin a man's reputation (and life) with sexual assault accusations, than it is to do the same with any other suspicions of criminality.
Let's not apply the conversation to the present company, shall we? I'm a happy father — of more than one child...
Another strange prohibition. While I agree, that one should not attempt to court anyone below them in a corporate hierarchy (the rule which automatically bans courtship up the same ladder), approaching a colleague may be Ok.
Piffle! That's a totally wrong spin! According to TFA, most of the other 50% is soy — the famously humane and environment-friendly replacement for meat.
Restaurants should proudly admit to being ahead of their customers on both counts — and wow to make their sandwiches 90% meat-free by 2050, or something like that.
Whether the rest of us are able to do it as well as those phenomenal Cubans or not, it can not be illegal (nor even immoral) for us to try.
Which, I believe, was the Anonymous OP's point.
Bullshit. The differences between races, such as susceptibility to certain diseases and ability to digest certain foods is scientifically established. The physical features (round vs. narrow eyes, skin color, hair) are even more self-evident.
None of it is a "social construct"...
Yours was a classic manifestation of the fallacy. To prove your point on changes to language — to support your claim, that the definition of the term "race" changed since 19th century — you appealed to the authority of geneticists...
In theory there may well be a huge difference, in practice there will be none — the Payer's regulation will go into every nitty-gritty detail of Provision ensuring uniformity. And absence of choice — look at what has already happened with the public schools...
OMG, appeal to authority is all you can do? Pathetic... BTW, the article you cited says nothing about the meaning of the word "race" changing. Even if it is a social construct, it must've been that in the 19th century as well — your claims remain wrong either way.
The very point is, it is only "local news" here, because it is Black-against-White discrimination. Had it been the other way around, it would've been on the front pages of major newspapers — and foreign media would've reprinted it too.
Creating a monopoly, where the consumers/users not only can not switch to a different provider, they can not even point out at how things can be done differently, is certainly very similar to what the proponents of Single Payer wish to happen.
Are there really more of such "ministries, agencies and departments", than there are patients?
But Single Payer eliminates redundancy, thus lowering the costs while improving the services. Does it not?