A dollar shouldn't be a relevant unit of power in a democracy.
Why? I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, it's obviously thought out, but it all hinges on this belief. I do believe that most wealthy people got that way because they bring something of value that other people see and want to freely engage in to their mutual benefit. Sometimes people misjudge and it isn't to their mutual benefit and they're taken for a ride, but I think the free exchange of dollars is the most democratic process in the world. The fact that people freely engaged in trade with this man so he could get to where he is now in his position, is exactly democratic. The fact that he continues to make profit (in general) from doing what you're saying he shouldn't do validates that people want what he's selling.
That you see this effect and think it isn't right makes me feel like you're the one who doesn't truly believe in the philosophies that democracy is built on. You see people disagreeing with you (in that they find value in Fox News in spite of the wealth of alternative sources of information) and you declare it to be anti-democratic because he is wealthy (because people find value in his other ventures and in Fox News), and more than that say you didn't vote for him and his wealth shouldn't be used to influence the national debate. People go to Fox News, people buy his papers and they do it of their own will, and you claim it to be not democratic? What do you want to do, shut him down? That doesn't sound very democratic and freedom-loving to me. It sounds like sour grapes. Stand on your own ideas, as he does, right or wrong. In the days of the internet it is easier than ever. Just look at the huffington post.
Is disagree. I think this is exactly the kind of tough politics we've needed. Too long, too many people have been unwilling to make any meaningful changes to a system everybody agrees isn't going to hold up forever. In fact, they keep making it worse. Maybe tax revenues are the way forward, maybe all spending cuts until the economy gets better is the right path. I'm not going to weigh in on that. However, at least as a nation we're all aware of what is going on and something real is going to come of this (hopefully). The scare tactics around the issue of not raising the debt ceiling is the only problem I see with this debate. And the way I see it, Obama is doing that to manipulate the public in to agreeing with his way forward by making villains of the Republicans.
We voted for him with our eyeballs and dollars. Sorry you live in a society with a belief in the freedom to express your opinions and ideas. I know you must hate it. That's why you have to come here to express your opinions and ideas. But people don't give a shit about what you say, so it's not fair. Right?
You're using a lot of scare tactics. Sometimes when a business spends itself in to a hole it has to make cuts and that hurts their employees. Guess what? We aren't living in gumdrop fairy land. A congress was elected with this specifically as its goal: Cut government spending. That's what they're trying to do, and they're being blocked. In their minds the problem of letting this problem go on is greater than the problem of laying off some people for a month. There is no magic bullet that leads to nothing but good. No matter which way we go to settle the debt issue, some people will be effed in the A. Disagree on ideology, but this whole "they're going to put grannies on the street!" scare tactics bullshit doesn't fly with me. I'd rather see politicans willing to make a hard, possibly unpopular, call than pussy-foot around and just spend more and more money, ignoring the problem, until we're unable to pull ourselves out by any means.
This isn't to say the Republicans are right in the legislative track they want to take, but I think holding the debt ceiling as a poker chip is absolutely fair game. Why else would you have a debt ceiling? The other side is exaggerating the consequences by acting as if the worst possible allocation of funds is the only option when it isn't. That's lying to the American public in hopes of scaring them in to a position, and I don't think that is fair game at all. Perhaps you see lying as a valid political tool, and not the process of law. If that's the case, we'll just have to disagree.
You can say with certainty we will default without the numbers, why can't we say with certainty we won't without the numbers? Obama says we will, a lot of republican congressmen say we won't. Looks like we've got ourselves a he-said-she-said situation, don't we?
How about any number of on-going federal projects that aren't really in the realm of veteran's benefits or social security? The whole descretionary budget is up for grabs before default and entitlements. Obviously not forever, but until the ceiling is raised. This scare tactic of starving grannies, dying vets and default is ridiculous when we have revenue to cover those things, just not everything. Why pick the most harmful ones to showcase as being what won't be paid? That's like saying a pay cut cost you your home when you paid for a brand new kitchen after being notified. Sure, it would have been nice to have the new appliances, but don't you think keeping the house is more important?
Why do you think we would default when only 1/10 of our revenue is required to service the debt? Is it because you think Obama will choose to pay for relative fluff than pay our creditors?
How would you like to have none of your money, 100% government control, and be unable to protect yourself from the masses? That would be a great improvement!
You can be a normal fucking person and realize that "too much in taxes" doesn't mean "I want no taxes or government" it just means "I think this is too much in taxes." Or you can cast people who disagree with you off in to a position that isn't theirs, but you don't have to think about and can reject on its face. That's political discourse, right?
Yeah but what if you go in there and say $specific_target knowing that hitting $specific_target while appearing to be in line with the goals may also cause a huge reaction that will destroy the racist movement because there were $retarded_children inside? Why are you reducing the infiltrators to complete morons?
Debt can't just be called in. You're an idiot. $600 billion? That's nothing even close to bringing us to our knees even if they could do it. And it's debt.
Right.... Do you feel this way about paying to see a musical because you can't take the actors home with you? How about paintball or minigolf? Are they big scams because they take back the gun and putter when you leave, and at the end of the course your ball disappears? Theme parks that you have to keep re-purchasing enterance too, yeah its all just scams!
Oh, so if I share my information with google and google alone (per our agreement) and then google sets up a server to share all of it with anybody who wants it, that's ok?
Inflation is when a unit of currency buys less goods or services than it used to. It is not the opposite of that. Inflation is caused by excessive growth of the money supply, which can not happen with gold because it is limited, and this makes it a very stable currency. More to the point gold is doubling in value as measured by dollars! Dollars are the thing inflating, not gold! Ask yourself, would you rather be working for something that deteriorates in value or grows in value? Have you ever heard of an investment?
So let me explain this to you: he was saying going to the gold standard would destroy our country because the price of gold skyrocketed, which would be inflation. That's not true. When the Euro gets stronger compared to the dollar, that is not the Euro inflating, it is the dollar inflating. Gold is going up because of a weak (inflating) dollar. You can't say that the price of something (in this case gold) going up in dollars is evidence that if we were to use that something as a currency we would have rampant inflation. It makes no sense.
Our currency more than doubling in value is what you consider inflation? Are you... oh... you're posting AC. Nevermind. If filling out a registration form is too taxing for you, which-number-is-biggeristics is way too advanced. Knowing when to properly apply the concept is even harder than that. No, even economics 101 is out of your reach.
Well don't you know you should accept your little fatty for who s/he is instead of judging her/him and hurting her/his little feelings when you suggest s/he go on a diet or get more exercise? You aren't supposed to care about such things as weight, it's harmful for their emotions!
If his kid is getting pushed on a swing, falling off, and crying, he is probably a little young for wandering off alone in the forest if for no other reason than he might get lost. I myself spent a lot of time in the woods when I was 7 - 10 though.
I believe it is a reference to the double standard. Guys are championed for their sexual prowess while girls are considered sluts when they get around. Combine it with the fact that guys don't screw around in their 30's and 40's because they never did before, they usually do it for other reasons. Most of which is ego-stroking. Globally, women are much more sexually restricted than men and the consequences of their sexual activity before marriage is much more severe.
Unencrypted no matter what? That's garbage. An omission of cryptography standards just means its cryptographically agnostic. Do you consider TCP/IP to be 100% unencrypted no matter what? Do you consider ethernet to be 100% unencrypted no matter what? Even written English can be encrypted in any of it's transport protocols (writing, speaking). What about just RAM storage? Can nothing be encrypted in RAM? Bits are bits, you can transform them any way you want, and send them over a dumb wire or dumb air where 1s are defined and 0s are defined, to be translated in any fashion you want.
Yeah, right. How dare corporations give them a job that isn't up to 1st world standards! The fact that they take these jobs just shows how badly they need work, and it is wrong to give people a job if it isn't a great one. Better to make it so expensive that it isn't worth it to have the factories there at all, leaving them without 1st world knowledge, resources or money to dig themselves out of their current wretched state. Nevermind the industrialization of 1st world countries was pretty brutal. I want to change the world without being constrained by reality! No wait, scratch that, I want the world to change by itself while decrying the people who do invoke change as evil for not doing it to my standards!
The idea that voting should be about which ways to use force so it benefits you most is just one step away from using the force yourself. That doesn't mean republicans are right or democrats are wrong. It just means your idea that people should vote for what helps themselves the most as priority number one is stupid. Not to mention that is what most CEOs are accused of doing and we all know what the opinion of CEOs who line their pockets at the expense of others is.
Slashdot Mirror
u mad bro?
A dollar shouldn't be a relevant unit of power in a democracy.
Why? I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, it's obviously thought out, but it all hinges on this belief. I do believe that most wealthy people got that way because they bring something of value that other people see and want to freely engage in to their mutual benefit. Sometimes people misjudge and it isn't to their mutual benefit and they're taken for a ride, but I think the free exchange of dollars is the most democratic process in the world. The fact that people freely engaged in trade with this man so he could get to where he is now in his position, is exactly democratic. The fact that he continues to make profit (in general) from doing what you're saying he shouldn't do validates that people want what he's selling.
That you see this effect and think it isn't right makes me feel like you're the one who doesn't truly believe in the philosophies that democracy is built on. You see people disagreeing with you (in that they find value in Fox News in spite of the wealth of alternative sources of information) and you declare it to be anti-democratic because he is wealthy (because people find value in his other ventures and in Fox News), and more than that say you didn't vote for him and his wealth shouldn't be used to influence the national debate. People go to Fox News, people buy his papers and they do it of their own will, and you claim it to be not democratic? What do you want to do, shut him down? That doesn't sound very democratic and freedom-loving to me. It sounds like sour grapes. Stand on your own ideas, as he does, right or wrong. In the days of the internet it is easier than ever. Just look at the huffington post.
Is disagree. I think this is exactly the kind of tough politics we've needed. Too long, too many people have been unwilling to make any meaningful changes to a system everybody agrees isn't going to hold up forever. In fact, they keep making it worse. Maybe tax revenues are the way forward, maybe all spending cuts until the economy gets better is the right path. I'm not going to weigh in on that. However, at least as a nation we're all aware of what is going on and something real is going to come of this (hopefully). The scare tactics around the issue of not raising the debt ceiling is the only problem I see with this debate. And the way I see it, Obama is doing that to manipulate the public in to agreeing with his way forward by making villains of the Republicans.
We voted for him with our eyeballs and dollars. Sorry you live in a society with a belief in the freedom to express your opinions and ideas. I know you must hate it. That's why you have to come here to express your opinions and ideas. But people don't give a shit about what you say, so it's not fair. Right?
You're using a lot of scare tactics. Sometimes when a business spends itself in to a hole it has to make cuts and that hurts their employees. Guess what? We aren't living in gumdrop fairy land. A congress was elected with this specifically as its goal: Cut government spending. That's what they're trying to do, and they're being blocked. In their minds the problem of letting this problem go on is greater than the problem of laying off some people for a month. There is no magic bullet that leads to nothing but good. No matter which way we go to settle the debt issue, some people will be effed in the A. Disagree on ideology, but this whole "they're going to put grannies on the street!" scare tactics bullshit doesn't fly with me. I'd rather see politicans willing to make a hard, possibly unpopular, call than pussy-foot around and just spend more and more money, ignoring the problem, until we're unable to pull ourselves out by any means.
This isn't to say the Republicans are right in the legislative track they want to take, but I think holding the debt ceiling as a poker chip is absolutely fair game. Why else would you have a debt ceiling? The other side is exaggerating the consequences by acting as if the worst possible allocation of funds is the only option when it isn't. That's lying to the American public in hopes of scaring them in to a position, and I don't think that is fair game at all. Perhaps you see lying as a valid political tool, and not the process of law. If that's the case, we'll just have to disagree.
You can say with certainty we will default without the numbers, why can't we say with certainty we won't without the numbers? Obama says we will, a lot of republican congressmen say we won't. Looks like we've got ourselves a he-said-she-said situation, don't we?
Oh, wait, except here are the numbers: http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0611.pdf. You fucking lose.
I think very few people want no taxes, but at the next meeting I'll bring it up.
How about any number of on-going federal projects that aren't really in the realm of veteran's benefits or social security? The whole descretionary budget is up for grabs before default and entitlements. Obviously not forever, but until the ceiling is raised. This scare tactic of starving grannies, dying vets and default is ridiculous when we have revenue to cover those things, just not everything. Why pick the most harmful ones to showcase as being what won't be paid? That's like saying a pay cut cost you your home when you paid for a brand new kitchen after being notified. Sure, it would have been nice to have the new appliances, but don't you think keeping the house is more important?
Why do you think we would default when only 1/10 of our revenue is required to service the debt? Is it because you think Obama will choose to pay for relative fluff than pay our creditors?
How would you like to have none of your money, 100% government control, and be unable to protect yourself from the masses? That would be a great improvement! You can be a normal fucking person and realize that "too much in taxes" doesn't mean "I want no taxes or government" it just means "I think this is too much in taxes." Or you can cast people who disagree with you off in to a position that isn't theirs, but you don't have to think about and can reject on its face. That's political discourse, right?
Yeah but what if you go in there and say $specific_target knowing that hitting $specific_target while appearing to be in line with the goals may also cause a huge reaction that will destroy the racist movement because there were $retarded_children inside? Why are you reducing the infiltrators to complete morons?
Debt can't just be called in. You're an idiot. $600 billion? That's nothing even close to bringing us to our knees even if they could do it. And it's debt.
Right.... Do you feel this way about paying to see a musical because you can't take the actors home with you? How about paintball or minigolf? Are they big scams because they take back the gun and putter when you leave, and at the end of the course your ball disappears? Theme parks that you have to keep re-purchasing enterance too, yeah its all just scams!
Oh, so if I share my information with google and google alone (per our agreement) and then google sets up a server to share all of it with anybody who wants it, that's ok?
They allow you to opt out of the targeted ad shit, its a checkbox very plainly visible.
Oh definitely. As a male, I'm a big supporter of the double standard.
Inflation is when a unit of currency buys less goods or services than it used to. It is not the opposite of that. Inflation is caused by excessive growth of the money supply, which can not happen with gold because it is limited, and this makes it a very stable currency. More to the point gold is doubling in value as measured by dollars! Dollars are the thing inflating, not gold! Ask yourself, would you rather be working for something that deteriorates in value or grows in value? Have you ever heard of an investment?
So let me explain this to you: he was saying going to the gold standard would destroy our country because the price of gold skyrocketed, which would be inflation. That's not true. When the Euro gets stronger compared to the dollar, that is not the Euro inflating, it is the dollar inflating. Gold is going up because of a weak (inflating) dollar. You can't say that the price of something (in this case gold) going up in dollars is evidence that if we were to use that something as a currency we would have rampant inflation. It makes no sense.
Our currency more than doubling in value is what you consider inflation? Are you... oh... you're posting AC. Nevermind. If filling out a registration form is too taxing for you, which-number-is-biggeristics is way too advanced. Knowing when to properly apply the concept is even harder than that. No, even economics 101 is out of your reach.
Well don't you know you should accept your little fatty for who s/he is instead of judging her/him and hurting her/his little feelings when you suggest s/he go on a diet or get more exercise? You aren't supposed to care about such things as weight, it's harmful for their emotions!
If his kid is getting pushed on a swing, falling off, and crying, he is probably a little young for wandering off alone in the forest if for no other reason than he might get lost. I myself spent a lot of time in the woods when I was 7 - 10 though.
I believe it is a reference to the double standard. Guys are championed for their sexual prowess while girls are considered sluts when they get around. Combine it with the fact that guys don't screw around in their 30's and 40's because they never did before, they usually do it for other reasons. Most of which is ego-stroking. Globally, women are much more sexually restricted than men and the consequences of their sexual activity before marriage is much more severe.
Unencrypted no matter what? That's garbage. An omission of cryptography standards just means its cryptographically agnostic. Do you consider TCP/IP to be 100% unencrypted no matter what? Do you consider ethernet to be 100% unencrypted no matter what? Even written English can be encrypted in any of it's transport protocols (writing, speaking). What about just RAM storage? Can nothing be encrypted in RAM? Bits are bits, you can transform them any way you want, and send them over a dumb wire or dumb air where 1s are defined and 0s are defined, to be translated in any fashion you want.
exploiting 3rd world laborers
Yeah, right. How dare corporations give them a job that isn't up to 1st world standards! The fact that they take these jobs just shows how badly they need work, and it is wrong to give people a job if it isn't a great one. Better to make it so expensive that it isn't worth it to have the factories there at all, leaving them without 1st world knowledge, resources or money to dig themselves out of their current wretched state. Nevermind the industrialization of 1st world countries was pretty brutal. I want to change the world without being constrained by reality! No wait, scratch that, I want the world to change by itself while decrying the people who do invoke change as evil for not doing it to my standards!
The idea that voting should be about which ways to use force so it benefits you most is just one step away from using the force yourself. That doesn't mean republicans are right or democrats are wrong. It just means your idea that people should vote for what helps themselves the most as priority number one is stupid. Not to mention that is what most CEOs are accused of doing and we all know what the opinion of CEOs who line their pockets at the expense of others is.