No, I'm pretty sure you're right. I know Orthodox Judaism is not opposed to trying to get Reformed and Conservative jews to switch, but I'm pretty sure there is no Envangelical Judaism.
You can see by my handle that I have interest in your statement.
Well, I was about to point out the flaw of using the Tao Te Ching as an example of libertarian thought. I don't have my handy copy here, so I looked it up on google, and found dozens of translations. Each one has a different focus. Some seemed to have more of a libertarian bent, some more totalitarian. So, my point now is that the TTC is amazing in that it have so many different interpretations, including yours.
That being said, I am curious about how you interpret the passage ties theft to ownership, and the passage that advocates emptying ones subjects' minds and filling their bellies. Those two sentiments seem (to me) diametrically opposed to Libertarianism.
Of course, look at how far technology has advanced in the past 50 years, as opposed to the 2000 before that. Particularly medical and computer technology.
I mean, there really only can be one "true" religion.
Well, that depends on your belief system. According to Hinduism, for example, there are four paths to enlightenment. One of these is devotion. Now, it doesn't matter to what you are devoted, just as long as it's true devotion. By that token, you can live as a Christian and still be a good Hindu, whereas you can't live as a Hindu and still be a good Christian.
As far as I know, there are just three primary religions (although I'm sure there are a number of minor faiths, as well) that specifically say they are the only true religion. They are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Pardon me, moderator, but I'm not sure how this is a troll. I was responding directly to the point the original poster made, and he even thought I made good points. Or is it because I am passionate about this?
the only thing they cared about was to have enough people vote so that some sort of minimal percentage (25 or 50 - I don't remember) was reached
You mention this as an aside, but what if we required a quorum for the results of an election to count? That would make not voting because you don't like any of the choices a legitimate choice, and might lead to having decent candidates. Of course, there's the danger that you don't reach a quorum , and then in the follow-up you don't reach a quorum, etc. But still, it's an interesting thought.
In general, it would seem to me that people who voluntarily join the military care more about the direction that the country is headed than your average Joe Sixpack.
I've known too many people who have volunteered for the military to believe this to be true. Please note I am not trying to make a blanket statement about soldiers, but the people I know who have volunteered have without exception joined because they didn't know where they were going with their lives, and the military seemed like as good a route as any. These guys are Joe Sixpack.
If you want to back a winner you will try and determine which (Bore/Gush) big party candidate is most likely to get the most votes.
I think you're mistaken if you believe that's why people vote for a major party candidate. There are some, like myself, who actually like one of the big two better than any of the 3rd'ers (Gore in my case - I am big on free trade, Liberal on social policies, and believe that we as a society have an obligation to those less fortunate while being moderate on taxation. Gore is the closest to that.)
And there are those who are in battleground states, may or may not be keen on one of the big two, but can't stand the thought of the other winning. In my mind, this is a perfectly acceptable. Let's take a hypothetical situation: Jimmy Carter and Joseph Stalin are the two big party candidates, and Lyndon LaRouche is also running. You prefer Larouche, who is not particularly popular to Carter. However, Stalin is right out as you are opposed to his you-killing policy. In your state, The polls show 48% for Stalin, 47% for Carter, and 5% for your guy. Do you make a stand, or do you go for the best likely outcome?
I realize this is an absurd exageration, but there are many people who feel that strongly about not wanting Gore, and many who feel that way about Bush. If you intend to use you vote to get the best likely outcome, it makes perfect sense to not vote for your favorite.
Most voucher plans put a ceiling on the amount of money you can make and still qualify. That said, there are other problems with vouchers:
1) Private schools are not required, as are publics, to admit everyone. Therefore, those with the biggest educational needs are locked out.
2) The parents most likely to take advantage of them are already involved with their children's education, which any teacher, administrator, psychologist, or other expert will tell you is the most important factor in quality education. Once again, those most in need are locked out.
3) Vouchers generally cover only about 50-60% the cost of tuition. Those who can't afford that other 40-50% are once again locked out.
4) Those who are left in the "bad" schools are likely to be those most in need, and they have fewer and fewer resources.
I know there are other reasons that I just can't think of right now. Education is not business. The losers are not just the teachers at bad schools. They are the kids who don't already have an advantage. They are the communities with lower property values. Most of all, they are us in society as a whole.
The number one thing we can do is abolish the property tax and fund schools on a per-pupil basis at the state level through some other more equitable means.
What good does it do to create a political party, if you're not going to vote for its candidates? NONE! The whole thing is our political system depends on votes. By not voicing yourself, you are implicitly agreeing to the status quo. If you don't like the main candidates, vote for a third party candidate you do like. Myself, I like Gore (I know I'm one of five people, but I actually think he is the best available candidate). If you don't like anyone who's running, vote for who is closest to your view, or start your own party. But never, ever give up your vote. My ancestors (and, most likely, yours as well) DIED so we can vote. Nothing makes me angrier than people pissing on that!
That's not splitting hairs. The constitution is the law of the land, and the declaration of independence is not. This is not some nitpick, this is a very real difference. By the way, the declaration of independence did not establish this country, the constitution did. All the DoI did was decare to King George that the colonies would not be beholden to British laws, and were each sovereign states:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
The words "united States of America" do appear, but it is clear from the fact that the "u" is lower case that TJ refers to the states as being united in this cause, and not as a nation. He specifically refers to "Free and Independent States", not a free and independent nation.
I, and many others, would argue that the United States of America was established by the constitution. Keep in mind that the constitution was ratified separately by each state at a time when each state had separate currency and separate trade laws and treaties. The Constitution is what bound us together as a cohesive nation.
Of course, this is a separate question from whether or not life begins at birth or conception....
Although between 0 and 1 a log increases quite dramatically...
At least it's clear (geometrically, explosively) what he meant in this case. It seems like he was groping for just the right word and happened upon just the wrong one.
All that interest we're paying is going right back into the taxpayer's pockets.
... If a given taxpayer holds t-bills or bonds. The amount we are paying on interest alone is $300,000,000,000/year. That's more than $1,000/year per man, woman and child. I personally resent paying that amount of my tax bill directly into someone else's pocket.
As far as what happens to the stock market, look at it this way. Reducing the debt naturally exerts a downward pressure on interest rates, which in turn means less chance of inflation, which in turn means wages grow in relation to the standard of living, which in turn means people have more money to invest (in addition to the money they don't have to pay in debt servicing), which in turn means publicly traded companies have 1) a greater supply of capital, and 2) a larger market base to which to sell goods and services. That sounds like a pretty good outcome for the stock market.
I'm not going to say that every sector of the economy would benefit. I will say, thought, that the benefits to our economy as a whole would far outweigh the costs. And you can ask Alan Greenspan about that.
Why couldn't consumer only p2p be considered an "organization"? Something along the lines of a co-op. I think that's something that will either be tightened up in commitee or in the courts.
One thing to remember, slashdotters, is that this bill is still in commitee. This is where language is tweaked, stroked, twiddled, and otherwise tinkered-with, until it is to the liking of the committee or deemed unworkable. IOW, there's a lot of work ahead for this thing to get through. Unfortunately, my congressman is dead (Bruce Vento), and even if he weren't, he wasn't on the Judiciary committee, so I can't tell him to make sure it isn't gutted. If yours is, it's not enough to tell him (or her) that you want it to pass. You need to be very clear about why it is important, or it's quite possible they'll pass a version that makes it infeasibile(un-?) for anyone to take advantage of it, and then say, "Hey, I passed that bill you wanted!" No Bait-and-Switch!
I'm curious which rights you believe he thinks he should have that you don't. The right to serve in the military? The right to see his partner in the hospital, should something bad happen? The right to adopt? The right to hold a job without fear of losing it just because of his sexual orientation?
Strictly speaking, Moore's Law is neither exponential nor logarithmic. It is geometric: the rate of increase is 2x/18. There is no exponent or logarithm to be seen.
Re:Where did Browne go to school?
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
You might want to check your facts. Gore, in fact, graduated with honors from Harvard. He volunteered to serve in Viet Nam. His duty may not have been the most dangerous, but you cannot accuse someone who went to war by his choice of avoiding the war. Yes, he got bad grades in seminary, but I think it's safe to surmise that his day job was simply more important to him than school. I think at least 30% of slashdotters could say the same.
That being said, I think the original post was going for humor and irony, and I think you would do well to laugh rather than bitterly grind your axe.
Re:There's also an education issue
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
As opposed to today, where you have the media basically running the country through means of their carefully biased "analysis" of the issues, all condensed into a handy soundbite. Hmmm.
This is definitely true. However, It does reflect on his ability to articulate a position under pressure, which is a key component of the job for which he is auditioning.
Read his policy statements.
Which could very well be written by his staff, and not him (the same is, of course, true for Gore). The problem is I have never once seen Bush articulate a specific position, and I've been watching him since before the primaries. He is rather good at speaking of empty platitudes, but he has not once clearly stated his plan. That concerns me.
But CmdrTaco also says he is biased, whereas Sam Donaldson does not. AND you have a chance to respond directly to Taco in the very same space to the very same audience, which is not the case on network news.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm pretty sure you're right. I know Orthodox Judaism is not opposed to trying to get Reformed and Conservative jews to switch, but I'm pretty sure there is no Envangelical Judaism.
You can see by my handle that I have interest in your statement.
Well, I was about to point out the flaw of using the Tao Te Ching as an example of libertarian thought. I don't have my handy copy here, so I looked it up on google, and found dozens of translations. Each one has a different focus. Some seemed to have more of a libertarian bent, some more totalitarian. So, my point now is that the TTC is amazing in that it have so many different interpretations, including yours.
That being said, I am curious about how you interpret the passage ties theft to ownership, and the passage that advocates emptying ones subjects' minds and filling their bellies. Those two sentiments seem (to me) diametrically opposed to Libertarianism.
Of course, look at how far technology has advanced in the past 50 years, as opposed to the 2000 before that. Particularly medical and computer technology.
I mean, there really only can be one "true" religion.
Well, that depends on your belief system. According to Hinduism, for example, there are four paths to enlightenment. One of these is devotion. Now, it doesn't matter to what you are devoted, just as long as it's true devotion. By that token, you can live as a Christian and still be a good Hindu, whereas you can't live as a Hindu and still be a good Christian.
As far as I know, there are just three primary religions (although I'm sure there are a number of minor faiths, as well) that specifically say they are the only true religion. They are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Damn Straight! It sounds like you're talking about Jesse Ventura. Can we elect him even if he doesn't run?
Only congress has power to declare war (Article I, Section 8).
Pardon me, moderator, but I'm not sure how this is a troll. I was responding directly to the point the original poster made, and he even thought I made good points. Or is it because I am passionate about this?
Whatever. It's only karma.
the only thing they cared about was to have enough people vote so that some sort of minimal percentage (25 or 50 - I don't remember) was reached
You mention this as an aside, but what if we required a quorum for the results of an election to count? That would make not voting because you don't like any of the choices a legitimate choice, and might lead to having decent candidates. Of course, there's the danger that you don't reach a quorum , and then in the follow-up you don't reach a quorum, etc. But still, it's an interesting thought.
In general, it would seem to me that people who voluntarily join the military care more about the direction that the country is headed than your average Joe Sixpack.
I've known too many people who have volunteered for the military to believe this to be true. Please note I am not trying to make a blanket statement about soldiers, but the people I know who have volunteered have without exception joined because they didn't know where they were going with their lives, and the military seemed like as good a route as any. These guys are Joe Sixpack.
If you want to back a winner you will try and determine which (Bore/Gush) big party candidate is most likely to get the most votes.
I think you're mistaken if you believe that's why people vote for a major party candidate. There are some, like myself, who actually like one of the big two better than any of the 3rd'ers (Gore in my case - I am big on free trade, Liberal on social policies, and believe that we as a society have an obligation to those less fortunate while being moderate on taxation. Gore is the closest to that.)
And there are those who are in battleground states, may or may not be keen on one of the big two, but can't stand the thought of the other winning. In my mind, this is a perfectly acceptable. Let's take a hypothetical situation: Jimmy Carter and Joseph Stalin are the two big party candidates, and Lyndon LaRouche is also running. You prefer Larouche, who is not particularly popular to Carter. However, Stalin is right out as you are opposed to his you-killing policy. In your state, The polls show 48% for Stalin, 47% for Carter, and 5% for your guy. Do you make a stand, or do you go for the best likely outcome?
I realize this is an absurd exageration, but there are many people who feel that strongly about not wanting Gore, and many who feel that way about Bush. If you intend to use you vote to get the best likely outcome, it makes perfect sense to not vote for your favorite.
Of course, this is a separate question from whether or not life begins at birth or conception....
It just occurred to me that, humorously enough, that's almost what we're discussing, except the life in question is that of the nation.
Most voucher plans put a ceiling on the amount of money you can make and still qualify. That said, there are other problems with vouchers:
1) Private schools are not required, as are publics, to admit everyone. Therefore, those with the biggest educational needs are locked out.
2) The parents most likely to take advantage of them are already involved with their children's education, which any teacher, administrator, psychologist, or other expert will tell you is the most important factor in quality education. Once again, those most in need are locked out.
3) Vouchers generally cover only about 50-60% the cost of tuition. Those who can't afford that other 40-50% are once again locked out.
4) Those who are left in the "bad" schools are likely to be those most in need, and they have fewer and fewer resources.
I know there are other reasons that I just can't think of right now. Education is not business. The losers are not just the teachers at bad schools. They are the kids who don't already have an advantage. They are the communities with lower property values. Most of all, they are us in society as a whole.
The number one thing we can do is abolish the property tax and fund schools on a per-pupil basis at the state level through some other more equitable means.
What good does it do to create a political party, if you're not going to vote for its candidates? NONE! The whole thing is our political system depends on votes. By not voicing yourself, you are implicitly agreeing to the status quo. If you don't like the main candidates, vote for a third party candidate you do like. Myself, I like Gore (I know I'm one of five people, but I actually think he is the best available candidate). If you don't like anyone who's running, vote for who is closest to your view, or start your own party. But never, ever give up your vote. My ancestors (and, most likely, yours as well) DIED so we can vote. Nothing makes me angrier than people pissing on that!
Who is the ASP Error fellow? His philosphy intrigues me, and I would like to receive more literature.
That's not splitting hairs. The constitution is the law of the land, and the declaration of independence is not. This is not some nitpick, this is a very real difference. By the way, the declaration of independence did not establish this country, the constitution did. All the DoI did was decare to King George that the colonies would not be beholden to British laws, and were each sovereign states:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
The words "united States of America" do appear, but it is clear from the fact that the "u" is lower case that TJ refers to the states as being united in this cause, and not as a nation. He specifically refers to "Free and Independent States", not a free and independent nation.
I, and many others, would argue that the United States of America was established by the constitution. Keep in mind that the constitution was ratified separately by each state at a time when each state had separate currency and separate trade laws and treaties. The Constitution is what bound us together as a cohesive nation.
Of course, this is a separate question from whether or not life begins at birth or conception....
Although between 0 and 1 a log increases quite dramatically ...
At least it's clear (geometrically, explosively) what he meant in this case. It seems like he was groping for just the right word and happened upon just the wrong one.
All that interest we're paying is going right back into the taxpayer's pockets.
... If a given taxpayer holds t-bills or bonds. The amount we are paying on interest alone is $300,000,000,000/year. That's more than $1,000/year per man, woman and child. I personally resent paying that amount of my tax bill directly into someone else's pocket.
As far as what happens to the stock market, look at it this way. Reducing the debt naturally exerts a downward pressure on interest rates, which in turn means less chance of inflation, which in turn means wages grow in relation to the standard of living, which in turn means people have more money to invest (in addition to the money they don't have to pay in debt servicing), which in turn means publicly traded companies have 1) a greater supply of capital, and 2) a larger market base to which to sell goods and services. That sounds like a pretty good outcome for the stock market.
I'm not going to say that every sector of the economy would benefit. I will say, thought, that the benefits to our economy as a whole would far outweigh the costs. And you can ask Alan Greenspan about that.
Fine. But that leaves one big question:
How do you propose to create these "political institutions in which you can truly participate"?
Why couldn't consumer only p2p be considered an "organization"? Something along the lines of a co-op. I think that's something that will either be tightened up in commitee or in the courts.
One thing to remember, slashdotters, is that this bill is still in commitee. This is where language is tweaked, stroked, twiddled, and otherwise tinkered-with, until it is to the liking of the committee or deemed unworkable. IOW, there's a lot of work ahead for this thing to get through. Unfortunately, my congressman is dead (Bruce Vento), and even if he weren't, he wasn't on the Judiciary committee, so I can't tell him to make sure it isn't gutted. If yours is, it's not enough to tell him (or her) that you want it to pass. You need to be very clear about why it is important, or it's quite possible they'll pass a version that makes it infeasibile(un-?) for anyone to take advantage of it, and then say, "Hey, I passed that bill you wanted!" No Bait-and-Switch!
I'm curious which rights you believe he thinks he should have that you don't. The right to serve in the military? The right to see his partner in the hospital, should something bad happen? The right to adopt? The right to hold a job without fear of losing it just because of his sexual orientation?
Strictly speaking, Moore's Law is neither exponential nor logarithmic. It is geometric: the rate of increase is 2x/18. There is no exponent or logarithm to be seen.
You might want to check your facts. Gore, in fact, graduated with honors from Harvard. He volunteered to serve in Viet Nam. His duty may not have been the most dangerous, but you cannot accuse someone who went to war by his choice of avoiding the war. Yes, he got bad grades in seminary, but I think it's safe to surmise that his day job was simply more important to him than school. I think at least 30% of slashdotters could say the same.
That being said, I think the original post was going for humor and irony, and I think you would do well to laugh rather than bitterly grind your axe.
As opposed to today, where you have the media basically running the country through means of their carefully biased "analysis" of the issues, all condensed into a handy soundbite. Hmmm.
Public speaking ability != intelligence.
This is definitely true. However, It does reflect on his ability to articulate a position under pressure, which is a key component of the job for which he is auditioning.
Read his policy statements.
Which could very well be written by his staff, and not him (the same is, of course, true for Gore). The problem is I have never once seen Bush articulate a specific position, and I've been watching him since before the primaries. He is rather good at speaking of empty platitudes, but he has not once clearly stated his plan. That concerns me.
But CmdrTaco also says he is biased, whereas Sam Donaldson does not. AND you have a chance to respond directly to Taco in the very same space to the very same audience, which is not the case on network news.