What do you most admire about each of your opponents?
(I think this would be a great question if for no other reason than to see who can be nice and who either can't answer the question, or feels compelled to use it as a launching pad for his own agenda.)
Then we must assume that the years of deficits were a time of undertaxation (you may call it overspending, but we didn't bring in enough dpugh, causing our current $6,000,000,000,000 debt). The point is, we need to pay the piper. I think we should pay the debt completely, and then put what we save every year in interest into permanent tax cuts. But that debt has got to go.
From WWWebster Dictionary: agnostic:
n: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
I think that's about as un-dogmatic as anything can get. When was the last time you had an agnostic trying to convert you to agnosticism? "Hey, man, have you heard the word? There may or may not be a god! Hallelujah!"
I do live in Mineesota, and what I have found to be the best aspect of Jesse's tenure is this: He has an open mind. He doesn't claim to know everything, and he doesn't have a party line to follow. He can say that maybe we should look into legalizing prostitution or drugs without fearing a diminished role in his party. The one thing that just sickens me about the major party candidates is that they have a predigested response for every issue (although sometimes Bush looks like a deer in the headlights before he starts spitting out whatever springs to mind in a disjointed manner, not unlike a child who didn't do his homework and just got called on).
Jesse is willing to say, "I don't know about that. I'll have to do some more research." And he's willing to come to a conclusion that is not necessarily politically expedient.
How in the world can higher taxes lead to a second parent getting a job to help pay the taxes? The second parent is going to have to pay taxes on their income, too. And the so-called marriage penalty hits when you have two wage earners, not one.
Of course, the percentage of the budget taken up by these kinds of programs is miniscule when compared with the percentage of the budget taken up by military spending, social security, or interest paid on the debt. In other words, the programs (which you don't specifically mention, so I'm making an educated guess) would probably amount to an extra $20/year per American.
I do think kids should have at least one parent (male or female) at home. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Parents seem to be increasingly looking for someone else to do their job for them. This has been happening as long as I can remember (circa 1977), and will probably continue to happen.
Bush did not say, "It's not the internet, it's society". He said (paraphrasing) "It's the internet because of society." This implies that the internet does, indeed, have the power to corrupt young hearts. He makes no mention of parenting. He goes on to imply that character is something that can be taught by having a class.
We all know about the pmrc. But face it - Tipper would be first lady, not an official. What we probably don't know, because of all the false assumptions and rumors that spread on the internet and traditional news, is that Lieberman is not in favor of any sort of censorship. He has been a big proponent of industry self regulation on these sorts of things.
BTW, your definitions of political wings are false. In fact, these two terms are not even opposites. Conservatism, as a word, has little to do with the constitution. After all, there was a Conservative party in the British parliament long before we had a constitution. Conservatives (in the true definition of the term, not in our politics today) tend to favor continuing governance in the way it has been going (e.g. conservatives opposed ending slavery and desegregation, and in Israel oppose giving the Palestinians independence). Liberals (once again, by definition, not by modern practice) favor a more open and transparent government. Liberal thought in the past includes the notion that a government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and the notion that a king is not above the law.
Unfortunately, right-wingers have taken to labeling anything they disagree with as liberal. This has soured a term that should be equated with some of the greatest advances made by mankind. I bet even William Safire agrees with me on this.
Jesse Ventura was able to get himself into the debates (largely because Skip Humphrey figured he would take votes away from Norm Coleman) and held his own. He ran funny ads during The Simpsons. He talked about social tolerance and fiscal responsibility (including the realization that some government spending, e.g. education, is more an investment) - a political philosophy you don't largely find in republicrats or democans, but seems to be quite popular amongst younger disaffected voters. He spoke with common sense instead of political wisdom.
And you know what?
Minnesota had by far the biggest turnout of any state in that election, lead by youngsters. We elected him, and most of us are pretty happy with the job he's done.
Now, I don't think we can jump right from that to getting someone like that into the White House. There's a lot of work left to be done to lay the groundwork. The best blueprint of how to do this (strategically, not philosophically) is the National Socialists of Germany in the 1930s. You need to start small. Target a vulnerable house seat or two. Put all of your resources into winning those one or two seats. The next election, you'll have incumbency and, with any luck, a general buzz of legitimacy. That should help you double your seat count, and maybe get a seat in the senate. And you just keep building, and don't overreach your capabilities. Eventually you'll get to the point where you can put forth a candidate for president and be taken seriously.
Unfortunately, our (American, obviously) society is so hooked on quick-fixes that I am not sure there are enough people out there willing to put in the necessary work to get this accomplished. But it is possible.
Explaining to you why Race X is inferior, and inciting you to kill as many members of Race X as you encounter is hate speech and a crime in most countries.
Hate speech is not, at least in the US, a crime. Inciting a riot is. Threatening someone is. Instructing someone to commit violence is. However, saying someone is inferior because of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, OS preference, or whatever, is not illegal. Saying that you wouldn't mind if they all died in some nasty way is not either, unless you are specifically intending that someone act on it.
One thing that a lot of slashdotters seem to be tripping over is the fact that the judge was refering to deleted files, not all emails. I presume (although I haven't had a chance to read his actual paper yet) that the six month statute of limitations he refers to is from the time the file is deleted, not created.
If you are all so damn mad that rich people can go out and make policy then here's a novel idea.. become a rich person.
Man, why didn't I think of that before?
The only problem is that there's a limit to the amount of people who can be rich at a given time. And while it's pretty cool that Warren Buffet went from rags to riches, he had an awful lot of luck. And I can tell you this: There's only so much luck to go around.
I think that what the original poster's comment meant is that a gun (regardless of the skill of the user) has the innate ability to physically harm. I don't advocate outlawing guns, but I would certainly agree that guns are inherently dangerous - indeed, that's the whole point.
If a company puts out ten records selling a total of one million copies, the average is the same whether they sell 100,000 each or one million of one title and none of the rest. The average is (total copies sold)/(titles released). Do the math. In your example, you aren't counting the records released that don't sell any copies, which I guarantee you count towards the average.
For those of us who can't afford an Athlon of the same clock speed ($200 difference at 700 MHz)
$200 dollar difference? I just got a T-Bird 800 for less than $200, so unless you know of someplace that's paying people to take Durons, you are either geting screwed or you're full of @#*!.
BTW, I can OC that puppy to 1 GHz without any cooling besides a cpu fan.
Martin Luther King Jr. broke the law. Rosa Parks, too. Ghandi. George Washington. What a bunch of dishonest people.
I know you're going to say you can't say MP3.com is the same. I agree that the law in question is not as gross a violation of human rights as the laws these folks willfully disobeyed, but that doesn't mean it isn't an unjust law, and it doesn't mean there isn't a parallel.
I fear nothing so much as living in a country where the citizens blindly obey every law because it's the law. If that's not a recipe for oppression, I don't know what is.
Used CDs are covered by the first sale doctrine, a specially granted right. ISPs are given special rights under DMCA. Napster tried to argue they were an ISP in their case, and the argument was firmly rejected. CD players do not depend on the RIAA, but even if they did, they are not transferring the data user to user, so this is specious.
This being said, There are cases in which commercial use of IP without permission is considered Fair Use. The most obvious example is for reviewing purposes.
I am not anti-MP3.com or Napster. I unfortunately think we will have to change laws so copyright holders must demonstrate damage being caused by the current offenders. By this test, MP3.com is certainly okay. Napster would be shaky, but less so than currently. It would be a fair resolution.
Slashdot Mirror
If my talent is not worth $100K, then no one will pay me that.
Explain Ryan Leaf!
Then you need to listen to Rush, the Tragically Hip, or the Cowboy Junkies.
What do you most admire about each of your opponents?
(I think this would be a great question if for no other reason than to see who can be nice and who either can't answer the question, or feels compelled to use it as a launching pad for his own agenda.)
How about if they are on the ballot in enough states to win a majority of the electoral college?
Then we must assume that the years of deficits were a time of undertaxation (you may call it overspending, but we didn't bring in enough dpugh, causing our current $6,000,000,000,000 debt). The point is, we need to pay the piper. I think we should pay the debt completely, and then put what we save every year in interest into permanent tax cuts. But that debt has got to go.
From WWWebster Dictionary:
agnostic: n: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
I think that's about as un-dogmatic as anything can get. When was the last time you had an agnostic trying to convert you to agnosticism? "Hey, man, have you heard the word? There may or may not be a god! Hallelujah!"
I do live in Mineesota, and what I have found to be the best aspect of Jesse's tenure is this: He has an open mind. He doesn't claim to know everything, and he doesn't have a party line to follow. He can say that maybe we should look into legalizing prostitution or drugs without fearing a diminished role in his party. The one thing that just sickens me about the major party candidates is that they have a predigested response for every issue (although sometimes Bush looks like a deer in the headlights before he starts spitting out whatever springs to mind in a disjointed manner, not unlike a child who didn't do his homework and just got called on).
Jesse is willing to say, "I don't know about that. I'll have to do some more research." And he's willing to come to a conclusion that is not necessarily politically expedient.
a private company needs to spend money to make money
It sounds like the perfect enterprise for a consortium of start-up dot-coms! Who needs profit?
Unfortunately, she doesn't meet the constitutional requirements to be President at this point in time...
Yeah, and what did that bastard ever do for us?
Corporations, or rather, businesses, create an emormous amount of wealth.
In the same way that Gore took the initiative in creating the Internet!
How in the world can higher taxes lead to a second parent getting a job to help pay the taxes? The second parent is going to have to pay taxes on their income, too. And the so-called marriage penalty hits when you have two wage earners, not one.
Of course, the percentage of the budget taken up by these kinds of programs is miniscule when compared with the percentage of the budget taken up by military spending, social security, or interest paid on the debt. In other words, the programs (which you don't specifically mention, so I'm making an educated guess) would probably amount to an extra $20/year per American.
I do think kids should have at least one parent (male or female) at home. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Parents seem to be increasingly looking for someone else to do their job for them. This has been happening as long as I can remember (circa 1977), and will probably continue to happen.
Bush did not say, "It's not the internet, it's society". He said (paraphrasing) "It's the internet because of society." This implies that the internet does, indeed, have the power to corrupt young hearts. He makes no mention of parenting. He goes on to imply that character is something that can be taught by having a class.
We all know about the pmrc. But face it - Tipper would be first lady, not an official. What we probably don't know, because of all the false assumptions and rumors that spread on the internet and traditional news, is that Lieberman is not in favor of any sort of censorship. He has been a big proponent of industry self regulation on these sorts of things.
BTW, your definitions of political wings are false. In fact, these two terms are not even opposites. Conservatism, as a word, has little to do with the constitution. After all, there was a Conservative party in the British parliament long before we had a constitution. Conservatives (in the true definition of the term, not in our politics today) tend to favor continuing governance in the way it has been going (e.g. conservatives opposed ending slavery and desegregation, and in Israel oppose giving the Palestinians independence). Liberals (once again, by definition, not by modern practice) favor a more open and transparent government. Liberal thought in the past includes the notion that a government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and the notion that a king is not above the law.
Unfortunately, right-wingers have taken to labeling anything they disagree with as liberal. This has soured a term that should be equated with some of the greatest advances made by mankind. I bet even William Safire agrees with me on this.
Time to catch my breath.
Hey, Look what happened here in Minnesota.
Jesse Ventura was able to get himself into the debates (largely because Skip Humphrey figured he would take votes away from Norm Coleman) and held his own. He ran funny ads during The Simpsons. He talked about social tolerance and fiscal responsibility (including the realization that some government spending, e.g. education, is more an investment) - a political philosophy you don't largely find in republicrats or democans, but seems to be quite popular amongst younger disaffected voters. He spoke with common sense instead of political wisdom.
And you know what?
Minnesota had by far the biggest turnout of any state in that election, lead by youngsters. We elected him, and most of us are pretty happy with the job he's done.
Now, I don't think we can jump right from that to getting someone like that into the White House. There's a lot of work left to be done to lay the groundwork. The best blueprint of how to do this (strategically, not philosophically) is the National Socialists of Germany in the 1930s. You need to start small. Target a vulnerable house seat or two. Put all of your resources into winning those one or two seats. The next election, you'll have incumbency and, with any luck, a general buzz of legitimacy. That should help you double your seat count, and maybe get a seat in the senate. And you just keep building, and don't overreach your capabilities. Eventually you'll get to the point where you can put forth a candidate for president and be taken seriously.
Unfortunately, our (American, obviously) society is so hooked on quick-fixes that I am not sure there are enough people out there willing to put in the necessary work to get this accomplished. But it is possible.
As a near-canadian (grew up in northen VT), I would agree - It's not "aboot", it's "aboat". Try it. I think you'll agree.
Or like being lectured on the dangers of drugs by GW Bush.
Explaining to you why Race X is inferior, and inciting you to kill as many members of Race X as you encounter is hate speech and a crime in most countries.
Hate speech is not, at least in the US, a crime. Inciting a riot is. Threatening someone is. Instructing someone to commit violence is. However, saying someone is inferior because of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, OS preference, or whatever, is not illegal. Saying that you wouldn't mind if they all died in some nasty way is not either, unless you are specifically intending that someone act on it.
One thing that a lot of slashdotters seem to be tripping over is the fact that the judge was refering to deleted files, not all emails. I presume (although I haven't had a chance to read his actual paper yet) that the six month statute of limitations he refers to is from the time the file is deleted, not created.
And I could sure go for that Tab right about now...
If you are all so damn mad that rich people can go out and make policy then here's a novel idea.. become a rich person.
Man, why didn't I think of that before?
The only problem is that there's a limit to the amount of people who can be rich at a given time. And while it's pretty cool that Warren Buffet went from rags to riches, he had an awful lot of luck. And I can tell you this: There's only so much luck to go around.
I think that what the original poster's comment meant is that a gun (regardless of the skill of the user) has the innate ability to physically harm. I don't advocate outlawing guns, but I would certainly agree that guns are inherently dangerous - indeed, that's the whole point.
If a company puts out ten records selling a total of one million copies, the average is the same whether they sell 100,000 each or one million of one title and none of the rest. The average is (total copies sold)/(titles released). Do the math. In your example, you aren't counting the records released that don't sell any copies, which I guarantee you count towards the average.
That's only if they would have bought it anyway (which I don't see happening). Duh!
For those of us who can't afford an Athlon of the same clock speed ($200 difference at 700 MHz)
$200 dollar difference? I just got a T-Bird 800 for less than $200, so unless you know of someplace that's paying people to take Durons, you are either geting screwed or you're full of @#*!.
BTW, I can OC that puppy to 1 GHz without any cooling besides a cpu fan.
Martin Luther King Jr. broke the law. Rosa Parks, too. Ghandi. George Washington. What a bunch of dishonest people.
I know you're going to say you can't say MP3.com is the same. I agree that the law in question is not as gross a violation of human rights as the laws these folks willfully disobeyed, but that doesn't mean it isn't an unjust law, and it doesn't mean there isn't a parallel.
I fear nothing so much as living in a country where the citizens blindly obey every law because it's the law. If that's not a recipe for oppression, I don't know what is.
Used CDs are covered by the first sale doctrine, a specially granted right. ISPs are given special rights under DMCA. Napster tried to argue they were an ISP in their case, and the argument was firmly rejected. CD players do not depend on the RIAA, but even if they did, they are not transferring the data user to user, so this is specious.
This being said, There are cases in which commercial use of IP without permission is considered Fair Use. The most obvious example is for reviewing purposes.
I am not anti-MP3.com or Napster. I unfortunately think we will have to change laws so copyright holders must demonstrate damage being caused by the current offenders. By this test, MP3.com is certainly okay. Napster would be shaky, but less so than currently. It would be a fair resolution.