Yes, duh. I don't know about your school, but in mine they taught us that Columbus showed the world was round. In fact, the Spanish had a pretty clear idea that the world was round at the time, and even had a pretty good estimate of it's size. The reason Columbus had such a hard time financing his voyage to circumnavigate the earth is that the Spaniards rightly knew that there was no way he'd make around the world with the supplies he could carry.
This is a great example of wrong information being taught in school. I can list many others, such as Science teachers explaining that Gyroscopic forces balance a bicycle, that Pluto is a planet, etc.
We teach the best of our science, and we teach the scientific process so that children will understand how to handle new information. Kids should know what a scientific theory actually is, and understand that the knowledge changes over time, and is not set in stone.
This is not true in all cases anymore. The US recently passed laws banning 'sex tourism' which is the act of hiring certain classes of prostitutes while traveling abroad, even when engaging in those acts is legal in other states. The purpose of the law is to prevent US citizens from engaging in sexual acts with young children in foreign countries, even when such acts are legal in the country where the act occurred.
Answer is in the link. The short version is that there are references that lead scholars to believe that there was a spiritual leader named Jesus. We do not have corroboration for much of what happened in the bible, however.
A bit off topic, but on the point of evidence showing that Jesus was a historical person... There is reason to believe he is a historical person, even if there is a lot of evidence to discount the stories about him.
You know what happened when we discovered the holes in Newtonian physics? We got relativistic physics.
Climate modeling is insanely complex, and no one working with the models would state that they are perfect, or that they can ever be perfect. However, the models are predictive. Ignoring them waiting for a perfect model, especially when it's well established that we can't have a perfect model, is just burying your head in the sand.
Another way to look at it: body-weight fluctuates day to day, based on water intake, restroom usage, time of day, etc. It's somewhat difficult to predict to the accuracy of a pound what your weight will be on any given day. It is however easy to predict that your weight will tend to increase on a 4000 calorie all-nacho diet.
They put up what was probably the most moderate Republican candidate since, hell, before I was born in a lousy economy that needed real business know-how...and he still lost by almost 3 million votes to a black man who's never run a company because they forced him to wear that super-conservative Republican platform around his neck like a God damned albatross.
If you look at the economic indicators, large business and investment firms are doing great in this economy. Small business on the other hand is suffering, not due to taxes or regulation, but due to a very weak middle class. That's a problem that can only be solved by growing the middle class; something I don't actually think Romney was capable of doing. Romney's approach seemed to be more of the same from the conservative party. Bust unions, relax hiring and pay regulations, undercut benefits, cut social programs. Policies that are great for business, but tend to undermine the lower and middle class.
BTW... You still kind of missed the point. It doesn't matter if there is fore-warning - you are still spending time learning a new OS, that you could be spending on other productive tasks.
I disagree with you completely. The more proficient your team is on a specific operating system, the more expensive it's going to be to move to a new one. My focus is on RedHat based distros, since that's what's used in the business world. If you asked me to admin a Debian site, or a Freebsd site, or a Solaris site, I'd be absolutely able to pull it off, but my productivity would suffer for a while.
For example, right now I could build a Cobbler host and Kickstart a hundred machines inside of a day or two. If you asked me to do the same with Jumpstart or FAI, the same simple task would probably take me a week. I could absolutely do it, but as a consultant the real cost to my company for moving from Centos to Debian based on that project alone, would be thousands of dollars.
I did switch from Fedora to Ubuntu on my desktop machines. There was definitely a learning curve, and I'm a little slower with system management tasks. It was justified, since Fedora was fairly broken on the equipment I was using. I'm happy I made the switch.
On the other hand, if I was fairly Junior, the cost of switching OS would be lower. Since I'd have a learning curve ahead of me either way, it wouldn't really matter which way we went.
None of this is a complaint about Debian, or Solaris, or BSD. They are all competent and powerful operating systems. It's just an illustration of the potential issues.
I'm very very surprised by the strong reaction I received to my original post.
You missed the point dude. It's not about whether or not someone is able to learn a new OS, It's about the cost of doing so. No matter how flexible you are, you are going to be slower work in an environment you're not used to. Lost productivity probably costs a lot more than you think.
Cost of training is in lost productivity, not necessarily on actual training courses. I'm an admin with 10 years of experience. My productivity would suffer significantly if you gave me a Mac or asked me to manage an unfamiliar distro. A week of lost productivity would easily cost my company thousands of dollars worth of my time.
Spread that out over a company of hundreds, or thousands and the numbers really add up.
Although Obama ran on a platform of supporting same sex marriage, he has come out in favor of it since, and he did end the DADT policy in the military. He's made demonstrable progress on that front. He also seems to have somewhat resisted picking a fight with the states over pot. That's movement in the right direction.
I agree that the government shouldn't be in the Marriage business, however I somewhat disagree with it not being in the civil union business - a civil union has impact on federal tax status, mandating some level of involvement.
Regarding the economy: Business is doing fine. I've made previous posts about economic indicators. The short version, is that additional business stimulus will do nothing to improve the economy. Business have more than enough funds to hire additional people, however they don't because there simply isn't demand to justify it. Demand for goods drives hiring, not the availability of resources. Hiring someone you don't need is simply Altruism, which isn't something many companies are big on. Again, you can't fix the problem by throwing more tax incentives or more money at business.
The issue right now is that real income for the middle and lower class has been falling over the past 30 years. The middle class doesn't have the funds to drive hiring.
We needed a president that would strengthen the middle class, not a president that would continue to push supply side economics and the trickle down theory. The recession ended in 09 for business - we're still waiting for it to end for the employees. The middle and lower classes have only been hurt by trickle down economics.
Regarding the comment about the FAA: I misspoke. I meant that the policy was set by the FAA, not the POTUS.
This isn't really true at all. A GM car is fine in a fleet car - it has a dealer network, a steering wheel, instrumentation, pedals, and a shift lever... Just like every other car.
If Microsoft loses the consumer market, it will lose the corporate market as well. Microsoft owns the corporate desktop market, because users are familiar with it's products. Although it might be cheaper from a licensing and maintenance perspective to put everyone on Ubuntu, the cost of re-training all your employees to use LibreOffice and Unity greatly exceeds the cost of licensing the products.
If however, users become more familiar with another platform, it would start to make much more sense to simply employ that platform in your corporate space. Consider ChromeOS; it's cheap, easy, and readily available. If users become comfortable with that platform, there's absolutely no reason why most of the corporate desktop work couldn't be done on that platform. Microsoft would be in trouble.
Ya'll just voted in the administration that just LOVES to regulate everything about your lives and livelihoods...
Partisan idiot. The other guy ran on an anti homosexuality, anti abortion, anti birth-control platform. We elected the guy who has been actively working to reduce government regulation of our lives and bodies.
Also, this kind of policy is set by the FAA, not the feds. The current FAA administrator is a former pilot and professor.
For what it's worth, the US and Greece aren't the only countries carrying high levels of debt, and this is not the first time US debt has exceeded the GDP.
Quick Google search suggests that economists in the educational sector broadly favored Obama. Business economists were very mixed, but somewhat tended to favor Romney. You provide information about the economists who support your position, but fail to provide information about those who oppose. I think you've fallen victim to Confirmation Bias.
If debt spending is an issue for you, you can't honestly favor conservatives. Although conservatives take the stance of being the anti-debt party, their track record over the past 30 years has been abysmal on that front, with Regan by far having the worst record for debt spending. In that time period, the only conservative president to take a serious stance on the deficit has been Bush Sr, who was unfortunately voted out of office for his position. Comparatively, Clinton actually managed to reverse the trend of debt spending, and Obama seems to also be slowing the rate of spending.
Obama has of course, inherited a very heavy rate of deficit spending, and in his favor, the rate of spending has fallen for every year he's been in office so far. The trend would appear to be continuing with the wind down of the Afghanastan war.
In general, the conservatives seem to have favored tax cuts over budget control, and most of their suggested policies (cutting social services) would not have affected a significant reduction in debt spending. Romney made it very clear in the debate that he has absolutely no intent to reverse debt spending (comments on the size of the navy, inability to provide details of his debt reduction plans, sabre rattling about another war with Iran, etc.) The conservative party appears to be unwilling to touch major sources of debt spending (military) since it brings major income into their respective states. All indicators point to him being another refund-and-spend conservative.
I agree with you that deficit spending is a major issue.
I'm fortunate to be pretty close to the money. If you're close to the money, you're doing fine in this economy. For guys like me, the recession ended in 09. I took a 25% pay cut in 08, and I was back to my former levels a year later. I make more now than I did 5 years ago.
If you look at the data, GDP started rebounding in 09. Corporate profits are back up. Most economic indicators show that business is doing well - many of the indicators are at or above pre-recession levels (housing obviously isn't back to it's bubble levels.)
The fact of the matter is that there's plenty of economic activity in the financial and corporate sectors. But those sectors don't really drive hiring in a service economy. A healthy middle class is what's going to drive hiring. If I make 10x as much as you, I don't buy 10x as many clothes, employ 10x as many mechanics, or eat 10x as many meals. Hiring recovers when the middle and lower class have discretionary spending for those things.
Demand drives hiring my friend, not money. There is plenty of money available to hire more workers, but not enough demand in order to do so. Trickle down economics don't fix that problem. No amount of tax breaks will incentivise a company to hire when they simply don't need more employees. Make sure the middle class is taken care of. Focus on fixing income inequity, control the cost of living. Demand will increase. When people can afford housing again, more houses will be built. When people can afford cars again, the factories in Detroit will need to fill more shifts. Hiring will improve in all sectors of the economy.
Do you really think the party of supply side economics can fix a demand problem?
I believe Romney had the economic know-how to help get the economy back on track
First of all, I'm not actually convinced that the economy is in trouble, based on the gross numbers. GDP is back to it's steady climb after the hit it took in 08. What we're actually looking at here isn't a poor economy, but instead general issues with the cost of living for poor and middle class families, dwindling employment, and low upward mobility*.
Those trends started in the 80s. This was also the decade that we made a move away from Keynesian economics, back towards classical economics and the idea of trickle-down economics. Ever since then, the lower and middle class have seen their real income fall, asset ownership decline, and the cost of living increase.
I'm not convinced that the guy saying "More of the same!" actually has the ability to fix those issues.
* AKA the American dream. For many, that dream is dead.
drugs - that's just like the Democrats. Both parties support laws against drug use and both parties have made it clear that when they're in charge of the national government they won't look the other way when states legalize drug use.
Democrats aren't really united on this one. Libritarians are united in favor, conservatives tend to be united in opposition. Still, it tends to be the democratic states that legalize drugs, and push for reduced sentencing. Trend seems to be towards legalization, and much like gay marrage, I suspect it's the liberals that will make it legal, when it happens.
abortion - right to life trumps other rights. You can't kill someone just because they're inconvenient.
A person has a right to life (unless they are a criminal, appearently.)
A fetus is not a person. The rights of the fetus are trumped by the rights of the mother during the First Trimester. The SCOTUS established that in Roe vs. Wade. It's a good read.
hiring - the Democrate tell you how much you have to pay and in general what you and another person can agree to.
You're in favor of indentured servitude? How about human slavery and the sex trade? Both are situations a person may find themselves voluntarily, either due to misinformation or via social or economic pressure. Let me guess, if they make that decision, it's their own fault?
renting - the Democrats tell you what you can and can't do with your property, and what restrictions you can put on who enters your property
Your in favor of the landlord being able to enter a unit you are renting at any time, for any reason?
running a restaurant - the Democrats tell you whether you can smoke and Bloomberg (Democrat who switched parties but not stripes so he could run) even wants to tell you how big your drinks can be.
Your freedom to smoke vs. my freedom to be smoke free. You're still welcome to smoke on your own property. You're still welcome to make your kids breath your smoke during the most critical time of their development.
It's also illegal for me to enter an establishment naked, or with a huge boom box.
racism - the Democrats forbid people from rejecting racism. Either hire based on race (and do school admissions based on race) or face the wrath of Democrats
Such laws will go away when racism goes away.
heath care - the Democrats tell you what kinds of health care you need to pay for
Nope. They simply require that you have health care, which prevents you from placing a drain on the rest of society by abusing the hospital system.
money - the Democrats take your money so they choose how it is spent
You assume that democrats do not themselves pay taxes. BTW, you'll find that blue states tend to send more money to washington than they take in. Red states tend to recieve more federal money than they pay in taxes.
money - the Democrats take your children's money (though Republicans at times have joined them in doing so) so they can decide how your children's future earnings will be spent today.
President with the best debt record in the past 40 years: Clinton. President with the worst debt record in the past 40 years: Regan.
Bush Sr. was the last conservative president who really addressed spending. Spending under Obama has been trending downward over the past 4 years. It remains to be seen whether or not he spends more than Bush Jr. He does recieve props for taking responsibility for Afghanastan and Iraq war spending rather than hiding the debt for someone else to deal with.
Seriously, how is it that conservatives still believe this shit about their parties fiscal responsibility?
Slashdot Mirror
* Bangs head against desk *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Geographical_considerations
Yes, duh. I don't know about your school, but in mine they taught us that Columbus showed the world was round. In fact, the Spanish had a pretty clear idea that the world was round at the time, and even had a pretty good estimate of it's size. The reason Columbus had such a hard time financing his voyage to circumnavigate the earth is that the Spaniards rightly knew that there was no way he'd make around the world with the supplies he could carry.
This is a great example of wrong information being taught in school. I can list many others, such as Science teachers explaining that Gyroscopic forces balance a bicycle, that Pluto is a planet, etc.
We teach the best of our science, and we teach the scientific process so that children will understand how to handle new information. Kids should know what a scientific theory actually is, and understand that the knowledge changes over time, and is not set in stone.
You mean, like teachng kids that Pluto is a planet or that the Spanish thought the world was flat?
This is not true in all cases anymore. The US recently passed laws banning 'sex tourism' which is the act of hiring certain classes of prostitutes while traveling abroad, even when engaging in those acts is legal in other states. The purpose of the law is to prevent US citizens from engaging in sexual acts with young children in foreign countries, even when such acts are legal in the country where the act occurred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_tourism#Child_sex_tourism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
It's no longer a one time pad, if you use it twice.
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
You're also being pedantic and confusing in that sort of way that detracts from a conversation rather than adding to it.
Answer is in the link. The short version is that there are references that lead scholars to believe that there was a spiritual leader named Jesus. We do not have corroboration for much of what happened in the bible, however.
If I recall correctly, you can recover the key simply by compareing the two encrypted messages. You don't even need the plaintext.
A bit off topic, but on the point of evidence showing that Jesus was a historical person... There is reason to believe he is a historical person, even if there is a lot of evidence to discount the stories about him.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ
You know what happened when we discovered the holes in Newtonian physics? We got relativistic physics.
Climate modeling is insanely complex, and no one working with the models would state that they are perfect, or that they can ever be perfect. However, the models are predictive. Ignoring them waiting for a perfect model, especially when it's well established that we can't have a perfect model, is just burying your head in the sand.
Right. Because there are only two choices - a black one, and a white one.
So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything, so it would seem our science on the matter
is incorrect.
You sir, are a tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming
Another way to look at it: body-weight fluctuates day to day, based on water intake, restroom usage, time of day, etc. It's somewhat difficult to predict to the accuracy of a pound what your weight will be on any given day. It is however easy to predict that your weight will tend to increase on a 4000 calorie all-nacho diet.
They put up what was probably the most moderate Republican candidate since, hell, before I was born in a lousy economy that needed real business know-how...and he still lost by almost 3 million votes to a black man who's never run a company because they forced him to wear that super-conservative Republican platform around his neck like a God damned albatross.
If you look at the economic indicators, large business and investment firms are doing great in this economy. Small business on the other hand is suffering, not due to taxes or regulation, but due to a very weak middle class. That's a problem that can only be solved by growing the middle class; something I don't actually think Romney was capable of doing. Romney's approach seemed to be more of the same from the conservative party. Bust unions, relax hiring and pay regulations, undercut benefits, cut social programs. Policies that are great for business, but tend to undermine the lower and middle class.
BTW... You still kind of missed the point. It doesn't matter if there is fore-warning - you are still spending time learning a new OS, that you could be spending on other productive tasks.
I disagree with you completely. The more proficient your team is on a specific operating system, the more expensive it's going to be to move to a new one. My focus is on RedHat based distros, since that's what's used in the business world. If you asked me to admin a Debian site, or a Freebsd site, or a Solaris site, I'd be absolutely able to pull it off, but my productivity would suffer for a while.
For example, right now I could build a Cobbler host and Kickstart a hundred machines inside of a day or two. If you asked me to do the same with Jumpstart or FAI, the same simple task would probably take me a week. I could absolutely do it, but as a consultant the real cost to my company for moving from Centos to Debian based on that project alone, would be thousands of dollars.
I did switch from Fedora to Ubuntu on my desktop machines. There was definitely a learning curve, and I'm a little slower with system management tasks. It was justified, since Fedora was fairly broken on the equipment I was using. I'm happy I made the switch.
On the other hand, if I was fairly Junior, the cost of switching OS would be lower. Since I'd have a learning curve ahead of me either way, it wouldn't really matter which way we went.
None of this is a complaint about Debian, or Solaris, or BSD. They are all competent and powerful operating systems. It's just an illustration of the potential issues.
I'm very very surprised by the strong reaction I received to my original post.
We tried, but they swift-boated the other guy. I guess we got the president we deserved for that one...
You missed the point dude. It's not about whether or not someone is able to learn a new OS, It's about the cost of doing so. No matter how flexible you are, you are going to be slower work in an environment you're not used to. Lost productivity probably costs a lot more than you think.
Cost of training is in lost productivity, not necessarily on actual training courses. I'm an admin with 10 years of experience. My productivity would suffer significantly if you gave me a Mac or asked me to manage an unfamiliar distro. A week of lost productivity would easily cost my company thousands of dollars worth of my time.
Spread that out over a company of hundreds, or thousands and the numbers really add up.
Although Obama ran on a platform of supporting same sex marriage, he has come out in favor of it since, and he did end the DADT policy in the military. He's made demonstrable progress on that front. He also seems to have somewhat resisted picking a fight with the states over pot. That's movement in the right direction.
I agree that the government shouldn't be in the Marriage business, however I somewhat disagree with it not being in the civil union business - a civil union has impact on federal tax status, mandating some level of involvement.
Regarding the economy: Business is doing fine. I've made previous posts about economic indicators. The short version, is that additional business stimulus will do nothing to improve the economy. Business have more than enough funds to hire additional people, however they don't because there simply isn't demand to justify it. Demand for goods drives hiring, not the availability of resources. Hiring someone you don't need is simply Altruism, which isn't something many companies are big on. Again, you can't fix the problem by throwing more tax incentives or more money at business.
The issue right now is that real income for the middle and lower class has been falling over the past 30 years. The middle class doesn't have the funds to drive hiring.
We needed a president that would strengthen the middle class, not a president that would continue to push supply side economics and the trickle down theory. The recession ended in 09 for business - we're still waiting for it to end for the employees. The middle and lower classes have only been hurt by trickle down economics.
Regarding the comment about the FAA: I misspoke. I meant that the policy was set by the FAA, not the POTUS.
This isn't really true at all. A GM car is fine in a fleet car - it has a dealer network, a steering wheel, instrumentation, pedals, and a shift lever... Just like every other car.
If Microsoft loses the consumer market, it will lose the corporate market as well. Microsoft owns the corporate desktop market, because users are familiar with it's products. Although it might be cheaper from a licensing and maintenance perspective to put everyone on Ubuntu, the cost of re-training all your employees to use LibreOffice and Unity greatly exceeds the cost of licensing the products.
If however, users become more familiar with another platform, it would start to make much more sense to simply employ that platform in your corporate space. Consider ChromeOS; it's cheap, easy, and readily available. If users become comfortable with that platform, there's absolutely no reason why most of the corporate desktop work couldn't be done on that platform. Microsoft would be in trouble.
Partisan idiot. The other guy ran on an anti homosexuality, anti abortion, anti birth-control platform. We elected the guy who has been actively working to reduce government regulation of our lives and bodies.
Also, this kind of policy is set by the FAA, not the feds. The current FAA administrator is a former pilot and professor.
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=58196
For what it's worth, the US and Greece aren't the only countries carrying high levels of debt, and this is not the first time US debt has exceeded the GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/08/us-debt-today-vs-ww2.html
Quick Google search suggests that economists in the educational sector broadly favored Obama. Business economists were very mixed, but somewhat tended to favor Romney. You provide information about the economists who support your position, but fail to provide information about those who oppose. I think you've fallen victim to Confirmation Bias.
If debt spending is an issue for you, you can't honestly favor conservatives. Although conservatives take the stance of being the anti-debt party, their track record over the past 30 years has been abysmal on that front, with Regan by far having the worst record for debt spending. In that time period, the only conservative president to take a serious stance on the deficit has been Bush Sr, who was unfortunately voted out of office for his position. Comparatively, Clinton actually managed to reverse the trend of debt spending, and Obama seems to also be slowing the rate of spending.
Obama has of course, inherited a very heavy rate of deficit spending, and in his favor, the rate of spending has fallen for every year he's been in office so far. The trend would appear to be continuing with the wind down of the Afghanastan war.
In general, the conservatives seem to have favored tax cuts over budget control, and most of their suggested policies (cutting social services) would not have affected a significant reduction in debt spending. Romney made it very clear in the debate that he has absolutely no intent to reverse debt spending (comments on the size of the navy, inability to provide details of his debt reduction plans, sabre rattling about another war with Iran, etc.) The conservative party appears to be unwilling to touch major sources of debt spending (military) since it brings major income into their respective states. All indicators point to him being another refund-and-spend conservative.
I agree with you that deficit spending is a major issue.
I'm fortunate to be pretty close to the money. If you're close to the money, you're doing fine in this economy. For guys like me, the recession ended in 09. I took a 25% pay cut in 08, and I was back to my former levels a year later. I make more now than I did 5 years ago.
If you look at the data, GDP started rebounding in 09. Corporate profits are back up. Most economic indicators show that business is doing well - many of the indicators are at or above pre-recession levels (housing obviously isn't back to it's bubble levels.)
Here are a bunch of economic information(pdf warning)
The fact of the matter is that there's plenty of economic activity in the financial and corporate sectors. But those sectors don't really drive hiring in a service economy. A healthy middle class is what's going to drive hiring. If I make 10x as much as you, I don't buy 10x as many clothes, employ 10x as many mechanics, or eat 10x as many meals. Hiring recovers when the middle and lower class have discretionary spending for those things.
Demand drives hiring my friend, not money. There is plenty of money available to hire more workers, but not enough demand in order to do so. Trickle down economics don't fix that problem. No amount of tax breaks will incentivise a company to hire when they simply don't need more employees. Make sure the middle class is taken care of. Focus on fixing income inequity, control the cost of living. Demand will increase. When people can afford housing again, more houses will be built. When people can afford cars again, the factories in Detroit will need to fill more shifts. Hiring will improve in all sectors of the economy.
Do you really think the party of supply side economics can fix a demand problem?
I believe Romney had the economic know-how to help get the economy back on track
First of all, I'm not actually convinced that the economy is in trouble, based on the gross numbers. GDP is back to it's steady climb after the hit it took in 08. What we're actually looking at here isn't a poor economy, but instead general issues with the cost of living for poor and middle class families, dwindling employment, and low upward mobility*.
Those trends started in the 80s. This was also the decade that we made a move away from Keynesian economics, back towards classical economics and the idea of trickle-down economics. Ever since then, the lower and middle class have seen their real income fall, asset ownership decline, and the cost of living increase.
I'm not convinced that the guy saying "More of the same!" actually has the ability to fix those issues.
* AKA the American dream. For many, that dream is dead.
drugs - that's just like the Democrats. Both parties support laws against drug use and both parties have made it clear that when they're in charge of the national government they won't look the other way when states legalize drug use.
Democrats aren't really united on this one. Libritarians are united in favor, conservatives tend to be united in opposition. Still, it tends to be the democratic states that legalize drugs, and push for reduced sentencing. Trend seems to be towards legalization, and much like gay marrage, I suspect it's the liberals that will make it legal, when it happens.
abortion - right to life trumps other rights. You can't kill someone just because they're inconvenient.
A person has a right to life (unless they are a criminal, appearently.)
A fetus is not a person. The rights of the fetus are trumped by the rights of the mother during the First Trimester. The SCOTUS established that in Roe vs. Wade. It's a good read.
hiring - the Democrate tell you how much you have to pay and in general what you and another person can agree to.
You're in favor of indentured servitude? How about human slavery and the sex trade? Both are situations a person may find themselves voluntarily, either due to misinformation or via social or economic pressure. Let me guess, if they make that decision, it's their own fault?
renting - the Democrats tell you what you can and can't do with your property, and what restrictions you can put on who enters your property
Your in favor of the landlord being able to enter a unit you are renting at any time, for any reason?
running a restaurant - the Democrats tell you whether you can smoke and Bloomberg (Democrat who switched parties but not stripes so he could run) even wants to tell you how big your drinks can be.
Your freedom to smoke vs. my freedom to be smoke free. You're still welcome to smoke on your own property. You're still welcome to make your kids breath your smoke during the most critical time of their development.
It's also illegal for me to enter an establishment naked, or with a huge boom box.
racism - the Democrats forbid people from rejecting racism. Either hire based on race (and do school admissions based on race) or face the wrath of Democrats
Such laws will go away when racism goes away.
heath care - the Democrats tell you what kinds of health care you need to pay for
Nope. They simply require that you have health care, which prevents you from placing a drain on the rest of society by abusing the hospital system.
money - the Democrats take your money so they choose how it is spent
You assume that democrats do not themselves pay taxes. BTW, you'll find that blue states tend to send more money to washington than they take in. Red states tend to recieve more federal money than they pay in taxes.
money - the Democrats take your children's money (though Republicans at times have joined them in doing so) so they can decide how your children's future earnings will be spent today.
President with the best debt record in the past 40 years: Clinton.
President with the worst debt record in the past 40 years: Regan.
Bush Sr. was the last conservative president who really addressed spending.
Spending under Obama has been trending downward over the past 4 years. It remains to be seen whether or not he spends more than Bush Jr. He does recieve props for taking responsibility for Afghanastan and Iraq war spending rather than hiding the debt for someone else to deal with.
Seriously, how is it that conservatives still believe this shit about their parties fiscal responsibility?