Only thing worse than tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the minority, which we have now.
When politics are dominated by the extremes of the political spectrum (we'll leave discussions of the inaccuracies of that scheme to another day) that's a Bad Thing.
I've totally lost the thread of your argument re: Bush v. Kerry and Edwards on conservatism. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Yes, some third party candidates are on the ballots in some states. Guess who is on the ballot in every state? Guess who is going to win? (Hint: There are only two remote possibilities).
I will be awe-struck if any state is carried by any third party candidate. It happens once in a blue moon, thereby proving my contention that no third party candidate will ever be a factor in national politics until we change the system.
OK, did you nap through that whole USA PATRIOT thing? The one with the FBI going into libraries checking up on peoples' reading habits? The one where we've got American citizens detained without benefit of counsel or due process?
If you don't think Bush is more conservative than Kerry, you're a loony. For the record: I think Bush and Kerry are both loonies.
Yes: I was using a hyperbole. Again with the tongue in the cheek.
When I said "I", I meant "I as a member of We the People". It was a rhetorical thing...musta gone a little fast for you. My bad. I would like my voting preferances to be tallied in a more-accurate-than-binary way.
I dislike the Republicans. I dislike the Democrats. I
It certainly wouldn't take 100 run off elections. It would simply take switching to a tallying method like Approval or Condorcet voting. Learn.
I didn't say that nobody should be appointed. I said the President should not be appointed.
We pick 500 people from a list of 1000. We only get to pick from two parties. That is undemocratic. That is a poor modeling of the body politic. And that needs to be changed.
If "undemocratic" means "Does not accurately model the Will of the People", then yes, the EC is undemocratic.
So is our entire election system. I argue that we would get better governance if the government were more accountable to We the People. Things that make for better governance are Good. Things that do not are Bad. Just about every single thing in both major parties' platforms are Bad.
Conservatives want a smaller fed, except for the FBI NSA CIA that will catch homos in trying to get married once we get that Constitutional amendment that was ordained by God. Oh yeah, and those dirty terrorists.
Conservatives used to be in favor of small government. Hell, conservatives used to be conservative. Now, they just want a different set of my civil liberties than the liberals.
Any voting system that does not allow me to kick ALL those conniving bastards out is broken.
You're right: I was making a statement of principle, not an appeal to law. It was intended as rather tongue in cheek.
The Constitution enshrines the Electoral College. I think that's a much better amendment to be stumping for than this ridiculous "We Hate Homos" amendment.
...except by strangling their financing for education, highway maintenance, etc.
Oh, you thought you still lived in a country that had a federal system of government, with relatively autonomous states reporting to a central (but relatively weak) government?
What a pretty illusion that must be. I wish it were that way, but States' Rights died in 1862.
Please explain to me how you would like to "stop orbiting". I mean, it's not like you can just pull over to a gas station...
An orbital spacecraft has a really ridiculous amount of kinetic energy. Just like your brakes get hot when your car slows down, the spacecraft gets hot when the atmosphere slows it down. The only other option would be to bring along almost as much fuel as you used to get up into space, and try to do a really fast burn to slow yourself down. This is problematic for a very large number of reasons, not the least of which is that you'd need more fuel to launch the fuel you wanted to use to de-orbit.
Atmospheres are really, really good braking systems.
"Head Up Display" isn't called that because it REQUIRES you to keep your head up. It's called that because it PERMITS you to keep your head up, as opposed to staring at instruments that are down in the cockpit.
So, yeah, "Head Up Display" is perfectly accurate in that sense.
This post brought to you by the letter P. And also the letters e,d,a,n,t,i and c.
Slashdot Mirror
Only thing worse than tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the minority, which we have now.
When politics are dominated by the extremes of the political spectrum (we'll leave discussions of the inaccuracies of that scheme to another day) that's a Bad Thing.
I've totally lost the thread of your argument re: Bush v. Kerry and Edwards on conservatism. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Yes, some third party candidates are on the ballots in some states. Guess who is on the ballot in every state? Guess who is going to win? (Hint: There are only two remote possibilities).
I will be awe-struck if any state is carried by any third party candidate. It happens once in a blue moon, thereby proving my contention that no third party candidate will ever be a factor in national politics until we change the system.
OK, did you nap through that whole USA PATRIOT thing? The one with the FBI going into libraries checking up on peoples' reading habits? The one where we've got American citizens detained without benefit of counsel or due process?
If you don't think Bush is more conservative than Kerry, you're a loony. For the record: I think Bush and Kerry are both loonies.
Yes: I was using a hyperbole. Again with the tongue in the cheek.
When I said "I", I meant "I as a member of We the People". It was a rhetorical thing...musta gone a little fast for you. My bad. I would like my voting preferances to be tallied in a more-accurate-than-binary way.
I dislike the Republicans. I dislike the Democrats. I
It certainly wouldn't take 100 run off elections. It would simply take switching to a tallying method like Approval or Condorcet voting. Learn.
I didn't say that nobody should be appointed. I said the President should not be appointed.
We pick 500 people from a list of 1000. We only get to pick from two parties. That is undemocratic. That is a poor modeling of the body politic. And that needs to be changed.
Nation-states are violently expansionist.
America is a nation-state.
Therefore....
If "undemocratic" means "Does not accurately model the Will of the People", then yes, the EC is undemocratic.
So is our entire election system. I argue that we would get better governance if the government were more accountable to We the People. Things that make for better governance are Good. Things that do not are Bad. Just about every single thing in both major parties' platforms are Bad.
Conservatives want a smaller fed, except for the FBI NSA CIA that will catch homos in trying to get married once we get that Constitutional amendment that was ordained by God. Oh yeah, and those dirty terrorists.
Conservatives used to be in favor of small government. Hell, conservatives used to be conservative. Now, they just want a different set of my civil liberties than the liberals.
Any voting system that does not allow me to kick ALL those conniving bastards out is broken.
You're right: I was making a statement of principle, not an appeal to law. It was intended as rather tongue in cheek.
The Constitution enshrines the Electoral College. I think that's a much better amendment to be stumping for than this ridiculous "We Hate Homos" amendment.
...except by strangling their financing for education, highway maintenance, etc.
Oh, you thought you still lived in a country that had a federal system of government, with relatively autonomous states reporting to a central (but relatively weak) government?
What a pretty illusion that must be. I wish it were that way, but States' Rights died in 1862.
Violently expansionist relative to whom?
Britain?
Germany?
Russia?
Japan?
China?
Fill in the blanks.
Government of the ______.
By the ______.
For the ______.
Hint: The correct answer is not "States".
That's what the Senate is for. The President should not be favoring ANY state. He represents the COUNTRY.
You must have not read about the US Army distributing smallpox victims' blankets to Native Americans.
It's not chemical warfare, it's biological. I'd take my chances with any chemical weapon in the arsenal before I let you give me smallpox.
How is it fair that the vote of somebody in Wyoming worth three to four times the vote of somebody in California?
Shouldn't the President represent the largest possible number of Americans?
Of course, getting rid of the electoral college is only the teeniest step. We really need new ways of scoring elections.
Please explain to me how you would like to "stop orbiting". I mean, it's not like you can just pull over to a gas station...
An orbital spacecraft has a really ridiculous amount of kinetic energy. Just like your brakes get hot when your car slows down, the spacecraft gets hot when the atmosphere slows it down. The only other option would be to bring along almost as much fuel as you used to get up into space, and try to do a really fast burn to slow yourself down. This is problematic for a very large number of reasons, not the least of which is that you'd need more fuel to launch the fuel you wanted to use to de-orbit.
Atmospheres are really, really good braking systems.
Air breathing space craft are still a bad idea.
The reason is that they produce large amounts of drag due to the large cross-sectional area required to ingest air.
No, you don't have to carry oxidizer, but you DO have to schlep a big draggy fuselage along with you.
It's very hard to make the numbers come out better than a conventional staged rocket.
Needs gravity to re-enter.
As opposed to orbital spacecraft, that use lollipops, right?
Purple is the color of British royalty, innit?
Ah, so Ray Kroc "merely" made McDonalds a world-spanning business, instead of a burger stand run by two brothers.
I don't like their food either, but give the man some credit: He invented a new way of doing business.
"Head Up Display" isn't called that because it REQUIRES you to keep your head up. It's called that because it PERMITS you to keep your head up, as opposed to staring at instruments that are down in the cockpit.
So, yeah, "Head Up Display" is perfectly accurate in that sense.
This post brought to you by the letter P. And also the letters e,d,a,n,t,i and c.
I don't think Lance Armstrong was at the back of the pack.
Why is it more dangerous to wear (non ear-sealing) headphones while riding than it is to listen to music while you're driving your car?
Socialism is not a binary condition. It is possible too be more, or less, socialist than one already is.
Ass.
It's not xenophobic to say "Gosh, this is a difficult situation. Let's examine it."
Please elucidate.
Saying the immigration policy is bad is not the same as saying we should stop immigration.
How is the headline racist?
Uh, yeah, all we need is 7% more unemployment.
You do understand that there are people who would prefer low unemployment to more socialism, right?