Let's take this point by point.
1.) I agree, the military is a legitimate expenditure, but not the amounts of money devoted to it, and not the projects on which they spend the money.
2.) The federal government does not take a portion of my income to pay for police, nor should they. Policing is a function of local government, with perhaps some small involvement by the states. I very much resent the fact that currently, the federal government is involved in dictating what is and is not legal; the states should be doing that, or even better, your local government.
3.) I disagree about the education; government schools don't educate, they indoctrinate and teach disrepect for the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, while at the same time substituting a whole new set of "rights" that have no Constitutional basis. Schools should be controlled at the local level, giving the people actually involved, i.e. the students and their parents, more control.
4.) There is no such thing as a right to "eat and get medicial(sic) care and have shelter". By stating that people have a right to those things, you are obligating someone to provide them. I have no problems with private charity, and help out people when I can, even people I've never before met. However, it is not my obligation to do so, it is my choice. If you can't find a way to provide yourself with the essentials required for life, that's tough shit. I'll probably help you, but not if you tell me that you have some kind of "right" to the product of my labor.
I also take offense at the following:
"...if you think the only way to benefit from the money is to have it personally, then you don't understand how things work." I understand how things work perfectly well. Corrupt liars, hereafter referred to as politicians, take money from the most productive people and then use said ill-gotten gains to buy votes from less-productive people who are not being robbed. With some of the leftovers, they dictate how future voters will be "educated" so that they accept the power of the government without question. Then, to keep the great unwashed from suspecting anything, they spend sickening amounts of money on military research projects that they know are doomed, while leaving the good citizens who are actually putting their lives on the line untrained. These soldiers get to enforce the politicians' ideas on sovereign nations thousands of miles away, making the citizens of these other nations resent the U.S. and its soldiers ever more bitterly. Meanwhile, these soldiers are forced to take no security measures in hostile waters, because the politicians in the State Department want to maintain a friendly presence, but are too scared to stay there themselves. Then, if these citizens manage to get home alive, they live on-base in hovels that the politicians wouldn't leave their dog in overnight.
OK, now that my unexpected rant is over, let me apologize for waiting so long to respond. I haven't been checking Slashdot as often as I used to.
Hey, where's that sig from? It tickled a memory hidden somewhere in the deep dark recesses that I pass off for a mind.
On a slightly less off-topic note, who do they plan to recruit to fly these things? I'd demand a pretty large chunk of change to fly one things.
Campaign finance reform doesn't make it on my list of priorities for this election. Don't get me wrong, I think the system needs major over-hauling, but the so-called reform that the politicians want to institute amounts to another way to screw over individuals.
The kind of reform I want to see involves the total elimination of donation caps, while at the same time totally eliminating any contributions from corporations, PACs, etc. I also don't believe in "soft money" donations. If everybody's favorite whipping boy Bill wants to make a $1 billion donation to Ralph Nader (I know, not likely), then that's his business, but I don't think he should be able to donate it to the Green Party.
Now that I've given a diatribe that I'm sure nobody cares about, one question: What makes you think that Democrats want campaign finance reform? I thought that the whole Buddhist temple fiasco would have nipped a thought like that in the bud.
"It provides safety, security, stands up for our rights (please, oh please dispute me on this)"
Alright, I dispute it. I defy you to make a single argument proving that the government "stands up for my rights" by attempting to prevent Joe Bob down the street from growing marijuana for his own personal consumption. Prove that it's the government's concern for my rights that makes them take 30% of my paycheck (I'm still in school).
This country (the USA) is a republic because the founding fathers wished to protect the rights of minorities. If the country were a direct democracy, it would be mob rule. If that were the case, all these freedoms that we love so much wouldn't exist. You think you have a right to say what you want? Well, 50.1% of the voting populace disagrees with you; off to the gulag you go. Where would the civil rights movement have gotten? You don't really think that a majority of the eligible voters in the U.S. at the time supported equal rights, do you?
Quoth legLess:
This is (theoretically) a democracy
Wrong. This country is (theoretically) a republic. The word "democracy" doesn't even appear in the Constitution. Democracy is literally mob rule. The Constitution was written to prevent mob rule. The real issue should be: did this web site actually threaten the doctors listed? Since I've never seen the web site, I can't tell you. However, the word "implied" in the posts I've seen lead me to believe that it did not. Either you threatened someone (and thereby broke the law), or you didn't (and your speech is therefore protected). I personally think any person who burns the U.S. flag is scum, but I would never try to prosecute said person for expressing his/her opinion.
There is no such thing as obscenely rich. What is wrong with succeeding? Do you think that the members of society who are most productive (and therefore most likely to be rich) should just STOP producing once they earn a certain amount of money? How can you rationalize that? Who does it help?
You know what's even funnier? The list of rivals behind the Microsoft case. Netscape or Sun, anyone? It seems that the new trend in Silicon Valley is just to whine, bitch, and complain to government if you get beat in the competitive market.
I have to agree. The smokers knew good and damned well that they were killing themselves. Here's what the general public doesn't know: the "Big Tobacco" settlement actually favors the tobacco companies. It boils down to this: the government assured the big four tobacco comapanies (the ones who signed the settlement) 98% market share (right now they have 99%) in the tobacco industry, and in exchange, the government gets a cut of the loot. Now tell me again why government should get involved in business to "help the little people". The government never helps people when it involves itself in the marketplace.
Slashdot Mirror
Triple damn! If I forgot that, it's time for an immediate re-read. Thanks for reminding me.
Let's take this point by point.
1.) I agree, the military is a legitimate expenditure, but not the amounts of money devoted to it, and not the projects on which they spend the money.
2.) The federal government does not take a portion of my income to pay for police, nor should they. Policing is a function of local government, with perhaps some small involvement by the states. I very much resent the fact that currently, the federal government is involved in dictating what is and is not legal; the states should be doing that, or even better, your local government.
3.) I disagree about the education; government schools don't educate, they indoctrinate and teach disrepect for the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, while at the same time substituting a whole new set of "rights" that have no Constitutional basis. Schools should be controlled at the local level, giving the people actually involved, i.e. the students and their parents, more control.
4.) There is no such thing as a right to "eat and get medicial(sic) care and have shelter". By stating that people have a right to those things, you are obligating someone to provide them. I have no problems with private charity, and help out people when I can, even people I've never before met. However, it is not my obligation to do so, it is my choice. If you can't find a way to provide yourself with the essentials required for life, that's tough shit. I'll probably help you, but not if you tell me that you have some kind of "right" to the product of my labor.
I also take offense at the following: "...if you think the only way to benefit from the money is to have it personally, then you don't understand how things work." I understand how things work perfectly well. Corrupt liars, hereafter referred to as politicians, take money from the most productive people and then use said ill-gotten gains to buy votes from less-productive people who are not being robbed. With some of the leftovers, they dictate how future voters will be "educated" so that they accept the power of the government without question. Then, to keep the great unwashed from suspecting anything, they spend sickening amounts of money on military research projects that they know are doomed, while leaving the good citizens who are actually putting their lives on the line untrained. These soldiers get to enforce the politicians' ideas on sovereign nations thousands of miles away, making the citizens of these other nations resent the U.S. and its soldiers ever more bitterly. Meanwhile, these soldiers are forced to take no security measures in hostile waters, because the politicians in the State Department want to maintain a friendly presence, but are too scared to stay there themselves. Then, if these citizens manage to get home alive, they live on-base in hovels that the politicians wouldn't leave their dog in overnight.
OK, now that my unexpected rant is over, let me apologize for waiting so long to respond. I haven't been checking Slashdot as often as I used to.
Hey, where's that sig from? It tickled a memory hidden somewhere in the deep dark recesses that I pass off for a mind.
On a slightly less off-topic note, who do they plan to recruit to fly these things? I'd demand a pretty large chunk of change to fly one things.
Dammit woman! You gave that furby a dollar? No wonder he's always comin' around here.
Campaign finance reform doesn't make it on my list of priorities for this election. Don't get me wrong, I think the system needs major over-hauling, but the so-called reform that the politicians want to institute amounts to another way to screw over individuals.
The kind of reform I want to see involves the total elimination of donation caps, while at the same time totally eliminating any contributions from corporations, PACs, etc. I also don't believe in "soft money" donations. If everybody's favorite whipping boy Bill wants to make a $1 billion donation to Ralph Nader (I know, not likely), then that's his business, but I don't think he should be able to donate it to the Green Party.
Now that I've given a diatribe that I'm sure nobody cares about, one question: What makes you think that Democrats want campaign finance reform? I thought that the whole Buddhist temple fiasco would have nipped a thought like that in the bud.
"It provides safety, security, stands up for our rights (please, oh please dispute me on this)"
Alright, I dispute it. I defy you to make a single argument proving that the government "stands up for my rights" by attempting to prevent Joe Bob down the street from growing marijuana for his own personal consumption. Prove that it's the government's concern for my rights that makes them take 30% of my paycheck (I'm still in school).
This country (the USA) is a republic because the founding fathers wished to protect the rights of minorities. If the country were a direct democracy, it would be mob rule. If that were the case, all these freedoms that we love so much wouldn't exist. You think you have a right to say what you want? Well, 50.1% of the voting populace disagrees with you; off to the gulag you go. Where would the civil rights movement have gotten? You don't really think that a majority of the eligible voters in the U.S. at the time supported equal rights, do you?
Would serving as a journalist well back from the front with specific orders from Daddy to keep you out of harm's way count as service?
Quoth legLess: This is (theoretically) a democracy Wrong. This country is (theoretically) a republic. The word "democracy" doesn't even appear in the Constitution. Democracy is literally mob rule. The Constitution was written to prevent mob rule. The real issue should be: did this web site actually threaten the doctors listed? Since I've never seen the web site, I can't tell you. However, the word "implied" in the posts I've seen lead me to believe that it did not. Either you threatened someone (and thereby broke the law), or you didn't (and your speech is therefore protected). I personally think any person who burns the U.S. flag is scum, but I would never try to prosecute said person for expressing his/her opinion.
There is no such thing as obscenely rich. What is wrong with succeeding? Do you think that the members of society who are most productive (and therefore most likely to be rich) should just STOP producing once they earn a certain amount of money? How can you rationalize that? Who does it help?
You know what's even funnier? The list of rivals behind the Microsoft case. Netscape or Sun, anyone? It seems that the new trend in Silicon Valley is just to whine, bitch, and complain to government if you get beat in the competitive market.
I have to agree. The smokers knew good and damned well that they were killing themselves. Here's what the general public doesn't know: the "Big Tobacco" settlement actually favors the tobacco companies. It boils down to this: the government assured the big four tobacco comapanies (the ones who signed the settlement) 98% market share (right now they have 99%) in the tobacco industry, and in exchange, the government gets a cut of the loot. Now tell me again why government should get involved in business to "help the little people". The government never helps people when it involves itself in the marketplace.