Because he's not some bigoted a$$hole who makes prejudiced statements based on isolated incidents from 40 years ago.
In the late 1960s in Butte MT, poll-watchers discovered that some 3000 *dead* people had cast votes -- all Democrats.
What they probably discovered was that one dishonest person had stuffed a ballot box, not that 3,000 dead people cast votes. You are trying to paint the entire Democratic Party as evil and corrupt because of one incident that happened 40 years ago in one location?
That's like saying that all Repuplicans are crooked because of what Richard Nixon and his henchment did vis-a-vis Watergate. Or like saying that all Republicans commit tax fraud because Spiro T. Agnew resigned the Vice Presidency in 1973 after being convicted of it. Or it's like saying that all Republicans are on the take just because G.W. Bush used an Enron corporate jet for his campaign transportation.
I guess that is different, though. In those cases, the criminal were not random scum who happened to be registered as Republicans. They were the people that the Republican voters felt were morally suited to the highest offices in the land.
This means they can click through and beat the Slashdot Effect.
Something is wrong when a subscription incentive is to see a site before Slashdot launches a distributed denial of service attack against it: That's right, subscribers, click on the link now because we are about to DDoS the site!
What about preserving competition you FUCKING COMMUNIST!
You act like communists are pedophiles or something. It's just another economic system. But I am not a communist. I believe in capitalism with reasonable regulatory protections for workers and consumers. It's not good when a 20,000 person company is dwindled down to the board of directors and 150 upper level managers who manage overseas workers.
But in answer to your basic question, jobs are more important than corporate competition. When countless Americans are losing their jobs at profitable companies, it's a big problem.
ere you think that guy's acting like a jerk. Everyone else reading this thread thinks you're acting like a jerk.
Just who is this "everyone" of whom you speak? Since you are posting anonymously, you clearly haven't been e-mailed by a "everyone." There's no outpouring of messages on here to support your claims about what everyone thinks. Unless you're basing that claim on something more than what's here, it's simply a fabrication.
How about addressing the facts? I posted Lexmark's contact info and accurately described how I called them and registered my complaint. The other person claimed to have called and been told to fax his complaint. He then accused me of lying when there were many other perfectly valid explanations for our allegedly different experiences when calling Lexmark.
Why would you claim that I'm "acting like a jerk" when I express my offense at being called a liar? Perhaps you don't mind being being accused of lying. I do.
He has no facts about my conversation. All he knows is that the person he talked to told him to fax his complaint in. If he was as much of an asshole on the phone as he is on Slashdot, it's no wonder that they told him to send his complaint by fax.
They might have been flooded by calls and set up the fax procedure in the intervening time between my call and his. Perhaps the customer service rep to whom he spoke just did not want to be bothered with typing his complaint into their computer. Maybe the one I spoke to was unaware of the fax line for complaints. Or maybe the one that spoke to him was wrong and that fax line goes to the shipping department.
Maybe you and the people you hang out with lie so often that you assume everyone does. Well, I don't. I said that I spoke to them and registered my complaint. I did.
Yes, people lose jobs, but jobs are created elsewhere. A person's lack of motivation to learn skills that are in demand is not a good reason to destroy the economy with protectionism. Free trade benefits everyone.
It does not benefit a 55 year old professional who's supporting a family and loses his job. Regardless of his "motivation", he can't just enroll in college and move into a dorm for four years while he learns a new trade. What is his family supposed to do for four years? Live in a refrigerator box under a bridge? Even if he had enough savings for four years, it's damned unlikely that starting out in his new profession that he would earn anywhere near what he did as an experienced worker in the previous one -- and maybe not enough to support his family while paying back a college loan.
You're talking macroeconomic theory and I'm talking about people being able to support themselves and feed their families.
You also ignore the stacked deck from government regulations. We, as a society, have decided that we will accept a lower productivity and higher cost of doing business in order to protect the environment and insure worker safety. We have laws and regulations in place to achieve those goals. When U.S. companies farm out jobs to countries with no such protections, they are able to realize a competitive advantage.
It's not so simple as you Island A & B analogies would make it sound. Exporting jobs to the countries with the least environmental and worker safety regulations is no way to improve our standard of living.
Lexmark announced the other day that they are closing their Orlando Florida call and service center. I have no knowledge of where the jobs are going,
If they are following SMC's lead, the jobs will go to India. When you call for SMC tech support, your call is transferred to a call center located in India. Eventually, if you want a job in the tech sector, you will have to move to a second or third-world country. If you don't like that scenario, maybe you should join T.O.R.A.W..
Obviously you did not register a complaint, which is a little dissappoiting, but nevertheless.
Yes I did. And don't you dare call me a liar. I spoke to a customer service representative, he noted the specifics of my complaint, and stated that he would forward it to the appropriate persons.
Perhaps your wretched excuse for a personality was the reason that you were told to fax your complaint in.
Whatever printer I get now, it won't be a Lexmark.
I just called Lexmark on their toll-free phone number to tell them how despicable I thought this lawsuit was. I told them that, unless it was dropped, I would never purchase another Lexmark product nor would I recommend their products to clients or colleagues. If you feel that way, call them:
In the U.S., their phone number is: 1-800-LEXMARK (1-800-539-6275)
Are blind people required to have their eyes removed?
Many blind people have artificial eyes (glass eyes). Many of those who do still have their eyes are unlikely to be able to, as the article says, "look into a camera while a snapshot is taken." Others are going to have eyes that are physically damaged so that the iris pattern cannot be read.
As for "drive through atms", don't you think that it's just a lot cheaper for ATM manufacturers to have one model of ATM vs having specific ones for drive through vs walkup vs embedded (I'm talking mechanisms, not the "body" of the atm). Why would they want the hassle of keeping track of two seperate button styles for every atm they manufacture?
Christ almighty, it was just a humorous little comment! But, no, I don't think it's a lot cheaper. The buttons are a plastic overlay those buttons with braille are more quickly torn and damaged. We've all seen that on ATMs. One service call to the machine to replace a torn braille button overlay is going to cost more than it would ever cost to track two button styles.
What do you bet that they will implement iris recognition on every ATM and there will still be braille on the buttons -- just like there is at every drive-through ATM in the U.S.?
Bzzt. Cato is libertarian, not right-wing. Of course they criticize any government spending at all.
Wrong. There are over 75 adjunct Cato scholars, including ultra-conservative law professors Richard Epstein (University of Chicago) and Henry G. Manne. Dick Armey (R-TX), has frequently given speeches at Cato in the past several years. Oh, and a little hint for you: Libertarians are often right-wing.
You conveniently forget the economic downturn that started in Clinton's last year.
It doesn't matter why there was a downturn. Bush's tax cut did nothing to reverse it.
That you oppose cutting waste spending shows you are the one lacking the intelligence.
I do oppose waste spending and would have happily given Clinton the line-item veto to prevent it. Bush, on the other hand, has cut funding for numerous environmental programs, scientific studies, and even stem cell research. Wasteful spending? Look what we've already blown on the whole Iraq debacle.
I am your intellectual superior. That you are too ignorant to see that is not my problem.
No, the economy did well as a result of the "Year of the Informed Voter" 1994. Thank you, Newt. It is quite obvious that Clinton's attempt to wreck the economy with punitive taxes were counterproductive, thank you Newt for blunting this.
BULLFUCKINGSHIT! The Republican Congress did everything that they could to undermine Clinton's success, constantly pushing for tax cuts to force the government into deficit spending. We now have a Republican administration, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate. Bush's budget is bleeding red ink, the economy is in the toilet, and he's wasting what little tax money is still collected on the military.
Hopefully, never. He can learn from daddy's mistake.
So you think that taxes should just be cut and cut and cut. I guess you figure that a tax rate of 0% will result in an economy that is infinitely stimulated, right? What a buffoon. Who the fuck do you think will be funding the Republican war on terror/Iraq/drugs (pick one)?
Only when they actually are to blame. As they certainly are now, with Daschle making sure that the economy stays down on purpose.
Bullshit again. Give me specifics.
You need to understand that money borrowed by the federal government also produces tax revenue. For example, if a GI is paid with borrowed money and he buys a new car, there are tax revenues produced from this borrowed money the same as if it had come from a balanced budget. The worker that made the car would pay taxes. The salesman that got the commission from selling the car would have paid taxes into our Treasury, etc. So, we can state with some certainty that many of the revenues paid into the Treasury after the Reagan tax cut were paid from borrowed money. Revenues did increase during the Reagan years. And if we had borrowed another trillion dollars, they would have increased even more.
The early labor-related decision that protected worker rights, especially those of workers who are often forced to join political organizations
They referred to that as "Union busting" in the old days -- and the people that did it were not popular heroes.
The more recent defense of workers rights against Democrats who wanted to force "Homeland Security" workers into unions against their will
How many of them said that they did not want to be unionized?
The decision to stop wasting taxpayer dollars "Exporting" abortion overseas
What a bunch of crap. Bush signed an executive order denying federal funding to any charity which so much as mentioned abortions. And how is it "wasting" anything to deal with global overpopulation?
Weighing in with the Supreme Court against the University of Michigan's blatantly racist admissions policy
It's not the job of the Executive branch to comment on upcoming Supreme Court decisions -- even though I agree with Bush's position on this issue.
Filing a brief with the Supreme Court to try and help stop the erosion of the 2nd Amendment.
Since learned legal scholars have spent decades trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment, I don't think that Bush's administration had much to offer. In fact, Ashcroft's public (mis)interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was simply inappropriate.
Appointing someone like Mr Powell to the FCC, who is resisting those who want to censor views by ownership regulations and "fairness doctrines".
You don't honestly think that having Clear Channel Communications own every radio station in the U.S. will foster a plurality of opinions, do you? Censoring views is exactly what the fairness doctrines are intended to prevent. People in a town should not have all of their news provided by a single source. Or did you prefer the "Radio Moscow" model of informing the public?
Appointing Judge Pickering.... not once, but twice. Despite the objections of those with baseless objections.
Are you a KKK member or what? Pickering advocated closing the only loophole in Missisipi law banning interracial marriage. Pickering served as a Mississippi State Senator from 1972 through 1979. During that time, he voted in lockstep with the majority of the Senate in resisting implemenation of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Yes. While discussing the U.S. government, you wrote: You can have a very fascistic government that is democratic as long as a slim majority approve of its actions.
What I mean was that the government is acting fascistic when it takes our power from us (increasing taxes, annexing part of economy a la Hillary health care plan).
So you believe that Canada, which has socialized medicine, if a fascist state? Since the health plan proposed by Hillary Clinton was not enacted, it actually disproves your claim of a fascistic government. If our government was fascist, Bill Clinton (as the dictator) would have simply decreed that we would go over to that system.
Yes they do. They were designed in fact to help the poor. It is no surprise that poor people strongly support them, especially urban populations. They provide the poor educational opportunities denied to them when they are stuck in inferior government-run schools.
Having the support of undereducated poor people does not mean that something will help the poor. It just means that they believe that it will.
Again, I will repeat the same (unanswered) points that I made earlier:
Because all current and proposed voucher plans provide limited funds, the vouchers will not cover the tuition at good private schools -- and the poor are not going to be able to make up the difference. Furthermore, few private schools are located in the nation's inner cities or other economically depressed areas, so the parents won't even be able to get their kids to the schools. It's just a handout for the rich.
Would you support vouchers if they were means-tested?
No, for two reasons:
1. 85% of private schools are religious in nature. It is improper to hand public funds over to, for example, a Catholic school where they preach about creationism and the evils of condom use.
2. Fixed costs. Removing students, and money, from public schools will only make the schools worse. Taking 10% of the students out does not reduce the heating costs by 10%. It does not reduce the cost to repair the roof by 10%. It does not reduce the groundskeeping costs by 10%. If you have one music teacher, you can't cut their salary by 10%.
And those who use the term Slick Willy can attest to its accuracy and it not being an insult.
I won't dignify that with a retort.
I note that you did not address the point about innocent detainees in our "war on terror." Would it kill you to concede a point?
That is why they oppose tax cuts which end up increasing tax revenue from the resulting economic growth.
Tax cuts do little to stimulate economic growth, as has been made clear during this Presidency. Bush pushed through massive tax cuts and the economy had done nothing but get worse. All we are left with is interest on a soaring national debt. Even Greenspan stated that the most recent tax cuts were a bad idea unless balanced with tax increases in other areas to offset the revenue loss.
Clinton added 2 trillion onto the debt before the Republicans in Congress forced fiscal responsibility.
Either the President gets credit/blame or the Congress does. I'm tired of the Republican bullshit of shifting blame/credit. According to the right wing, when the economy sucks, it's the Democrats' fault, whether they control the House, Senate, or Presidency. If the Democrats don't control any of them, then it's the fault of some previous Democratic administration. Republican Presidents are powerless to stop spending by Congressional Democrats (we'll just conveniently ignore veto powers). If the economy is rosy, well that's attributed to Republicans in the House, Senate, or Oval Office. If there are none, it's the result of deficit spending under some prior Republican administration. Well, Bush pushed through his tax cut and he is the one that proposed the budget that is bleeding red ink. The economy did well under Clinton because he was not a dumbass who pushed through tax cuts while increasing spending.
Let's examine the "it's-not-the-government's-money" crap that Bush spewed throughout his campaign. We were in an economic boom. Wages were up. Unemployment was down. Of course the IRS was bringing in more income taxes than needed. Ever heard of saving for a rainy day? Well Bush obviously has not because he immediately pushed through a big tax cut. Now, lo and behold, we no longer have enough money to cover the budget that he proposed. He wants to lower taxes when we are in an economic boom because the government shouldn't have a surplus (and he would never consider taking any of that surplus to pay down the debt). When the economy is lagging, he wants to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Just when does he propose increasing taxes? We cut in boom times. We cut during recessions.
So that he line-item veto funding for environmental and social programs while signing legislation for military build-ups? No thanks. He lacks both the morality and intelligence to use such power.
By the way, George H.W. Bush is not "George Sr" that you called him. He's not a Sr, and his son is not a Jr, as they actually have different names
I couldn't care less. I'll just call his won "Dubya" to avoid the typing.
Yes, you did. You said that our government was fascistic. The core definition of fascism is "a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator." So, if you don't think that Bush is the dictator of our supposedly fascistic government, then who is?
And you oppose programs designed to help the poor such as vouchers.
School vouchers don't help the poor. I've already proven that with arguments that you were apparently unable to counter.
to get down to your level and insult presidents
"Dubya" is used to distinguish him from his father while "Slick Willy" is clearly an insult.
The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a "representative" Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources.
Except we all know these Al Quada guys locked up are quite guilty. You'd have a case if they were not.
So much for any analysis based on facts and figures.
You said "only a minority of those who keep more with Bush tax cuts are rich". You were careful not to quantify "more" because that would undermine your argument. Allow me to rephrase: "only a minority of those who keep significantly more with Bush tax cuts are not rich." A pittance of the tax cuts goes to the vast majority of taxpayers while the lion's share goes to the rich.
As non-partisan as the NRA or Democratic Leadership Council!
If you feel that Citizens for Tax Justice is partisan, then show me how. That they disagree with the Republicans' current position does not make them partisan.
They are in fact a partisan pressure group interested in making the tax system less just by making it greedier.
No, they are interested in seeing that the taxation system is fair, not that more taxes be levied. In fact, their main focus is seeing that the rich don't get huge tax breaks while the poor and middle class get nothing of substance.
The rich, after the Bush tax cuts, pay a much higher amount in actual dollars (you were concerned about dollars, right) and percentage of income and percentage of the overall tax picture. Who is not paying their fair share?
The rich. Under the Bush 2003 tax plan, the top 1% would realize cuts averaging $30,127 while 48% of couples and singles would get less than $100. In fact, 31% would get no tax cut. You talk about fair and percentages. The numbers don't look nearly so pretty as your vague generalizations about who gets "more."
How is it fair to take the same percentage from a millionaire and from someone struggling to pay their rent and feed their family? It reminds me of a famous quote by Anatole France: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Aside from the fact that only a minority of those who keep more with Bush tax cuts are rich
I don't care about the numbers of people. I care about the dollar figures. What percentage of the dollars went where? An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization, revealed that the wealthiest one percent of all taxpayers get 45 percent of the total Bush tax cuts, or approximately $54,480 per year on average.
A tax cut is not a gift. It is never a gift to take less from someone. A gift is when you give what you already own to someone.
Yes, it is a gift. When you exempt people from paying their fair share of taxes, it is a gift. Would you consider it a gift to me if the IRS said that I was exempted from paying taxes (while you were not)? I bet you would.
Relative to what? You're just stating an unsubstantiated opinion.
But I have studied the work of scientists with very well-conceived opinions opposite of yours. Quite well informed.
Provide attributed quotes or links. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that you are just lying.
If you knew anything about it, you would know that the "missile defense will never work" idea is proposterous.
So you are saying that the scientists who oppose it at the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program know nothing about the program?
So he did something in the name of good science for the wrong reasons. *Shrug*
If your reading comprehension is that poor, this is a waste of time.
Some are. Many are not. In places with unions, the teacher wage is boosted way above the real value of the work, forcing increases in class size and even closing of schools. Nothing stupid about this.
You have provided nothing to support your claims.
So far, you have been just about entirely wrong on everything else.
I have seen no evidence or logic provided by you to refute any of my claims. You've simply spouted your opinions.
I also like the voucher program for education for the same reason; as it is designed to improve educational opportunities for the poor. (it has nothing to do with the middle class, a claim you made elsewhere)
Then refute what I claimed with facts or logic rather than just yelling "is not! is not!"
Because all current and proposed voucher plans provide limited funds, the vouchers will not cover the tuition at good private schools -- and the poor are not going to be able to make up the difference. Furthermore, few private schools are located in the nation's inner cities or other economically depressed areas, so the parents won't even be able to get their kids to the schools. It's just a handout for the rich.
I'm informed on civics and I vote. A liberal's worst enemy.
Listening to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly does not make you informed. Having strongly held opinions does not make you informed. (Hell, you didn't even know what fascism was, but you were sure willing to use the term.) Sadly, I do believe your claim that you do vote.
First it is communism, then it is not. Make up your mind.
, but it sure is a step in that direction when Congress digs deep into our pockets. It is our money, not theirs.
Congress has the right to levy taxes. If Congress imposes a tax, the money is not yours any more. Period. End of story. And they don't "dig deep." We have one of the lowest tax rates of any industrialized country in the world.
Democracy has nothing to do with it, really. You can have a very fascistic government that is democratic as long as a slim majority approve of its actions.
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
So, are you suggesting the Bush is a democratically elected dictator? Also, I didn't see anything about fascism being a government that collects taxes and has programs designed to help the poor.
On the other hand, "belligerant nationalism" certainly seems to sum up world opinion of Dubya's behavior as of late. Suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship sounds a lot like locking people up for months on end without charges -- something Ashcroft has been advocating (and doing) in the "war on terror."
Again, it is good that the people involved in these decisions know more than you do. It is a great idea, it works, and it is purely defensive. Even Clinton knew this: he increased funding over the argument of the unscientific luddite know-nothings.
Boy, you put your foot in it that time. My most recent contract was developing satellite firmware and test procedures so I know a whole lot more about this subject than do you. The shrill 1998 Rumsfeld Report encouraged Congressional Republicans to turn up the heat on missile defense. Soon after, Clinton capitulated, signing the 1999 National Missile Defense Act. So, he signed it reluctantly and not because it was good science.
According to a Reuters article entitled U.S. Scientists Urge Against Missile Defense System on April 11, 2000:
A panel of prominent U.S. scientists on Tuesday opposed plans for a national anti-missile shield, entering a fierce public debate before President Clinton decides whether to deploy the system this summer. The 11 scientists, some of whom have worked in government missile programs, said the proposed system, in which a land-based missile would intercept an incoming missile carrying a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon, would not work. "Any country capable of deploying a long-range missile would also be able to deploy countermeasures that would defeat the planned National Missile Defense system," their report said, adding, "It makes no sense to begin deployment." The report, written under the auspices of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program, said attackers could use decoys and other means to deceive the heat-seeking anti-missiles.
You do not know more about Star Wars than scientists who worked on the program and researchers at MIT, so quit spouting your ill-conceived opinion on the subject.
You seem to feel that you are entitled to earmark where you taxes go, so I would have a right to do the same thing. Now you see the problem with that absurd idea.
Too bad so much of it is wasted on teacher overpay.
Are you on drugs? Teachers are paid horribly low salaries. Look here and you will see that teachers in some of the most affluent, high cost of living areas in the country make starting salaries that average in the low $30K range. The average network tech makes far more than that. Were you trolling or are you really as stupid as that comment made you sound?
National defense is actually one of the few legitimate reasons to spend federal tax dollars. Despite your ignorance of foreign affairs.
If anyone is ignorant of foreign affairs, it is you. Iraq poses little threat to the U.S. Just trust me on that one because I know more about it than you do. Their missiles, with a range of about 100 miles won't hurt us. Iraq is more than 100 miles away from the U.S. (just thought I'd add that given how generally uninformed you seem to be.)
Congress made up amazing new ways to waste money that the private sector could not even think of.
So you believe that Project HeadStart, which provided preschool children with health, education, and nutrition assistance, was an "amazing new [way] to waste money"? You think that subsidizing school lunches for children who could not afford one otherwise was a new way to waste money? You believe that providing food stamps so that poor families were better able to afford to eat was a waste of money? What is wrong with you?
No, it is time that you commie fuck-heads keep your mits out of my pockets.
So you believe that a democratically elected Congress elected by the people is communism? You are probably the world's best argument for more spending on education.
I just don't always want my money and time to go to causes I don't believe in.
So now you feel that we should each earmark our taxes to pay for only programs we believe in. Okay, then this is legal notice to the U.S. Govt. that they are not to spend my taxes on the war on Iraq, "faith-based charities", the national helium reserve, the "war on drugs", any form of "Star Wars" defense program, federally funded golf courses,...
It is time that the government cut way back and let people decide when and how to help others.
No, it's not. People suck. People will be greedy with their money. The government did not step in and take over work previously being done by private charities. They undertook efforts where nothing was being done before.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think it was a joke?
Because he's not some bigoted a$$hole who makes prejudiced statements based on isolated incidents from 40 years ago.
In the late 1960s in Butte MT, poll-watchers discovered that some 3000 *dead* people had cast votes -- all Democrats.
What they probably discovered was that one dishonest person had stuffed a ballot box, not that 3,000 dead people cast votes. You are trying to paint the entire Democratic Party as evil and corrupt because of one incident that happened 40 years ago in one location?
That's like saying that all Repuplicans are crooked because of what Richard Nixon and his henchment did vis-a-vis Watergate. Or like saying that all Republicans commit tax fraud because Spiro T. Agnew resigned the Vice Presidency in 1973 after being convicted of it. Or it's like saying that all Republicans are on the take just because G.W. Bush used an Enron corporate jet for his campaign transportation.
I guess that is different, though. In those cases, the criminal were not random scum who happened to be registered as Republicans. They were the people that the Republican voters felt were morally suited to the highest offices in the land.
Since when has that been a problem with Democrats? Heck, tell 'em you're an illegal alien and they might let you vote twice.
And really, what would it matter? It's not like the Republicans would allow votes for a Democrat to be counted anyway -- just ask Jeb Bush.
Pesky grammar.
;-)
Typos are my big problem. I normally only see them after hitting [submit] -- regardless of how many times I have previewed.
I probably should have just asked that people are polite.
No, you should have asked that people be polite.
When I want a free preview of important Slashdot stories, I just go to The Register.
In closing, this is a new feature and we appreciate all your feedback, both good and bad.
Why would you want bad feedback? If I were you, I would want all of the feedback to be good, regardless of whether it was positive or negative.
This means they can click through and beat the Slashdot Effect.
Something is wrong when a subscription incentive is to see a site before Slashdot launches a distributed denial of service attack against it: That's right, subscribers, click on the link now because we are about to DDoS the site!
What about preserving competition you FUCKING COMMUNIST!
You act like communists are pedophiles or something. It's just another economic system. But I am not a communist. I believe in capitalism with reasonable regulatory protections for workers and consumers. It's not good when a 20,000 person company is dwindled down to the board of directors and 150 upper level managers who manage overseas workers.
But in answer to your basic question, jobs are more important than corporate competition. When countless Americans are losing their jobs at
profitable companies, it's a big problem.
ere you think that guy's acting like a jerk. Everyone else reading this thread thinks you're acting like a jerk.
Just who is this "everyone" of whom you speak? Since you are posting anonymously, you clearly haven't been e-mailed by a "everyone." There's no outpouring of messages on here to support your claims about what everyone thinks. Unless you're basing that claim on something more than what's here, it's simply a fabrication.
How about addressing the facts? I posted Lexmark's contact info and accurately described how I called them and registered my complaint. The other person claimed to have called and been told to fax his complaint. He then accused me of lying when there were many other perfectly valid explanations for our allegedly different experiences when calling Lexmark.
Why would you claim that I'm "acting like a jerk" when I express my offense at being called a liar? Perhaps you don't mind being being accused of lying. I do.
Uhh dude.. he did... and had facts to back it up.
He has no facts about my conversation. All he knows is that the person he talked to told him to fax his complaint in. If he was as much of an asshole on the phone as he is on Slashdot, it's no wonder that they told him to send his complaint by fax.
They might have been flooded by calls and set up the fax procedure in the intervening time between my call and his. Perhaps the customer service rep to whom he spoke just did not want to be bothered with typing his complaint into their computer. Maybe the one I spoke to was unaware of the fax line for complaints. Or maybe the one that spoke to him was wrong and that fax line goes to the shipping department.
Maybe you and the people you hang out with lie so often that you assume everyone does. Well, I don't. I said that I spoke to them and registered my complaint. I did.
Yes, people lose jobs, but jobs are created elsewhere. A person's lack of motivation to learn skills that are in demand is not a good reason to destroy the economy with protectionism. Free trade benefits everyone.
It does not benefit a 55 year old professional who's supporting a family and loses his job. Regardless of his "motivation", he can't just enroll in college and move into a dorm for four years while he learns a new trade. What is his family supposed to do for four years? Live in a refrigerator box under a bridge? Even if he had enough savings for four years, it's damned unlikely that starting out in his new profession that he would earn anywhere near what he did as an experienced worker in the previous one -- and maybe not enough to support his family while paying back a college loan.
You're talking macroeconomic theory and I'm talking about people being able to support themselves and feed their families.
You also ignore the stacked deck from government regulations. We, as a society, have decided that we will accept a lower productivity and higher cost of doing business in order to protect the environment and insure worker safety. We have laws and regulations in place to achieve those goals. When U.S. companies farm out jobs to countries with no such protections, they are able to realize a competitive advantage.
It's not so simple as you Island A & B analogies would make it sound. Exporting jobs to the countries with the least environmental and worker safety regulations is no way to improve our standard of living.
Lexmark announced the other day that they are closing their Orlando Florida call and service center. I have no knowledge of where the jobs are going,
If they are following SMC's lead, the jobs will go to India. When you call for SMC tech support, your call is transferred to a call center located in India. Eventually, if you want a job in the tech sector, you will have to move to a second or third-world country. If you don't like that scenario, maybe you should join T.O.R.A.W..
Obviously you did not register a complaint, which is a little dissappoiting, but nevertheless.
Yes I did. And don't you dare call me a liar. I spoke to a customer service representative, he noted the specifics of my complaint, and stated that he would forward it to the appropriate persons.
Perhaps your wretched excuse for a personality was the reason that you were told to fax your complaint in.
Whatever printer I get now, it won't be a Lexmark.
I just called Lexmark on their toll-free phone number to tell them how despicable I thought this lawsuit was. I told them that, unless it was dropped, I would never purchase another Lexmark product nor would I recommend their products to clients or colleagues. If you feel that way, call them:
In the U.S., their phone number is:
1-800-LEXMARK (1-800-539-6275)
Hours:
Mon - Fri
9am - 9pm EST
Saturday
12pm - 6pm
Are blind people required to have their eyes removed?
Many blind people have artificial eyes (glass eyes). Many of those who do still have their eyes are unlikely to be able to, as the article says, "look into a camera while a snapshot is taken." Others are going to have eyes that are physically damaged so that the iris pattern cannot be read.
As for "drive through atms", don't you think that it's just a lot cheaper for ATM manufacturers to have one model of ATM vs having specific ones for drive through vs walkup vs embedded (I'm talking mechanisms, not the "body" of the atm). Why would they want the hassle of keeping track of two seperate button styles for every atm they manufacture?
Christ almighty, it was just a humorous little comment! But, no, I don't think it's a lot cheaper. The buttons are a plastic overlay those buttons with braille are more quickly torn and damaged. We've all seen that on ATMs. One service call to the machine to replace a torn braille button overlay is going to cost more than it would ever cost to track two button styles.
What do you bet that they will implement iris recognition on every ATM and there will still be braille on the buttons -- just like there is at every drive-through ATM in the U.S.?
Bzzt. Cato is libertarian, not right-wing. Of course they criticize any government spending at all.
Wrong. There are over 75 adjunct Cato scholars, including ultra-conservative law professors Richard Epstein (University of Chicago) and Henry G. Manne. Dick Armey (R-TX), has frequently given speeches at Cato in the past several years. Oh, and a little hint for you: Libertarians are often right-wing.
You conveniently forget the economic downturn that started in Clinton's last year.
It doesn't matter why there was a downturn. Bush's tax cut did nothing to reverse it.
That you oppose cutting waste spending shows you are the one lacking the intelligence.
I do oppose waste spending and would have happily given Clinton the line-item veto to prevent it. Bush, on the other hand, has cut funding for numerous environmental programs, scientific studies, and even stem cell research. Wasteful spending? Look what we've already blown on the whole Iraq debacle.
I am your intellectual superior. That you are too ignorant to see that is not my problem.
No, the economy did well as a result of the "Year of the Informed Voter" 1994. Thank you, Newt. It is quite obvious that Clinton's attempt to wreck the economy with punitive taxes were counterproductive, thank you Newt for blunting this.
BULLFUCKINGSHIT! The Republican Congress did everything that they could to undermine Clinton's success, constantly pushing for tax cuts to force the government into deficit spending. We now have a Republican administration, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate. Bush's budget is bleeding red ink, the economy is in the toilet, and he's wasting what little tax money is still collected on the military.
Hopefully, never. He can learn from daddy's mistake.
So you think that taxes should just be cut and cut and cut. I guess you figure that a tax rate of 0% will result in an economy that is infinitely stimulated, right? What a buffoon. Who the fuck do you think will be funding the Republican war on terror/Iraq/drugs (pick one)?
Only when they actually are to blame. As they certainly are now, with Daschle making sure that the economy stays down on purpose.
Bullshit again. Give me specifics.
You need to understand that money borrowed by the federal government also produces tax revenue. For example, if a GI is paid with borrowed money and he buys a new car, there are tax revenues produced from this borrowed money the same as if it had come from a balanced budget. The worker that made the car would pay taxes. The salesman that got the commission from selling the car would have paid taxes into our Treasury, etc. So, we can state with some certainty that many of the revenues paid into the Treasury after the Reagan tax cut were paid from borrowed money. Revenues did increase during the Reagan years. And if we had borrowed another trillion dollars, they would have increased even more.
But that's probably way over your head.
That was a troll, right?
The early labor-related decision that protected worker rights, especially those of workers who are often forced to join political organizations
They referred to that as "Union busting" in the old days -- and the people that did it were not popular heroes.
The more recent defense of workers rights against Democrats who wanted to force "Homeland Security" workers into unions against their will
How many of them said that they did not want to be unionized?
The decision to stop wasting taxpayer dollars "Exporting" abortion overseas
What a bunch of crap. Bush signed an executive order denying federal funding to any charity which so much as mentioned abortions. And how is it "wasting" anything to deal with global overpopulation?
Weighing in with the Supreme Court against the University of Michigan's blatantly racist admissions policy
It's not the job of the Executive branch to comment on upcoming Supreme Court decisions -- even though I agree with Bush's position on this issue.
Filing a brief with the Supreme Court to try and help stop the erosion of the 2nd Amendment.
Since learned legal scholars have spent decades trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment, I don't think that Bush's administration had much to offer. In fact, Ashcroft's public (mis)interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was simply inappropriate.
Appointing someone like Mr Powell to the FCC, who is resisting those who want to censor views by ownership regulations and "fairness doctrines".
You don't honestly think that having Clear Channel Communications own every radio station in the U.S. will foster a plurality of opinions, do you? Censoring views is exactly what the fairness doctrines are intended to prevent. People in a town should not have all of their news provided by a single source. Or did you prefer the "Radio Moscow" model of informing the public?
Appointing Judge Pickering.... not once, but twice. Despite the objections of those with baseless objections.
Are you a KKK member or what? Pickering advocated closing the only loophole in Missisipi law banning interracial marriage. Pickering served as a Mississippi State Senator from 1972 through 1979. During that time, he voted in lockstep with the majority of the Senate in resisting implemenation of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Do you have an exact quote?
Yes. While discussing the U.S. government, you wrote: You can have a very fascistic government that is democratic as long as a slim majority approve of its actions.
What I mean was that the government is acting fascistic when it takes our power from us (increasing taxes, annexing part of economy a la Hillary health care plan).
So you believe that Canada, which has socialized medicine, if a fascist state? Since the health plan proposed by Hillary Clinton was not enacted, it actually disproves your claim of a fascistic government. If our government was fascist, Bill Clinton (as the dictator) would have simply decreed that we would go over to that system.
Yes they do. They were designed in fact to help the poor. It is no surprise that poor people strongly support them, especially urban populations. They provide the poor educational opportunities denied to them when they are stuck in inferior government-run schools.
Having the support of undereducated poor people does not mean that something will help the poor. It just means that they believe that it will.
Again, I will repeat the same (unanswered) points that I made earlier:
Because all current and proposed voucher plans provide limited funds, the vouchers will not cover the tuition at good private schools -- and the poor are not going to be able to make up the difference. Furthermore, few private schools are located in the nation's inner cities or other economically depressed areas, so the parents won't even be able to get their kids to the schools. It's just a handout for the rich.
Would you support vouchers if they were means-tested?
No, for two reasons:
1. 85% of private schools are religious in nature. It is improper to hand public funds over to, for example, a Catholic school where they preach about creationism and the evils of condom use.
2. Fixed costs. Removing students, and money, from public schools will only make the schools worse. Taking 10% of the students out does not reduce the heating costs by 10%. It does not reduce the cost to repair the roof by 10%. It does not reduce the groundskeeping costs by 10%. If you have one music teacher, you can't cut their salary by 10%.
And those who use the term Slick Willy can attest to its accuracy and it not being an insult.
I won't dignify that with a retort.
I note that you did not address the point about innocent detainees in our "war on terror." Would it kill you to concede a point?
That is why they oppose tax cuts which end up increasing tax revenue from the resulting economic growth.
Tax cuts do little to stimulate economic growth, as has been made clear during this Presidency. Bush pushed through massive tax cuts and the economy had done nothing but get worse. All we are left with is interest on a soaring national debt. Even Greenspan stated that the most recent tax cuts were a bad idea unless balanced with tax increases in other areas to offset the revenue loss.
Clinton added 2 trillion onto the debt before the Republicans in Congress forced fiscal responsibility.
Either the President gets credit/blame or the Congress does. I'm tired of the Republican bullshit of shifting blame/credit. According to the right wing, when the economy sucks, it's the Democrats' fault, whether they control the House, Senate, or Presidency. If the Democrats don't control any of them, then it's the fault of some previous Democratic administration. Republican Presidents are powerless to stop spending by Congressional Democrats (we'll just conveniently ignore veto powers). If the economy is rosy, well that's attributed to Republicans in the House, Senate, or Oval Office. If there are none, it's the result of deficit spending under some prior Republican administration. Well, Bush pushed through his tax cut and he is the one that proposed the budget that is bleeding red ink. The economy did well under Clinton because he was not a dumbass who pushed through tax cuts while increasing spending.
Let's examine the "it's-not-the-government's-money" crap that Bush spewed throughout his campaign. We were in an economic boom. Wages were up. Unemployment was down. Of course the IRS was bringing in more income taxes than needed. Ever heard of saving for a rainy day? Well Bush obviously has not because he immediately pushed through a big tax cut. Now, lo and behold, we no longer have enough money to cover the budget that he proposed. He wants to lower taxes when we are in an economic boom because the government shouldn't have a surplus (and he would never consider taking any of that surplus to pay down the debt). When the economy is lagging, he wants to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Just when does he propose increasing taxes? We cut in boom times. We cut during recessions.
Even the right-wing Cato institute says that Bush Budget Reveals Serious Overspending Problem calling his administration "the biggest spending administration in decades."
Give George W Bush the line-item veto.
So that he line-item veto funding for environmental and social programs while signing legislation for military build-ups? No thanks. He lacks both the morality and intelligence to use such power.
By the way, George H.W. Bush is not "George Sr" that you called him. He's not a Sr, and his son is not a Jr, as they actually have different names
I couldn't care less. I'll just call his won "Dubya" to avoid the typing.
Yes, you did. You said that our government was fascistic. The core definition of fascism is "a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator." So, if you don't think that Bush is the dictator of our supposedly fascistic government, then who is?
And you oppose programs designed to help the poor such as vouchers.
School vouchers don't help the poor. I've already proven that with arguments that you were apparently unable to counter.
to get down to your level and insult presidents
"Dubya" is used to distinguish him from his father while "Slick Willy" is clearly an insult.
He does not want to put Iraq under U.S. control.
Wrong. According to the article:
Except we all know these Al Quada guys locked up are quite guilty. You'd have a case if they were not.
Then it looks like I have a case.
So much for any analysis based on facts and figures.
You said "only a minority of those who keep more with Bush tax cuts are rich". You were careful not to quantify "more" because that would undermine your argument. Allow me to rephrase: "only a minority of those who keep significantly more with Bush tax cuts are not rich." A pittance of the tax cuts goes to the vast majority of taxpayers while the lion's share goes to the rich.
As non-partisan as the NRA or Democratic Leadership Council!
If you feel that Citizens for Tax Justice is partisan, then show me how. That they disagree with the Republicans' current position does not make them partisan.
They are in fact a partisan pressure group interested in making the tax system less just by making it greedier.
No, they are interested in seeing that the taxation system is fair, not that more taxes be levied. In fact, their main focus is seeing that the rich don't get huge tax breaks while the poor and middle class get nothing of substance.
The rich, after the Bush tax cuts, pay a much higher amount in actual dollars (you were concerned about dollars, right) and percentage of income and percentage of the overall tax picture. Who is not paying their fair share?
The rich. Under the Bush 2003 tax plan, the top 1% would realize cuts averaging $30,127 while 48% of couples and singles would get less than $100. In fact, 31% would get no tax cut. You talk about fair and percentages. The numbers don't look nearly so pretty as your vague generalizations about who gets "more."
How is it fair to take the same percentage from a millionaire and from someone struggling to pay their rent and feed their family? It reminds me of a famous quote by Anatole France: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Aside from the fact that only a minority of those who keep more with Bush tax cuts are rich
I don't care about the numbers of people. I care about the dollar figures. What percentage of the dollars went where? An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization, revealed that the wealthiest one percent of all taxpayers get 45 percent of the total Bush tax cuts, or approximately $54,480 per year on average.
A tax cut is not a gift. It is never a gift to take less from someone. A gift is when you give what you already own to someone.
Yes, it is a gift. When you exempt people from paying their fair share of taxes, it is a gift. Would you consider it a gift to me if the IRS said that I was exempted from paying taxes (while you were not)? I bet you would.
We are badly overtaxed.
Relative to what? You're just stating an unsubstantiated opinion.
But I have studied the work of scientists with very well-conceived opinions opposite of yours. Quite well informed.
Provide attributed quotes or links. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that you are just lying.
If you knew anything about it, you would know that the "missile defense will never work" idea is proposterous.
So you are saying that the scientists who oppose it at the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program know nothing about the program?
So he did something in the name of good science for the wrong reasons. *Shrug*
If your reading comprehension is that poor, this is a waste of time.
Some are. Many are not. In places with unions, the teacher wage is boosted way above the real value of the work, forcing increases in class size and even closing of schools. Nothing stupid about this.
You have provided nothing to support your claims.
So far, you have been just about entirely wrong on everything else.
I have seen no evidence or logic provided by you to refute any of my claims. You've simply spouted your opinions.
I also like the voucher program for education for the same reason; as it is designed to improve educational opportunities for the poor. (it has nothing to do with the middle class, a claim you made elsewhere)
Then refute what I claimed with facts or logic rather than just yelling "is not! is not!"
Because all current and proposed voucher plans provide limited funds, the vouchers will not cover the tuition at good private schools -- and the poor are not going to be able to make up the difference. Furthermore, few private schools are located in the nation's inner cities or other economically depressed areas, so the parents won't even be able to get their kids to the schools. It's just a handout for the rich.
I'm informed on civics and I vote. A liberal's worst enemy.
Listening to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly does not make you informed. Having strongly held opinions does not make you informed. (Hell, you didn't even know what fascism was, but you were sure willing to use the term.) Sadly, I do believe your claim that you do vote.
First it is communism, then it is not. Make up your mind.
, but it sure is a step in that direction when Congress digs deep into our pockets. It is our money, not theirs.
Congress has the right to levy taxes. If Congress imposes a tax, the money is not yours any more. Period. End of story. And they don't "dig deep." We have one of the lowest tax rates of any industrialized country in the world.
Democracy has nothing to do with it, really. You can have a very fascistic government that is democratic as long as a slim majority approve of its actions.
So, are you suggesting the Bush is a democratically elected dictator? Also, I didn't see anything about fascism being a government that collects taxes and has programs designed to help the poor.
On the other hand, "belligerant nationalism" certainly seems to sum up world opinion of Dubya's behavior as of late. Suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship sounds a lot like locking people up for months on end without charges -- something Ashcroft has been advocating (and doing) in the "war on terror."
Again, it is good that the people involved in these decisions know more than you do. It is a great idea, it works, and it is purely defensive. Even Clinton knew this: he increased funding over the argument of the unscientific luddite know-nothings.
Boy, you put your foot in it that time. My most recent contract was developing satellite firmware and test procedures so I know a whole lot more about this subject than do you. The shrill 1998 Rumsfeld Report encouraged Congressional Republicans to turn up the heat on missile defense. Soon after, Clinton capitulated, signing the 1999 National Missile Defense Act. So, he signed it reluctantly and not because it was good science.
According to a Reuters article entitled U.S. Scientists Urge Against Missile Defense System on April 11, 2000: You do not know more about Star Wars than scientists who worked on the program and researchers at MIT, so quit spouting your ill-conceived opinion on the subject.
You seem to feel that you are entitled to earmark where you taxes go, so I would have a right to do the same thing. Now you see the problem with that absurd idea.
Too bad so much of it is wasted on teacher overpay.
Are you on drugs? Teachers are paid horribly low salaries. Look here and you will see that teachers in some of the most affluent, high cost of living areas in the country make starting salaries that average in the low $30K range. The average network tech makes far more than that. Were you trolling or are you really as stupid as that comment made you sound?
National defense is actually one of the few legitimate reasons to spend federal tax dollars. Despite your ignorance of foreign affairs.
If anyone is ignorant of foreign affairs, it is you. Iraq poses little threat to the U.S. Just trust me on that one because I know more about it than you do. Their missiles, with a range of about 100 miles won't hurt us. Iraq is more than 100 miles away from the U.S. (just thought I'd add that given how generally uninformed you seem to be.)
Congress made up amazing new ways to waste money that the private sector could not even think of.
So you believe that Project HeadStart, which provided preschool children with health, education, and nutrition assistance, was an "amazing new [way] to waste money"? You think that subsidizing school lunches for children who could not afford one otherwise was a new way to waste money? You believe that providing food stamps so that poor families were better able to afford to eat was a waste of money? What is wrong with you?
No, it is time that you commie fuck-heads keep your mits out of my pockets.
...
So you believe that a democratically elected Congress elected by the people is communism? You are probably the world's best argument for more spending on education.
I just don't always want my money and time to go to causes I don't believe in.
So now you feel that we should each earmark our taxes to pay for only programs we believe in. Okay, then this is legal notice to the U.S. Govt. that they are not to spend my taxes on the war on Iraq, "faith-based charities", the national helium reserve, the "war on drugs", any form of "Star Wars" defense program, federally funded golf courses,
It is time that the government cut way back and let people decide when and how to help others.
No, it's not. People suck. People will be greedy with their money. The government did not step in and take over work previously being done by private charities. They undertook efforts where nothing was being done before.