I think we are long passed the connection of republicans to conservation. We have had such a checkered past, that both sides can find things in the past that they want to go back to (e.g. 90% income tax rates, new deal, etc). Both parties want our country to be different than it is now. To assign directions to those differences like forward and backward is just semantics. I think "worse" and "better" are more appropriate adjectives.
Ayn Rand was an outspoken atheist, and similarly Atlas Shrugged was anti-religion. It seems that neither side of the left-right dichotomy wants to remember Atlas Shrugged accurately.
"Liberal" is a bad word because liberals got freaked out when Republicans called them liberals as if it were bad and switched to being "progressives". Furthermore, "Republican" refers to a specific political party. The opposite I guess would be a DINO (democrat in name only), except that every democrat is a democrat in name only because the democratic party doesn't actually stand for anything. It is just the party of people who can't be Republicans.
But as far as PINOs go, I would certainly select Hillary Clinton as PINO #1.
I think the 2008 election, and it looks like the 2016 election as well show a deep distrust for the democratic party establishment. I can't imagine this is for any reason other than the fact that the party establishment is seen as big on talk and small on action for progressive causes.
I don't think firing them is a bad thing. The fact that we would have to fire them (i.e. because they suck) is a bad thing. My point is that the problem is not just the current administration. Republicans are just as guilty of this.
I don't think there was ever an implication that all people have the same platform for speech. Furthermore, I think such an idea would be impossibly impractical to implement. Would we give each person in the country equal time on television?
All people are supposed to be given equal protection under the law, an equal vote, etc. All people being "created equal", only means that the government shouldn't grant certain individuals special privileges (e.g. because of their heritage, etc). It doesn't mean that there needs to be equality of outcome (e.g. equal distribution of wealth, speech, etc).
Freedom of speech means that the government won't stop you from saying what you want, or entering a contract with a television to buy a political ad. It does not force television stations to give out television ad spots to everyone who might want one regardless of whether they pay for it.
Freedom of speech != freedom to have you or your speech left uncriticized. Until you are fined or imprisoned by the government for something you've said, you have freedom of speech.
It was the first amendment, turning it from an empty document into a document with things in it. The *only* things in the constitution are amendments. So I really don't see how being a proponent of amendments implies contempt for the constitution.
Playing baseball is not a explicitly enumerated right of the people either, however, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness pretty much covers all these sorts of implicit rights that the federal government is not granted explicit authority to prohibit.
That assumes that you can always just trade time for money though. I get a salary. I don't have any option to just work extra hours and make more money. If I pay for something, that's taking up money that's coming in at an effectively fixed rate.
No it doesn't assume that. Your salary is merely a convenient way to assign a dollar value to your time. There are any number of things you could be doing with your time, like going on a vacation
If I instead do something myself rather than paying someone else, I'm essentially generating income (instead of consuming it) by converting excess time into funds saved.
You are generating income inefficiently as long as there is no way you could be making a higher wage than whatever you saved hiring a professional for the time it took you to do an equivalent job.
Division of labor was one of the primary advances that paved the way for modern society. It allows people to spend time doing the jobs they are most efficient at.
I've never actually had a harbor freight tool stop working. I always assume they will break at any moment. I had a jack I bought at harbor freight stop working, but it just needed to have fluid added. I think I just treat the tools I get there with such disdain that I end up losing them before they break.
That's not to say they aren't bad quality. I regret a lot of harbor freight purchases, but it's never because the tool literally broke. They usually start off shitty and sometimes I wish they would break so I could have a good reason to get a better replacement.
I had a miter saw for like 10 years where the 0 degree detent (and probably all the others as well) was off by about 1 degree and non-adjustable. It never came close to breaking. I just kept on cutting 91 degree cuts like a champ. I finally gave it away when I got a cheap dewalt one for xmas from my brother.
This is true if your time is not valuable. I frequently learn new skills, but it's because I enjoy it. If I factor in my normal salary of what I could be making if I was doing my normal job, it would definitely be cheaper to hire a professional than buying tools and DIYing it.
For jobs that don't look like they would be fun, or the skills I would learn would not be applicable in the future, I just get a tradesman to do it.
It wouldn't be just as easy. It is much easier use an encryption back door if you designed it rather than if you must reverse engineer it. The real problem is with people thinking "much harder == impossible".
Slashdot Mirror
FUCK YOU!!! I'm eating...
I think we are long passed the connection of republicans to conservation. We have had such a checkered past, that both sides can find things in the past that they want to go back to (e.g. 90% income tax rates, new deal, etc). Both parties want our country to be different than it is now. To assign directions to those differences like forward and backward is just semantics. I think "worse" and "better" are more appropriate adjectives.
Ayn Rand was an outspoken atheist, and similarly Atlas Shrugged was anti-religion. It seems that neither side of the left-right dichotomy wants to remember Atlas Shrugged accurately.
Depends on whether you are doing a mean or median. All it takes is a few really fucking crazy republicans to drag the mean well to the right.
Why shouldn't the monkeys run the zoo? Time to check your human privilege.
"Liberal" is a bad word because liberals got freaked out when Republicans called them liberals as if it were bad and switched to being "progressives". Furthermore, "Republican" refers to a specific political party. The opposite I guess would be a DINO (democrat in name only), except that every democrat is a democrat in name only because the democratic party doesn't actually stand for anything. It is just the party of people who can't be Republicans.
But as far as PINOs go, I would certainly select Hillary Clinton as PINO #1.
I think the 2008 election, and it looks like the 2016 election as well show a deep distrust for the democratic party establishment. I can't imagine this is for any reason other than the fact that the party establishment is seen as big on talk and small on action for progressive causes.
I don't think firing them is a bad thing. The fact that we would have to fire them (i.e. because they suck) is a bad thing. My point is that the problem is not just the current administration. Republicans are just as guilty of this.
It doesn't just include the executive branch. The legislative branch is probably the worst offender.
I don't think there was ever an implication that all people have the same platform for speech. Furthermore, I think such an idea would be impossibly impractical to implement. Would we give each person in the country equal time on television?
All people are supposed to be given equal protection under the law, an equal vote, etc. All people being "created equal", only means that the government shouldn't grant certain individuals special privileges (e.g. because of their heritage, etc). It doesn't mean that there needs to be equality of outcome (e.g. equal distribution of wealth, speech, etc).
Freedom of speech means that the government won't stop you from saying what you want, or entering a contract with a television to buy a political ad. It does not force television stations to give out television ad spots to everyone who might want one regardless of whether they pay for it.
You'd have to fire nearly every government official republican and democrat past and present, not just "the current administration".
Freedom of speech != freedom to have you or your speech left uncriticized. Until you are fined or imprisoned by the government for something you've said, you have freedom of speech.
It was the first amendment, turning it from an empty document into a document with things in it. The *only* things in the constitution are amendments. So I really don't see how being a proponent of amendments implies contempt for the constitution.
Playing baseball is not a explicitly enumerated right of the people either, however, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness pretty much covers all these sorts of implicit rights that the federal government is not granted explicit authority to prohibit.
States are not authorized to build roads?
Says the anonymous coward...
That assumes that you can always just trade time for money though. I get a salary. I don't have any option to just work extra hours and make more money. If I pay for something, that's taking up money that's coming in at an effectively fixed rate.
No it doesn't assume that. Your salary is merely a convenient way to assign a dollar value to your time. There are any number of things you could be doing with your time, like going on a vacation
If I instead do something myself rather than paying someone else, I'm essentially generating income (instead of consuming it) by converting excess time into funds saved.
You are generating income inefficiently as long as there is no way you could be making a higher wage than whatever you saved hiring a professional for the time it took you to do an equivalent job.
Division of labor was one of the primary advances that paved the way for modern society. It allows people to spend time doing the jobs they are most efficient at.
We sure made a lot of stuff under capitalism. I suppose whether you consider productivity a human virtue is in the eye of the beholder.
I've never actually had a harbor freight tool stop working. I always assume they will break at any moment. I had a jack I bought at harbor freight stop working, but it just needed to have fluid added. I think I just treat the tools I get there with such disdain that I end up losing them before they break.
That's not to say they aren't bad quality. I regret a lot of harbor freight purchases, but it's never because the tool literally broke. They usually start off shitty and sometimes I wish they would break so I could have a good reason to get a better replacement.
I had a miter saw for like 10 years where the 0 degree detent (and probably all the others as well) was off by about 1 degree and non-adjustable. It never came close to breaking. I just kept on cutting 91 degree cuts like a champ. I finally gave it away when I got a cheap dewalt one for xmas from my brother.
This is true if your time is not valuable. I frequently learn new skills, but it's because I enjoy it. If I factor in my normal salary of what I could be making if I was doing my normal job, it would definitely be cheaper to hire a professional than buying tools and DIYing it.
For jobs that don't look like they would be fun, or the skills I would learn would not be applicable in the future, I just get a tradesman to do it.
It wouldn't be just as easy. It is much easier use an encryption back door if you designed it rather than if you must reverse engineer it. The real problem is with people thinking "much harder == impossible".
There is a difference between Sanders (can't be trusted to be good), and Clinton (can be trusted to be evil).
What definition of unelectable are you using? Can't be elected or shouldn't be elected?
Carly Fiorina doesn't understand shit.
Because it's really important that we offend muslims?
Are you messing with me?