The voters. If the voters don't like the way a policy maker implements policy, they vote them out. If they fail to be able to influence the government through the ballot box, they can revolt and set up a new government that will listen to them.
I like to think that we can do better with less government oversight and more strict penalties, for all things.
That's what most people wish for. The devil is in the details.
First of all, your business doesn't have to be selling computers. IF you enter or choose to stay into the business knowing the costs involved and accepting them, that's your perogative. If you look at prices like those and say it's not worth it, that's you're perogative too.
And if prices were raised via collusion after I got into that market? What then? Screw it, change businesses? Meanwhile, I have a family to feed and a mortage to pay. Should I suffer financial pains because of the collusion of suppliers?
This is the problem that I have with libertarianism. It cares ONLY about liberty, but cares squat for justice or democracy. Justice requires that those companies be punished. And it's dependant upon this utopian ideal of a world without government involvement in the market, a world that has never existed in history nor is there any indication that it ever shall.
1) you don't have to buy something no matter what the cost. If they want to charge you $100 for 16MB of RAM, you can either do that, or go without RAM
I sure as hell DO have to buy it if my business is selling computers.
2) you can always enter the business yourself. If they are colluding to lower prices, it would be in your (and other businesses) self-interest to undercut them and make an even heftier profit (an economical fact if the market price is above equilibrium).
Unreasonable, inefficient, and untrue in any case. Justice delayed is justice denied; if companies are colluding they should be punished sooner rather than later. Further, this ignores the fact that companies frequently collude to keep competitors out of the market, and succeed in doing so.
Your idealism is touching, but falls on its face in the face of the way the market actually works.
Cases like this remind me why I don't think the libertarian philosophy towards free markets is all that realistic. Many libertarians believe that things such as this should be left to the marketplace to settle, and that government "interference" like this ultimately harms the market. I emphatically disagree. There are inherent flaws with the free market that the justice system can and should remedy so that the overall market is healthier thereby. Collusion does no one -- consumers, industries, or the economy as a whole -- any favors, and I fail to see how letting the market handle it would do anything but unfairly fatten the pockets of those who benefit.
FWIW there is a subgroup of republicans that are basically that, they agree with most of the libertarian ideals, with some republican stuff thrown in.
Yeah, but they aren't the ones currently in the upper echelons of the party, with the exception of the Club for Growth/Grover "Drown the federal government" Norquist types. The modern GOP is to a very large extent run by rapture Christians: Delay, Bush, Ashcroft, Brownback, and their fundraisers: Moon, Robertson, Falwell, etc. The usual suspects.
If the GOP were the party of Dwight Eisenhower and the Democrats the party of LBJ, my sig would be quite different. But as things stand today, the GOP is controlled by dangerous ideologues, not lower-case-d democrats or Americans of Eisernhower's stripe.
But why do they need to sort the list in the first place? It's not like they have to call people in a certain order in order to make them aware of the vulnerability. They just need to post the information on their website and make it available to everyone simultaneously.
It's English. If you're going to write in it, at least do it well. Of course you knew what he said. Y0|_| c4|\| understand crap like 1337 sp33|<, too, but one is of considerably higher quality than the other. Don't lower your standards out of laziness or any other reason.
Not an attack. But I believe that if you take the time to make sure you are using the language correctly, it indicates that you are more careful in your other thoughts, and are probably (although certainly not definitely) a smarter person.
They would anyway be strings of *s only. right!?!?
You're kidding, right? I mean, no one can be that dumb and manage to operate a computer. Seriously. Tell me you're kidding. In fact, I hope someone mods you "funny" simply because if you *weren't* kidding I'd have to hunt you down and give you a flushie. Repeatedly.
Wow, well the specifity of your charges certainly gives credence to your claims. Those wicked trial lawyers, doing something... vague.. against some... industry... for SOMETHING... AND THEY SUPPORT DEMOCRATS! BE AFRAID!
Ummmmmm. Right.
You get that from the AM radio propagandists, or you make it up all by yourself?
Oh, I loved L&S, and thought it was one of the best Disney movies in years. It wasn't forumlaic or have any of the cheezy elements that have plagued Disney for so long. However, I don't think it was quite up to the "greatness" level that "Iron Giant" fell into. And I agree with your assessment of New Groove.
I know some of it was CGI, but the characters and backgrounds were all hand-drawn. This is not an area that I have any expertise in, though, so if I am mistaken please tell me what you know.
Do you have something intelligent to say, or just mindless mockery? Because, see, I remember how the committee system worked for many years until the Republicans gained power, and because of the inherent respect for democracy shared by many members of BOTH parties, the committee systems were respected and dissenting voices given time.
Now, with Tom Delay and company running things, it's their-way-or-the-highway. It was Delay who implemented so-called "K-Street Policy", whereby Republican congressmen were forbidden from meeting with or speaking to Democratic lobbyists, and pressuring lobbying groups to only hire Republicans.
In fact, if you can show me a single example of a selfless act of democracy promotion made by the Republican party, I would like to hear it.
I know you THINK your cynicism makes you smart and clever, wise in the way things "really work", but it falls apart in the face of all evidence.
This is kind of off-topic, but I recently had a discussion with some friends of mine where I mentioned how much my kids like "The Iron Giant." Surprisingly, everyone piped up and expressed similar affection for the film. The discussion went from there to the decline of Disney under Eisner, and the decline of American animation in general. (I belive Pixar has done some amazing work, but there was disagreement over this.)
Long story short, the consensus was reached that "The Iron Giant" was the last great hand-animated film by an American studio. Symbolically, this was also the last feature-length film made by WB's animation studios. Every great animated feature film since then has been almost exclusively Japanese.
The lack of news concerning democrat politicians is disturbing.
Maybe that's because the Democrats aren't trying to usurp the very democratic underpinnings that this nation was built upon. While there was partisanship when the Democrats were in power, they at least attempted to give the opposing party a voice, something that the modern GOP has demonstrated *repeatedly* they have no interest in doing. The GOP is the one that has basically abandoned the committee system in favor of a "Whatever Bush or Delay wants" system, where NO compromises are made, government is closed to public or opposing scrutiny, and graft, corruption, and wanton criminality occurs at unprecedented levels.
Try turning off "Cock" Hannity and opening your eyes. The GOP is trying to turn the US into a one-party state, totalitarian and theocratic, and that is a bad thing for YOU.
So far, there has been no compelling evidence to show that Kerry did not earn his medals, nor has there been any compelling evidence to show that Bush did not complete his service to the satisfaction of his superiors.
There's plenty, but conservatives refuse to accept *any* of it, especially if it is politically damaging. Eyewitnesses (or more accurately the lack thereof), documentation, Bush's own failure to deny the charges, etc., etc. But none of that will ever be good enough, will it?
Time for some mega nerdiness: I was captain of the math team when I was in high school.
Feh, screw that "nerdiness" crap. Good for you. Math is a powerful tool, worthy of dedication. I wish I were better at it, and respect those who are. I think being captain of the math team is far and away a better thing than being the captain of the freakin football team.
If he was doing coke at the time he was flying combat simulations, his remains would be in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico right now (assuming he was even let into the plane, which would not be very likely.)
Why? Nobody says he was doing coke WHILE he was flying. It't not like if you snort coke you stay high for weeks on end. It's a party drug; the effects wear off the next day.
To even qualify to fly those missions requires a very advanced knowledge of Aviation. He may have been a slacker in regard to his college classes, but he obviously applied himself when it came to his Guard training.
Yeah, but cutting and running kinda negates all that, don't it? If he had any backbone whatsoever he'd face up to his problems and admit it.
He moved to Georgia to work on a friend's political campaign, and had already earned more than enough points at that point to never have to fly again, so the military was more than happy to accommodate his desire to serve out his time in Georgia.
Ah, see, that's just flat out wrong. Either tha, or a lie. You appear to be a conservative, so the latter is probably correct. But to quote:
1) 60 Minutes II: "Larry Korb, an assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan has reviewed the Mr. Bush's record and believes he did not fulfill his contract.
'Essentially, Bush gamed the system to avoid serving his country the way that most of his contemporaries had to,' Korb said.
2) Boston Globe: "On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, 'It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months... ' Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.
"But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. 'I must have misspoke,' Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview."
He didn't serve in combat, but he served, which is more than former President Clinton could say. Weren't you people saying that military service (or lack thereof) didn't matter? You know, back when Clinton was running against a war hero Senator?
You people, hmm? It's not about the service, it's about the lying and the lack of personal accountability. Bush has been propped up by daddy's friends and symnpathetic supporters for YEARS, and has never had to be accountable for his actions.
No. And I still don't care. I wouldn't care if Bush had gone to Vietnam and earned three purple hearts, while Kerry neglected his reserve duty.
It's not that he went AWOL so much as he has lied about it, and his supporters have propagated those lies. (Although to be brutally honest: going AWOL is a major offense in my book.) I'd have a ton more respect for him if he stood up and said "Yeah, I was in my early 20's and did a little bit of coke. It was college, I'm sorry. I had to split to avoid a urine test. Not proud of it, haven't done it since."
At least I can respect the truth, a helluva lot more than I can respect all this dissembling and deception and forgery nonsense.
Or did you think they just let people stroll into the airbase untrained and fly risky test-flight manuvers in expensive and dangerous jet aircrafts on the basis of their family connecitons?
Oh no, I think he got trained as a pilot. SOMEBODY had to protect Texas from that imminent Mexican invasion. But it sure do seem a tad bit coincidental that Georgie boy walked away whenever they started drug testing. See, from the non-conservaclone side of the fence it looks like Georgie boy was a cokehead back in the day, and when Nixon signed the order making sure every active duty military person got urine tested, Georgie ran for the hills. Or Georgia, to be specific.
It's not like he had anything to worry about; daddy's pals would -- and did -- take care of things.
But of COURSE this is just raving lunacy. Why, Bush was the best soldier since Dwight Eisenhower, I tell you whut! And in any case it doesn't MATTER if he took a walk, because he's a Republican and Sean Hannity just LOVES him, and that's what's important, after all.
Welp, here comes another example of "lie, repeat the lie until your opponent gets tired of refuting it." Expect this thing to get tossed about by Limbaugh, Hannity, deLay, and all the other conservaclones for months on end. It sure do help divert attention away from the underlying questions of leadership, though, don't it?
Question, though: Does anyone, regardless of what they believe about THESE documents, really think Bush honorably completed his service? And don't give me any crap about "he got an honorable discharge and that settles it", either. Sons of privelege tend to have priveleges handed to them.
Bush just doesn't seem like the kind of guy who wouldn't take advantage of such a situation, if he could.
Please provide sources for your contention that Bush lied about his record.
Gladly. Not that it will matter to you, though, will it? Hell, evidence for conservatives is just an excuse to exercise their rhetorical skills.
Lie: CNN 2/13/04: "We've released all of [the documents]. You should take our word for it and this is the evidence."
Fact: AP 9/9/04: "After the [60 Minutes II] broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status."
Lie: Bush, NBC 2/9/04: "Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military."
Fact: Boston Globe, 9/8/2004: "On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, 'It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months... ' Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.
"But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. 'I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview."
I could keep going all day with this crap, but it won't matter one slice of cheese to you. If there is one thing I have learned, it's that conservatives have abrogated all pretense of morality seeking the truth, and instead just seek myriad ways to twist the truth to their advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
Who punishes the government?
The voters. If the voters don't like the way a policy maker implements policy, they vote them out. If they fail to be able to influence the government through the ballot box, they can revolt and set up a new government that will listen to them.
I like to think that we can do better with less government oversight and more strict penalties, for all things.
That's what most people wish for. The devil is in the details.
First of all, your business doesn't have to be selling computers. IF you enter or choose to stay into the business knowing the costs involved and accepting them, that's your perogative. If you look at prices like those and say it's not worth it, that's you're perogative too.
And if prices were raised via collusion after I got into that market? What then? Screw it, change businesses? Meanwhile, I have a family to feed and a mortage to pay. Should I suffer financial pains because of the collusion of suppliers?
This is the problem that I have with libertarianism. It cares ONLY about liberty, but cares squat for justice or democracy. Justice requires that those companies be punished. And it's dependant upon this utopian ideal of a world without government involvement in the market, a world that has never existed in history nor is there any indication that it ever shall.
1) you don't have to buy something no matter what the cost. If they want to charge you $100 for 16MB of RAM, you can either do that, or go without RAM
I sure as hell DO have to buy it if my business is selling computers.
2) you can always enter the business yourself. If they are colluding to lower prices, it would be in your (and other businesses) self-interest to undercut them and make an even heftier profit (an economical fact if the market price is above equilibrium).
Unreasonable, inefficient, and untrue in any case. Justice delayed is justice denied; if companies are colluding they should be punished sooner rather than later. Further, this ignores the fact that companies frequently collude to keep competitors out of the market, and succeed in doing so.
Your idealism is touching, but falls on its face in the face of the way the market actually works.
Cases like this remind me why I don't think the libertarian philosophy towards free markets is all that realistic. Many libertarians believe that things such as this should be left to the marketplace to settle, and that government "interference" like this ultimately harms the market. I emphatically disagree. There are inherent flaws with the free market that the justice system can and should remedy so that the overall market is healthier thereby. Collusion does no one -- consumers, industries, or the economy as a whole -- any favors, and I fail to see how letting the market handle it would do anything but unfairly fatten the pockets of those who benefit.
If you're sending data over a wire that pretty much necessitates a protocol.
FWIW there is a subgroup of republicans that are basically that, they agree with most of the libertarian ideals, with some republican stuff thrown in.
Yeah, but they aren't the ones currently in the upper echelons of the party, with the exception of the Club for Growth/Grover "Drown the federal government" Norquist types. The modern GOP is to a very large extent run by rapture Christians: Delay, Bush, Ashcroft, Brownback, and their fundraisers: Moon, Robertson, Falwell, etc. The usual suspects.
If the GOP were the party of Dwight Eisenhower and the Democrats the party of LBJ, my sig would be quite different. But as things stand today, the GOP is controlled by dangerous ideologues, not lower-case-d democrats or Americans of Eisernhower's stripe.
But why do they need to sort the list in the first place? It's not like they have to call people in a certain order in order to make them aware of the vulnerability. They just need to post the information on their website and make it available to everyone simultaneously.
Not an attack. But I believe that if you take the time to make sure you are using the language correctly, it indicates that you are more careful in your other thoughts, and are probably (although certainly not definitely) a smarter person.
They would anyway be strings of *s only. right!?!?
You're kidding, right? I mean, no one can be that dumb and manage to operate a computer. Seriously. Tell me you're kidding. In fact, I hope someone mods you "funny" simply because if you *weren't* kidding I'd have to hunt you down and give you a flushie. Repeatedly.
Wow, well the specifity of your charges certainly gives credence to your claims. Those wicked trial lawyers, doing something... vague.. against some... industry... for SOMETHING... AND THEY SUPPORT DEMOCRATS! BE AFRAID!
Ummmmmm. Right.
You get that from the AM radio propagandists, or you make it up all by yourself?
Oh, I loved L&S, and thought it was one of the best Disney movies in years. It wasn't forumlaic or have any of the cheezy elements that have plagued Disney for so long. However, I don't think it was quite up to the "greatness" level that "Iron Giant" fell into. And I agree with your assessment of New Groove.
If it's fake, then why hasn't Bush or the White House denied it?
I know some of it was CGI, but the characters and backgrounds were all hand-drawn. This is not an area that I have any expertise in, though, so if I am mistaken please tell me what you know.
Now, with Tom Delay and company running things, it's their-way-or-the-highway. It was Delay who implemented so-called "K-Street Policy", whereby Republican congressmen were forbidden from meeting with or speaking to Democratic lobbyists, and pressuring lobbying groups to only hire Republicans.
In fact, if you can show me a single example of a selfless act of democracy promotion made by the Republican party, I would like to hear it.
I know you THINK your cynicism makes you smart and clever, wise in the way things "really work", but it falls apart in the face of all evidence.
This is kind of off-topic, but I recently had a discussion with some friends of mine where I mentioned how much my kids like "The Iron Giant." Surprisingly, everyone piped up and expressed similar affection for the film. The discussion went from there to the decline of Disney under Eisner, and the decline of American animation in general. (I belive Pixar has done some amazing work, but there was disagreement over this.)
Long story short, the consensus was reached that "The Iron Giant" was the last great hand-animated film by an American studio. Symbolically, this was also the last feature-length film made by WB's animation studios. Every great animated feature film since then has been almost exclusively Japanese.
The lack of news concerning democrat politicians is disturbing.
Maybe that's because the Democrats aren't trying to usurp the very democratic underpinnings that this nation was built upon. While there was partisanship when the Democrats were in power, they at least attempted to give the opposing party a voice, something that the modern GOP has demonstrated *repeatedly* they have no interest in doing. The GOP is the one that has basically abandoned the committee system in favor of a "Whatever Bush or Delay wants" system, where NO compromises are made, government is closed to public or opposing scrutiny, and graft, corruption, and wanton criminality occurs at unprecedented levels.
Try turning off "Cock" Hannity and opening your eyes. The GOP is trying to turn the US into a one-party state, totalitarian and theocratic, and that is a bad thing for YOU.
Actually, in the BSOD context, that was really funny. Too bad that's not what you intended. :)
So far, there has been no compelling evidence to show that Kerry did not earn his medals, nor has there been any compelling evidence to show that Bush did not complete his service to the satisfaction of his superiors.
There's plenty, but conservatives refuse to accept *any* of it, especially if it is politically damaging. Eyewitnesses (or more accurately the lack thereof), documentation, Bush's own failure to deny the charges, etc., etc. But none of that will ever be good enough, will it?
Time for some mega nerdiness: I was captain of the math team when I was in high school.
Feh, screw that "nerdiness" crap. Good for you. Math is a powerful tool, worthy of dedication. I wish I were better at it, and respect those who are. I think being captain of the math team is far and away a better thing than being the captain of the freakin football team.
If he was doing coke at the time he was flying combat simulations, his remains would be in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico right now (assuming he was even let into the plane, which would not be very likely.)
Why? Nobody says he was doing coke WHILE he was flying. It't not like if you snort coke you stay high for weeks on end. It's a party drug; the effects wear off the next day.
To even qualify to fly those missions requires a very advanced knowledge of Aviation. He may have been a slacker in regard to his college classes, but he obviously applied himself when it came to his Guard training.
Yeah, but cutting and running kinda negates all that, don't it? If he had any backbone whatsoever he'd face up to his problems and admit it.
He moved to Georgia to work on a friend's political campaign, and had already earned more than enough points at that point to never have to fly again, so the military was more than happy to accommodate his desire to serve out his time in Georgia.
Ah, see, that's just flat out wrong. Either tha, or a lie. You appear to be a conservative, so the latter is probably correct. But to quote:
1) 60 Minutes II: "Larry Korb, an assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan has reviewed the Mr. Bush's record and believes he did not fulfill his contract.
'Essentially, Bush gamed the system to avoid serving his country the way that most of his contemporaries had to,' Korb said.
2) Boston Globe: "On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, 'It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months... ' Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.
"But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. 'I must have misspoke,' Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview."
He didn't serve in combat, but he served, which is more than former President Clinton could say. Weren't you people saying that military service (or lack thereof) didn't matter? You know, back when Clinton was running against a war hero Senator?
You people, hmm? It's not about the service, it's about the lying and the lack of personal accountability. Bush has been propped up by daddy's friends and symnpathetic supporters for YEARS, and has never had to be accountable for his actions.
Fire that aristocratic bitch.
No. And I still don't care. I wouldn't care if Bush had gone to Vietnam and earned three purple hearts, while Kerry neglected his reserve duty.
It's not that he went AWOL so much as he has lied about it, and his supporters have propagated those lies. (Although to be brutally honest: going AWOL is a major offense in my book.) I'd have a ton more respect for him if he stood up and said "Yeah, I was in my early 20's and did a little bit of coke. It was college, I'm sorry. I had to split to avoid a urine test. Not proud of it, haven't done it since."
At least I can respect the truth, a helluva lot more than I can respect all this dissembling and deception and forgery nonsense.
Or did you think they just let people stroll into the airbase untrained and fly risky test-flight manuvers in expensive and dangerous jet aircrafts on the basis of their family connecitons?
Oh no, I think he got trained as a pilot. SOMEBODY had to protect Texas from that imminent Mexican invasion. But it sure do seem a tad bit coincidental that Georgie boy walked away whenever they started drug testing. See, from the non-conservaclone side of the fence it looks like Georgie boy was a cokehead back in the day, and when Nixon signed the order making sure every active duty military person got urine tested, Georgie ran for the hills. Or Georgia, to be specific.
It's not like he had anything to worry about; daddy's pals would -- and did -- take care of things.
But of COURSE this is just raving lunacy. Why, Bush was the best soldier since Dwight Eisenhower, I tell you whut! And in any case it doesn't MATTER if he took a walk, because he's a Republican and Sean Hannity just LOVES him, and that's what's important, after all.
Times New Roman has been around since the 30's. Ask a typesetter.
Keep reaching. Do you *really* think Bush honorably completed his duties?
Question, though: Does anyone, regardless of what they believe about THESE documents, really think Bush honorably completed his service? And don't give me any crap about "he got an honorable discharge and that settles it", either. Sons of privelege tend to have priveleges handed to them.
Bush just doesn't seem like the kind of guy who wouldn't take advantage of such a situation, if he could.
Please provide sources for your contention that Bush lied about his record.
Gladly. Not that it will matter to you, though, will it? Hell, evidence for conservatives is just an excuse to exercise their rhetorical skills.
Lie: CNN 2/13/04: "We've released all of [the documents]. You should take our word for it and this is the evidence."
Fact: AP 9/9/04: "After the [60 Minutes II] broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status."
Lie: Bush, NBC 2/9/04: "Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military."
Fact: Boston Globe, 9/8/2004: "On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, 'It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months... ' Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.
"But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. 'I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview."
I could keep going all day with this crap, but it won't matter one slice of cheese to you. If there is one thing I have learned, it's that conservatives have abrogated all pretense of morality seeking the truth, and instead just seek myriad ways to twist the truth to their advantage.