Ron Paul is the best candidate because he tried...
Note how you never hear Ron Paul "succeeded" in doing anything. That was my point. No one can hold Ron Paul responsible for any of his accomplishments, because that would require accomplishments.
But when you never actually accomplish anything, you can't be held responsible for when your plan goes wrong, can you? You can certainly watch everyone else who accomplished their goals and then criticize the imperfections in the outcome though. What a bunch of idiots everyone else was! See how much smarter we are than them?
If he can't lead and he won't follow, then how is he part of the solution to anything?
When the dollar crashes and you're left with massive debt and no civil rights...
I've been hearing this and other similar doomsday scenarios for 25 years now. With all these doomsday predictions failing to come true every day, I'm beginning to think things might just be OK and the doomsayers might be wrong.
Maybe this time it actually will be doomsday though.
I'm going to vote for Romney even though he's not my first choice.
If I cared about being "right" and voting for the best person, I'd write someone in. But a vote is an attempt to exercise power. Voting for someone with no chance at all is simply losing that power. If there's no one with a chance of winning that you can agree with at all, then you've already lost that power.
Voting for folks who have no chance is giving up an opportunity to improve your country in order to be "right".
I actually agree with you. But voting for yourself is voting your conscience.
If Ron Paul were a good candidate with a future, I might agree that he should be supported. The libertarian movement needs a good candidate who can lead and it needs to shun the support of all the weird Internet nutjobs and the reality-deprived.
The way it works now is that Ron Paul is the choice of everyone who wants to have a position on things that can't be called "Flamebait". It's a position you hold to enlarge your social circle, not a position you hold to solve problems. There are never any unintended consequences of the Ron Paul positions because he never gets anything enacted. So no need to weigh the pros and cons of anything -- just proclaim yourself right and smarter than everyone else.
Wow, he took away pensions from government workers? That sounds like a good thing for everyone except government workers.
Why should anyone care about government workers? Do they care about me? Do they care about my pension? Why wouldn't government workers volunteer to give up their pensions so that I can have more money in my pocket? That's what they want me to do for them.
I'm still not persuaded. For maximum persuasiveness in communications, can you please try using more all-caps text and putting in a lot swear words and additional information-free accusations? Everyone loves that stuff.
Then why not write your own name in? Clearly you agree with your positions better than even Ron Paul. And you have approximately the same chance of winning as Ron Paul. The net effect is the same.
The question was about who was the best candidate on Super Tuesday. I gave a clear reason why Romney is the best.
I think you're saying:
"We hate telcos, we hate owners of IP, we want the government to control every policy on everyone's Internet (except at public libraries where the government should butt out even though they are government-run libraries), and that's the "technology" position. What's the best candidate that agrees precisely with those chosen positions?"
That's not much of a discussion, is it? Why not also tell us which candidate to vote for if you're going to proscribe every other issue position in the question?
Also, who said being a socialist was bad? Not me. If you think being a socialist is good, then Obama or Hillary are good candidates for you. If you think it's a mixed bag and that socialism is good only about half the time, then McCain. If you want to escape responsibility for any government decision but still claim to have a voice, then Paul. If you want technology businesses to succeed and innovate and grow and prosper, then Romney.
I back the Federal Reserve system. When can I expect my check to arrive?
Also, this is the USA. We have a good quality of life in the USA compared to most other countries past and present. "Our" lives are not a "living hell". Since you are so demonstrably wrong about obvious, observable quality of life, what insight could you possibly have on the "cause" of that "problem"?
I'm sure Ron Paul is a good choice for anyone who wants to escape responsibility for anything that happens in government. "Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul".
If not being blamed is your objective, Paul is you best bet. If you want to actually accomplish something, then one of the candidates who can accomplish something might be better.
This will be quite the political discussion if everyone who doesn't say they love socialism and hate corporations (and hate the rich, religious people, the military, etc, etc, etc) gets modded to -1 Flamebait.
Why even ask the question if there's not going to be a serious discussion? Just make it a poll so the "moderators" can say "Ron Paul" or one of the socialists instead of voting to censor other perspectives with their mod points.
Well, the only one who understands economics and business is Romney. Since technology companies and their employees are what makes "technology" happen, Romney is the best.
The others primarily think that business (including the technology business) exists to produce goods and wealth for them to tax so they can redistribute it to politically-connected unproductive folks.
Definitely complain about the TSA. Please don't offer any responsible suggestions or anything that might solve any problems.
It's important to remember that no one can ever hold a complainer responsible for any outcome. Complainers have no duty. Complainers need not be realistic -- nor do they need to acknowledge any reality at all. Complainers need not weigh the pros and cons of different choices. And even if they do, complainers don't have to weigh them honestly.
You too can be free from responsible adulthood. Now the TSA has a blog so you can complain.
Bart: How would I go about creating a half-man, half-monkey-type creature? Ms.K: I'm sorry, that would be playing God. Bart: God shmod! I want my monkey-man!
Yes, I went back and read the article. There's really no need to use 18 Watts for 802.11n, especially on a continuous basis. Twelve should be a lot more than enough.
Even so, a device that needs 18 watts at peak and an average of about 6 can easily be made to work when only 12 watts are available continuously.
As far as we know. How many other suppressed videos, or events without videos, are there?
Maybe that's my problem. I only believe in real deaths, not imaginary ones. I'm sure all the imaginary wives and children miss their imaginary loved ones though. The pretend world can be sad.
And the people who die from nuke mining don't think it's so safe, even if they don't appear in a video.
And I'm sure all the mothers whose children accidentally drowned in bathtubs are wary too. But I bet they still have their other children wash once in a while.
It's like 8 watts instead of 3 watts (not exact numbers). It's not a significant amount of power. That's why you don't need to upgrade your infrastructure.
I'm not sure how a silly article like this gets published. If it was tons of power, how could they make 802.11n adapters for laptops?
Gee, how many people died? How does that compare to other power generation mechanisms or the number of deaths attributable to the lack of power?
Nothing is perfectly safe. Nuclear power is relatively safer than all other forms of power generation per Kilowatt Hour and it's safer than not having power available.
Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul is the best candidate because he tried...
Note how you never hear Ron Paul "succeeded" in doing anything. That was my point. No one can hold Ron Paul responsible for any of his accomplishments, because that would require accomplishments.
But when you never actually accomplish anything, you can't be held responsible for when your plan goes wrong, can you? You can certainly watch everyone else who accomplished their goals and then criticize the imperfections in the outcome though. What a bunch of idiots everyone else was! See how much smarter we are than them?
If he can't lead and he won't follow, then how is he part of the solution to anything?
When the dollar crashes and you're left with massive debt and no civil rights...
I've been hearing this and other similar doomsday scenarios for 25 years now. With all these doomsday predictions failing to come true every day, I'm beginning to think things might just be OK and the doomsayers might be wrong.
Maybe this time it actually will be doomsday though.
Really? I didn't read the guy's post. Is name-calling considered profound now?
To your first question: Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, and etc in that order.
How would you feel if you lost your pension and/or half your yearly salary?
The government already takes almost half of my yearly salary. I feel bad about it. And I don't have a pension -- I work in the private sector.
Democrats are not Socialists.
Obama and Clinton are.
It is not then unreasonable to find a candidate that shares these positions.
Then just tell everyone who it is. Why pretend it's a question?
I'm going to vote for Romney even though he's not my first choice.
If I cared about being "right" and voting for the best person, I'd write someone in. But a vote is an attempt to exercise power. Voting for someone with no chance at all is simply losing that power. If there's no one with a chance of winning that you can agree with at all, then you've already lost that power.
Voting for folks who have no chance is giving up an opportunity to improve your country in order to be "right".
I actually agree with you. But voting for yourself is voting your conscience.
If Ron Paul were a good candidate with a future, I might agree that he should be supported. The libertarian movement needs a good candidate who can lead and it needs to shun the support of all the weird Internet nutjobs and the reality-deprived.
The way it works now is that Ron Paul is the choice of everyone who wants to have a position on things that can't be called "Flamebait". It's a position you hold to enlarge your social circle, not a position you hold to solve problems. There are never any unintended consequences of the Ron Paul positions because he never gets anything enacted. So no need to weigh the pros and cons of anything -- just proclaim yourself right and smarter than everyone else.
Wow, he took away pensions from government workers? That sounds like a good thing for everyone except government workers.
Why should anyone care about government workers? Do they care about me? Do they care about my pension? Why wouldn't government workers volunteer to give up their pensions so that I can have more money in my pocket? That's what they want me to do for them.
I'm still not persuaded. For maximum persuasiveness in communications, can you please try using more all-caps text and putting in a lot swear words and additional information-free accusations? Everyone loves that stuff.
Then why not write your own name in? Clearly you agree with your positions better than even Ron Paul. And you have approximately the same chance of winning as Ron Paul. The net effect is the same.
The question was about who was the best candidate on Super Tuesday. I gave a clear reason why Romney is the best.
I think you're saying:
"We hate telcos, we hate owners of IP, we want the government to control every policy on everyone's Internet (except at public libraries where the government should butt out even though they are government-run libraries), and that's the "technology" position. What's the best candidate that agrees precisely with those chosen positions?"
That's not much of a discussion, is it? Why not also tell us which candidate to vote for if you're going to proscribe every other issue position in the question?
Also, who said being a socialist was bad? Not me. If you think being a socialist is good, then Obama or Hillary are good candidates for you. If you think it's a mixed bag and that socialism is good only about half the time, then McCain. If you want to escape responsibility for any government decision but still claim to have a voice, then Paul. If you want technology businesses to succeed and innovate and grow and prosper, then Romney.
I back the Federal Reserve system. When can I expect my check to arrive?
Also, this is the USA. We have a good quality of life in the USA compared to most other countries past and present. "Our" lives are not a "living hell". Since you are so demonstrably wrong about obvious, observable quality of life, what insight could you possibly have on the "cause" of that "problem"?
I'm sure Ron Paul is a good choice for anyone who wants to escape responsibility for anything that happens in government. "Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul".
If not being blamed is your objective, Paul is you best bet. If you want to actually accomplish something, then one of the candidates who can accomplish something might be better.
This will be quite the political discussion if everyone who doesn't say they love socialism and hate corporations (and hate the rich, religious people, the military, etc, etc, etc) gets modded to -1 Flamebait.
Why even ask the question if there's not going to be a serious discussion? Just make it a poll so the "moderators" can say "Ron Paul" or one of the socialists instead of voting to censor other perspectives with their mod points.
Well, the only one who understands economics and business is Romney. Since technology companies and their employees are what makes "technology" happen, Romney is the best.
The others primarily think that business (including the technology business) exists to produce goods and wealth for them to tax so they can redistribute it to politically-connected unproductive folks.
And it's a risk you're happy to impose on everyone.
Definitely complain about the TSA. Please don't offer any responsible suggestions or anything that might solve any problems.
It's important to remember that no one can ever hold a complainer responsible for any outcome. Complainers have no duty. Complainers need not be realistic -- nor do they need to acknowledge any reality at all. Complainers need not weigh the pros and cons of different choices. And even if they do, complainers don't have to weigh them honestly.
You too can be free from responsible adulthood. Now the TSA has a blog so you can complain.
Bart: How would I go about creating a half-man, half-monkey-type creature?
Ms.K: I'm sorry, that would be playing God.
Bart: God shmod! I want my monkey-man!
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/8F22.html
Yes, I went back and read the article. There's really no need to use 18 Watts for 802.11n, especially on a continuous basis. Twelve should be a lot more than enough.
Even so, a device that needs 18 watts at peak and an average of about 6 can easily be made to work when only 12 watts are available continuously.
As far as we know. How many other suppressed videos, or events without videos, are there?
Maybe that's my problem. I only believe in real deaths, not imaginary ones. I'm sure all the imaginary wives and children miss their imaginary loved ones though. The pretend world can be sad.
And the people who die from nuke mining don't think it's so safe, even if they don't appear in a video.
And I'm sure all the mothers whose children accidentally drowned in bathtubs are wary too. But I bet they still have their other children wash once in a while.
It's like 8 watts instead of 3 watts (not exact numbers). It's not a significant amount of power. That's why you don't need to upgrade your infrastructure.
I'm not sure how a silly article like this gets published. If it was tons of power, how could they make 802.11n adapters for laptops?
Gee, how many people died? How does that compare to other power generation mechanisms or the number of deaths attributable to the lack of power?
Nothing is perfectly safe. Nuclear power is relatively safer than all other forms of power generation per Kilowatt Hour and it's safer than not having power available.
Until your player stops working in a few years, as all electronics eventually do. And then you won't be able to get a replacement HD-DVD player.
There are 378 HD-DVD movies on the market.
VHS tapes still work fine.