I hope some people start asking themselves "Why am I giving the government control over this part of my life?"
The requirement of a driver's license might not go away, but maybe we'll start hearing less of "you need a license to drive a car, why shouldn't you need one for [blank]".
The licence... shows that you have passed an examination, and that you know (or knew at one time in the past) enough to drive your car on the public roads without endangering others.
My exam didn't have anything about endangering or not endangering others. It was on knowledge of, and the ability to obey "rules" for a short period of time while the examiner was watching.
I don't think the "safety" we get from the exams is worth the control we're giving the government over our lives.
And if the license is really just an indication that you passed the exam, then why does it need to be renewed every few years? The exam is only part of the answer.
People should think about it. The current system of licensing and law enforcement on the roads has large costs and small benefits. It's more suited to a totalitarian society than a free one.
But why is it that no one ever questions the need to get the government's permission (a license) to do something as ordinary as drive your own car?
What is the purpose of these licenses? Do they ensure there are no bad drivers? Do they convey the physical (or mental) ability to drive? Do they reserve the roads to a select group of individuals? Exactly what purpose do these licenses serve in a free society?
In a command-and-control society, they make perfect sense. Control the roads, control the movement of goods, services, and people, and using that control, rule your subjects.
But I was told this was a free society. So what's the deal?
A natural disaster isn't the same as everyday bills.
Temporary help isn't the same as a permanent subsidy. Anyone can need help once in a while.
This woman wants help on an ongoing basis. Before she gets it, she should have to come up with a viable plan where she'll eventually no longer need it.
This is poorly worded, but it could be a good question:
To what extent do you believe overpopulation is -- or will be -- a problem in the US and worldwide? What are your plans to address overpopulation and the environmental consequenses?
I think it's a good question mostly because I'd like to hear the answers from the candidates.
My elected representatives enact laws based on popular opinion. Unelected judges then overturn, rewrite, or recreate those laws -- often based on nothing more than their own political or social agendas. Under this system, what's the point of voting? Do you have a plan to curb the abuse-of-power of the unelected judiciary?
In regards to social security, as a professional 25-year-old worker I'm concerned that I'm paying into a system, which is severely over-taxed and will be non-existent when I reach retirement. I would like to know what steps will be taken to either ensure I will get the benefits I've paid for, or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security and use that extra income to invest myself for my retirement, most likely a Roth IRA.
Editing.
I'm 25 years old and I am concerned that the Social Security program I'm paying into won't be around when I retire. If I could opt-out of Social Security, I could invest the money myself. How will you ensure the benefits will be available when people like me retire in 40-50 years? Will you offer a way to opt-out or some other kind of private account for Social Security?
Do you have a plan to offer financial assistance to the working poor to help them afford health insurance? What are the specifics of that plan? Does it offer relief for people with pre-existing conditions?
---
I don't know whether I agree this is a good question. Basically, it amounts to:
Can I have another government freebie?
How about no? A grown-up is supposed to be able to pay her own way. What's your plan to grow up and eventually be able to pay your own way?
What's your position on non-traditional marriages (e.g. gay marriages)? How does that position impact the lives of people in traditional and non-traditional relationships? Is that position descriminitory? Does it lead to hate crimes?
OK, not really a good question. Too long. Shorten it to:
What's your position on non-traditional marriages (e.g. gay marriages)? How does that position impact the lives of people in traditional and non-traditional relationships?
This negatively impacts the U.S.'s competitive stance in the global economy.
No it doesn't. This question should be removed because it's based on an untruth.
Apparently, we're supposed to think that US businesses regularly refuse to work on projects because the units are metric. Well, they don't. When it matters, people make the adjustment.
No. The purpose of an investigation is to find and present facts. If these facts suggest evidence of wrongdoing, then the judicial system decides whether or not there was wrongdoing. They then claim to find something and their claims have tangible consequenes.
Like the OJ trial?
No one will believe a result that's politically damaging to their side. That's the current reality of the US political scene. The two sides are further apart than truth is from fiction.
1. Observers see no problems, report they see no problems, and we get to stop hearing made-up nonsense about widespread election problems.
2. Observers claim they see problems. They might be telling the truth. They might be lying. Everyone gets upset. We never find out conclusively one way or the other.
Should Intel fire their best employees rather than their worst? Should they keep people who can easily be replaced by better people? Should they keep paying people when they don't have work for them to do?
Re:poor choice of story for slashdot frontpage
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
It would be interesting to hear what you think a "uniter" would be like.
I don't see how that person could be a Democrat. For years Democrats have been telling blacks that whitey is out to get them. Since 1984, they've been telling old folks that, if they vote wrong, their Social Security will be taken away and they'll have to start eating dog food. They hate the rich, hate corporations, and look down on church-goers, SUV owners, and Walmart shoppers. They also want to take money from one group and give it to another group. Needless to say, that divides the 2 groups.
A lot of people are talking about a military draft for various reasons. Can you definitely rule-out a military draft? If it can't be completely ruled-out, what events might or might not evenutate a military draft?
Hopefully, the answers to that question will put an end to all the unsupported scare-mongering about the draft.
Slashdot Mirror
Good article.
I hope some people start asking themselves "Why am I giving the government control over this part of my life?"
The requirement of a driver's license might not go away, but maybe we'll start hearing less of "you need a license to drive a car, why shouldn't you need one for [blank]".
The licence ... shows that you have passed an examination, and that you know (or knew at one time in the past) enough to drive your car on the public roads without endangering others.
My exam didn't have anything about endangering or not endangering others. It was on knowledge of, and the ability to obey "rules" for a short period of time while the examiner was watching.
I don't think the "safety" we get from the exams is worth the control we're giving the government over our lives.
And if the license is really just an indication that you passed the exam, then why does it need to be renewed every few years? The exam is only part of the answer.
People should think about it. The current system of licensing and law enforcement on the roads has large costs and small benefits. It's more suited to a totalitarian society than a free one.
OK, so maybe you're against this.
But why is it that no one ever questions the need to get the government's permission (a license) to do something as ordinary as drive your own car?
What is the purpose of these licenses? Do they ensure there are no bad drivers? Do they convey the physical (or mental) ability to drive? Do they reserve the roads to a select group of individuals? Exactly what purpose do these licenses serve in a free society?
In a command-and-control society, they make perfect sense. Control the roads, control the movement of goods, services, and people, and using that control, rule your subjects.
But I was told this was a free society. So what's the deal?
Aircraft/spacecraft propulsion seem to be the only application for antimatter that makes any sense.
The energy/mass ratio makes antimatter a good source of energy to use to overcome gravity.
As for weaponry, mass is a factor, but not the most important one. Making anti-matter is hard. Making stuff explode is relatively easy.
A natural disaster isn't the same as everyday bills.
Temporary help isn't the same as a permanent subsidy. Anyone can need help once in a while.
This woman wants help on an ongoing basis. Before she gets it, she should have to come up with a viable plan where she'll eventually no longer need it.
This is poorly worded, but it could be a good question:
To what extent do you believe overpopulation is -- or will be -- a problem in the US and worldwide? What are your plans to address overpopulation and the environmental consequenses?
I think it's a good question mostly because I'd like to hear the answers from the candidates.
Answer:
Wow, if it's that much of a problem, I guess I'll have to stop getting teenagers pregnant. Thanks for the heads-up.
This is one of the best questions.
Let me restate it:
My elected representatives enact laws based on popular opinion. Unelected judges then overturn, rewrite, or recreate those laws -- often based on nothing more than their own political or social agendas. Under this system, what's the point of voting? Do you have a plan to curb the abuse-of-power of the unelected judiciary?
Absolutely excellent question.
In regards to social security, as a professional 25-year-old worker I'm concerned that I'm paying into a system, which is severely over-taxed and will be non-existent when I reach retirement. I would like to know what steps will be taken to either ensure I will get the benefits I've paid for, or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security and use that extra income to invest myself for my retirement, most likely a Roth IRA.
Editing.
I'm 25 years old and I am concerned that the Social Security program I'm paying into won't be around when I retire. If I could opt-out of Social Security, I could invest the money myself. How will you ensure the benefits will be available when people like me retire in 40-50 years? Will you offer a way to opt-out or some other kind of private account for Social Security?
Ok, that's not much shorter. Clearer, I think.
Excellent question.
Geez. Editing.
Do you have a plan to offer financial assistance to the working poor to help them afford health insurance? What are the specifics of that plan? Does it offer relief for people with pre-existing conditions?
---
I don't know whether I agree this is a good question. Basically, it amounts to:
Can I have another government freebie?
How about no? A grown-up is supposed to be able to pay her own way. What's your plan to grow up and eventually be able to pay your own way?
This would be a good question if it weren't personalized. As it is, the answer is "because life isn't fair".
Ask the candidates about their policies on imigration. Not about why it doesn't all magically work out for you.
Who is the questioner talking to?
This could be a good question:
What's your position on non-traditional marriages (e.g. gay marriages)? How does that position impact the lives of people in traditional and non-traditional relationships? Is that position descriminitory? Does it lead to hate crimes?
OK, not really a good question. Too long. Shorten it to:
What's your position on non-traditional marriages (e.g. gay marriages)? How does that position impact the lives of people in traditional and non-traditional relationships?
Now it's a good question.
This negatively impacts the U.S.'s competitive stance in the global economy.
No it doesn't. This question should be removed because it's based on an untruth.
Apparently, we're supposed to think that US businesses regularly refuse to work on projects because the units are metric. Well, they don't. When it matters, people make the adjustment.
I thought sex caused pregnancy.
I guess it's caused by the lack of "sex education in the classroom" and "resources (information, condoms, etc.)". Who knew?
No. The purpose of an investigation is to find and present facts. If these facts suggest evidence of wrongdoing, then the judicial system decides whether or not there was wrongdoing. They then claim to find something and their claims have tangible consequenes.
Like the OJ trial?
No one will believe a result that's politically damaging to their side. That's the current reality of the US political scene. The two sides are further apart than truth is from fiction.
Good points.
I would be stunned if there were more than a couple of instances of election problems at the polling places, on election day.
Of course there aren't widespread problems. That doesn't keep observers from claiming they see problems though. They'll just make it up.
If you're a Bush supporter, what if the observers lie and say they observe Bush stealing the election?
If you're a Kerry supporter, what if the observers lie and say they observe Kerry stealing the election?
What makes the observers any more trustworthy than the election system?
There's an investigation. They claim to find something. The other side claims the investigators are lying.
#3 is covered under #2
1. Observers see no problems, report they see no problems, and we get to stop hearing made-up nonsense about widespread election problems.
2. Observers claim they see problems. They might be telling the truth. They might be lying. Everyone gets upset. We never find out conclusively one way or the other.
I hope they bring their video cameras.
What's the criticism?
Should Intel fire their best employees rather than their worst? Should they keep people who can easily be replaced by better people? Should they keep paying people when they don't have work for them to do?
It would be interesting to hear what you think a "uniter" would be like.
I don't see how that person could be a Democrat. For years Democrats have been telling blacks that whitey is out to get them. Since 1984, they've been telling old folks that, if they vote wrong, their Social Security will be taken away and they'll have to start eating dog food. They hate the rich, hate corporations, and look down on church-goers, SUV owners, and Walmart shoppers. They also want to take money from one group and give it to another group. Needless to say, that divides the 2 groups.
Whether someone is collecting unemployment is irrelevant to whether they're considered in the unemployment rate.
The original poster's statement was a half-truth.
There won't be a draft. You can google the news and get that answer.
The draft talk is manufactured to scare young voters.
A good question with youth-interest:
A lot of people are talking about a military draft for various reasons. Can you definitely rule-out a military draft? If it can't be completely ruled-out, what events might or might not evenutate a military draft?
Hopefully, the answers to that question will put an end to all the unsupported scare-mongering about the draft.