The Republican primaries were a gauntlet of Tea Party idiots. So everyone had to steer to the extreme far right to win their support to get on the ballot.
Then, during the general election, they had to steer to the middle. To, you know, actually get votes.
You can't appeal to the fringe and the center at the same time. Appeal to the base of Tea Party nutbags, and middle America won't vote for you, you disgust them. Appeal to middle America, and the Tea Party nutbags won't vote for you, just as you say in your comment. A house divided, yada yada yada
If the Republicans don't fix this problem, they are going to lose again in 2016. And 2020, 2024, etc.
Personally, as a Democrat, I love the Tea Party: sabotaging the Republican Party from within.
There is no bigger friend for Democratic domination of the Presidency (and, with demographic trends, increasingly the House and Senate in the long term, even with Republican gerrymandering) than the Tea Party.
the drug itself, not psychological factors, not social factors, nothing else except the chemistry of the drug itself, is the causative effect of the addiction
why are you so ignorant about this subject yet still speaking on it?
every single problem you can find with fighting hard drugs is smaller than the negative effects of hard drugs themselves (heroin, cocaine, meth)
we can of course find bad tactics in fighting hard drugs, and we should
but what we can't do is say there should be no fight. and we won't
addiction to hard drugs destroys lives. this is the primary and ultimate problem. if you don't understand that problem as the root cause of everything else, you're an idiot on the subject matter
i have no problem with criticisms of various malformed social reactions to drug problems
i have a very big problem with idiots who think these bad reactions are somehow the real problem
you really should educate yourself before you register an uneducated opinion on a subject
you really wish to represent your opinion that all substances have the same addiction potential? or inebriating effects? there's no difference? you think this intellectually dishonest know nothing approach tells us anything except something about you?
the problem was the drug addiction. the policy was a reaction to that. then the drug merchants force it further on your society, and steal some of your land
again, i simply don't understand people who think the social reaction the drug addiction, however malformed, is somehow worse than the drug addiction itself
the addiction is the root of the problem. not the social policy
meth, heroin, and coke are for more addictive than alcohol
so it's as hard to quit as nicotine, but as inebriating as alcohol. meaning you can't quit, like nicotine. but unlike nicotine, which actually enhances concentration, on meth/ heroin/ coke, your focus is for shit. so you can't hold a job/ maintain a relationship
that's why society outlaws drugs
not because society is hysterical killjoys. but because highly addictive hard drugs really do destroy lives. just the drugs: not social attitudes, not personal psychological, the actual chemicals. no one is immune to basic biochemistry, no willpower is stronger than the pharmacology of addiction
marijuana, the hallucinogens, etc., they should be legal: not highly addictive + highly inebriating at the same time like hard drugs
and addicts should get treatment, not jail
but legalize meth? heroin? coke?
no, never
because even with the negative prohibition effects (funding drug cartels, etc), drug addiction itself to highly addictive HARD drugs, is still more harmful to society than prohibition
the war on hard drugs is not new. and will never end. it's just a maintenance function of civilization. no, we'll never get rid of hard drugs completely. but that's not the point. the point is just to minimize the negative social effects of drug addiction by minimizing the addict population. we're also never going to completely stop rape, murder, robbery. so we give up fighting that too?
we just need better tactics: portugal for example has a better attitude than the usa. but the war on drugs still goes on in portugal. dealers are still criminals in portugal. in fact, addicts are still criminals: they just get treatment instead of jail, as it should be in the usa
it didn't start with reagan. and the war has been going on every since we noticed droog would spend all day eating fermented fruit at the caveman campsite instead of helping with foraging and hunting. why does islam prohibit alcohol? too many useless wasted human shells on the street. why did the usa even experiment with prohibition? it wasn't just busy body prudes. because alcohol really does destroy lives
the drug dealing british weakened and defeated china, and won hong kong, just so it could keep pushing drugs on china, destroying chinese society. something which china is still humiliated about, and gave rise to the boxer rebellion and the revitalization of modern china against imperialism. but the foundation of the rebirth of chinese pride and nationalism was a reaction was against imperial and colonial enforced drug addiction by british drug dealers. like fire water on native americans. drugs themselves are the actual problem. drugs are the tool of destruction
it was a problem then. it's a problem now. it always will be a problem. like war, slavery, racism, etc., drug addiction is just one of those timeless tragedies of the human experience
how we handle hard drug addiction? yeah, we need to change that. we need better tactics, absolutely
I think Google should send someone over and do that for him.
As well as other general levels of groveling.
This guy has a real case against Google in the court of public opinion. He doesn't have to go legal. The simple PR value here is enough for Google to make a giant public act of contrition and gift the guy with something large, to make up for the troubles they caused him.
Hey... here's an idea: send over a high level Google engineer as this guy's personal lowly tech support guy for a month.
Heck, that sounds like it could be a sitcom, a Youtube web series.
Google: you can turn lemons into lemonade here, make it happen.
Even though they've already lied about the range of their activities, their scope and depth, their capabilities, their intent, and their mandate.
Of course, this is spy stuff, you're supposed to lie about that.
Which is exactly why no one believes your assurances NSA.
You have too much power. No transparency, no oversight, no limits. You will destroy our country with Edward Snowdens who are not virtuous, but motivated by corruption and other agendas: political, mostly. You can't say that won't happen, it *always* happens, to every institution of your size and breadth, because you're made of fallible human beings. Proof: Edward Snowden. You think he is the last? You think the next one will be motivated by noble principles?
That is why you must be decimated and pried into and monitored. Hopefully, legislatively and via execute order. And soon. For the sake of the legitimacy of our government, which your dealings cast into doubt.
i'm not saying the NSA did it. but how easy would it have been for it to do so?
i'm not even saying the NSA would be pursing this as policy. the NSA is not an iron machine, it's composed of people. there's greed and corruption everywhere. for every virtuous edward snowden, there's another guy like edward snowden who knows a political operative and would do what snowden did, but for the motivation of cash instead. sell this kind of info for six or seven figures
that's how dangerous the NSA is to democracy. infiltrate the NSA, abuse its powers as an employee, destroy the legitimacy of our government with the leaks and manipulations you are now capable of
we live in a world where the NSA can decide presidential elections, or any elections. right now. everyone has dirt on them. focus on the candidates you want to weed out, get dirt like this bridge fiasco on them, leak it to the media, and voila: you decide elections
this is why the NSA has to be curtailed. it is incompatible with democracy. the NSA will destroy this country, make everyone believe their government is fake
the NSA must be made transparent, congressional oversight bolted on, its scope of powers severely reduced, etc. secret courts? what the fuck? no! not acceptable
you can build rockets for hitler, or you can build rockets for truman. they're both still rockets. you can test the rocket, make sure it works, you can separate the creator of the tech from the tech
but security is not like that. it's an ongoing trust relationship. you have to trust the people involved
and if your previous job was secretly sabotaging all security to a govt, this is probably not someone you want to trust your company's security to. when the NSA breaches your system, they have an ally already inside your system. if you didn't have a problem working for the NSA before, you probably still don't have any problems with their behavior, the defilement of our foundational rights
well we can't legalize gay marriage because then we have to legalize marriage to dead people and marriage to dogs
and we can't legalize marijuana because then we have to legalize methamphetamine and heroin
i'm being sarcastic in both statements: those statements, and you, are relying on what is called the slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy
it's also kind of strange to see people using it when arguing against what they perceive as hysteria and fear, since the slippery slope is basically hysteria and fear instead of logic
we draw lines, and we can draw lines, and it's not a big deal
because we think
the slippery slope argument depends upon people not thinking and not being able tell the difference between different topics
if you believe that about people, you might as well give up entirely on reason, law, morality, and civilization too
i understand why the laws exist, as defined within a narrow scope. and i don't believe that scope will change, because i have faith in people's ability to think
look: it's easy for americans to grandstand and showboat on this issue, because they didn't have something happen in the usa within 80 years ago which consumed the lives of millions of people because of a hateful, racist ideology. if that happened in the usa, i'd expect us to have the same laws. i'm glad we don't, but i'm not going to hold it against europeans, because i understand the reason for them having this law
obamacare is just a malformed first step, the best that was possible considering the kind of temper tantrums we see in resistance to what is obviously better
universal healthcare is next, which works in all of our social and economic peers
of course you can find problems with government run anything. but we're not aiming for perfect. just better and cheaper
those who are rich are asked to give more. they receive the most benefits from society, therefore they should shoulder a larger burden. furthermore, those who are rich are often rich through no real effort of their own, or, after a certain threshold, it's profit for little effort. no one is for punishing success and hard work. a couple of extra thousand to a millionaire is not anything remotely like punishment. what i believe in is meritocracy, like you. and a modestly larger tax burden for success does not dissuade people from hard work. what dissuades people from hard work is unfairness. that the middle class don't deserve healthcare because they can't afford it, for example
Slashdot Mirror
The Republican primaries were a gauntlet of Tea Party idiots. So everyone had to steer to the extreme far right to win their support to get on the ballot.
Then, during the general election, they had to steer to the middle. To, you know, actually get votes.
You can't appeal to the fringe and the center at the same time. Appeal to the base of Tea Party nutbags, and middle America won't vote for you, you disgust them. Appeal to middle America, and the Tea Party nutbags won't vote for you, just as you say in your comment. A house divided, yada yada yada
If the Republicans don't fix this problem, they are going to lose again in 2016. And 2020, 2024, etc.
Personally, as a Democrat, I love the Tea Party: sabotaging the Republican Party from within.
There is no bigger friend for Democratic domination of the Presidency (and, with demographic trends, increasingly the House and Senate in the long term, even with Republican gerrymandering) than the Tea Party.
the drug itself, not psychological factors, not social factors, nothing else except the chemistry of the drug itself, is the causative effect of the addiction
why are you so ignorant about this subject yet still speaking on it?
"fear you can't control yourself if the government doesn't tell you how to live"
hard drug addiction is a real biological effect. i am not afraid. i am simply apparently better educated than you on this subject
"Your weakness is yours alone."
i was not aware the pharmacology in all of those textbooks was just about my biology alone
why are you so blatantly ignorant on this subject yet still registering an uneducated opinion on it?
every single problem you can find with fighting hard drugs is smaller than the negative effects of hard drugs themselves (heroin, cocaine, meth)
we can of course find bad tactics in fighting hard drugs, and we should
but what we can't do is say there should be no fight. and we won't
addiction to hard drugs destroys lives. this is the primary and ultimate problem. if you don't understand that problem as the root cause of everything else, you're an idiot on the subject matter
i have no problem with criticisms of various malformed social reactions to drug problems
i have a very big problem with idiots who think these bad reactions are somehow the real problem
no, the hard drugs are the real problem
we can of course compare and find bad tactics in fighting drugs, and we should
but what we can't do is say there should be no fight
you really should educate yourself before you register an uneducated opinion on a subject
you really wish to represent your opinion that all substances have the same addiction potential? or inebriating effects? there's no difference? you think this intellectually dishonest know nothing approach tells us anything except something about you?
the problem was the drug addiction. the policy was a reaction to that. then the drug merchants force it further on your society, and steal some of your land
again, i simply don't understand people who think the social reaction the drug addiction, however malformed, is somehow worse than the drug addiction itself
the addiction is the root of the problem. not the social policy
right
the simple biochemistry of addiction and inebriation to substances like heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine is a lie
that's not true
meth, heroin, and coke are for more addictive than alcohol
so it's as hard to quit as nicotine, but as inebriating as alcohol. meaning you can't quit, like nicotine. but unlike nicotine, which actually enhances concentration, on meth/ heroin/ coke, your focus is for shit. so you can't hold a job/ maintain a relationship
that's why society outlaws drugs
not because society is hysterical killjoys. but because highly addictive hard drugs really do destroy lives. just the drugs: not social attitudes, not personal psychological, the actual chemicals. no one is immune to basic biochemistry, no willpower is stronger than the pharmacology of addiction
marijuana, the hallucinogens, etc., they should be legal: not highly addictive + highly inebriating at the same time like hard drugs
and addicts should get treatment, not jail
but legalize meth? heroin? coke?
no, never
because even with the negative prohibition effects (funding drug cartels, etc), drug addiction itself to highly addictive HARD drugs, is still more harmful to society than prohibition
the war on hard drugs is not new. and will never end. it's just a maintenance function of civilization. no, we'll never get rid of hard drugs completely. but that's not the point. the point is just to minimize the negative social effects of drug addiction by minimizing the addict population. we're also never going to completely stop rape, murder, robbery. so we give up fighting that too?
we just need better tactics: portugal for example has a better attitude than the usa. but the war on drugs still goes on in portugal. dealers are still criminals in portugal. in fact, addicts are still criminals: they just get treatment instead of jail, as it should be in the usa
it didn't start with reagan. and the war has been going on every since we noticed droog would spend all day eating fermented fruit at the caveman campsite instead of helping with foraging and hunting. why does islam prohibit alcohol? too many useless wasted human shells on the street. why did the usa even experiment with prohibition? it wasn't just busy body prudes. because alcohol really does destroy lives
study the opium wars:
http://www.sacu.org/opium.html
the drug dealing british weakened and defeated china, and won hong kong, just so it could keep pushing drugs on china, destroying chinese society. something which china is still humiliated about, and gave rise to the boxer rebellion and the revitalization of modern china against imperialism. but the foundation of the rebirth of chinese pride and nationalism was a reaction was against imperial and colonial enforced drug addiction by british drug dealers. like fire water on native americans. drugs themselves are the actual problem. drugs are the tool of destruction
it was a problem then. it's a problem now. it always will be a problem. like war, slavery, racism, etc., drug addiction is just one of those timeless tragedies of the human experience
how we handle hard drug addiction? yeah, we need to change that. we need better tactics, absolutely
but the war on hard drugs will never end
it's just a maintenance function of civilization
Google DDoSed those hotmail accounts too yesterday?
I think Google should send someone over and do that for him.
As well as other general levels of groveling.
This guy has a real case against Google in the court of public opinion. He doesn't have to go legal. The simple PR value here is enough for Google to make a giant public act of contrition and gift the guy with something large, to make up for the troubles they caused him.
Hey... here's an idea: send over a high level Google engineer as this guy's personal lowly tech support guy for a month.
Heck, that sounds like it could be a sitcom, a Youtube web series.
Google: you can turn lemons into lemonade here, make it happen.
When you are being DDoSed by motherfucking Google .
Even though they've already lied about the range of their activities, their scope and depth, their capabilities, their intent, and their mandate.
Of course, this is spy stuff, you're supposed to lie about that.
Which is exactly why no one believes your assurances NSA.
You have too much power. No transparency, no oversight, no limits. You will destroy our country with Edward Snowdens who are not virtuous, but motivated by corruption and other agendas: political, mostly. You can't say that won't happen, it *always* happens, to every institution of your size and breadth, because you're made of fallible human beings. Proof: Edward Snowden. You think he is the last? You think the next one will be motivated by noble principles?
That is why you must be decimated and pried into and monitored. Hopefully, legislatively and via execute order. And soon. For the sake of the legitimacy of our government, which your dealings cast into doubt.
how did those emails and texts get to the media?
i'm not saying the NSA did it. but how easy would it have been for it to do so?
i'm not even saying the NSA would be pursing this as policy. the NSA is not an iron machine, it's composed of people. there's greed and corruption everywhere. for every virtuous edward snowden, there's another guy like edward snowden who knows a political operative and would do what snowden did, but for the motivation of cash instead. sell this kind of info for six or seven figures
that's how dangerous the NSA is to democracy. infiltrate the NSA, abuse its powers as an employee, destroy the legitimacy of our government with the leaks and manipulations you are now capable of
we live in a world where the NSA can decide presidential elections, or any elections. right now. everyone has dirt on them. focus on the candidates you want to weed out, get dirt like this bridge fiasco on them, leak it to the media, and voila: you decide elections
this is why the NSA has to be curtailed. it is incompatible with democracy. the NSA will destroy this country, make everyone believe their government is fake
the NSA must be made transparent, congressional oversight bolted on, its scope of powers severely reduced, etc. secret courts? what the fuck? no! not acceptable
which rich people?
silicon valley elite, sure
plutocrat class based on manipulating rules?
does not apply
you can build rockets for hitler, or you can build rockets for truman. they're both still rockets. you can test the rocket, make sure it works, you can separate the creator of the tech from the tech
but security is not like that. it's an ongoing trust relationship. you have to trust the people involved
and if your previous job was secretly sabotaging all security to a govt, this is probably not someone you want to trust your company's security to. when the NSA breaches your system, they have an ally already inside your system. if you didn't have a problem working for the NSA before, you probably still don't have any problems with their behavior, the defilement of our foundational rights
the point is that you could make such a game, and the game would not be banned
i'm sure some media talking head might bring it up: "outrageous!"
but this of course will just increase sales
well we can't legalize gay marriage because then we have to legalize marriage to dead people and marriage to dogs
and we can't legalize marijuana because then we have to legalize methamphetamine and heroin
i'm being sarcastic in both statements: those statements, and you, are relying on what is called the slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy
it's also kind of strange to see people using it when arguing against what they perceive as hysteria and fear, since the slippery slope is basically hysteria and fear instead of logic
we draw lines, and we can draw lines, and it's not a big deal
because we think
the slippery slope argument depends upon people not thinking and not being able tell the difference between different topics
if you believe that about people, you might as well give up entirely on reason, law, morality, and civilization too
i understand why the laws exist, as defined within a narrow scope. and i don't believe that scope will change, because i have faith in people's ability to think
look: it's easy for americans to grandstand and showboat on this issue, because they didn't have something happen in the usa within 80 years ago which consumed the lives of millions of people because of a hateful, racist ideology. if that happened in the usa, i'd expect us to have the same laws. i'm glad we don't, but i'm not going to hold it against europeans, because i understand the reason for them having this law
you need to sabotage your workplace
do it discreetly, covertly, however you see fit
because your employer defiles founding principles this country was founded on
and you don't want to think of yourself as a vile goon working for a paycheck, right?
you have principles and you love your country, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance#In_colonial_America
and thank you for reading this week's episode of "Taking The Analogy Too Seriously"
join us next week when "hearing hoofbeats and thinking of zebras instead of horses" will be used to illuminate the principle of Occam's Razor
and DavidClarkeHR will ask "Are we on the Serengeti Plains of Tanzania? Because if we're on the Serengeti, I think this ruins the analogy"
they don't
this idea is stupid
it's not possible, he's a lying troll
obamacare is just a malformed first step, the best that was possible considering the kind of temper tantrums we see in resistance to what is obviously better
universal healthcare is next, which works in all of our social and economic peers
of course you can find problems with government run anything. but we're not aiming for perfect. just better and cheaper
those who are rich are asked to give more. they receive the most benefits from society, therefore they should shoulder a larger burden. furthermore, those who are rich are often rich through no real effort of their own, or, after a certain threshold, it's profit for little effort. no one is for punishing success and hard work. a couple of extra thousand to a millionaire is not anything remotely like punishment. what i believe in is meritocracy, like you. and a modestly larger tax burden for success does not dissuade people from hard work. what dissuades people from hard work is unfairness. that the middle class don't deserve healthcare because they can't afford it, for example
you're an elaborate troll right?
i can't believe you are seriously complaining about a slight financial burden on a hypothetical millionaire