You are right. Things are going downhill quite fast.
I has became fashionable to openly try to change election rules after the fact and claim the victory based on these new rules as mr. Gore tried to pull of in the last election.
"Is there money in the.us domain? Give it to business. "
As opposed to doing what ?
"Is the health of school students compromised by the unsafe standards of the US beef industry? "
Sure, it is suddenly unsafe after so many years of being safe. You are one of these people who want to have everybody pay more for a beef just because there is a one in a billion chance that something bad might happen.
Do you also support banning all cars because this would save about 40 000 lives every year ?
You need to learn how to balance risks vs costs of eliminating these risks.
Sure they know.
On the other hand, once you get people used to having perks like that it is very hard to do away with it.
Trying to do that = political death. This is one of the reason why it is so hard to move away from socialistic state.
"His proposed regulation of campaign finances are not going to be "useless regulations". They may not be a complete solution to the disparity in VOLUME of speech and influence by wealthy parties (big companies not little ones), but they are a good try. "
Well it might be a good try but it will not work.
The whole idea of having legal contributions is based on the fact that people will always try to influence politicians and we might as well have them do it in the open so at least we will know how much and who contributed to the given party.
Do you sincerely believe that McCain's legislation will stop people from contributing (influencing) politicians? No, they will do it except they will devise ways to accomplish that without public knowing about it. We gonna end up like Europe where contributions are mostly banned and consequently they are famous for huge and widespread bribery scandals.
Hardly a better solution.
Come on. You cannot sincerely support Democratic Party and be for "pro-market" policies.
For the last 20 years just about every major policy supported by the Democrats was in favor of more regulations, more governmental intervention, more and more of all sorts of programs etc.
We are not talking here about opposing or supporting big business but more about shifting of incredible amounts of money from private industries to Washington.
Make no mistake. Every time Democrats get to implement their policies more and more money ends up in their hands. More money in Washington means more corruption, lobbying etc.
The way to end it is not to pass another set of useless regulations (as would John McCain do ) but simply drastically cut down on size and power of federal government.
Don't be afraid of social conservatives. These people will never do as much harm as a single bill passed by Kennedy can do to our bottom line.
PS.
"There was no effort to get capital gains tax reductions"
Sure, because Bush new that this would mean certain defeat for his entire economic policy.
Don't blame him for that. Blame your party. Remember when Reagan did precisely that how much hell was he subjected to from your own politicians.
Well, any sort of competitive business will result in this kind of battle for survival.
It is not like small businesses are less competitive.
It is a name of the game.
Nice program but you realize that you would get accused of everything under the sun, including "providing breeding ground for more powerful corporations"?
Imagine what Tom Daschle would do with your little program here...
I think US is too far gone into leftist utopia to even reasonable consider measures like that.
Sad to say but I think Democrats succeeded in creating this floating hatred towards anyone successful (and that includes even your small businessman.)
You talking about that slaughter where power passed from the King to bunch of unwashed killers who then proceded to kill off anyone who was not to their liking ?
"Historically, you don't really have a CLUE what the answer is to the question "
You are talking about social and economical changes and I was talking about something completely different.
Governments were responsible for numerous incredible slaughters culminating in wholesome and automated extermination during World War 2. ( not to mention terrible crimes committed by various communistic regimes in the last 50 years.)
He did not want it.
He was outraged that one has to pay $1000 for it.
As you said it is nothing for someone who makes a living writing and supporting MS or Win32 products and consequently one can conclude this guy never had been involved in this kind of professional work.
"Explain to me how my Father-in-law, who works in a GM plant in Ohio, is even close to being the same (WRT Power) as the Executives at GM, or the Board of Directors?"
Explain me how is that this guy I know who never managed to finish college is not able to afford things that well educated engineer can ?
You don't like this situation but you have no solution.
Returning corporations to their rightful place?
What does that mean?
Isn't it enough that some stupid woman can sue corporations for millions of dollars and have reasonable chance of caching in all because she found a little fried chicken head in the food bag she ordered ?
Hey Dude. Since the beginning of time there were people with power and there is not a damn thing you can do about.
What do you propose?
Anarchy?
By definition, any sort of organized government will end up with some people being "in power" and others being forced to trust them in their judgment.
I don't understand this thinking.
Corporations are not some alien entities competing with us for receptive ear in Washington.
They consist of millions of people like you and me working and waging war on them is like waging war on ourselves.
Hell no. Not even close.
Historically, far greater numbers of people were hurt by goverments which did not respect 2nd Amendment type rights than by corporations.
Re:Forgive all the third world debt??
on
Transmeta Webpad
·
· Score: 1
You are not being serious are you ?
Do you seriously believe that Africans would even realize that they HAVE these resources?
Every time Europeans found them ( be it 16, 17 , 18 or even 20 century) , these people were at the same level.
They have not progressed a bit.
Please don't even pull this shit about us wasting their resources.
If it weren't for Europeans these people would still die out in millions due to simple and very much curable virus infections etc...
We used these resources to enhance standards of live all over this planet.
If you deny that then please show a better model we should follow...
They might also have not done any of these things.
It is all theory.
BTW. I do not believe in all-powerful, let alone invisible man living in the sky.
I have no idea why in the world you are implying this.
Possessing conservative views on economical issues does not imply requirement of carrying valid membership card for Christian coalition.
Some day this will be your undoing: believing that your opponents are all of the same, feudal-style dark age breed.
Oh come on. I do hope you know how ecstatic Churchill was upon learning about US entering the war. He knew very well that without US assistance England would fall pray to Germany.
Same thing in 50s. Until you were able to produce your own nuclear devices you were protected by US army. Do you really believe Staling stopped at Berlin because he thought it was enough?
Well, I remember British people being vividly opposed to installation of any nuclear devices on their soil.
As if not having solid defenses would protect them from foreign aggressions.
This is Chamberlains style "appeasement" security. We all know how well it worked.
This "fuckhead" was referring to your irrational attack on original poster ( who pointed out your mistake.)
Face it , attacking this guy for pointing out your mistake was an equivalent of me calling you "fuckhead". No profanities there but the intent was the same.
Slashdot Mirror
The way to pay for tax cut is to ,well, cut on goverment spendings.
Simple enough, isn't it ?
"he got issues on the table "
...and that would be ?
PS.
It is a serious question.
You are right. Things are going downhill quite fast.
I has became fashionable to openly try to change election rules after the fact and claim the victory based on these new rules as mr. Gore tried to pull of in the last election.
"Is there money in the .us domain? Give it to business. "
As opposed to doing what ?
"Is the health of school students compromised by the unsafe standards of the US beef industry? "
Sure, it is suddenly unsafe after so many years of being safe. You are one of these people who want to have everybody pay more for a beef just because there is a one in a billion chance that something bad might happen.
Do you also support banning all cars because this would save about 40 000 lives every year ?
You need to learn how to balance risks vs costs of eliminating these risks.
Sure they know.
On the other hand, once you get people used to having perks like that it is very hard to do away with it.
Trying to do that = political death. This is one of the reason why it is so hard to move away from socialistic state.
That is the problem.
No business model that relies on people making effort to "support" will be a succesfull one.
"His proposed regulation of campaign finances are not going to be "useless regulations". They may not be a complete solution to the disparity in VOLUME of speech and influence by wealthy parties (big companies not little ones), but they are a good try. "
Well it might be a good try but it will not work.
The whole idea of having legal contributions is based on the fact that people will always try to influence politicians and we might as well have them do it in the open so at least we will know how much and who contributed to the given party.
Do you sincerely believe that McCain's legislation will stop people from contributing (influencing) politicians? No, they will do it except they will devise ways to accomplish that without public knowing about it. We gonna end up like Europe where contributions are mostly banned and consequently they are famous for huge and widespread bribery scandals.
Hardly a better solution.
Come on. You cannot sincerely support Democratic Party and be for "pro-market" policies.
For the last 20 years just about every major policy supported by the Democrats was in favor of more regulations, more governmental intervention, more and more of all sorts of programs etc.
We are not talking here about opposing or supporting big business but more about shifting of incredible amounts of money from private industries to Washington.
Make no mistake. Every time Democrats get to implement their policies more and more money ends up in their hands. More money in Washington means more corruption, lobbying etc.
The way to end it is not to pass another set of useless regulations (as would John McCain do ) but simply drastically cut down on size and power of federal government.
Don't be afraid of social conservatives. These people will never do as much harm as a single bill passed by Kennedy can do to our bottom line.
PS.
"There was no effort to get capital gains tax reductions"
Sure, because Bush new that this would mean certain defeat for his entire economic policy.
Don't blame him for that. Blame your party. Remember when Reagan did precisely that how much hell was he subjected to from your own politicians.
Well, any sort of competitive business will result in this kind of battle for survival.
It is not like small businesses are less competitive.
It is a name of the game.
Nice program but you realize that you would get accused of everything under the sun, including "providing breeding ground for more powerful corporations"? ...
Imagine what Tom Daschle would do with your little program here
I think US is too far gone into leftist utopia to even reasonable consider measures like that.
Sad to say but I think Democrats succeeded in creating this floating hatred towards anyone successful (and that includes even your small businessman.)
You talking about that slaughter where power passed from the King to bunch of unwashed killers who then proceded to kill off anyone who was not to their liking ?
"Historically, you don't really have a CLUE what the answer is to the question "
You are talking about social and economical changes and I was talking about something completely different.
Governments were responsible for numerous incredible slaughters culminating in wholesome and automated extermination during World War 2. ( not to mention terrible crimes committed by various communistic regimes in the last 50 years.)
He did not want it.
He was outraged that one has to pay $1000 for it.
As you said it is nothing for someone who makes a living writing and supporting MS or Win32 products and consequently one can conclude this guy never had been involved in this kind of professional work.
Just curious...
Can you compile this thing with standard VC++ 6 on an Intel box?
Do you have to have some sort of emulator running?
Dude, you are not talking to a guy who earns his living writing software.
"Explain to me how my Father-in-law, who works in a GM plant in Ohio, is even close to being the same (WRT Power) as the Executives at GM, or the Board of Directors?"
Explain me how is that this guy I know who never managed to finish college is not able to afford things that well educated engineer can ?
You don't like this situation but you have no solution.
Returning corporations to their rightful place?
What does that mean?
Isn't it enough that some stupid woman can sue corporations for millions of dollars and have reasonable chance of caching in all because she found a little fried chicken head in the food bag she ordered ?
Hey Dude. Since the beginning of time there were people with power and there is not a damn thing you can do about.
What do you propose?
Anarchy?
By definition, any sort of organized government will end up with some people being "in power" and others being forced to trust them in their judgment.
"aren't beholden to corporate America and "
I don't understand this thinking.
Corporations are not some alien entities competing with us for receptive ear in Washington.
They consist of millions of people like you and me working and waging war on them is like waging war on ourselves.
Hell no. Not even close.
Historically, far greater numbers of people were hurt by goverments which did not respect 2nd Amendment type rights than by corporations.
You are not being serious are you ? ...
...
Do you seriously believe that Africans would even realize that they HAVE these resources?
Every time Europeans found them ( be it 16, 17 , 18 or even 20 century) , these people were at the same level.
They have not progressed a bit.
Please don't even pull this shit about us wasting their resources.
If it weren't for Europeans these people would still die out in millions due to simple and very much curable virus infections etc
We used these resources to enhance standards of live all over this planet.
If you deny that then please show a better model we should follow
"My biggest concern is the car CD players that actually are computers not being able to play these discs."
Yeah, right.
Your biggest concern is that you won't be able to make copies of these CDs.
Just be a man and admit it.
They might also have not done any of these things.
It is all theory.
BTW. I do not believe in all-powerful, let alone invisible man living in the sky.
I have no idea why in the world you are implying this.
Possessing conservative views on economical issues does not imply requirement of carrying valid membership card for Christian coalition.
Some day this will be your undoing: believing that your opponents are all of the same, feudal-style dark age breed.
Oh come on. I do hope you know how ecstatic Churchill was upon learning about US entering the war. He knew very well that without US assistance England would fall pray to Germany.
Same thing in 50s. Until you were able to produce your own nuclear devices you were protected by US army. Do you really believe Staling stopped at Berlin because he thought it was enough?
Well, I remember British people being vividly opposed to installation of any nuclear devices on their soil.
As if not having solid defenses would protect them from foreign aggressions.
This is Chamberlains style "appeasement" security. We all know how well it worked.
This "fuckhead" was referring to your irrational attack on original poster ( who pointed out your mistake.)
Face it , attacking this guy for pointing out your mistake was an equivalent of me calling you "fuckhead". No profanities there but the intent was the same.
Anyway, this thread is over.
Are you so moronic to claim that your economu should be based on public spending ?