I think in its pure original sense Republicanism isn't as bad as it is in practice. The problem is the sinful arrogance of the religious kooks like GWB and all the southerners who voted for him.
I just read this at gop.com: "The Republican Party has remained true to the principles of freedom and personal liberty that it was founded on nearly 150 years ago." LOL! What a load of shit! If you read their "principles" they do sound very libertarian, but they've been corrupted, obviously.
both are hell bent on expanding government as quickly as possible.
This is because it also expands their power and influence over the populace. They are addicted to the money provided by the IRS, and want even more no matter the sacrifice.
Republican policies support companies like Microsoft.
Only the ones like GWB do. Libertarian-leaning Republicans are better in supporting more equitable deregulation and not the buddy-buddy shit we see in piss-poor attempts at free trade, for example.
Don't use people like GWB as a defense for Democrats, because it only cloud the truth: the two major political parties are pretty much a lost cause, unless they can find an honest way to reform themselves from within and run real canidates who aren't puppets for special interests and the party line.
They prevent the regulation of industries, which leads to monopolies
Regulations don't prevent monopolies, they reinforce them.
They support property rights over the freedoms of the individual
Property rights and individual freedom are one and the same.
Quite honestly, I'm very tired of people pointing blame at corporations, when the root problems are corporations merely playing the cards dealt to them by the government. Of course, corporations will sneak around the system...it's their job, and we should see this crap coming from miles away. People who want protectionist feel-good legislation to protect them from corporations are simply putting on the blindfold, pulling down their pants, and painting "get me know and get me good" on their chests. It always has been the case and always will be the case that the only person who can protect you from evil corrupt corporations is you.
Why do people impose their own bigotry on the founding fathers? If you read the Constitution, it is actually very race, age, and sex agnostic, save for the expected choice of "he" and "his" for lack of a gender-neutral pronoun in English.
Any ambiguities were clarified in further amendments, explicitly giving women and blacks the right to vote.
But it has been stated, and shown in history, that when the populace figures out how to vote itself handouts from the public treasury, it is all downhill from there and we are a good ways along that path already.
We started downhill in 1913. This is when the sixteenth amendment allowed the income tax, which took a modest treasury from realistic taxes and created the morbidly obese federal government we have today.
It really says a lot when the only way to pass something as unconstitutional as the income tax is to re-write the Constitution.
No, please don't confuse cultural context and intent. The amendment mechanism allowed adding rights to the Constitution as the USA's cultures advanced. Unfortuanely, the amendment mechanism also allows removing rights, which is why we have the IRS and their extortion posse.
Another thought about Democrats: why are so many techies and scientists Democrat? Do they understand that the people they are voting for are the people most likely to take their livlihoods away for non-techie and non-scientific purposes?
He really isn't a Republican like John McCain. I think the Libertarian canidate in 2004 will be the only thing close to Republican on the ballot. So please, vote Libertarian.
The government has been quietly re-staffing draft boards.
The income tax, then socialized healthcare, and, now, the draft? Well, I guess whenever politicians say they are fighting for freedom, they are really just very good at telling jokes with a straight face.
Prisoner's dillema. You make it sound as if it is a bad thing. Simply, it is reality. Now, in the game, pit yourself against the government! "The government has 14,648,381,354,301 coins, it is now your turn."
Actually, I don't want people like you telling me what I can and cannot do, especially with respect to my health, my propery, and my money. The more I see of government, the more I understand the Constitution, because the politicians screw it up with their pork projects, special-interest loopholes, and taxes the punish people for making responsible decisions. Forcing people to put their health into the hands of such a system is a crime, because socialized health care in the USA will inevitably be more bigoted and inequitable than the federal income tax. Even further, socialized health care is a violation of the fourth and first amendments (personal health data collected without warrant + government butting into issues of religion for many people).
How long until we're back in the days of the Inquisition, where anything that doesn't fit the agenda and idealism of the government is not only not allowed but eliminated wherever it occurs? The USA is treading into very dangerous territory, but the greedy saps who vote for their free lunch don't care and are too stupid to see their rights stripped away one by one. When they have no rights, they won't even have the right to complain nor do anything about it. Welcome to history.
Socialized healthcare is an excellent exacmple of WHERE market economy solution is woefully inadequate; inefficient and unfair. USA spends more than twice as much money per capita on health-care than other western societies (from Canada to Sweden and Japan -- all of which have high quality "socialized" health-care), while providing significantly worse coverage, and level of service for poor. That has little to do with excessive regulation (which, by the way, is needed to keep HMOs from abusing their powers; same way EPA and other organizations are supposed to prevent environmental crimes), and lots to do with fundamental difference between health care and real industries.
This is a circular argument. You take the current status quo created by tax loopholes, licensure cartels, and draconian regulation and then use it to argue for socialized healthcare?!?
The other countries you cite are not free countries. They extort money from their citizens to fund programs whether the citizens like it or not! It is terribly sad that in the USA people are dispensing with their freedom left and right in exchange for government programs of no proven worth and a history of inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and causing real harm by propping people up into untenable situations. Socialism is a prison; it's too bad you don't see that (and the people in Sweden and Japan are too fat and happy to care). Freedom isn't about cozy strawberry shortcake for every child and a paid-for tenement for every family, it's about everyone having the ability to find a new way in the world without persecution and government strangulation.
Go read the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and see if you really and truly want the government to take over control of your health!
McCain would probably be president as he was generally like by most and seemed like a decent human being (for a republican at least;-) )
McCain was a great canidate, but the cronies in the Republican party booted him in favor of their favorite puppet, GWB.
Using our plurality vote though, "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" as it removes a vote from Gore.
Yes, this really bites the big one. In 2000, if I could have ranked the canidates, I could still have voted for a third party while inputting my preference for the two major parties. Voting for Nader while putting Bush last would have been very satisfying.
I wonder what the barriers are to getting the ranking systems you mention into practice. Perhaps voters wouldn't understand them? That would be very unfortunate.
Agreed. Placing constraints on wages does terrible damage to the free market and only creates change in the short-term. Further, once the markets have absorbed the influence of wage constraints, those constraints are of no effect whatsoever.
The aspects of the green party that I agree with are essential those that are identical to the libertarian platform. The social justice aspects of the green platform are a pipe dream.
Why is it that we can brainwash the masses into thinking that it's okay for us to spend billions on space crap while ignoring the homeless people living in the streets and at the YMCA?
You are very shortsighted. Funding technology research creates new solutions to age-old problems. One day, a technology will be invented that makes hunger obselete (as in the Star Trek future). This technology is only limited by will, means, and time.
Simply giving the money to the poor solves nothing. So they can buy pizza for their kids tonight. Big deal. It does nothing towards their ability to get pizza tomorrow or the next day.
This is why direct social programs are a waste of tax payers' money. They make the politicians feel good about themselves while saving them from having to think about real solutions that hit problems at their foundation. Socialized healthcare is an excellent example, where there are real government-caused problems that prevent the health care market from functioning, so the politicians take the easy road and create a socialized system that steals people's money against their will putting it into a bureaucracy that will kill more people than it helps.
Basically. He is a person who managed to get into the running for president. Any Republican or Democrat canidate is corrupt, whether they realize it or not, because they are tied to their party lines. Anything else is too risky.
We need a president who isn't a Republican or Democrat. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader made good progress in their runs, but there's still a long way to go. The public probably isn't ready for a libertarian president, but it is important for the country to start heading in that general direction. The greens aren't a bad start, because their platform for social justice won't pass in a four-year term yet their goals for decentralization are well-founded and needed.
if a machine crashes then could it alter the contents of the smart card?
Of course. A reasonable programmer might code this: upon reboot, flush the smart card on first insertion to prep it for subsequent voting. The flaw is assuming that the system will be booted only once on voting day. I wouldn't be suprised at all if there's a programmer out there who read the stories about these machines and is shitting himself right now trying to figure out a way to save is ass (probably by covering everything and staying silent).
I saw most people take over 10 minutes to vote compared to one or two I would normally see
Slashdot Mirror
I think in its pure original sense Republicanism isn't as bad as it is in practice. The problem is the sinful arrogance of the religious kooks like GWB and all the southerners who voted for him.
I just read this at gop.com: "The Republican Party has remained true to the principles of freedom and personal liberty that it was founded on nearly 150 years ago." LOL! What a load of shit! If you read their "principles" they do sound very libertarian, but they've been corrupted, obviously.
What? Where did that come from?
Income tax violates the fourth amendment unambiguously (give us your financial data and a big fat check or we throw you in prison).
Giving women and blacks the right to vote is adding rights.
I'll make it simple:
- adding rights to the Consitiution: GOOD
- taking rights away from the Constitution: BAD
both are hell bent on expanding government as quickly as possible.
This is because it also expands their power and influence over the populace. They are addicted to the money provided by the IRS, and want even more no matter the sacrifice.
Libertarians: apache on freebsd
Very appropriate (think licenses).
spokes-cows
You mean their customers?
Republican policies support companies like Microsoft.
Only the ones like GWB do. Libertarian-leaning Republicans are better in supporting more equitable deregulation and not the buddy-buddy shit we see in piss-poor attempts at free trade, for example.
Don't use people like GWB as a defense for Democrats, because it only cloud the truth: the two major political parties are pretty much a lost cause, unless they can find an honest way to reform themselves from within and run real canidates who aren't puppets for special interests and the party line.
They prevent the regulation of industries, which leads to monopolies
Regulations don't prevent monopolies, they reinforce them.
They support property rights over the freedoms of the individual
Property rights and individual freedom are one and the same.
Quite honestly, I'm very tired of people pointing blame at corporations, when the root problems are corporations merely playing the cards dealt to them by the government. Of course, corporations will sneak around the system...it's their job, and we should see this crap coming from miles away. People who want protectionist feel-good legislation to protect them from corporations are simply putting on the blindfold, pulling down their pants, and painting "get me know and get me good" on their chests. It always has been the case and always will be the case that the only person who can protect you from evil corrupt corporations is you.
Why do people impose their own bigotry on the founding fathers? If you read the Constitution, it is actually very race, age, and sex agnostic, save for the expected choice of "he" and "his" for lack of a gender-neutral pronoun in English.
Any ambiguities were clarified in further amendments, explicitly giving women and blacks the right to vote.
But it has been stated, and shown in history, that when the populace figures out how to vote itself handouts from the public treasury, it is all downhill from there and we are a good ways along that path already.
We started downhill in 1913. This is when the sixteenth amendment allowed the income tax, which took a modest treasury from realistic taxes and created the morbidly obese federal government we have today.
It really says a lot when the only way to pass something as unconstitutional as the income tax is to re-write the Constitution.
No, please don't confuse cultural context and intent. The amendment mechanism allowed adding rights to the Constitution as the USA's cultures advanced. Unfortuanely, the amendment mechanism also allows removing rights, which is why we have the IRS and their extortion posse.
For Jimmy Carter it is a Southern accent; for GWB, it is a stupid accent.
Another thought about Democrats: why are so many techies and scientists Democrat? Do they understand that the people they are voting for are the people most likely to take their livlihoods away for non-techie and non-scientific purposes?
And please, vote Republican.
As long as you don't vote for GWB.
He really isn't a Republican like John McCain. I think the Libertarian canidate in 2004 will be the only thing close to Republican on the ballot. So please, vote Libertarian.
No, it's Vote Linux, Vote Libertarian.
The Democrats would have delegated Linux development to an inner-city support program providing sorely-needed employment for the homeless.
Perhaps people should re-read The Cathedral and the Bazaar?
The government has been quietly re-staffing draft boards.
The income tax, then socialized healthcare, and, now, the draft? Well, I guess whenever politicians say they are fighting for freedom, they are really just very good at telling jokes with a straight face.
* I have no idea how heavy the sun actually is (and I don't particularly care)
The sun has no weight...unless, of course, you know of a way to put it on a scale in the context of local gravity.
Osama Bin Laden with a cell phone in a movie theater. Will the terror never end?
Prisoner's dillema. You make it sound as if it is a bad thing. Simply, it is reality. Now, in the game, pit yourself against the government! "The government has 14,648,381,354,301 coins, it is now your turn."
SCO lawyer: "That anal probing was very refreshing. Thank you. When is my next appointment?"
Apparently, these people actually enjoy getting screwed by the companies they do business with.
Actually, I don't want people like you telling me what I can and cannot do, especially with respect to my health, my propery, and my money. The more I see of government, the more I understand the Constitution, because the politicians screw it up with their pork projects, special-interest loopholes, and taxes the punish people for making responsible decisions. Forcing people to put their health into the hands of such a system is a crime, because socialized health care in the USA will inevitably be more bigoted and inequitable than the federal income tax. Even further, socialized health care is a violation of the fourth and first amendments (personal health data collected without warrant + government butting into issues of religion for many people).
How long until we're back in the days of the Inquisition, where anything that doesn't fit the agenda and idealism of the government is not only not allowed but eliminated wherever it occurs? The USA is treading into very dangerous territory, but the greedy saps who vote for their free lunch don't care and are too stupid to see their rights stripped away one by one. When they have no rights, they won't even have the right to complain nor do anything about it. Welcome to history.
Socialized healthcare is an excellent exacmple of WHERE market economy solution is woefully inadequate; inefficient and unfair. USA spends more than twice as much money per capita on health-care than other western societies (from Canada to Sweden and Japan -- all of which have high quality "socialized" health-care), while providing significantly worse coverage, and level of service for poor. That has little to do with excessive regulation (which, by the way, is needed to keep HMOs from abusing their powers; same way EPA and other organizations are supposed to prevent environmental crimes), and lots to do with fundamental difference between health care and real industries.
This is a circular argument. You take the current status quo created by tax loopholes, licensure cartels, and draconian regulation and then use it to argue for socialized healthcare?!?
The other countries you cite are not free countries. They extort money from their citizens to fund programs whether the citizens like it or not! It is terribly sad that in the USA people are dispensing with their freedom left and right in exchange for government programs of no proven worth and a history of inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and causing real harm by propping people up into untenable situations. Socialism is a prison; it's too bad you don't see that (and the people in Sweden and Japan are too fat and happy to care). Freedom isn't about cozy strawberry shortcake for every child and a paid-for tenement for every family, it's about everyone having the ability to find a new way in the world without persecution and government strangulation.
Go read the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and see if you really and truly want the government to take over control of your health!
McCain would probably be president as he was generally like by most and seemed like a decent human being (for a republican at least ;-) )
McCain was a great canidate, but the cronies in the Republican party booted him in favor of their favorite puppet, GWB.
Using our plurality vote though, "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" as it removes a vote from Gore.
Yes, this really bites the big one. In 2000, if I could have ranked the canidates, I could still have voted for a third party while inputting my preference for the two major parties. Voting for Nader while putting Bush last would have been very satisfying.
I wonder what the barriers are to getting the ranking systems you mention into practice. Perhaps voters wouldn't understand them? That would be very unfortunate.
Sorry, that just sucks.
Agreed. Placing constraints on wages does terrible damage to the free market and only creates change in the short-term. Further, once the markets have absorbed the influence of wage constraints, those constraints are of no effect whatsoever.
The aspects of the green party that I agree with are essential those that are identical to the libertarian platform. The social justice aspects of the green platform are a pipe dream.
Why is it that we can brainwash the masses into thinking that it's okay for us to spend billions on space crap while ignoring the homeless people living in the streets and at the YMCA?
You are very shortsighted. Funding technology research creates new solutions to age-old problems. One day, a technology will be invented that makes hunger obselete (as in the Star Trek future). This technology is only limited by will, means, and time.
Simply giving the money to the poor solves nothing. So they can buy pizza for their kids tonight. Big deal. It does nothing towards their ability to get pizza tomorrow or the next day.
This is why direct social programs are a waste of tax payers' money. They make the politicians feel good about themselves while saving them from having to think about real solutions that hit problems at their foundation. Socialized healthcare is an excellent example, where there are real government-caused problems that prevent the health care market from functioning, so the politicians take the easy road and create a socialized system that steals people's money against their will putting it into a bureaucracy that will kill more people than it helps.
The Dean isn't any different than GWB?
Basically. He is a person who managed to get into the running for president. Any Republican or Democrat canidate is corrupt, whether they realize it or not, because they are tied to their party lines. Anything else is too risky.
We need a president who isn't a Republican or Democrat. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader made good progress in their runs, but there's still a long way to go. The public probably isn't ready for a libertarian president, but it is important for the country to start heading in that general direction. The greens aren't a bad start, because their platform for social justice won't pass in a four-year term yet their goals for decentralization are well-founded and needed.
if a machine crashes then could it alter the contents of the smart card?
Of course. A reasonable programmer might code this: upon reboot, flush the smart card on first insertion to prep it for subsequent voting. The flaw is assuming that the system will be booted only once on voting day. I wouldn't be suprised at all if there's a programmer out there who read the stories about these machines and is shitting himself right now trying to figure out a way to save is ass (probably by covering everything and staying silent).
I saw most people take over 10 minutes to vote compared to one or two I would normally see
Welcome to hell.