There's no incentive to succeed anymore. There's no incentive for personal responsibility.
Keep chanting the mantra, maybe you'll believe it's true.
You can have six kids out of wedlock and be rewarded by the state with free food and housing.
That's because we purport to be decent human beings. Who like to avoid having children starve and live on the streets needlessly. Of course, everyone on welfare matches your hypothetical example.
This happens on such a massive scale that we lose billions annually creating a system that encourages broken homes, unwanted children, and bastard children with no future as productive citizens.
Encourages? Or simply prevents things from being even worse? Imagine, for a moment, if instead we simply told them to do without. How would you change things that would unfairly punish the children they have, or without stereotyping huge swaths of people then attacking them based on it?
The point is, they are not allowed to travel despite the country being ruled by the Savvior for the last 6 years.
First, drop the infantile "savior" nonsense. Second, they can travel without ID, it's just more difficult and slow.
Nothing in the Snopes article talks about the scale of voting fraud — very intelligent of them.
Which is hyped up by only one group: the GOP, who is pushing voter ID laws without any evidence that voter fraud is the horrible bane they portray it being.
I'm pointing out, it does not exist.
So you're saying there's no evidence that voter fraud isn't a massive problem? What?
What's "nutty"?
The idiotic notion that because there are no prosecutions that there are no gays. The two situations aren't even remotely similar.
Your entire argument is this "There's no evidence that there ISN'T massive voter fraud, thus there obviously IS massive voter fraud." Completely irrational.
Now, I'm asking you for the last time: what "masses" are those, who, while legally eligible to vote, have no identification deemed sufficient under any of the recently passed "voter-ID laws" — and no way to obtain it? Unlike the voting fraud, the numbers of such people really can be reliably estimated — and the estimation comes out as (what was that word?) miniscule, if not a simple and round zero.
Since you ignored what I posted earlier, try this. I eagerly await your dismissal of that too. But a snippet:
In Pennsylvania, nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voter base, don't own state-issued ID cards, according to an analysis of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State officials, on the other hand, place this number at between 80,000 and 90,000.
So anywhere between 80K and up to 760K might be unable to vote.
anyone objecting to the voter-ID laws (who is not also suing against an ID being required to travel and to receive government assistance) is either soft in the head, or hopes to benefit (either personally or as part of a group) from the activity, which the laws aim to reduce: voting fraud.
Well we'll ignore the fact that at the same time the voter ID laws were passed, many states with GOP controlled senates also rammed through changes to voting, including fewer hours and fewer polling places, in very, very specific areas. It's all a campaign of disenfranchisement.
The GOP would not have done anything, in other words. I agree, they wouldn't have known what to do other than cut taxes.
(Note that this is not an either/or choice: holding Obama and the Democrats in contempt is not the same as supporting Republicans.)
Then you should be more explicit about that, bitching about Obama exclusively (and blaming everything on him) makes you sound like a GOP die-hard with no ideas.
Not only is ID de-facto required to travel around this country by air, you can't ride Amtrak without an ID either.
The poor being targeted by these laws generally don't travel much.
the very good other reason — already cited — of preventing voting fraud, which you dismiss as "miniscule" problem without citing any evidence
Sorry, here you go: Snopes wrecked at least one lie-filled list that was going around.
Or maybe some more: Very little as a whole, keeping in mind those are cases and not confirmed fraud.
We are told repeatedly by the ruling classes not to worry our pretty little heads about it, but the only evidence ever offered is the low rate of fraud-prosecutions... That's a rather bizarre logic — I wonder, if GLAAD would've accepted the argument claiming there being no gays in America based on absence of applications of anti-sodomy laws.
So not only do you refuse to accept actual journalism on the matter (why bother asking for evidence, them?) but you pop off that completely nutty bit at the end there that is rather apples to oranges.
Why would you be willing to accept such claims without skepticism, is beyond me.
I do, but compared to the largely minimal hazard of vote fraud we have a far greater threat of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement being pursued aggressively by the GOP.
And who are these masses and why cannot they produce an ID?
Quite a few, shockingly. Mostly those in lower income areas, full of people the GOP wishes to disenfranchise. It's harder, logistically, for them to acquire an ID and most laws mandating ID to vote have done nothing to make it easier.
I mean every voter ID laws I have seen allows bank statements with addressed on them, credit card statements, utility and electric bills, cable bills, and so on as the ID required.
TWO of those, required to get the state issued ID. Unsurprisingly, a lot of lower income people don't have a lot of that.\
some of the states even went as far as to offer free state IDs
Really? Can you name some?
Every one of these voter ID laws were crafted explicitly to deny a vote to those the GOP feels would vote Democrat. Their logic is simply "if they won't vote for us, we can't let them vote." You know, rather than being better stewards of this country and doing things that convince them to vote differently.
Of course they did, they couldn't allow anything Obama to pass.
if you think that, you only have Obama and the Democrats to blame for not making it happen.
I'm sure the Republicans would have happily fought bitterly against that as well. The "death panels" lie comes to mind.
After all, single payer couldn't have received more opposition from Republicans than ACA, so the choice between ACA and single payer was entirely up to Obama and the Democrats.
So you agree that no matter what Obama and the Democrats did, they would have been opposed by the Republicans, regardless.
But that's what the corporate crony in chief in the White House loves to do: hand billions of tax payer dollars to corporations, unions, and other politically influential groups.
And you suggest Mitt would have been different? No, the only difference would have been who would have gotten the money. Oh and there would probably have been more deleterious tax cuts.
. It's a fact that a large fraction of the Democratic party consists of rich people advocating for policies that ostensibly help poor and middle class people but are completely divorced from reality.
As opposed to the complete lack of policies from the Republicans? I'd also love to see what policies are "divorced from reality," it's a frequently made and rarely supported claim.
Given the contempt and vitriol liberals and Democrats heap on anybody who doesn't agree with them, it only seems fair and necessary to reciprocate.
Generally, the smarter a person gets, the more republican they tend to lean in ideology
Sorry, but I think you mean conservative, and not the reactionary, bigot-infested set of "conservatives" that have assumed the title today. I cannot possibly support or advocate pretty much any policies forwarded by the Republicans these days, as they are often abhorrent or completely ineffectual.
That is why they want ID of some sort to be presented when you cast your vote- to prove you are who you say you are and not the guy who got you to register knowing you would be too stoned to get off the couch and go vote on election day.
No it isn't. They want you to have ID so that the masses who for some reason don't have ID can't vote. They claim it's to prevent vote fraud (a miniscule problem) but in reality it's for disenfranchisement.
I see what you did there, though I'm curious if you have.
According to the Maxwell Poll, 60-80% of welfare recipients voted Democrat.
Ok...
Thus it will make it even more convenient for a higher percentage of Republicans to vote compared to Democrats because more of them can afford the hardware
How does this follow? You don't even mention what percentage of those who vote Democrat that 60-80% are!
Perversely, you are right. Republicans would support this just as they actively support and push voter ID laws, reduced voting hours, reduced absentee ballots, and fewer polling locations (but only in certain areas) to fight fraud that doesn't actually happen - only to make fraud a real potential problem.
I should have been more detailed. Corporations that are owned and operated by self-declared "conservatives" started bitching to rile up the religious base's hatred of Obama.
The proper transition was away from profit-centric healthcare to single-payer.
So you would argue that only those regulations which crop up in the industry independently are necessary? Then explain why it took several acts passed mid-century to stop the massive pollution of our air and water ways. Oh, right, because according to the free market those regulations weren't necessary.
The customer is the employer that is paying for the coverage.
No, the recipient is the customer because it is part of their benefits package. Their employer is simply negotiating on their behalf.
No, the customers are bitching because they are being forced to pay for services that violate their religion.
The fucked up thing about this statement is that you see the corporation as the customer and insist that the corporation has a religion. Of course, opposition to contraceptives is idiotic, but that's pretty much true of most superstitious beliefs.
You are basically saying that the government decides what coverage needs to be provided and not the people.
No, I'm saying that the government should push to ensure that the people get access to coverage that corporations want to cynically refuse in favor of unscientific, superstitious ideals.
Since when is consumer choice allowing corporations "to run roughshod over you"?
Because the average healthcare consumer doesn't really have any choice, putting all the power in the hands of corporations.
in order to fix your non-existing problem
Are you being willfully ignorant here?
you are forcing people to pay for something they neither want nor need.
A lot of people neither want nor need public schools, they pay for them anyway.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to pass a law that says insurance companies must offer contraceptive coverage to the customers that want it?
I believe that happened. And now the corporations are bitching.
Rather than considering to a religious thing, think of it from a liberal point of view; you are forcing gay men to pay for contraception and maternity coverage that they obviously don't need.
It isn't a religious thing explicitly - it's a cynical "conservative" ploy to attack and undermine the ACA by using religion as a means to cut out parts of coverage. Note, of course, that this all simply means that these services are covered and must be paid for if utilized, this attack on the ACA is about pushing to make sure it's not available at all.
I am totally okay with the rest of my fellow citizens boycotting them, protesting out in front of their headquarters or whatever, but government should do nothing.
Which works real well when every business in a region acts in a discriminatory manner approved by the majority. Government is then obligated to step in and protect the rights of the minority - even if that includes prohibiting destructive discriminatory and prejudicial behavior.
Basically all the civil rights legislation that has passed is fundamentally anti freedom though and should be in my interpretation of the first amendment UN-Constitutional
Anti-freedom for the ignorant, fearful, and hateful. But it promoted the freedom of those who were being systematically targeted by such deleterious behavior.
I'll wager that this compositor is temporary until Debian ships Wayland and Nvidia has drivers that work with it. This thing is still running Xorg, just using a customized compositor.
It's worse than that. When I was a kid I was interested in programming before I ever had access to computers at school that could support it. I did Visual Basic and Delphi at home on the family PC, and also on the 386 it replaced that I had commandeered. It was at least 3 years before I was in a position to buy my own.
I feel sorry for the coming generation of kids who will know nothing but locked down, hostile devices that will have to convince their parents that they need a real computer, particularly if their parents are computer averse.
How generalized do you want to get? I mean you can get seriously non-specific about it then lose people as you meander through the thought experiments, or give them a base to start from.
On the other hand, education about how computers function might start to ablate this "black box" that computers are. That hands-off, "I can'tpossibly understand" attitude is what makes the average person so susceptible to malware.
Wayland. On every one of these Jolla devices. X11 was being used early on until recent versions of Qt were released, which added the Qt Compositor API, allowing them to create their own compositor (and do some rather interesting things.)
It's also interesting to note that Wayland just shipped on a device. So much for it being "hard to fit into a mobile device." Thanks to libhybris, they just wrap the Android blob for the GPU and continue on like a standard glibc-based Linux system.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep chanting the mantra, maybe you'll believe it's true.
That's because we purport to be decent human beings. Who like to avoid having children starve and live on the streets needlessly. Of course, everyone on welfare matches your hypothetical example.
Encourages? Or simply prevents things from being even worse? Imagine, for a moment, if instead we simply told them to do without. How would you change things that would unfairly punish the children they have, or without stereotyping huge swaths of people then attacking them based on it?
First, drop the infantile "savior" nonsense. Second, they can travel without ID, it's just more difficult and slow.
Which is hyped up by only one group: the GOP, who is pushing voter ID laws without any evidence that voter fraud is the horrible bane they portray it being.
So you're saying there's no evidence that voter fraud isn't a massive problem? What?
The idiotic notion that because there are no prosecutions that there are no gays. The two situations aren't even remotely similar.
Your entire argument is this "There's no evidence that there ISN'T massive voter fraud, thus there obviously IS massive voter fraud." Completely irrational.
Since you ignored what I posted earlier, try this. I eagerly await your dismissal of that too. But a snippet:
In Pennsylvania, nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voter base, don't own state-issued ID cards, according to an analysis of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State officials, on the other hand, place this number at between 80,000 and 90,000.
So anywhere between 80K and up to 760K might be unable to vote.
Well we'll ignore the fact that at the same time the voter ID laws were passed, many states with GOP controlled senates also rammed through changes to voting, including fewer hours and fewer polling places, in very, very specific areas. It's all a campaign of disenfranchisement.
The GOP would not have done anything, in other words. I agree, they wouldn't have known what to do other than cut taxes.
Then you should be more explicit about that, bitching about Obama exclusively (and blaming everything on him) makes you sound like a GOP die-hard with no ideas.
The poor being targeted by these laws generally don't travel much.
Sorry, here you go: Snopes wrecked at least one lie-filled list that was going around.
Or maybe some more: Very little as a whole, keeping in mind those are cases and not confirmed fraud.
So not only do you refuse to accept actual journalism on the matter (why bother asking for evidence, them?) but you pop off that completely nutty bit at the end there that is rather apples to oranges.
I do, but compared to the largely minimal hazard of vote fraud we have a far greater threat of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement being pursued aggressively by the GOP.
Quite a few, shockingly. Mostly those in lower income areas, full of people the GOP wishes to disenfranchise. It's harder, logistically, for them to acquire an ID and most laws mandating ID to vote have done nothing to make it easier.
TWO of those, required to get the state issued ID. Unsurprisingly, a lot of lower income people don't have a lot of that.\
Really? Can you name some?
Every one of these voter ID laws were crafted explicitly to deny a vote to those the GOP feels would vote Democrat. Their logic is simply "if they won't vote for us, we can't let them vote." You know, rather than being better stewards of this country and doing things that convince them to vote differently.
Of course they did, they couldn't allow anything Obama to pass.
I'm sure the Republicans would have happily fought bitterly against that as well. The "death panels" lie comes to mind.
So you agree that no matter what Obama and the Democrats did, they would have been opposed by the Republicans, regardless.
And you suggest Mitt would have been different? No, the only difference would have been who would have gotten the money. Oh and there would probably have been more deleterious tax cuts.
No, just a middling contempt.
As opposed to the complete lack of policies from the Republicans? I'd also love to see what policies are "divorced from reality," it's a frequently made and rarely supported claim.
So, choosing to take the low road?
Sorry, but I think you mean conservative, and not the reactionary, bigot-infested set of "conservatives" that have assumed the title today. I cannot possibly support or advocate pretty much any policies forwarded by the Republicans these days, as they are often abhorrent or completely ineffectual.
No it isn't. They want you to have ID so that the masses who for some reason don't have ID can't vote. They claim it's to prevent vote fraud (a miniscule problem) but in reality it's for disenfranchisement.
I see what you did there, though I'm curious if you have.
Ok...
How does this follow? You don't even mention what percentage of those who vote Democrat that 60-80% are!
Perversely, you are right. Republicans would support this just as they actively support and push voter ID laws, reduced voting hours, reduced absentee ballots, and fewer polling locations (but only in certain areas) to fight fraud that doesn't actually happen - only to make fraud a real potential problem.
I should have been more detailed. Corporations that are owned and operated by self-declared "conservatives" started bitching to rile up the religious base's hatred of Obama.
The proper transition was away from profit-centric healthcare to single-payer.
So you would argue that only those regulations which crop up in the industry independently are necessary? Then explain why it took several acts passed mid-century to stop the massive pollution of our air and water ways. Oh, right, because according to the free market those regulations weren't necessary.
Good to see where your opinions land. Nice to know you're willing to wear your contempt for others on your sleeve.
No, the recipient is the customer because it is part of their benefits package. Their employer is simply negotiating on their behalf.
The fucked up thing about this statement is that you see the corporation as the customer and insist that the corporation has a religion. Of course, opposition to contraceptives is idiotic, but that's pretty much true of most superstitious beliefs.
No, I'm saying that the government should push to ensure that the people get access to coverage that corporations want to cynically refuse in favor of unscientific, superstitious ideals.
Because the average healthcare consumer doesn't really have any choice, putting all the power in the hands of corporations.
Are you being willfully ignorant here?
A lot of people neither want nor need public schools, they pay for them anyway.
I believe that happened. And now the corporations are bitching.
It isn't a religious thing explicitly - it's a cynical "conservative" ploy to attack and undermine the ACA by using religion as a means to cut out parts of coverage. Note, of course, that this all simply means that these services are covered and must be paid for if utilized, this attack on the ACA is about pushing to make sure it's not available at all.
Which works real well when every business in a region acts in a discriminatory manner approved by the majority. Government is then obligated to step in and protect the rights of the minority - even if that includes prohibiting destructive discriminatory and prejudicial behavior.
Anti-freedom for the ignorant, fearful, and hateful. But it promoted the freedom of those who were being systematically targeted by such deleterious behavior.
Cultural mis-reference!
Patlabor! I just want to know if the robot was named "Griffin."
I'll wager that this compositor is temporary until Debian ships Wayland and Nvidia has drivers that work with it. This thing is still running Xorg, just using a customized compositor.
Good to see who the mature one is(n't) here.
So what you're saying is now that GM is independent, they should be broken up so that they can no longer be "too big to (be allowed to) fail."
It's worse than that. When I was a kid I was interested in programming before I ever had access to computers at school that could support it. I did Visual Basic and Delphi at home on the family PC, and also on the 386 it replaced that I had commandeered. It was at least 3 years before I was in a position to buy my own.
I feel sorry for the coming generation of kids who will know nothing but locked down, hostile devices that will have to convince their parents that they need a real computer, particularly if their parents are computer averse.
And that you can do anything on the PCs anyway. A lot lock them down, and even fewer probably come with compilers or scripting environments.
How generalized do you want to get? I mean you can get seriously non-specific about it then lose people as you meander through the thought experiments, or give them a base to start from.
On the other hand, education about how computers function might start to ablate this "black box" that computers are. That hands-off, "I can'tpossibly understand" attitude is what makes the average person so susceptible to malware.
Because Big Corporation is better?
Wayland. On every one of these Jolla devices. X11 was being used early on until recent versions of Qt were released, which added the Qt Compositor API, allowing them to create their own compositor (and do some rather interesting things.)
It's also interesting to note that Wayland just shipped on a device. So much for it being "hard to fit into a mobile device." Thanks to libhybris, they just wrap the Android blob for the GPU and continue on like a standard glibc-based Linux system.