and they were more blatant about it. That makes sense. The right wing is, has been and always will be representative of the very wealthy. It's natural they'd have more resources to start up these sorts of organizations. The right wing also desperately needs legitimization because actual science is opposed to them (and they to science). Climate Change, Trickle Down Economics, "Intelligent Design". All of these have been proven hogwash by all real scientists. Your side needs tons of fake non-profits pushing its agenda or the whole thing falls apart on top of the house of cards it was built on...
but you're still right. Obama didn't order the IRS to audit conservative organizations. Period. Full Stop. No quotes around order. The IRS did it themselves because there were so many right wing political organizations filing as charities that they were low hanging fruit for agents looking to bump their enforcement numbers up. Where they being profiled? Yeah. But they were being profiled by the IRS, not Obama and because they were up to no good and everybody knew it. Sad thing is they cried a little and now they get away with it all day long.
2. They're largely single issue voters. Either they're the ones doing the buying from #1 and just want low taxes, low wages (for their employees) and no regulations or they're "values voters" who vote on religion, abortion or gun control.
The left is a much, much loser coalition so they tend to lose. Every few years everything goes to shit and the left gets in charge, fixes a few things, and as soon as things get a little better the right take over with their superior organization and money. Basically, evil will always win because good is dumb.
but they can be solved. Voting can be both anonymous and mandatory ensuring 100% turnout without it becoming an oppressive census. Parliaments can eliminate the issues with a two party system. Education can create an electorate that's capable of being well informed. True, good government is hard work but even before that it requires a willingness to do so.
And make no mistake, you _will_ have a powerful central government. They're just too useful. If you don't form one and participate in it then somebody else will; usually to your detriment...
folks are making about 20% less than their parents did so it's not surprising. You need money to date. Plus being stressed about money all the time puts a damper on things.
the jobs men are best at (e.g. blue collar & engineering) are going away. Jobs women are good at (medical, knowledge, arts, etc) aren't. Barring massive societal changes the pay gap will go the other way in 20 years.
It's this. Yes, it does matter which party is in power. Studies have shown the economy does better under the Democrats. Again, it's not because they're Dems, it's because they're actively trying to govern instead of burning the whole place down.
And again, you're side stepping the issue I raised. Yes, large organizations (notice how I'm not using the loaded term "bureaucracy" like you did?) will have problems. But without them we wouldn't have gotten to the moon or had the bloody Internet you're posting on. More to the point (hey, I used that phrase correctly!) we can fix those problems if we try (as opposed to throwing our hands up like children and declaring it too hard/impossible).
b. We don't want people with disabilities excluded from society.
c. We properly fund public education so that the material can be made accessible to them.
Seriously. In all the talk about how awful it is this content will get pulled nobody once noticed the reason: The law was written with the assumption that we properly fund education in a country where we've been cutting that funding for 40 years. Hell, the right have a name for this: Starve the Beast. But ya know, I like some Beasts. Like my dog that scares off thieves.
if half the bloody electorate wasn't working hard to make sure government didn't work because it's so convinced government doesn't work. Seriously, this is what happens when you put people in charge who are doing everything they can to hamstring the basic functionality of government (and no, Obama is not, was not and never will be 'in charge'. He had a few months with a congress full of DINOs).
You elect people who want to tear down the government and the complain it's been torn down. Sheesh!
where there aren't any HOAs/housewives that can take time out of their day to lobby city councils. It's amazing the difference in public service between well-to-do neighborhoods and the poor ones.
to get these cases dismissed now? I suppose there's lots of folks that can't afford the lawyer needed to file the motions to request the information correctly (two-tiered justice system for the win). But assuming you're not just bullied into a confession you'll be able to use this to get off scot-free...
You're attacking socialism using the word "collectivism" to bring in shades of Stalin/Mao (which everyone fears) so you can side step the issue I raised, which is that if you abandon the unskilled to their fate you'll get dragged down with them one way or another. So I'll be a little more blunt here: Yes or no: when the unskilled become useless are you OK with them starving to death to avoid "stealing" from the skilled? If the answer is 'no' you better figure out some way to get them food/shelter/healthcare/etc. And "making them skilled" is not an answer. If anyone could just become skilled they'd do it. They're unskilled for reasons. Now, if you've got a magic ray or something that makes the unskilled skilled, well, congratulations, you've just flooded the market with skilled labor and learned magic at the same time...
Oh, and you're also assuming that supporting a decent standard of living for the unskilled is morally wrong. In a post scarcity economy it's pretty obvious that's not true. The only thing that you're "stealing" is the power to control people by controlling their access to food/shelter/healthcare/etc. It's kind of an oxymoron that way. Redistributing wealth creates more freedom as the ruling class uses the carrot & stick of survival they've been beating the ruling class with so long.
is brutal repression of those people. That's what's going on in Mexico & South America. But good job making yourself feel better by suggesting the problem will naturally and painlessly take care of itself. The best part? There's an excellent chance you'll get caught up in that repression too as the government expands it's powers to do nastier and nastier things to it's citizens in the name of keeping order.
for the kinds of simple data driven apps JavaScript is used for. The current single threaded model + callbacks works just fine for the most part, and promises solve most of the syntax nightmares (e.g. the Pyramid of Doom). I don't need to play Quake 5 written in JavaScript. That's what C's for.
As for the rest of his complaints, well, it's mostly there for backwards compat. Don't use it if you don't want to.
you lost that power when modern militaries became so large, powerful and well trained/supplied. You can't stand up to a modern military. You just can't and you're kidding yourself if you think you can. You won't be able to get enough of the kind of high power guns meant for killing men that a military has (fun fact: the M-16 was designed from the ground up to kill people. It's range, power, etc is optimized for it).
I suppose you could hope the military sides with the people, but I've yet to see that happen and not end in a Junta. Your only real hope is to maintain real democracy. The way you do that is by leaving nobody behind. Don't let there be disenfranchised and abused people. Even if they deserve it (e.g. "lazy" folks who don't work enough for your tastes). They'll be turned against you eventually, like they have for always.
it was about keeping guns out of the hands of blacks. Seriously. I'm not kidding or trolling. In the late 70s early 80s manufacturing finally made guns affordable by minorities. That's also around the time gun control laws started making it through legislatures. If you ever want to seem the funniest thing in your life looks up a story about a bunch of anti-muslim rednecks who took their AR-15s to go harass worshipers at a mosque unaware that the Nation of Islam are a little more than just peaceful worshipers.
My point is we don't have really effective gun control law because we never really tried to. Now, I don't think we ever will and I honestly wish the left would drop the issue entirely. It's a losing issue (and noticing that was the only thing Clinton got right). But it does irritate me to see folks like you saying gun control doesn't work. No shit Sherlock that a bunch of laws designed to keep guns out of oppressed minorities didn't have much effect on gun violence...
there was decades of poverty and unemployment following the industrial revolution. We're not just extrapolating. We have hard science to back it up if you care to look.
not one that matters anyway. People can't stand up to a modern military. No matter how many AR-15s they have. They don't have the supply lines or the tactics and training. And every single time the military jumps in it just turns into a junta. You're just changing whose boot's in your neck.
What evidence do you have for these pro-human corporations? Even google's been caught being evil. Hell, it's a/. joke. I have thousands of years of human misery to back me up, what about you?
What am I betting on? Not much. If religion dies off that'll help. It's too easy to divide folks along those lines. Plus we need to get people breeding less. It's not that we can't feed them, it's that we won't. Maybe if the boffins ever work out cheap, reliable male birth control and we can keep Pat Robinson & the Pope from banning it... I don't know.
What I do know is this: people have been awful for thousands of years. When they're poor they're awful and when they're rich they're awful. There's a very narrow band where folks are (kind sorta) not awful. But those folks are too busy living to do much.
Slashdot Mirror
or is the Netherlands not a sovereign nation? I forget the name of the principle but it's basically impossible to sue a sovereign government.
I need 417 GB of ram and 65 cores. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
and they were more blatant about it. That makes sense. The right wing is, has been and always will be representative of the very wealthy. It's natural they'd have more resources to start up these sorts of organizations. The right wing also desperately needs legitimization because actual science is opposed to them (and they to science). Climate Change, Trickle Down Economics, "Intelligent Design". All of these have been proven hogwash by all real scientists. Your side needs tons of fake non-profits pushing its agenda or the whole thing falls apart on top of the house of cards it was built on...
but you're still right. Obama didn't order the IRS to audit conservative organizations. Period. Full Stop. No quotes around order. The IRS did it themselves because there were so many right wing political organizations filing as charities that they were low hanging fruit for agents looking to bump their enforcement numbers up. Where they being profiled? Yeah. But they were being profiled by the IRS, not Obama and because they were up to no good and everybody knew it. Sad thing is they cried a little and now they get away with it all day long.
see the forest. What with all the trees and all...
source.
1. They're bought and paid for.
2. They're largely single issue voters. Either they're the ones doing the buying from #1 and just want low taxes, low wages (for their employees) and no regulations or they're "values voters" who vote on religion, abortion or gun control.
The left is a much, much loser coalition so they tend to lose. Every few years everything goes to shit and the left gets in charge, fixes a few things, and as soon as things get a little better the right take over with their superior organization and money. Basically, evil will always win because good is dumb.
but they can be solved. Voting can be both anonymous and mandatory ensuring 100% turnout without it becoming an oppressive census. Parliaments can eliminate the issues with a two party system. Education can create an electorate that's capable of being well informed. True, good government is hard work but even before that it requires a willingness to do so.
And make no mistake, you _will_ have a powerful central government. They're just too useful. If you don't form one and participate in it then somebody else will; usually to your detriment...
folks are making about 20% less than their parents did so it's not surprising. You need money to date. Plus being stressed about money all the time puts a damper on things.
the jobs men are best at (e.g. blue collar & engineering) are going away. Jobs women are good at (medical, knowledge, arts, etc) aren't. Barring massive societal changes the pay gap will go the other way in 20 years.
It's this. Yes, it does matter which party is in power. Studies have shown the economy does better under the Democrats. Again, it's not because they're Dems, it's because they're actively trying to govern instead of burning the whole place down.
And again, you're side stepping the issue I raised. Yes, large organizations (notice how I'm not using the loaded term "bureaucracy" like you did?) will have problems. But without them we wouldn't have gotten to the moon or had the bloody Internet you're posting on. More to the point (hey, I used that phrase correctly!) we can fix those problems if we try (as opposed to throwing our hands up like children and declaring it too hard/impossible).
a. The content is valuable to the public.
b. We don't want people with disabilities excluded from society.
c. We properly fund public education so that the material can be made accessible to them.
Seriously. In all the talk about how awful it is this content will get pulled nobody once noticed the reason: The law was written with the assumption that we properly fund education in a country where we've been cutting that funding for 40 years. Hell, the right have a name for this: Starve the Beast. But ya know, I like some Beasts. Like my dog that scares off thieves.
if half the bloody electorate wasn't working hard to make sure government didn't work because it's so convinced government doesn't work. Seriously, this is what happens when you put people in charge who are doing everything they can to hamstring the basic functionality of government (and no, Obama is not, was not and never will be 'in charge'. He had a few months with a congress full of DINOs).
You elect people who want to tear down the government and the complain it's been torn down. Sheesh!
where there aren't any HOAs/housewives that can take time out of their day to lobby city councils. It's amazing the difference in public service between well-to-do neighborhoods and the poor ones.
but most of the United States is too spread out to make this sorta thing economical.
to get these cases dismissed now? I suppose there's lots of folks that can't afford the lawyer needed to file the motions to request the information correctly (two-tiered justice system for the win). But assuming you're not just bullied into a confession you'll be able to use this to get off scot-free...
You're attacking socialism using the word "collectivism" to bring in shades of Stalin/Mao (which everyone fears) so you can side step the issue I raised, which is that if you abandon the unskilled to their fate you'll get dragged down with them one way or another. So I'll be a little more blunt here: Yes or no: when the unskilled become useless are you OK with them starving to death to avoid "stealing" from the skilled? If the answer is 'no' you better figure out some way to get them food/shelter/healthcare/etc. And "making them skilled" is not an answer. If anyone could just become skilled they'd do it. They're unskilled for reasons. Now, if you've got a magic ray or something that makes the unskilled skilled, well, congratulations, you've just flooded the market with skilled labor and learned magic at the same time...
Oh, and you're also assuming that supporting a decent standard of living for the unskilled is morally wrong. In a post scarcity economy it's pretty obvious that's not true. The only thing that you're "stealing" is the power to control people by controlling their access to food/shelter/healthcare/etc. It's kind of an oxymoron that way. Redistributing wealth creates more freedom as the ruling class uses the carrot & stick of survival they've been beating the ruling class with so long.
IE is still there and as far as I can tell still the default in Win10. If I go to start in my Win10 install and type 'browser' it gives me IE.
is brutal repression of those people. That's what's going on in Mexico & South America. But good job making yourself feel better by suggesting the problem will naturally and painlessly take care of itself. The best part? There's an excellent chance you'll get caught up in that repression too as the government expands it's powers to do nastier and nastier things to it's citizens in the name of keeping order.
for the kinds of simple data driven apps JavaScript is used for. The current single threaded model + callbacks works just fine for the most part, and promises solve most of the syntax nightmares (e.g. the Pyramid of Doom). I don't need to play Quake 5 written in JavaScript. That's what C's for.
As for the rest of his complaints, well, it's mostly there for backwards compat. Don't use it if you don't want to.
you lost that power when modern militaries became so large, powerful and well trained/supplied. You can't stand up to a modern military. You just can't and you're kidding yourself if you think you can. You won't be able to get enough of the kind of high power guns meant for killing men that a military has (fun fact: the M-16 was designed from the ground up to kill people. It's range, power, etc is optimized for it).
I suppose you could hope the military sides with the people, but I've yet to see that happen and not end in a Junta. Your only real hope is to maintain real democracy. The way you do that is by leaving nobody behind. Don't let there be disenfranchised and abused people. Even if they deserve it (e.g. "lazy" folks who don't work enough for your tastes). They'll be turned against you eventually, like they have for always.
because they've got a network Zombie and they DDOS you back? Also, since when is vigilantism a good idea?
it was about keeping guns out of the hands of blacks. Seriously. I'm not kidding or trolling. In the late 70s early 80s manufacturing finally made guns affordable by minorities. That's also around the time gun control laws started making it through legislatures. If you ever want to seem the funniest thing in your life looks up a story about a bunch of anti-muslim rednecks who took their AR-15s to go harass worshipers at a mosque unaware that the Nation of Islam are a little more than just peaceful worshipers.
My point is we don't have really effective gun control law because we never really tried to. Now, I don't think we ever will and I honestly wish the left would drop the issue entirely. It's a losing issue (and noticing that was the only thing Clinton got right). But it does irritate me to see folks like you saying gun control doesn't work. No shit Sherlock that a bunch of laws designed to keep guns out of oppressed minorities didn't have much effect on gun violence...
there was decades of poverty and unemployment following the industrial revolution. We're not just extrapolating. We have hard science to back it up if you care to look.
not one that matters anyway. People can't stand up to a modern military. No matter how many AR-15s they have. They don't have the supply lines or the tactics and training. And every single time the military jumps in it just turns into a junta. You're just changing whose boot's in your neck.
/. joke. I have thousands of years of human misery to back me up, what about you?
What evidence do you have for these pro-human corporations? Even google's been caught being evil. Hell, it's a
What am I betting on? Not much. If religion dies off that'll help. It's too easy to divide folks along those lines. Plus we need to get people breeding less. It's not that we can't feed them, it's that we won't. Maybe if the boffins ever work out cheap, reliable male birth control and we can keep Pat Robinson & the Pope from banning it... I don't know.
What I do know is this: people have been awful for thousands of years. When they're poor they're awful and when they're rich they're awful. There's a very narrow band where folks are (kind sorta) not awful. But those folks are too busy living to do much.