And did the company stay in business? Or, more accurately, were you contributing to the profitability of the company? If not, then shut up. If so, you may have a ligitimate complaint.
Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January.
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
Well the trick there is, don't buy from those companies. If you know a company is outsourcing to foreign countries and screwing over domestic workers, you have to let them feel it where it counts -- in their wallets
I think it's the hurting in their wallets in the first place that makes them outsource jobs overseas. It's mostly from taxes. I can't think of the exact scenario, but when you start a company in the US, you have to pay the US federal income tax in addition to all kinds of other taxes. If you move the HQ to another country, you don't have to pay all the taxes, just some of them... so after a while, if your company grows enough, it makes more financial sense to move the HQ to another country... and while you're there, you might as well hire some foreign workers who will work for pennies.
It seems to me that the most logical solution is to figure out exactly why the companies are moving in the first place, and fix that problem... in this case, lower taxes on businesses.
The problem is, that at a certain level of being rich, the accumulated interest makes a rich one even more rich, and they don't have to work for it anymore.
And why should they work? If they worked their ass off to get a company off the ground supplying a demand that the public has, and they do it well enough to enable them to retire at age 45, damnit, why SHOULD they have to work? Because you do? How would you feel if you went to retire with your IRA at age 65, and since someone else had to work until they were 85, you couldn't retire when you wanted to? Not that I expect you to think about things like that logically and reasonably, because your post isn't the most thought-out piece of literature I've read today.
The rich will always get richer, because interests "produce" more interests.
Um... sorta... here, let me change a few things... "The rich will always get poorer, because government "produces" more taxes." OK, that's better. Carry on.
You hear about the bad apples in the media, and then assume the whole lot of them are evil. It simply isn't true.
But wait! It must be true! I saw a story on CNN about how evil and despicable the rich people are, so it must be completely true! I know this one guy who got laid off (even though he got a better job that he enjoys more and has a higher salary) in the same decade as his boss got a raise, so his boss must be the Spawn of Satan! Don't you come around here with that right-wing logic talk... I know that my friend felt pretty bad when he got laid off (even though it was the best decision for the company, since he sat on his ass all day every day and collected his salary from producing nothing), so it must be because his boss was simply evil and wanted to make the company more profitable! Damn capitalism!
Actually, the top 1% of income earners in America pay 37.42% of the federal income taxes... but they only make 20.81% of the money. Seems to me that if they make 20.81% of the money, they should pay 20.81% of the taxes... but wait, that would mean they should get a TAX CUT. The top 50% of income earners in America pay 96.09% of the taxes... and in case you're wondering, if you make over $27,682 per year, you're RICH, and you pay most of the taxes.
So even through a massive recession, and firings and layoffs, the average salary is 5.296% higher than it was 3 years earlier. So, which industry is going downhill again?
I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.
because sadly pac-man was exploited with poor sequels and faded into antiquity...
The Perfect Game wouldn't require sequels because every possible ending would already be taken into account... thus creating an endless supply of replay value. It also wouldn't fade into antiquity because the Perfect Game would be... duh... Perfect. You would NEVER look at it and ask why the graphics/sounds/levels haven't been updated. The Perfect Game isn't possible with current technology... and given the state of most humans, it won't ever be possible because people will always find something wrong with whatever you give them.
They didn't get it right. The game WAS fun in 1981, but it isn't anymore. The graphics suck, the sound is horrible, and it's the same thing over and over and over again. If you can beat the first 2 levels without any problem, you don't have to develop any new skills or techniques to beat the next 10 levels. In effect, the gameplay consists of using the same methods to beat every level, and those methods don't change over time. The gameplay only has 4 buttons (up, down, left and right).
Before I get flamed, I should say that yes, it's simplistic, but that's not necessarily good. To be the "perfect" game, it doesn't mean it should be the most played over 20 years. Remember, the definition of "perfection" isn't what's the most popular for the longest amount of time. By that logic, Windows would be the "perfect" OS, but we all know better.
The Perfect game would have graphics that never appear to age, sounds that never get repetitive, and gameplay that changes with every single level, just enough to keep the player occupied and entertained. It would NEVER get boring, old, or stale. The player could be anyone between the ages of 3 and 120, and no explanation of the goal in the game would be necessary, yet the story would be engrossing enough to even the most nit-picky of people. The Perfect Game does not, will not, and CAN NOT exist because perfection requires so much more than just being around for 20 years. The most we can ask for is the best game available... and THAT is debatable.
I'll state right upfront that I'm not sure whether you're FOR or AGAINST an Internet sales tax, but I had a couple comments that other people might find interesting.
and delivery of that item doesn't use any existing infrastructure ? like the roads or such?
I'm sure you're not suggesting that the only way the government can afford to pay for highways and other roads is by with an Internet sales tax... are you? If so, then I'd be VERY interested to know exactly how the highway system has survived for the last 100 years or so. Also, if my federal income taxes aren't being used to pay for the roads that I use on a daily basis, what ARE they going towards? Most likely, they're going towards a whole host of things that I'll never see or have anything to do with. Please don't get this confused with greed... greed, in my opinion, is wanting something that doesn't rightfully belong to me. Wanting a benefit from the money I spent my time in earning isn't greed, it's the basis for property rights and as such, the whole Capitalist system.
To bring this back to the original point, if we established an Internet sales tax, and I purchased a $100 piece of software that I download and burn onto a CD (that I also bought at Best Buy and paid sales tax on, I might add), how would the Internet sales tax portion of that purchase be used? Surely the government isn't suggesting that they take over the Internet infrastructure like they have the railroads. If the government doesn't control the Internet, and the government wants to tax purchases made on the Internet, where does that money go? Would they give that money to the ISP that hosts the website I made my purchase from, effectively increasing profit by 8% (or so)? Doesn't seem right to me... The only way they could justify it is to take over the Internet infrastructure and become the sole ISP in the country. I DEFINITELY don't want THAT. Damn... talk about Big Brother.
If the evey get a standardized nation tax system I will assure you there will be forced taxes the day after.
There's a good proposal for a national tax system in the works right now. You can read about it here.
So Pac-Man is the perfect game, is it? Why isn't it in the top 10 still then? Why aren't we discussing Pac-Man X-2, or (probably more accurately) Pac-Man 18?
The US intelligent agencies haven't been very suportive either.
If you're referring to the "16-word" in the State of the Union issue, I agree. I also think it was stupid of the White House to issue a statement saying that maybe that argument shouldn't have been used. The UK intelligence has since confirmed that they still believe that Saddam looked in Africa for Uranium or Plutonium or whatever it was.
BTW, I don't profess to know whether GWB deliberately mislead us or whether he merely foolishly surrounded himself with mendacious advisors... not that it makes much difference to national security and world peace.
I find it interesting that you leave only 2 options, either incompetent or liar. (Ironically, our last President was both.) Has the option of GWB being absolutely correct ever crossed your mind? For a moment, leave all politics aside and consider the situation. One man who has murdered millions of innocent people won't tell the world what he's done with the instruments capable of murdering more millions. Upon investigation, we can find records that they existed, but no records of them ever being destroyed. Do you suspect that man is telling the truth when he admits to having them, even when it suggests his downfall (or death)? If Al Gore was President, and if he took out Saddam, I'd be praising him. There are some decisions where your personal political views shouldn't come into play.
I'm not even going to try to respond to all your statements, because I think you're going to twist everything into your own personal view anyway. The fact is that Saddam Hussein, NOT the United States, was under the burden of proof. You cheerfully point out that he didn't use the WMD's during the war, and now we can't find them. You don't point out that Saddam was supposed to destroy them, AND give us proof that he destroyed them. He didn't. After 12 years of lying about their existence and capabilities, do you think he would just give them up so easily when faced with the threat of violence? If so, it would be to his great advantage to PROVE that he gave them up and that they don't exist because he would be the primary beneficiary.
Here's an analogy. You have a dollar. I tell you that unless you either destroy that dollar or give that dollar to me, I will kill you. If you do neither, I will kill you. What possible benefit (for you) would there be for you to do neither? Please don't enter into any political debates on whether he actually had them or not because everyone knew he had them. Just answer the question. What benefit would there be for Saddam Hussein to not give up the weapons, or destroy them and show proof?
the people who reported it are dismissed as crackpots while the "skeptics" who ridiculed them come off as geniuses?
Exactly! Like that one inventor back in the 1400's who invented that one clock with a piece of glass with a starmap in it that can only be seen at one place at one time ever. He even invented computers and paper-eating solutions that activate when someone opens a briefcase and everything... Oh wait, that was in Alias. Nevermind...
That's how we got Blair to say the same drivel that Bush was spouting about Iraq's WMD...
Yes! That must be it! It would also explain how Clinton said the same things 5 years ago. It was obviously just the CIA or NSA experimenting with low-frequency sound waves and making a complete coverup, as opposed to a dictator actually having some weapons that he, the UN, the US, and every other country with any significant intelligence-gathering agency admitted were there... It's all so simple.
I think it was Chris Rock that said 'just make bullets very expensive, if a bullet costs $5000 and someone gets shot 5 times, he probably deserved it'.
Well, that's one solution... except that people get killed using things besides guns. I doubt Laci Peterson was the victim of a.44... Also, I like to target practice every now and then, so what would I do? Use paintball guns? I'd prefer to be prepared for the day when owning a gun is determined to be illegal, and I need to start defending myself against the onslaught of law enforcement agents looking to take my property...
I don't think voting is a priviledge, it is a fundamental right to have a say in how your government works, even if you are crazy or stupid.
It is a fundamental right to citizens of the United States that can obey the laws set forth by the elected officials of the United States. If you can, then you can vote. If not, then you can't.
Yeah, the GOP tends to not make much sense - perhaps under your proposal they wouldn't have anyone left to vote for them...
Um... the Democrats are the ones that want everyone to vote, especially if they're not informed about the issues and the long-term consequences. Look at California.
I've met a lot of illegal immigrants in my time, every single one of them would be better described as "economic refugees"...
I don't care if you call them illegal immigrants, "economic refugees", or "supermen from the planet Xeopital". They're still here illegally, and we should send them back to wherever they came from. We only have a very, very, VERY few laws regarding immigrants... the LEAST they could do is come here legally.
This one woman I know came to the US illegally...
This one man I know was born in Africa and was more poor than anyone in the western hemisphere. He recognized that the United States has laws about immigration, and since it was so important to him that he could come here and get a job, he learned what those laws were, and he followed them. Today he owns his own business and pulls in over $75,000 a year. So what's your point? That illegal immigrants can occasionally break the mold and work? SO WHAT?!?!?! Is it really too hard to stop by an immigration office and pick up a few forms?
As far as your other complaints about the unsafe work environment... If there are no illegal immigrants, the companies won't be able to hire people and pay them a measly wage to work in their unsafe environments... problem solved.
I don't believe the government has the right to dictate its definition of competence on voters.
Does the government have the right to dictate its definition of competence on drivers? Does the government have the right to dictate its definition of competence on pilots? Does the government have the right to dictate its definition of competence on law enforcement? The government is IN THE BUSINESS of granting or denying people the right to do things based on their competence. Just about every job or privilege enjoyed in this country is granted by the government (much to my chagrin). I think it's ironic that often, the same people that want the government to decide who can do what also don't want the government to restrict anybody from doing anything.
I'm not saying the government should decide whether someone is allowed to vote based on what their vote would be. I'm suggesting the government make people take a very, very simple test on this country... the kind to take for citizenship, except easier. For citizenship, you might have to know that the US war for independence ended in 1776, or that the Constitution was ratified in 1789. That's too hard for some people, and I recognize that. I'm suggesting that if people don't know we won our independence from England, that's one strike. If they don't know a Freedom of Speech exists, that's another strike. If they don't know the name of the current President or how many states there currently are, that's the last straw. Being stupid (or intellectually challenged, as the PC people might say) isn't a crime punishable by revoking the right to vote... However, not knowing anything of the country you're deciding the future of, should be.
You are showing you ignorance, this is the current situation already, and it is unlikely to change anytime soon (nor should it).
That's currently being debated in California. The politicians in CA don't want people to have to show ID. If they don't have to show ID, how are you supposed to check to make sure they're not illegal immigrants?
It's a stupid idea that would lead to abuses in areas where people believe such untruths such as "the illegal aliens are messing up the vote".
I'm not worried about the outcome of the vote. I'm worried about the freedoms and rights we're granting to people that shouldn't be here anyway. Can these people buy a gun? Can they rob a store? How are we going to catch them if we don't know they're in the country in the first place?
a TV show, it's meant to entertain, distract, and possibly inspire.
It's inspiring me to see the potential of the human race. The sad part is that people see that it's a TV show, and automatically discard anything it might have to teach us about what possibilities there are. Tell me this... why can't a 10 year old do calculus?
The point is who are we to say why or how they should vote?
I don't think we should say how or why they should vote. We should just test their competence to make a simple decision. Mentally retarded people have enough to worry about without throwing global politics into their heads. I don't mean to be rude, but if they can't handle living by themselves, how are they supposed to make informed decisions on the future of the country?
That is like burning down the village to save it.
I would prefer the analogy to be "That would be like tearing down a barn that's already on fire, in hopes that the rest of the village won't burn down."
I really think the most plausible solution is to revitalize political discourse, it needs to be more engaging.
Absolutely. If people don't understand what they're deciding, they can't possibly make a good decision about it. Right now, there are a lot of people that have no idea what they're deciding... and I'd rather hurt a few people's feelings than send this country down the toilet because they don't know what they're doing.
And you do want the President to be held to the same legal stander as anyone else in the country, right?
As a matter of fact, no, I don't. I think the President should be held to a HIGHER standard that anyone else in the country. If his own wife can't trust him to be faithful to her, how can the rest of the country trust him to do what's best for the country, and not his own self interests?
I figure after a certain number of years living in the US they have a good idea of how things work here and opinions on where things should be going, moreso they have an investment in how the country works.
I hope you're taking about legal immigrants, and not illegal immigrants. As far as I'm concerned, if you're an illegal immigrant, you shouldn't be here to begin with, and you shouldn't have any rights or freedoms granted by the Constitution, which includes the right to vote. Basically, in my book, if you're an illegal immigrant, officially, you don't exist as anything other than a statistic... until we kick your ass back to the country you came from.
After reading so many comments from my initial post, I'm tempted to write back to all of them and point out how idiotic many are... but I don't have the time, the patience, or the energy, so I have to be a little more particular about which ones I write back to.
Personally, I think "criminals" should be allowed to vote.
Why? Criminals live in a society that is ruled by the law. They broke the law. Hence, the turned against the society they live in. So what part of this logic aren't you grasping? They can't obey relatively simple laws that protect the property and lives of other citizens, so why should they have any part in choosing who the country's leaders are? It's not a matter of the percentage of the population that criminals take up, or what kind of laws they broke. It's part of their punishment. They broke a law (or many laws), they lose some privileges. One of those lost privileges is the right to freedom of assembly (when you're in prison, you obviously can't "assemble" right outside the White House). Another is the freedom to bear arms (when you're in prison, you better not own a gun). Yet another is the freedom to vote.
It occurs to me that if you want to marginalize entire classes of people & prevent them from having any say in their own government, then it's pretty darn convenient to be able to pass laws that criminalize the activities of those classes disproportionately, and also prevent them from voting so that they can't object politically to their treatment.
This is a perfect example of playing the "race card" where no race issue exists. You're automatically assuming that all members of one race or another are inherently criminals, based solely on the color of their skin, or the "activities" they participate in. If I trade stocks, am I automatically white? If I'm a banker, am I automatically Jewish? If I rob a liquor store, am I automatically black? Or, conversely, if I'm Jewish, does that mean I'm destined to be a banker? By making such arguments that "entire classes of people" participate in "activities" that are illegal, you're perpetuating the racial issues of this country, if they really exist anymore at all. I know quite a few black people, and very few of them are criminals. I also know quite a few rednecks that should be locked up forever. I even know a few Jews that aren't bankers, but are actually closer to criminals than the rednecks. If people can't follow simple laws like "Don't kill anyone" or "Don't do drugs" or "Don't rob anyone", they should be locked up, no matter what color their skin is, or what country they come from. If our prisons are disproportionately black, or hispanic, we need to look at the black and hispanic schools, and the black and hispanic parents, and see what kind of morals and values they're teaching the children. It seems fairly obvious that if the prisons of the country are overrun by members of one ethnic group, then that ethnic group isn't teaching the proper rules of conduct within this society to its younger members.
After explaining all that, it occurs to me that YOU are the one that is racist, not me, and not anyone else that expects us to punish people that break the law.
Slashdot Mirror
And did the company stay in business? Or, more accurately, were you contributing to the profitability of the company? If not, then shut up. If so, you may have a ligitimate complaint.
Well the trick there is, don't buy from those companies. If you know a company is outsourcing to foreign countries and screwing over domestic workers, you have to let them feel it where it counts -- in their wallets
I think it's the hurting in their wallets in the first place that makes them outsource jobs overseas. It's mostly from taxes. I can't think of the exact scenario, but when you start a company in the US, you have to pay the US federal income tax in addition to all kinds of other taxes. If you move the HQ to another country, you don't have to pay all the taxes, just some of them... so after a while, if your company grows enough, it makes more financial sense to move the HQ to another country... and while you're there, you might as well hire some foreign workers who will work for pennies.
It seems to me that the most logical solution is to figure out exactly why the companies are moving in the first place, and fix that problem... in this case, lower taxes on businesses.
The problem is, that at a certain level of being rich, the accumulated interest makes a rich one even more rich, and they don't have to work for it anymore.
And why should they work? If they worked their ass off to get a company off the ground supplying a demand that the public has, and they do it well enough to enable them to retire at age 45, damnit, why SHOULD they have to work? Because you do? How would you feel if you went to retire with your IRA at age 65, and since someone else had to work until they were 85, you couldn't retire when you wanted to? Not that I expect you to think about things like that logically and reasonably, because your post isn't the most thought-out piece of literature I've read today.
The rich will always get richer, because interests "produce" more interests.
Um... sorta... here, let me change a few things... "The rich will always get poorer, because government "produces" more taxes." OK, that's better. Carry on.
You hear about the bad apples in the media, and then assume the whole lot of them are evil. It simply isn't true.
But wait! It must be true! I saw a story on CNN about how evil and despicable the rich people are, so it must be completely true! I know this one guy who got laid off (even though he got a better job that he enjoys more and has a higher salary) in the same decade as his boss got a raise, so his boss must be the Spawn of Satan! Don't you come around here with that right-wing logic talk... I know that my friend felt pretty bad when he got laid off (even though it was the best decision for the company, since he sat on his ass all day every day and collected his salary from producing nothing), so it must be because his boss was simply evil and wanted to make the company more profitable! Damn capitalism!
Actually, the top 1% of income earners in America pay 37.42% of the federal income taxes... but they only make 20.81% of the money. Seems to me that if they make 20.81% of the money, they should pay 20.81% of the taxes... but wait, that would mean they should get a TAX CUT. The top 50% of income earners in America pay 96.09% of the taxes... and in case you're wondering, if you make over $27,682 per year, you're RICH, and you pay most of the taxes.
Anyway is'nt it funny that US Tech industry is going downhill for the workers whil the Industry is making money for the "bosses" (and the investors)?
I know it might trump your little party for the poor, helpless little people that make it all happen, but my salary has been steadily going up for the past 5 years, despite the tech bust. In 1999, the median salary for a US Systems Administrator was $64,271. As of 2002, the average salary was $67,675 ($67,920 for males, and $64,946 for females).
So even through a massive recession, and firings and layoffs, the average salary is 5.296% higher than it was 3 years earlier. So, which industry is going downhill again?
I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.
because sadly pac-man was exploited with poor sequels and faded into antiquity...
... duh ... Perfect. You would NEVER look at it and ask why the graphics/sounds/levels haven't been updated. The Perfect Game isn't possible with current technology... and given the state of most humans, it won't ever be possible because people will always find something wrong with whatever you give them.
The Perfect Game wouldn't require sequels because every possible ending would already be taken into account... thus creating an endless supply of replay value. It also wouldn't fade into antiquity because the Perfect Game would be
By the way, $PERFECT != $BEST_AT_THE_TIME...
They didn't get it right. The game WAS fun in 1981, but it isn't anymore. The graphics suck, the sound is horrible, and it's the same thing over and over and over again. If you can beat the first 2 levels without any problem, you don't have to develop any new skills or techniques to beat the next 10 levels. In effect, the gameplay consists of using the same methods to beat every level, and those methods don't change over time. The gameplay only has 4 buttons (up, down, left and right).
Before I get flamed, I should say that yes, it's simplistic, but that's not necessarily good. To be the "perfect" game, it doesn't mean it should be the most played over 20 years. Remember, the definition of "perfection" isn't what's the most popular for the longest amount of time. By that logic, Windows would be the "perfect" OS, but we all know better.
The Perfect game would have graphics that never appear to age, sounds that never get repetitive, and gameplay that changes with every single level, just enough to keep the player occupied and entertained. It would NEVER get boring, old, or stale. The player could be anyone between the ages of 3 and 120, and no explanation of the goal in the game would be necessary, yet the story would be engrossing enough to even the most nit-picky of people. The Perfect Game does not, will not, and CAN NOT exist because perfection requires so much more than just being around for 20 years. The most we can ask for is the best game available... and THAT is debatable.
I'll state right upfront that I'm not sure whether you're FOR or AGAINST an Internet sales tax, but I had a couple comments that other people might find interesting.
and delivery of that item doesn't use any existing infrastructure ? like the roads or such?
I'm sure you're not suggesting that the only way the government can afford to pay for highways and other roads is by with an Internet sales tax... are you? If so, then I'd be VERY interested to know exactly how the highway system has survived for the last 100 years or so. Also, if my federal income taxes aren't being used to pay for the roads that I use on a daily basis, what ARE they going towards? Most likely, they're going towards a whole host of things that I'll never see or have anything to do with. Please don't get this confused with greed... greed, in my opinion, is wanting something that doesn't rightfully belong to me. Wanting a benefit from the money I spent my time in earning isn't greed, it's the basis for property rights and as such, the whole Capitalist system.
To bring this back to the original point, if we established an Internet sales tax, and I purchased a $100 piece of software that I download and burn onto a CD (that I also bought at Best Buy and paid sales tax on, I might add), how would the Internet sales tax portion of that purchase be used? Surely the government isn't suggesting that they take over the Internet infrastructure like they have the railroads. If the government doesn't control the Internet, and the government wants to tax purchases made on the Internet, where does that money go? Would they give that money to the ISP that hosts the website I made my purchase from, effectively increasing profit by 8% (or so)? Doesn't seem right to me... The only way they could justify it is to take over the Internet infrastructure and become the sole ISP in the country. I DEFINITELY don't want THAT. Damn... talk about Big Brother.
If the evey get a standardized nation tax system I will assure you there will be forced taxes the day after.
There's a good proposal for a national tax system in the works right now. You can read about it here.
So Pac-Man is the perfect game, is it? Why isn't it in the top 10 still then? Why aren't we discussing Pac-Man X-2, or (probably more accurately) Pac-Man 18?
The US intelligent agencies haven't been very suportive either.
If you're referring to the "16-word" in the State of the Union issue, I agree. I also think it was stupid of the White House to issue a statement saying that maybe that argument shouldn't have been used. The UK intelligence has since confirmed that they still believe that Saddam looked in Africa for Uranium or Plutonium or whatever it was.
BTW, I don't profess to know whether GWB deliberately mislead us or whether he merely foolishly surrounded himself with mendacious advisors... not that it makes much difference to national security and world peace.
I find it interesting that you leave only 2 options, either incompetent or liar. (Ironically, our last President was both.) Has the option of GWB being absolutely correct ever crossed your mind? For a moment, leave all politics aside and consider the situation. One man who has murdered millions of innocent people won't tell the world what he's done with the instruments capable of murdering more millions. Upon investigation, we can find records that they existed, but no records of them ever being destroyed. Do you suspect that man is telling the truth when he admits to having them, even when it suggests his downfall (or death)? If Al Gore was President, and if he took out Saddam, I'd be praising him. There are some decisions where your personal political views shouldn't come into play.
I'm not even going to try to respond to all your statements, because I think you're going to twist everything into your own personal view anyway. The fact is that Saddam Hussein, NOT the United States, was under the burden of proof. You cheerfully point out that he didn't use the WMD's during the war, and now we can't find them. You don't point out that Saddam was supposed to destroy them, AND give us proof that he destroyed them. He didn't. After 12 years of lying about their existence and capabilities, do you think he would just give them up so easily when faced with the threat of violence? If so, it would be to his great advantage to PROVE that he gave them up and that they don't exist because he would be the primary beneficiary.
Here's an analogy. You have a dollar. I tell you that unless you either destroy that dollar or give that dollar to me, I will kill you. If you do neither, I will kill you. What possible benefit (for you) would there be for you to do neither? Please don't enter into any political debates on whether he actually had them or not because everyone knew he had them. Just answer the question. What benefit would there be for Saddam Hussein to not give up the weapons, or destroy them and show proof?
the people who reported it are dismissed as crackpots while the "skeptics" who ridiculed them come off as geniuses?
Exactly! Like that one inventor back in the 1400's who invented that one clock with a piece of glass with a starmap in it that can only be seen at one place at one time ever. He even invented computers and paper-eating solutions that activate when someone opens a briefcase and everything... Oh wait, that was in Alias. Nevermind...
That's how we got Blair to say the same drivel that Bush was spouting about Iraq's WMD...
Yes! That must be it! It would also explain how Clinton said the same things 5 years ago. It was obviously just the CIA or NSA experimenting with low-frequency sound waves and making a complete coverup, as opposed to a dictator actually having some weapons that he, the UN, the US, and every other country with any significant intelligence-gathering agency admitted were there... It's all so simple.
I think it was Chris Rock that said 'just make bullets very expensive, if a bullet costs $5000 and someone gets shot 5 times, he probably deserved it'.
.44... Also, I like to target practice every now and then, so what would I do? Use paintball guns? I'd prefer to be prepared for the day when owning a gun is determined to be illegal, and I need to start defending myself against the onslaught of law enforcement agents looking to take my property...
Well, that's one solution... except that people get killed using things besides guns. I doubt Laci Peterson was the victim of a
I don't think voting is a priviledge, it is a fundamental right to have a say in how your government works, even if you are crazy or stupid.
It is a fundamental right to citizens of the United States that can obey the laws set forth by the elected officials of the United States. If you can, then you can vote. If not, then you can't.
Yeah, the GOP tends to not make much sense - perhaps under your proposal they wouldn't have anyone left to vote for them...
Um... the Democrats are the ones that want everyone to vote, especially if they're not informed about the issues and the long-term consequences. Look at California.
I've met a lot of illegal immigrants in my time, every single one of them would be better described as "economic refugees"...
I don't care if you call them illegal immigrants, "economic refugees", or "supermen from the planet Xeopital". They're still here illegally, and we should send them back to wherever they came from. We only have a very, very, VERY few laws regarding immigrants... the LEAST they could do is come here legally.
This one woman I know came to the US illegally...
This one man I know was born in Africa and was more poor than anyone in the western hemisphere. He recognized that the United States has laws about immigration, and since it was so important to him that he could come here and get a job, he learned what those laws were, and he followed them. Today he owns his own business and pulls in over $75,000 a year. So what's your point? That illegal immigrants can occasionally break the mold and work? SO WHAT?!?!?! Is it really too hard to stop by an immigration office and pick up a few forms?
As far as your other complaints about the unsafe work environment... If there are no illegal immigrants, the companies won't be able to hire people and pay them a measly wage to work in their unsafe environments... problem solved.
I don't believe the government has the right to dictate its definition of competence on voters.
Does the government have the right to dictate its definition of competence on drivers? Does the government have the right to dictate its definition of competence on pilots? Does the government have the right to dictate its definition of competence on law enforcement? The government is IN THE BUSINESS of granting or denying people the right to do things based on their competence. Just about every job or privilege enjoyed in this country is granted by the government (much to my chagrin). I think it's ironic that often, the same people that want the government to decide who can do what also don't want the government to restrict anybody from doing anything.
I'm not saying the government should decide whether someone is allowed to vote based on what their vote would be. I'm suggesting the government make people take a very, very simple test on this country... the kind to take for citizenship, except easier. For citizenship, you might have to know that the US war for independence ended in 1776, or that the Constitution was ratified in 1789. That's too hard for some people, and I recognize that. I'm suggesting that if people don't know we won our independence from England, that's one strike. If they don't know a Freedom of Speech exists, that's another strike. If they don't know the name of the current President or how many states there currently are, that's the last straw. Being stupid (or intellectually challenged, as the PC people might say) isn't a crime punishable by revoking the right to vote... However, not knowing anything of the country you're deciding the future of, should be.
And, of course, guns kill people, not games.
Not to pick nits, but guns don't kill people. Guns just sit there. Someone has to pick them up and pull the trigger before the person dies.
You are showing you ignorance, this is the current situation already, and it is unlikely to change anytime soon (nor should it).
That's currently being debated in California. The politicians in CA don't want people to have to show ID. If they don't have to show ID, how are you supposed to check to make sure they're not illegal immigrants?
It's a stupid idea that would lead to abuses in areas where people believe such untruths such as "the illegal aliens are messing up the vote".
I'm not worried about the outcome of the vote. I'm worried about the freedoms and rights we're granting to people that shouldn't be here anyway. Can these people buy a gun? Can they rob a store? How are we going to catch them if we don't know they're in the country in the first place?
a TV show, it's meant to entertain, distract, and possibly inspire.
It's inspiring me to see the potential of the human race. The sad part is that people see that it's a TV show, and automatically discard anything it might have to teach us about what possibilities there are. Tell me this... why can't a 10 year old do calculus?
The point is who are we to say why or how they should vote?
I don't think we should say how or why they should vote. We should just test their competence to make a simple decision. Mentally retarded people have enough to worry about without throwing global politics into their heads. I don't mean to be rude, but if they can't handle living by themselves, how are they supposed to make informed decisions on the future of the country?
That is like burning down the village to save it.
I would prefer the analogy to be "That would be like tearing down a barn that's already on fire, in hopes that the rest of the village won't burn down."
I really think the most plausible solution is to revitalize political discourse, it needs to be more engaging.
Absolutely. If people don't understand what they're deciding, they can't possibly make a good decision about it. Right now, there are a lot of people that have no idea what they're deciding... and I'd rather hurt a few people's feelings than send this country down the toilet because they don't know what they're doing.
And you do want the President to be held to the same legal stander as anyone else in the country, right?
As a matter of fact, no, I don't. I think the President should be held to a HIGHER standard that anyone else in the country. If his own wife can't trust him to be faithful to her, how can the rest of the country trust him to do what's best for the country, and not his own self interests?
I figure after a certain number of years living in the US they have a good idea of how things work here and opinions on where things should be going, moreso they have an investment in how the country works.
I hope you're taking about legal immigrants, and not illegal immigrants. As far as I'm concerned, if you're an illegal immigrant, you shouldn't be here to begin with, and you shouldn't have any rights or freedoms granted by the Constitution, which includes the right to vote. Basically, in my book, if you're an illegal immigrant, officially, you don't exist as anything other than a statistic... until we kick your ass back to the country you came from.
After reading so many comments from my initial post, I'm tempted to write back to all of them and point out how idiotic many are... but I don't have the time, the patience, or the energy, so I have to be a little more particular about which ones I write back to.
Personally, I think "criminals" should be allowed to vote.
Why? Criminals live in a society that is ruled by the law. They broke the law. Hence, the turned against the society they live in. So what part of this logic aren't you grasping? They can't obey relatively simple laws that protect the property and lives of other citizens, so why should they have any part in choosing who the country's leaders are? It's not a matter of the percentage of the population that criminals take up, or what kind of laws they broke. It's part of their punishment. They broke a law (or many laws), they lose some privileges. One of those lost privileges is the right to freedom of assembly (when you're in prison, you obviously can't "assemble" right outside the White House). Another is the freedom to bear arms (when you're in prison, you better not own a gun). Yet another is the freedom to vote.
It occurs to me that if you want to marginalize entire classes of people & prevent them from having any say in their own government, then it's pretty darn convenient to be able to pass laws that criminalize the activities of those classes disproportionately, and also prevent them from voting so that they can't object politically to their treatment.
This is a perfect example of playing the "race card" where no race issue exists. You're automatically assuming that all members of one race or another are inherently criminals, based solely on the color of their skin, or the "activities" they participate in. If I trade stocks, am I automatically white? If I'm a banker, am I automatically Jewish? If I rob a liquor store, am I automatically black? Or, conversely, if I'm Jewish, does that mean I'm destined to be a banker? By making such arguments that "entire classes of people" participate in "activities" that are illegal, you're perpetuating the racial issues of this country, if they really exist anymore at all. I know quite a few black people, and very few of them are criminals. I also know quite a few rednecks that should be locked up forever. I even know a few Jews that aren't bankers, but are actually closer to criminals than the rednecks. If people can't follow simple laws like "Don't kill anyone" or "Don't do drugs" or "Don't rob anyone", they should be locked up, no matter what color their skin is, or what country they come from. If our prisons are disproportionately black, or hispanic, we need to look at the black and hispanic schools, and the black and hispanic parents, and see what kind of morals and values they're teaching the children. It seems fairly obvious that if the prisons of the country are overrun by members of one ethnic group, then that ethnic group isn't teaching the proper rules of conduct within this society to its younger members.
After explaining all that, it occurs to me that YOU are the one that is racist, not me, and not anyone else that expects us to punish people that break the law.