Sorry for the ultra late reply. Christmas and stuff..forgot it all.
I'm not really "aginst" Apple in general or the ideas behind Macs, its mostly about some of the attitudes that (simplified to illustrate) "a Mac is worth the price no matter what". So that's why I think the low end Mac is a sucker. Even with the benefirt of OS X it'n just not worth it for most people.
As long as some Macs like the emac is so much more expensive than a Dell I think you will have to live with it..;-)
And I do think that "the we don't care" thingy is a problem since well most peoople that would consider buying a Mac DO care about the downsides like added price and lack of compability with "the standard" windows software. I don't expect you to agree with me on this though.
But I still think that you dragging in a lot of unrelated stuff like people bragging about their moddings or gazillion MHz Copmuterz was.. unrelated. There is a lot of people that are reasonable happy with their low cost plain vanilla Dells out there.
Anyway, I'm a bit sorry about the "Apple fanboy" branding..as it probably wasn't warranted, this time.. and since that expression is a rather negative.
1. His employer is paying for the software but not a work at home box/extra computer at work.
2. He has approx. $2000 to spend on a project that "needs" the above software.
3. He thinks the advantages of the above software compared to Win/Linux software is worth ~$500 to him but not $1000+. So he can "justify" spending $500 to buy a box to run the software but not $1000.
The "computer that doesn't crash as much" thing is almost gone with XP Sp2. As much as i dislike MS I must admit that they have managed to fix many issues I had with XP.
Comparing old computers with windows 98 or early win 2000 to OS X is a bit unfair IMO.
Oh crap, here comes the "I can buy/build an AMD powered uber-monster PC running XYZ for the price of a Mac" comments.
I think you are refering to my post here since I mentioned Dell. And since that is so touchy someone had to mod my post to oblivion. Big surprise.
without ever understanding the market dynamic.
Yeah. Complain about the "market". I dislike MS even more than you but still the fact is the Microsoft owns 90 of the desktop market. Deal with it. If the forces of "market dynamic" really championed an eMac people would buy it. They don't.
glowing neon lights and water cooling that SPECmarks the h3ll, Canadian and it will run Slackware and GiMP and MAME, Radeon super-nuclear video, mputer superhaus for $1.95 and two packs of bubblegum.
Why are you dragging in all this BS? Yes you are trying to be funny and so on but I showed how a standard Dell gives the average buyer more value for the same price as the eMac and all you Mr Apple fanboy brought to the discussion is BS and various unrelated distractions.
Mac users just don't care, Ok? We really, really, don't care.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect illustration on why Apple has less than 5% of the market.
I'm not talking about multi-tasking ability in the OS. The differences between OS X and XP are minimal for most users in this area.
But I was thinking about the RAM. The 256 MB on the eMac isn't much if you want to run many applications at the same time. I used to own a Mac with 128 MB RAM, and with a Netscape, editors, many smaller apps and Quicktime it started to swap so bad I had to close down programs.
Buying a computer today with less than 512 MB RAM is quite shortsighted.
People don't buy a computer so they can run a OS on it.
As a Debian user I would agree that OS X in many ways is "better" than MS XP, the difference isn't that great with SP 2 installed though, but people don't buy a computer so they can a have a safer and more stable OS. They buy a computer so they can run programs on it to do things like reading the newspaper, surf for porn, listen to music, write stuff and play games. In all those areas I would say that Xp is almost just as good or better(games and office) than OS X.
Most people like to be able to buy software on Wal-mart and Best Buy etc. With Xp stuff like that is much easier as the software is more available.
Yes they will get spyware and viruses. But 95% of those problems can be handled with a working brain, anti-virus and Spybot/Ad-aware. And most people don't care about spyware anyway.
So for most folks there is no more value in OS X than in XP.
No offense but that is bullshit. The truth is that for $800 a Dell is a much better computer than an eMac. I usually dislike Dell but the low end Macs suck even more.
You can get a Dell Dimension with 2.8 GHz, 512 MB RAM, 40GB HD, 128MB PCI Express x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon(TM) X300 SE, 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability, 17", Xp and 1 year "support" for $800.
On that computer you can actually run several programs at the same time, you can burn CDs and play the latest games (the x300 is more powerfull than both the Ati 9200 and the Intel graphics).
So where is this "provide more value" you are talking about?
And if the buyer doesn't need all that stuff why should they spend $800 and not $500?
I don't see how this system will ever work unless our attacker warns us in advance of the missile's launch time, its location, flight trajectory,....etc.
If you look at the nuclear deployment strategy of the nuclear countries you will see that most of them both friendly to us and less friendly are moving to mobile launch systems.
Russia: Mobile ICBMs mounted on a huge truck.
France: Sea based; sub and hangar ship.
UK: Sub.
Israel:Sub.
India: Russian design with mobile trucks in the future?
China: Plans to escalate large sub-production/development.
I can't see any reasons why Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and North Korea won't follow the same strategy in the future. so even if they can get it to work against a stationary treat, the need to upgrade cold come very fast. Imagine NK launching their first mobile sea based platform a year after the NMD system is "finished". Auch.
Russia is also experimenting with a combined ICBM in the first stage and than later as a cruise missile in the homing in phase.
Remember that the companies behind the MPAA/RIAA already rely on the government for enforcing (most) of the copyright. So if they "take over the internet", as in controling susbstanitial parts of law, policy, economy and development, and at the same tiime manage to get the government to step up with a the "War on P2P", the circle will be complete.
It looks like at least this script from Secunia is not able to open the window if you open the link in a new tab (tested on an old Firebird install).
So its possible to reduce the risk by opening windows as new tabs, if you use a browser with tabs...
(Rant: On the other hand who would trust a site that contain links that automaticly opens a new window? Oh wait people do that all the time. And I hate it. If I want to open the link in a new window I would tell it to my browser!)
Yes there is a trading deficit with China but that's not what the poster was talking about. He is repeating a faulty fact: China is the major holder of US National debt.
I guess you are right. I misunderstood you post.
Most of what I've read has said that totaled up, all of the private investment dwarfed the foreign government investment. If you've got a link that shows otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Back in the late 90s it dwarfed the foreign parts of the debt. Then i think USA and US-controlled investors had 75% of the assets and foreign governments/investors 25%. By in the last 3 years foreign investors have financed more of the debt. Some story I read in the Economist(?) this weekend mentioned that so far in 2004 foreign investors, mostly Asian central banks, had bought two thirds of the bonds(?) and securities.
I can't find any specific statistics on this and the U.S. Treasury departments Financial Management Service only use the terms Federal and Public in their data that I can find now. (lots of _huge_.doc files here
So my guess is that the private investment no longer dwarfs the foreign investment. It's still larger, mut more like 65-35 instead of 75-25.
That article looks slighly outdated. It mentions a $4 bilion per month cost, but two weeks ago several article told about a monthly burn rate of $5.8 billion. And that was without the Navy.
Major holders of the national debt is Federal reserve and other gov. accounts and then on the second place foreign countries, the largest being Japan. After that follows the private pensions funds, mutal funds, euity, states etc. Most of that is as you say owned by American individuals through pension funds. But an increasing share of the money invested in USA are foreign based. Of those foreign investors Japan is the by far largest followed by China, Britain, Caribbean and South Korea.
On the deficit China is the trading partner that you have the largest trade deficit with.
To be fair it looks like they (Experian) actually forestalled that and registrered a bunch of domains. But some of the more exotic variants (.info) are still available so maybe they should grab them too. But strictly the phishers don't need a similar looking domain.
My main point still stands though; the scammers will (as usuall) seek to exploit this.
It's sad but this car makes little sense in USA. Not because it's a bad car but because it doesn't fit in very well in among the other cars.
-It's made in Europe so it will cost more than an american car. Free trade? Yeah right...
-The way I see it cars are more inexpensive in USA. So the competition and price level on used/second hand cars is more competitive. This car will have to compete with a lot of three year old cars that are much cheaper.
-Gas is less expensive in USA than in Europe so the incentive to buy a high milage car just isn't there.
-The average car(and person:-)..) in USA is much heavier. In Europe the most likely car to crash with is a 1500kg car with crumble zones and the bumper in the same height as the Smart. In USA you are much more likely to crash with a 3-ton truck without crumble zones and a bumper 20 cm above your Smarts bumper. Even if the constructinon of the Smart will protect the car from collapsing your organs will collapse in a crash. Remember that the Suburban will continue in the same direction. The Smart is just too light compared to most other cars on the road. No advanced construction can make up for that when the car lacks crumble zones and the other cars are so heavy. Imagine going from 30 mph in one direction to 20 mph in the other direction in less than a second. Then think about how it will be in 40 mph , 50 mph, 60 mph....
So congratulations to al the congersmen and senators that have managed to create a system that promote excessive use of energy and old constructions. The fact that this kills a lot of people every day, in many ways...; is just a nice bonus.
Yeah, nice explananation for wasting money on this one when there are allready several projects on their way as replacement for the Patriot system.
Like upgraded Patriot, THAADS, MEAADS and Arrow.
And there are several others in theather systems as well that partially fill the same role as Patriot like upgraded HAWK combined/itegrated (or intdependand) with SL-AMRAAM/NASAMS, SM-2 and SM-3 AEGIS. Most of those projects are in the multi-billion dollar class.
That's it? No, there is more.
Like the Tactical high energy lasers and Boost Phase Intercept project and Kinetic energy Intercept. And what about all the different radars, sensors, sattelites, and whizbangs you'll need for each system if they can't use the same? And there are also alot of C4I/BM systems for all these projects. And thats only the in theather, land based, official projects. Not the NMD, all the space/air based or the black stuff.And that is only the systems I can remember right now as a non-military on a saturday night after a few beers..
The reason I think this is unnecessary is not that I oppose spending money on in theather ballistic defense but because is such a wast compared to other things they could have spent the money on.
So why don't you suck it up and admit that the defense contractors sucks dollars out of your wallet faster than you can say Boeing?
(Sorry for the late reply, my boss wanted me to work).
I believe history will show his handling of the economy was just short of brilliant - not to mention gutsy considering the politics of it. I think his bold and aggressive moves made a big difference in the shallowness and relatively short period of this market correction. I honestly believe we could have had another Great Depresssion and his moves helped in the prevention of it.
I'm not againts tax cuts per se. I wrote about that in some other reply so I might as weel quote myself: "I recon that tax cuts can boost the economy. But most of the tax cuts where given to rich people those that earned over $300.000. If the intention was to boost the economy as fast as possible by encouraging spending and investment it would have been better to give more of the tax cuts to the middle class. Many of those that got tax cuts spent some of the money in USA, invested some in the USA, but they also invested much of it abroad creating less activity than intended. Many economist belive that the trickle down effect of giving tax cuts to rich people is grossly overrated.
So Bush gave out a lot of money (or didn't take them in as tax;-) ) but he got little back in the long run. If he makes the tax cuts permanent it might create more investment but those money might as well go to China. I'm not against those people making money abroad, but I'm sick of that Bush BS about how "americans getting a tax cut" when the group of people getting decent size tax cut is so small.
Deficits are easy to erase when the economy recovers and a recovering economy with a large deficit is vastly preferable to a plummeting economy with a small deficit which quickly becomes a large deficit as well.
Yes, but how likly do you think it is for Bush to "roll back" those cuts? He has pledged to make them permanent. You are right that some other President can "roll them back" off course, but that won't become popular. It's allways easier to not tax even if it's neccesary than to start staxing even if it's neccesary.
The test of Bush's legacy will be whether he follows through and cuts the spending as quickly as he can as the economy recovers. Governments, both Republican and Democrat have great difficulty doing that, but Bush has repeatedly shown he's more interested in doing the right thing than being popular.
I doubt he will be able to cut much in government spending. The two areas I mentioned social sec. and health care maybe. But cutting in education would hurt the economy to much in the long run.
In his forst period he advocated big conservative government not a small and lean fiscal responible conservative state.
As for turning differently than the rest of the world . . . well, if you want to argue results . . . I think we're in pretty good shape over the last 200 years of being as little like the rest of the world as we can.
True. But I still find it kind of frightening to think about the possible consequences if GWB fails with either the war on terror or the economy.
Don't forget that never in the history of democracy that I can think of right now has a country as credible like USA that has elected a government like the one Bush will lead. Reagan had his eight years but atleast he tried to save somewhere. Bush is spending almost as intense as Johnson.
I respect your point of view except on your critical thinking tangent which I think is a little silly. It's tempting to disparage others who happen to disagree with you, but a mulitiple choice exit poll question doesn't really some up the complex balance of values that go into making a voting decision, does it?
Thank you for saying that. I know my view is controversial.
I didn't try to disparage some one, the reason I brought this up is because I do think that a significant percentage of Bush voters di
(Sorry for the late reply, my boss wanted me to work)
To Objectivists, as well as many Libertarians, economic issues are of moral import. I voted Bush, and did so for primarily moral reasons, but didn't give a thought to any of the examples you listed.
I know that Objectivists belive so, but I didn't think Objectivist ideas was _that_ strong in USA to inflict on the election. Maybe I'm wrong though, so thanks for pointing that out.
On Liberitarians; wouldn't many liberitarians value other issues above morality? Like level of freedom from government, privacy, individual rights and small government with minimal interference.
Some other guy commented on the progressive tax..
Moral values and critical thinking are not anti-thetical; they are mutually dependent and reinforcing.
I agree that they are not anti-thetical, but allow me to disagree on the mutually dependent and reinforcing part.
I'm one of those folks that you probably would call moral relativists.:-)
I don't belive that moral values are something a diverse society can agree on. Thus the "discovery of a standard of judgement" will never be complete or final.
(Sorry for the late reply, my boss wanted me to work)
So you believe that people could not reasonably come to the conclusion that Bush was doing a good job if they had all the information? So you're just saying that they aren't *always* stupid for voting for Bush, sometimes they're ignorant too.
Yes, some people might have perfectly valid and sound reasons for voting Bush. But As I said, I do belive that many don't. Just look at the economy for example, many poor people voted for Bush because they belive he can "get the economy on the right track". Everyone wants to become a millionaire, that's fine. But realisticly how many of those poor people with little education will get a better future with Bush? Will his economic policies be so much better than Kerrys? For business owners/starters, high earners and people with higher education it's rational to vote for Bush, but many of those that votes for Bush isn't in these groups.
And did they calcualte the risk of getting for example cuts in the social security into their decision? I doubt so.
You probably believe OBL is the only person we really need to topple at most.
No, I don't. I'm not one of those people that belive that terrorism is sentered around one person or one group/organization.
I'm not against removing Saddam. I'm against the way it happened. Since most people in the Middle East sees the invation and occupation as illegitimate I don't think it wil work.
And at the same time as USA tries to spread democray in Iraq it's supporting nearly a dozen of regimes that are far from democratic.
And IIRC the UN installed the no-fly zones. No one gave you the right to invade Iraq.
You probably think that a tax cut for the "rich" will stifle the economy because the lack of funds to the government causes deficits that cause investors to drop their trust in the US Gov't fiscally and disrupt the US economy.
No I don't. I recon that tax cuts can boost the economy. But most of the tax cuts where given to rich people those that earned over $300.000. If the intention was to boost the economy as fast as possible by encouraging spending and investment it would have been better to give more of the tax cuts to the middle class. Many of those that got tax cuts spent some of the money in USA, invested some in the USA, but they also invested much of it abroad creating less activity than intended. Many economist belive that the trickle down effect of giving tax cuts to rich people is grossly overrated.
So Bush gave out a lot of money (or didn't take them in as tax;-) ) but he got little back in the long run. If he makes the tax cuts permanent it might create more investment but those money might as well go to China. I'm not against those people making money abroad, but I'm sick of that Bush BS about how "americans getting a tax cut" when the group of people getting decent size tax cut is so small.
Maybe I was a bit unclear (again).
My posistion is that the US democratic party would be right wing "if they existed in Denmark". So I don't disagree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not really "aginst" Apple in general or the ideas behind Macs, its mostly about some of the attitudes that (simplified to illustrate) "a Mac is worth the price no matter what". So that's why I think the low end Mac is a sucker. Even with the benefirt of OS X it'n just not worth it for most people. ;-)
As long as some Macs like the emac is so much more expensive than a Dell I think you will have to live with it..
And I do think that "the we don't care" thingy is a problem since well most peoople that would consider buying a Mac DO care about the downsides like added price and lack of compability with "the standard" windows software. I don't expect you to agree with me on this though.
But I still think that you dragging in a lot of unrelated stuff like people bragging about their moddings or gazillion MHz Copmuterz was.. unrelated. There is a lot of people that are reasonable happy with their low cost plain vanilla Dells out there.
Anyway, I'm a bit sorry about the "Apple fanboy" branding..as it probably wasn't warranted, this time.. and since that expression is a rather negative.
Merry Christmas to you too.
1. His employer is paying for the software but not a work at home box/extra computer at work.
2. He has approx. $2000 to spend on a project that "needs" the above software.
3. He thinks the advantages of the above software compared to Win/Linux software is worth ~$500 to him but not $1000+. So he can "justify" spending $500 to buy a box to run the software but not $1000.
Comparing old computers with windows 98 or early win 2000 to OS X is a bit unfair IMO.
IMHO that's just as stupid as buying a Mac to run VMS, Linux or OS/2 on it.
But I was thinking about the RAM. The 256 MB on the eMac isn't much if you want to run many applications at the same time. I used to own a Mac with 128 MB RAM, and with a Netscape, editors, many smaller apps and Quicktime it started to swap so bad I had to close down programs.
Buying a computer today with less than 512 MB RAM is quite shortsighted.
I selected the basic Dimension 4700 from dell.com at $649 then added the Ati X300 Se and a 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW). That is $809.
If you want XP Pro thats $79. Toatal $888.
As for spyware, virus, firewall its possible to get all those for free on the Internet.
As a Debian user I would agree that OS X in many ways is "better" than MS XP, the difference isn't that great with SP 2 installed though, but people don't buy a computer so they can a have a safer and more stable OS. They buy a computer so they can run programs on it to do things like reading the newspaper, surf for porn, listen to music, write stuff and play games. In all those areas I would say that Xp is almost just as good or better(games and office) than OS X.
Most people like to be able to buy software on Wal-mart and Best Buy etc. With Xp stuff like that is much easier as the software is more available.
Yes they will get spyware and viruses. But 95% of those problems can be handled with a working brain, anti-virus and Spybot/Ad-aware. And most people don't care about spyware anyway.
So for most folks there is no more value in OS X than in XP.
Total price is $809. Basic Dell Dimension 4700 upgraded with video card and dual CD/DVD burner.
You can get a Dell Dimension with 2.8 GHz, 512 MB RAM, 40GB HD, 128MB PCI Express x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon(TM) X300 SE, 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability, 17", Xp and 1 year "support" for $800.
On that computer you can actually run several programs at the same time, you can burn CDs and play the latest games (the x300 is more powerfull than both the Ati 9200 and the Intel graphics).
So where is this "provide more value" you are talking about?
And if the buyer doesn't need all that stuff why should they spend $800 and not $500?
To show the picture of the Terrorist Boogieman on the TV after the attack off course.
Russia: Mobile ICBMs mounted on a huge truck.
France: Sea based; sub and hangar ship.
UK: Sub.
Israel:Sub.
India: Russian design with mobile trucks in the future?
China: Plans to escalate large sub-production/development.
I can't see any reasons why Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and North Korea won't follow the same strategy in the future. so even if they can get it to work against a stationary treat, the need to upgrade cold come very fast. Imagine NK launching their first mobile sea based platform a year after the NMD system is "finished". Auch.
Russia is also experimenting with a combined ICBM in the first stage and than later as a cruise missile in the homing in phase.
Remember that the companies behind the MPAA/RIAA already rely on the government for enforcing (most) of the copyright. So if they "take over the internet", as in controling susbstanitial parts of law, policy, economy and development, and at the same tiime manage to get the government to step up with a the "War on P2P", the circle will be complete.
So its possible to reduce the risk by opening windows as new tabs, if you use a browser with tabs...
(Rant: On the other hand who would trust a site that contain links that automaticly opens a new window? Oh wait people do that all the time. And I hate it. If I want to open the link in a new window I would tell it to my browser!)
I can't find any specific statistics on this and the U.S. Treasury departments Financial Management Service only use the terms Federal and Public in their data that I can find now. (lots of _huge_ .doc files here
So my guess is that the private investment no longer dwarfs the foreign investment. It's still larger, mut more like 65-35 instead of 75-25.
Here and here
Major holders of the national debt is Federal reserve and other gov. accounts and then on the second place foreign countries, the largest being Japan. After that follows the private pensions funds, mutal funds, euity, states etc. Most of that is as you say owned by American individuals through pension funds. But an increasing share of the money invested in USA are foreign based. Of those foreign investors Japan is the by far largest followed by China, Britain, Caribbean and South Korea.
On the deficit China is the trading partner that you have the largest trade deficit with.
My main point still stands though; the scammers will (as usuall) seek to exploit this.
I for one welcome the mail from the phishers about the new http://www.annual-credit-report.com/.
-It's made in Europe so it will cost more than an american car. Free trade? Yeah right...
-The way I see it cars are more inexpensive in USA. So the competition and price level on used/second hand cars is more competitive. This car will have to compete with a lot of three year old cars that are much cheaper.
-Gas is less expensive in USA than in Europe so the incentive to buy a high milage car just isn't there.
-The average car(and person :-)..) in USA is much heavier. In Europe the most likely car to crash with is a 1500kg car with crumble zones and the bumper in the same height as the Smart. In USA you are much more likely to crash with a 3-ton truck without crumble zones and a bumper 20 cm above your Smarts bumper. Even if the constructinon of the Smart will protect the car from collapsing your organs will collapse in a crash. Remember that the Suburban will continue in the same direction. The Smart is just too light compared to most other cars on the road. No advanced construction can make up for that when the car lacks crumble zones and the other cars are so heavy. Imagine going from 30 mph in one direction to 20 mph in the other direction in less than a second. Then think about how it will be in 40 mph , 50 mph, 60 mph....
So congratulations to al the congersmen and senators that have managed to create a system that promote excessive use of energy and old constructions. The fact that this kills a lot of people every day, in many ways...; is just a nice bonus.
And there are several others in theather systems as well that partially fill the same role as Patriot like upgraded HAWK combined/itegrated (or intdependand) with SL-AMRAAM/NASAMS, SM-2 and SM-3 AEGIS. Most of those projects are in the multi-billion dollar class.
That's it? No, there is more.
Like the Tactical high energy lasers and Boost Phase Intercept project and Kinetic energy Intercept. And what about all the different radars, sensors, sattelites, and whizbangs you'll need for each system if they can't use the same? And there are also alot of C4I/BM systems for all these projects. And thats only the in theather, land based, official projects. Not the NMD, all the space/air based or the black stuff.And that is only the systems I can remember right now as a non-military on a saturday night after a few beers..
The reason I think this is unnecessary is not that I oppose spending money on in theather ballistic defense but because is such a wast compared to other things they could have spent the money on.
So why don't you suck it up and admit that the defense contractors sucks dollars out of your wallet faster than you can say Boeing?
I'm not againts tax cuts per se. I wrote about that in some other reply so I might as weel quote myself: ;-) ) but he got little back in the long run. If he makes the tax cuts permanent it might create more investment but those money might as well go to China. I'm not against those people making money abroad, but I'm sick of that Bush BS about how "americans getting a tax cut" when the group of people getting decent size tax cut is so small.
"I recon that tax cuts can boost the economy. But most of the tax cuts where given to rich people those that earned over $300.000. If the intention was to boost the economy as fast as possible by encouraging spending and investment it would have been better to give more of the tax cuts to the middle class. Many of those that got tax cuts spent some of the money in USA, invested some in the USA, but they also invested much of it abroad creating less activity than intended. Many economist belive that the trickle down effect of giving tax cuts to rich people is grossly overrated.
So Bush gave out a lot of money (or didn't take them in as tax
Yes, but how likly do you think it is for Bush to "roll back" those cuts? He has pledged to make them permanent. You are right that some other President can "roll them back" off course, but that won't become popular. It's allways easier to not tax even if it's neccesary than to start staxing even if it's neccesary.
I doubt he will be able to cut much in government spending. The two areas I mentioned social sec. and health care maybe. But cutting in education would hurt the economy to much in the long run.
In his forst period he advocated big conservative government not a small and lean fiscal responible conservative state.
True. But I still find it kind of frightening to think about the possible consequences if GWB fails with either the war on terror or the economy.
Don't forget that never in the history of democracy that I can think of right now has a country as credible like USA that has elected a government like the one Bush will lead. Reagan had his eight years but atleast he tried to save somewhere. Bush is spending almost as intense as Johnson.
Thank you for saying that. I know my view is controversial.
I didn't try to disparage some one, the reason I brought this up is because I do think that a significant percentage of Bush voters di
On Liberitarians; wouldn't many liberitarians value other issues above morality? Like level of freedom from government, privacy, individual rights and small government with minimal interference.
Some other guy commented on the progressive tax..
I agree that they are not anti-thetical, but allow me to disagree on the mutually dependent and reinforcing part.I'm one of those folks that you probably would call moral relativists.
And did they calcualte the risk of getting for example cuts in the social security into their decision? I doubt so. No, I don't. I'm not one of those people that belive that terrorism is sentered around one person or one group/organization.
I'm not against removing Saddam. I'm against the way it happened. Since most people in the Middle East sees the invation and occupation as illegitimate I don't think it wil work.
And at the same time as USA tries to spread democray in Iraq it's supporting nearly a dozen of regimes that are far from democratic.
And IIRC the UN installed the no-fly zones. No one gave you the right to invade Iraq. No I don't. I recon that tax cuts can boost the economy. But most of the tax cuts where given to rich people those that earned over $300.000. If the intention was to boost the economy as fast as possible by encouraging spending and investment it would have been better to give more of the tax cuts to the middle class. Many of those that got tax cuts spent some of the money in USA, invested some in the USA, but they also invested much of it abroad creating less activity than intended. Many economist belive that the trickle down effect of giving tax cuts to rich people is grossly overrated.
So Bush gave out a lot of money (or didn't take them in as tax
Maybe I was a bit unclear (again).
My posistion is that the US democratic party would be right wing "if they existed in Denmark". So I don't disagree with you.