I'm not. I don't spend my time longing to be one of the guys who concoct no-value business schemes designed to take a little money from a lot of people. A million-dollar webpage? What rational man expects such a thing? And more to the point: who really wants to spend their time planning such a thing?
You may as well be jealous of lottery winners. (Again... I'm not. I don't play the lottery since it's a Voluntary Stupidity Tax.)
Care to back up any of that? The legal system has obvious monopolistic power, since it's government. And there's no moral justification whatsoever why lawyers and their schools cost so much money. A lawyer charging $200/hr for $50/hr work is as equally artificial as when I charged $35/hr for $15/hr IT work.
Monopolies artificially set pricing. The only justification is power.
Feel free to respond with further one-liners that avoid explanation, Mr. Propaganda Minister.
I can tell already from your description that you're talking about a traffic-related case. Traffic cases are largely devoid of Constitutional protections for a variety of reasons that I can only guess at. I'm thinking that traffic court is so clogged, that the system finds it much easier to simply assume your guilt... as well as deny you a jury trial, etc. Traffic court also pits the citizen against the police, and as anyone with sufficient life experience knows, the courts are largely aligned WITH the police, and AGAINST the citizens. Around here in Ohio, we had a Supreme Court judge admit essentially that once she was caught in a drunk-driving incident, to wit:
Strange, when *I* bring up the issue of my investment and the subsequent (falling) wages I'm able to get for it, all people tell me to do is STFU. But that's because I'm in IT and it's the outsource/offshore victim of choice right now.
There is no rational reason except the exertion of monopolistic power as to why lawyers are charging people $150/hr and up. Contrary to that "capitalism" thing that people like to talk about, the more lawyers you add to the legal system, the more monopolistic power it gains, hence adding lawyers to "serve market needs" only instead largely adds to market DEMAND.
The expense of law school is artificial. It's equally artificial for lawyers to get together and expand the very system that they feed off of. OUR legal system should be working instead to INVOLVE the common man... to make it easier for him to get his legal problems resolved through common efficiencies. But the legal system is dominated by a jurist class that is the nearest thing we have to a secular priesthood -- hence they have no interest in expanding the franchise of legal ability.
Your $10/hr figure is a straw man. Lawyers serving the common man should be working for about $60/hr... much like other skilled trades like plumbers and mechanics. If populism is ever to re-assert itself, this should be one of the goals.
Hey, hey, stop erecting strawmen here. All I said, is that the same person simply can not be stupid enough to deserve being called "clueless baboon" and evil enough to warrant comparisions with Hitler.
Your statement was clear enough. But my rebuttal was no straw man, and it was that you are simply incorrect, like so many people trying to protect the President and his Fascism out of fear, uncertainty and doubt.
That schizophrenics exist, destroys your argument. Bush could very well be the type that is crafty at one time, and a few hours later descends into a Hyper-Republican mindset that is the very essence of stupidity. This is why I fucking used the term "CHRONOLOGICALLY".
But we're long past "coulds". Considering Bush's past of abuse of drugs and alcohol, it's very likely he's schizo in the ways I've indicated. And -- oh yeah -- as the OP implied, we are swimming in an ocean of evidence that Bush acts like a fox on one hand, and then a retard on another.
But schizo behavior is not exclusive to the President (nor at any one time, either). Millions of Americans still think that Iraq had something to do with 911. Millions also think that Bush is a good President and that he's "protecting" America by invoking a conventional or perpetual WWIII. Schizo behavior is running rampant in America... which is largely why you can't understand why such a critique is applied to your Republican Prophet, Bush. When society goes insane, the sane man is condemned... and that's ALL that you are doing here, Roscoe.
In conclusion, if you want to see saliva in inappropriate places, watch tapes of your beloved Neo-Cons as they've talked up American Fascism for the last 4 years. I mean, good god, man, the use of torture is being PUBLICLY DEBATED as some sort of valid topic! 911 has been used to enact a Neo-Con (and Neo-Liberal -- let's not forget them!) agenda to enact outright Fascism in the USA. Smart guys and morons are making this all happen by cashing out America's wealth. And the Head Monkey in Charge (i.e. Bush) is all part of the larger Fascist game. To enact Fascism, you need to make more use of belly, not brain.
The memory one that is attributed to Bill Gates and that IBM one about how many computers the world would need, were quite sensible in the light of knowledge at the time.
No, they were NOT. They were only "sensible" from the standpoint of an opinion held by market suppliers who constantly attempt to not FULFILL market needs, but to SET market needs. Their validity was merely an illusion or shadow cast by the presence of POWER, not reality.
All of this truth is an important reason why big companies fail. They get beyond arrogance and blatantly steer markets... while customers (remember them?) get turned off by the jack-boot tactics and seek alternatives.
While Mr Billions was squawking about the limits of needs, any fucking idiot could see that more memory could result in the manipulation of more stuff. Any complete twat could see that the average manager's 48x96 desk was far more useful than the single open document on a 7x9 green-phosphor screen. And then it's an easy step to see beyond textual information.
The notable gaffes of Gates and his ilk are well presented. The real market knew their statements were bullshit... but individual market elements don't get much rebuttal to statements of limits EXCEPT in the action of the market. Market action is the test of truth, not what some overpaid White guy in a suit thinks, says, or even does.
"Mutually exclusive"? Physically, yes, but not chronologically. Your attempt to oversimply Bush's evil actions has failed once again.
Still, it's a good topic to discuss. There are significant differences between Bush and Hitler. Anyone can look these up, so I won't go into them here in detail, but these differences are largely a matter of intensity of reaction amongst collective elements. Hitler didn't do "it" all on his own; he had full party support from the National Socialists. So that the Republican majority in the Congress did NOT outlaw the Democrats, is one contrast to what happened in Germany after the Reichstag fire.
But instead of outlawing Democrats, a form of one-party-ism is alive and well in the Congress. After all, even anti-war Congressmen still folded like oragami when an important matter was force-voted on. So, who needs to outlaw the opposition party... when said party is not actually opposing?
Bush could very well be the first Hitler of the 21st Century. But any rational examination of events can conclude that "Bushitlerisms" could be pre-mature. We may have to see what the next Fascist Republican attempts to do while so-called Commander-in-Chief... with full compliance from the Imperialists in the Congress known as Democrats.
o Balanced federal budget
o Immigration reform and border security
You've had your "dream government" for over 4 years there, Sparky, with a distinct Republican majority, combined with several Right-leaning Democrats following along in vote after vote. Why oh why then have these particular provisions been elusive?
This all reminds me of that song "Blinded By the Light", except that we need to come up with some new lyrics, and to re-title it "Blinded By the RIGHT". Any one-party Congress is only going to serve POWER and MONEY, not any other thing like justice, security, etc.
I am hopeful Dean and his ilk will alienate the electorate again and that America will grow redder.
Why would you have to "hope"? Every election cycle since 2000 has strongly followed this course, and arguably that has been a trending since 1992 when the "Democrats" elected a remarkably Republican-leaning guy called Clinton.
It's a no-brainer to go around betting that the Democrats will lean Right. They've leaned Right for so long that they've obviously fallen over and (now) can't get up.
Congratulations. You win the Mr. Freakin' Obvious Award for 2005! Your colorful certificate will arrive shortly in the mail -- thanks to Dept. of Homeland Security secret tracking measures, we DO know who you are -- and you'll find it suitable for framing.
We've never had a non-religious president, and I'd wager that every single one of them sometimes prayed about what the right thing to do was (yes, even the democrats).
Largely, even if Presidents weren't religious, America's vast hordes of stupid-fuck religious voters demanded that they ACT like they were religious... so, voila! Every President acts like he's religious.
The same sentiment applies to married Presidents. Clinton was a fine example of that. Presidents must be married, hence some Presidents have farce marriages.
Well, make sure then that you DON'T react like millions of Americans are currently reacting to this slavery mechanism. In short, make sure you don't go out and shoulder immense debts by "buying" ever larger and more expensive cars, homes, and various consumer goods like grills, stereos, etc.
The real strengths of the Middle Class were expressed by
saving money
living modestly
carefully spending on justified items
People have forgotten this, which is why they CAN be enslaved. People who don't save money can simply be dictated terms by employers. People who live modestly aren't hit by sudden price increases, cost of credit, and so on. People who carefully spend money are not trapped by the outrageous consumerist nonsense that is so prevalent nowadays.
It's likely that we will have to watch millions of Americans sink into the working poor before they wise up and realize this truth. First, they will have to taste poverty, and will have to understand and accept that they will NOT be rich.
You should have known you were right merely because an Imperial Academic took offense with your analysis.
NAFTA and other legislation is entirely bi-partisan since there is only one real party in the US Congress: the Money Party. Given the one-party nature of America's politics now, you're likely to encounter significant opposition from virtually any source... from housewives to Congressmen, and from workers to owners.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "tolerate" people who claim they were abducted by UFOs.
Tolerate = allow them to speak on the topic in legal or scientific forums
Without a shred of evidence, we should not "tolerate" assertions of fantastical nature. They can go to the dipshit forums where their blather is welcomed. We adults can then go on in relative peace with our logical and evidentiary procedures.
Of course, as with any forum, there is a basic freedom to speak. But if you can stay on topic and within the bounds of rationality, you're going to get bounced out one way or another.
The basic point I made is still clear: You must provide evidence for your claims... and as Sagan has said, the more extraordinary your claims, then the more extraordinary your evidence will NEED to be. The total evidence for UFOs (as space-alien craft) is essentially zero. And that's STILL MORE evidence than that provided (i.e. ZERO) for this "god" character.
Sympathy must lead to analysis. Why are people so uncomfortable about that necessary step?
Good call. Sagan's a great source for promoting rationality. I recall reading "Broca's Brain" in junior high, and watched "Cosmos" avidly while in early high school. His statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a good rule-of-thumb for evaluating reality itself.
That explains why tenure is becoming obsolete. College professors (for instance, and particularly) are being progressively relegated to contract employment. Even if one guy mouths off in class against ID, 1 to 3 years later, you can always get rid of him, with that black mark of "controversial public statements" following him for the rest of his (aborted) career.
Neither does believing in a big White guy with a beard sitting in the sky somewhere and being enormously concerned about some dead Jew on Earth. THAT is the larger issue, and I'm getting fucking tired of tip-toeing around it to avoid hurting people's feelings. This ID thing is getting way out of hand, and we sensible and logical people (with the background in science) have only let it happen by our damned tip-toeing. It's time to go on the offensive. We need to start demanding that the fundies either produce evidence for their beliefs, or to shut the fuck up since they are being irrational twits.
"Either produce evidence for this 'god' of yours, or shut the fuck up."
We don't tolerate people raving about being abducted by UFOs, so why tolerate people who rave about some "god"?
How would you approach it?... I mean, without revealing or asserting that ID is not a theory, and that the entire push to place it in science classes is theological politics.
I get the impression that many teachers would put their jobs at risk for "partisanship" if they addressed the so-called ID debate in the classroom. How many kids would run home to their fundie parents and complain that Teacher Smith in Biology just told them that ID is not a theory, and as such had no validity in science classrooms?
Cautious? Why? The OP called for Bush (among other Administration officials) to be "quickly tried and promptly executed". This is a direct statement of a lawful process. The Congress has every right to Impeach Bush, and in fact any President. The courts of the land also have every right to try the President for crimes, once he's removed from office.
If we started calling for Bush to die from old age, will the Secret Service really have a case against us? Is the President immune from being indicted and tried for crimes that carry the ultimate penalty? What ARE you saying, exactly?
I disagree with the OP about ONE thing, however. As a clear enemy to the people of the United States, upon Bush's indictment for war crimes, he should be held in prison before seeing trial for the exact number of days that he has held Jose Padilla (who is on his third year and counting).
The USA has an election system that is largely locally-controlled and state-regulated. These 2 factors are more than enough to diversify American vote systems.
Toss in America's love for the so-called "free market", and then you have the 3rd leg that supports this diversity. (Yes, yes, I know there are largely only 3 companies that supply vote systems in the USA. But 3 is enough to contribute to diversity.)
It's been said arightly that in the USA, all politics are local. Equally so, much of the vote fraud going on is ALSO local. Across America, district by district, there's very little actual democracy to be found. This is due to the near-monopolies in each political district. In effect, many cities and towns in America are run by "political machines" who are mostly unconcerned about losing power in each election cycle. So such systems are going to take a dim view of any particular openness in the systems they oversee.
Since America is ruled by a two-party system that monopolizes the body politic in each representative district (or otherwise, "unique political area"), it's very likely that vote fraud is being conducted during each election across the nation. Adding newfangled machines that are even MORE prone to fraud (at least by virtue of the fact that no sensible "recount" can be peformed on any of these systems) is entirely desired by each Board of Elections.
This is why the Republican-dominated vote-system companies are doing so well, from orders from Republican AND Democrat areas. Fraud is intrinsically bi-partisan.
Pardon me for perhaps not understanding, but with OSS, a kid in his basement can make a contribution and take what he wants, whereas in closed-source software, only the appointed or authorized elites can make changes. Thus from the example of the spread of OSS, relegating India's lesser castes to OSS is not a disadvantage in the slightest. In fact, I'm sure that it is happening on its own, by the economics of rationing (where prices distribute products to those able to pay). India's poorer castes will probably be largely served by Linux.
So the lesser castes in India have nearly as much access to quality tools through OSS as the elites do in the First World. Hence, I don't see at any significant disadvantage in their native India with their own elites.
Well, Gates came from an academic environment that equally strongly believed in openness and sharing, and we can well see what became of his software efforts (i.e. strongly closed). This result was obtained by the terrible corruption of money. Money can well be used to corrupt enough Indians to create the same closed software culture.
You MUST be a coastie. We in the Midwest well know what OUR government would do:
Offer outrageous tax abatements, interest-free loans, and grants to attract Microsoft investment to the area.
Note that this kind of reaction has only created a massive "race to the bottom" in the Midwest, so I heartily enjoin those in MA (where I lived for 7 years) to not take any of Microsoft's bait.
You certainly seem bitter enough to realize (or be properly prepared for) the truth: companies move from self-contained and self-maintained systems to "web-based" so-called solutions, since they widely perceive such things as capitalizing on the commons, hence saving them money. It's also a matter of the outsourcing fad, in which nearly any company function is now considered for removal from the company proper, and instead given over to some (largely) shyster who merely promised cheaper operating costs.
Web-based stuff is a great way to continue the irrational but overriding process of reducing all company installed plant until the ideal point of corporate existence is reached: a small company HQ building that houses executives, lawyers and accountants. Over time, even the accountants and lawyers can then be outsourced, once the frankly-criminal company financials become part of the larger corporate cultural environment (after a few more cycles of Republican hyper-dominance of the Congress and Presidency). I only mentioned accountants and lawyers now since they are still needed to reform corporations into these extremely top-heavy future shapes; since this reformation is largely illegal, lawyers and accountants will need to be trusted and closely supervised.
Web-based apps are a tool, and as such we should expect them to be used. However, I've seen companies (like your prior one) essentially crash themselves in trying to reform around such a paradigm. It's a fatal insanity, but it's hardly over. I personally feel we in the West are in a pause before the real outsourcing storm hits. I theorize that among other things, a few more industries will probably need to accomplish 5-10% more consolidation (i.e. monopolization) before this triggers. Diminished expectations will then become the norm, and the very law itself will protect corporations from actually delivering all the things they contractually promise. The phrase "best effort" (or the equivalent term) will start to appear more and more in the media and courts, in an effort to shield corporations from the liability of delivering on contractual intentions.
I don't know why you're bothering. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that all organized crime is from the set of Italians, Russians, and even Mexicans... so as soon as anyone mentions Jewish elements, there is a screaming cry against what you said.
The fact is, there is as large Jewish part to all organized crime in America, and that has been the fact for many decades. People pointedly ignore Bugsy Siegel, the Purple Gang, casino owners, etc.... and have some sort of blind spot when dealing with the things you described. They honestly are "Jew-blind" -- by design.
Like I said, I don't know why you bothered. Let them stew in their own Jew-dominated ignorance. I always get a howl when one of the yuppies gets raped by one of the Israeli-owned moving companies in the US, for example. Dolts.
The practical difference for you is that you build credit history with a secured card.
Are you sure about that? One of the significant complaints against predatory credit providers is that they may NOT report your good payment history to the credit reporting agencies.
Anyone choosing to get a secured CC should first write to the 3 agencies and find out if the provider in question does report ALL activity. Then check with the BBB.
Slashdot Mirror
Who isn't jealous of him?
... I'm not. I don't play the lottery since it's a Voluntary Stupidity Tax.)
I'm not. I don't spend my time longing to be one of the guys who concoct no-value business schemes designed to take a little money from a lot of people. A million-dollar webpage? What rational man expects such a thing? And more to the point: who really wants to spend their time planning such a thing?
You may as well be jealous of lottery winners. (Again
Care to back up any of that? The legal system has obvious monopolistic power, since it's government. And there's no moral justification whatsoever why lawyers and their schools cost so much money. A lawyer charging $200/hr for $50/hr work is as equally artificial as when I charged $35/hr for $15/hr IT work.
Monopolies artificially set pricing. The only justification is power.
Feel free to respond with further one-liners that avoid explanation, Mr. Propaganda Minister.
I can tell already from your description that you're talking about a traffic-related case. Traffic cases are largely devoid of Constitutional protections for a variety of reasons that I can only guess at. I'm thinking that traffic court is so clogged, that the system finds it much easier to simply assume your guilt ... as well as deny you a jury trial, etc. Traffic court also pits the citizen against the police, and as anyone with sufficient life experience knows, the courts are largely aligned WITH the police, and AGAINST the citizens. Around here in Ohio, we had a Supreme Court judge admit essentially that once she was caught in a drunk-driving incident, to wit:
Resnick also repeatedly asks to be let go, saying, "My God, you know I decide all these cases in your favor. And my golly, look what you're doing to me."
Strange, when *I* bring up the issue of my investment and the subsequent (falling) wages I'm able to get for it, all people tell me to do is STFU. But that's because I'm in IT and it's the outsource/offshore victim of choice right now.
... to make it easier for him to get his legal problems resolved through common efficiencies. But the legal system is dominated by a jurist class that is the nearest thing we have to a secular priesthood -- hence they have no interest in expanding the franchise of legal ability.
... much like other skilled trades like plumbers and mechanics. If populism is ever to re-assert itself, this should be one of the goals.
There is no rational reason except the exertion of monopolistic power as to why lawyers are charging people $150/hr and up. Contrary to that "capitalism" thing that people like to talk about, the more lawyers you add to the legal system, the more monopolistic power it gains, hence adding lawyers to "serve market needs" only instead largely adds to market DEMAND.
The expense of law school is artificial. It's equally artificial for lawyers to get together and expand the very system that they feed off of. OUR legal system should be working instead to INVOLVE the common man
Your $10/hr figure is a straw man. Lawyers serving the common man should be working for about $60/hr
Hey, hey, stop erecting strawmen here. All I said, is that the same person simply can not be stupid enough to deserve being called "clueless baboon" and evil enough to warrant comparisions with Hitler.
... which is largely why you can't understand why such a critique is applied to your Republican Prophet, Bush. When society goes insane, the sane man is condemned ... and that's ALL that you are doing here, Roscoe.
Your statement was clear enough. But my rebuttal was no straw man, and it was that you are simply incorrect, like so many people trying to protect the President and his Fascism out of fear, uncertainty and doubt.
That schizophrenics exist, destroys your argument. Bush could very well be the type that is crafty at one time, and a few hours later descends into a Hyper-Republican mindset that is the very essence of stupidity. This is why I fucking used the term "CHRONOLOGICALLY".
But we're long past "coulds". Considering Bush's past of abuse of drugs and alcohol, it's very likely he's schizo in the ways I've indicated. And -- oh yeah -- as the OP implied, we are swimming in an ocean of evidence that Bush acts like a fox on one hand, and then a retard on another.
But schizo behavior is not exclusive to the President (nor at any one time, either). Millions of Americans still think that Iraq had something to do with 911. Millions also think that Bush is a good President and that he's "protecting" America by invoking a conventional or perpetual WWIII. Schizo behavior is running rampant in America
In conclusion, if you want to see saliva in inappropriate places, watch tapes of your beloved Neo-Cons as they've talked up American Fascism for the last 4 years. I mean, good god, man, the use of torture is being PUBLICLY DEBATED as some sort of valid topic! 911 has been used to enact a Neo-Con (and Neo-Liberal -- let's not forget them!) agenda to enact outright Fascism in the USA. Smart guys and morons are making this all happen by cashing out America's wealth. And the Head Monkey in Charge (i.e. Bush) is all part of the larger Fascist game. To enact Fascism, you need to make more use of belly, not brain.
The memory one that is attributed to Bill Gates and that IBM one about how many computers the world would need, were quite sensible in the light of knowledge at the time.
... while customers (remember them?) get turned off by the jack-boot tactics and seek alternatives.
... but individual market elements don't get much rebuttal to statements of limits EXCEPT in the action of the market. Market action is the test of truth, not what some overpaid White guy in a suit thinks, says, or even does.
No, they were NOT. They were only "sensible" from the standpoint of an opinion held by market suppliers who constantly attempt to not FULFILL market needs, but to SET market needs. Their validity was merely an illusion or shadow cast by the presence of POWER, not reality.
All of this truth is an important reason why big companies fail. They get beyond arrogance and blatantly steer markets
While Mr Billions was squawking about the limits of needs, any fucking idiot could see that more memory could result in the manipulation of more stuff. Any complete twat could see that the average manager's 48x96 desk was far more useful than the single open document on a 7x9 green-phosphor screen. And then it's an easy step to see beyond textual information.
The notable gaffes of Gates and his ilk are well presented. The real market knew their statements were bullshit
"Mutually exclusive"? Physically, yes, but not chronologically. Your attempt to oversimply Bush's evil actions has failed once again.
... when said party is not actually opposing?
... with full compliance from the Imperialists in the Congress known as Democrats.
Still, it's a good topic to discuss. There are significant differences between Bush and Hitler. Anyone can look these up, so I won't go into them here in detail, but these differences are largely a matter of intensity of reaction amongst collective elements. Hitler didn't do "it" all on his own; he had full party support from the National Socialists. So that the Republican majority in the Congress did NOT outlaw the Democrats, is one contrast to what happened in Germany after the Reichstag fire.
But instead of outlawing Democrats, a form of one-party-ism is alive and well in the Congress. After all, even anti-war Congressmen still folded like oragami when an important matter was force-voted on. So, who needs to outlaw the opposition party
Bush could very well be the first Hitler of the 21st Century. But any rational examination of events can conclude that "Bushitlerisms" could be pre-mature. We may have to see what the next Fascist Republican attempts to do while so-called Commander-in-Chief
o Balanced federal budget
o Immigration reform and border security
You've had your "dream government" for over 4 years there, Sparky, with a distinct Republican majority, combined with several Right-leaning Democrats following along in vote after vote. Why oh why then have these particular provisions been elusive?
This all reminds me of that song "Blinded By the Light", except that we need to come up with some new lyrics, and to re-title it "Blinded By the RIGHT". Any one-party Congress is only going to serve POWER and MONEY, not any other thing like justice, security, etc.
I am hopeful Dean and his ilk will alienate the electorate again and that America will grow redder.
Why would you have to "hope"? Every election cycle since 2000 has strongly followed this course, and arguably that has been a trending since 1992 when the "Democrats" elected a remarkably Republican-leaning guy called Clinton.
It's a no-brainer to go around betting that the Democrats will lean Right. They've leaned Right for so long that they've obviously fallen over and (now) can't get up.
Congratulations. You win the Mr. Freakin' Obvious Award for 2005! Your colorful certificate will arrive shortly in the mail -- thanks to Dept. of Homeland Security secret tracking measures, we DO know who you are -- and you'll find it suitable for framing.
We've never had a non-religious president, and I'd wager that every single one of them sometimes prayed about what the right thing to do was (yes, even the democrats).
... so, voila! Every President acts like he's religious.
Largely, even if Presidents weren't religious, America's vast hordes of stupid-fuck religious voters demanded that they ACT like they were religious
The same sentiment applies to married Presidents. Clinton was a fine example of that. Presidents must be married, hence some Presidents have farce marriages.
The real strengths of the Middle Class were expressed by
People have forgotten this, which is why they CAN be enslaved. People who don't save money can simply be dictated terms by employers. People who live modestly aren't hit by sudden price increases, cost of credit, and so on. People who carefully spend money are not trapped by the outrageous consumerist nonsense that is so prevalent nowadays.
It's likely that we will have to watch millions of Americans sink into the working poor before they wise up and realize this truth. First, they will have to taste poverty, and will have to understand and accept that they will NOT be rich.
You should have known you were right merely because an Imperial Academic took offense with your analysis.
... from housewives to Congressmen, and from workers to owners.
NAFTA and other legislation is entirely bi-partisan since there is only one real party in the US Congress: the Money Party. Given the one-party nature of America's politics now, you're likely to encounter significant opposition from virtually any source
Well, it depends on what you mean by "tolerate" people who claim they were abducted by UFOs.
... and as Sagan has said, the more extraordinary your claims, then the more extraordinary your evidence will NEED to be. The total evidence for UFOs (as space-alien craft) is essentially zero. And that's STILL MORE evidence than that provided (i.e. ZERO) for this "god" character.
Tolerate = allow them to speak on the topic in legal or scientific forums
Without a shred of evidence, we should not "tolerate" assertions of fantastical nature. They can go to the dipshit forums where their blather is welcomed. We adults can then go on in relative peace with our logical and evidentiary procedures.
Of course, as with any forum, there is a basic freedom to speak. But if you can stay on topic and within the bounds of rationality, you're going to get bounced out one way or another.
The basic point I made is still clear: You must provide evidence for your claims
Sympathy must lead to analysis. Why are people so uncomfortable about that necessary step?
Good call. Sagan's a great source for promoting rationality. I recall reading "Broca's Brain" in junior high, and watched "Cosmos" avidly while in early high school. His statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a good rule-of-thumb for evaluating reality itself.
That explains why tenure is becoming obsolete. College professors (for instance, and particularly) are being progressively relegated to contract employment. Even if one guy mouths off in class against ID, 1 to 3 years later, you can always get rid of him, with that black mark of "controversial public statements" following him for the rest of his (aborted) career.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Neither does believing in a big White guy with a beard sitting in the sky somewhere and being enormously concerned about some dead Jew on Earth. THAT is the larger issue, and I'm getting fucking tired of tip-toeing around it to avoid hurting people's feelings. This ID thing is getting way out of hand, and we sensible and logical people (with the background in science) have only let it happen by our damned tip-toeing. It's time to go on the offensive. We need to start demanding that the fundies either produce evidence for their beliefs, or to shut the fuck up since they are being irrational twits.
"Either produce evidence for this 'god' of yours, or shut the fuck up."
We don't tolerate people raving about being abducted by UFOs, so why tolerate people who rave about some "god"?
How would you approach it? ... I mean, without revealing or asserting that ID is not a theory, and that the entire push to place it in science classes is theological politics.
I get the impression that many teachers would put their jobs at risk for "partisanship" if they addressed the so-called ID debate in the classroom. How many kids would run home to their fundie parents and complain that Teacher Smith in Biology just told them that ID is not a theory, and as such had no validity in science classrooms?
Cautious? Why? The OP called for Bush (among other Administration officials) to be "quickly tried and promptly executed". This is a direct statement of a lawful process. The Congress has every right to Impeach Bush, and in fact any President. The courts of the land also have every right to try the President for crimes, once he's removed from office.
If we started calling for Bush to die from old age, will the Secret Service really have a case against us? Is the President immune from being indicted and tried for crimes that carry the ultimate penalty? What ARE you saying, exactly?
I disagree with the OP about ONE thing, however. As a clear enemy to the people of the United States, upon Bush's indictment for war crimes, he should be held in prison before seeing trial for the exact number of days that he has held Jose Padilla (who is on his third year and counting).
The USA has an election system that is largely locally-controlled and state-regulated. These 2 factors are more than enough to diversify American vote systems.
Toss in America's love for the so-called "free market", and then you have the 3rd leg that supports this diversity. (Yes, yes, I know there are largely only 3 companies that supply vote systems in the USA. But 3 is enough to contribute to diversity.)
It's been said arightly that in the USA, all politics are local. Equally so, much of the vote fraud going on is ALSO local. Across America, district by district, there's very little actual democracy to be found. This is due to the near-monopolies in each political district. In effect, many cities and towns in America are run by "political machines" who are mostly unconcerned about losing power in each election cycle. So such systems are going to take a dim view of any particular openness in the systems they oversee.
Since America is ruled by a two-party system that monopolizes the body politic in each representative district (or otherwise, "unique political area"), it's very likely that vote fraud is being conducted during each election across the nation. Adding newfangled machines that are even MORE prone to fraud (at least by virtue of the fact that no sensible "recount" can be peformed on any of these systems) is entirely desired by each Board of Elections.
This is why the Republican-dominated vote-system companies are doing so well, from orders from Republican AND Democrat areas. Fraud is intrinsically bi-partisan.
Pardon me for perhaps not understanding, but with OSS, a kid in his basement can make a contribution and take what he wants, whereas in closed-source software, only the appointed or authorized elites can make changes. Thus from the example of the spread of OSS, relegating India's lesser castes to OSS is not a disadvantage in the slightest. In fact, I'm sure that it is happening on its own, by the economics of rationing (where prices distribute products to those able to pay). India's poorer castes will probably be largely served by Linux.
So the lesser castes in India have nearly as much access to quality tools through OSS as the elites do in the First World. Hence, I don't see at any significant disadvantage in their native India with their own elites.
Well, Gates came from an academic environment that equally strongly believed in openness and sharing, and we can well see what became of his software efforts (i.e. strongly closed). This result was obtained by the terrible corruption of money. Money can well be used to corrupt enough Indians to create the same closed software culture.
You MUST be a coastie. We in the Midwest well know what OUR government would do:
Offer outrageous tax abatements, interest-free loans, and grants to attract Microsoft investment to the area.
Note that this kind of reaction has only created a massive "race to the bottom" in the Midwest, so I heartily enjoin those in MA (where I lived for 7 years) to not take any of Microsoft's bait.
You certainly seem bitter enough to realize (or be properly prepared for) the truth: companies move from self-contained and self-maintained systems to "web-based" so-called solutions, since they widely perceive such things as capitalizing on the commons, hence saving them money. It's also a matter of the outsourcing fad, in which nearly any company function is now considered for removal from the company proper, and instead given over to some (largely) shyster who merely promised cheaper operating costs.
Web-based stuff is a great way to continue the irrational but overriding process of reducing all company installed plant until the ideal point of corporate existence is reached: a small company HQ building that houses executives, lawyers and accountants. Over time, even the accountants and lawyers can then be outsourced, once the frankly-criminal company financials become part of the larger corporate cultural environment (after a few more cycles of Republican hyper-dominance of the Congress and Presidency). I only mentioned accountants and lawyers now since they are still needed to reform corporations into these extremely top-heavy future shapes; since this reformation is largely illegal, lawyers and accountants will need to be trusted and closely supervised.
Web-based apps are a tool, and as such we should expect them to be used. However, I've seen companies (like your prior one) essentially crash themselves in trying to reform around such a paradigm. It's a fatal insanity, but it's hardly over. I personally feel we in the West are in a pause before the real outsourcing storm hits. I theorize that among other things, a few more industries will probably need to accomplish 5-10% more consolidation (i.e. monopolization) before this triggers. Diminished expectations will then become the norm, and the very law itself will protect corporations from actually delivering all the things they contractually promise. The phrase "best effort" (or the equivalent term) will start to appear more and more in the media and courts, in an effort to shield corporations from the liability of delivering on contractual intentions.
I don't know why you're bothering. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that all organized crime is from the set of Italians, Russians, and even Mexicans ... so as soon as anyone mentions Jewish elements, there is a screaming cry against what you said.
... and have some sort of blind spot when dealing with the things you described. They honestly are "Jew-blind" -- by design.
The fact is, there is as large Jewish part to all organized crime in America, and that has been the fact for many decades. People pointedly ignore Bugsy Siegel, the Purple Gang, casino owners, etc.
Like I said, I don't know why you bothered. Let them stew in their own Jew-dominated ignorance. I always get a howl when one of the yuppies gets raped by one of the Israeli-owned moving companies in the US, for example. Dolts.
The practical difference for you is that you build credit history with a secured card.
Are you sure about that? One of the significant complaints against predatory credit providers is that they may NOT report your good payment history to the credit reporting agencies.
Anyone choosing to get a secured CC should first write to the 3 agencies and find out if the provider in question does report ALL activity. Then check with the BBB.