I see why your paychecks never last long enough: you're logging on to BankOfAmerica.com. It's an obvious scam site, what with the random, hefty withdrawals for "fees" and whatnot.
If you want specifics, some of my favorite examples are: Universal Healthcare (Section 1:6 and 1:7), More government child care (Section 1:15 among others), Free community college for everyone (Section 1:20), and goverment deciding the direction of technology and creating jobs to pursue that technology (Section 1:24). There are other examples.
Funny, those are some of my favorite examples, too.
Because by stealing money from those who work hard to earn it
By framing taxes as "stealing from those who work hard", you attempt to divorce taxes from what they buy. The fact is that taxes is just all of us collectively paying our bills. If you've ever had a roommate, you are familiar with the monthly ritual of splitting up the bills. This is essentially the same as what we as a country do each year on April 15th. You're not against paying our bills, are you? You don't want us to be deadbeats, do you?
the government is infringing on their freedom and liberties.
The government also infringes on your freedom to kill people, your liberty to sell dangerous products, and your freedom from the onerous bills incurred by maintaining public libraries. What's your point?
They are no longer a soverign individual entitled to the fruits of their labor and instead are owned by government.
I can't even muster enough sarcasm to tell you what a stupid statement that is.
Further, creating government programs in the name of good will only increases dependency on the system rather than building and fostering growth and personal responsibility.
Do you go to a doctor when you're sick? You shouldn't. After all, that just increases your dependency on the medical establishment rather than the personal growth and responsibility you would enjoy were you forced to learn and apply all the relevant medical principles by yourself. Similar (-ly stupid) arguments can be made in just about any area of human endeavor. Essentially, you are arguing against the existence of civilization.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say he doesn't want to vote for a socialist because he's not a socialist and doesn't believe in socialism.
And I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're the kind of person who finds a dictionary definition like "socialist: of or pertaining to socialism" to be helpful.
Socialism doesn't work because of the moral hazard issue. The lazy get to profit off of the labor of the hard working. Sure, you lift the bottom up a little relative to everyone else, but the cost is destroying innovation and potential for growth.
Then how do you explain most of Europe? A pretty socialist bunch by comparison to the US, yet they seem to be getting along a whole hell of a lot better than we are.
If I'm going to make the same if I mail it in and work 30 hours or if I work 80 hours, guess what? I'm mailing it in...
Well, first, I assume you're talking about hours per constant amount of time (probably a week?). In which case, you shouldn't be working 80 hours per week. Second, you don't "make the same" regardless of your work, unless you're in some really screwed-up system. Socialist safety nets are supposed to keep you from falling below some societally-determined minimum level of standards of living, not give you everything exactly the same in every circumstance. In other words, you will make vastly more for 80 hours than for 30. But we're not going to let you starve to death in the street even if you can't work at all.
The big threat the democrats keep speculating about is how inexperienced Palin will be if she is called up to the presidency, schizophrenically trying to ignore that by voting for Obama they're guaranteeing someone with an inexcusable dearth of experience will be the president. Doublethink.
What is a threat about Palin is not her inexperience, it's that her policies, ignorance, and will to corruption are essentially Bush on steroids. And the fact that McCain picked her is just one more piece on the pile of evidence that he has abandoned whatever principles he may ever have had, if any.
Because kids egging your house is, in fact, damaging your property?
You need a little perspective. Property is just property. It's not in the same league as human life. Not even if you're all incensed and stuff about a break-in.
Shipping - again, the parts and batteries will be shipped on a boat using dirty bunker fuel (even in clean ports like LA they only use clean fuel when near the port, a small infinitesimal fraction of fuel usage).
Well, the solution to that should be obvious: boats powered by even more massive batteries!
Agreed, in spades. That balance is hard to get right, judging by how other attempts have fared. If you ever had a chance to check out Patent Bending, you can see a perfect example of the same idea gone wrong.
The premise of the show is actually pretty promising: dig up old patents that never went anywhere and attempt to build them for real, to see if the ideas work. Then try to improve on them, if possible.
The problem is that the "grounded guy" is a milquetoast whose building instincts aren't quite there; the "wacky guy" is completely useless, even as comedy relief; and a third "serious guy" who they pull in from time to time knows what he's doing but has no tolerance at all for the crap coming from the other two, thus coming off as curt and/or angry.
It's a Canadian show, though, so maybe some enterprising and more competent American outfit will pick up the concept and run with it.
The citizens of this country. As in large flowing letters saying "We The People". I would have thought that obvious.
Are truth and factuality contingent upon popular opinion?
They are when "truth and factuality" are a definition we set. Which is what the government of the US is (supposed to be).
I don't know what your opinion is.
And yet you feel totally comfortable asserting that it is wrong, and that yours is unassailable absolute truth.
Let me spell it out for you. You think that government, or, more specifically, the US government, should act a certain way. But you couch your opinion of what if should do in terms like "that's not its job" and "there is no such right", as though these things are inherent to the definition of the word "government", and that we, as citizens of the country, can have nothing to say about it.
The fact is, the idea behind the United States is that the government is the people. And if we decide we want to provide ourselves with "basic services" or what-have-you, then we can and we will. Just because it is your opinion that government shouldn't do that doesn't make it an invalid idea that it should.
(Man, do I ever get tired of explaining this to libertarians...)
Except that none of these are the responsibility of a properly-functioning government. There is no right to "basic services". There is only the right to your life and your property, the protection of which is the function of the government.
The function of the government is whatever we say it is. Why is your opinion more important than mine?
I'm having a hard time with the standard tag we're seeing here: "correlationisnotcausation". What is that supposed to mean -- that maybe the gene and the behavior are both being caused by a third, unseen thing? What could cause both a gene difference and a behavior difference, such that the gene difference doesn't cause the behavior difference?
Slashdot Mirror
I see why your paychecks never last long enough: you're logging on to BankOfAmerica.com. It's an obvious scam site, what with the random, hefty withdrawals for "fees" and whatnot.
Slashdot itself is proof enough of that.
You're right, then we'll really be in trouble. I sure don't want a thief with the strength of ten men running around.
Funny, those are some of my favorite examples, too.
By framing taxes as "stealing from those who work hard", you attempt to divorce taxes from what they buy. The fact is that taxes is just all of us collectively paying our bills. If you've ever had a roommate, you are familiar with the monthly ritual of splitting up the bills. This is essentially the same as what we as a country do each year on April 15th. You're not against paying our bills, are you? You don't want us to be deadbeats, do you?
The government also infringes on your freedom to kill people, your liberty to sell dangerous products, and your freedom from the onerous bills incurred by maintaining public libraries. What's your point?
I can't even muster enough sarcasm to tell you what a stupid statement that is.
Do you go to a doctor when you're sick? You shouldn't. After all, that just increases your dependency on the medical establishment rather than the personal growth and responsibility you would enjoy were you forced to learn and apply all the relevant medical principles by yourself. Similar (-ly stupid) arguments can be made in just about any area of human endeavor. Essentially, you are arguing against the existence of civilization.
San Francisco hasn't had a chance to vote on her since she started that crap.
And I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're the kind of person who finds a dictionary definition like "socialist: of or pertaining to socialism" to be helpful.
Then how do you explain most of Europe? A pretty socialist bunch by comparison to the US, yet they seem to be getting along a whole hell of a lot better than we are.
Well, first, I assume you're talking about hours per constant amount of time (probably a week?). In which case, you shouldn't be working 80 hours per week. Second, you don't "make the same" regardless of your work, unless you're in some really screwed-up system. Socialist safety nets are supposed to keep you from falling below some societally-determined minimum level of standards of living, not give you everything exactly the same in every circumstance. In other words, you will make vastly more for 80 hours than for 30. But we're not going to let you starve to death in the street even if you can't work at all.
Hey, don't pin this shit on us. We voted against Bush both times...
For a second, I lost track and thought you were talking about the weekly "Papers, Please" checkpoints, er, I mean, DUI checkpoints.
What is a threat about Palin is not her inexperience, it's that her policies, ignorance, and will to corruption are essentially Bush on steroids. And the fact that McCain picked her is just one more piece on the pile of evidence that he has abandoned whatever principles he may ever have had, if any.
1. Define "socialism" as you meant it above.
2. Why not?
Because kids egging your house is, in fact, damaging your property?
You need a little perspective. Property is just property. It's not in the same league as human life. Not even if you're all incensed and stuff about a break-in.
Because we all know how ultra-competent all private-sector entities are, right?
Well, the solution to that should be obvious: boats powered by even more massive batteries!
Length of part I = 9:11. Nice touch.
My only problem with this is that it buys into the idea that the DMCA is an acceptable law.
Not to worry -- they'll just get 4000 thetans to serve the sentence.
Bank of America has had some explaining to do for many years now, and I ain't talkin' 'bout no websites, neither.
And...what? It doesn't?
I hope you're not suggesting that Windows doesn't have scripting capability.
Won't work. He can always tell himself you just like mentioning male birds.
Agreed, in spades. That balance is hard to get right, judging by how other attempts have fared. If you ever had a chance to check out Patent Bending , you can see a perfect example of the same idea gone wrong.
The premise of the show is actually pretty promising: dig up old patents that never went anywhere and attempt to build them for real, to see if the ideas work. Then try to improve on them, if possible.
The problem is that the "grounded guy" is a milquetoast whose building instincts aren't quite there; the "wacky guy" is completely useless, even as comedy relief; and a third "serious guy" who they pull in from time to time knows what he's doing but has no tolerance at all for the crap coming from the other two, thus coming off as curt and/or angry.
It's a Canadian show, though, so maybe some enterprising and more competent American outfit will pick up the concept and run with it.
The citizens of this country. As in large flowing letters saying "We The People". I would have thought that obvious.
They are when "truth and factuality" are a definition we set. Which is what the government of the US is (supposed to be).
And yet you feel totally comfortable asserting that it is wrong, and that yours is unassailable absolute truth.
Let me spell it out for you. You think that government, or, more specifically, the US government, should act a certain way. But you couch your opinion of what if should do in terms like "that's not its job" and "there is no such right", as though these things are inherent to the definition of the word "government", and that we, as citizens of the country, can have nothing to say about it.
The fact is, the idea behind the United States is that the government is the people. And if we decide we want to provide ourselves with "basic services" or what-have-you, then we can and we will. Just because it is your opinion that government shouldn't do that doesn't make it an invalid idea that it should.
(Man, do I ever get tired of explaining this to libertarians...)
The function of the government is whatever we say it is. Why is your opinion more important than mine?
It's not from the insert-joke-here department. It's not from any department!! AIIEEEEE!!!
I'm having a hard time with the standard tag we're seeing here: "correlationisnotcausation". What is that supposed to mean -- that maybe the gene and the behavior are both being caused by a third, unseen thing? What could cause both a gene difference and a behavior difference, such that the gene difference doesn't cause the behavior difference?