No, I'm not, and you can then say "well, if he isn't going to give an 11 year old a gun, then he wouldn't give him GTA 3 either". And that's right. Sure, guns are dangerous. But the fact is, if a kid isn't mature enough to handle a gun properly, you're taking a stupid chance in hoping that they'll be able to manage an overtly violent video game as well.
Do you at least know what age these children were? I could easily see a 5 or 6 year old being more violent after excessively violent video games and tv shows, but I'm not so sure about a 16 year old, unless they had completely horrible parenting.
Parents really need to be more in tune with violence in video games. My step brother was about 11 and was very prone to violence (not against people, but he was all about breaking things and punching holes in the wall). My dad had just married to his mom, so he didn't feel he was exactly in a position to put this brat in his place, but the point is, the kid was violent and got angry entirely too easily. For Christmas, he got a PlayStation 2. I talked to my Dad at some point before hand and told him "no matter what you do, do NOT get Matt any games that are rated M, it's probably not in his best interests". Then I find out a few weeks later, my dad or stepmom went out and bought him GTA3.
I do take exception to people saying video games are the root of all evil. But I completely agree when people say they could - in conjunction with other factors - cause a child with many more social problems (ie: violence and the like, or, at the least, improper anger management). I was infuriated that my father had bought this kid GTA3. Frankly, if you wouldn't trust them with a gun, they shouldn't be playing that type of video game. I honestly think it was the only time in my adult life I ever yelled at my father. I yelled so much my voice turned hoarse over it. Even aside from the problems Matt had with anger management and violent disposition, 11 year olds don't need to be playing video games where the purpose of the game is to drive around, steal cars, shoot people, kill cops and screw hookers. When you're mature enough, fine, but the kid wouldn't even brush his teeth or take a shower if you didn't make him do it.
The "hadn't found any WMDs" argument is tired and irrelevant...
When discussing the problem with the UN Security Council, I agree with you. I liken it to a felon on probation who has to take a piss test every month. Just because the felon knows he isn't doing drugs doesn't mean he gets to tell the probation officer to fuck off. And the probation officer has a duty to bring the felon in for breaking the terms of his parole. How pissed would you be if you found out the parole officers in your neighborhood were just letting the people run about willy nilly?
However, when it comes to our government, it DOES matter. They assured us - and the world - but most importantly us that Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction and showed intent to use them. They were wrong. As much as I hate Bush (mainly because I hate can't stand someone religious telling me what to do, but that's neither here nor there), I can't hold him responsible for this. It isn't his job to tell his subordinates to double - or triple - check their facts. They should have been double and triple checked before they ever even got there. What I did want to hear, however, was "hey, we made a mistake. our bad. we've taken steps to assure this never happens again."
Before the war started, I didn't believe Saddam had WMDs, but I did believe he was in breach of the UN resolution. I was against the war in Iraq, not because I enjoy letting people take advantage of me (or my country), but because I thought we had bigger fish to fry elsewhere. North Korea being the big one. I also thought we should make sure Osama Bin Laden was taken care of and Afghanistan was completely under control before we started ANYTHING. Sure, Saddam was an asshole. As someone once said, "there isn't a person in America who hasn't said 'you know, if Saddam ever comes to my bar, I'll beat the fuck out of him.'" Saddam was a despot. There is no question about that. I didn't question the act of war itself so much as the timing of the act.
But I say "good". I'm glad the grammar checker in Word is so fubar. It shouldn't be the catch-all for any paper you write. If it points something out that is incorrect and you fix it - okay! If it points out something correct and you tell it to ignore it because you do have a decent grasp on the English language, then okay. And if you just tell it to "Fix All", then you deserve to get the "wtF?!" at the top of your paper. Sure, English can be a bit of a pain, but you should never completely rely on someone else's grammar checker to take the place of learning the language in the first place.
I agree with you concerning the mindset, but that's essentially my point. THAT is why it is worse, for a lot of people. Maybe you could handle it, maybe others could. And for you, death is worse. But to others, who maybe couldn't handle it as they are, would prefer death.
In my opinion, even death pales in comparison to perpetual agony, whether physical or emotional. I don't fear death. I dont' believe in an afterlife, and I'm certainly not rushing towards death by any stretch of the imagination, but it certainly doesn't terrify or bother me as much as it does others. There are some situations where I would prefer death to life - assured slavery, terminal cancer, etc, etc. For me, emotional reasons probably wouldn't be one of them (short of losing my family in a horrible accident that was my fault in some way...not sure I could handle living with that). But that's me. For others, living with it is far worse than death. And most certainly worse than identity fraud:]
I think it was more the fact that she couldn't ever forget it happened. It was with her seemingly every waking moment, and even worse when she slept. It just replayed over and over in her mind and she couldn't escape it no matter how hard she tried. It wasn't how she was treated socially (the guy broke into her house at night - it's not like she was dressed in a mini skirt being a cocktease or something (and I'm not saying that if she was, it would be okay for others to blame it on her, just that it was easy for people to completely accept that she was the victim)). Suicide after rape is fairly common - more so than suicide for no other reason. There are some people who can't put it behind them and just flat out think that it's better to be nothing than it is to be alive and living like that. That's why I say it's worse than death - at least with death, you're dead. That's it. It's over. You don't feel another thing. You especially don't feel the pain. You lose any chance of happiness as well, which is horrible, but what is worse - losing every chance of happiness AND pain, or just losing every chance of happiness and only getting to look forward to a life of pain? (I've been using the phrase "giving up any chance" alot - what I mean by that is a realistic probability of _whatever_)
That's just the way I see it. Death is definitely not an acceptable occurence, but in comparison to some things, I - and many others besides me - would prefer it to the emotional trauma that comes with rape. I'm not happy mom did what she did, but I can understand it. It's rough at times, but she did what she felt she had to do to get away from the experience. I wish I could have done more to help her so that she didn't feel the need, but there's nothing I can do about that now.
I was just pointing out that the victim is saddled with intense psychological trauma, that's all. Point well taken, though. How silly of me to say "rape isn't like anything!", and then try to come up with something "similar" (and I use that term loosely). My bad:]
Victims of CC fraud and ID theft feel just as violated as a rape victim or a burgled homeowner.
Sorry, but that's them being retarded. Sure, they can feel very violated. Sure, they can feel very uneasy. But to say it's the same as rape is like saying breaking a finger is the same as giving birth. It's not even in the fucking ballpark. Almost nothing is worse than rape. Nothing. Even torture, followed by murder, isn't as bad as rape. It's the most devestating thing you can do to someone, short of maybe raping their family then gutting them with a spoon and hanging them with their own entrails in front of your eyes. I'm sure I could think up a few more fucked up scenarios, but to say identity theft and credit card fraud is the exact same feeling for the victim as rape is completely ridiculous. My apologies for offending you, but rape should never be used in an analogous situation.
They're already up on bittorent within under an hour. They always will be. There will always be one person smart enough to break the DRM and put it up free and clear. What then? Where's your fucking argument now? It does nothing but piss the rest of us off and make a few geeks happy because now they can figure out how to beat the system AGAIN.
I could be wrong now, but with Vonage, you go in and list your exact location to setup 911 (and you have to change it if you move, if you want the appropriate 911). Having never had to call 911 while using it, however, I have no idea what it's like after that. Regardless, however, Vonage does know your location (if you set it up, which they tell you to do). I have no idea about any other providers.
They can't, or they chose to disregard? There's a big difference. If it makes you feel any better, you could imagine I said "heh" and scrolled on to other things. Really, I don't care much either way.:]
Or no, that statement would be just as stereotypical as the parent's. No, no, I guess we'll all just have to accept there are assholes and idiots everywhere.
At first it was the latter, and now it's the former. I did exactly that. Regardless, however, that is the reason for gaming - and movie watching - and tv watching - and book reading. There are lots of hobbies that make you forget real-world problems for a period of time. Sometimes they're the only thing that keeps you sane.
In the end, however, you have to deal with your problems. After that's done, you can focus on the former; the challenge, the adrenaline rush, the thrill of victory, the rage of defeat. It's not as fun as a game of tennis or roller blading, but in the winter, it's one of the most fun hobbies around.
No kidding. We once did a little impromptu timing of people who went out for smoke breaks; of the people who walked past our particular cubes on the way out, they left, on average, 5 times a day. They also spent 15 minutes outside. That's over an hour a day lost to smoking, not counting the normal hour lunch break. It got to the point where I don't even feel guilty for coming in half an hour late or leaving 5 or 10 minutes early on occassion. I've taken 0 smoke breaks in the last 3 years and I refuse to get the shaft just because I don't want lung cancer.
Time is only precious insofar that what you do with that time makes you happy (or happier). For some, gaming can make them happy, whether through the challenge, or just escaping the rest of their miserable, depressing lives.
Yes, you put a cap on it, but you allow people to raise it. We're talking about default settings stopping these sorts of shennanigans, not removing the ability to customize to your heart's content. We're essentially saying "security out of the box", not "security after you set it up".
I'm not sure, but I think the built-in radio in Yahoo! messenger is essentially an "iframe" with IE in it. I get IE errors all the time when that thing bombs out, and I don't use IE at all (standalone), so........
We are raised to honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers - thieves planting flags, murderers carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams.
Yeah, but they also fixed it shortly thereafter. At least they listen to public outcry and decide to fix it. MS? Yeah, they don't give a shit. And they don't need to.
Of course, the question is, if Google did know about this no-no, and no one else noticed it, would they have fixed it? Or just ignored it. That's the test of a "Good" corporation.
(And, by "Good", I mean "not a bunch of pricks", as opposed to "we make tons of money".)
That's funny, 'cos it's working just fine now. And just so you know, the only student loans you can take out right now that don't require you to pay them back immediately are subsidized by the federal government. I suggest YOU step out the fantasy world, my friend.
The only loans I could get were ones that were either a: unsubsidized (and due for payment immediately - about fucking useless, I may add), or b: through my parents, who, frankly, didn't see the need for college. I rest my case.
As far as number 3 goes, not everyone has the talent to do that. In fact, I had two discs pop in my lower back and had to have surgery to remove the inner goop my junior year of highschool. There goes any chance of 2 OR 3 for me. If it weren't for the federal government, I'd be working in Wal-Mart right now, instead of making 3 times that and paying - guess what? - 3 times as much in taxes. No, more than 3 times as much, because I'm in a much higher tax bracket than I would be then.
Charity implies doing something out of the good of your heart to benefit other people for the sake of doing it.
This is benefiting the youth of America so that they go on to make our country better than it already is. There is no "goodness of our heart" in this - it's about the benefit of society as a whole, not on a personal level.
Absolutely not. You're thinking of people as a static and 2-dimensional. Liberals think longer-term - especially when it comes to the offspring. Let me elaborate, for you, since you seem to be completely ignorant on what a liberal is.
John A is a smart, hard working, intelligent man who has amassed himself quite a hefty estate through his own two hands (and brain!). Good for him!
John B is a plain ol' joe, but also hard working, and hasn't put together an estate, per se, but he has a house and he isn't begging for food. Obviously he would like more money, but, he doesn't need it.
John C is also a plain ol' joe, he also worked hard, but he didn't get to save up much money, just like the majority of people in America.
Jack A is a dumbass who also refuses to put in hard work. He spends every cent he has on beer and lives with his family in a trailer. He can't hold down a job, so he lives on welfare.
Now, according to you, no one should help Jack A, John C, John B, or John A. Let them live for themselves. And, truthfully, I would agree with you. However, once you apply ofspring to the picture, everything changes.
John A, John B, John C, and Jack A all have children. John A can afford to send his children to a good private school, and then to a good college. They always have new clothes and they always have food in their stomaches. Hooray!
John B sends his kids to a public school, which aren't terrible (though, perhaps not as good as a private school) and then to a state funded college, heavily banking on federal financial aid. His kids always have clean, newish clothes and they always have food in their stomaches. Still hooray.
John C dies in a horrible car wreck, leaving behind 3 of his own chillens. Now with only one person working (assuming his wife does), they can barely pay the bills and put food on the table. The kids do without clean, newish clothes and start shopping at Goodwill (let's just hope they're indie hipsters!). If they're lucky, they go to college, but chances are, unless they have a rich aunt or uncle, they aren't going to be able to afford it (unless, of course, it's a community college).
Jack A's kids end up getting jobs around the age of 15 just to buy their own clothes and their own food. Jack A does nothing and the kids pay for everything. They don't go to college because there is no way they could afford it. A few drop out.
According to many libertarians, social programs are bad. As such, there goes federal funding for public schools (which may even cease to exist), federal funding for college (which makes it impossible for John B, John C, and Jack A's kids from ever setting foot in college), or even foodstamps/welfare, which may keep Jack A's kids alive, or, less dramatically, from dropping out of highschool or missing college.
A liberal says "Hey, John A, we're going to take a little more of your millions of dollars and make sure that Jack A and John C's kids get some food and can make it to college". Why? Not just because we feel bad (and, really, making a law just because you feel bad for someone is pretty pathetic, so if that were the only reason, I wouldn't be a liberal either). It's because we know that having 6 kids go to college and become engineers or doctors or lawyers is going to be more beneficial to society, as a whole, than having 6 kids who pack groceries at the local supermarket. More income = more tax revenue, which means better roads, better schools, and, overall, more money throughout the entire country. We also know that by taxing more heavily on top, for the people with 3 BMWs and a Mercedes, instead of taxing the people who don't have enough money to put food on the table, much less pay for roads and schools and college (yes, they use them too, but, frankly, if you can't afford to feed yourself, that's it, game over). We also know that, even though we're going to make sure all these kids have the same opportunities at schooling (grade school and college
Whoa there cowboy. I never said you couldn't be angry at republicans - I just wanted to make sure that George W. didn't get ALL of your anger wasted on him. There are plenty of assholes to focus on at the moment.
Also, you're making the assumption that it was an unconditional vote for him. The fact is, people are NOT going to be able to vote for ANYONE who believes in and will do everything they want them to do but themselves. So they have to pick someone. For a lot of people, the feeling of "safety" or "morality" is more important than the current economic situation. Personally, I find it a VERY bad choice, but there is a huge difference between "I guess I'll sacrifice the fiscal wellbeing of our country for the illusion of safety" and "GOOD! Cutting taxes and increasing spending is a WONDERFUL idea!" That's the point I was trying to make.:]
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not, and you can then say "well, if he isn't going to give an 11 year old a gun, then he wouldn't give him GTA 3 either". And that's right. Sure, guns are dangerous. But the fact is, if a kid isn't mature enough to handle a gun properly, you're taking a stupid chance in hoping that they'll be able to manage an overtly violent video game as well.
Do you at least know what age these children were? I could easily see a 5 or 6 year old being more violent after excessively violent video games and tv shows, but I'm not so sure about a 16 year old, unless they had completely horrible parenting.
Parents really need to be more in tune with violence in video games. My step brother was about 11 and was very prone to violence (not against people, but he was all about breaking things and punching holes in the wall). My dad had just married to his mom, so he didn't feel he was exactly in a position to put this brat in his place, but the point is, the kid was violent and got angry entirely too easily. For Christmas, he got a PlayStation 2. I talked to my Dad at some point before hand and told him "no matter what you do, do NOT get Matt any games that are rated M, it's probably not in his best interests". Then I find out a few weeks later, my dad or stepmom went out and bought him GTA3.
I do take exception to people saying video games are the root of all evil. But I completely agree when people say they could - in conjunction with other factors - cause a child with many more social problems (ie: violence and the like, or, at the least, improper anger management). I was infuriated that my father had bought this kid GTA3. Frankly, if you wouldn't trust them with a gun, they shouldn't be playing that type of video game. I honestly think it was the only time in my adult life I ever yelled at my father. I yelled so much my voice turned hoarse over it. Even aside from the problems Matt had with anger management and violent disposition, 11 year olds don't need to be playing video games where the purpose of the game is to drive around, steal cars, shoot people, kill cops and screw hookers. When you're mature enough, fine, but the kid wouldn't even brush his teeth or take a shower if you didn't make him do it.
When discussing the problem with the UN Security Council, I agree with you. I liken it to a felon on probation who has to take a piss test every month. Just because the felon knows he isn't doing drugs doesn't mean he gets to tell the probation officer to fuck off. And the probation officer has a duty to bring the felon in for breaking the terms of his parole. How pissed would you be if you found out the parole officers in your neighborhood were just letting the people run about willy nilly?
However, when it comes to our government, it DOES matter. They assured us - and the world - but most importantly us that Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction and showed intent to use them. They were wrong. As much as I hate Bush (mainly because I hate can't stand someone religious telling me what to do, but that's neither here nor there), I can't hold him responsible for this. It isn't his job to tell his subordinates to double - or triple - check their facts. They should have been double and triple checked before they ever even got there. What I did want to hear, however, was "hey, we made a mistake. our bad. we've taken steps to assure this never happens again."
Before the war started, I didn't believe Saddam had WMDs, but I did believe he was in breach of the UN resolution. I was against the war in Iraq, not because I enjoy letting people take advantage of me (or my country), but because I thought we had bigger fish to fry elsewhere. North Korea being the big one. I also thought we should make sure Osama Bin Laden was taken care of and Afghanistan was completely under control before we started ANYTHING. Sure, Saddam was an asshole. As someone once said, "there isn't a person in America who hasn't said 'you know, if Saddam ever comes to my bar, I'll beat the fuck out of him.'" Saddam was a despot. There is no question about that. I didn't question the act of war itself so much as the timing of the act.
But I digress.
But I say "good". I'm glad the grammar checker in Word is so fubar. It shouldn't be the catch-all for any paper you write. If it points something out that is incorrect and you fix it - okay! If it points out something correct and you tell it to ignore it because you do have a decent grasp on the English language, then okay. And if you just tell it to "Fix All", then you deserve to get the "wtF?!" at the top of your paper. Sure, English can be a bit of a pain, but you should never completely rely on someone else's grammar checker to take the place of learning the language in the first place.
I agree with you concerning the mindset, but that's essentially my point. THAT is why it is worse, for a lot of people. Maybe you could handle it, maybe others could. And for you, death is worse. But to others, who maybe couldn't handle it as they are, would prefer death.
:]
In my opinion, even death pales in comparison to perpetual agony, whether physical or emotional. I don't fear death. I dont' believe in an afterlife, and I'm certainly not rushing towards death by any stretch of the imagination, but it certainly doesn't terrify or bother me as much as it does others. There are some situations where I would prefer death to life - assured slavery, terminal cancer, etc, etc. For me, emotional reasons probably wouldn't be one of them (short of losing my family in a horrible accident that was my fault in some way...not sure I could handle living with that). But that's me. For others, living with it is far worse than death. And most certainly worse than identity fraud
I think it was more the fact that she couldn't ever forget it happened. It was with her seemingly every waking moment, and even worse when she slept. It just replayed over and over in her mind and she couldn't escape it no matter how hard she tried. It wasn't how she was treated socially (the guy broke into her house at night - it's not like she was dressed in a mini skirt being a cocktease or something (and I'm not saying that if she was, it would be okay for others to blame it on her, just that it was easy for people to completely accept that she was the victim)). Suicide after rape is fairly common - more so than suicide for no other reason. There are some people who can't put it behind them and just flat out think that it's better to be nothing than it is to be alive and living like that. That's why I say it's worse than death - at least with death, you're dead. That's it. It's over. You don't feel another thing. You especially don't feel the pain. You lose any chance of happiness as well, which is horrible, but what is worse - losing every chance of happiness AND pain, or just losing every chance of happiness and only getting to look forward to a life of pain? (I've been using the phrase "giving up any chance" alot - what I mean by that is a realistic probability of _whatever_)
That's just the way I see it. Death is definitely not an acceptable occurence, but in comparison to some things, I - and many others besides me - would prefer it to the emotional trauma that comes with rape. I'm not happy mom did what she did, but I can understand it. It's rough at times, but she did what she felt she had to do to get away from the experience. I wish I could have done more to help her so that she didn't feel the need, but there's nothing I can do about that now.
My mother shot herself a year after being raped. Obviously death was preferable to her than dealing with being raped...
I was just pointing out that the victim is saddled with intense psychological trauma, that's all. Point well taken, though. How silly of me to say "rape isn't like anything!", and then try to come up with something "similar" (and I use that term loosely). My bad :]
Victims of CC fraud and ID theft feel just as violated as a rape victim or a burgled homeowner.
Sorry, but that's them being retarded. Sure, they can feel very violated. Sure, they can feel very uneasy. But to say it's the same as rape is like saying breaking a finger is the same as giving birth. It's not even in the fucking ballpark. Almost nothing is worse than rape. Nothing. Even torture, followed by murder, isn't as bad as rape. It's the most devestating thing you can do to someone, short of maybe raping their family then gutting them with a spoon and hanging them with their own entrails in front of your eyes. I'm sure I could think up a few more fucked up scenarios, but to say identity theft and credit card fraud is the exact same feeling for the victim as rape is completely ridiculous. My apologies for offending you, but rape should never be used in an analogous situation.
They're already up on bittorent within under an hour. They always will be. There will always be one person smart enough to break the DRM and put it up free and clear. What then? Where's your fucking argument now? It does nothing but piss the rest of us off and make a few geeks happy because now they can figure out how to beat the system AGAIN.
Get a brain.
I could be wrong now, but with Vonage, you go in and list your exact location to setup 911 (and you have to change it if you move, if you want the appropriate 911). Having never had to call 911 while using it, however, I have no idea what it's like after that. Regardless, however, Vonage does know your location (if you set it up, which they tell you to do). I have no idea about any other providers.
They can't, or they chose to disregard? There's a big difference. If it makes you feel any better, you could imagine I said "heh" and scrolled on to other things. Really, I don't care much either way. :]
Or European tourists in America?
:\
Or no, that statement would be just as stereotypical as the parent's. No, no, I guess we'll all just have to accept there are assholes and idiots everywhere.
Lucky us
At first it was the latter, and now it's the former. I did exactly that. Regardless, however, that is the reason for gaming - and movie watching - and tv watching - and book reading. There are lots of hobbies that make you forget real-world problems for a period of time. Sometimes they're the only thing that keeps you sane.
In the end, however, you have to deal with your problems. After that's done, you can focus on the former; the challenge, the adrenaline rush, the thrill of victory, the rage of defeat. It's not as fun as a game of tennis or roller blading, but in the winter, it's one of the most fun hobbies around.
No kidding. We once did a little impromptu timing of people who went out for smoke breaks; of the people who walked past our particular cubes on the way out, they left, on average, 5 times a day. They also spent 15 minutes outside. That's over an hour a day lost to smoking, not counting the normal hour lunch break. It got to the point where I don't even feel guilty for coming in half an hour late or leaving 5 or 10 minutes early on occassion. I've taken 0 smoke breaks in the last 3 years and I refuse to get the shaft just because I don't want lung cancer.
Time is only precious insofar that what you do with that time makes you happy (or happier). For some, gaming can make them happy, whether through the challenge, or just escaping the rest of their miserable, depressing lives.
Yes, you put a cap on it, but you allow people to raise it. We're talking about default settings stopping these sorts of shennanigans, not removing the ability to customize to your heart's content. We're essentially saying "security out of the box", not "security after you set it up".
I'm not sure, but I think the built-in radio in Yahoo! messenger is essentially an "iframe" with IE in it. I get IE errors all the time when that thing bombs out, and I don't use IE at all (standalone), so........
Perhaps, but when there are reasonable ways for preventing most of them, don't you think you should, oh, I donno, try?
"There are always going to be security holes in Windows, so why bother fixing any of them?" Pffft.
Peter S. Beagle
Yeah, but they also fixed it shortly thereafter. At least they listen to public outcry and decide to fix it. MS? Yeah, they don't give a shit. And they don't need to.
Of course, the question is, if Google did know about this no-no, and no one else noticed it, would they have fixed it? Or just ignored it. That's the test of a "Good" corporation.
(And, by "Good", I mean "not a bunch of pricks", as opposed to "we make tons of money".)
That's funny, 'cos it's working just fine now. And just so you know, the only student loans you can take out right now that don't require you to pay them back immediately are subsidized by the federal government. I suggest YOU step out the fantasy world, my friend.
The only loans I could get were ones that were either a: unsubsidized (and due for payment immediately - about fucking useless, I may add), or b: through my parents, who, frankly, didn't see the need for college. I rest my case.
As far as number 3 goes, not everyone has the talent to do that. In fact, I had two discs pop in my lower back and had to have surgery to remove the inner goop my junior year of highschool. There goes any chance of 2 OR 3 for me. If it weren't for the federal government, I'd be working in Wal-Mart right now, instead of making 3 times that and paying - guess what? - 3 times as much in taxes. No, more than 3 times as much, because I'm in a much higher tax bracket than I would be then.
Charity implies doing something out of the good of your heart to benefit other people for the sake of doing it.
This is benefiting the youth of America so that they go on to make our country better than it already is. There is no "goodness of our heart" in this - it's about the benefit of society as a whole, not on a personal level.
Absolutely not. You're thinking of people as a static and 2-dimensional. Liberals think longer-term - especially when it comes to the offspring. Let me elaborate, for you, since you seem to be completely ignorant on what a liberal is.
John A is a smart, hard working, intelligent man who has amassed himself quite a hefty estate through his own two hands (and brain!). Good for him!
John B is a plain ol' joe, but also hard working, and hasn't put together an estate, per se, but he has a house and he isn't begging for food. Obviously he would like more money, but, he doesn't need it.
John C is also a plain ol' joe, he also worked hard, but he didn't get to save up much money, just like the majority of people in America.
Jack A is a dumbass who also refuses to put in hard work. He spends every cent he has on beer and lives with his family in a trailer. He can't hold down a job, so he lives on welfare.
Now, according to you, no one should help Jack A, John C, John B, or John A. Let them live for themselves. And, truthfully, I would agree with you. However, once you apply ofspring to the picture, everything changes.
John A, John B, John C, and Jack A all have children. John A can afford to send his children to a good private school, and then to a good college. They always have new clothes and they always have food in their stomaches. Hooray!
John B sends his kids to a public school, which aren't terrible (though, perhaps not as good as a private school) and then to a state funded college, heavily banking on federal financial aid. His kids always have clean, newish clothes and they always have food in their stomaches. Still hooray.
John C dies in a horrible car wreck, leaving behind 3 of his own chillens. Now with only one person working (assuming his wife does), they can barely pay the bills and put food on the table. The kids do without clean, newish clothes and start shopping at Goodwill (let's just hope they're indie hipsters!). If they're lucky, they go to college, but chances are, unless they have a rich aunt or uncle, they aren't going to be able to afford it (unless, of course, it's a community college).
Jack A's kids end up getting jobs around the age of 15 just to buy their own clothes and their own food. Jack A does nothing and the kids pay for everything. They don't go to college because there is no way they could afford it. A few drop out.
According to many libertarians, social programs are bad. As such, there goes federal funding for public schools (which may even cease to exist), federal funding for college (which makes it impossible for John B, John C, and Jack A's kids from ever setting foot in college), or even foodstamps/welfare, which may keep Jack A's kids alive, or, less dramatically, from dropping out of highschool or missing college.
A liberal says "Hey, John A, we're going to take a little more of your millions of dollars and make sure that Jack A and John C's kids get some food and can make it to college". Why? Not just because we feel bad (and, really, making a law just because you feel bad for someone is pretty pathetic, so if that were the only reason, I wouldn't be a liberal either). It's because we know that having 6 kids go to college and become engineers or doctors or lawyers is going to be more beneficial to society, as a whole, than having 6 kids who pack groceries at the local supermarket. More income = more tax revenue, which means better roads, better schools, and, overall, more money throughout the entire country. We also know that by taxing more heavily on top, for the people with 3 BMWs and a Mercedes, instead of taxing the people who don't have enough money to put food on the table, much less pay for roads and schools and college (yes, they use them too, but, frankly, if you can't afford to feed yourself, that's it, game over). We also know that, even though we're going to make sure all these kids have the same opportunities at schooling (grade school and college
Whoa there cowboy. I never said you couldn't be angry at republicans - I just wanted to make sure that George W. didn't get ALL of your anger wasted on him. There are plenty of assholes to focus on at the moment.
:]
Also, you're making the assumption that it was an unconditional vote for him. The fact is, people are NOT going to be able to vote for ANYONE who believes in and will do everything they want them to do but themselves. So they have to pick someone. For a lot of people, the feeling of "safety" or "morality" is more important than the current economic situation. Personally, I find it a VERY bad choice, but there is a huge difference between "I guess I'll sacrifice the fiscal wellbeing of our country for the illusion of safety" and "GOOD! Cutting taxes and increasing spending is a WONDERFUL idea!" That's the point I was trying to make.