I'll bite.. Will I get thrown in jail for saying Obama is a dick? No? Oh, so I suppose I'll get sent to GITMO for saying that the government is crap?
If you are white and/or well connected, probably not. If you are Muslim on the other hand, and travel to certain countries, then yes, there is a fair chance that you will either be thrown in Gitmo, or maybe just assassinated. Ever heard of Anwar al-Awlaki?
Really? this is going to be your example of a mild manned Muslim who just happened to get tossed into gitmo randomly? Want to try again?
America the Land of Liberty*. Freeing the people from oppression**
*Note: Liberty is only available other countries.
**Does not count for people living in America
I'll bite.. Will I get thrown in jail for saying Obama is a dick? No? Oh, so I suppose I'll get sent to GITMO for saying that the government is crap? Won't happen?
I know, I'll get thrown in jail for traveling to another state without permission.. oh.. not happening either?
Prevented by the government from visiting or moving to another country? Damn, nope.. not that either..
Disallowed from owning guns, property, practicing my religion or protesting peacefully?
I'll find random politically objectionable websites filtered on a national scale? Well damn, not that either.
So what exactly is this oppression you're speaking of? I'm not saying it's perfect, but where is better and more free?
I want 5GB of data, to use however I see fit. They are fucking transport, that is it. I want to buy a dumb pipe.
Your dumb pipe would cost a lot more than $40 a month.
Verizon has determined that $40 will make a profit based on what the average consumer will use on their smartphone. Unlimited tethering? I can't even guess how much resources that would be worth. $400/month? $4000/month? I don't want to pay that just so my wife can check Facebook on her phone.
That said, I think their tiered data pricing is too expensive. I'd like to use it on my upcoming vacation but it's not worth it. At 25% of the price I would probably pay for it and use it.
Really? Dumb pipe would cost more? Why can I buy a 'dumb pipe' SIM in other countries without a contract with 9GB of 'use it however' transfer? Yet, here the same thing seems to cost 450USD. The real answer is that we have no realistic competition between the carriers and as such they may screw us at will. I am not going to place blame for the situation, but that us what it is.
After all, what are you going to do? Switch to the other carrier with the same policies?
There's a whole assortment of options, but I've had good luck with both google talk and QQ. Granted, QQ is mostly used by Chinese, but it works well in the western world and is available (english version) for windows, macos, linux and EVERY mobile phone ever made that supports any kind of data service.
Where is the English version of QQ for Linux you speak of?
No, I do not believe that a Senator on the Foreign Relations committee has the same intelligence as the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces who has multiple meetings daily with Pentagon staff. Don't get me wrong, I believe all politicians lie to get elected, but in the case of war, there are many things that are not leaked to the general public. Can you honestly say that any individual would stay at war with no justifiable cause - as if he is doing a maniacal laugh in the Oval Office for the suckers who voted for him? Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I'd like to think that he doesn't want to be at war, but has rationalized it to the point of being more beneficial for the American voters who voted for him to stay at war.
He may, or may not, have had access to a substantial amount of the intelligence that he does as President. Of course, neither of us really know. Much like I said to someone else in this thread, he couldn't just wave a magic wand and sprinkle some unicorn dust and make it happen. Sure, he probably would like to withdraw and for whatever reason hasn't been able to do so. The only point I was trying to make was that he most likely knew it wouldn't be that easy when he said it. I know, silly to actually hope for some form of honesty out of any politician, no?:)
My guess is that this OMB Watch report is from another time-line or dimension. It certainly isn't from this one. This administration would make any suppressive government proud of it's polices.
Sorry, you seem to be new here. Let me correct you. Clearly you meant to say that this administration is as open as it can be and that any hint of it not being wide open is all George Bush's fault. I'm sure you also meant to call for higher taxes on the "rich" and.. hmm... oh yeah, free health care.:)
After all, on Slashdot in 2011 everything is the fault of A) Corporations, B) The Rich, C) George Bush, D) the fact the US isn't doing X the same way they do X in Europe, or some combination of all of those.
Obama did not realize even one of his important promises - Guantanamo still exists, health service is not better, not even the tax gifts to the super-rich from Bush were taken back, next to all the other things. That man is just a living disappointment, despite being the lesser of the possible evils.
To play devil's advocate for a moment on the health thing, what did you expect was going to happen? He'd seize direct control over the health care industry, wave a magic wand, sprinkle a spot of unicorn dust and make it free? Don't worry, if you get what you seem to want we'll all be paying 50%+ income tax like in the utopia that is Europe. Oh, how are they doing financially these days anyway?
Side note.. if you really think anyone making more than X where X isn't followed by at least six places is "super rich" then you clearly don't understand the scale of things. Also, what exactly do you think is to gain by raising taxes on such people anyway?
And that would be Obama in a nut shell. Makes excellent speeches (as long as he doesn't have to talk off the cuff), and does things that only some people want, totally fails on the ones everyone would like.
And then he got intel fit for a President and reversed his position. He must have good reason - ultimately I trust the man's judgment. I'm sure I would reverse my stance as well if I heard some compelling evidence to do so.
Or he's a stuffed shirt politician who could give any other politician a run for their money in the area of saying what is needed to get elected.
Even if he did start his campaign for President virtually 10 minutes after becoming one, he was a Senator on the Foreign Relations committee. Do you suppose that might have included access to some of that special President intel? hmmm?
I'm also not from the US, and not living in the US (But I am an American, just like all Mexicans, Canadians, Cubans, and any other people living in America, which is a fucking continent).
I know a lot of people from the US, and I can tell you something, you can split them into three categories:
- Those that have no idea
- Those that think they have an idea, but they really don't.
- Those that have already moved out of the states.
Think about this: In 99% of the world, "Liberal" is a word used to describe those in the far right. In the US, that is the far left. The entire world considers the Red October to be one of the most important revolutions in history, a step in the right direction for Russia, and can differentiate between what Marx and Engels thought and what guys like Lenin did, from the barbaric stuff that people like Stalin did. The US thinks that the Red October was a coup d' etat organized by the evil reds. Around the world Communism means "YASPS" (Yet another Socio Political System). In the US, it means the devil's work. Less than 2% of US citizens are actual Atheists. Around the world, the world "Evangelical" is sort of an insult, the religions that are stock in the US are considered cults around the world, and mostly frowned upon.
Try talking to someone from the US that considers himself "leftist". You'll realize that, hadn't he told you so, you would consider him to be on the far right.
All governments are evil, the difference is that the US has the support of 99% of all its citizens. They have truly drank all of the Kool Aid.
What the hell are you smoking?
First.. for the last damned time... North America may be a continent, but the name of the country is the United States of America. We're Americans. You're not. Period. Mexicans come from Mexico. Canadians from Canada. Cubans from Cuba. Words bloody mean something.
As the rest of your post hangs on the idea that the only people who haven't left the US are morons it wouldn't seem to be worth replying to. You're either deeply clueless yourself, or a fair troll.
Do Android fanboys dream of people who listen to them?
Jaw dropped indeed. Probably caught a whiff of your necksweat when you turned your head.
I suppose I shouldn't feed trolls.. but here's a morsel anyway.. know any iPad owners? Ask them if they'd like to be able to add SD cards, or thumb drives, change the keyboard, the way the launcher works, or any of a dozen other things. If they've no interest in that, fine, the iPad and it's walled garden is perfect for them. Something tells me they'll be interested in at least one, if not two or three, of those things. Get back to me when the iPad can do any of them.
Apple's competitors have been up-speccing their machines quite a lot compared to the iPad. The original iPad has a paltry 256MB of memory compared to the GB most of the Android tablets are packing. They also include faster processors, fancier screens, tons of ports, etc...
I've not heard of any with better screens than the iPad. Usually they have smaller screens or widescreens (both of which are worse for a tablet). Maybe that's 'fancy'?
The memory and ports mean very little outside of the geek realm.
But mostly they've been trying to keep profit margins healthy.
At the cost of market share? No. They are so expensive because they can't beat or even match the iPad's price. Do you really think they can build their tablets cheaper than Apple does theirs, but are marking the products significantly more than Apple? Isn't the mantra here that it's Apple who is overpriced? So when Apple's prices are cheaper, instead of rethinking that assumption, you just assume Android tablets are so fantastic that they can mark their prices even higher? Really?
Memory and ports mean very little outside of the geek realm? Tell that to the iPad owner whose jaw dropped when I plugged a memory stick, and an SD card directly into my tablet and all she could do with her iPad was plug her iJack in. Yeah, only geeks would care about little things like not needing iTunes to be able easily add and remove music, videos, and other files.
The fact of the matter the Xoom, the usual example given as an iPad competitor as though nothing else exists, is over priced. Everyone who has been paying attention says so. The fact that you haven't heard of the tablets out there that do make the iPad look like a toy doesn't mean they don't exist. It does mean that they haven't penetrated the US market yet.
I also find it amusing that in general a lot of people have been speaking as if Android tablets have been trying and failing to compete for years. The fact of the matter is the entire market is a little over a year and a half old and some of these things do take time to spin up.
Last thing.. simply because Lord Jobs says that a tablet must be 9.7" and everything else is "not a good size for a tablet" doesn't make it so. I've used 7" and 10" tablets and found them both to be perfectly fine for their task.
So, aside from the fact that Social Security is on a different income/expenditure stream than the rest of the federal budget, and thus doesn't contribute to the budget crisis...
What you're proposing would lead to an extremely poor quality of life, homelessness, or outright death for millions of Americans. My husband and I would be among those affected. Um, no. I don't think so.
So, simply because we're pulling the money out of a theoretically different bucket that means it is magic money? Any time the government pulls money out of the economy for any purpose it creates drag and loss. No exceptions. Further, as you say below, the supposed trust fund will be totally broke in 20 years, probably less. When that happens, probably sooner, where do you think that money is going to come from? What about the fact that entitlement spending is going to overtake the entire federal budget? When that happens, what then? The central issue is that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are simply not sustainable programs and they never were. As to it leading to an extremely poor quality of life, I'm going to be extremely cold and logical and say I don't care. Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part. Just why do you think it is our responsibility to take care of you and yours?
The military is the biggest single money hog, between the official Defense section of the budget ($685B) and the various other programs that all fall under the heading of military research, defense, counterterrorism, etc., the government spends somewhere between $1.0 and $1.4 trillion.
Out of the $3.4T Federal Budget you're really saying that nearly half of it is "Defense"? CBO says no. Even if we cut military spending to $0, it wouldn't stop entitlement programs from wiping out the entire budget in the future.
Medicare and Medicaid (part of the Health and Human Services section of the general budget) could be trimmed back some, but only after the ridiculous cost of medical care in this country is brought under strict control, and only with extreme care. Otherwise, too many people will lose critically-needed services.
Trimmed back some? Define "some"? 10%? 20%? 90%? You speak of the ridiculous cost of medical care, yet it doesn't seem all that insane compared to what you get for the money. There certainly are treatments that are really expensive. They are also often cutting edge and either not available in other countries for any amount of money or doled out on a rationed basis. Can costs come down? Sure, and they should. Tort reform would help with that. From some of your other statements, I'm not sure that is the path you would choose
Expenditures are only part of the problem
Not quoting the rest because it doesn't matter. Expenditures are the problem. The government is too large and spends far too much money across the board, including even the military. Massive budget and program cuts are necessary. Increasing revenue will do nothing but lead to increased spending. When has that not been the case in the past?
The rest of your ideas are equally... unworkable.. to be kind. Never has increasing taxes and burden on the producers ever led to increased prosperity for anyone whose email address doesn't end in ".gov". Again, no exceptions.
I'm not worried for myself. I'm terrified for my future children and their children. I won't lie. If that means tossing those who failed to plan for the future under the bus, so be it. We cannot continue to toss money down the hole in amounts that are truly terrifying simply because many thought that Social Security and Medicaid were "free". I'm sorry for you and others like you. But are you so selfish that you're willing to sell out all our children's and grandchildren's futures simply because you failed to plan?
Killing NASA will have essentially ZERO impact on the spiraling US national debt.
Unless the government is prepared to do what no politician is willing to do and to cut from the huge amount spent on the massive military and security machine maintained by the US, the US will never be able to get out of the sinkhole they are in.
Not that some military cuts aren't in order, why is it that everyone goes after this and ignores the elephant in the room. It isn't the 700Billion dollar military budget that will bankrupt the US. It is the projected trillions of dollars in "mandatory" spending for entitlement programs that will only continue to grow and grow and grow. That and interest on the debt. If you want to really talk about choices no politician is willing to make, lets talk about killing the programs that will really do the damage. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and all related programs.
Before you spout, do your homework. While government jobs are good for people in relatively low-skilled jobs, most government workers are paid less than equivalent civil sector workers. The divergence grows as you get more experience and seniority. Show me one job in the civil sector where you run a department or bureau with 500 employees and make less than $150K.
I'm not especially pro-union, but without unions government workers would be subject to the whim of every politician out there.
Lastly, union activity is typically specifically allowed on government networks provided it is outside of work hours. So it's legal on lunch breaks, before and after work, etc. Union organizers are allowed to use government networks to disseminate information essential to the union members.
Governments also have strict limits on curtailing speech.
So it's a dick move, that violates employer-employee trust, and most likely the first amendment and union agreements.
If you're going to go off on a rant like that, you might want to know what you're talking about. Having worked with such people, on the other side of the civil/private line, I can most certainly say that civil employees are often paid far more than they're worth. Especially when factoring in total compensation packages and not merely "base pay".
"It can never happen here" are some of the most dangerous words ever spoken, no?
It isn't like the U.S. government has never been guilty of mass arrests for arbitrary reasons unrelated to criminal acts or even flat out genocide of undesirable groups in its past under the current constitutional government. That last incident is particularly interesting as the commanding officer in that incident was promoted by the U.S. President at the time (Abraham Lincoln) as gratitude for the fact that his men had raped women and killed hundreds of children. It wasn't even covered up but instead widely reported and even praised when it happened.
Yeah, the U.S. government can always be trusted to do the right thing all of the time.
Er.. yeah.. you kinda just proved my point about it being dangerous to say "It can never happen here', huh?
Actually the UNSC would hem and haw for weeks about it, someone would threaten a veto or four, probably France just to be a pissed off spoiler because of the Suez Crisis in '56. Then there'd be the decision about the make up of the peacekeeping force, someone would insist on alot of African Union troops, probably France, which would piss off the Egyptians and the Arab League, since some of those AU troops are Christians, and by then the entire place is stable on it's own, or a farking war zone like Mogadishu on a Sunday in 1993.
The only folks who just "go in" are the Americans and sometimes NATO.
And if the Americans did that they would be "evil empire builders!!11!!" and only "there for the (oil|canal|unobtanium)!!!!1! "
That has to do in the event of a cyber attack from Russia, Al Quada, or China on our nation's infrastructure. It is not a tool to censor but rather a way to stop something from spreading.
It would be disingenuous to imply that the US government is on the same level as Egypt, but do you really think that the Egyptian government didn't put forward similar plausible-sounding reasoning? The difference between "censoring protesters' communication" and "preventing dangerous revolutionaries from co-ordinating attacks on the state" is simply one of perspective.
I'm honestly interested to know, why do you trust the government to only use this power against "Russia, Al Quada, or China"? The patriot act was only intended for use against terrorists, and look how that turned out. Hell, just look one story up and you'll see evidence of serious and systematic lawbreaking by the FBI. Again, I'm not saying that things in the US are going to be as bad as Egypt, or China for that matter, but I can't possibly see how we can be asked to believe the politicians when they have broken their promises time and again on similar issues.
"It can never happen here" are some of the most dangerous words ever spoken, no?
"advocated the wholesale elimination of what most people in this country consider an absolute core piece of that freedom"
Here in Australia most people think a potent symbol of our freedom is the fact that the Prime Minister can go for a jog in the morning whithout the protection of a small army. The cultures are different. The Australian people themselves demanded tighter gun laws and lierally boo'ed the NRA out of the country because they were seen as the marketing arm of the small arms industry. The murder rate hasn't changed much at all since the laws changed, but we haven't had a mass shooting for the last 20-odd years (and only one assination in over a 100yrs). Even when it was legal to own a handgun for self defense, very few actually did, it was never a social norm to own one unless your job required it.
Banning or not banning guns, it makes very little difference in the freedom-saftey see-saw. The difference in violence levels between US/AU can be explanied more convincingly by how they each deal with urban poverty and the level of blatant political/corporate propoganda on the idiot box.
Culturally the US is just not willing to give up the freedom to carry guns, whereas culturally Oz is just not willing to give up the freedom from guns. - Seems democratic and diverse to me.
It is your country and you're free to run it as you see fit.:)
That said, I suspect the level of protection that government officials do or don't need has less to do with the arms the people at large have and more to do with how that government is behaving and such.
You are correct that it is a cultural difference. We believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves and such. Other countries will throw you in jail for daring to defend yourself. Happens often enough in the UK after all.
If a free society cannot stop determined crazy people, and remain free, then just how far would you propose we go with the "ban this and that" logic?
You're right, of course, that banning guns is a limitation of freedom. However, there does not seem to be any serious debate on whether governments should regulate the access to weapons: all functioning countries do it, including banning the access to certain kinds of weapons (e.g. rocket launchers, certain bombs). So it's really just a matter of deciding where to draw the line.
Deciding which points along the line are reasonable and at which points you start cutting into what you refer to as absolute core pieces of freedom seems, to a certain degree, arbitrary. I guess you could even call it a matter of taste. If somebody came along and suggested banning chefs knifes, I'd probably have a similar reaction to it as you.
Perhaps it is arbitrary or perhaps it is not. In most cases we allow infringements on Liberty only when we get a sufficient return on that infringement. Though, really we should instead look at things from the perspective of "harm". Which is to say that we should instead be more concerned with initiation of force and not tools and such. If it is held that it is wrong to initiate force against another, then it doesn't really matter what we own or don't own, no?
By "crazy people", the GP doesn't mean tyrants - he means deranged people bent on massacre. You can't stop a lone lunatic from killing people with cars, scissors or cricket bats - it's just not possible to always catch them before the act. That's quite distinct from the crazy person you voted in who is now suddenly a despot. Two different problems entirely.
Well yes, obviously that's what was meant. Who said anything about tyrants being the nut ball in question?
Getting rid of permits entirely would be a terrible thing for Arizona residents.
How so? Out here in California, you pretty much have to be a politician, certain classes of law enforcement, or a judge to get a permit -- thankfully.
Setting aside whether or not you personally would want such a thing, why is it that only people in those classes should be allowed to have the best tools for self defense with them outside the home?
Is it because they're better than you? More responsible? More valuable? More interesting? Better trained? Most of those aren't true and the last probably isn't true or at least a person can get such training easily enough. So, why them and not you?
The article states that he was using an automatic weapon. They aren't clear on what type, but it's quite possible that the gun used in this incident was ALREADY illegal.
Your point would be valid if it really was an automatic weapon. However, I'm sure you've noticed the press is rarely accurate with these things and I'm sure we'll find out later it was just a regular semi-automatic handgun of no particular note.
It would not, however, be difficult to stab them, beat them with a blunt object, hit them with a car, poison them, set their house on fire, or even just go extra-savage and punch and kick them to death. It is true, guns make killing a whole lot easier (at least in terms of the mechanics of it), but America is not the only developed nation where a large fraction of the population has guns, yet we seem to have a much (by orders of magnitude) higher murder rate. There is more to the story than just the availability of guns and ammunition.
You forgot the standard weapon of choice for the politically disgruntled in other countries when they've moved beyond riots in the streets. Bombs. Which usually end up being far more deadly.
You're correct, guns isn't the reason for the high murder rate. The cause can easily be found elsewhere.
Fewer legal guns make it harder to come by guns illegally. Ban guns for people other than a few LEOs (most LEOs don't need a gun), destroy existing ones and put out a bounty: everybody who "finds" and hands in a gun to be destroyed gets a thousand bucks. European and American guns are used to kill people worldwide. I'm ashamed of being from a country that's one of the worlds biggest arms dealers. Obviously there's a lot of other things that need to be done to reduce violent crime.
All that said: free societies will never be able to stop a determined crazy person (or even a group of them) from doing harm, that's just one of the downsides we all have to live with. Worth it, though.
Wait a moment... You're honestly saying that free societies cannot stop determined crazy people and you accept that as a consequence of being free while having just advocated the wholesale elimination of what most people in this country consider an absolute core piece of that freedom?
If a free society cannot stop determined crazy people, and remain free, then just how far would you propose we go with the "ban this and that" logic?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bite.. Will I get thrown in jail for saying Obama is a dick? No? Oh, so I suppose I'll get sent to GITMO for saying that the government is crap?
If you are white and/or well connected, probably not. If you are Muslim on the other hand, and travel to certain countries, then yes, there is a fair chance that you will either be thrown in Gitmo, or maybe just assassinated. Ever heard of Anwar al-Awlaki?
Really? this is going to be your example of a mild manned Muslim who just happened to get tossed into gitmo randomly? Want to try again?
America the Land of Liberty*. Freeing the people from oppression**
*Note: Liberty is only available other countries.
**Does not count for people living in America
I'll bite.. Will I get thrown in jail for saying Obama is a dick? No? Oh, so I suppose I'll get sent to GITMO for saying that the government is crap? Won't happen?
I know, I'll get thrown in jail for traveling to another state without permission.. oh.. not happening either?
Prevented by the government from visiting or moving to another country? Damn, nope.. not that either..
Disallowed from owning guns, property, practicing my religion or protesting peacefully?
I'll find random politically objectionable websites filtered on a national scale? Well damn, not that either.
So what exactly is this oppression you're speaking of? I'm not saying it's perfect, but where is better and more free?
I want 5GB of data, to use however I see fit. They are fucking transport, that is it. I want to buy a dumb pipe.
Your dumb pipe would cost a lot more than $40 a month. Verizon has determined that $40 will make a profit based on what the average consumer will use on their smartphone. Unlimited tethering? I can't even guess how much resources that would be worth. $400/month? $4000/month? I don't want to pay that just so my wife can check Facebook on her phone. That said, I think their tiered data pricing is too expensive. I'd like to use it on my upcoming vacation but it's not worth it. At 25% of the price I would probably pay for it and use it.
Really? Dumb pipe would cost more? Why can I buy a 'dumb pipe' SIM in other countries without a contract with 9GB of 'use it however' transfer? Yet, here the same thing seems to cost 450USD. The real answer is that we have no realistic competition between the carriers and as such they may screw us at will. I am not going to place blame for the situation, but that us what it is. After all, what are you going to do? Switch to the other carrier with the same policies?
There's a whole assortment of options, but I've had good luck with both google talk and QQ. Granted, QQ is mostly used by Chinese, but it works well in the western world and is available (english version) for windows, macos, linux and EVERY mobile phone ever made that supports any kind of data service.
Where is the English version of QQ for Linux you speak of?
No, I do not believe that a Senator on the Foreign Relations committee has the same intelligence as the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces who has multiple meetings daily with Pentagon staff. Don't get me wrong, I believe all politicians lie to get elected, but in the case of war, there are many things that are not leaked to the general public. Can you honestly say that any individual would stay at war with no justifiable cause - as if he is doing a maniacal laugh in the Oval Office for the suckers who voted for him? Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I'd like to think that he doesn't want to be at war, but has rationalized it to the point of being more beneficial for the American voters who voted for him to stay at war.
He may, or may not, have had access to a substantial amount of the intelligence that he does as President. Of course, neither of us really know. Much like I said to someone else in this thread, he couldn't just wave a magic wand and sprinkle some unicorn dust and make it happen. Sure, he probably would like to withdraw and for whatever reason hasn't been able to do so. The only point I was trying to make was that he most likely knew it wouldn't be that easy when he said it. I know, silly to actually hope for some form of honesty out of any politician, no? :)
My guess is that this OMB Watch report is from another time-line or dimension. It certainly isn't from this one. This administration would make any suppressive government proud of it's polices.
Sorry, you seem to be new here. Let me correct you. Clearly you meant to say that this administration is as open as it can be and that any hint of it not being wide open is all George Bush's fault. I'm sure you also meant to call for higher taxes on the "rich" and.. hmm... oh yeah, free health care. :)
After all, on Slashdot in 2011 everything is the fault of A) Corporations, B) The Rich, C) George Bush, D) the fact the US isn't doing X the same way they do X in Europe, or some combination of all of those.
Obama did not realize even one of his important promises - Guantanamo still exists, health service is not better, not even the tax gifts to the super-rich from Bush were taken back, next to all the other things. That man is just a living disappointment, despite being the lesser of the possible evils.
To play devil's advocate for a moment on the health thing, what did you expect was going to happen? He'd seize direct control over the health care industry, wave a magic wand, sprinkle a spot of unicorn dust and make it free? Don't worry, if you get what you seem to want we'll all be paying 50%+ income tax like in the utopia that is Europe. Oh, how are they doing financially these days anyway?
Side note.. if you really think anyone making more than X where X isn't followed by at least six places is "super rich" then you clearly don't understand the scale of things. Also, what exactly do you think is to gain by raising taxes on such people anyway?
Big on words, implementation "lagging"
And that would be Obama in a nut shell. Makes excellent speeches (as long as he doesn't have to talk off the cuff), and does things that only some people want, totally fails on the ones everyone would like.
And then he got intel fit for a President and reversed his position. He must have good reason - ultimately I trust the man's judgment. I'm sure I would reverse my stance as well if I heard some compelling evidence to do so.
Or he's a stuffed shirt politician who could give any other politician a run for their money in the area of saying what is needed to get elected.
Even if he did start his campaign for President virtually 10 minutes after becoming one, he was a Senator on the Foreign Relations committee. Do you suppose that might have included access to some of that special President intel? hmmm?
I'm also not from the US, and not living in the US (But I am an American, just like all Mexicans, Canadians, Cubans, and any other people living in America, which is a fucking continent).
I know a lot of people from the US, and I can tell you something, you can split them into three categories:
- Those that have no idea - Those that think they have an idea, but they really don't. - Those that have already moved out of the states.
Think about this: In 99% of the world, "Liberal" is a word used to describe those in the far right. In the US, that is the far left. The entire world considers the Red October to be one of the most important revolutions in history, a step in the right direction for Russia, and can differentiate between what Marx and Engels thought and what guys like Lenin did, from the barbaric stuff that people like Stalin did. The US thinks that the Red October was a coup d' etat organized by the evil reds. Around the world Communism means "YASPS" (Yet another Socio Political System). In the US, it means the devil's work. Less than 2% of US citizens are actual Atheists. Around the world, the world "Evangelical" is sort of an insult, the religions that are stock in the US are considered cults around the world, and mostly frowned upon.
Try talking to someone from the US that considers himself "leftist". You'll realize that, hadn't he told you so, you would consider him to be on the far right.
All governments are evil, the difference is that the US has the support of 99% of all its citizens. They have truly drank all of the Kool Aid.
What the hell are you smoking?
First.. for the last damned time... North America may be a continent, but the name of the country is the United States of America. We're Americans. You're not. Period. Mexicans come from Mexico. Canadians from Canada. Cubans from Cuba. Words bloody mean something.
As the rest of your post hangs on the idea that the only people who haven't left the US are morons it wouldn't seem to be worth replying to. You're either deeply clueless yourself, or a fair troll.
Do Android fanboys dream of people who listen to them?
Jaw dropped indeed. Probably caught a whiff of your necksweat when you turned your head.
I suppose I shouldn't feed trolls.. but here's a morsel anyway.. know any iPad owners? Ask them if they'd like to be able to add SD cards, or thumb drives, change the keyboard, the way the launcher works, or any of a dozen other things. If they've no interest in that, fine, the iPad and it's walled garden is perfect for them. Something tells me they'll be interested in at least one, if not two or three, of those things. Get back to me when the iPad can do any of them.
Apple's competitors have been up-speccing their machines quite a lot compared to the iPad. The original iPad has a paltry 256MB of memory compared to the GB most of the Android tablets are packing. They also include faster processors, fancier screens, tons of ports, etc...
I've not heard of any with better screens than the iPad. Usually they have smaller screens or widescreens (both of which are worse for a tablet). Maybe that's 'fancy'?
The memory and ports mean very little outside of the geek realm.
But mostly they've been trying to keep profit margins healthy.
At the cost of market share? No. They are so expensive because they can't beat or even match the iPad's price. Do you really think they can build their tablets cheaper than Apple does theirs, but are marking the products significantly more than Apple? Isn't the mantra here that it's Apple who is overpriced? So when Apple's prices are cheaper, instead of rethinking that assumption, you just assume Android tablets are so fantastic that they can mark their prices even higher? Really?
Memory and ports mean very little outside of the geek realm? Tell that to the iPad owner whose jaw dropped when I plugged a memory stick, and an SD card directly into my tablet and all she could do with her iPad was plug her iJack in. Yeah, only geeks would care about little things like not needing iTunes to be able easily add and remove music, videos, and other files.
The fact of the matter the Xoom, the usual example given as an iPad competitor as though nothing else exists, is over priced. Everyone who has been paying attention says so. The fact that you haven't heard of the tablets out there that do make the iPad look like a toy doesn't mean they don't exist. It does mean that they haven't penetrated the US market yet.
I also find it amusing that in general a lot of people have been speaking as if Android tablets have been trying and failing to compete for years. The fact of the matter is the entire market is a little over a year and a half old and some of these things do take time to spin up.
Last thing.. simply because Lord Jobs says that a tablet must be 9.7" and everything else is "not a good size for a tablet" doesn't make it so. I've used 7" and 10" tablets and found them both to be perfectly fine for their task.
So, aside from the fact that Social Security is on a different income/expenditure stream than the rest of the federal budget, and thus doesn't contribute to the budget crisis...
What you're proposing would lead to an extremely poor quality of life, homelessness, or outright death for millions of Americans. My husband and I would be among those affected. Um, no. I don't think so.
So, simply because we're pulling the money out of a theoretically different bucket that means it is magic money? Any time the government pulls money out of the economy for any purpose it creates drag and loss. No exceptions. Further, as you say below, the supposed trust fund will be totally broke in 20 years, probably less. When that happens, probably sooner, where do you think that money is going to come from? What about the fact that entitlement spending is going to overtake the entire federal budget? When that happens, what then? The central issue is that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are simply not sustainable programs and they never were. As to it leading to an extremely poor quality of life, I'm going to be extremely cold and logical and say I don't care. Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part. Just why do you think it is our responsibility to take care of you and yours?
The military is the biggest single money hog, between the official Defense section of the budget ($685B) and the various other programs that all fall under the heading of military research, defense, counterterrorism, etc., the government spends somewhere between $1.0 and $1.4 trillion.
Out of the $3.4T Federal Budget you're really saying that nearly half of it is "Defense"? CBO says no. Even if we cut military spending to $0, it wouldn't stop entitlement programs from wiping out the entire budget in the future.
Medicare and Medicaid (part of the Health and Human Services section of the general budget) could be trimmed back some, but only after the ridiculous cost of medical care in this country is brought under strict control, and only with extreme care. Otherwise, too many people will lose critically-needed services.
Trimmed back some? Define "some"? 10%? 20%? 90%? You speak of the ridiculous cost of medical care, yet it doesn't seem all that insane compared to what you get for the money. There certainly are treatments that are really expensive. They are also often cutting edge and either not available in other countries for any amount of money or doled out on a rationed basis. Can costs come down? Sure, and they should. Tort reform would help with that. From some of your other statements, I'm not sure that is the path you would choose
Expenditures are only part of the problem
Not quoting the rest because it doesn't matter. Expenditures are the problem. The government is too large and spends far too much money across the board, including even the military. Massive budget and program cuts are necessary. Increasing revenue will do nothing but lead to increased spending. When has that not been the case in the past?
The rest of your ideas are equally... unworkable.. to be kind. Never has increasing taxes and burden on the producers ever led to increased prosperity for anyone whose email address doesn't end in ".gov". Again, no exceptions.
I'm not worried for myself. I'm terrified for my future children and their children. I won't lie. If that means tossing those who failed to plan for the future under the bus, so be it. We cannot continue to toss money down the hole in amounts that are truly terrifying simply because many thought that Social Security and Medicaid were "free". I'm sorry for you and others like you. But are you so selfish that you're willing to sell out all our children's and grandchildren's futures simply because you failed to plan?
Killing NASA will have essentially ZERO impact on the spiraling US national debt.
Unless the government is prepared to do what no politician is willing to do and to cut from the huge amount spent on the massive military and security machine maintained by the US, the US will never be able to get out of the sinkhole they are in.
Not that some military cuts aren't in order, why is it that everyone goes after this and ignores the elephant in the room. It isn't the 700Billion dollar military budget that will bankrupt the US. It is the projected trillions of dollars in "mandatory" spending for entitlement programs that will only continue to grow and grow and grow. That and interest on the debt. If you want to really talk about choices no politician is willing to make, lets talk about killing the programs that will really do the damage. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and all related programs.
Before you spout, do your homework. While government jobs are good for people in relatively low-skilled jobs, most government workers are paid less than equivalent civil sector workers. The divergence grows as you get more experience and seniority. Show me one job in the civil sector where you run a department or bureau with 500 employees and make less than $150K.
I'm not especially pro-union, but without unions government workers would be subject to the whim of every politician out there.
Lastly, union activity is typically specifically allowed on government networks provided it is outside of work hours. So it's legal on lunch breaks, before and after work, etc. Union organizers are allowed to use government networks to disseminate information essential to the union members.
Governments also have strict limits on curtailing speech.
So it's a dick move, that violates employer-employee trust, and most likely the first amendment and union agreements.
If you're going to go off on a rant like that, you might want to know what you're talking about. Having worked with such people, on the other side of the civil/private line, I can most certainly say that civil employees are often paid far more than they're worth. Especially when factoring in total compensation packages and not merely "base pay".
"It can never happen here" are some of the most dangerous words ever spoken, no?
It isn't like the U.S. government has never been guilty of mass arrests for arbitrary reasons unrelated to criminal acts or even flat out genocide of undesirable groups in its past under the current constitutional government. That last incident is particularly interesting as the commanding officer in that incident was promoted by the U.S. President at the time (Abraham Lincoln) as gratitude for the fact that his men had raped women and killed hundreds of children. It wasn't even covered up but instead widely reported and even praised when it happened.
Yeah, the U.S. government can always be trusted to do the right thing all of the time.
Er.. yeah.. you kinda just proved my point about it being dangerous to say "It can never happen here', huh?
Yea, thats how the UN works, it just goes in.
Actually the UNSC would hem and haw for weeks about it, someone would threaten a veto or four, probably France just to be a pissed off spoiler because of the Suez Crisis in '56. Then there'd be the decision about the make up of the peacekeeping force, someone would insist on alot of African Union troops, probably France, which would piss off the Egyptians and the Arab League, since some of those AU troops are Christians, and by then the entire place is stable on it's own, or a farking war zone like Mogadishu on a Sunday in 1993.
The only folks who just "go in" are the Americans and sometimes NATO.
And if the Americans did that they would be "evil empire builders!!11!!" and only "there for the (oil|canal|unobtanium)!!!!1! "
That has to do in the event of a cyber attack from Russia, Al Quada, or China on our nation's infrastructure. It is not a tool to censor but rather a way to stop something from spreading.
It would be disingenuous to imply that the US government is on the same level as Egypt, but do you really think that the Egyptian government didn't put forward similar plausible-sounding reasoning? The difference between "censoring protesters' communication" and "preventing dangerous revolutionaries from co-ordinating attacks on the state" is simply one of perspective.
I'm honestly interested to know, why do you trust the government to only use this power against "Russia, Al Quada, or China"? The patriot act was only intended for use against terrorists, and look how that turned out. Hell, just look one story up and you'll see evidence of serious and systematic lawbreaking by the FBI. Again, I'm not saying that things in the US are going to be as bad as Egypt, or China for that matter, but I can't possibly see how we can be asked to believe the politicians when they have broken their promises time and again on similar issues.
"It can never happen here" are some of the most dangerous words ever spoken, no?
"advocated the wholesale elimination of what most people in this country consider an absolute core piece of that freedom" Here in Australia most people think a potent symbol of our freedom is the fact that the Prime Minister can go for a jog in the morning whithout the protection of a small army. The cultures are different. The Australian people themselves demanded tighter gun laws and lierally boo'ed the NRA out of the country because they were seen as the marketing arm of the small arms industry. The murder rate hasn't changed much at all since the laws changed, but we haven't had a mass shooting for the last 20-odd years (and only one assination in over a 100yrs). Even when it was legal to own a handgun for self defense, very few actually did, it was never a social norm to own one unless your job required it. Banning or not banning guns, it makes very little difference in the freedom-saftey see-saw. The difference in violence levels between US/AU can be explanied more convincingly by how they each deal with urban poverty and the level of blatant political/corporate propoganda on the idiot box. Culturally the US is just not willing to give up the freedom to carry guns, whereas culturally Oz is just not willing to give up the freedom from guns. - Seems democratic and diverse to me.
It is your country and you're free to run it as you see fit. :)
That said, I suspect the level of protection that government officials do or don't need has less to do with the arms the people at large have and more to do with how that government is behaving and such.
You are correct that it is a cultural difference. We believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves and such. Other countries will throw you in jail for daring to defend yourself. Happens often enough in the UK after all.
If a free society cannot stop determined crazy people, and remain free, then just how far would you propose we go with the "ban this and that" logic?
You're right, of course, that banning guns is a limitation of freedom. However, there does not seem to be any serious debate on whether governments should regulate the access to weapons: all functioning countries do it, including banning the access to certain kinds of weapons (e.g. rocket launchers, certain bombs). So it's really just a matter of deciding where to draw the line.
Deciding which points along the line are reasonable and at which points you start cutting into what you refer to as absolute core pieces of freedom seems, to a certain degree, arbitrary. I guess you could even call it a matter of taste. If somebody came along and suggested banning chefs knifes, I'd probably have a similar reaction to it as you.
Perhaps it is arbitrary or perhaps it is not. In most cases we allow infringements on Liberty only when we get a sufficient return on that infringement. Though, really we should instead look at things from the perspective of "harm". Which is to say that we should instead be more concerned with initiation of force and not tools and such. If it is held that it is wrong to initiate force against another, then it doesn't really matter what we own or don't own, no?
By "crazy people", the GP doesn't mean tyrants - he means deranged people bent on massacre. You can't stop a lone lunatic from killing people with cars, scissors or cricket bats - it's just not possible to always catch them before the act. That's quite distinct from the crazy person you voted in who is now suddenly a despot. Two different problems entirely.
Well yes, obviously that's what was meant. Who said anything about tyrants being the nut ball in question?
Getting rid of permits entirely would be a terrible thing for Arizona residents.
How so? Out here in California, you pretty much have to be a politician, certain classes of law enforcement, or a judge to get a permit -- thankfully.
Setting aside whether or not you personally would want such a thing, why is it that only people in those classes should be allowed to have the best tools for self defense with them outside the home?
Is it because they're better than you? More responsible? More valuable? More interesting? Better trained? Most of those aren't true and the last probably isn't true or at least a person can get such training easily enough. So, why them and not you?
The article states that he was using an automatic weapon. They aren't clear on what type, but it's quite possible that the gun used in this incident was ALREADY illegal.
Your point would be valid if it really was an automatic weapon. However, I'm sure you've noticed the press is rarely accurate with these things and I'm sure we'll find out later it was just a regular semi-automatic handgun of no particular note.
It would not, however, be difficult to stab them, beat them with a blunt object, hit them with a car, poison them, set their house on fire, or even just go extra-savage and punch and kick them to death. It is true, guns make killing a whole lot easier (at least in terms of the mechanics of it), but America is not the only developed nation where a large fraction of the population has guns, yet we seem to have a much (by orders of magnitude) higher murder rate. There is more to the story than just the availability of guns and ammunition.
You forgot the standard weapon of choice for the politically disgruntled in other countries when they've moved beyond riots in the streets. Bombs. Which usually end up being far more deadly.
You're correct, guns isn't the reason for the high murder rate. The cause can easily be found elsewhere.
Fewer legal guns make it harder to come by guns illegally. Ban guns for people other than a few LEOs (most LEOs don't need a gun), destroy existing ones and put out a bounty: everybody who "finds" and hands in a gun to be destroyed gets a thousand bucks. European and American guns are used to kill people worldwide. I'm ashamed of being from a country that's one of the worlds biggest arms dealers. Obviously there's a lot of other things that need to be done to reduce violent crime.
All that said: free societies will never be able to stop a determined crazy person (or even a group of them) from doing harm, that's just one of the downsides we all have to live with. Worth it, though.
Wait a moment... You're honestly saying that free societies cannot stop determined crazy people and you accept that as a consequence of being free while having just advocated the wholesale elimination of what most people in this country consider an absolute core piece of that freedom?
If a free society cannot stop determined crazy people, and remain free, then just how far would you propose we go with the "ban this and that" logic?