The "bureaucracy" worked only because everyone was cowed into uniformity of purpose. That is too high a price to pay. The WWII era was not a free society.
If a large number of states didn't feel it was worthy of a law, isn't that the very reason we have state's rights to begin with? To allow states to set their laws without interference from other states and the Federal government as much as is possible?
But that is EXACTLY what he voted for! Go read the link I gave you.
You guys just have yourself convinced that smaller government means banning more things.
His vote for the defense of marriage act banned NOTHING! It was a vote to prevent one state from imposing its rules on another.
His vote against partial birth abortion did ban something. But small government doesn't mean no government. In the absence of a working anarcho-capitalist legal system, and in the presence of supreme court decisions that make abortion a federal issue, a vote for the partial birth abortion ban was perfectly sensible for a pro-life libertarian.
It's okay if you disagree with Ron Paul's views. But arguing that he's a hypocrite and big government statist is just plain silly. Getting your nose out of joint for his not being a 100% ideologically pure candidate is naive to the point of childishness.
I grew up in a heavy migrant worker agricultural town. I've lived next door to illegal aliens most of my life. I do agree with you that the vast majority of illegal aliens come here to work. And they work hard. But an increasingly large number of their children are getting sucked into a destructive welfare lifestyle.
But welfare is more than just AFDC, and their is more government assistance than just welfare. Public school education is one. Before your head explodes, hear me out. I am not saying to deny education to the children of illegal aliens, I am saying that it is a huge cost that must be taken into account.
And please stop playing the race/bigotry card. It's tiresome. A white illegal alien from Canada is just as illegal as a hispanic illegal alien from Mexico. The country of origin has nothing to do with it. If you want to point the racist finger, point it at people on your side who keep bringing up the extremely classist "jobs no one wants" argument.
Oh I get it, this is debate by quips! Let me provide you with fleshed out explanations.
Abortion: Ron Paul is most definitely pro-life. No question about it. He is against it because he feels that the unborn child is a human being worthy of the same protections as any other. Lest you throw out the old hypocrite canard, he is most definitely against the death penalty as well.
He has made it clear that the abortion is a state matter. So why the vote for partial birth abortion ban at the federal level? Because the current state of affairs HAS made it a federal issue! Ron Paul held his nose while voting for this. Let's say this was assault instead of abortion. Imagine there was a congressional bill banning a particular kind of assault. Would you vote for this bill even though it's properly a state issue? What do you do if you're a strict constitutionalist and fervent anti-assaulter? You hold your nose and vote for it! Just like Ron Paul did with partial birth abortion ban.
Next topic, defense of marriage act: Again, the quick quip rebuttal does no justice to his position. He does not feel that marriage is an institution to propped up and supported by the government. So how does gay marriage fit into this? Because at one level, marriage IS a federal issue. If one state allows homosexual marriages, do other states have to recognize it? That is the question. Ron Paul's answer is no. Individual states can legalize gay marriages all they want, but other states don't have to recognize it. The very link you provide explains this. It also points out that he is dead set against constitutional amendments in this regard.
There's a quote from Badnarik from the last election. [paraphrase] "Just because we have an open door policy doesn't mean you can sneak in through the bedroom window." In my opinion, we should liberalize immigration. I would allow anyone in who has a job lined up. I'm all in favor of temporary visas for seasonal labor. But they have to come in through the "front door". I'm not quite anarchist enough yet to get rid of borders entirely.
Ron Paul wants to reform immigration, not to eliminate it. Here's part of his platform: "Finally, completely overhaul the legal immigration process. The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods." You claim Dr. Paul is racist, but here he is advocating balanced equitable treatment to all legal immigrants regardless of country of origin. He is the only candidate advocating this.
Another of his reform points: eliminate government assistance magnets for illegals (food stamps, welfare, etc). Did you know that illegal aliens get to attend college at state resident tuition prices, cheaper than out of state native citizens can? Where's the social justice in that? My grandparents were immigrants. America has a great tradition of legal immigration. But that was before we got this strange idea of universal cradle-to-grave welfare. Immigration reform is just one of many of Ron Paul's planks, another is the elimination of the welfare state. The first without the second is pointless.
Ron Paul is in favor of free trade, and labor is just another good to trade. But like trade, immigration needs to be legal and above board. If goods from China must go through customs, then labor from Mexico must go through border checkpoints.
Finally, "Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship."
To deny access due to place of birth is exactly, precisely the same as doing so due to skin color, gender, etc. It's bigotry.
No one is denying anyone access to water fountains based on their country of birth. Sheesh. Anyone who is here legally in this country has equal access to all public water fountains. Mexicans, Canadians, Germans, Chinese, etc.
But why are you focusing on those who break the law and trespass to get to this country? Why aren't you on a tirade to make legal immigration easier? If you want to enter this country legally, it's a fricking nightmare. My friend married a lady from the Phillipines, and it was a nightmare getting her here. Steep fees, bureaucratic mazes, interrogations about their sexual behavior, etc. It was tempted to hire a coyote to bring her in illegally. It would have been cheaper, and she would have had more practical rights. Why should the illegal alien be treated better just because he or she cheated and jumped to the head of the line?
Why should illegal aliens be treated better than legal immigrants? Why must we have no restrictions on the importation of unskilled below-minimum-wage labor, but we start screaming protectionism when some company wants to bring in a skilled H1B developer?
He is in favor of immigration. Legal immigration. In fact he wants to fix legal immigration, to not favor immigrants from one nation over another. But being against illegal immigration is not racist. If white Canadians were illegally crossing the border in equally large numbers, he would still be against it.
You're right. I dislike 90% of Kucinich's positions, so I doubt I could ever vote for him. But as one of only two honest men in congress, he definitely is worth a second look.
Besides, who the fsck knows what Obama stands for? He hasn't said anything of real substance. He's a great big cipher.
Freedom is an absence of restriction. Since the vast majority of legislation is a restriction of one kind or another, the more Ron Paul's "no" votes help your freedom. Freedom is for more than just you and your friends, it's for everyone. So even voting "no" on a restriction against people you don't like helps your freedom.
It's time to stop depending on government to care for our needs, and time we started acting like responsible adults.
You are right of course, but fails to note that Democrats are every bit as bad. The 00s finally saw the Republican Party divest itself of the last vestiges of small government rhetoric. But the Democrats never even had that.
What's the difference between the Republicans and Democrats in 2007? Is there any? The Dems currently want to get out of Iraq, but where the fsck where they when we went in? They have no moral opposition to military interventionism, just as the Republicans have demonstrated they have no moral opposition to fiscal irresponsibility.
Does this guy forget that all of the GNU/Linux Kernel base system is written in C?
There is no GNU/Linux kernel, there is only the Linux kernel. I know you're deeply in love with Richard Stallman and want to bear his lovechild, but please make some attempt at accuracy.
This isn't violating your privacy any more than it already is already violated...
Translation: "This isn't raping your rectum any more than it already is already raped."
The problem is that the government shouldn't be tracking me to begin with. There's nothing inherently wrong with this kind of credit card combo, but with government out of control it's as stupid as tattooing a bullseye on your butt in the county jail.
I need decent dual head support for my laptop. Otherwise my external monitor is useless, and I can't use the laptop to make presentations. Standard VESA mode works fine for what I do, but I'm severly limited by the lack of multiple display support.
I'm also concerned that near future Qt/KDE and GTK/GNOME are going to be requiring full XRender and OpenGL support for full functionality.
Ditto. AMD isn't making money off their drivers, they're making money off their hardware. So make the drivers free... as in unrestricted. Keep the licensing baggage out of it. Don't call it "free" and then encumber it with a bunch of strings, conditions, clauses, and hairy lawyers looking for someone to sue.
But honestly, I think most of the people COMING to Linux in the Desktop world could care less about these "ethical" issues.
But not everyone is using Linux. Shocking, but true. As a FreeBSD user, Linux-only proprietary drivers are a major pain in the ass. I'm sure the OpenBSD, NetBSD, OpenSolaris, etc., feel the same way. A video card should NOT dictate what operating system I use. I'm buying a new computer in a couple of months, and if there isn't a decent open source video driver for newer ATI cards, I'm going to be considering Intel instead. This isn't about boycotting AMD, it's about avoiding hardware that doesn't work.
We don't by insurance. We get a job that buys insurance for us.
For most people, yes you're right.
Imagine if other industries were set up like the US healthcare system. You get a grocery "plan" from your employer. You then wait in line with your grocery card, and when you get to the front, you pay your $1 co-pay. Then you have to talk with the nutritionist, even though all you want is a couple of filet mignons. Why filet mignons? Because they only cost you a buck! But the grocery insurance company is trying to save costs, so you end up with "generic" filet mignons, which look suspiciously like ground round.
Of course, that's the HMO grocery plan. If your company is large enough, you can choose the PPO grocery plan instead. You get a full range of groceries to choose from, and if you have dietary needs, you can be referred to a butcher. You pay 20% of the costs with a $10 deductable. Which would be great except that filet mignons are now $100.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah. Just run Linux with the fglrx driver...
The "bureaucracy" worked only because everyone was cowed into uniformity of purpose. That is too high a price to pay. The WWII era was not a free society.
As Ed Koch once said, paraphrase, "If you agree with me 80%, vote for me. If you agree with me 100%, go see a shrink!"
If a large number of states didn't feel it was worthy of a law, isn't that the very reason we have state's rights to begin with? To allow states to set their laws without interference from other states and the Federal government as much as is possible?
But that is EXACTLY what he voted for! Go read the link I gave you.
You guys just have yourself convinced that smaller government means banning more things.
His vote for the defense of marriage act banned NOTHING! It was a vote to prevent one state from imposing its rules on another.
His vote against partial birth abortion did ban something. But small government doesn't mean no government. In the absence of a working anarcho-capitalist legal system, and in the presence of supreme court decisions that make abortion a federal issue, a vote for the partial birth abortion ban was perfectly sensible for a pro-life libertarian.
It's okay if you disagree with Ron Paul's views. But arguing that he's a hypocrite and big government statist is just plain silly. Getting your nose out of joint for his not being a 100% ideologically pure candidate is naive to the point of childishness.
I grew up in a heavy migrant worker agricultural town. I've lived next door to illegal aliens most of my life. I do agree with you that the vast majority of illegal aliens come here to work. And they work hard. But an increasingly large number of their children are getting sucked into a destructive welfare lifestyle.
But welfare is more than just AFDC, and their is more government assistance than just welfare. Public school education is one. Before your head explodes, hear me out. I am not saying to deny education to the children of illegal aliens, I am saying that it is a huge cost that must be taken into account.
And please stop playing the race/bigotry card. It's tiresome. A white illegal alien from Canada is just as illegal as a hispanic illegal alien from Mexico. The country of origin has nothing to do with it. If you want to point the racist finger, point it at people on your side who keep bringing up the extremely classist "jobs no one wants" argument.
See my reply to the other post.
Oh I get it, this is debate by quips! Let me provide you with fleshed out explanations.
Abortion: Ron Paul is most definitely pro-life. No question about it. He is against it because he feels that the unborn child is a human being worthy of the same protections as any other. Lest you throw out the old hypocrite canard, he is most definitely against the death penalty as well.
He has made it clear that the abortion is a state matter. So why the vote for partial birth abortion ban at the federal level? Because the current state of affairs HAS made it a federal issue! Ron Paul held his nose while voting for this. Let's say this was assault instead of abortion. Imagine there was a congressional bill banning a particular kind of assault. Would you vote for this bill even though it's properly a state issue? What do you do if you're a strict constitutionalist and fervent anti-assaulter? You hold your nose and vote for it! Just like Ron Paul did with partial birth abortion ban.
Next topic, defense of marriage act: Again, the quick quip rebuttal does no justice to his position. He does not feel that marriage is an institution to propped up and supported by the government. So how does gay marriage fit into this? Because at one level, marriage IS a federal issue. If one state allows homosexual marriages, do other states have to recognize it? That is the question. Ron Paul's answer is no. Individual states can legalize gay marriages all they want, but other states don't have to recognize it. The very link you provide explains this. It also points out that he is dead set against constitutional amendments in this regard.
There is no inconsistancy here. Why does he support the Marriage Protection Act? To "protect each states right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."
There's a quote from Badnarik from the last election. [paraphrase] "Just because we have an open door policy doesn't mean you can sneak in through the bedroom window." In my opinion, we should liberalize immigration. I would allow anyone in who has a job lined up. I'm all in favor of temporary visas for seasonal labor. But they have to come in through the "front door". I'm not quite anarchist enough yet to get rid of borders entirely.
Ron Paul wants to reform immigration, not to eliminate it. Here's part of his platform: "Finally, completely overhaul the legal immigration process. The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods." You claim Dr. Paul is racist, but here he is advocating balanced equitable treatment to all legal immigrants regardless of country of origin. He is the only candidate advocating this.
Another of his reform points: eliminate government assistance magnets for illegals (food stamps, welfare, etc). Did you know that illegal aliens get to attend college at state resident tuition prices, cheaper than out of state native citizens can? Where's the social justice in that? My grandparents were immigrants. America has a great tradition of legal immigration. But that was before we got this strange idea of universal cradle-to-grave welfare. Immigration reform is just one of many of Ron Paul's planks, another is the elimination of the welfare state. The first without the second is pointless.
Ron Paul is in favor of free trade, and labor is just another good to trade. But like trade, immigration needs to be legal and above board. If goods from China must go through customs, then labor from Mexico must go through border checkpoints.
Finally, "Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship."
Except that he gives back part of his congressional budget every year. Neither does he participate in the congressional retirement plan.
Besides, I don't know how much more "no" you can vote than "no". Would you rather have a congressman that voted "yes" on every pay increase?
To deny access due to place of birth is exactly, precisely the same as doing so due to skin color, gender, etc. It's bigotry.
No one is denying anyone access to water fountains based on their country of birth. Sheesh. Anyone who is here legally in this country has equal access to all public water fountains. Mexicans, Canadians, Germans, Chinese, etc.
But why are you focusing on those who break the law and trespass to get to this country? Why aren't you on a tirade to make legal immigration easier? If you want to enter this country legally, it's a fricking nightmare. My friend married a lady from the Phillipines, and it was a nightmare getting her here. Steep fees, bureaucratic mazes, interrogations about their sexual behavior, etc. It was tempted to hire a coyote to bring her in illegally. It would have been cheaper, and she would have had more practical rights. Why should the illegal alien be treated better just because he or she cheated and jumped to the head of the line?
Why should illegal aliens be treated better than legal immigrants? Why must we have no restrictions on the importation of unskilled below-minimum-wage labor, but we start screaming protectionism when some company wants to bring in a skilled H1B developer?
He is in favor of immigration. Legal immigration. In fact he wants to fix legal immigration, to not favor immigrants from one nation over another. But being against illegal immigration is not racist. If white Canadians were illegally crossing the border in equally large numbers, he would still be against it.
You're right. I dislike 90% of Kucinich's positions, so I doubt I could ever vote for him. But as one of only two honest men in congress, he definitely is worth a second look.
Besides, who the fsck knows what Obama stands for? He hasn't said anything of real substance. He's a great big cipher.
Freedom is an absence of restriction. Since the vast majority of legislation is a restriction of one kind or another, the more Ron Paul's "no" votes help your freedom. Freedom is for more than just you and your friends, it's for everyone. So even voting "no" on a restriction against people you don't like helps your freedom.
It's time to stop depending on government to care for our needs, and time we started acting like responsible adults.
Abortion: Not the Federal Government's business
Gay Marriage: Not the Federal Government's business
Sounds right to me.
You are right of course, but fails to note that Democrats are every bit as bad. The 00s finally saw the Republican Party divest itself of the last vestiges of small government rhetoric. But the Democrats never even had that.
What's the difference between the Republicans and Democrats in 2007? Is there any? The Dems currently want to get out of Iraq, but where the fsck where they when we went in? They have no moral opposition to military interventionism, just as the Republicans have demonstrated they have no moral opposition to fiscal irresponsibility.
Does this guy forget that all of the GNU/Linux Kernel base system is written in C?
There is no GNU/Linux kernel, there is only the Linux kernel. I know you're deeply in love with Richard Stallman and want to bear his lovechild, but please make some attempt at accuracy.
True enough, but still no excuse to sue. Take it back for a refund, but don't sue. That's stupid.
This isn't violating your privacy any more than it already is already violated...
Translation: "This isn't raping your rectum any more than it already is already raped."
The problem is that the government shouldn't be tracking me to begin with. There's nothing inherently wrong with this kind of credit card combo, but with government out of control it's as stupid as tattooing a bullseye on your butt in the county jail.
I need decent dual head support for my laptop. Otherwise my external monitor is useless, and I can't use the laptop to make presentations. Standard VESA mode works fine for what I do, but I'm severly limited by the lack of multiple display support.
I'm also concerned that near future Qt/KDE and GTK/GNOME are going to be requiring full XRender and OpenGL support for full functionality.
Ditto. AMD isn't making money off their drivers, they're making money off their hardware. So make the drivers free... as in unrestricted. Keep the licensing baggage out of it. Don't call it "free" and then encumber it with a bunch of strings, conditions, clauses, and hairy lawyers looking for someone to sue.
But honestly, I think most of the people COMING to Linux in the Desktop world could care less about these "ethical" issues.
But not everyone is using Linux. Shocking, but true. As a FreeBSD user, Linux-only proprietary drivers are a major pain in the ass. I'm sure the OpenBSD, NetBSD, OpenSolaris, etc., feel the same way. A video card should NOT dictate what operating system I use. I'm buying a new computer in a couple of months, and if there isn't a decent open source video driver for newer ATI cards, I'm going to be considering Intel instead. This isn't about boycotting AMD, it's about avoiding hardware that doesn't work.
Stop being an idiot. Their work *IS* free for anybody to use, without payment.
...its about the attitude.
And that attitude is "gimme gimme gimme!" Not Theo's attitude, yours.
We don't by insurance. We get a job that buys insurance for us.
For most people, yes you're right.
Imagine if other industries were set up like the US healthcare system. You get a grocery "plan" from your employer. You then wait in line with your grocery card, and when you get to the front, you pay your $1 co-pay. Then you have to talk with the nutritionist, even though all you want is a couple of filet mignons. Why filet mignons? Because they only cost you a buck! But the grocery insurance company is trying to save costs, so you end up with "generic" filet mignons, which look suspiciously like ground round.
Of course, that's the HMO grocery plan. If your company is large enough, you can choose the PPO grocery plan instead. You get a full range of groceries to choose from, and if you have dietary needs, you can be referred to a butcher. You pay 20% of the costs with a $10 deductable. Which would be great except that filet mignons are now $100.