you forgot to mention the conservative supreme court as the democrats fault also. if clinton hadn't nominated the second most conservative member (thomas) we wouldn't have to worry about it. so liberals are actually hurting themselves by voting for another democrat who could have ended up doing the same thing. i used to be a democrat, but i recently decided that the political system is corrupt and the only way to begin dismantling it is support libertarians.
large companies can force states to give them tax credits, lower environmental/health standards, yada. they can give employees holidays and tell them who to vote for. especially with no oversight on campaigning, the top 100 richest people in each state will control who wins the elections by who gets the most tv coverages (most of the time). still though, as long as there is at least one state where abortion is legal, i think it's a better choice. that way i don't have to pay taxes to support old people's health care/retirement.
as long as the economy is strong (even if growth slows, as long as it doesn't stop) i'm happy. i don't care if the president kills every baby he sees, as long as the stock market goes up.
yea this is the main point in the parent post that i didn't understand at all, and i'm surprised your the only one who pointed it out? i know i've heard many conservatives complain about the liberal media, but the only vaguely liberal (closer to moderate really) mainstream media i've ever seen or heard is public radio. local news shows and papers are incredibly conservative on almost every issue. can anybody actually give a convincing argument that 'the press' is liberal?
You mean, corporations want to make legislation that *gasp* prevents competition in their market? Isn't that the goal of business? Can you blame them for wanting to make more money? If you think that's wrong, then why do you go to work? Aren't you just being greedy?
i happen to have only one concern this election, the economy. i don't care about anybody's rights, the environment, any of that bs. therefore i can point out your misstatement about the 'goal of business'. it is not to stifle competition. it is to maximize return. and point of a capitalist economy isn't so that people can set up monopolies. monopolies are not good for the economy. you should try reading up on the bretton-woods economy. this is what the u.s. has been aiming at for the past 50-60 years.
you are at least as ignorant as the most left leaning socialists i have heard.
a time of prosperity is the ideal time to go into debt. debt can be used or managed to encouraged economic growth. when the economy grows, the % of the debt as a part of the economy decreases, making it easier to pay off.
schools have no business wasting taxpayer money on this crap anyhow. schools are there to teach students things they know to get jobs, not to have homecoming crap
mary jan mathteacher couldn't install windows properly either now, could she. in a business environment, most user won't ever install anything. to me the problems linux faces are lack of hardware (and some software)support. i can do everything i do in windows (browse web, play solitaire, mess around with desktop) of course all my actual work is done using exceed and solaris
problem is people get stuck in one of two paradigms: supply side and demand side. demand side was what we had before reagan/carter era tax cuts. lead to high inflation and high unemployment. however as has been pointed out taxes are necessary to maintain the economy. the argument for a flat tax is that somebody working 40 hours a week for $20/hour knows exactly what the benefits of his working overtime are. this encourages him to work harder. the benefits of lower taxes overall are that 1)the private sector is always more efficient/productive than government 2) by infusing the economy with more money (including some that could be called rich) there is more capital available to fund start ups and further innovation, continuing growth. the problem with this argument is something best illustrated by what i call the dotcom fiasco. a large amount of capital was poured into a new 'technology'. all these new dotcoms after the very first wave of true innovators (ie yahoo and amazon, no matter how much you hate their legal policies) contributed absolutely nil to the overall productivity of the economy. when the country is awash in capital, the tendency isn't to encourage innovation by responsible companies that have the best chance to succeed, but to through it at anything that seems new. this is why at this point in time large tax cuts would not help the economy (although i favor a flat tax to eliminate the irs, saving money, and make peoples lives easier). also without an inheritance tax you risk the possibility of the formation of a landed gentry, something that early american politicians feared more than anything else (considering britain's situation..). also while republicans give credit to reagan for the economic growth, the fact is that it's the technology that is the main driving factor, and this technology was created through the military. however defense companies today can't keep up with industry, because of the slowness of government, and lose true(younger) innovators to the telecom industry (the next jack kelbe won't work for a contractor). therefore the government should reduce the national debt (but not eliminate it, considering the rate is only 6.3%), privatize 90% of military operations, reduce times to get security clearance (currently 6 months to 1 year), and massivly re-invest in universities to provide the next big wave of technology (nanotech will revolutionize the commercial technology by 2050). my research actually indicates al gore has a better understanding of supply side economics than bush. remember george senior did not actually go along with the majority of reagan's policies that were aimed at helping the ailing economy, there is no reason to assume that jr will just because he is a republican. of course i'm voting 3rd party anyway, to make sure that there is a voice out there trying to keep republicrats honest
sorry, this isn't funny, as it has already happened. starting with the last wave of violence about a month ago, palestinian and isreali hackers are trying to ddos web sites by sending a large amount of people to websites, on top of actual attacks
my vote for nader is taking away my vote from browne. i never have and probably never will vote for a major party candidate. also poll numbers don't decide the winner, electoral votes do.
why should anybody care if anybody else cares? if i make some stupid circuit in a missle that blows up a bunch of serbs, is anybody gonna care? no. but do i care? yes.
Re:Vote Nader if you want a communist
on
The PS2 Experience
·
· Score: 1
actually it would just force businesses to try to raise the minimum wage. but i agree from you when it comes down to it. i don't believe all this bill of rights and constitution bullshit. all i care about is getting mine. why should i care about people that live 100 years from now? all it would take is one 'anti-environment' president and congress anyway, so why shouldn't we just take advantage of it now? and why should people have 'rights'? if not even have of them voice their opinions, anyway, why should the rest of the country be 'watchdogs' for them?
i don't give a rat's ass about the constitution or the bill of rights. i'm an american citizen and all i care about is how much money i have, so thats how i vote (or don't vote)
ummm why wouldn't they? if its, in there business interests they fucking better imo! companies shouldn't give a shit about anything except the bottom line, and anything they can do to increase it they should.
Slashdot Mirror
the military is the governments largest social program. army administrative pay is probably the biggest waste of taxpayer money their is.
if the pundits are wrong about florida, who says they can't be wrong about bush's 'mandate'
you forgot to mention the conservative supreme court as the democrats fault also. if clinton hadn't nominated the second most conservative member (thomas) we wouldn't have to worry about it. so liberals are actually hurting themselves by voting for another democrat who could have ended up doing the same thing. i used to be a democrat, but i recently decided that the political system is corrupt and the only way to begin dismantling it is support libertarians.
large companies can force states to give them tax credits, lower environmental/health standards, yada. they can give employees holidays and tell them who to vote for. especially with no oversight on campaigning, the top 100 richest people in each state will control who wins the elections by who gets the most tv coverages (most of the time). still though, as long as there is at least one state where abortion is legal, i think it's a better choice. that way i don't have to pay taxes to support old people's health care/retirement.
to make the mccain feingold campaign finance reform bill the first he signs into law
as long as the economy is strong (even if growth slows, as long as it doesn't stop) i'm happy. i don't care if the president kills every baby he sees, as long as the stock market goes up.
yea this is the main point in the parent post that i didn't understand at all, and i'm surprised your the only one who pointed it out? i know i've heard many conservatives complain about the liberal media, but the only vaguely liberal (closer to moderate really) mainstream media i've ever seen or heard is public radio. local news shows and papers are incredibly conservative on almost every issue. can anybody actually give a convincing argument that 'the press' is liberal?
You mean, corporations want to make legislation that *gasp* prevents competition in their market? Isn't that the goal of business? Can you blame them for wanting to make more money? If you think that's wrong, then why do you go to work? Aren't you just being greedy?
i happen to have only one concern this election, the economy. i don't care about anybody's rights, the environment, any of that bs. therefore i can point out your misstatement about the 'goal of business'. it is not to stifle competition. it is to maximize return. and point of a capitalist economy isn't so that people can set up monopolies. monopolies are not good for the economy. you should try reading up on the bretton-woods economy. this is what the u.s. has been aiming at for the past 50-60 years. you are at least as ignorant as the most left leaning socialists i have heard.
after 5 years of no raise though, it doesnt compare to industry, where you get at 10% bonus every year at minimum, and a 10% bonus on average.
people are voting for bush because they think he is honest and has more integrity. why not vote for nader for the same reasons?
a time of prosperity is the ideal time to go into debt. debt can be used or managed to encouraged economic growth. when the economy grows, the % of the debt as a part of the economy decreases, making it easier to pay off.
the form to get clearance only asks about the past 7 years. he has been clean for 14, at least. this is not an endorsement, just the facts
schools have no business wasting taxpayer money on this crap anyhow. schools are there to teach students things they know to get jobs, not to have homecoming crap
we teach them to handle exceed so we can do actual ee work (all on solaris). so why not just use solaris in the first place?
mary jan mathteacher couldn't install windows properly either now, could she. in a business environment, most user won't ever install anything. to me the problems linux faces are lack of hardware (and some software)support. i can do everything i do in windows (browse web, play solitaire, mess around with desktop) of course all my actual work is done using exceed and solaris
in the business environment, most users will not be installing applications, much less the OS. nobody gives a fuck about what os people use at home.
problem is people get stuck in one of two paradigms: supply side and demand side. demand side was what we had before reagan/carter era tax cuts. lead to high inflation and high unemployment. however as has been pointed out taxes are necessary to maintain the economy. the argument for a flat tax is that somebody working 40 hours a week for $20/hour knows exactly what the benefits of his working overtime are. this encourages him to work harder. the benefits of lower taxes overall are that 1)the private sector is always more efficient/productive than government 2) by infusing the economy with more money (including some that could be called rich) there is more capital available to fund start ups and further innovation, continuing growth. the problem with this argument is something best illustrated by what i call the dotcom fiasco. a large amount of capital was poured into a new 'technology'. all these new dotcoms after the very first wave of true innovators (ie yahoo and amazon, no matter how much you hate their legal policies) contributed absolutely nil to the overall productivity of the economy. when the country is awash in capital, the tendency isn't to encourage innovation by responsible companies that have the best chance to succeed, but to through it at anything that seems new. this is why at this point in time large tax cuts would not help the economy (although i favor a flat tax to eliminate the irs, saving money, and make peoples lives easier). also without an inheritance tax you risk the possibility of the formation of a landed gentry, something that early american politicians feared more than anything else (considering britain's situation..). also while republicans give credit to reagan for the economic growth, the fact is that it's the technology that is the main driving factor, and this technology was created through the military. however defense companies today can't keep up with industry, because of the slowness of government, and lose true(younger) innovators to the telecom industry (the next jack kelbe won't work for a contractor). therefore the government should reduce the national debt (but not eliminate it, considering the rate is only 6.3%), privatize 90% of military operations, reduce times to get security clearance (currently 6 months to 1 year), and massivly re-invest in universities to provide the next big wave of technology (nanotech will revolutionize the commercial technology by 2050). my research actually indicates al gore has a better understanding of supply side economics than bush. remember george senior did not actually go along with the majority of reagan's policies that were aimed at helping the ailing economy, there is no reason to assume that jr will just because he is a republican. of course i'm voting 3rd party anyway, to make sure that there is a voice out there trying to keep republicrats honest
sorry, this isn't funny, as it has already happened. starting with the last wave of violence about a month ago, palestinian and isreali hackers are trying to ddos web sites by sending a large amount of people to websites, on top of actual attacks
you also don't see them saying to reduce the military, by streamlining and privatizing, because they are trying too hard to appeal to conservatives.
my vote for nader is taking away my vote from browne. i never have and probably never will vote for a major party candidate. also poll numbers don't decide the winner, electoral votes do.
these people are serious about their pumpkin launching. very serious
why should anybody care if anybody else cares? if i make some stupid circuit in a missle that blows up a bunch of serbs, is anybody gonna care? no. but do i care? yes.
actually it would just force businesses to try to raise the minimum wage. but i agree from you when it comes down to it. i don't believe all this bill of rights and constitution bullshit. all i care about is getting mine. why should i care about people that live 100 years from now? all it would take is one 'anti-environment' president and congress anyway, so why shouldn't we just take advantage of it now? and why should people have 'rights'? if not even have of them voice their opinions, anyway, why should the rest of the country be 'watchdogs' for them?
i don't give a rat's ass about the constitution or the bill of rights. i'm an american citizen and all i care about is how much money i have, so thats how i vote (or don't vote)
ummm why wouldn't they? if its, in there business interests they fucking better imo! companies shouldn't give a shit about anything except the bottom line, and anything they can do to increase it they should.