And right there, that comment fully sums up the stereotype the rest of the world sees about US gun laws/ideals.
And yet for all the gun control in Germany they still have mass casualty school shootings. For all the gun control in Russia they still have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.
Yes. Is so far as all politicians are liars, so they will polarize the issue to present a wedge issue as a wedge, rather than the two indistinguishable shades of grey it usually is.
There are shades of gray with many issues but civil rights are not one of them. "Shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law" are two phrases that don't seem to leave a lot of room for "shades of gray", at least IMHO.
The only two solutions are to have all people running for office be fair and truthful, or for people to stop voting based on wedge issues
What should they vote on then? In the final analysis, under your definition, they are all wedge issues. Any issue that the GOP and Democrats disagree on will be turned into a "wedge" issue. As voters it's our job to look past the lies and look at the policies they really intend to implement and their records.
A third party (meaning 3+, preferably 5 or more) system could help
I question how much it would "help" in the end. Are political campaigns going to become more elevated and truthful if we have three viable political parties instead of two? Doubtful. Various groups may get a better hearing on issues of importance to them under such a system -- the two-party system requires big tents and pushes out a lot of issues that lack a large following (try and suggest legalizing drugs in either party and see how far you get...) -- but I don't think we'd see better campaigns, which seems to be your main complaint.
Oh, never mind. This was all a waste. You are a bald-faced liar
More insults! Yey!
I never said that the world would be "better" with any change
Where did I claim you said it would be "better"? All I said was that you started debates with premises that weren't realistic, such as "If we could get rid of all guns there would be zero gun violence". I never claimed you actually believe that nonsense, only that you used such premises as arguing points. If I was one to throw around insults I could throw 'liar' right back in your face but I'm going to assume that your selective reading and/or dyslexia is at fault and that you have no ill will towards me.
So quit lying and give it up, you liar
I'm not one to give up:)
So that you can defend your narrow vision of the world
Yes, that narrow vision I have of wanting our elected officials to uphold the Constitution and not infringe on our natural rights.
as you will blindly defend it without thought
With regards to guns (the issue that originally started this whole discussion) I've already explained that I used to be on the other side of the fence. I've given that issue (and many others) more thought than you seem willing to give me credit for. You on the other hand don't seem interested in debating any issue and would rather throw around insults and argue over word definitions.
I'm done with it
Then why do you keep coming back for more? If you are that interested in me you should know that I'm already in a committed relationship and have no intentions of cheating on my partner;)
I never stated anything would "solve societal problems."
It should be obvious to even you that I was summarizing your arguing points, namely that "no guns = no gun violence" and your agreement with "no pre-martial sex = no STDs or babies born out of wedlock".
But you obviously think that no guns at all would improve the world, as you wouldn't have made that jump unless you believed it
Actually no, if there were no guns then the weak people like us computer geeks (if I may stereotype for a second) would be dominated by the strong people and our only hope would be
So you bemoan wedge issues (insofar as you hate politicians who campaign on them) but acknowledge that people might have a legitimate reason for voting based on them? Why are we arguing about this? Because it bothers you so much that I don't see myself as a wedge voter? I guess you must like me very much if you've gone to all this trouble to try and change my mind;)
If you had no opinion on the word, then you wouldn't have argued about it for this long
I've just find you amusing in the same manner as the cat that toys with the mouse before delivering the killing blow. You start debates with positions that hold zero relevance in the real world (if we could get rid of all guns and all pre-martial sex we'd solve a lot of societal problems), defend using those positions as a "starting point" even while acknowledging that they hold zero relevance in the real world and argue endlessly over whether or not someone sees themselves as a wedge voter. I still don't know your actual opinions on gun rights and suspect that they probably aren't that interesting anyway.
I know you whine endlessly when I point out that you vote like a wedge voter
I haven't been "whining" at all. I've questioned your assertions and told you not to try and guess as to my emotional (apparently I'm "offended") state. Merely disagreeing with you does not qualify as "whining"
Perhaps you could correct me if I'm wrong
I've corrected you numerous times but you seem to have fairly effective selective reading skills;)
Yet you are unable to define "wedge voter" or "wedge issue"
You seem unwilling to accept the fact that issues that you consider "wedge issues" are issues of importance to other people. It seems to really bother you that some people choose to vote based on abortion, guns. Tell me, what should I be basing my vote on? What do you base your vote on?
I presumed that's because you don't like the word "wedge" and you then asserted that I can't know what you think about a word
I don't have any opinion on the word "wedge" except insofar as I think it's A) A stupid thing to argue about, B) A stupid thing to label people with when they vote based on issues that you rank lower on the scale of importance.
I'm sorry for presuming that you had some intellectual consistency.
You are apparently offended at the word "wedge" and I have yet to figure out why.
Stick to things you know and don't try to guess as to what I'm "offended" by. As I've previously stated I don't happen to think my position of only voting for politicians that follow all parts of the Constitution makes me a "wedge voter". You apparently disagree. Either way, unless you have something new I think we are done here.
That there is one (or more) issue that will keep you from voting for someone, and all that has to be done to prevent you from voting for someone is to bring up that issue?
Forcing kids who have no desire to learn to be in a classroom for most of the day lowers your precious test scores more than any factor.
And creates classroom distractions that prevent those who do want to learn from actually doing so.
While we're at it, I might also bemoan the fact that we can find seemingly endless amounts of money to throw at "special" education but gifted students are left to suffer in boredom "learning" stuff they already know from teachers who couldn't give a damn. Can't we at least devote as many resources to the next generation of leaders, scientists, doctors, etc as we devote to the next generation of burger-flippers and Wal-Mart greeters?
I'm not inclined to blame sports themselves and think we need more of them (what's the American obesity rate again?) but you'll brook no argument from me on the fields of astroturf and stadium lighting. On a recent trip through my old hometown I discovered that my old school found the money to install an olympic sized swimming pool, stadium seating/lighting, astroturf and the best scoreboard/jumbotron I've ever seen outside of a MLB/NFL park. While doing this they closed two affiliated schools 20 miles away and made the students bus to the central one because of a "lack of funds". WTF?
To think that when I went to high school we were stuck without stadium lighting, had to play our football games on real grass/mud and had to actually hang numbers on the scoreboard. How we managed to survive I have no idea but I sure am glad that my kids won't have to suffer like that.
Well, I decided to try and contact them using their website. I e-mailed them and said I was game and got bounced to a government jobs website which happened to be broken and also had none of the jobs for the program listed. After a few more hours of fruitless searching, I gave up. What does it matter how they treat their nerds if the interested ones can't even land face time with someone who knows how to screen them?
That's why they need nerds, to fix their recruitment website;) Too bad it's a chicken and egg problem....
I could go on for pages, but I'll just give one quick example. Promotions in the Army are based mostly on the amount of time you've been in your job. There are also "schools" that are for the most part mandatory to be promoted to the ranks of Sergeant and above. Attending one of these military schools, requires that you leave your unit for about a month. So within my job (74B) it was typical that 75% or more of the soldiers knew absolutely nothing technical. The problem was that there might only be 1 or 2 really savvy people in a unit and they couldn't afford to lose them for any point of time. So a friend of mine who ran the mail server for a large base, wasn't able to go to a military school so he got promoted much later than his non-tech savvy counterparts despite the fact he was a really good soldier as well.
That isn't that uncommon and isn't unique to techs. A family member of ours used to fly F-14s before they retired them. The Navy has (or had) some sort of policy that he needed to leave flight duty and command a different unit before he could advance any further in the ranks. Every time he would try to do this he got recalled to flight duty because of his expertise and a shortage of aviators who were qualified to fly the F-14. Consequently he eventually wound up retiring at a lower rank/paygrade than he should have been able to attain.
Bottom line: If your unit needs your skills for whatever then the military typically regards that as more important than your own career goals. Sucks, but if you were only interested in your own career then I doubt you would have joined the military.
The military these days contracts out EVERYTHING, not just IT stuff. I remember going back to one of my old bases a few years ago and realizing that they didn't even have real MP's at the gates anymore. All the gate security was being contracted out to a private firm. How sad is it when the Army is contracting out one of its most essential functions?
Is that because the Army wants to outsource those functions or because they have to outsource those functions? It occurs to me that Congress rarely wants to provide the military with enough of anything (save expensive weapons systems built in the districts of well connected members), particularly "boots on the ground".
We're not talking food services or vending services here, we're talking BASIC PERIMETER SECURITY.
A buddy of mine who was in the Navy told me once that for all the talk of "I will neither confirm nor deny the existence of nuclear weapons" the easiest way to figure out which bases have nukes is to see if the gate is manned by rent-a-cops or Marines. Mind you, I'm guessing that not every post with real security has nukes, but I pray to god that the ones guarded by rent-a-cops don't......
Hey, don't knock contractors. They helped build the Deathstar, you know.
I wonder if the Empire's military contractors work the same way that ours do? One can only imagine how many toilets you'd need on a battle station the size of the Deathstar and how much that would cost at $50,000/ea;)
That you take some higher moral ground of "it's not a wedge issue because I believe it's a Constitutional requirement" seems to be a statement that you agree it exactly fits the definition of a wedge issue, but that you don't like that terminology.
Whatever. I'm losing interest in splitting hairs with you. If you think that I'm a "wedge voter" because of my unwillingness to vote for someone who refuses to follow the Constitution then I guess I'm a "wedge voter". It's not just guns -- I won't vote for someone that wants to illegally wiretap my phone calls, impose a particular religion on me or restrict my freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. With regards to our current President, he lost my vote over the FISA issue long before I came to realize that his talk about respecting gun rights was as shallow as the rest of his campaign rhetoric.
Then, Abe says "my brother doesn't like guns, but I hunt and keep a few for protection." Bob says, "Yeah, if I could I'd ban them all, but I know Abe likes them." They are both running for city council, which has no Constitutional authority
Why should I vote for Bob in that scenario? In my state a locality has the ability to impose restrictions on firearm rights because we have no state preemption law. You can claim that they have "no constitutional authority" but they still have the ability to infringe on my 2nd amendment rights. I'm hopeful that will change in the future and that the 2nd amendment will be incorporated against the states but until it does I'm not voting for Bob for any office higher than dog catcher.
Gun control, abortion, states rights, affirmative action, health care, and such are issues that one side or the other will pull out in an otherwise close race to polarize the people. They *love* people like you. The non-wedge-voters that vote exactly how they tell you to vote based on released information.
So what your really saying is that issues decide elections? And this is a bad thing because.....?
My purpose of going down this was to talk about how wedge voters polarize the country and help keep us in a 2-party system that's failing
Issues polarize the country. Almost any political stance other than "I think baby murder should be illegal" will split almost any room into at least two camps. Issues aren't what's keep us in a two-party system -- the fact that we've allowed the two parties to rig the rules of the game (gerrymandering and first-past-the-post) are what keeps us in a two party system. I don't see how doing away with so-called "wedge voters" would solve the two party system -- if people aren't basing their vote on issues that are important to them, what are they basing it on?
Just make sure to wave the flag as you vote your single issue
You keep thinking that I have a single issue but I've yet to see any evidence of this. I have a number of issues that can best be summarized by wanting my elected officials to obey the constitution that they swear an oath to uphold. Guns are not and never have been the only deal-breaker for me. Your main complaint seems to be that they are a deal-breaker at all.
Boards of Education are trying to teach how a magic man in the sky created everything. Reap what you sow.
I know it's popular around here to bash the religious right and blame them for the decline in science education but I suspect that the problem is with our system itself and not the influence of religious elements. The influence of religion is troubling but the religious-right has lost more often than they've won (Kitzmiller comes to mind) and I don't think it's fair to place a majority of the blame on them.
Consider the fact that most Americans can't find Afghanistan on the map. Consider the fact that we rank 24th in math. How do you blame either of those on religious influences? Math and geography don't stir up a lot of religious dissent the last time I checked. Bottom line: The whole system sucks and you can't blame it all on the creationists.
As for fixing it, I'm not real hopeful. The Democrats solution will invariably be to throw more money at the problem. Given that we are already spending ~$8,300 per student I'm not real hopeful that more money and bureaucracy will solve anything. The Republican solution of unfunded mandates and punishments for failing to meet those mandates doesn't seem very wise either.
My Libertarian leanings would prefer to see less Governmental influence in education. I do find it interesting that many private schools have an annual tuition that's less than the average amount we are paying per student for public schools and manage to turn out higher test scores and better educated/adjusted students. This suggests to me that there could be a marketplace solution to the problem but I have zero optimism that the entrenched interests will ever allow it to happen on a scale large enough to be meaningful.
In short, we are screwed. The only bright side is we still have the best higher educational system in the world. Perhaps the solution is to add a year onto all college programs to correct all of the mistakes that were made during primary education?;)
Their focus has been on having field agents run investigations, not analysts like myself
I'd be curious to know how (if at all) the FBI's focus has shifted since the new administration came in. I've talked to other people in Federal law enforcement that say the focus shifted too much onto terrorism at the expense of other important missions (counter-intelligence and organized crime to name two). Are you still seeing this or is the new administration seeking a more balanced approach?
You essentially stated that gun control isn't a wedge issue
No, I said I don't consider it a wedge issue.
If it will polarize an election enough to sway voters in numbers greater than the difference, then it is a wedge issue, even if it doesn't sway that many people.
By that definition every single issue that changes votes is a "wedge issue". Why not just get it out of the way and call them all wedge issues? And if not for "wedge" issues what should you decide you vote on? How cool the politicians last name is?
You are claiming that it isn't a wedge issue because you are a free thinker that doesn't get bogged down in such wedge issues, though your vote is pre-determined off a few litmus tests?
My vote is pre-determined based on the willingness of the politician to obey the US Constitution. What you call a wedge issue I call following their oath of office.
And yes, there are deal-breakers for me in the voting booth. There should be for everyone. It's called being principled
So why the hell are you arguing over what is and is not a wedge issue? You obviously consider guns to be a wedge issue. I do not. To each their own.
However, your definition of civil liberties might not match mine.
My definition of civil liberties encompasses the rights enshrined in the Constitution and the natural rights of man. The right to keep and bear arms is one of those. I will not vote for a politician who doesn't uphold that right. If that makes me a wedge voter in your eyes then so be it.
I'm missing something. Cell phones are the biggie. People complain about the contracts required and early termination fees with their $20 phone. But they aren't willing to pay the $200 retail price of that phone
Speak for yourself. When I was with a GSM carrier I paid full retail price for all my phones so I could get unlocked/unbranded ones directly from Motorola and/or Nokia. Do you think that my carrier gave me a discount or let me sign up without a contract because I did this? Pffft, fat chance. Nowadays I don't bother because I'm stuck in CDMA land (Verizon is the only carrier with decent coverage around these parts) and there's no such thing as an unbranded CDMA phone, so why pay full price for one if I'm gonna be locked into a contract anyway?
The carriers claim that the contracts are all about the subsidy but fail to offer an explanation for why the termination fee is the same regardless of whether they subsidize a cheap candy bar phone or a $600 smart phone. They fail to offer an explanation for why they don't offer you a contract-less way to sign up for postpaid service if you are willing to bring your own phone or pay full retail for one.
Fact it, the contracts are a ploy to lock you into their service. They stopped being about subsidies a long time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me
This is the main reason I'm not a card carrying member of the ACLU. Bunch of fucking hypocrites.... American Civil Liberties Union, eh?
And right there, that comment fully sums up the stereotype the rest of the world sees about US gun laws/ideals.
And yet for all the gun control in Germany they still have mass casualty school shootings. For all the gun control in Russia they still have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.
Yes. Is so far as all politicians are liars, so they will polarize the issue to present a wedge issue as a wedge, rather than the two indistinguishable shades of grey it usually is.
There are shades of gray with many issues but civil rights are not one of them. "Shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law" are two phrases that don't seem to leave a lot of room for "shades of gray", at least IMHO.
The only two solutions are to have all people running for office be fair and truthful, or for people to stop voting based on wedge issues
What should they vote on then? In the final analysis, under your definition, they are all wedge issues. Any issue that the GOP and Democrats disagree on will be turned into a "wedge" issue. As voters it's our job to look past the lies and look at the policies they really intend to implement and their records.
A third party (meaning 3+, preferably 5 or more) system could help
I question how much it would "help" in the end. Are political campaigns going to become more elevated and truthful if we have three viable political parties instead of two? Doubtful. Various groups may get a better hearing on issues of importance to them under such a system -- the two-party system requires big tents and pushes out a lot of issues that lack a large following (try and suggest legalizing drugs in either party and see how far you get...) -- but I don't think we'd see better campaigns, which seems to be your main complaint.
Oh, never mind. This was all a waste. You are a bald-faced liar
More insults! Yey!
I never said that the world would be "better" with any change
Where did I claim you said it would be "better"? All I said was that you started debates with premises that weren't realistic, such as "If we could get rid of all guns there would be zero gun violence". I never claimed you actually believe that nonsense, only that you used such premises as arguing points. If I was one to throw around insults I could throw 'liar' right back in your face but I'm going to assume that your selective reading and/or dyslexia is at fault and that you have no ill will towards me.
So quit lying and give it up, you liar
I'm not one to give up :)
So that you can defend your narrow vision of the world
Yes, that narrow vision I have of wanting our elected officials to uphold the Constitution and not infringe on our natural rights.
as you will blindly defend it without thought
With regards to guns (the issue that originally started this whole discussion) I've already explained that I used to be on the other side of the fence. I've given that issue (and many others) more thought than you seem willing to give me credit for. You on the other hand don't seem interested in debating any issue and would rather throw around insults and argue over word definitions.
I'm done with it
Then why do you keep coming back for more? If you are that interested in me you should know that I'm already in a committed relationship and have no intentions of cheating on my partner ;)
I never stated anything would "solve societal problems."
It should be obvious to even you that I was summarizing your arguing points, namely that "no guns = no gun violence" and your agreement with "no pre-martial sex = no STDs or babies born out of wedlock".
But you obviously think that no guns at all would improve the world, as you wouldn't have made that jump unless you believed it
Actually no, if there were no guns then the weak people like us computer geeks (if I may stereotype for a second) would be dominated by the strong people and our only hope would be
So you bemoan wedge issues (insofar as you hate politicians who campaign on them) but acknowledge that people might have a legitimate reason for voting based on them? Why are we arguing about this? Because it bothers you so much that I don't see myself as a wedge voter? I guess you must like me very much if you've gone to all this trouble to try and change my mind ;)
If you had no opinion on the word, then you wouldn't have argued about it for this long
I've just find you amusing in the same manner as the cat that toys with the mouse before delivering the killing blow. You start debates with positions that hold zero relevance in the real world (if we could get rid of all guns and all pre-martial sex we'd solve a lot of societal problems), defend using those positions as a "starting point" even while acknowledging that they hold zero relevance in the real world and argue endlessly over whether or not someone sees themselves as a wedge voter. I still don't know your actual opinions on gun rights and suspect that they probably aren't that interesting anyway.
I know you whine endlessly when I point out that you vote like a wedge voter
I haven't been "whining" at all. I've questioned your assertions and told you not to try and guess as to my emotional (apparently I'm "offended") state. Merely disagreeing with you does not qualify as "whining"
Perhaps you could correct me if I'm wrong
I've corrected you numerous times but you seem to have fairly effective selective reading skills ;)
Yet you are unable to define "wedge voter" or "wedge issue"
You seem unwilling to accept the fact that issues that you consider "wedge issues" are issues of importance to other people. It seems to really bother you that some people choose to vote based on abortion, guns. Tell me, what should I be basing my vote on? What do you base your vote on?
I presumed that's because you don't like the word "wedge" and you then asserted that I can't know what you think about a word
I don't have any opinion on the word "wedge" except insofar as I think it's A) A stupid thing to argue about, B) A stupid thing to label people with when they vote based on issues that you rank lower on the scale of importance.
I'm sorry for presuming that you had some intellectual consistency.
There you go again.
1. Small phyiscal size (I wanna slip it in my pocket).
3. Good telephoto lens.
I think those two are mutually exclusive.
You are apparently offended at the word "wedge" and I have yet to figure out why.
Stick to things you know and don't try to guess as to what I'm "offended" by. As I've previously stated I don't happen to think my position of only voting for politicians that follow all parts of the Constitution makes me a "wedge voter". You apparently disagree. Either way, unless you have something new I think we are done here.
but there's lawyers out there who are right now wondering how to make a class action case out of this.
Fixed that for you ;)
If there is a house using 1000 watts of power at idle time
It's actually not that hard to get there, particularly if you have "luxuries" like a swimming pool or hot tub.
owner should be given to Greenpeace to get executed.
Why, because they aren't living the lifestyle that you approve of? What if they are paying extra for wind power or some such?
Was that through private means of production, or a Government funded organisation?
Both. The Government didn't build spacecraft. It gave a mandate to private industry to do it.
That there is one (or more) issue that will keep you from voting for someone, and all that has to be done to prevent you from voting for someone is to bring up that issue?
And the problem is?
Yes. A few polarizing issues decide elections
So which issues aren't "polarizing"? The ones you care about?
Did you vote for Bush?
What part of "I only vote for politicians that uphold the constitution" is so hard to understand? No, I didn't vote for Bush.
Forcing kids who have no desire to learn to be in a classroom for most of the day lowers your precious test scores more than any factor.
And creates classroom distractions that prevent those who do want to learn from actually doing so.
While we're at it, I might also bemoan the fact that we can find seemingly endless amounts of money to throw at "special" education but gifted students are left to suffer in boredom "learning" stuff they already know from teachers who couldn't give a damn. Can't we at least devote as many resources to the next generation of leaders, scientists, doctors, etc as we devote to the next generation of burger-flippers and Wal-Mart greeters?
I'm not inclined to blame sports themselves and think we need more of them (what's the American obesity rate again?) but you'll brook no argument from me on the fields of astroturf and stadium lighting. On a recent trip through my old hometown I discovered that my old school found the money to install an olympic sized swimming pool, stadium seating/lighting, astroturf and the best scoreboard/jumbotron I've ever seen outside of a MLB/NFL park. While doing this they closed two affiliated schools 20 miles away and made the students bus to the central one because of a "lack of funds". WTF?
To think that when I went to high school we were stuck without stadium lighting, had to play our football games on real grass/mud and had to actually hang numbers on the scoreboard. How we managed to survive I have no idea but I sure am glad that my kids won't have to suffer like that.
Well, I decided to try and contact them using their website. I e-mailed them and said I was game and got bounced to a government jobs website which happened to be broken and also had none of the jobs for the program listed. After a few more hours of fruitless searching, I gave up. What does it matter how they treat their nerds if the interested ones can't even land face time with someone who knows how to screen them?
That's why they need nerds, to fix their recruitment website ;) Too bad it's a chicken and egg problem....
I could go on for pages, but I'll just give one quick example. Promotions in the Army are based mostly on the amount of time you've been in your job. There are also "schools" that are for the most part mandatory to be promoted to the ranks of Sergeant and above. Attending one of these military schools, requires that you leave your unit for about a month. So within my job (74B) it was typical that 75% or more of the soldiers knew absolutely nothing technical. The problem was that there might only be 1 or 2 really savvy people in a unit and they couldn't afford to lose them for any point of time. So a friend of mine who ran the mail server for a large base, wasn't able to go to a military school so he got promoted much later than his non-tech savvy counterparts despite the fact he was a really good soldier as well.
That isn't that uncommon and isn't unique to techs. A family member of ours used to fly F-14s before they retired them. The Navy has (or had) some sort of policy that he needed to leave flight duty and command a different unit before he could advance any further in the ranks. Every time he would try to do this he got recalled to flight duty because of his expertise and a shortage of aviators who were qualified to fly the F-14. Consequently he eventually wound up retiring at a lower rank/paygrade than he should have been able to attain.
Bottom line: If your unit needs your skills for whatever then the military typically regards that as more important than your own career goals. Sucks, but if you were only interested in your own career then I doubt you would have joined the military.
The military these days contracts out EVERYTHING, not just IT stuff. I remember going back to one of my old bases a few years ago and realizing that they didn't even have real MP's at the gates anymore. All the gate security was being contracted out to a private firm. How sad is it when the Army is contracting out one of its most essential functions?
Is that because the Army wants to outsource those functions or because they have to outsource those functions? It occurs to me that Congress rarely wants to provide the military with enough of anything (save expensive weapons systems built in the districts of well connected members), particularly "boots on the ground".
We're not talking food services or vending services here, we're talking BASIC PERIMETER SECURITY.
A buddy of mine who was in the Navy told me once that for all the talk of "I will neither confirm nor deny the existence of nuclear weapons" the easiest way to figure out which bases have nukes is to see if the gate is manned by rent-a-cops or Marines. Mind you, I'm guessing that not every post with real security has nukes, but I pray to god that the ones guarded by rent-a-cops don't......
Hey, don't knock contractors. They helped build the Deathstar, you know.
I wonder if the Empire's military contractors work the same way that ours do? One can only imagine how many toilets you'd need on a battle station the size of the Deathstar and how much that would cost at $50,000/ea ;)
That you take some higher moral ground of "it's not a wedge issue because I believe it's a Constitutional requirement" seems to be a statement that you agree it exactly fits the definition of a wedge issue, but that you don't like that terminology.
Whatever. I'm losing interest in splitting hairs with you. If you think that I'm a "wedge voter" because of my unwillingness to vote for someone who refuses to follow the Constitution then I guess I'm a "wedge voter". It's not just guns -- I won't vote for someone that wants to illegally wiretap my phone calls, impose a particular religion on me or restrict my freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. With regards to our current President, he lost my vote over the FISA issue long before I came to realize that his talk about respecting gun rights was as shallow as the rest of his campaign rhetoric.
Then, Abe says "my brother doesn't like guns, but I hunt and keep a few for protection." Bob says, "Yeah, if I could I'd ban them all, but I know Abe likes them." They are both running for city council, which has no Constitutional authority
Why should I vote for Bob in that scenario? In my state a locality has the ability to impose restrictions on firearm rights because we have no state preemption law. You can claim that they have "no constitutional authority" but they still have the ability to infringe on my 2nd amendment rights. I'm hopeful that will change in the future and that the 2nd amendment will be incorporated against the states but until it does I'm not voting for Bob for any office higher than dog catcher.
Gun control, abortion, states rights, affirmative action, health care, and such are issues that one side or the other will pull out in an otherwise close race to polarize the people. They *love* people like you. The non-wedge-voters that vote exactly how they tell you to vote based on released information.
So what your really saying is that issues decide elections? And this is a bad thing because.....?
My purpose of going down this was to talk about how wedge voters polarize the country and help keep us in a 2-party system that's failing
Issues polarize the country. Almost any political stance other than "I think baby murder should be illegal" will split almost any room into at least two camps. Issues aren't what's keep us in a two-party system -- the fact that we've allowed the two parties to rig the rules of the game (gerrymandering and first-past-the-post) are what keeps us in a two party system. I don't see how doing away with so-called "wedge voters" would solve the two party system -- if people aren't basing their vote on issues that are important to them, what are they basing it on?
Just make sure to wave the flag as you vote your single issue
You keep thinking that I have a single issue but I've yet to see any evidence of this. I have a number of issues that can best be summarized by wanting my elected officials to obey the constitution that they swear an oath to uphold. Guns are not and never have been the only deal-breaker for me. Your main complaint seems to be that they are a deal-breaker at all.
Boards of Education are trying to teach how a magic man in the sky created everything. Reap what you sow.
I know it's popular around here to bash the religious right and blame them for the decline in science education but I suspect that the problem is with our system itself and not the influence of religious elements. The influence of religion is troubling but the religious-right has lost more often than they've won (Kitzmiller comes to mind) and I don't think it's fair to place a majority of the blame on them.
Consider the fact that most Americans can't find Afghanistan on the map. Consider the fact that we rank 24th in math. How do you blame either of those on religious influences? Math and geography don't stir up a lot of religious dissent the last time I checked. Bottom line: The whole system sucks and you can't blame it all on the creationists.
As for fixing it, I'm not real hopeful. The Democrats solution will invariably be to throw more money at the problem. Given that we are already spending ~$8,300 per student I'm not real hopeful that more money and bureaucracy will solve anything. The Republican solution of unfunded mandates and punishments for failing to meet those mandates doesn't seem very wise either.
My Libertarian leanings would prefer to see less Governmental influence in education. I do find it interesting that many private schools have an annual tuition that's less than the average amount we are paying per student for public schools and manage to turn out higher test scores and better educated/adjusted students. This suggests to me that there could be a marketplace solution to the problem but I have zero optimism that the entrenched interests will ever allow it to happen on a scale large enough to be meaningful.
In short, we are screwed. The only bright side is we still have the best higher educational system in the world. Perhaps the solution is to add a year onto all college programs to correct all of the mistakes that were made during primary education? ;)
Their focus has been on having field agents run investigations, not analysts like myself
I'd be curious to know how (if at all) the FBI's focus has shifted since the new administration came in. I've talked to other people in Federal law enforcement that say the focus shifted too much onto terrorism at the expense of other important missions (counter-intelligence and organized crime to name two). Are you still seeing this or is the new administration seeking a more balanced approach?
You essentially stated that gun control isn't a wedge issue
No, I said I don't consider it a wedge issue.
If it will polarize an election enough to sway voters in numbers greater than the difference, then it is a wedge issue, even if it doesn't sway that many people.
By that definition every single issue that changes votes is a "wedge issue". Why not just get it out of the way and call them all wedge issues? And if not for "wedge" issues what should you decide you vote on? How cool the politicians last name is?
You are claiming that it isn't a wedge issue because you are a free thinker that doesn't get bogged down in such wedge issues, though your vote is pre-determined off a few litmus tests?
My vote is pre-determined based on the willingness of the politician to obey the US Constitution. What you call a wedge issue I call following their oath of office.
And yes, there are deal-breakers for me in the voting booth. There should be for everyone. It's called being principled
So why the hell are you arguing over what is and is not a wedge issue? You obviously consider guns to be a wedge issue. I do not. To each their own.
However, your definition of civil liberties might not match mine.
My definition of civil liberties encompasses the rights enshrined in the Constitution and the natural rights of man. The right to keep and bear arms is one of those. I will not vote for a politician who doesn't uphold that right. If that makes me a wedge voter in your eyes then so be it.
FWIW, Sprint has, on numerous occasions, allowed me to move my service onto a used phone (ebay/craigslist) without signing a new contract.
So what? Any of them will let you do that. Will Sprint let you sign up as a new customer with a cragslist phone and not sign a contract?
Fact it, the contracts are a ploy to lock you into their service
Face it! Blah! All my typos I should be a /. editor or something.... ;)
I'm missing something. Cell phones are the biggie. People complain about the contracts required and early termination fees with their $20 phone. But they aren't willing to pay the $200 retail price of that phone
Speak for yourself. When I was with a GSM carrier I paid full retail price for all my phones so I could get unlocked/unbranded ones directly from Motorola and/or Nokia. Do you think that my carrier gave me a discount or let me sign up without a contract because I did this? Pffft, fat chance. Nowadays I don't bother because I'm stuck in CDMA land (Verizon is the only carrier with decent coverage around these parts) and there's no such thing as an unbranded CDMA phone, so why pay full price for one if I'm gonna be locked into a contract anyway?
The carriers claim that the contracts are all about the subsidy but fail to offer an explanation for why the termination fee is the same regardless of whether they subsidize a cheap candy bar phone or a $600 smart phone. They fail to offer an explanation for why they don't offer you a contract-less way to sign up for postpaid service if you are willing to bring your own phone or pay full retail for one.
Fact it, the contracts are a ploy to lock you into their service. They stopped being about subsidies a long time ago.