So set it up so it doesn't fall. Oh, and a college student with that little money probably shouldn't be buying games at all to begin with. So if its "game or eat," give up gaming.
No there's a legal right to get a refund for the unused portion of the subscription.
Please cite the law that makes you think so, because I dont' think this is true.
Even if it is, you can buy a new xbox and use it with your subscription you just can't used a hacked one. Hacking one isn't illegal, but its against the service agreement you made with ms.
Well if you're the only one watching it and don't mind squinting, that's fine. But I'd like to be able to see all the detail, while watching TV with my family.
You're comparing LOADING Outlook with SENDING an email on a web page? Sorry, loading outlook is a one time thing (which is a few seconds anyway). After hitting send, outlook sends pretty much instantly.
The OP is clearlying talking about response time, whenever you click New Email or Send email, how long does the browser take to get back to you. Outlook if much faster opening a new window than a webserver is serving content.
Oh, and as far as you not trying to convert me, your stupid beliefs affect my life. Why is it I can't pick up a bottle of wine Sunday @ 8AM when I'm doing my other errands? Because Sunday is supposed to a holy day, and Christains are all well and fine leaving laws alone because their beliefs tell them its wrong. Why is it Christains oppose gay marriage? There's no logical reason to do so... its because their beliefs tell them is wrong. And then there's abortion. So plesae, spare me your "I'm not trying to force my beliefs onto anyone," because Christains by and large are, and its only that they are the majority that they get away with it.
Are you trolling, or do you have reading comprehension problems? Where did you get the idea that I didn't want anyone else to comment on my post? Read the thread, there's a "parent" link, you know.
I got the idea you didn't want anyone else to comment on PART of your post when you said my comments regarding god were offtopic.
I'm claiming that YOU'RE a bigot, and your bigotry is evidenced by your statement that anyone not an athiest is stupid. It's no different than saying all blacks are stupid, or all gays are stupid. I will say that YOU'RE stupid, unlike most athiests I know. Like most non-athiests, most athiests aren't fanatics although some are. Your fanaticism is quite obvious.
You're right, I'm not tolerent of people claiming to be smart when they believe some stupid 2,000 year old mythology. Logic and reason DO NOT MIX with Christianity, Judiism, or Islam, or a host of other beliefs. Sorry if you think that makes me a bigot, but no amount of rationalizing on your part will get you out of the mess you're in.
The FSM was a contemporary parody of religion and is easily verified. If you don't see the difference, you're a candidate for a shrink, and for many other reasons your posts show as well.
Yes, and the whole idea of the FSM was to illustrate the point I'm making; the ONLY reason Christians are not lucked up as insane is because there are alot of them. That's it. It doesn't give ANY validity what-so-ever to the beliefs themselves, and your Christain beliefs are no more valid or real than a Scientologist, or someone that would believe in a FSM. I'm sorry that you totally missed the point of the parody, but that's a reflection on you, not me.
I don't go around trying to convert people, but when my beliefs are attacked I WILL defend them. Even against bigoted fanatics such as yourself.
Yes, you defend your delusion the same way other mental patients defend them. That doesn't mean you're not delusuional. You've done nothing BTW to defend your beliefs, you keep yelling BIGOT BIGOT and an attempt to shut me up. Common tactic for those without a point, found a negative label and apply it over and over to demonize your opponent instead of coming up with an actual argument.
Of course, its hard to argue that god exists where there's no proof whatsoever, so I guess that really only leaves you with one option.
Interesting timeline, though not sure I agree with all your conclusions. I think MS won earlier than you indicate though. From my point of view it's amusing because I stuck with NN4 until FF1 came out (whatever it was called back then). And I stayed with FF until IE7, when I started givne it a shot. IE8 sold me, and I've switched from FF to IE8. So I wouldn't say its a halfhearted attempt, they have made a TON of progress between 6 and 8.
I wouldn't bother with a site that 1) was that juvenial and 2) annoyed me because I'd rather usse IE8 over FF. I really don't care what web developers need ot do.
So your asserting they can't speed up IE in other ways, and the only way to do so is using D2D? I don't see why they can't both speed up say Javascript or the layout enginer while simultanously using D2D to speed rendering to the screen.
That they want to make the browser faster, and can do so using D2D over GDI? It seems pretty common to me for a Vista / 7 desktop to have better "gaming graphics" processing than "desktop," if you go by the Windows experience index, or whatever its called.
I'll go one further for you and mention that Police are not legally responsible for stopping crime. So they don't stop a theft. However, they do catch the person (ok, obviously not all the time) and put them in jail so that they don't steal something else, which limits the number of thefts. Sure, the vast majority of of people are not going to be breaking in. But if there was nothing stopping someone from breaking in then those select few could break into every house in the neighborhood in a relatively short period of time. Wait. So there is a big difference between "never needing them" and "useless"? Isn't needing something that is useless an oxymoron? Your problem is that you're thinking like everything would stay exactly the same without some sort of policing presence.
Yup, which is exactly why they are useless. Why are they spending most of their time driving around if they're not even legally responsible for stopping crime? Wouldn't it make sense to drop that part of the force then? They also fail miserably at what you claim they ARE supposed to be doing. No one caught the vandles, nor the burglers, nor the attacker. They even said that they wren't going to be doing anything to catch them. There's no oxymoron either; they're not SUPPOSED to be useless... but they end up that way. I grew up in areas where there are effectively no police presense, and everything WAS the same.
I can't really argue with people having the right to reproduce, but this isn't a realistic solution. You could never restrict peoples' right to reproduce without causing a riot. Then again, what right does a person have to live if they can't afford to eat?
Right, and there's the problem. Their right to reproduce SHOULD NOT AFFECT MY TAXES, that is, my right to keep my property. See the problem? If someone can't afford to eat, and no one chooses to give that person food, I don't see how they'd have a right to it.
A HS diploma could be worthless in terms of competing for a job, sure. But allowing everyone to go to high school isn't. Plus, on a national scale an educated workforce is a large bonus. Remove education for anyone but the rich and see how many drooling retards you will suddenly have to deal with.
I didn't say people shouldn't be allowed to go to school; I said their parents should pay for it. Why do you assume that if there were no public school, that only "rich" people would be able to afford it? I wasn't rich, nor were my parents, yet we were able to afford college (with borrowing of course). But please, tell we why you think middle class people wouldn't be able to afford school if schools were not public?
No, it's not your fault that people are poor. It's their parents. And the parents before, and the parents before them. It's not your fault that someone is given a crappy lot in life with little chance to succeed.
Yup, life sucks, and its not fair.
People should know how to defend themselves? How, exactly? Should everyone be packing guns? Because a self-defense class isn't going to help my wife stand up to a 230lb guy.
Funny, because my 115lbs trainer learned how to take down a 230lbs guy with a self-defense class. And yes, a gun would help too.
Glad to hear that you only have ONE small house and ONE car. Same with me. In fact, I probably also pay a larger percent in taxes than you do since I don't live in the US; but lets just assume it's roughly equal.
You think the middle class is being squeezed out by the poor?
That, and the other wasteful crap our government is spending our tax money on.
First, people on welfare don't make a lot of money. I'm actually ok with this because there just isn't a better system (or at least no one has come up with one). If you give too much welfare people will STOP WORKING. But if you give too little there's no point to giving any at all because they will just starve to death anyway.
Ya, and that's what alot here have done... stopped working. They
The corporate state? Really, you don't think we're heading there?
How about you stop worrying about a single word in my post, and address the actual points I made. You know, how just because a majority think somethings ok, that doesn't actually make it ok?
If you didn't want anyone else to comment on your post, then post it where only he is likely to see it, instead of making it part of a reply on an entirely different subject.
So you marked an authiest as a friend so you can claim you're not a bigot? I have a black friend, so shall I run around saying I'm not racist?
Its interesting when people throw around labels like bigot, when they're the majority, then turn around and mock other belefs, such as Scientology.
If you believed in the FSM, truthfully, you'd be committed to a mental hospital. I fail to see any difference between that and your beliefs, except that a larger group of people share your delusion than those that believe in the FSM.
Most of my schooling was private and no, not some spoiled rich kid either, my parents are both blue collar that sacrficed for me, and there were no vouchers at the time. Just because the system wsa broken then (and, BTW, I had no choice as to what school I was going to), doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it now.
You assume that without public school we'd not be able to educate our children. I believe that to be false. Eliminate public school, and private schools will open to meet the need.
Of course, this also raises the question... if you can't provide for your children, why are you allowed to have children in the first place?
If you never needed the police it means that they're doing their job. Do you really think that you could protect your house from being broken into when you're at work? The job of police has pretty much been a requirement for a stable society in all recorded history (such as Lords who are given a portion of the farmers yield in return for protection from bandits).
Yes, because the vast majority of people AREN'T going to be breaking in. Most people are honest. And I never said I never needed them, I said they were useless. Big difference. They didn't stop vandelism in the neighborhood. They didn't stop theft. They didn't stop an assult in a park nearby. And what do they say when they get a report? "Sorry, there's not much we cna do." But they can pull you over for speeding.
Like you say, you don't care if children are able to go to school or not. Even though the result of this is that a good number of children will not be able to obtain enough education to do any but the more basic of jobs. Of course, a lower education in the general population is going to result in less disposable income, which of course means less people buying whatever product your company is selling. But who cares about that because it will take years for that effect to be felt fully.
So let the parents pay for eduction. The problem now is that since almost everyone has a HS diploma, its worthless. The same is rapidly becoming true for college degrees. Of course, I really have to question, what right does anyone have to reproduce when they can't take care of their child properly? Seriously, if parents can't afford it, why are they allowed to have kids in the first place? I dont' think they are.
You probably feel that you aren't greedy; that you earned your money fair and square and that you are fully entitled to all of it. After all, it's not your fault that people are born poor or sick. It doesn't matter to you if some girl is raped, beaten, and murdered because it's not you and obviously they deserved it. It's much more important for you to be able to buy that 3rd car and 5th big screen TV. It is, after all, all about you. That Reminds me of something.
Its not my fault people are born poor; its their parents fault. Notice though I didn't say get rid of all of government, just the useless parts (which are quite a bit). People should know how to defend themselves, not be relying on a 3rd party THAT WON'T BE ABLE TO PREVENT IT ANYWAY. Just so you know, I'm not rich, I have ONE car, ONE small house, and because a third of may pay is taken to pay for drooling retards that would rather sit on their ass and collect welfare, MY LIFE IS MORE DIFFICULT. I know it may be hard for you to believe, but normal people that are making ends meet now are quickly being squeezed out by people like you, that think others are entitled to benifit from MY WORK.
Oh, and you're not a physcologist, so please go fuck yourself. At the end of the day, everyone acts in their own self-interest. People work to make themselves happy, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody would give to charity if it caused them some kind of physical pain. In other words, everyone's actions are inhertently selfish.
Its interesting to note that you assume I wouldn't help someone else too, if given the choice. perhaps you fail to realize that's the issue here; I don't have a choice, I'm being literally robbed at gun point.
I think the part that bothers me most about this is that people who want to remove government services really haven't thought about the long term effects. How hard is it to really see beyond the very first step? Is it really that hard to see that education helps to improve the economy? Is it that hard to see that the existence of a police force helps provide a stable society?
It really bothers me that people like you can't see the long term benefits less government would make. I'd have more money, as would you, which means everyone has more disposable income, leading to a s
Sure it is. There was a time when a majority thought it was ok to own other people. There was a time when a majority thought it was ok to throw jews into ovens. Its currently a time where people think they should be able to limit a man marrying another man.
People say "oh well the majority won the presidency." Ya, that's true, but in this case 49% of the people are not happy about it. But they're a minority so its ok right?
Majority rule is nothing but formalized mob rule. Call it whatever you want, but its an awful thing to have.
Which is why there's a bare minimum of things government should be doing at all, and the rest it should not being doing.
The strawmen that others have thrown up are just that; things like the FDA and FCC and SEC take up an INCREDIABLY TINY part of the budget, and there's a lot of good to be done there. But a standing army has been nothing but a drain and ripe for abuse (why keep an army around if you're not going to use it?) We don't need the military as it is today; we can cut most of it and still defend ourselves. What we wouldn't be able to is invade other countries at a whim.
As far as police go, they are totally useless. They haven't stopped crime, and when you report one, "oh, well there's not much they can do." You know what they can do? Ticket you for speeding. So ya, fuck them.
The rest of the nonsense, like healthcare for all, is just that. Nonsense. I don't way to pay because some fatass can't be bothered to eat healthy and exercise. On the flip side, I WANT to be able to enjoy McDonalds occasionally when I choose to do so. Its called freedom, and when you start talking about public healthcare, you're starting down a road where I have to bail someone else out of their poor choices, while at the smae time taking choses away from me.
So yes, lets get rid of most of it, give freedom back to people, but also make sure they suffer the consquences of their own bad choices. More government is not the answer, less is.
You forget that the reason we don't have direct democracy is exactly to prevent the will of the majority from stepping on me at every turn. Of course, your own words show you whats wrong with your line of thinking:
"You are part of society, of the public, the world, the nation, state, county, city, town, etc. and you will play by the rules of society or you will suffer the consequences."
No, not facist at all, is it? I think you fail on how limited governments role in the US is supposed to be.
Slashdot Mirror
So set it up so it doesn't fall. Oh, and a college student with that little money probably shouldn't be buying games at all to begin with. So if its "game or eat," give up gaming.
Uh, yes, they should be able to. They said "if you install this on a modded console, this is what will happen." And you installed it.
Who are you to force a third party to do anything they don't want to?
No there's a legal right to get a refund for the unused portion of the subscription.
Please cite the law that makes you think so, because I dont' think this is true.
Even if it is, you can buy a new xbox and use it with your subscription you just can't used a hacked one. Hacking one isn't illegal, but its against the service agreement you made with ms.
Doesn't IE8 have all that built in now (F12 key)?
Well if you're the only one watching it and don't mind squinting, that's fine. But I'd like to be able to see all the detail, while watching TV with my family.
Um, I thought the courts already ruled that to be unconstitutional.
That would be illegal, as its interfering with interstate commerce. They can't stop you from importing goods into your home state.
You're comparing LOADING Outlook with SENDING an email on a web page? Sorry, loading outlook is a one time thing (which is a few seconds anyway). After hitting send, outlook sends pretty much instantly.
The OP is clearlying talking about response time, whenever you click New Email or Send email, how long does the browser take to get back to you. Outlook if much faster opening a new window than a webserver is serving content.
Oh, and as far as you not trying to convert me, your stupid beliefs affect my life. Why is it I can't pick up a bottle of wine Sunday @ 8AM when I'm doing my other errands? Because Sunday is supposed to a holy day, and Christains are all well and fine leaving laws alone because their beliefs tell them its wrong. Why is it Christains oppose gay marriage? There's no logical reason to do so... its because their beliefs tell them is wrong. And then there's abortion. So plesae, spare me your "I'm not trying to force my beliefs onto anyone," because Christains by and large are, and its only that they are the majority that they get away with it.
Are you trolling, or do you have reading comprehension problems? Where did you get the idea that I didn't want anyone else to comment on my post? Read the thread, there's a "parent" link, you know.
I got the idea you didn't want anyone else to comment on PART of your post when you said my comments regarding god were offtopic.
I'm claiming that YOU'RE a bigot, and your bigotry is evidenced by your statement that anyone not an athiest is stupid. It's no different than saying all blacks are stupid, or all gays are stupid. I will say that YOU'RE stupid, unlike most athiests I know. Like most non-athiests, most athiests aren't fanatics although some are. Your fanaticism is quite obvious.
You're right, I'm not tolerent of people claiming to be smart when they believe some stupid 2,000 year old mythology. Logic and reason DO NOT MIX with Christianity, Judiism, or Islam, or a host of other beliefs. Sorry if you think that makes me a bigot, but no amount of rationalizing on your part will get you out of the mess you're in.
The FSM was a contemporary parody of religion and is easily verified. If you don't see the difference, you're a candidate for a shrink, and for many other reasons your posts show as well.
Yes, and the whole idea of the FSM was to illustrate the point I'm making; the ONLY reason Christians are not lucked up as insane is because there are alot of them. That's it. It doesn't give ANY validity what-so-ever to the beliefs themselves, and your Christain beliefs are no more valid or real than a Scientologist, or someone that would believe in a FSM. I'm sorry that you totally missed the point of the parody, but that's a reflection on you, not me.
I don't go around trying to convert people, but when my beliefs are attacked I WILL defend them. Even against bigoted fanatics such as yourself.
Yes, you defend your delusion the same way other mental patients defend them. That doesn't mean you're not delusuional. You've done nothing BTW to defend your beliefs, you keep yelling BIGOT BIGOT and an attempt to shut me up. Common tactic for those without a point, found a negative label and apply it over and over to demonize your opponent instead of coming up with an actual argument.
Of course, its hard to argue that god exists where there's no proof whatsoever, so I guess that really only leaves you with one option.
Interesting timeline, though not sure I agree with all your conclusions. I think MS won earlier than you indicate though. From my point of view it's amusing because I stuck with NN4 until FF1 came out (whatever it was called back then). And I stayed with FF until IE7, when I started givne it a shot. IE8 sold me, and I've switched from FF to IE8. So I wouldn't say its a halfhearted attempt, they have made a TON of progress between 6 and 8.
I wouldn't bother with a site that 1) was that juvenial and 2) annoyed me because I'd rather usse IE8 over FF. I really don't care what web developers need ot do.
So your asserting they can't speed up IE in other ways, and the only way to do so is using D2D? I don't see why they can't both speed up say Javascript or the layout enginer while simultanously using D2D to speed rendering to the screen.
That they want to make the browser faster, and can do so using D2D over GDI? It seems pretty common to me for a Vista / 7 desktop to have better "gaming graphics" processing than "desktop," if you go by the Windows experience index, or whatever its called.
it may cover more people, but its slower. AT&T seems faster here near Canada even though we don't have "3G."
I'll go one further for you and mention that Police are not legally responsible for stopping crime. So they don't stop a theft. However, they do catch the person (ok, obviously not all the time) and put them in jail so that they don't steal something else, which limits the number of thefts. Sure, the vast majority of of people are not going to be breaking in. But if there was nothing stopping someone from breaking in then those select few could break into every house in the neighborhood in a relatively short period of time. Wait. So there is a big difference between "never needing them" and "useless"? Isn't needing something that is useless an oxymoron? Your problem is that you're thinking like everything would stay exactly the same without some sort of policing presence.
Yup, which is exactly why they are useless. Why are they spending most of their time driving around if they're not even legally responsible for stopping crime? Wouldn't it make sense to drop that part of the force then? They also fail miserably at what you claim they ARE supposed to be doing. No one caught the vandles, nor the burglers, nor the attacker. They even said that they wren't going to be doing anything to catch them. There's no oxymoron either; they're not SUPPOSED to be useless... but they end up that way. I grew up in areas where there are effectively no police presense, and everything WAS the same.
I can't really argue with people having the right to reproduce, but this isn't a realistic solution. You could never restrict peoples' right to reproduce without causing a riot. Then again, what right does a person have to live if they can't afford to eat?
Right, and there's the problem. Their right to reproduce SHOULD NOT AFFECT MY TAXES, that is, my right to keep my property. See the problem? If someone can't afford to eat, and no one chooses to give that person food, I don't see how they'd have a right to it.
A HS diploma could be worthless in terms of competing for a job, sure. But allowing everyone to go to high school isn't. Plus, on a national scale an educated workforce is a large bonus. Remove education for anyone but the rich and see how many drooling retards you will suddenly have to deal with.
I didn't say people shouldn't be allowed to go to school; I said their parents should pay for it. Why do you assume that if there were no public school, that only "rich" people would be able to afford it? I wasn't rich, nor were my parents, yet we were able to afford college (with borrowing of course). But please, tell we why you think middle class people wouldn't be able to afford school if schools were not public?
No, it's not your fault that people are poor. It's their parents. And the parents before, and the parents before them. It's not your fault that someone is given a crappy lot in life with little chance to succeed.
Yup, life sucks, and its not fair.
People should know how to defend themselves? How, exactly? Should everyone be packing guns? Because a self-defense class isn't going to help my wife stand up to a 230lb guy.
Funny, because my 115lbs trainer learned how to take down a 230lbs guy with a self-defense class. And yes, a gun would help too.
Glad to hear that you only have ONE small house and ONE car. Same with me. In fact, I probably also pay a larger percent in taxes than you do since I don't live in the US; but lets just assume it's roughly equal.
You think the middle class is being squeezed out by the poor?
That, and the other wasteful crap our government is spending our tax money on.
First, people on welfare don't make a lot of money. I'm actually ok with this because there just isn't a better system (or at least no one has come up with one). If you give too much welfare people will STOP WORKING. But if you give too little there's no point to giving any at all because they will just starve to death anyway.
Ya, and that's what alot here have done... stopped working. They
The corporate state? Really, you don't think we're heading there?
How about you stop worrying about a single word in my post, and address the actual points I made. You know, how just because a majority think somethings ok, that doesn't actually make it ok?
If you didn't want anyone else to comment on your post, then post it where only he is likely to see it, instead of making it part of a reply on an entirely different subject.
So you marked an authiest as a friend so you can claim you're not a bigot? I have a black friend, so shall I run around saying I'm not racist?
Its interesting when people throw around labels like bigot, when they're the majority, then turn around and mock other belefs, such as Scientology.
If you believed in the FSM, truthfully, you'd be committed to a mental hospital. I fail to see any difference between that and your beliefs, except that a larger group of people share your delusion than those that believe in the FSM.
Most of my schooling was private and no, not some spoiled rich kid either, my parents are both blue collar that sacrficed for me, and there were no vouchers at the time. Just because the system wsa broken then (and, BTW, I had no choice as to what school I was going to), doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it now.
You assume that without public school we'd not be able to educate our children. I believe that to be false. Eliminate public school, and private schools will open to meet the need.
Of course, this also raises the question... if you can't provide for your children, why are you allowed to have children in the first place?
If you never needed the police it means that they're doing their job. Do you really think that you could protect your house from being broken into when you're at work? The job of police has pretty much been a requirement for a stable society in all recorded history (such as Lords who are given a portion of the farmers yield in return for protection from bandits).
Yes, because the vast majority of people AREN'T going to be breaking in. Most people are honest. And I never said I never needed them, I said they were useless. Big difference. They didn't stop vandelism in the neighborhood. They didn't stop theft. They didn't stop an assult in a park nearby. And what do they say when they get a report? "Sorry, there's not much we cna do." But they can pull you over for speeding.
Like you say, you don't care if children are able to go to school or not. Even though the result of this is that a good number of children will not be able to obtain enough education to do any but the more basic of jobs. Of course, a lower education in the general population is going to result in less disposable income, which of course means less people buying whatever product your company is selling. But who cares about that because it will take years for that effect to be felt fully.
So let the parents pay for eduction. The problem now is that since almost everyone has a HS diploma, its worthless. The same is rapidly becoming true for college degrees. Of course, I really have to question, what right does anyone have to reproduce when they can't take care of their child properly? Seriously, if parents can't afford it, why are they allowed to have kids in the first place? I dont' think they are.
You probably feel that you aren't greedy; that you earned your money fair and square and that you are fully entitled to all of it. After all, it's not your fault that people are born poor or sick. It doesn't matter to you if some girl is raped, beaten, and murdered because it's not you and obviously they deserved it. It's much more important for you to be able to buy that 3rd car and 5th big screen TV. It is, after all, all about you. That Reminds me of something.
Its not my fault people are born poor; its their parents fault. Notice though I didn't say get rid of all of government, just the useless parts (which are quite a bit). People should know how to defend themselves, not be relying on a 3rd party THAT WON'T BE ABLE TO PREVENT IT ANYWAY. Just so you know, I'm not rich, I have ONE car, ONE small house, and because a third of may pay is taken to pay for drooling retards that would rather sit on their ass and collect welfare, MY LIFE IS MORE DIFFICULT. I know it may be hard for you to believe, but normal people that are making ends meet now are quickly being squeezed out by people like you, that think others are entitled to benifit from MY WORK.
Oh, and you're not a physcologist, so please go fuck yourself. At the end of the day, everyone acts in their own self-interest. People work to make themselves happy, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody would give to charity if it caused them some kind of physical pain. In other words, everyone's actions are inhertently selfish.
Its interesting to note that you assume I wouldn't help someone else too, if given the choice. perhaps you fail to realize that's the issue here; I don't have a choice, I'm being literally robbed at gun point.
I think the part that bothers me most about this is that people who want to remove government services really haven't thought about the long term effects. How hard is it to really see beyond the very first step? Is it really that hard to see that education helps to improve the economy? Is it that hard to see that the existence of a police force helps provide a stable society?
It really bothers me that people like you can't see the long term benefits less government would make. I'd have more money, as would you, which means everyone has more disposable income, leading to a s
Sure it is. There was a time when a majority thought it was ok to own other people. There was a time when a majority thought it was ok to throw jews into ovens. Its currently a time where people think they should be able to limit a man marrying another man.
People say "oh well the majority won the presidency." Ya, that's true, but in this case 49% of the people are not happy about it. But they're a minority so its ok right?
Majority rule is nothing but formalized mob rule. Call it whatever you want, but its an awful thing to have.
Which is why there's a bare minimum of things government should be doing at all, and the rest it should not being doing.
The strawmen that others have thrown up are just that; things like the FDA and FCC and SEC take up an INCREDIABLY TINY part of the budget, and there's a lot of good to be done there. But a standing army has been nothing but a drain and ripe for abuse (why keep an army around if you're not going to use it?) We don't need the military as it is today; we can cut most of it and still defend ourselves. What we wouldn't be able to is invade other countries at a whim.
As far as police go, they are totally useless. They haven't stopped crime, and when you report one, "oh, well there's not much they can do." You know what they can do? Ticket you for speeding. So ya, fuck them.
The rest of the nonsense, like healthcare for all, is just that. Nonsense. I don't way to pay because some fatass can't be bothered to eat healthy and exercise. On the flip side, I WANT to be able to enjoy McDonalds occasionally when I choose to do so. Its called freedom, and when you start talking about public healthcare, you're starting down a road where I have to bail someone else out of their poor choices, while at the smae time taking choses away from me.
So yes, lets get rid of most of it, give freedom back to people, but also make sure they suffer the consquences of their own bad choices. More government is not the answer, less is.
Yes, and if you eliminate your sales tax, that means you'll automatically have to eliminate your use tax, which was my point.
Ya right, since when does the average slashdotter care about personal apperence?
You forget that the reason we don't have direct democracy is exactly to prevent the will of the majority from stepping on me at every turn. Of course, your own words show you whats wrong with your line of thinking:
"You are part of society, of the public, the world, the nation, state, county, city, town, etc. and you will play by the rules of society or you will suffer the consequences."
No, not facist at all, is it? I think you fail on how limited governments role in the US is supposed to be.