Although the little one might not get to sleep at all, living in fear of the menacing turret monster. Hey maybe this could breed a new form of learned Tourette's Syndrome??
It is hard to tell, but Ars is giving attribution to WSJ by changing the quoted aspects' font color to red, and linking to the article in the first paragraph.
The United States executes juveniles and the retarded.
Juvenile and retarded CONVICTED MURDERERS, and even then, only if we can prove they understood what they were doing was wrong, and did it anyway.
We detain Muslims.
We detain Christians and Jews, also. So what? The reason there are a lot of muslims in Gitmo is because most of the terrorists fighting us are Islamic.
We invade countries then torture their populace.
As a general rule, we sure as shit do not do that. Some fucktards working for us did do that and are paying the price. Also, "torture," I think not. Humiliated some prisoners, absolutely. That doesn't qualify as torture. If you want to talk about torture, you'll have to talk about what Saddam Hussein did to his people, what China does to its dissidents.
The respected medical journal The Lancet has an article on this which concludes that as many as100000 civilians have been killed since the US led invasion began.
The article "concludes" nothing. It THEORIZES. It even admits the sample size was small.
Your argument amounts to saying "we know we're killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, but it's for their own good."
We're not trying to kill innocent Iraqis, unlike the terrorists there now, and unlike Saddam Hussein has done for decades. So yes, it is ultimately for the good of all Iraqi's that this war has taken place, assuming we can help them hold elections and train them to destroy terrorists.
I know you would rather have left Saddam in charge, filling mass graves, raping women and children in rape rooms, terrorizing their people. Unfortunately that is coming to an end. In the process, innocent people have and will lose their lives. That is the nature of war. Because the goal is to establish a country not ruled by violence, it is a just war.
The FairTax takes this into account by providing a monthly check at the beginning of each month that will cover the taxes that would be paid on the bare necessities, based on the size and status of the family. E.g. a married couple with 2 kids would get $480 at the beginning of each month to offset $480 worth of taxes paid on bare necessities.
America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die.
No, they simply pretend that instead of killing innocent human beings, they are killing sub-human monsters.
Most rational Americans acknowledge that innocent people are being killed. However, most rational Americans also will contend that our goal is not to kill innocent humans, to kill terrorists in their midst, to allow them to be free from Saddam's henchmen and now these terrorists. The latest Iraq war has used some of the most precise munitions delivery systems in history. Casualties cannot be completely avoided in war, but recognize that both sides of the issue are lying about how many innocents are being killed. We can agree that they are being killed, and that the sooner the Iraqis have a democratic election and train their army to fight terrorists in their midst, the sooner the bloodshed can end.
What's done is done. Rational people will find the best way out instead of grousing about the past and offering no hope for the future.
Graduated income tax brackets steal more of your money as you earn more. FairTax takes more of your money away as you spend more. In an environment where you spend what you earn, FairTax differs in implementation, but the results are the same.
It sounds plausible, but the reason you're wrong is you're leaving out the fact that it is possible to raise as much money without actually taxing the people as much. The reason is that you are eliminating the waste and bureaucracy of the IRS and federal income tax collection. Consider:
- No more IRS employees to pay to enforce income tax code and collection. - No more spending money on tax software and tax agencies to figure out your personal and business taxes.
In a fairly balanced economy (i.e. no welfare, social security, graduated income taxes or other caste-based benefits or detriments) that thrives off the free market, FairTax is against the grain; a flat tax is more appropriate.
I disagree. A fair tax allows you to decide how much tax you are willing to pay by allowing you to decide how much you would like to spend. Conversely, a flat tax, just like the current income tax, forces you to pay a percentage of tax every year. It also still suffers from most of the problems that we currently have, such as enforcement, and still allows people to create tax shelters, which lifts the burden on the rest of us. It will be much harder for people to hide from having to pay taxes with a national sales tax. Although there may be some black market sales just as there are now, you will have people that currently report no earned income paying taxes on goods they buy.
However, this statement makes no sense, because the point of the original poster's comment here was that it is hypocritical that Republicans want smaller government, and yet also want to have the government intrude and take away a woman's right to choose.
Wrong. Both parties are equally hypocritical, but in opposite ways.
The Democratic party wants freedom from the government in their personal lives, but wants more government involvement with everyone's financial lives.
Libertarians want equal freedom from the government, and a return to individual responsibility. Apparantly most Americans want a nanny-state.
You're crazy if you think the GOP cares about this more than tongue-in-cheek. Look, the populace is getting OLD. Guess who runs the GOP? You guessed it: the elderly. Social Security is staying come hell or high water or the GOP will be out of office. Period.
I didn't say it would be abolished. However, Bush *WILL* push through some things to let young people start to put their money into private accounts instead of SS.
It is true that luck plays into it. Parental backgrounds, parental money, community and direct government support factor far more into "making it" than you suppose.
Sorry. Luck goes both ways, good and bad. SOME people are lucky and get rich. SOME people have really bad luck and become poor. The rest of us can blame ourselves, or give ourselves credit, for our success and failures, for the most part.
Democrats like to pretend it's all luck either way, so that we won't feel guilty about taking some of it away. Most rich people have earned their money, or had parents that earned their wealth (and thus earned the right to pass it on to their families).
Remind me again how many west Africans are "making it"?
I know very little about West Africans, same as you no doubt. However, I will assume it is very hard to make it in many African countries wracked with violence. I don't believe increasing taxes on the rich, and wasting their money in government bureacracy, really helps the worthy poorer among us.
Personally, I think the estate tax should be 100% to make the system more meritocratic and less aristocratic.
Socialistic, you mean. I work hard and study long to make money for myself and my future generations. Taking an inheritance away from my family that I have earned (and already been taxed on many times, no doubt) is a slap in the face of individual freedom, on which this country was founded.
It's the only way for people to see how damn expensive these ridiculous oil wars are.
I really don't follow this logic. Presumably you think the sales tax would be raised to pay for the war. In reality, my guess is we will continue deficit spending just as we do now. Sadly, those in Congress can't see the key is to cut spending across the board.
These spending bills were not partisan. They were supported by both parties, both the Democrats that traditionally love spending money, and the Republicans, who are also going insane with spending.
As I am a Libertarian, I don't really care what party it is, the two major parties both spend it equally "well."
You either have a sick sense of humour or you are one of the super-rich people that benefit the most from Bush's policies.
Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. The only president to win the majority of the votes since 1988. Do you really think all those people "have a sick sense of humor" or are "super-rich"?
Some good news from the "Land of the dumb" ?
If we are the land of the dumb, how is it that we dominate the world? Does that make the rest of the world even dumber? Just curious as to your logic.
Ad hominem attacks usually illustrate more about the person uttering them than their intended target.
As you could have done under Clinton as well. (What, did you think that "assault weapon ban" actually banned all assault rifles?)
- Figure out how to best invest your $300 annual Bush tax savings to cover the social security benefits you'll never get
Vs. paying even more to the government and still not getting any social security benefits. (I'd like to be able to put some of mine away in private funds, thank you, call me crazy.)
- Become rich, then get all your income from mostly untaxed dividends and capital gains income
Yes, please, "become rich." We know that is an easy thing that just magically happens to people. They don't work hard, educate themselves, nor rely on their skills to make this happen. They are just "lucky," and deserve to be taxed even heavier than they are already!
- Join the guard and train for a one year tour of duty in Iraq
It sucks royally, but that is a risk of joining the guard. Do you think Kerry would have pulled us out of Iraq? At least Bush had the sense to start redistributing troops from cold-war nations. (Personally, I'd pull all troops out of nations not currently in war.)
- Move so that the selective service can't find you
Our voluntary military is growing faster than ever, and we are redeploying troops wasted in cold war nations, why would we need to draft?
- Take some gay people and a girlfriend (work with me here) to Vegas. Taunt them by getting married and divorced inside of 12 hours.
Agreed.
- Make a sign saying "The Government should stay out of our lives!" and go protest in front of an abortion clinic.
Make an alternate sign that says, "The government should stay out of our lives!" and go protest in front of a welfare office, social security distribution center, IRS office, etc.
- Pick up bow and arrow making to capitalize on the new corporate tax incentives
I'd prefer to rally for the abolishment of the IRS, all income taxes, and the institution of FairTax.
- Do something illegal, get arrested, and excercise your right to trial before 4 years of Bush-appointed, Republican confirmed Supreme Court appointees uphold the Patriot Act's elimination of right to trial.
Agreed.
Re:Publishing results while voting continues
on
Election Day Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Sadly, there is NOTHING fair about our election process:
- Only the candidates from the Republicans and Democrats can win an election, because our voting method sucks and people consider a vote for a "3rd party" a wasted vote.
- Due to the electoral college, people in sparse states have votes that count more than people in populous states. I'm sick of hearing that the candidates won't visit or pay attention to some rural area without the electoral college. Bullshit. It doesn't matter anyway, the candidates spend all their time in "swing states." The electoral college replaced one problem with another.
- Due to the electoral college, people voting for the losing candidates in each state have wasted their vote. Imagine a situation where Republicans nearly beat Democrats in the state of California. Let's say it is 45/55 in favor of the Democratic candidate. California is a huge state, and that represents a very large number of votes, but all those Republican votes are worthless. It doesn't matter if the Dem wins California by 1 vote or 1,000,000 votes.
- As you said, you're allowed to report on polls closing before all polls have closed. You've got exit polling going on and national broadcasts calling the races before all ballots have been cast. This has a direct effect on whether people go out to vote.
- Voter fraud is rampant. I know this because there is nothing to stop it. There is very little done to prevent people from being able to vote absentee in multiple states. If you try to challenge a voter that is voting in the wrong precinct, you are accused of voter intimidation. Of course there is rampant fraud in this atmosphere. The only thing that could help is secured, connected, electronic vothing methods that would require ID scans and hashing to prevent duplicate votes while retaining anonymity -- but this won't happen in my lifetime (and I'm young).
- In state elections, the tyranny of the majority is rampant. In California this year, there is a proposition on the ballot that you can vote for to raise the taxes of people making more than a million dollars a year! That is so wrong, I can't even believe it! One group of people get to vote to take money away from another group. OF COURSE it is going to pass! There are more people making less than a million than more. I don't make anywhere near a million dollars, but I recognize lunacy when I see it.
We need to can the electoral college, and move to a better voting method. (IRV? Approval Voting? Something.)
I don't buy the "but SMTP protects free speech through anonymity" argument. If people want anonymous speech, post something anonymously to the internet in another format. There are various ways to do this. Why insist on holding progress back on SMTP when other mediums can fill the "anonymous free speech" gap, and do a much better job at that anonymity then SMTP?
It's like saying, well we need a way to keep phone calls completely anonymous to protect free speech -- even though a person could carry out their anonymous free speech in many other ways than a telephone. Thus the police and people with 800 numbers can always see who is calling (ignoring, for the moment, the flaws that star38.com exposes in this idea).
Personally, I am ready for something like SenderID + SPF.
Slashdot Mirror
Although the little one might not get to sleep at all, living in fear of the menacing turret monster. Hey maybe this could breed a new form of learned Tourette's Syndrome??
Score: -1, Punishment
Interesting question, but do you REALLY want those people voting?
It is hard to tell, but Ars is giving attribution to WSJ by changing the quoted aspects' font color to red, and linking to the article in the first paragraph.
Not plagiarism so much as piss-poor editing.
The United States executes juveniles and the retarded.
Juvenile and retarded CONVICTED MURDERERS, and even then, only if we can prove they understood what they were doing was wrong, and did it anyway.
We detain Muslims.
We detain Christians and Jews, also. So what? The reason there are a lot of muslims in Gitmo is because most of the terrorists fighting us are Islamic.
We invade countries then torture their populace.
As a general rule, we sure as shit do not do that. Some fucktards working for us did do that and are paying the price. Also, "torture," I think not. Humiliated some prisoners, absolutely. That doesn't qualify as torture. If you want to talk about torture, you'll have to talk about what Saddam Hussein did to his people, what China does to its dissidents.
Too bad the chart is made up.
No? Prove it. Link to some studies.
The respected medical journal The Lancet has an article on this which concludes that as many as100000 civilians have been killed since the US led invasion began.
The article "concludes" nothing. It THEORIZES. It even admits the sample size was small.
Your argument amounts to saying "we know we're killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, but it's for their own good."
We're not trying to kill innocent Iraqis, unlike the terrorists there now, and unlike Saddam Hussein has done for decades. So yes, it is ultimately for the good of all Iraqi's that this war has taken place, assuming we can help them hold elections and train them to destroy terrorists.
I know you would rather have left Saddam in charge, filling mass graves, raping women and children in rape rooms, terrorizing their people. Unfortunately that is coming to an end. In the process, innocent people have and will lose their lives. That is the nature of war. Because the goal is to establish a country not ruled by violence, it is a just war.
I downloaded it from AOL, 10MB in size. I am not hosting it, where should I upload it for others to bittorrent?
Interestingly, I just read your website, and you claim to be a libertarian, however what you spout here is nowhere near what libertarians believe.
The FairTax takes this into account by providing a monthly check at the beginning of each month that will cover the taxes that would be paid on the bare necessities, based on the size and status of the family. E.g. a married couple with 2 kids would get $480 at the beginning of each month to offset $480 worth of taxes paid on bare necessities.
Here is more information on how the rebate works.
America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die.
No, they simply pretend that instead of killing innocent human beings, they are killing sub-human monsters.
Most rational Americans acknowledge that innocent people are being killed. However, most rational Americans also will contend that our goal is not to kill innocent humans, to kill terrorists in their midst, to allow them to be free from Saddam's henchmen and now these terrorists. The latest Iraq war has used some of the most precise munitions delivery systems in history. Casualties cannot be completely avoided in war, but recognize that both sides of the issue are lying about how many innocents are being killed. We can agree that they are being killed, and that the sooner the Iraqis have a democratic election and train their army to fight terrorists in their midst, the sooner the bloodshed can end.
What's done is done. Rational people will find the best way out instead of grousing about the past and offering no hope for the future.
So you would rather let unregistered people and/or non-citizens vote, perhaps even more than once?
The only process in place to prevent this is poll challengers.
Graduated income tax brackets steal more of your money as you earn more. FairTax takes more of your money away as you spend more. In an environment where you spend what you earn, FairTax differs in implementation, but the results are the same.
It sounds plausible, but the reason you're wrong is you're leaving out the fact that it is possible to raise as much money without actually taxing the people as much. The reason is that you are eliminating the waste and bureaucracy of the IRS and federal income tax collection. Consider:
- No more IRS employees to pay to enforce income tax code and collection.
- No more spending money on tax software and tax agencies to figure out your personal and business taxes.
In a fairly balanced economy (i.e. no welfare, social security, graduated income taxes or other caste-based benefits or detriments) that thrives off the free market, FairTax is against the grain; a flat tax is more appropriate.
I disagree. A fair tax allows you to decide how much tax you are willing to pay by allowing you to decide how much you would like to spend. Conversely, a flat tax, just like the current income tax, forces you to pay a percentage of tax every year. It also still suffers from most of the problems that we currently have, such as enforcement, and still allows people to create tax shelters, which lifts the burden on the rest of us. It will be much harder for people to hide from having to pay taxes with a national sales tax. Although there may be some black market sales just as there are now, you will have people that currently report no earned income paying taxes on goods they buy.
All socialists go immediately into my foe list, so as to have their nonsense filtered out.
FairTax is fairer than a flat tax, for all income levels.
However, this statement makes no sense, because the point of the original poster's comment here was that it is hypocritical that Republicans want smaller government, and yet also want to have the government intrude and take away a woman's right to choose.
Wrong. Both parties are equally hypocritical, but in opposite ways.
The Democratic party wants freedom from the government in their personal lives, but wants more government involvement with everyone's financial lives.
Libertarians want equal freedom from the government, and a return to individual responsibility. Apparantly most Americans want a nanny-state.
This is true, but misleading.
;-)
It is only misleading if you're not good at math.
It implies that Bush got some sort of a strong mandate
No, a landslide implies a mandate. A majority implies receiving more than 50% of the vote. A plurality implies receiving the most votes. And so on.
Thank you GOP-run Congress, yes.
The spending bills were not partisan.
You're crazy if you think the GOP cares about this more than tongue-in-cheek. Look, the populace is getting OLD. Guess who runs the GOP? You guessed it: the elderly. Social Security is staying come hell or high water or the GOP will be out of office. Period.
I didn't say it would be abolished. However, Bush *WILL* push through some things to let young people start to put their money into private accounts instead of SS.
It is true that luck plays into it. Parental backgrounds, parental money, community and direct government support factor far more into "making it" than you suppose.
Sorry. Luck goes both ways, good and bad. SOME people are lucky and get rich. SOME people have really bad luck and become poor. The rest of us can blame ourselves, or give ourselves credit, for our success and failures, for the most part.
Democrats like to pretend it's all luck either way, so that we won't feel guilty about taking some of it away. Most rich people have earned their money, or had parents that earned their wealth (and thus earned the right to pass it on to their families).
Remind me again how many west Africans are "making it"?
I know very little about West Africans, same as you no doubt. However, I will assume it is very hard to make it in many African countries wracked with violence. I don't believe increasing taxes on the rich, and wasting their money in government bureacracy, really helps the worthy poorer among us.
Personally, I think the estate tax should be 100% to make the system more meritocratic and less aristocratic.
Socialistic, you mean. I work hard and study long to make money for myself and my future generations. Taking an inheritance away from my family that I have earned (and already been taxed on many times, no doubt) is a slap in the face of individual freedom, on which this country was founded.
It's the only way for people to see how damn expensive these ridiculous oil wars are.
I really don't follow this logic. Presumably you think the sales tax would be raised to pay for the war. In reality, my guess is we will continue deficit spending just as we do now. Sadly, those in Congress can't see the key is to cut spending across the board.
These spending bills were not partisan. They were supported by both parties, both the Democrats that traditionally love spending money, and the Republicans, who are also going insane with spending.
As I am a Libertarian, I don't really care what party it is, the two major parties both spend it equally "well."
You either have a sick sense of humour or you are one of the super-rich people that benefit the most from Bush's policies.
Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. The only president to win the majority of the votes since 1988. Do you really think all those people "have a sick sense of humor" or are "super-rich"?
Some good news from the "Land of the dumb" ?
If we are the land of the dumb, how is it that we dominate the world? Does that make the rest of the world even dumber? Just curious as to your logic.
Ad hominem attacks usually illustrate more about the person uttering them than their intended target.
- Calculate your share of the National Deficit
Yes. Thank you, Congress. Thank you, pork-barrel spending.
- Take up assault weapon collecting as a hobby
As you could have done under Clinton as well. (What, did you think that "assault weapon ban" actually banned all assault rifles?)
- Figure out how to best invest your $300 annual Bush tax savings to cover the social security benefits you'll never get
Vs. paying even more to the government and still not getting any social security benefits. (I'd like to be able to put some of mine away in private funds, thank you, call me crazy.)
- Become rich, then get all your income from mostly untaxed dividends and capital gains income
Yes, please, "become rich." We know that is an easy thing that just magically happens to people. They don't work hard, educate themselves, nor rely on their skills to make this happen. They are just "lucky," and deserve to be taxed even heavier than they are already!
- Join the guard and train for a one year tour of duty in Iraq
It sucks royally, but that is a risk of joining the guard. Do you think Kerry would have pulled us out of Iraq? At least Bush had the sense to start redistributing troops from cold-war nations. (Personally, I'd pull all troops out of nations not currently in war.)
- Move so that the selective service can't find you
Our voluntary military is growing faster than ever, and we are redeploying troops wasted in cold war nations, why would we need to draft?
- Take some gay people and a girlfriend (work with me here) to Vegas. Taunt them by getting married and divorced inside of 12 hours.
Agreed.
- Make a sign saying "The Government should stay out of our lives!" and go protest in front of an abortion clinic.
Make an alternate sign that says, "The government should stay out of our lives!" and go protest in front of a welfare office, social security distribution center, IRS office, etc.
- Pick up bow and arrow making to capitalize on the new corporate tax incentives
I'd prefer to rally for the abolishment of the IRS, all income taxes, and the institution of FairTax.
- Do something illegal, get arrested, and excercise your right to trial before 4 years of Bush-appointed, Republican confirmed Supreme Court appointees uphold the Patriot Act's elimination of right to trial.
Agreed.
Sadly, there is NOTHING fair about our election process:
- Only the candidates from the Republicans and Democrats can win an election, because our voting method sucks and people consider a vote for a "3rd party" a wasted vote.
- Due to the electoral college, people in sparse states have votes that count more than people in populous states. I'm sick of hearing that the candidates won't visit or pay attention to some rural area without the electoral college. Bullshit. It doesn't matter anyway, the candidates spend all their time in "swing states." The electoral college replaced one problem with another.
- Due to the electoral college, people voting for the losing candidates in each state have wasted their vote. Imagine a situation where Republicans nearly beat Democrats in the state of California. Let's say it is 45/55 in favor of the Democratic candidate. California is a huge state, and that represents a very large number of votes, but all those Republican votes are worthless. It doesn't matter if the Dem wins California by 1 vote or 1,000,000 votes.
- As you said, you're allowed to report on polls closing before all polls have closed. You've got exit polling going on and national broadcasts calling the races before all ballots have been cast. This has a direct effect on whether people go out to vote.
- Voter fraud is rampant. I know this because there is nothing to stop it. There is very little done to prevent people from being able to vote absentee in multiple states. If you try to challenge a voter that is voting in the wrong precinct, you are accused of voter intimidation. Of course there is rampant fraud in this atmosphere. The only thing that could help is secured, connected, electronic vothing methods that would require ID scans and hashing to prevent duplicate votes while retaining anonymity -- but this won't happen in my lifetime (and I'm young).
- In state elections, the tyranny of the majority is rampant. In California this year, there is a proposition on the ballot that you can vote for to raise the taxes of people making more than a million dollars a year! That is so wrong, I can't even believe it! One group of people get to vote to take money away from another group. OF COURSE it is going to pass! There are more people making less than a million than more. I don't make anywhere near a million dollars, but I recognize lunacy when I see it.
We need to can the electoral college, and move to a better voting method. (IRV? Approval Voting? Something.)
the cloud cover which should be methane seems to be composed of something else, altogether.
"THE CLOUD COVER WHICH SHOULD BE METHANE SEEMS TO BE COMPOSED OF SOMETHING ELSE!"
You put a comma in the wrong place, and this is Slashdot, land of the grammar Nazis.
I tried it, but the number came through to both parties as 425-789-4268, not the number I had selected (123-456-7890).
(a) Linux is the OS. Linus is the man behind it.
(b) He's not dead... yet.
I don't buy the "but SMTP protects free speech through anonymity" argument. If people want anonymous speech, post something anonymously to the internet in another format. There are various ways to do this. Why insist on holding progress back on SMTP when other mediums can fill the "anonymous free speech" gap, and do a much better job at that anonymity then SMTP?
It's like saying, well we need a way to keep phone calls completely anonymous to protect free speech -- even though a person could carry out their anonymous free speech in many other ways than a telephone. Thus the police and people with 800 numbers can always see who is calling (ignoring, for the moment, the flaws that star38.com exposes in this idea).
Personally, I am ready for something like SenderID + SPF.