How is what they're doing any different from what MoveOn is doing? I just saw an ad from moveon that had three gross inaccuracies in it.
http://www.moveonpac.org/warrecord/
Neal Boortz does a nice summary of those lies:
http://boortz.com/nuze/200408/08182004.html#move on
Conversely, the swift boat veterans are attacked in the media, yet they have already discredited some of what Kerry has put forth (e.g. that he was in Cambodia during the Vietnam war).
How come it's OK for the media to call for investigations into Bush's military service, but it's not OK to do the same with Kerry? How come it's OK that Bill Clinton was a coward and went to Canada, but it's not OK that Bush merely served in the national guard?
I can't stand either side, but let's keep the debate fair.
Well, there was the work of one Hans Blix for starters. Unlike the UN, how many human assets did the US have in Iraq before the war? Ziltch.
Hans Blix and the rest of the UN were kicked out of Iraq by Saddam's government. Blix never found WMD. Does that prove they weren't there? No, it only proves that he never found them.
Yes, folks in the US thought everyone thought this because their government said so. The US government believed it because they were overzealous--anything would buttress their beliefs. Most outside the US questioned it of course.
This is false. Several countries with the power to gather intelligence thought Iraq had WMD, including the UK, Italy, and Spain.
There are always reports of a shell here or there but so far I don't think any have been shown out to be viable. They have used these weapons previously (and one should ask where they got them) but they don't last forever-- they decompose. Finding some shell from the 80s does not constitute an active program.
It doesn't matter if the program is active or not. They had WMD, they never explained where it went or proved it was gone. Old WMD is still WMD. Some of it decomposes if not kept correctly, other is still deadly on a widescale.
If there were significant WMD assets there would have to be a convoy of trucks to a WMD storage depot in say Syria. Satelite images would be all over the news now if this was the case because they were looking...
Well what do we have here?
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/29054.htm Do you honestly believe that our satellites could have covered every mile of Iraq's border, at all times of day? The satellite has to zoom in quite a bit to get any detail, which cuts off how much it can track. Then you have the issue of it orbiting the earth, and not being able to be positioned over Iraq at all times.
The US may have got it's bases back in the Middle East (after leaving Saudi Arabia), but the cost was a much less stable Middle East. That defeats the purpose of the whole adventure, doesn't it?
The who adventure was not to gain bases but to kill terrorists, so no, it worked out quite well.
As an aside, I do not believe we should have military stationed outside our country, but that is another subject entirely.
Libya wanted out of the dog-house long before Sept 11
But did they do anything to help their situation before now? No. Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first. Wanting out isn't the same as getting out. Why did they get out? Because they broke down under the pressure.
Fact is that the US is in the world's dog house
Only until whoever thinks poorly of us needs some of our money or our charity.
Now it looks as though Iraq may be unravelling......
Although the democrats would love that to happen, the reality is that Sadr's army in Najaf is being killed off, and the foreign fighters in Iraq are threatening one of the world's holiest destinations. The rest of Iraq is getting better.
Finding something I like involves a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work... but I actually find that more interesting than being spoonfed Very Popular Radio Hitz complete with useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief. I keep a few bucks in a Bitpass account, a few bucks in my Paypal account, it's all pretty easy.
It doesn't sound like it. You said it involves, "a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work."
Now using iTunes is easy. I don't see how that point can even be debated, the interface is awesome, the songs are what they say they are, the downloads are fast, you can sample 30 seconds of a song before buying (more than most CD stores allow), etc.
Yet you try to marginalize it by pretending all the music in itunes is "Very Popular Radio Hitz." I'm sorry, but that is just plain old horseshit.
Then you say that iTunes is "useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief."
It obviously is not useless. For one thing, it saves me from having to do "a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work." It lets me buy music in a setting where the legality is not in doubt. It makes it easy to do all of this. Useless?
iTunes doesn't have a "premise that [you are] a thief." iTunes is there to make it easy to organize, buy, and use your digital music.
It may be a minority but who's spending smarter money?
In your case, what with all your detective work, digging, etc for music, I would say you're only spending your money smarter if your time is worthless.
We would all have better games if we acted like intelligent consumers.
You have seriously failed to prove this statement.
Instead, we'll have better marketing campaigns.
In the end, marketing can only sell stuff until the first round of consumers get their hands on it. Then it's word of mouth that will make a game truly successful or a flash in the pan.
Watching the drooling fucktard gamespy crowd get lead around by their noses before the game is actually released is depressing.
I've answered this same type of comment dozens of times.
It's not the content value (on TV or the internet) that is going down, it is just that there is more available, which means there is going to be more of what you don't like.
I think if you what to compare the content value of any growing medium, you should look at the amount you liked in the past vs. the amount you like now. I don't see how that number could be going down.
I feel sorry for you, but the problem in your case is not privatization, but a corrupt government. Otherwise, what would stop another company from entering the picture and competing?
Since most thought they Iraq did not have substantial stockpiles of WMD before the war (despite the claims of Bush et al)
Jesus Christ, where do you get this idea? EVERYONE thought Iraq had WMD. We knew they had it at one point, we knew they wanted to make more of it, we just never could find proof that they didn't, and Iraq decided to go to war instead of simply proving they had gotten rid of what they had. Why would they have done that? How can you prove their stockpiles weren't sent to Syria or Iran? If they had no stockpiles of WMD, where did those shells with chemical weapons inside come from (I suppose they just made one or two of those things right?)
the US attacked with a pretty good understanding that they wouldn't be requiring their chemical suits.
Bullshit. The forces first going into Iraq ALL had chemical suits, and were often called to put them on completely due to precautions taken. Did you zone out completely during the war coverage, or what? I read dozens of articles detailing the types of chemical/biological hazmat suits the soldiers had to wear in blazing heat. I believe their were 4 levels of readiness in these suits, and even level 1 was a pain in the ass to trudge through a desert in. They absolutely were worried about a chemical or biological attack.
Alternatively, an attack against N-Korea is off the table because of their WMD programs and delivery systems, plus significant traditional weaponry which the US would have difficulty taking out before Seoul is razed.
Sort of. You've got a madman with confirmed nukes but no reliable means of delivery, especially at distances. Basically, he could blow up his own people or S. Korea, and must be dealt with much more carefully than a non-nuclear Iraq.
So what is a country in the US's dog house to do now? Their rational choice is to build weapons and WMD ASAP to deter a possible US attack. Syria and Iran likely have a new urgency to their WMD programs now, but other countries are likely ramping up their programs too.
They can try, like Iran is going to try. But C. Rice has already come out to say that the US will not allow Iran to build nuclear weapons. I guarantee you that even if we don't drop bombs, the Israelis are not going to allow Iran to become nuclear. No fucking way.
Also, this idea of a country being in our "dog house" is absurd. You act like it is our fault these countries are oppressing their people and building WMDs to threaten surrounding countries!
BTW, one country "in our doghouse," Lybia, took a different path than the one you think is so rational, and gave up their WMD program.
Unfortunately, our government is supposed to be enforcing the Constitution, which does stipulate funding the military, and does not stipulate funding national healthcare, public schools, welfare, unemployment, creating jobs, etc.
I think every country faced with local terrorists has learnt through bitter experience that force does not solve this kind of problem. Dialogue and negotiation are always, finally, the only way to end the cycle of violence.
Churchill thought the same of the Nazis. How well did that work out?
Appeasement is not the answer. Unfortunately, sometimes war is the answer.
You listed some examples that were supposed to prove your point, and yet in 2 out of the 4 (Ireland and Spain) there are still people being killed by the local terrorists.
It is worse in the case of Islamo-fascists, because their goal is the destruction of the infidels (that's us) and to convert the entire world to Islam. They must be destroyed.
Privitization of public utilities and resources in many cases produces bad results for the people, but makes the regulatory agency rich.
FUD
case in point is the water utility system in El Salvador
While that can be an example of a poorly run utility, it offers us no insight whatsoever into privatization without explicitly detailing how it has been privatized.
And there's no incentive for the water company to fix the problems either.
If the water system was truly privatized, the incentive would be that poor service would result in them losing the contract to provide the water service. Far more incentive than a government bureacracy running a utility, where is the incentive to an establishment with no oversight?
So, the radio spectrum is a common, Michael Powell is a crazy right-wing SOB, so the radio spectrum is bound to be privatized some day. Who will benefit? corporations and the government. Who will lose? everybody else, the little guys. That's you and me.
Whatever. Privatization is good for everyone, because privatization means MARKET FORCES are in control instead of the government.
Let me translate this into the world of spectrum: Imagine if you could broadcast anything over the radio without fear of the FCC, as long as your station was popular enough to pay your broadcast bills instead of your fines to the government?
IF the government exists to provide a safe environment with a free market AND it is determined that the best way it can do that is through moderate taxation (50-70% Europe being heavy), then it is well within reason that it do so.
I have no problem with some sort of taxation to support the government's duty to protect it's citizens from those that would take their lives or their property, however, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about arbitrarily wasting money.
Who's to say where the appropriate middle ground is aside from an educated majority?
The appropriate middle ground is, you have the right to swing your fist until another man's nose, and the government is there to ensure that idea is upheld. Nothing more or less.
We will have to agree to disagree. You feel it is appropriate to take property from someone and give it to someone else. I disagree.
If someone works hard, they deserve to have more money that those who do not
I don't buy this argument, either. What does it matter if they worked hard? As long as they did not illegally gain the money, it is theirs to do with what they wish. Just as you probably feel it is not right to take another man's life, it is not right to take another man's property, for any reason. Rather, encourage him to give it willingly, if you wish.
but even the very laziest and lowly do not deserve starvation
I do not know what "lowly" means, but please explain why the laziest do not deserve starvation? It seems to me that lazy people are the very people that deserve to starve. You reap what you sow.
With current technology, the only way to ensure this would be to put an upper cap on how much wealth any one person is allowed to have
Increase taxes, Increase spending, make a better world for all mankind.
Get back to me when you lose the unrealistic idealism. You either pay almost nothing in taxes, or have no idea how much the government wastes our tax money. It is NOT POSSIBLE for a large government to collect taxes and spend them rationally.
oh, but I guess that richest 1%, already making several hundred million a year would be too devistated to have a few more million in taxes taken out of their humble stipend.
What gives you the right to take property from one person and give it to another?
I forgot, the basis of all liberal arguments is: class warfare.
Rich people are evil bastards that just got lucky in life, they don't deserve to keep the money they've stolen, they can't be trusted to invest it wisely, they are greedy, they never donate money to help out anyone else, they only got rich by screwing someone over.
Meanwhile, the poor are honest, hard-working, unlucky, just trying to make an honest living, never did no one no harm, being held down by 'the man,' never had a chance to succeed, etc.
Wake me up when you are earning money and paying taxes, watching the government waste it.
Umm... the current administration is geared towards bringing government down to record low levels (military excluded).
Are you fucking kidding me? As a Libertarian, I find this hilarious. "Starve the beast"? Where exactly is the beast starving? Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. The Republicans in Congress, along with the Democrats, have only spent more and more.
Unfortunately what happens is the taxes get reduced on the rich and what burden is left is shifted towards the poor.
Yeah. Which poor, the ones that don't pay any taxes, or the ones that are getting tax "credits"?
The upper tier pay almost all the taxes, and receive very few social program benefits. The reason why tax breaks help the rich the most is because THEY PAY THE MOST IN TAXES.
The only thing that can make society even vaguely fair is equal access to a good, free education.
Drop "free" and you're exactly right. Of course there should be scholarships available for kids who want to go to school and can't afford it, but forcing people to pay to send some ass to school who doesn't want to be there, doesn't have the support from home or elsewhere to do well there, is NOT the right way to do it.
How is the BSA allowed to even infiltrate our PUBLIC school system
Do you understand what PUBLIC means? "Open to the knowledge or judgment of all" is one definition.
If you want your kids to be educated, pay someone (directly) to do it, or do it yourself. Relying on the government to educate your kids is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
It's "bad" (or rather some people feel it's bad) because copyrights are good in the short term, but should die with the creator, and not exist for all eternity.
You probably have the quote correct, but I've found that in our time it's the reverse that is true:
The philosophy of the government persuades the philosophy of the (public) schoolroom... generally towards the goal of increasing the size of government.
Funny how trillian has none of the features I want
Yikes, I can tell this is going to be an unbiased review... literally, NONE of the features you want? Give me a fucking break, man.
the interface is so "nice" that it takes 5 minutes to do anything
How can one even argue with such ambiguous garbage? How about an example of something taking a long time to perform in Trillian? I use it all the time and am anal about things like that, and have had no issues. It's also very easy to write plugins for Trillian, to extend it.
If I wanted, I could install a skin to make it look like Gaim, but honestly, why would anyone want their application to look like it uses Gtk?
Eh, Trillian is shareware trash for newbies who don't know any better.
How on Earth did this flamebait get rated highly?
Paying someone for a client to access a free service seems about as silly as paying for IE or Netscape.
Except that Trillian has nice features, a nice interface, really good technical support, and all the features I want. Yeah, I guess I'm a newbie though... only been working with computers for 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
How is what they're doing any different from what MoveOn is doing? I just saw an ad from moveon that had three gross inaccuracies in it.
e on
http://www.moveonpac.org/warrecord/
Neal Boortz does a nice summary of those lies:
http://boortz.com/nuze/200408/08182004.html#mov
Conversely, the swift boat veterans are attacked in the media, yet they have already discredited some of what Kerry has put forth (e.g. that he was in Cambodia during the Vietnam war).
How come it's OK for the media to call for investigations into Bush's military service, but it's not OK to do the same with Kerry? How come it's OK that Bill Clinton was a coward and went to Canada, but it's not OK that Bush merely served in the national guard?
I can't stand either side, but let's keep the debate fair.
Well, there was the work of one Hans Blix for starters. Unlike the UN, how many human assets did the US have in Iraq before the war? Ziltch.
Hans Blix and the rest of the UN were kicked out of Iraq by Saddam's government. Blix never found WMD. Does that prove they weren't there? No, it only proves that he never found them.
Yes, folks in the US thought everyone thought this because their government said so. The US government believed it because they were overzealous--anything would buttress their beliefs. Most outside the US questioned it of course.
This is false. Several countries with the power to gather intelligence thought Iraq had WMD, including the UK, Italy, and Spain.
There are always reports of a shell here or there but so far I don't think any have been shown out to be viable. They have used these weapons previously (and one should ask where they got them) but they don't last forever-- they decompose. Finding some shell from the 80s does not constitute an active program.
It doesn't matter if the program is active or not. They had WMD, they never explained where it went or proved it was gone. Old WMD is still WMD. Some of it decomposes if not kept correctly, other is still deadly on a widescale.
If there were significant WMD assets there would have to be a convoy of trucks to a WMD storage depot in say Syria. Satelite images would be all over the news now if this was the case because they were looking...
Well what do we have here?
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/29054.htm
Do you honestly believe that our satellites could have covered every mile of Iraq's border, at all times of day? The satellite has to zoom in quite a bit to get any detail, which cuts off how much it can track. Then you have the issue of it orbiting the earth, and not being able to be positioned over Iraq at all times.
The US may have got it's bases back in the Middle East (after leaving Saudi Arabia), but the cost was a much less stable Middle East. That defeats the purpose of the whole adventure, doesn't it?
The who adventure was not to gain bases but to kill terrorists, so no, it worked out quite well.
As an aside, I do not believe we should have military stationed outside our country, but that is another subject entirely.
Libya wanted out of the dog-house long before Sept 11
But did they do anything to help their situation before now? No. Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first. Wanting out isn't the same as getting out. Why did they get out? Because they broke down under the pressure.
Fact is that the US is in the world's dog house
Only until whoever thinks poorly of us needs some of our money or our charity.
Now it looks as though Iraq may be unravelling......
Although the democrats would love that to happen, the reality is that Sadr's army in Najaf is being killed off, and the foreign fighters in Iraq are threatening one of the world's holiest destinations. The rest of Iraq is getting better.
Sad news, isn't it?
Finding something I like involves a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work... but I actually find that more interesting than being spoonfed Very Popular Radio Hitz complete with useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief. I keep a few bucks in a Bitpass account, a few bucks in my Paypal account, it's all pretty easy.
It doesn't sound like it. You said it involves, "a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work."
Now using iTunes is easy. I don't see how that point can even be debated, the interface is awesome, the songs are what they say they are, the downloads are fast, you can sample 30 seconds of a song before buying (more than most CD stores allow), etc.
Yet you try to marginalize it by pretending all the music in itunes is "Very Popular Radio Hitz." I'm sorry, but that is just plain old horseshit.
Then you say that iTunes is "useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief."
It obviously is not useless. For one thing, it saves me from having to do "a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work." It lets me buy music in a setting where the legality is not in doubt. It makes it easy to do all of this. Useless?
iTunes doesn't have a "premise that [you are] a thief." iTunes is there to make it easy to organize, buy, and use your digital music.
It may be a minority but who's spending smarter money?
In your case, what with all your detective work, digging, etc for music, I would say you're only spending your money smarter if your time is worthless.
Mine isn't, so I use iTunes.
We would all have better games if we acted like intelligent consumers.
You have seriously failed to prove this statement.
Instead, we'll have better marketing campaigns.
In the end, marketing can only sell stuff until the first round of consumers get their hands on it. Then it's word of mouth that will make a game truly successful or a flash in the pan.
Watching the drooling fucktard gamespy crowd get lead around by their noses before the game is actually released is depressing.
So don't watch.
I sure hope none of my packets are lost.
Use TCP instead of UDP, and it won't matter!
"The speed of light sucks." -- John Carmack
I've answered this same type of comment dozens of times.
It's not the content value (on TV or the internet) that is going down, it is just that there is more available, which means there is going to be more of what you don't like.
I think if you what to compare the content value of any growing medium, you should look at the amount you liked in the past vs. the amount you like now. I don't see how that number could be going down.
Reality is often distorted by perception.
I feel sorry for you, but the problem in your case is not privatization, but a corrupt government. Otherwise, what would stop another company from entering the picture and competing?
Since most thought they Iraq did not have substantial stockpiles of WMD before the war (despite the claims of Bush et al)
Jesus Christ, where do you get this idea? EVERYONE thought Iraq had WMD. We knew they had it at one point, we knew they wanted to make more of it, we just never could find proof that they didn't, and Iraq decided to go to war instead of simply proving they had gotten rid of what they had. Why would they have done that? How can you prove their stockpiles weren't sent to Syria or Iran? If they had no stockpiles of WMD, where did those shells with chemical weapons inside come from (I suppose they just made one or two of those things right?)
the US attacked with a pretty good understanding that they wouldn't be requiring their chemical suits.
Bullshit. The forces first going into Iraq ALL had chemical suits, and were often called to put them on completely due to precautions taken. Did you zone out completely during the war coverage, or what? I read dozens of articles detailing the types of chemical/biological hazmat suits the soldiers had to wear in blazing heat. I believe their were 4 levels of readiness in these suits, and even level 1 was a pain in the ass to trudge through a desert in. They absolutely were worried about a chemical or biological attack.
Alternatively, an attack against N-Korea is off the table because of their WMD programs and delivery systems, plus significant traditional weaponry which the US would have difficulty taking out before Seoul is razed.
Sort of. You've got a madman with confirmed nukes but no reliable means of delivery, especially at distances. Basically, he could blow up his own people or S. Korea, and must be dealt with much more carefully than a non-nuclear Iraq.
So what is a country in the US's dog house to do now? Their rational choice is to build weapons and WMD ASAP to deter a possible US attack. Syria and Iran likely have a new urgency to their WMD programs now, but other countries are likely ramping up their programs too.
They can try, like Iran is going to try. But C. Rice has already come out to say that the US will not allow Iran to build nuclear weapons. I guarantee you that even if we don't drop bombs, the Israelis are not going to allow Iran to become nuclear. No fucking way.
Also, this idea of a country being in our "dog house" is absurd. You act like it is our fault these countries are oppressing their people and building WMDs to threaten surrounding countries!
BTW, one country "in our doghouse," Lybia, took a different path than the one you think is so rational, and gave up their WMD program.
Unfortunately, our government is supposed to be enforcing the Constitution, which does stipulate funding the military, and does not stipulate funding national healthcare, public schools, welfare, unemployment, creating jobs, etc.
Not to throw up your hands after a short while and go invade a completely unrelated country to steal their oil.
Steal their oil. Damn if we aren't doing a shitty job of that, eh?
Unfortunately for your argument, the Iraqi oil profits will finally start helping the Iraqi's instead of lining Saddam's pockets.
P.S. Iraq was planning to launch terrorist attacks on America, with or without WMD. Ask France and Germany, they even acknowledged this intelligence.
I think every country faced with local terrorists has learnt through bitter experience that force does not solve this kind of problem. Dialogue and negotiation are always, finally, the only way to end the cycle of violence.
Churchill thought the same of the Nazis. How well did that work out?
Appeasement is not the answer. Unfortunately, sometimes war is the answer.
You listed some examples that were supposed to prove your point, and yet in 2 out of the 4 (Ireland and Spain) there are still people being killed by the local terrorists.
It is worse in the case of Islamo-fascists, because their goal is the destruction of the infidels (that's us) and to convert the entire world to Islam. They must be destroyed.
Privitization of public utilities and resources in many cases produces bad results for the people, but makes the regulatory agency rich.
FUD
case in point is the water utility system in El Salvador
While that can be an example of a poorly run utility, it offers us no insight whatsoever into privatization without explicitly detailing how it has been privatized.
And there's no incentive for the water company to fix the problems either.
If the water system was truly privatized, the incentive would be that poor service would result in them losing the contract to provide the water service. Far more incentive than a government bureacracy running a utility, where is the incentive to an establishment with no oversight?
So, the radio spectrum is a common, Michael Powell is a crazy right-wing SOB, so the radio spectrum is bound to be privatized some day. Who will benefit? corporations and the government. Who will lose? everybody else, the little guys. That's you and me.
Whatever. Privatization is good for everyone, because privatization means MARKET FORCES are in control instead of the government.
Let me translate this into the world of spectrum: Imagine if you could broadcast anything over the radio without fear of the FCC, as long as your station was popular enough to pay your broadcast bills instead of your fines to the government?
It's like space widout da stahs, idnit?
...a civil discussion will ensue.
IF the government exists to provide a safe environment with a free market AND it is determined that the best way it can do that is through moderate taxation (50-70% Europe being heavy), then it is well within reason that it do so.
I have no problem with some sort of taxation to support the government's duty to protect it's citizens from those that would take their lives or their property, however, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about arbitrarily wasting money.
Who's to say where the appropriate middle ground is aside from an educated majority?
The appropriate middle ground is, you have the right to swing your fist until another man's nose, and the government is there to ensure that idea is upheld. Nothing more or less.
We will have to agree to disagree. You feel it is appropriate to take property from someone and give it to someone else. I disagree.
If someone works hard, they deserve to have more money that those who do not
I don't buy this argument, either. What does it matter if they worked hard? As long as they did not illegally gain the money, it is theirs to do with what they wish. Just as you probably feel it is not right to take another man's life, it is not right to take another man's property, for any reason. Rather, encourage him to give it willingly, if you wish.
but even the very laziest and lowly do not deserve starvation
I do not know what "lowly" means, but please explain why the laziest do not deserve starvation? It seems to me that lazy people are the very people that deserve to starve. You reap what you sow.
With current technology, the only way to ensure this would be to put an upper cap on how much wealth any one person is allowed to have
Socialism.
Have a nice day.
Increase taxes, Increase spending, make a better world for all mankind.
Get back to me when you lose the unrealistic idealism. You either pay almost nothing in taxes, or have no idea how much the government wastes our tax money. It is NOT POSSIBLE for a large government to collect taxes and spend them rationally.
oh, but I guess that richest 1%, already making several hundred million a year would be too devistated to have a few more million in taxes taken out of their humble stipend.
What gives you the right to take property from one person and give it to another?
I forgot, the basis of all liberal arguments is: class warfare.
Rich people are evil bastards that just got lucky in life, they don't deserve to keep the money they've stolen, they can't be trusted to invest it wisely, they are greedy, they never donate money to help out anyone else, they only got rich by screwing someone over.
Meanwhile, the poor are honest, hard-working, unlucky, just trying to make an honest living, never did no one no harm, being held down by 'the man,' never had a chance to succeed, etc.
Wake me up when you are earning money and paying taxes, watching the government waste it.
Umm... the current administration is geared towards bringing government down to record low levels (military excluded).
= day&todayDate=09/10/2003
Are you fucking kidding me? As a Libertarian, I find this hilarious. "Starve the beast"? Where exactly is the beast starving? Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. The Republicans in Congress, along with the Democrats, have only spent more and more.
Unfortunately what happens is the taxes get reduced on the rich and what burden is left is shifted towards the poor.
Yeah. Which poor, the ones that don't pay any taxes, or the ones that are getting tax "credits"?
The upper tier pay almost all the taxes, and receive very few social program benefits. The reason why tax breaks help the rich the most is because THEY PAY THE MOST IN TAXES.
http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?displayValue
Ahh yes, a Fresh Air link from NPR, a real bastion of central thinking. How's about I post some far right links and we can waste even more time?
Reduce taxes. Reduce spending. Return the government to its intended role of upholding the Constitution.
The only thing that can make society even vaguely fair is equal access to a good, free education.
Drop "free" and you're exactly right. Of course there should be scholarships available for kids who want to go to school and can't afford it, but forcing people to pay to send some ass to school who doesn't want to be there, doesn't have the support from home or elsewhere to do well there, is NOT the right way to do it.
How is the BSA allowed to even infiltrate our PUBLIC school system
Do you understand what PUBLIC means? "Open to the knowledge or judgment of all" is one definition.
If you want your kids to be educated, pay someone (directly) to do it, or do it yourself. Relying on the government to educate your kids is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
It's "bad" (or rather some people feel it's bad) because copyrights are good in the short term, but should die with the creator, and not exist for all eternity.
You probably have the quote correct, but I've found that in our time it's the reverse that is true:
... generally towards the goal of increasing the size of government.
The philosophy of the government persuades the philosophy of the (public) schoolroom
Funny how trillian has none of the features I want
Yikes, I can tell this is going to be an unbiased review... literally, NONE of the features you want? Give me a fucking break, man.
the interface is so "nice" that it takes 5 minutes to do anything
How can one even argue with such ambiguous garbage? How about an example of something taking a long time to perform in Trillian? I use it all the time and am anal about things like that, and have had no issues. It's also very easy to write plugins for Trillian, to extend it.
If I wanted, I could install a skin to make it look like Gaim, but honestly, why would anyone want their application to look like it uses Gtk?
Eh, Trillian is shareware trash for newbies who don't know any better.
How on Earth did this flamebait get rated highly?
Paying someone for a client to access a free service seems about as silly as paying for IE or Netscape.
Except that Trillian has nice features, a nice interface, really good technical support, and all the features I want. Yeah, I guess I'm a newbie though... only been working with computers for 20 years.