When it comes to shmucks like me who have no place to maintain their cars, well, the local garages charge an arm and a leg because they can, and we're more worried about "how much will it cost" than "can I get my beatup fender back."
This happened to me the first tyme my tranny went out. I was on my way to class went the car stopped moving. I had it towed to a repair shop I knew of and asked them to call me with an estimate. A week later, after not hearing from them I went down to the shop and asked. The guy said he had it fixed 2 hour later. The total was $300, $150 for the work and $150 for the clutch which had collapsed. That's $75 an hour, and later that day I found out I could have bought the part for less than $100. After that I did all the work on the car it needed, with one exception. I had to rebuild the engine and when I did the cylinders had to be drilled out. So not having a machine shop I took the engine block down to one to have them do it.
Just out of curiosity, what's the operational distinction between having the option to have it returned, and having the right to have it returned? In each case, I get to choose whether I want it, right?
This is my opinion so it may be wrong but to me the right to have a part returned would mean you don't have to pay for it but with an option you have to pay. In this case though, the person bought his own replacement drive therefore he should get the old one back without paying for it.
Lemme guess, if someone's house was on fire, you wouldn't help them put it out, cause it's *their* house damnit!
Wrong, I would try to help, and have before. Besides fires, I used to help some handicapped people and took a class in ASL, American Sign Language, so I could speak with the hearing impaired.
I disagree with her on this as much as I did "It Takes a Village. Unless and until science can proof these games harm children there should be NO LAW about them.
"and has even a snowball chance in hell of getting elected (which is roughly where I rank Ron Paul's chance)"
You must have been asleep these past 2 months.
While he's doing good in fund raising Ron Paul still is below 10% in the polls. Hopefully the funds will help. Though I'm registered No Party Preference now I'll change it to Republican so I can vote for him in the primary. Of course afterwards I'll change it right back.
Yes, Ron Paul would help get the government out things it shouldn't be doing - needless wars, torture, warrantless wiretapping, etc. He would not help the government get into things it *should* be doing, like single payer health care and reducing our CO2 emissions.
Ah but Ron Paul would do something about CO2. While he may not go as far as I'd like, he would do something about it. First he'd stop subsidizing petroleum. Then he'd let people keep more of the money they earn and with more money people could more readily afford more efficient stuff. Also with more money more could afford to invest more, people like Sergey Brin and Larry Page would have more they could invest in companies like Nanosolar.
I don't like all the positions Ron Paul has but he comes the closest on some issues that are important to me.
That seems to be an issue of character, however. That does not change the fact that they still work for and represent the people and should bend to the peoples will.
That's how it should be but politicians don't always follow the will of the people.
No, seriously. He's worth investigating [ontheissues.org]. I will probably vote for him, because I basically look for two issues to help me decide: a women's right to abortion and the right to own firearms. It's that odd mix of conservative but social policies I like in a candidate. He seems more of a likely contender than a 3rd party and Ron Paul has much less of a chance than this guy. You can check out his main site [richardson...sident.com]. The only thing going against him is that he's not that pretty or charming and I feel the average American needs a somewhat pretty or charming president (Obama, Edwards). And no, I do not work for Richardson's campaign.
Bill Richardson lost me as soon as I saw he favors the so called "War on Drugs". He doesn't believe a person should be able to decide for themselves whether they use a drug or not. I see he believes in choice for abortions but he doesn't for drugs. He also wants to strengthen the police state, and supports the death penalty. He supported the ban on so called assault weapons as well.
is that it's one-size-fits-all philosophy has no way to deal with issues that require government action: health care costs, global warming, pollution, etc.
The Libertarian position isn't one size fits all, it's position is to allow everyone to try their own thing. In the US there's 50 states and the LP would allow each state to do it's own experiments, instead of your one size fits all the feds would have. A state can experiment to find out what works and what doesn't. Then other states can try things the way another state finds that works, and can try something different for those that don't work.
Too bad every self-professed Libertarian I've ever met has been of the "I don't want to pay taxes" variety rather than the "the gov't doesn't really need to regulate that" sort.
The platform of the Libertarian Party says it wants to deregulate. IRL I don't know many Libertarians, or libertarians, but those I do or did know wanted not just deregulation but small government period.
Ron Paul may be a decent guy, according to some at least, but to a European socialist like me, he's just as much a right wing religious whack job as Bush
No, Ron Paul is more centrist. Right wingers want big military and law enforcement programs and little social liberty. Left wingers on the other hand want big government social programs and to control businesses. Both Left and right wingers want big government but in different places. Ron Paul on the other hand wants a small federal government period.
He certainly did that. In 2000 instead of voting for the person I wanted elected president I specifically voted against Bush. After that I decided I wasn't going to waste my vote again. At least people will know there's at least one person who still believes in freedom and liberty.
Requiring a national ID (something all countries around the world except for the US have) as an age verification would be enough.
Oh but it is, the law of the land in the USA is the Constitution of the USA and it gives no such power to the government. Bend the Constitution a little bit, then someone else does, then ad nauseam, 'til eventually the Constitution means nothing.
So I am bold enough to cite the works of these 400 scientists who went on record in 2007.
What 400 scientists went on record for what?
1000s of scientists got DDT banned - needlessly - and killed millions of people as a result from malaria.
So wildlife means nothing?
You are really long on whining about problems and short on practicle solutions, aren't you?
I have repeatedly made suggestions of practical solutions. This, this , and this bring up wind farms, in August 2006. Here's one I wrote on algae to produce hydorgen. As is this, and this. I've written of using Switchgrass, and hemp, to produce ethanol. Here's one on using kudzu to produce ethanol. There are other posts I made in the article about "America's First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant". I've written about using hemp to produce biodiesel, as well as other things.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. A store selling 18+ games to twelve-year-olds should be punished.
BS! It's parents jobs to be parents, not stores and not government. If you want to do what you're proposing then exist it to books. I find the Bible to be offensive; it's filled with incest, rape, murder, and even genocide, so it should be illegal to sell to minors too.
Democrats _love_ Hollywood, the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA and anything that gives media more money and control. Who's the little cheapskate when it comes to greasing politician's palms?
I don't recall for sure but wasn't the Republicans in control of congress when the DMCA was passed? Republican Rep Howard Coble introduced the DMCA in the House.
for the record; I didn't like Gore either. If he had a problem with our nation's energy policy and carbon footprint, then he had 8 years to do something about it as VP, and he didn't do jack.
I didn't like Gore either but I thought Bush would be worse. I had planned on voting for Harry Brown, on the LP ticket. But as the election got closer it looked real close so on election day I chose what I thought was the lesser of 2 bads.
Slashdot Mirror
When it comes to shmucks like me who have no place to maintain their cars, well, the local garages charge an arm and a leg because they can, and we're more worried about "how much will it cost" than "can I get my beatup fender back."
This happened to me the first tyme my tranny went out. I was on my way to class went the car stopped moving. I had it towed to a repair shop I knew of and asked them to call me with an estimate. A week later, after not hearing from them I went down to the shop and asked. The guy said he had it fixed 2 hour later. The total was $300, $150 for the work and $150 for the clutch which had collapsed. That's $75 an hour, and later that day I found out I could have bought the part for less than $100. After that I did all the work on the car it needed, with one exception. I had to rebuild the engine and when I did the cylinders had to be drilled out. So not having a machine shop I took the engine block down to one to have them do it.
FalconJust out of curiosity, what's the operational distinction between having the option to have it returned, and having the right to have it returned? In each case, I get to choose whether I want it, right?
This is my opinion so it may be wrong but to me the right to have a part returned would mean you don't have to pay for it but with an option you have to pay. In this case though, the person bought his own replacement drive therefore he should get the old one back without paying for it.
Falconright, and to buy a video game that's 18+, it requires someone be 18. end of story. i don't think this is such a big deal.
Exactly where in the USA Constitution does it give the federal governemnt the power to regulate video games?
FalconLemme guess, if someone's house was on fire, you wouldn't help them put it out, cause it's *their* house damnit!
Wrong, I would try to help, and have before. Besides fires, I used to help some handicapped people and took a class in ASL, American Sign Language, so I could speak with the hearing impaired.
FalconI disagree with her on this as much as I did "It Takes a Village. Unless and until science can proof these games harm children there should be NO LAW about them.
FalconMy only concern with Ron Paul is that I think he would be very successful at abolishing the truly useful government programs like OSHA and the FDA
I don't know about OSHA, other than it's not authorized by the USA Constitution, but I'd love to see the FDA gone.
Falcon"and has even a snowball chance in hell of getting elected (which is roughly where I rank Ron Paul's chance)"
You must have been asleep these past 2 months.
While he's doing good in fund raising Ron Paul still is below 10% in the polls. Hopefully the funds will help. Though I'm registered No Party Preference now I'll change it to Republican so I can vote for him in the primary. Of course afterwards I'll change it right back.
FalconYes, Ron Paul would help get the government out things it shouldn't be doing - needless wars, torture, warrantless wiretapping, etc. He would not help the government get into things it *should* be doing, like single payer health care and reducing our CO2 emissions.
Ah but Ron Paul would do something about CO2. While he may not go as far as I'd like, he would do something about it. First he'd stop subsidizing petroleum. Then he'd let people keep more of the money they earn and with more money people could more readily afford more efficient stuff. Also with more money more could afford to invest more, people like Sergey Brin and Larry Page would have more they could invest in companies like Nanosolar.
I don't like all the positions Ron Paul has but he comes the closest on some issues that are important to me.
FalconThat seems to be an issue of character, however. That does not change the fact that they still work for and represent the people and should bend to the peoples will.
That's how it should be but politicians don't always follow the will of the people.
FalconYou hit it right on the head. Hillary is mercenary!
FalconNo, seriously. He's worth investigating [ontheissues.org]. I will probably vote for him, because I basically look for two issues to help me decide: a women's right to abortion and the right to own firearms. It's that odd mix of conservative but social policies I like in a candidate. He seems more of a likely contender than a 3rd party and Ron Paul has much less of a chance than this guy. You can check out his main site [richardson...sident.com]. The only thing going against him is that he's not that pretty or charming and I feel the average American needs a somewhat pretty or charming president (Obama, Edwards). And no, I do not work for Richardson's campaign.
Bill Richardson lost me as soon as I saw he favors the so called "War on Drugs". He doesn't believe a person should be able to decide for themselves whether they use a drug or not. I see he believes in choice for abortions but he doesn't for drugs. He also wants to strengthen the police state, and supports the death penalty. He supported the ban on so called assault weapons as well.
Falconis that it's one-size-fits-all philosophy has no way to deal with issues that require government action: health care costs, global warming, pollution, etc.
The Libertarian position isn't one size fits all, it's position is to allow everyone to try their own thing. In the US there's 50 states and the LP would allow each state to do it's own experiments, instead of your one size fits all the feds would have. A state can experiment to find out what works and what doesn't. Then other states can try things the way another state finds that works, and can try something different for those that don't work.
FalconToo bad every self-professed Libertarian I've ever met has been of the "I don't want to pay taxes" variety rather than the "the gov't doesn't really need to regulate that" sort.
The platform of the Libertarian Party says it wants to deregulate. IRL I don't know many Libertarians, or libertarians, but those I do or did know wanted not just deregulation but small government period.
FalconRon Paul may be a decent guy, according to some at least, but to a European socialist like me, he's just as much a right wing religious whack job as Bush
No, Ron Paul is more centrist. Right wingers want big military and law enforcement programs and little social liberty. Left wingers on the other hand want big government social programs and to control businesses. Both Left and right wingers want big government but in different places. Ron Paul on the other hand wants a small federal government period.
FalconClinton just seems to be too populist, almost as if her stance on issues is determined by the changing winds of public opinion.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but isn't that the ideal candidate?
No it isn't. If a person changes their positions on an issue to get elected they can just change it back once elected.
FalconHe certainly did that. In 2000 instead of voting for the person I wanted elected president I specifically voted against Bush. After that I decided I wasn't going to waste my vote again. At least people will know there's at least one person who still believes in freedom and liberty.
Falcona president? It's ridiculous to even suggest that principality an morality of children should be governed.
Oh, when Hillary said "It takes a village."
FalconRequiring a national ID (something all countries around the world except for the US have) as an age verification would be enough.
Oh but it is, the law of the land in the USA is the Constitution of the USA and it gives no such power to the government. Bend the Constitution a little bit, then someone else does, then ad nauseam, 'til eventually the Constitution means nothing.
Falconso what happens when a movie theatre lets a 12 year old into an R rated movie.
I'd say for most 12 year olds, nothing bad.
last i checked, R meant 17 and old only
In the US R only requires someone at least 17 to accompany someone under 17.
FalconSo I am bold enough to cite the works of these 400 scientists who went on record in 2007.
What 400 scientists went on record for what?
1000s of scientists got DDT banned - needlessly - and killed millions of people as a result from malaria.
So wildlife means nothing?
You are really long on whining about problems and short on practicle solutions, aren't you?
I have repeatedly made suggestions of practical solutions. This, this , and this bring up wind farms, in August 2006. Here's one I wrote on algae to produce hydorgen. As is this, and this. I've written of using Switchgrass, and hemp, to produce ethanol. Here's one on using kudzu to produce ethanol. There are other posts I made in the article about "America's First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant". I've written about using hemp to produce biodiesel, as well as other things.
FalconSounds perfectly reasonable to me. A store selling 18+ games to twelve-year-olds should be punished.
BS! It's parents jobs to be parents, not stores and not government. If you want to do what you're proposing then exist it to books. I find the Bible to be offensive; it's filled with incest, rape, murder, and even genocide, so it should be illegal to sell to minors too.
FalconDemocrats _love_ Hollywood, the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA and anything that gives media more money and control. Who's the little cheapskate when it comes to greasing politician's palms?
I don't recall for sure but wasn't the Republicans in control of congress when the DMCA was passed? Republican Rep Howard Coble introduced the DMCA in the House.
Falconfor the record; I didn't like Gore either. If he had a problem with our nation's energy policy and carbon footprint, then he had 8 years to do something about it as VP, and he didn't do jack.
I didn't like Gore either but I thought Bush would be worse. I had planned on voting for Harry Brown, on the LP ticket. But as the election got closer it looked real close so on election day I chose what I thought was the lesser of 2 bads.
FalconHe is the closest to being a Libertarian candidate.
Ron Paul did run as a Libertarian. In 1988 he ran for president on the LP ticket.
FalconI don't care if it's federal or state legislation that gets carried in, as long as eventually everybody has that law.
We don't need more laws, we need less.
Falcon