The downside to this plan is that the result may be another four years of Bush. Another four years of increased government, decreased civil liberties and how many more wars?
The alternatives seem to be 1. Vote for Bush, get what you mention above. 2. Vote for Kerry, get the exact same shit. (Please contemplate Kerry's record before responding to that bit.) or 3. Vote your conscience, get the same shit, since either Bush or Kerry will win.
Wow. That's the easiest decision I've made all day.
The fact is that both parties love that people scream about vote-wasting, because it supports their duopoly. I honestly can't tell the difference between a Democrat or a Republican by his actions, only by his words. If I'm resigned to the idea that one or the other will win, the only choice that I actually have is to waste my vote on one of them, spend a vote to try to support a party who's platform I have some faith in, or not vote.
My beef is that these people guilelessly listen to the people trying to make a buck off of them, instead of the people that they actually hired for the express reason that they are experts on the subject.
Every business decision is the ultimate responsibility of a business person. That doesn't mitigate the foolishness of ignoring expert advice.
So companies engage in this behavior simply for the altruistic end of keeping marketing people (who are clearly not qualified to do anything else) off the street?
I suddenly have much warmer feelings toward corporate America.
My theory is that the problem, if there is one, is that MBAs are making too many of the technical decisions. (I.e. "Which mail server should we use? Why, Exchange, of course!")
As long as the real customer is a non-technical person, technological products will be marketed this way.
I assure you that I am not more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.
First, would you care to cite an actual number and source?* "[M]any, many" isn't very precise. Does that statistic account for training and background? I have been shooting since I was a fairly small kid. I completed a hunter's safety course as a kid (and my Dad was a state hunter's safety instructor). I earned both the rifle and shotgun merit badges as a Boy Scout (back when it was two badges). I served in the Army for four years, including a hitch in the Balkans. I have completed the NRA's personal defense course, which is widely considered adequate training for concealed carry by sheriffs and police chiefs in Colorado.
Does your "statistic" hold when you limit the sample to people with similar training and backgrounds?
Second, could you explain how I'm going to shoot a family member when the nearest one lives some 15 miles from me as the crow (or 240 grain hydra-shok) flies?
Please exercise more caution in both your sources and application of statistics in the future.
-Peter
* Is the number 43? Dr. Kellerman's study was so bad that Handgun Control Inc. has pulled all reference to it from their site.
Right. The flip side, it's okay to kill your baby, but not your assailant, makes much more sense.
I don't see any conflict in the belief that an unborn fetus deserves legal status as a human being and the belief that self-protection is a natural right.
I'll phrase it as "I'm pro-armed defense of my life, and statutory defense of the lives of innocents."
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Furthermore, the Union government instituted an income tax during the Civil War that was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court.
There is no debate that the Union government did not have the authority to levy an income tax prior to the sixteenth amendment. (Since you quoted the original Constitution you are off by over a century.)
Some people, presumably to include Mr. Badnarik, believe that the sixteenth amendment was never properly ratified.
I don't understand what distinction you are trying to make. That Hitler didn't personally go to the homes of Jews and take their guns?
Let's stipulate that the German people, Jews included, were disarmed prior to Hitler's regime. What difference does it make to the argument?
It sounds like the article you cite takes the position that the German gun control laws were successful because the Nazis came into power without using guns. That strikes me as a meager victory.
Slashdot Mirror
Precedence means priority or order. I think you mean precedent: an earlier occurrence of something similar.
-Peter
The alternatives seem to be 1. Vote for Bush, get what you mention above. 2. Vote for Kerry, get the exact same shit. (Please contemplate Kerry's record before responding to that bit.) or 3. Vote your conscience, get the same shit, since either Bush or Kerry will win.
Wow. That's the easiest decision I've made all day.
The fact is that both parties love that people scream about vote-wasting, because it supports their duopoly. I honestly can't tell the difference between a Democrat or a Republican by his actions, only by his words. If I'm resigned to the idea that one or the other will win, the only choice that I actually have is to waste my vote on one of them, spend a vote to try to support a party who's platform I have some faith in, or not vote.
-Peter
My beef is that these people guilelessly listen to the people trying to make a buck off of them, instead of the people that they actually hired for the express reason that they are experts on the subject.
Every business decision is the ultimate responsibility of a business person. That doesn't mitigate the foolishness of ignoring expert advice.
-Peter
So companies engage in this behavior simply for the altruistic end of keeping marketing people (who are clearly not qualified to do anything else) off the street?
I suddenly have much warmer feelings toward corporate America.
-Peter
The market delivers what customers want.
My theory is that the problem, if there is one, is that MBAs are making too many of the technical decisions. (I.e. "Which mail server should we use? Why, Exchange, of course!")
As long as the real customer is a non-technical person, technological products will be marketed this way.
-Peter
Woah! "craptacular" has moved up 1138 places since your post!
-Peter
Won't somebody please think of the fish?
-Peter
I assure you that I am not more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.
First, would you care to cite an actual number and source?* "[M]any, many" isn't very precise. Does that statistic account for training and background? I have been shooting since I was a fairly small kid. I completed a hunter's safety course as a kid (and my Dad was a state hunter's safety instructor). I earned both the rifle and shotgun merit badges as a Boy Scout (back when it was two badges). I served in the Army for four years, including a hitch in the Balkans. I have completed the NRA's personal defense course, which is widely considered adequate training for concealed carry by sheriffs and police chiefs in Colorado.
Does your "statistic" hold when you limit the sample to people with similar training and backgrounds?
Second, could you explain how I'm going to shoot a family member when the nearest one lives some 15 miles from me as the crow (or 240 grain hydra-shok) flies?
Please exercise more caution in both your sources and application of statistics in the future.
-Peter
* Is the number 43? Dr. Kellerman's study was so bad that Handgun Control Inc. has pulled all reference to it from their site.
-P
What if I can't stand Bush, but Kerry makes me even more ill?
I'll be voting Badnarik.
-Peter
Right. The flip side, it's okay to kill your baby, but not your assailant, makes much more sense.
I don't see any conflict in the belief that an unborn fetus deserves legal status as a human being and the belief that self-protection is a natural right.
I'll phrase it as "I'm pro-armed defense of my life, and statutory defense of the lives of innocents."
-Peter
And don't cross those big mountains. Danforth keeps dropping hints that he saw something over there.
-Peter
Yup. Just like firearms.
-Peter
Very nice. I particularly like the attention to the detail of null terminating.
-Peter
That was almost funny. You should have said something like "I just cracked your files and zeroed them all out." or something.
-Peter
Horseshit. All my data is XORed against itself before it is written to disk. I assure you that you can't crack it.
-Peter
But Vader was Tarkin's bitch.
Watch it again, and notice that Vader's character changes dramatically between ANH and Empire.
-Peter
They're running a promotion this week, mention Pythagoras and they upgrade you to pi years at no extra charge!
-Peter
Please ask mom to explain reflexive pronouns.
-Peter
PS: I'm a big advocate of homeschooling.
-P
Furthermore, the Union government instituted an income tax during the Civil War that was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court.
There is no debate that the Union government did not have the authority to levy an income tax prior to the sixteenth amendment. (Since you quoted the original Constitution you are off by over a century.)
Some people, presumably to include Mr. Badnarik, believe that the sixteenth amendment was never properly ratified.
-Peter
I'm amazed that this experience didn't convince you to join. Consider joining the JPFO as well.
I'm sorry that you have to live with this event, but I'm glad you don't have to live with a greater tragedy.
-Peter
I don't understand what distinction you are trying to make. That Hitler didn't personally go to the homes of Jews and take their guns?
Let's stipulate that the German people, Jews included, were disarmed prior to Hitler's regime. What difference does it make to the argument?
It sounds like the article you cite takes the position that the German gun control laws were successful because the Nazis came into power without using guns. That strikes me as a meager victory.
-Peter
Well said.
For extra credit would you like to illuminate for the class how this relates to drug prohibition?
-Peter
Not much. You are mostly water.
-Peter
I'm pretty sure you were "reading" it with the wrong end.
-Peter
I almost posted something about the author being no stranger to sodomy. I don't know anything about Wilde molesting boys.
.
If he did it would shed and interesting light on the story at issue . .
-Peter