Reading the first sentence, I was thinking, "Okay, what is this person trying to get at?"
The first sentence is the subject of the post. You lack the reading comprehension ability of a 3rd grader, goodie! Your easy to disprove statements about funding and ad hominem are meaningless.
So when exactly are you going to apply for a job as a TSA screening officer, they are looking for 768, after all it is like winning the lottery or are you just bullshitting.
What a foolish question. Why would I take a starter job anywhere for any reason? Not everyone on Slashdot is young enough to do so. Now if these jobs existed 3x years ago do you think I'd have served in the Army? Do you think I'd have struggled to put myself through 8 years of College as a restaurant manager instead of taking a TSA job? You are not performing mental gymnastics, you are just being a stupid prick.
So people should be banned from joining unions or perhaps having a government jobs means becoming a second class citizen with less rights or well, seriously.
Awe, is someone so enraged that they can't hold a single concept for more than a second? Government jobs should not be allowed to unionize, it's very specific very intentionally. That same opinion and all of the warnings about the dangers can be found as far back as President Hoover. Milton Friedman warned of the same a bit more eloquently. You being too stupid to read has nothing to do with your broken logic and appeal to emotion. Government service, like "Government" can not be treated the same as personal business.
Perhaps you can just kick a random fireman, soldier or policemen in the nuts for you jollies, as they do not deserve the protection of unions and they should be regularly 'sacrificed?', seriously.
Talk about absurdity, yes... I think that anyone I don't like should be thrown into the volcano to be sacrificed. You first.
The problem here is simply that the TSA and the Unions are attempting to blackmail the public for more funding. Just like when President Obama had the National parks shut down, and his was successful.
Want to fix the disease? Start canning Government officers by any and all possible means and ban the ability for Government positions to be unionized. Everyone and their brother warned about the dangers of letting public servants unionize.
It was not too long ago that Public Service was just a job, often requiring sacrifice to fulfill. Today, it's like hitting the frigging Lottery.
I previously answered the first question, and you claimed "nuh uh" once. No do-overs.
The second question part 1. No, I never said armed revolution was necessary. Historically it's been the only way to insight change and remove entrenched power, but in theory a working Republic provides the means for a soft revolution. Part 2. No, you are omitting a particular form of Government called a Republic. A series of dictators killing each other is not efficient, nor is it a Republic. I suggest you read the book of the same name, and recommend the "Cambridge Text" version since it's a historical linguistic translation.
The second question, part 3+. When humans are no longer humans we may be able to expect a perfect government which always remains perfect. Until such time as we are not humans, we have to deal with people who can be anything between greedy and psychopathic, to completely evil. Many people are not even born with a specific immoral trait, but due to life end up deficient.
I never said a small government was unstable, you made that up. I said that governments all succumb to corruption. That is not because Government is small, it's because human nature. The larger "Government" is the more corrupt it is. Have doubts, look at the US, Russia, China, anywhere in Europe, etc... Germany is an example of Government growing massively and behaving at least as poorly to its citizens as the US has. Progressives try to point there claiming it's a paradise, which it surely isn't.
Liberal Progressives in the US live in a fantasy land that pretends that at least some people are perfect and infallible. Namely themselves, and of course they will happily take your money to solve all of your problems. As long as you do what they say of course.
Perhaps you should consider the reason people being "bothered" is simply because your opinion has little basis in fact.
Government did not save minorities or even help them. The Government you claim helped them created Jim Crow laws and legalized discrimination, after the People demanded that the Government remove laws allowing Slavery and counting certain persons as less than others. It took a whole lot of people in the streets protesting violently to change things. People forced laws to change, the "Government" did not do that on it's own. Police did not stop all of the riots, because the people had guns and could defend themselves if needed.
You probably don't bother anyone. You repeating propaganda which warps history to fit a progressive agenda may, but it has nothing to do with you and an unqualified opinion.
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way.
I see the conservatives framing it that way. They want to avoid statements like "I distrust all people and need to be able to shoot them if I want." "The police don't help anyone, so I need to be able to defend myself when they aren't around." "I need a gun to take out the government if they overreach, just like the Forefathers said."
No, you don't hear conservatives framing it that way. I hate to break it to you, but you are confusing people who call themselves conservatives to get votes (and the people pandering to them) with a real Conservative. Ron Paul is one of those people. Ron Paul was let in by accident, and that was "corrected" if you had not noticed. The current lot of "Conservatives" are all extremely liberal. From Christie to Trump they all want more Government and less freedom for the public. Every single candidate has used fear mongering rhetoric as part of their campaign. They have all said that the Feds should have open access to all your stuff anytime the Government wants, etc.. etc....
What you hear is progressives framing the argument. No matter what the T-Shirt says, they do not behave as Conservatives.
And when has it been "fixed" by small government?
Every single a Republic that has been created starts small and works very well. Bloat and corruption occur, and there is a reset. Again, history is your friend here.
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way. They could read history, you know, like the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and frame the argument correctly. The people must be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, hence we must maintain the right to bear arms.
Libertarians understand the historical logic for the second amendment and further understand risk and responsibility. Meanwhile the progressives feverishly attempt to convince everyone that the nanny state is the only way to save humanity and that humans are incapable of making decisions or understanding risk.
Liberals are logical my ass, they like to play make believe. History repeatedly demonstrates that society is never fixed by massive governments. Never, ever, not one time has it happened.
So that your idiocy does not harm an innocent bystander, you are attempting to incorrectly equate news with fact. No such equality exists and your claim is complete horse shit. "News" since the advent of "News" has been a presentation of facts and opinions based on those facts. Journalists working within the credo attempted to present all possible angles of opinion, but that credo has been dead and buried for decades.
Continued attempts to paint an alternative reality is simply trolling. Which at this point I figure you are doing. Anyone with doubts can read a dictionary, journalist's credo, etc...
You either live on a different planet or you never watch any "News" at all. News is filled to the brim with _opinion_, all the time and everywhere. I looked at 9 (CNN, NBC, CBS, ESPN, and even the BBC) sites for stories on the Spurs and _EVERY_SINGLE_ONE_ contained opinions. Opinions like why they lost, how they lost, how they could have won, what Duncan should do, speculation on his retirement, how well the officials did, what fans should expect next, and so on, etc...
Hate to break the news to you, but you are mentally deranged to continue backing your original bullshit. You are wrong.
News is "fact" because you said so? Let us put that theory to the test.
The second amendment is great. True/False? Guns should be outlawed. True/False?
False rape allegations harm society. True/False?
Immigration is good. True/False? Immigration is bad. True/False?
Miley Cyrus is hot. True/False?
Spurs lose a game at home. OMFG, we found one!
Your Slashdot UID means nothing to me. You presented a blanket statement which amounts to complete horse shit. Do I always do research on people I respond to? No, because it's not always necessary. When presented with bullocks I do happen to try and determine what I'm responding to. You have a post history which amounts to single statements that amount to simple true/false with no supporting dialogue.
I'm fine if you are not a sockpuppet, but that does not imply your posts have any depth. I happened to prove you wrong about News being true/false, are you going to admit you are wrong? Hmmm.
The name of the Facebook service is "What's Trending". You really don't need anything else, because you can find all of their advertisements based on those words plus "Facebook". If you were looking for some exact verbiage, inventing alternative dialogue requirements does not make a lie the truth.
The real world and news is not purely black or purely white, and your claim that it can always be true/false is simply ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as your misrepresentation of what Facebook did and does with "news". Facebook does not make news, they provide stories to people allegedly based on what people are interested in. That is their sales pitch for people to use their aggregate service, and it's even named "WHAT'S TRENDING". Quite different from "WHAT WE WENT TO TREND PRETEND IT DOES".
That said, when I looked at your post history I started to smell a sockpuppet.
Facebook promised it's customers that it was providing an unbiased aggregation service based on customers posting stories. Since they actually silenced stories they did not want to trend, and inserted those they did, while claiming "we are just an unbiased aggregate", they broke the law.
Propaganda is a huge issue which Congress _should_ be trying to address. Some of these actions are treasonous (word chosen intentionally, investigate it's use).
You not caring that people are being brainwashed and that people are attempting to undermine the laws of the land is a different issue all together. A Bill Engval quote comes to mind..
Are you attempting to imply that they lied about Facebook? Are you attempting to claim that Facebook lying to customers has no impact? Are you trying to claim that because one person did something wrong they can never point out that another did something wrong? Are you trying to claim that Facebook is innocent? What is the point, perhaps simply a cheap attempt at karma whoring?
You think that an autonomous car solves problems? Fat chance of that happening. The revenue stream will just move from "tickets" to "regulation". Start investing today in "autonomous test" companies. The next source of political bribery^H kickback money.
Fair points. I was not in any way intending "end user training costs" because that is quite different. Most companies don't pay people to learn Word or Excel, it's expected that you know or can figure it out. Tell 99% of those people that Writer is Word and they will never know the difference. Power users developing macros and such will, and sure their training will remain the same.
There is still a helpdesk needed, there is still provisioning needed, there is still patching needed, etc... From the SA standpoint there is little difference between Libre and MS Office.
One of the most overlooked items in these discussions is that Libre Office does not make it "free". "Free license cost" is the correct framing, but that is not what I read.
Don't misunderstand my point, I'm anti-MS and want people to succeed in migrating away from their products. Many Governments have gone back to MS after people point out what I start with. "See, that Free software cost money so it failed to be free and we need MS again!" The expectations have to be correct or projects, especially Government projects, end up failing for the wrong reasons.
This concept is not from the Millennial generation you claim want's it. It's from the same source that pushes other sociological engineering projects. People, even millennial people, don't want this stuff and advocate against it to themselves. The huge push back against the College Campus SJW stuff only happened because things reached a boiling point. That rhetoric and movement started long ago by social engineering projects.
The difficulty I see at present is shutting down some of these projects so that we don't have thousands of simultaneous sources. Music and Media account for many, but we have just about every Government agency now doing the same thing. Sorry folks, but Common Core is not about better education, it's about brainwashing and propaganda. Controlling the masses. The NSA programs are all about tracking the masses to silence critics and control the populace. The FBI and CIA have traditionally been used for that same thing too. It's not "new", but the scale at which it's grown is incredible.
How amazing that your argument starts right away with a personal attack and more absurdity. I gave you the definition of Global economy and you simply pretend that it didn't happen. You jump to asinine arguments about what the Government role is for protecting the Nation, make absurd claims as an ad homimen, and completely ignore presented factual people like Henry Ford who defined the country.
I do so hope your children and grandchildren get to participate in the 3rd world poverty economy you are so gleeful about. You will reap what you sow in the end, and I sincerely hope you get to wallow in it for a good long while. Right now you have "stuff", maybe.. I'm guessing you are a piss ant paid peanuts to troll.
Lastly, I don't speak Troll myself but I sure do recognize the dialect. Given that you are Trolling you go pound a bag of sand up your ass.
Thanks for demonstrating that you are a sociopath. The delusion of the "Global Economy" is all the validation we need to know you are exactly that. A global economy would mean that workers are all on par. Minimum wage would have a global definition, working conditions would have a global definition, workers compensation would have a global definition, worker rights to unionize would exist, and employers would be held accountable for breaking those global regulations.
That world does not exist, and you are simply repeating propaganda as an excuse for your psychopathy.
Obviously you can't picture any action that your Government could take, you refuse to look at the _real_ world.
Why not petition the Government to do what they are supposed to do instead of saying your only option is to fuck over your neighbors? Are you really that much of a sociopath that you can't grasp another option? Don't even try that shit about you being a job creator, because if you are defending off shoring jobs you are not a creator but a destroyer. Anyone can look at Henry Ford's business model and understand why it worked and built a huge middle class economy, you sending money overseas destroys that very thing. Without any question at all.
If you are a small business, you are not outsourcing because it costs too much money.
I thought you were going to get to some good stuff when talking price, but alas not quite what I hoped for. All books are not, nor should they be, the same price. Basic High school economics will teach you about supply and demand and how it impacts pricing. Before you "but e-books" remember that the author/artist needs to be paid so a lower volume book will still cost more money even in electronic form. Tragedy and Hope in Hardback is massive, and has a price to match. It also cost more money to have that book shipped than a paperback, because it's massive.
Simple economics aside: I don't know that the problem they are seeing with book prices in this case is purely supply and demand pricing. On the surface it seems like people are attempting to inflate book prices to prevent people from knowledge. More elementary education is about how knowledge is power and people with power attempt to prevent people from learning so that they can maintain power.
Amazon is a company, not a Government. If they are going to sell in the country they need to follow the rules the Government provides. I think the term I'd look at is "damned if we do, damned if we don't" in that case.
I wonder if they even believe it themselves? Seriously, I'm turning into quite a conspiracy kook or something. I mean, yeah, I fully expected what Snowden released but what more is there?
Evaluation from the perspective of "Government is potentially evil" is not "kook", and does not make you one. There has been a huge amount of propaganda which makes one think that, but it's a psychological war. Go back to the 1970s and read Gary Allen and Milton Friedman, and read what people wrote about them. Or perhaps consider what was not said about them in US media, while other talking heads became main stream.
Government does not have morality on it's own and can be neither "good" or "evil". The people controlling government however can be good or evil.
I generally laugh at people who claim "conspiracy" as though such a thing is impossible. Imagine a world where several people wielding power refused to speak to each other and plan to gain more power. It would never happen, but you could imagine it.
Questioning does not make one a kook, in fact I'll argue that it takes more sanity to question everything than it does to simply accept what you are told. It's amazing how many people become manic about protecting their belief and try to shut down your questions. That latter part is insanity.
I view a different reality from the world you assume.
"Read me the front page of the New York Times."
Viv - "Ad brought to you by McDonald's. You deserve a break today. Present this device and receive a 1% discount on any purchase of 5.00 or more for lunch. First Story - Brought to you by SnapOn Tools -" and you get treated to the exact portrayal of the story the propagandists dream of, with all the emphasis and pregnant pauses in all the right places.
"Read me the first chapter of Moby Dick"
Viv - "People who read this book also read of Mice and Men. I do not show you as a registered owner of reading rights for that book, would you like me to buy a copy for you? Please wait while I verify your ownership of rights to read Moby Dick - You have 2 reading rights remaining to this book - First page, brought to you by Kelloggs" *commercial spot*
Slashdot Mirror
I actually do, but you seem to lack knowledge in every conceivable area. Including the 60s by the way.
Reading the first sentence, I was thinking, "Okay, what is this person trying to get at?"
The first sentence is the subject of the post. You lack the reading comprehension ability of a 3rd grader, goodie! Your easy to disprove statements about funding and ad hominem are meaningless.
So when exactly are you going to apply for a job as a TSA screening officer, they are looking for 768, after all it is like winning the lottery or are you just bullshitting.
What a foolish question. Why would I take a starter job anywhere for any reason? Not everyone on Slashdot is young enough to do so. Now if these jobs existed 3x years ago do you think I'd have served in the Army? Do you think I'd have struggled to put myself through 8 years of College as a restaurant manager instead of taking a TSA job? You are not performing mental gymnastics, you are just being a stupid prick.
So people should be banned from joining unions or perhaps having a government jobs means becoming a second class citizen with less rights or well, seriously.
Awe, is someone so enraged that they can't hold a single concept for more than a second? Government jobs should not be allowed to unionize, it's very specific very intentionally. That same opinion and all of the warnings about the dangers can be found as far back as President Hoover. Milton Friedman warned of the same a bit more eloquently. You being too stupid to read has nothing to do with your broken logic and appeal to emotion. Government service, like "Government" can not be treated the same as personal business.
Perhaps you can just kick a random fireman, soldier or policemen in the nuts for you jollies, as they do not deserve the protection of unions and they should be regularly 'sacrificed?', seriously.
Talk about absurdity, yes... I think that anyone I don't like should be thrown into the volcano to be sacrificed. You first.
The problem here is simply that the TSA and the Unions are attempting to blackmail the public for more funding. Just like when President Obama had the National parks shut down, and his was successful.
Want to fix the disease? Start canning Government officers by any and all possible means and ban the ability for Government positions to be unionized. Everyone and their brother warned about the dangers of letting public servants unionize.
It was not too long ago that Public Service was just a job, often requiring sacrifice to fulfill. Today, it's like hitting the frigging Lottery.
I previously answered the first question, and you claimed "nuh uh" once. No do-overs.
The second question part 1. No, I never said armed revolution was necessary. Historically it's been the only way to insight change and remove entrenched power, but in theory a working Republic provides the means for a soft revolution. Part 2. No, you are omitting a particular form of Government called a Republic. A series of dictators killing each other is not efficient, nor is it a Republic. I suggest you read the book of the same name, and recommend the "Cambridge Text" version since it's a historical linguistic translation.
The second question, part 3+. When humans are no longer humans we may be able to expect a perfect government which always remains perfect. Until such time as we are not humans, we have to deal with people who can be anything between greedy and psychopathic, to completely evil. Many people are not even born with a specific immoral trait, but due to life end up deficient.
I never said a small government was unstable, you made that up. I said that governments all succumb to corruption. That is not because Government is small, it's because human nature. The larger "Government" is the more corrupt it is. Have doubts, look at the US, Russia, China, anywhere in Europe, etc... Germany is an example of Government growing massively and behaving at least as poorly to its citizens as the US has. Progressives try to point there claiming it's a paradise, which it surely isn't.
Liberal Progressives in the US live in a fantasy land that pretends that at least some people are perfect and infallible. Namely themselves, and of course they will happily take your money to solve all of your problems. As long as you do what they say of course.
Perhaps you should consider the reason people being "bothered" is simply because your opinion has little basis in fact.
Government did not save minorities or even help them. The Government you claim helped them created Jim Crow laws and legalized discrimination, after the People demanded that the Government remove laws allowing Slavery and counting certain persons as less than others. It took a whole lot of people in the streets protesting violently to change things. People forced laws to change, the "Government" did not do that on it's own. Police did not stop all of the riots, because the people had guns and could defend themselves if needed.
You probably don't bother anyone. You repeating propaganda which warps history to fit a progressive agenda may, but it has nothing to do with you and an unqualified opinion.
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way.
I see the conservatives framing it that way. They want to avoid statements like "I distrust all people and need to be able to shoot them if I want." "The police don't help anyone, so I need to be able to defend myself when they aren't around." "I need a gun to take out the government if they overreach, just like the Forefathers said."
No, you don't hear conservatives framing it that way. I hate to break it to you, but you are confusing people who call themselves conservatives to get votes (and the people pandering to them) with a real Conservative. Ron Paul is one of those people. Ron Paul was let in by accident, and that was "corrected" if you had not noticed. The current lot of "Conservatives" are all extremely liberal. From Christie to Trump they all want more Government and less freedom for the public. Every single candidate has used fear mongering rhetoric as part of their campaign. They have all said that the Feds should have open access to all your stuff anytime the Government wants, etc.. etc....
What you hear is progressives framing the argument. No matter what the T-Shirt says, they do not behave as Conservatives.
And when has it been "fixed" by small government?
Every single a Republic that has been created starts small and works very well. Bloat and corruption occur, and there is a reset. Again, history is your friend here.
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way. They could read history, you know, like the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and frame the argument correctly. The people must be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, hence we must maintain the right to bear arms.
Libertarians understand the historical logic for the second amendment and further understand risk and responsibility. Meanwhile the progressives feverishly attempt to convince everyone that the nanny state is the only way to save humanity and that humans are incapable of making decisions or understanding risk.
Liberals are logical my ass, they like to play make believe. History repeatedly demonstrates that society is never fixed by massive governments. Never, ever, not one time has it happened.
So that your idiocy does not harm an innocent bystander, you are attempting to incorrectly equate news with fact. No such equality exists and your claim is complete horse shit. "News" since the advent of "News" has been a presentation of facts and opinions based on those facts. Journalists working within the credo attempted to present all possible angles of opinion, but that credo has been dead and buried for decades.
Continued attempts to paint an alternative reality is simply trolling. Which at this point I figure you are doing. Anyone with doubts can read a dictionary, journalist's credo, etc...
You either live on a different planet or you never watch any "News" at all. News is filled to the brim with _opinion_, all the time and everywhere. I looked at 9 (CNN, NBC, CBS, ESPN, and even the BBC) sites for stories on the Spurs and _EVERY_SINGLE_ONE_ contained opinions. Opinions like why they lost, how they lost, how they could have won, what Duncan should do, speculation on his retirement, how well the officials did, what fans should expect next, and so on, etc...
Hate to break the news to you, but you are mentally deranged to continue backing your original bullshit. You are wrong.
News is "fact" because you said so? Let us put that theory to the test.
The second amendment is great. True/False? Guns should be outlawed. True/False?
False rape allegations harm society. True/False?
Immigration is good. True/False? Immigration is bad. True/False?
Miley Cyrus is hot. True/False?
Spurs lose a game at home. OMFG, we found one!
Your Slashdot UID means nothing to me. You presented a blanket statement which amounts to complete horse shit. Do I always do research on people I respond to? No, because it's not always necessary. When presented with bullocks I do happen to try and determine what I'm responding to. You have a post history which amounts to single statements that amount to simple true/false with no supporting dialogue.
I'm fine if you are not a sockpuppet, but that does not imply your posts have any depth. I happened to prove you wrong about News being true/false, are you going to admit you are wrong? Hmmm.
The name of the Facebook service is "What's Trending". You really don't need anything else, because you can find all of their advertisements based on those words plus "Facebook". If you were looking for some exact verbiage, inventing alternative dialogue requirements does not make a lie the truth.
The real world and news is not purely black or purely white, and your claim that it can always be true/false is simply ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as your misrepresentation of what Facebook did and does with "news". Facebook does not make news, they provide stories to people allegedly based on what people are interested in. That is their sales pitch for people to use their aggregate service, and it's even named "WHAT'S TRENDING". Quite different from "WHAT WE WENT TO TREND PRETEND IT DOES".
That said, when I looked at your post history I started to smell a sockpuppet.
Facebook promised it's customers that it was providing an unbiased aggregation service based on customers posting stories. Since they actually silenced stories they did not want to trend, and inserted those they did, while claiming "we are just an unbiased aggregate", they broke the law.
Propaganda is a huge issue which Congress _should_ be trying to address. Some of these actions are treasonous (word chosen intentionally, investigate it's use).
You not caring that people are being brainwashed and that people are attempting to undermine the laws of the land is a different issue all together. A Bill Engval quote comes to mind..
Are you attempting to imply that they lied about Facebook? Are you attempting to claim that Facebook lying to customers has no impact? Are you trying to claim that because one person did something wrong they can never point out that another did something wrong? Are you trying to claim that Facebook is innocent? What is the point, perhaps simply a cheap attempt at karma whoring?
You think that an autonomous car solves problems? Fat chance of that happening. The revenue stream will just move from "tickets" to "regulation". Start investing today in "autonomous test" companies. The next source of political bribery^H kickback money.
Fair points. I was not in any way intending "end user training costs" because that is quite different. Most companies don't pay people to learn Word or Excel, it's expected that you know or can figure it out. Tell 99% of those people that Writer is Word and they will never know the difference. Power users developing macros and such will, and sure their training will remain the same.
There is still a helpdesk needed, there is still provisioning needed, there is still patching needed, etc... From the SA standpoint there is little difference between Libre and MS Office.
One of the most overlooked items in these discussions is that Libre Office does not make it "free". "Free license cost" is the correct framing, but that is not what I read.
Don't misunderstand my point, I'm anti-MS and want people to succeed in migrating away from their products. Many Governments have gone back to MS after people point out what I start with. "See, that Free software cost money so it failed to be free and we need MS again!" The expectations have to be correct or projects, especially Government projects, end up failing for the wrong reasons.
This concept is not from the Millennial generation you claim want's it. It's from the same source that pushes other sociological engineering projects. People, even millennial people, don't want this stuff and advocate against it to themselves. The huge push back against the College Campus SJW stuff only happened because things reached a boiling point. That rhetoric and movement started long ago by social engineering projects.
The difficulty I see at present is shutting down some of these projects so that we don't have thousands of simultaneous sources. Music and Media account for many, but we have just about every Government agency now doing the same thing. Sorry folks, but Common Core is not about better education, it's about brainwashing and propaganda. Controlling the masses. The NSA programs are all about tracking the masses to silence critics and control the populace. The FBI and CIA have traditionally been used for that same thing too. It's not "new", but the scale at which it's grown is incredible.
How amazing that your argument starts right away with a personal attack and more absurdity. I gave you the definition of Global economy and you simply pretend that it didn't happen. You jump to asinine arguments about what the Government role is for protecting the Nation, make absurd claims as an ad homimen, and completely ignore presented factual people like Henry Ford who defined the country.
I do so hope your children and grandchildren get to participate in the 3rd world poverty economy you are so gleeful about. You will reap what you sow in the end, and I sincerely hope you get to wallow in it for a good long while. Right now you have "stuff", maybe.. I'm guessing you are a piss ant paid peanuts to troll.
Lastly, I don't speak Troll myself but I sure do recognize the dialect. Given that you are Trolling you go pound a bag of sand up your ass.
Thanks for demonstrating that you are a sociopath. The delusion of the "Global Economy" is all the validation we need to know you are exactly that. A global economy would mean that workers are all on par. Minimum wage would have a global definition, working conditions would have a global definition, workers compensation would have a global definition, worker rights to unionize would exist, and employers would be held accountable for breaking those global regulations.
That world does not exist, and you are simply repeating propaganda as an excuse for your psychopathy.
Obviously you can't picture any action that your Government could take, you refuse to look at the _real_ world.
Why not petition the Government to do what they are supposed to do instead of saying your only option is to fuck over your neighbors? Are you really that much of a sociopath that you can't grasp another option? Don't even try that shit about you being a job creator, because if you are defending off shoring jobs you are not a creator but a destroyer. Anyone can look at Henry Ford's business model and understand why it worked and built a huge middle class economy, you sending money overseas destroys that very thing. Without any question at all.
If you are a small business, you are not outsourcing because it costs too much money.
I thought you were going to get to some good stuff when talking price, but alas not quite what I hoped for. All books are not, nor should they be, the same price. Basic High school economics will teach you about supply and demand and how it impacts pricing. Before you "but e-books" remember that the author/artist needs to be paid so a lower volume book will still cost more money even in electronic form. Tragedy and Hope in Hardback is massive, and has a price to match. It also cost more money to have that book shipped than a paperback, because it's massive.
Simple economics aside: I don't know that the problem they are seeing with book prices in this case is purely supply and demand pricing. On the surface it seems like people are attempting to inflate book prices to prevent people from knowledge. More elementary education is about how knowledge is power and people with power attempt to prevent people from learning so that they can maintain power.
Amazon is a company, not a Government. If they are going to sell in the country they need to follow the rules the Government provides. I think the term I'd look at is "damned if we do, damned if we don't" in that case.
I wonder if they even believe it themselves? Seriously, I'm turning into quite a conspiracy kook or something. I mean, yeah, I fully expected what Snowden released but what more is there?
Evaluation from the perspective of "Government is potentially evil" is not "kook", and does not make you one. There has been a huge amount of propaganda which makes one think that, but it's a psychological war. Go back to the 1970s and read Gary Allen and Milton Friedman, and read what people wrote about them. Or perhaps consider what was not said about them in US media, while other talking heads became main stream.
Government does not have morality on it's own and can be neither "good" or "evil". The people controlling government however can be good or evil.
I generally laugh at people who claim "conspiracy" as though such a thing is impossible. Imagine a world where several people wielding power refused to speak to each other and plan to gain more power. It would never happen, but you could imagine it.
Questioning does not make one a kook, in fact I'll argue that it takes more sanity to question everything than it does to simply accept what you are told. It's amazing how many people become manic about protecting their belief and try to shut down your questions. That latter part is insanity.
I view a different reality from the world you assume.
"Read me the front page of the New York Times."
Viv - "Ad brought to you by McDonald's. You deserve a break today. Present this device and receive a 1% discount on any purchase of 5.00 or more for lunch. First Story - Brought to you by SnapOn Tools -" and you get treated to the exact portrayal of the story the propagandists dream of, with all the emphasis and pregnant pauses in all the right places.
"Read me the first chapter of Moby Dick"
Viv - "People who read this book also read of Mice and Men. I do not show you as a registered owner of reading rights for that book, would you like me to buy a copy for you? Please wait while I verify your ownership of rights to read Moby Dick - You have 2 reading rights remaining to this book - First page, brought to you by Kelloggs" *commercial spot*