Yes if there was a level playing field. But there is not and you know it.
Sure maybe one day if you work very very had and bust your ass and avoid having a heart attack or a stroke you could have 1/1000th of the wealth of paris hilton but it's a pretty small chance.
"If the economy is in such a slump, how come we can't find anybody to show up for work for more than 2 days in a row?"
Maybe the job sucks that much. Maybe the boss is an asshole and nobody can stand to put up with him.
BTW every time in history there has not been regulation it has always ended up in slave like conditions. Look at the many third world countries and also in our own history. No regulation = slave labor 100% of the time. It never fails.
How can you possibly ignore that kind of evidence?
While I approve of taxing consumption rather then income I doubt the US economy would stand for it. We are a nation of consumers, if you discourage consumption then the rich will no longer get richer and they won't stand for that.
"Does he think that a terrorist group planning an attack on the United States might stop and say "Hey, maybe we should leave the US alone, because I like Pepsi and Macdonalds"?"
No but Osama attacked us because we had troops in the holy land (Saudi Arabia) and because we support israel.
A Liberterian is a person who wants to severely weaken the excutive and legislative branches of govt and transfer all the power to the judicial branch. In a liberterian utopia the govt has almost no laws and the you have to sue to try and get justice.
No I am responding to the poster who wanted the rural states to have more say. I think that's a horrible idea because by and large they suck up the tax oney from urban areas. In a very real sense those people are welfare recipients.
There is an old joke in the rural west it goes like this. "Why did the farmer want to be buried in a shallow grave?". 'Because he wanted to keep his hand out'
"We need less policy and more freedom. Libertarian."
This is the primary delusion of the liberterian. They believe that less policy means more freedom. Less policy may mean more liberty (that is freedom from government) but it means less freedom when other powerful organization can run amok without oversight or bounds. Sure the government won't be able to tell you what to do but when the neighborhood thugs come by your house to demand protection money or when your children are sick from salmonella or when the corporations have denied you the right to own anything it's not going to help you much.
the character of Arnie was made clear when he spoke on the republican convention and backed a platform he himself would not run on. Or maybe he would who knows what he actually stands for. Apparently he is perfectly comfortable with outlawing abortion and preventing gays from being married.
HOw is this different then just a few people in "Swing" states deciding? Why is it fair to states like NY or California if a bunch of people in iowa decide who the president is.
The truth is that people in urban areas pay out more in taxes then they get back while people in rural states receive more tax money then they pay out. Why should the leeches get to set policy?
What is your vision of what will happen to poor people once all government aid is stopped. What percentage of them will resort to crime to eat and to feed their families.
What is vision of what will happen to the environment once all environmental regulations are overturned.
JUst have a instant runoff type of election and you'll take care of the whole thing. There are lots of alternatives to winner take all all of them are possible to implement TODAY. It's just that the major parties will never agree to them.
The solution goes like this.
1) An independent party selects a really popular celebrity so they can win an election in a state. 2) The new governor institutes an alternative voting system for all state ballots and maybe even national ones if he can get away with it. 3) Once the people get empowered they will scream at the feds till get the same thing. 4) Rinse and repeat in each state.
Ventura won because he was a celebirty. Just like Arnold.
Americans as a general rule will vote for celebrities in very high numbers. If the liberterian party wants to win it should take a cue from republicans and nominate celebrities whenever it can. They were talking about nominating Mike Ditka in illinois which would have been a sure bet. The senator from Oklahoma was a star football player in a state which worships football. Think like that. Find some local celebirty (football star, movie star or whatever) and nominate them.
" but saying "Pot should be legal" and "there should be no regulation with no middle ground" (which is what that party is perceived to stand for) won't win it. They need to do better."
Minor correction. That's not what the party is perceived to stand for it IS what the party stands for.
It would be interesting to do a study on people who have killed other people in situations like that. I wonder how many of them get fucked in the head knowing that they killed somebody for tresspasing or stealing something or maybe for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Most go in because they need the money or to get some money for collage. Some go because it's the only way to get out of the small godforsaken town they have lived in all their lives. Some go because their parents expect them to.
Very few go for self improvement or adventure.
There are also lots of people like you though. People who go hoping to kill.
He is advocating an all out war with north korea and is willing the accept the deaths of millions of north and south koreans. That makes him psychotic. Anybody who would instigate slaughter on that scale when he is not under any threat and can not think of any other method to deal with his perceived problem needs psychological help.
Like most americans the deaths of millions of brown or yellow people to him are meaningless or at least something he is willing to risk on some wild ass theory that he will be doing some future good. Does it sound like the thoughts of a rational person to you?
Why is he so eager to slaughter millions of people when nobody has threatened him in any way?
At this point and time it certainly looks like he will get re-elected. His latest campaign slogan of "vote for me or al-quada will kill you" seems to resonate with americans.
Presuming that's true it's not too different then what most american movie or rock stars do.
How many times have you heard about some movie star insisting on some special water shipped all the way from france or makeup that costs 10,000.00 an ounce.
"It's funny how touchy-feely lefty types don't seem to care about the MILLIONS of people who are killed by their own tyranical governments."
It's funny how the murderous right does'nt seem to care about the MILLIONS os people who are killed by their own tyranical governments if those governments don't have oil or some other thing the fascists want.
Your typical republitard would rather send troops to kill homosexuals then to stop genocide in sudan.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes if there was a level playing field. But there is not and you know it.
Sure maybe one day if you work very very had and bust your ass and avoid having a heart attack or a stroke you could have 1/1000th of the wealth of paris hilton but it's a pretty small chance.
You can't do that though. The supreme court has already ruled on that.
The only people who vote for third party candidates are the people who don't give a shit who runs the country.
Actually they are also pretty close on gun control. Neither party wants to ban weapons. The democrats want a LITTLE more regulation but that's it.
Where they do differ a lot is on homosexuals. The republicans seem to revile them for some reason.
"If the economy is in such a slump, how come we can't find anybody to show up for work for more than 2 days in a row?"
Maybe the job sucks that much. Maybe the boss is an asshole and nobody can stand to put up with him.
BTW every time in history there has not been regulation it has always ended up in slave like conditions. Look at the many third world countries and also in our own history. No regulation = slave labor 100% of the time. It never fails.
How can you possibly ignore that kind of evidence?
While I approve of taxing consumption rather then income I doubt the US economy would stand for it. We are a nation of consumers, if you discourage consumption then the rich will no longer get richer and they won't stand for that.
"Does he think that a terrorist group planning an attack on the United States might stop and say "Hey, maybe we should leave the US alone, because I like Pepsi and Macdonalds"?"
No but Osama attacked us because we had troops in the holy land (Saudi Arabia) and because we support israel.
A Liberterian is a person who wants to severely weaken the excutive and legislative branches of govt and transfer all the power to the judicial branch. In a liberterian utopia the govt has almost no laws and the you have to sue to try and get justice.
It's a bad idea all around.
No I am responding to the poster who wanted the rural states to have more say. I think that's a horrible idea because by and large they suck up the tax oney from urban areas. In a very real sense those people are welfare recipients.
There is an old joke in the rural west it goes like this. "Why did the farmer want to be buried in a shallow grave?". 'Because he wanted to keep his hand out'
"We need less policy and more freedom. Libertarian."
This is the primary delusion of the liberterian. They believe that less policy means more freedom. Less policy may mean more liberty (that is freedom from government) but it means less freedom when other powerful organization can run amok without oversight or bounds. Sure the government won't be able to tell you what to do but when the neighborhood thugs come by your house to demand protection money or when your children are sick from salmonella or when the corporations have denied you the right to own anything it's not going to help you much.
the character of Arnie was made clear when he spoke on the republican convention and backed a platform he himself would not run on. Or maybe he would who knows what he actually stands for. Apparently he is perfectly comfortable with outlawing abortion and preventing gays from being married.
HOw is this different then just a few people in "Swing" states deciding? Why is it fair to states like NY or California if a bunch of people in iowa decide who the president is.
The truth is that people in urban areas pay out more in taxes then they get back while people in rural states receive more tax money then they pay out. Why should the leeches get to set policy?
Better yet.
What is your vision of what will happen to poor people once all government aid is stopped. What percentage of them will resort to crime to eat and to feed their families.
What is vision of what will happen to the environment once all environmental regulations are overturned.
JUst have a instant runoff type of election and you'll take care of the whole thing. There are lots of alternatives to winner take all all of them are possible to implement TODAY. It's just that the major parties will never agree to them.
The solution goes like this.
1) An independent party selects a really popular celebrity so they can win an election in a state.
2) The new governor institutes an alternative voting system for all state ballots and maybe even national ones if he can get away with it.
3) Once the people get empowered they will scream at the feds till get the same thing.
4) Rinse and repeat in each state.
Ventura won because he was a celebirty. Just like Arnold.
Americans as a general rule will vote for celebrities in very high numbers. If the liberterian party wants to win it should take a cue from republicans and nominate celebrities whenever it can. They were talking about nominating Mike Ditka in illinois which would have been a sure bet. The senator from Oklahoma was a star football player in a state which worships football. Think like that. Find some local celebirty (football star, movie star or whatever) and nominate them.
" but saying "Pot should be legal" and "there should be no regulation with no middle ground" (which is what that party is perceived to stand for) won't win it. They need to do better."
Minor correction. That's not what the party is perceived to stand for it IS what the party stands for.
" Part of the reason for a jury trial is to determine whether you've got the right guy"
Yes that's a part.
"No worries about that when you've caught him in the act."
Mmmm That's the other part. How do we know you just didn't shoot somebody who knocked on your door or your wifes lover?
"If I were in fear for my life, and had no other reasonable options, I would shoot."
I heard this in a movie once. "By the time you need a gun, you've already made a hundred mistakes"
It would be interesting to do a study on people who have killed other people in situations like that. I wonder how many of them get fucked in the head knowing that they killed somebody for tresspasing or stealing something or maybe for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Wow. The punishment for theft is the death penalty without the benefit of a jury or a trial.
Only in texas.
Most go in because they need the money or to get some money for collage. Some go because it's the only way to get out of the small godforsaken town they have lived in all their lives. Some go because their parents expect them to.
Very few go for self improvement or adventure.
There are also lots of people like you though. People who go hoping to kill.
That was taken care of. He wasn't threating kuwait again.
I guess to you one excuse for killing arabs is good as any huh?
How come you love the kuwaitis all of a sudden anyway? Where did all this newfound love of the kuwaitis come from?
He is advocating an all out war with north korea and is willing the accept the deaths of millions of north and south koreans. That makes him psychotic. Anybody who would instigate slaughter on that scale when he is not under any threat and can not think of any other method to deal with his perceived problem needs psychological help.
Like most americans the deaths of millions of brown or yellow people to him are meaningless or at least something he is willing to risk on some wild ass theory that he will be doing some future good. Does it sound like the thoughts of a rational person to you?
Why is he so eager to slaughter millions of people when nobody has threatened him in any way?
At this point and time it certainly looks like he will get re-elected. His latest campaign slogan of "vote for me or al-quada will kill you" seems to resonate with americans.
Presuming that's true it's not too different then what most american movie or rock stars do.
How many times have you heard about some movie star insisting on some special water shipped all the way from france or makeup that costs 10,000.00 an ounce.
Bush is America.
"It's funny how touchy-feely lefty types don't seem to care about the MILLIONS of people who are killed by their own tyranical governments."
It's funny how the murderous right does'nt seem to care about the MILLIONS os people who are killed by their own tyranical governments if those governments don't have oil or some other thing the fascists want.
Your typical republitard would rather send troops to kill homosexuals then to stop genocide in sudan.