Donations to campaigns don't actually require the candidate to do anything in return.
Maybe not on paper. But let's be realistic - corporations don't just spend megabucks because they like a candidate. I think any successful long-term candidate understands in a gentleman's-agreement way that his large donors' concerns are to be treated with the utmost consideration. Otherwise those donors are likely to go the opposing side as soon as possible.
And I really took issue with this statement:
in reality the Republicans work for the rich, who funnel massive amounts of secret money into their campaigns and bank accounts, and Democrats work for the unions and lawyers, because they're stupid and don't realize that the unions have had all their money taken away over the last thirty years and the lawyers are becoming rich, and therefore turning to the Republicans because the Republicans are pro-rich and anti-everyone else.
I understand we're reducing things in simplistic terms, but this is just not true even as a generalization. *Both* Democrats and Republicans work for the rich. It's just that the rich people the Democrats work for tend to be more comfortable with regulations, social programs and infrastructure as a long-term investment in America that benefits everyone - including the rich. Whereas the rich people the Republicans work for would rather get a larger own short-term personal cut of the pie for themselves, and don't believe that the long-term investment will benefit them enough as individuals even if it benefits the nation as a whole.
As for unions, Democrats support them for the same reason that Republicans support the goals of Christian conservatives - shared values and get-out-the-vote efforts. And as for lawyers turning conservative as a class due to wealth, that also isn't supported by any study I know of. If anything, lawyers are more likely to vote Democrat no matter what their wealth, because they daily see the effects of republican policies on the actual justice system.
I didn't forget any of that. It's just all besides the main point: President Obama is clearly far smarter than Sarah Palin.
And by the way, I *do* want a lawyer for my president. For the same reason I want a mechanic who knows how to drive. This "all lawyers are evil" notion is just as silly as "all corporations are good".
Thinking that knowing something about the law makes someone a bad president, is just as bad as thinking the Free Market will somehow run itself with no regulation or oversight - because no other human endeavor has EVER done that in the history of mankind.
But since the President is not a figurehead, it's very important that a learned, capable and intellectually curious person is in that position. As shown by the previous President GWB, who horribly damaged the country and the world by being none of the above.
I'm not being biased at all. If you look up in the thread, I'm responding to a comment (now marked as troll) that said Obama and Sarah Palin were equally smart. Which, whatever you think of either of their policies or platforms, is absolutely ridiculous.
I mean, even putting the degrees aside as evidence. Obama can go before an entire roomful of the best politicians in America who are arrayed against them, live, with no prepared questions, and defeat them in debate. Palin can't even handle unscripted softball questions from Katie freakin' Couric. That legendary "What newspapers do you read?" question was a **gift**, and Palin still freaked and blew it.
Conservatives don't want to think Sarah Palin is dumb. But she is. Sorry.
And she seems to know almost nothing about communication. So, there you go.
But seriously, just because you don't like his policies doesn't mean he's stupid. And even if you may like Sarah Palin's statements, that doesn't make her smart either.
Also, as a side note, her experience in executive positions put the town of Wasilla from a debt of $1 million to about $25 million. And as for being governor, I don't know if quitting to the job she promised to voters she would fulfill so she could do lectures and TV shows really gives her "executive experience" points. But that's a rather separate discussion.
Let's compare: President Obama, Columbia political science grad, Harvard law post-grad, lecturer on Constitutional law at University of Chicago, offered a tenured position as professor but turned it down to run for office.
Or: Sarah Palin. Beauty pageant winner, BA in communications and....that's it.
So, perhaps this is user error - for not putting an adequate case on 'em. The charts don't show whether or not the user has put a transparent adhesive screen protector on, AND uses a good case.
Two things that I will always do for any smart phone.
Another friend of mine just never keeps any coins, keys or other sharp objects in the same pocket. He's had no problems either.
Well privatization of the FD has already been tried, to disastrous results that are exactly similar to the above case - letting people's houses burn down because someone didn't pay a fee. Which may arguably "teach the homeowner a lesson" - at the cost of an entire house, which is bad for the whole community.
The purpose of government is to do things that people otherwise can't get done. Some of that is protecting the people's rights - but that's only part of it. We can have a "should be" vs "is" argument here - but the fact of the matter is that all successful governments throughout history have always done more than just "protect people's rights". This is because nations are in competition with each other. And any nations "violates citizen's rights" by taxation for things the individuals don't directly need, lose out in the competition.
The real problem, as I see it, is a lot of people want all the benefits of having a stable government and democracy, but don't want to have to pay for it through their taxes. This can be because they don't actually see the benefits to themselves or the society as a whole - or it can be because they don't *want* to see.
And the system does this now, because before it did this things were much more difficult. And all the same arguments were presented against the Federal highway system, rural electrification, etc. etc. Results prove the system works. Now it can be made to work better or worse depending on how it's changed, but that judgement will also be made on the basis of results if we want to have a system that works.
Don't think of it as saving idiots from themselves. Think of it as saving you from the negative fallout of idiots - because otherwise they will burn your entire town down because there won't be enough firemen to stop them.
I remember that one.:) A great story that he wrote pretty early on in his career, and something that shows him not quite the Libertarian deity some people inferred from his other writings.
A material that promising could generate enough money to fight off said corporate douchebag - while licensing the product to the douchebag's competitors.
Well, among the issues I pointed out was "the fire department (even though your house hasn't burned down)". If that's the case, I don't understand your original objection to pesho's comment above.
That way would of course be cheaper for every single human being, including Limbaugh. But somehow that notion just can't penetrate - the very concept that the Free Market isn't bestest always just freaks them out too much.
Thank whatevah FDR banged Social Security too, or they'd be claiming that would never work either. They're still trying to piratize it, but I doubt it will ever happen.
If you think you don't benefit from the indirect results of a military protecting you (even though the US hasn't been invaded this month), the fire department (even though your house hasn't burned down), the police (even though you haven't been mugged this year), the interstate highways (even though you've never ridden on them), public education (even if you don't have kids), etc. etc....
...then, sorry, but you can't have your taxes back. Because it isn't fair for my taxes to benefit you without you paying taxes as well.
OK, so every homeowner in the county outside of a city is taxed this fee. And the state enforces the fee. Perhaps through a sales tax, or some other way if the state refuses to have an income tax.
The point is, situations of distributed protection like this are exactly what taxes are good for. The glibertarian fallacy of "only paying for government services they're going to use" results in exactly this kind of mess. That's why we don't have private free-market fire companies any more.
Oh man, please let all of them get into some Space Ark and head out, and good luck to them. I wouldn't even point out to them the irony that the ship would be made with public funding.
It is amazing, isn't it? Going for a cut of the gross isn't as dumb as a cut of the net (which I thought he did, before I was corrected), but it's still quite trusting.
Perhaps he really didn't think they would cut off their nose to spite their face with the further possible movies he could make?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe not on paper. But let's be realistic - corporations don't just spend megabucks because they like a candidate. I think any successful long-term candidate understands in a gentleman's-agreement way that his large donors' concerns are to be treated with the utmost consideration. Otherwise those donors are likely to go the opposing side as soon as possible.
And I really took issue with this statement:
I understand we're reducing things in simplistic terms, but this is just not true even as a generalization. *Both* Democrats and Republicans work for the rich. It's just that the rich people the Democrats work for tend to be more comfortable with regulations, social programs and infrastructure as a long-term investment in America that benefits everyone - including the rich. Whereas the rich people the Republicans work for would rather get a larger own short-term personal cut of the pie for themselves, and don't believe that the long-term investment will benefit them enough as individuals even if it benefits the nation as a whole.
As for unions, Democrats support them for the same reason that Republicans support the goals of Christian conservatives - shared values and get-out-the-vote efforts. And as for lawyers turning conservative as a class due to wealth, that also isn't supported by any study I know of. If anything, lawyers are more likely to vote Democrat no matter what their wealth, because they daily see the effects of republican policies on the actual justice system.
Just my $.02 .
I didn't forget any of that. It's just all besides the main point: President Obama is clearly far smarter than Sarah Palin.
And by the way, I *do* want a lawyer for my president. For the same reason I want a mechanic who knows how to drive. This "all lawyers are evil" notion is just as silly as "all corporations are good".
Thinking that knowing something about the law makes someone a bad president, is just as bad as thinking the Free Market will somehow run itself with no regulation or oversight - because no other human endeavor has EVER done that in the history of mankind.
You're right. The music was in Ace Frehley and Peter Criss. Who then got fired.
Lawyers are, of course, that group that no one likes until they need one.
But since the President is not a figurehead, it's very important that a learned, capable and intellectually curious person is in that position. As shown by the previous President GWB, who horribly damaged the country and the world by being none of the above.
I'm not being biased at all. If you look up in the thread, I'm responding to a comment (now marked as troll) that said Obama and Sarah Palin were equally smart. Which, whatever you think of either of their policies or platforms, is absolutely ridiculous.
I mean, even putting the degrees aside as evidence. Obama can go before an entire roomful of the best politicians in America who are arrayed against them, live, with no prepared questions, and defeat them in debate. Palin can't even handle unscripted softball questions from Katie freakin' Couric. That legendary "What newspapers do you read?" question was a **gift**, and Palin still freaked and blew it.
Conservatives don't want to think Sarah Palin is dumb. But she is. Sorry.
And she seems to know almost nothing about communication. So, there you go.
But seriously, just because you don't like his policies doesn't mean he's stupid. And even if you may like Sarah Palin's statements, that doesn't make her smart either.
Also, as a side note, her experience in executive positions put the town of Wasilla from a debt of $1 million to about $25 million. And as for being governor, I don't know if quitting to the job she promised to voters she would fulfill so she could do lectures and TV shows really gives her "executive experience" points. But that's a rather separate discussion.
ha ha! Money well spent, eh?
Let's compare: President Obama, Columbia political science grad, Harvard law post-grad, lecturer on Constitutional law at University of Chicago, offered a tenured position as professor but turned it down to run for office.
Or: Sarah Palin. Beauty pageant winner, BA in communications and....that's it.
Not flamebaiting, just actively curious.
So, perhaps this is user error - for not putting an adequate case on 'em. The charts don't show whether or not the user has put a transparent adhesive screen protector on, AND uses a good case.
Two things that I will always do for any smart phone.
Another friend of mine just never keeps any coins, keys or other sharp objects in the same pocket. He's had no problems either.
Well privatization of the FD has already been tried, to disastrous results that are exactly similar to the above case - letting people's houses burn down because someone didn't pay a fee. Which may arguably "teach the homeowner a lesson" - at the cost of an entire house, which is bad for the whole community.
The purpose of government is to do things that people otherwise can't get done. Some of that is protecting the people's rights - but that's only part of it. We can have a "should be" vs "is" argument here - but the fact of the matter is that all successful governments throughout history have always done more than just "protect people's rights". This is because nations are in competition with each other. And any nations "violates citizen's rights" by taxation for things the individuals don't directly need, lose out in the competition.
The real problem, as I see it, is a lot of people want all the benefits of having a stable government and democracy, but don't want to have to pay for it through their taxes. This can be because they don't actually see the benefits to themselves or the society as a whole - or it can be because they don't *want* to see.
And the system does this now, because before it did this things were much more difficult. And all the same arguments were presented against the Federal highway system, rural electrification, etc. etc. Results prove the system works. Now it can be made to work better or worse depending on how it's changed, but that judgement will also be made on the basis of results if we want to have a system that works.
Don't think of it as saving idiots from themselves. Think of it as saving you from the negative fallout of idiots - because otherwise they will burn your entire town down because there won't be enough firemen to stop them.
I remember that one. :) A great story that he wrote pretty early on in his career, and something that shows him not quite the Libertarian deity some people inferred from his other writings.
A material that promising could generate enough money to fight off said corporate douchebag - while licensing the product to the douchebag's competitors.
Well, among the issues I pointed out was "the fire department (even though your house hasn't burned down)". If that's the case, I don't understand your original objection to pesho's comment above.
So as others have said, charge the homeowner for the full cost of the fire. Say around $5000-10000, let's say, for a full team and equipment, etc.
A lesson learned to the homeowner, who now still owns a home. Win/win.
That way would of course be cheaper for every single human being, including Limbaugh. But somehow that notion just can't penetrate - the very concept that the Free Market isn't bestest always just freaks them out too much.
Thank whatevah FDR banged Social Security too, or they'd be claiming that would never work either. They're still trying to piratize it, but I doubt it will ever happen.
If you think you don't benefit from the indirect results of a military protecting you (even though the US hasn't been invaded this month), the fire department (even though your house hasn't burned down), the police (even though you haven't been mugged this year), the interstate highways (even though you've never ridden on them), public education (even if you don't have kids), etc. etc....
...then, sorry, but you can't have your taxes back. Because it isn't fair for my taxes to benefit you without you paying taxes as well.
It wouldn't be that high if you charged per homeowner. Brush fires on state property will be put out and covered by the state anyway.
OK, so every homeowner in the county outside of a city is taxed this fee. And the state enforces the fee. Perhaps through a sales tax, or some other way if the state refuses to have an income tax.
The point is, situations of distributed protection like this are exactly what taxes are good for. The glibertarian fallacy of "only paying for government services they're going to use" results in exactly this kind of mess. That's why we don't have private free-market fire companies any more.
Or, just charge everyone in the town a tax for basic town services. (ahem)
Oh man, please let all of them get into some Space Ark and head out, and good luck to them. I wouldn't even point out to them the irony that the ship would be made with public funding.
Believe it or not, apparently he didn't. Maybe he trusted personal relationships. Those aren't fun lessons to learn.
I stand corrected. Going for a cut of the gross isn't quite as dumb as going for a cut of the net - still, it is surprising that he went for it.
It is amazing, isn't it? Going for a cut of the gross isn't as dumb as a cut of the net (which I thought he did, before I was corrected), but it's still quite trusting.
Perhaps he really didn't think they would cut off their nose to spite their face with the further possible movies he could make?