Negotiations are good. Being unable to walk away and reject the outcome is not.
What would be the point of the former if each party could choose the later? Seriously, the point is to reach a consensus, not get what YOU want.
Ok, so you voted to leave... Then leave already. Before the vote, the Brits wouldn't shut up. After the vote, it's the EU that is speaking louder... About you guys leaving.
And to the other Brits that voted to stay... You lost. Get over it and work with your brothers to steer the ship properly. Stop whining.
And we all know that the majority of the Brits (aka: adults) are working on just that; kudos to them.
If Best Buy had it writing, yes it would be called false advertising. They would, at the least, refund the cost. If they sold to a large number of customers, yes Best Buy could face a class action for fraud. A random store guy just telling you a lie isn't supposed to burden all of Best Buy for fraud. BUT if that guy's supervisor gave it to you in writing, again you got a case.
No shit Sherlock that tax and fraud laws aren't linked. What I was implying is that a stupid deal between private parties are not protected by state or federal law. When you are a business a lot of regulations come into play... Such as false advertisement, selling uninspected housing, unsafe food, frauding the customer, etc.
But even in private transactions, false advertising, false contracts, and fraud are protected against... Just not stupidity... No one will, nor should, protect you because you gave $10k in cash to some guy on the street who only said he will sell you a bridge tomorrow.
No most of the world does not have the state prosecute as theft. Maybe in the EU but not else where*. It normally isn't considered a crime for mistakes between private parties. It would be considered a civil matter here.
As for Fraud, you are stepping into a whole new area of legal space. Yes, we all pretty much have the same laws. It is a state crime, not civil.
As for the rest of your post, we have the same, if not better laws in the US if the other side is a business. Even on Craigslist, if that person sells more than X (10?) cars a year, he is considered a business. He can't fraud people and must pay taxes on profits etc.
*= On that point why are we wasting other people's monies (taxes) prosecuting on behalf of financial mistakes of an individual?
What are you taking about? There are plenty of consumer protection laws. For less than $20k most financially responsible people can get credit for 45 days with no interest.
We use ACH for almost everything and as long as the money isn't withdrawn, it is reversible. And you can't just send people ACH anytime. You have to first set up a trust with both accounts that both sides validate.
Granted if you send someone 10k instead of 1k, a normal person can't reverse it without the other party. Only other recourse is small claims or court. But your company and other institutions can. This isn't a limit of ACH, but a control by the banks to prevent fraud.
I guess you, your siblings, and your cousins also share one car because your grandfather only had one. How about one house? How about the number of phone lines or TVs or PCs?
Maybe it isn't true for you but most of today's generation owns more cars, buys more than one car, and even more than one house compared to their forefathers. The number of TVs, PCs, cellphones, airline trips, etc have all increased per household. Demand has most certainly increased and more so than a static curve to population growth. In other countries, it's just different rungs on the same ladder. They eat more meat, have AC, color TVs, small cars, expensive rice, etc.
These demands are isolated. Another house being built because Larry wanted to move to something bigger means more food vending, gas buying, lumber, nails, sales guys, appliances, furniture, etc.
It doesn't have to be that the item gets cheaper to increase demand. We get bananas year around and almost any other fruit. We get different options in cars, produce, and fish from half a dozen countries. Most of the civilized world is barely a day's flight away. How many eat out options do you have within 10 miles? Thai, Chinese, Indian, Russian, or good old American?
Demand growth isn't infinite. Population growth has slowed and that has put a dent on demand growth. But it's still growing a lot. Let's not get tired of it before we even see the supposed edge of the world.
The dish washer, garage door openers, washer&dryer, lawn mowers, security systems, refrigerators, etc are all productivity increases in the home. People don't complain about them? Those things put entire industries out on the curb. It freed up labor resources that are reused for doing other things like entertainment, hobbies, socializing, or just plain sleeping. Why are we so hung up on this concept in other areas of life and society?
This is WHY there is so much wide spread encryption. The FBI/CIA/etc proved beyond reasonable doubt (again) that they can not be trusted. They are many times when privacy should be invaded and proper channels were built for this. But it was these organizations that ignored and bypassed them.
They lost the public's trust and encryption is the response. Their job was never meant to be easy. They just made it far harder on their own by trying to cheat the public.
The FBI has no one but themselves to blame and it is well deserved. This is probably the best news regarding the FBI we have had in a long time.
Your logic only holds true if the consumer part of the equation was a robot instead of a human. What you state has been historically repeated many times. Yes _some_ jobs will go extinct or pay far less. It's called "change". Has happened many times in the past at smaller and larger scales than what you describe. But the economy overall truly benefitted from all sorts of productivity increases... Some of which society forwent and banned (child labor) and was perfectly fine.
Anyway back to humans. Human demand isn't flat. We don't want 3 meals a day if we can get four. We don't want a radio if we can get a TV. We don't want a small car if we can get a large one. Humans always want that one more thing. $10 pizza goes to $5 because of productivity increases, we still look to spend that other $5... On a bigger pizza, drink, movie, or icecream.
Demand may not increase in dollar value but certainly demand goes up in terms of wants and needs... Until we have a world war that wipes out a large part of the population but if there is a healthy amount of debt involved, we will recover just fine. But that's another discussion.
I too didn't understand this. I have seen this statement said over and over again at multiple companies. "This will attract the young-ins and geeks." But most of the people I know, and even the very young ones... don't like this office environment. Its a "market place" type of environment. Noisy, distracting, odd shaped furniture that doesn't conform to different body sizes, totally open, and very non-personal.
Some of it is great, the conference rooms, eating areas, relaxation spots, and general walk paths. But there is no workspace that you can call yours or act as a foundation for an area of personal space. Space that is clearly noticed by others so that they politely wait for you to finish up what you are focused on rather than barge into.
I don't like the really old style workspaces either. They seem gloomy, with the dullest colors little natural lighting or plants, and almost dormitory style in their isolationism. It would be nice if we could have a good balance between the two, but I have yet to find a company that has done it to the point where I preferred it over the old gloom. Most seem to have gone too far because of the office space savings from the new styles. What is not on the business case is the loss of productivity in the chaos.
Normally, you don't want to deport bad actors that are here. You just arrest them. The anti-terrorism rules are flexible enough to hold anyone for an extended time. And this is before the Gitmo options. Any bad actor worth their salt will provide doctored items that would just add noise to the analysis. It really isn't that hard to get valid but misleading social media accounts.
But the cost of this is pretty high. We are going to collect tons of point less data that will add noise to the set we have. We will invade the privacy of tons of people. We will become adversarial to our visitors. And this new information will certainly be abused with innocents hurt at the behest of those in power.
Making law enforcement's job easier at the cost to civil liberties is never a good trade off.
I wouldn't call them "dialects". Closer to local accents. And there are 2 versions in India. One where the native speaker speaks Hindi and the other where they speak something that is closer to Sanskrit (equivalent for India as Latin to Western Europe) in Grammer and enunciation.
And the Indian English accent is different from the versions in the UK (more formal and broken). But there are more differences in the 4-5 major accents of the US than India vs UK. Canada, South Africa, Australia, etc are different too but very very close to UK in comparison to US.
But we don't call all the accents in the US their own dialects. Even thou I can't understand a word in one and it takes me a minute to figure out another. And I have folks down south that can't make heads or tail of another two. The closest English to US English outside the US seems to be Japan, and Mexico.
And there are quite a lot of differences in the UK English. What's spoken in Grammar school and office space is quite different from the pubs. That's before ordering the round. I find that the average Joe in UK has the best accent. Not too formal not too drawn out not too much cursing not too unemotional. India has an equivalent to upper middle class. Too formal, too little emotion/expression, and too close to what is on paper. But not as much as news reporters or old families.
True, pass phrases are easy to remember. But for most people, they are pretty hard to type out. Especially if they can't see the letters. Worse if on a mobile device.
My question is... what exactly are we protecting? We are using these over complex password systems that at the end achieve little in terms of security and protect the history of someone's water usage and payments. A pass phrase maybe have its uses, but I still think simple passwords for low value information and two factor for high value is the way to go.
In general (not talking about actual crypto here), the whole password/passcode policy thing is nothing more than a CYA and comfort food for the paper pushers.
You make a password more complex than 8 characters and a cap (or number or special)... you got the easiest password to break. The monitor post-it. Even if you have physical audits checking this, you end up with unlocked drawer post-its. Curtail that and so on, you eventually end up with fake tech support calls.
The human side basically cares less and less with every complexity iteration of the password policy. And the human has always been the weakest link in the chain.
But really, there is few shit out there that needs highly complex passwords. Your utilities, shopping, club, and similar accounts do not need a bank level password complexity. Your banks, credit cards, and other financial institutions shouldn't even be using passwords. They should have a 2 factor authentication.
Also, they should get rid of all the Q&A garbage. They all pretty much ask the same questions. Most people will provide the same truthful answer (usually easy to figure out). In net, one compromise now will compromise all the others.
The picture should be looked at holistically. An ATM shouldn't have the same level of protections as a bank vault. The security presence inside an auction house shouldn't be as large as the one outside.
For the longest time the only address anyone had on record was my mailbox for the 1st year of college... With the wrong zip code. It took almost 5 years before the house I lived in showed up.
1992?!? Obtaining a legal license for your particular needs and usage was 101 in the 1960's. That's if you are looking just in the computing space. Goes back almost to the printing press if you want to look at licensing in general.
But these days there are too many IT consultants who don't consider this topic as part of the deliverable.
Your company AND your lawyers were idiots. If we only had less consultants like yours who are blind to the legal rights and requirements of owners who's stuff you use, we could cut out a third of the CYA BS we all deal with.
You guys are the same type that get clients in hot water because you used a free for non-commercial use or trial based product when you weren't supposed to in the commercial setting.
The UN once wanted a single simple reservation system. The concept was simple, and the requirements were very simple compared to what most people would assume. Users were equivalent to a small international employee base... all could do English. Vendors were very few and contracts were simple.
Except it had ONE requirement that made it impossible: There should be ONE standard.
Simple enough, except each party said "Yes, we demand one standard, as long is its ours."
Never underestimate the shear stupidity of the human mind and its confusion of want and need.
On top of what you said. In times of good, companies do not (and should NOT) build up reserves or a war chest. Such things do not operate like most people think. These are publically traded and that changes things from privately owned. If a company builds up a ton of cash or cash equivalent reserves, it is looking to be bought out. When times are good (and there were very few for the airlines, mostly via asset acquisition from bankruptcies) companies tend to try to expand or take a risk into new channels of operations (see: Microsoft).
They don't sit there raking in monies to use when times are bad. Exception: Airtran... which almost got bought out because of it but didn't because the industry saw bad times ahead. Luckily the cash let them skip a bankruptcy. But once the buyer was on better footing, they still bought out Airtran; partially for the cash.
Replying to myself so to address other two replies. The US also does their fair share of market protection, ones that have been found to be in the wrong by the international trade bodies. We also do a lot of currency manipulation (quantitative easing, low interest rates, various insurance schemes, etc) but not to the extent of others nor the types that impact the global confidence in our currency.
China/India/Japan/etc devaluing their currency is in effect stealing from their people's labor value and giving it to the buyer as a discount. They also continue to give us loans at extremely low interest rates that essentially amount to giving us free money at the cost to their people's earned labor. Additionally, most global commodities are actually traded in dollars which essentially gives the US a discount no one else has and solidifies the buying power of the dollar.
We aren't anywhere near a trade war with anyone. Most of the world still fights each other to access the US and EU markets. And unlike the US, the EU is also in competition with itself and still lacks a fair amount of fiscal discipline within their member states.
We certainly are not on the losing side. Every other player essentially bends over backwards to stay in the "sell to the US" game. Sure, our companies maybe having a little bit of a hard time, but it has never been better for the US consumer.
Normally, yes this can't be maintained and eventually the others' buying power exceeds ours and we net produce rather than consume. But the other players are relatively worse off than us and it will be decades before they get the discipline (that's what's really lacking) to really match the US economic engine.
Well said. This is the truly sad part of the US' state of affairs. Our economy, defense, and other things aren't anywhere close to as bad or great as either side says. We are pretty "normal" per history. But that's the boogieman that everyone is pointing toward.
However, I think the real problem is how horrible our political system has gotten. People no longer vote for who they want, but they vote for who they don't want. A better way to run this system is to have a vote of "Who do you not want? First and second choice." Then elect the guy who got the least votes. This will make more people happy and help to unite the country.
For shit's sake, we are looking at a country where one party got kicked around like a little puppy by an outsider and in the end had no balls to stand up to him. Another party chose who they wanted prior to the decision and yet still did the dog and pony show. The only driving force for both were that the other guy may win. And we are talking about the two most powerful political parties that have impacted the world more than any others.
Slashdot Mirror
Negotiations are good. Being unable to walk away and reject the outcome is not.
What would be the point of the former if each party could choose the later? Seriously, the point is to reach a consensus, not get what YOU want.
Ok, so you voted to leave... Then leave already. Before the vote, the Brits wouldn't shut up. After the vote, it's the EU that is speaking louder... About you guys leaving.
And to the other Brits that voted to stay... You lost. Get over it and work with your brothers to steer the ship properly. Stop whining.
And we all know that the majority of the Brits (aka: adults) are working on just that; kudos to them.
If Best Buy had it writing, yes it would be called false advertising. They would, at the least, refund the cost. If they sold to a large number of customers, yes Best Buy could face a class action for fraud. A random store guy just telling you a lie isn't supposed to burden all of Best Buy for fraud. BUT if that guy's supervisor gave it to you in writing, again you got a case.
No shit Sherlock that tax and fraud laws aren't linked. What I was implying is that a stupid deal between private parties are not protected by state or federal law. When you are a business a lot of regulations come into play... Such as false advertisement, selling uninspected housing, unsafe food, frauding the customer, etc.
But even in private transactions, false advertising, false contracts, and fraud are protected against... Just not stupidity... No one will, nor should, protect you because you gave $10k in cash to some guy on the street who only said he will sell you a bridge tomorrow.
No most of the world does not have the state prosecute as theft. Maybe in the EU but not else where*. It normally isn't considered a crime for mistakes between private parties. It would be considered a civil matter here.
As for Fraud, you are stepping into a whole new area of legal space. Yes, we all pretty much have the same laws. It is a state crime, not civil.
As for the rest of your post, we have the same, if not better laws in the US if the other side is a business. Even on Craigslist, if that person sells more than X (10?) cars a year, he is considered a business. He can't fraud people and must pay taxes on profits etc.
*= On that point why are we wasting other people's monies (taxes) prosecuting on behalf of financial mistakes of an individual?
What are you taking about? There are plenty of consumer protection laws. For less than $20k most financially responsible people can get credit for 45 days with no interest.
We use ACH for almost everything and as long as the money isn't withdrawn, it is reversible. And you can't just send people ACH anytime. You have to first set up a trust with both accounts that both sides validate.
Granted if you send someone 10k instead of 1k, a normal person can't reverse it without the other party. Only other recourse is small claims or court. But your company and other institutions can. This isn't a limit of ACH, but a control by the banks to prevent fraud.
I guess you, your siblings, and your cousins also share one car because your grandfather only had one. How about one house? How about the number of phone lines or TVs or PCs?
Maybe it isn't true for you but most of today's generation owns more cars, buys more than one car, and even more than one house compared to their forefathers. The number of TVs, PCs, cellphones, airline trips, etc have all increased per household. Demand has most certainly increased and more so than a static curve to population growth. In other countries, it's just different rungs on the same ladder. They eat more meat, have AC, color TVs, small cars, expensive rice, etc.
These demands are isolated. Another house being built because Larry wanted to move to something bigger means more food vending, gas buying, lumber, nails, sales guys, appliances, furniture, etc.
It doesn't have to be that the item gets cheaper to increase demand. We get bananas year around and almost any other fruit. We get different options in cars, produce, and fish from half a dozen countries. Most of the civilized world is barely a day's flight away. How many eat out options do you have within 10 miles? Thai, Chinese, Indian, Russian, or good old American?
Demand growth isn't infinite. Population growth has slowed and that has put a dent on demand growth. But it's still growing a lot. Let's not get tired of it before we even see the supposed edge of the world.
The dish washer, garage door openers, washer&dryer, lawn mowers, security systems, refrigerators, etc are all productivity increases in the home. People don't complain about them? Those things put entire industries out on the curb. It freed up labor resources that are reused for doing other things like entertainment, hobbies, socializing, or just plain sleeping. Why are we so hung up on this concept in other areas of life and society?
This is WHY there is so much wide spread encryption. The FBI/CIA/etc proved beyond reasonable doubt (again) that they can not be trusted. They are many times when privacy should be invaded and proper channels were built for this. But it was these organizations that ignored and bypassed them.
They lost the public's trust and encryption is the response. Their job was never meant to be easy. They just made it far harder on their own by trying to cheat the public.
The FBI has no one but themselves to blame and it is well deserved. This is probably the best news regarding the FBI we have had in a long time.
Your logic only holds true if the consumer part of the equation was a robot instead of a human. What you state has been historically repeated many times. Yes _some_ jobs will go extinct or pay far less. It's called "change". Has happened many times in the past at smaller and larger scales than what you describe. But the economy overall truly benefitted from all sorts of productivity increases... Some of which society forwent and banned (child labor) and was perfectly fine.
Anyway back to humans. Human demand isn't flat. We don't want 3 meals a day if we can get four. We don't want a radio if we can get a TV. We don't want a small car if we can get a large one. Humans always want that one more thing. $10 pizza goes to $5 because of productivity increases, we still look to spend that other $5... On a bigger pizza, drink, movie, or icecream.
Demand may not increase in dollar value but certainly demand goes up in terms of wants and needs... Until we have a world war that wipes out a large part of the population but if there is a healthy amount of debt involved, we will recover just fine. But that's another discussion.
I too didn't understand this. I have seen this statement said over and over again at multiple companies. "This will attract the young-ins and geeks." But most of the people I know, and even the very young ones... don't like this office environment. Its a "market place" type of environment. Noisy, distracting, odd shaped furniture that doesn't conform to different body sizes, totally open, and very non-personal.
Some of it is great, the conference rooms, eating areas, relaxation spots, and general walk paths. But there is no workspace that you can call yours or act as a foundation for an area of personal space. Space that is clearly noticed by others so that they politely wait for you to finish up what you are focused on rather than barge into.
I don't like the really old style workspaces either. They seem gloomy, with the dullest colors little natural lighting or plants, and almost dormitory style in their isolationism. It would be nice if we could have a good balance between the two, but I have yet to find a company that has done it to the point where I preferred it over the old gloom. Most seem to have gone too far because of the office space savings from the new styles. What is not on the business case is the loss of productivity in the chaos.
Normally, you don't want to deport bad actors that are here. You just arrest them. The anti-terrorism rules are flexible enough to hold anyone for an extended time. And this is before the Gitmo options. Any bad actor worth their salt will provide doctored items that would just add noise to the analysis. It really isn't that hard to get valid but misleading social media accounts.
But the cost of this is pretty high. We are going to collect tons of point less data that will add noise to the set we have. We will invade the privacy of tons of people. We will become adversarial to our visitors. And this new information will certainly be abused with innocents hurt at the behest of those in power.
Making law enforcement's job easier at the cost to civil liberties is never a good trade off.
I wouldn't call them "dialects". Closer to local accents. And there are 2 versions in India. One where the native speaker speaks Hindi and the other where they speak something that is closer to Sanskrit (equivalent for India as Latin to Western Europe) in Grammer and enunciation.
And the Indian English accent is different from the versions in the UK (more formal and broken). But there are more differences in the 4-5 major accents of the US than India vs UK. Canada, South Africa, Australia, etc are different too but very very close to UK in comparison to US.
But we don't call all the accents in the US their own dialects. Even thou I can't understand a word in one and it takes me a minute to figure out another. And I have folks down south that can't make heads or tail of another two. The closest English to US English outside the US seems to be Japan, and Mexico.
And there are quite a lot of differences in the UK English. What's spoken in Grammar school and office space is quite different from the pubs. That's before ordering the round. I find that the average Joe in UK has the best accent. Not too formal not too drawn out not too much cursing not too unemotional. India has an equivalent to upper middle class. Too formal, too little emotion/expression, and too close to what is on paper. But not as much as news reporters or old families.
No, most or almost all are taught British English. And they end up with a upper middle class dialect.
This is why Americans have so much trouble understanding them.
True, pass phrases are easy to remember. But for most people, they are pretty hard to type out. Especially if they can't see the letters. Worse if on a mobile device.
My question is... what exactly are we protecting? We are using these over complex password systems that at the end achieve little in terms of security and protect the history of someone's water usage and payments. A pass phrase maybe have its uses, but I still think simple passwords for low value information and two factor for high value is the way to go.
In general (not talking about actual crypto here), the whole password/passcode policy thing is nothing more than a CYA and comfort food for the paper pushers.
You make a password more complex than 8 characters and a cap (or number or special)... you got the easiest password to break. The monitor post-it. Even if you have physical audits checking this, you end up with unlocked drawer post-its. Curtail that and so on, you eventually end up with fake tech support calls.
The human side basically cares less and less with every complexity iteration of the password policy. And the human has always been the weakest link in the chain.
But really, there is few shit out there that needs highly complex passwords. Your utilities, shopping, club, and similar accounts do not need a bank level password complexity. Your banks, credit cards, and other financial institutions shouldn't even be using passwords. They should have a 2 factor authentication.
Also, they should get rid of all the Q&A garbage. They all pretty much ask the same questions. Most people will provide the same truthful answer (usually easy to figure out). In net, one compromise now will compromise all the others.
The picture should be looked at holistically. An ATM shouldn't have the same level of protections as a bank vault. The security presence inside an auction house shouldn't be as large as the one outside.
For the longest time the only address anyone had on record was my mailbox for the 1st year of college... With the wrong zip code. It took almost 5 years before the house I lived in showed up.
I miss my anonymity.
1992?!? Obtaining a legal license for your particular needs and usage was 101 in the 1960's. That's if you are looking just in the computing space. Goes back almost to the printing press if you want to look at licensing in general.
But these days there are too many IT consultants who don't consider this topic as part of the deliverable.
Your company AND your lawyers were idiots. If we only had less consultants like yours who are blind to the legal rights and requirements of owners who's stuff you use, we could cut out a third of the CYA BS we all deal with.
You guys are the same type that get clients in hot water because you used a free for non-commercial use or trial based product when you weren't supposed to in the commercial setting.
Sorry, but history proves otherwise. Democracy sucks, it is utter shit. But the other options are worse.
You may not believe it but over the long run a crowd of random people come up with better solutions than one genius.
The UN once wanted a single simple reservation system. The concept was simple, and the requirements were very simple compared to what most people would assume. Users were equivalent to a small international employee base... all could do English. Vendors were very few and contracts were simple.
Except it had ONE requirement that made it impossible: There should be ONE standard.
Simple enough, except each party said "Yes, we demand one standard, as long is its ours."
Never underestimate the shear stupidity of the human mind and its confusion of want and need.
Well said.
On top of what you said. In times of good, companies do not (and should NOT) build up reserves or a war chest. Such things do not operate like most people think. These are publically traded and that changes things from privately owned. If a company builds up a ton of cash or cash equivalent reserves, it is looking to be bought out. When times are good (and there were very few for the airlines, mostly via asset acquisition from bankruptcies) companies tend to try to expand or take a risk into new channels of operations (see: Microsoft).
They don't sit there raking in monies to use when times are bad. Exception: Airtran... which almost got bought out because of it but didn't because the industry saw bad times ahead. Luckily the cash let them skip a bankruptcy. But once the buyer was on better footing, they still bought out Airtran; partially for the cash.
The local weather app is just a wallpaper.
No they haven't. Nuff said.
Replying to myself so to address other two replies. The US also does their fair share of market protection, ones that have been found to be in the wrong by the international trade bodies. We also do a lot of currency manipulation (quantitative easing, low interest rates, various insurance schemes, etc) but not to the extent of others nor the types that impact the global confidence in our currency.
China/India/Japan/etc devaluing their currency is in effect stealing from their people's labor value and giving it to the buyer as a discount. They also continue to give us loans at extremely low interest rates that essentially amount to giving us free money at the cost to their people's earned labor. Additionally, most global commodities are actually traded in dollars which essentially gives the US a discount no one else has and solidifies the buying power of the dollar.
We aren't anywhere near a trade war with anyone. Most of the world still fights each other to access the US and EU markets. And unlike the US, the EU is also in competition with itself and still lacks a fair amount of fiscal discipline within their member states.
We certainly are not on the losing side. Every other player essentially bends over backwards to stay in the "sell to the US" game. Sure, our companies maybe having a little bit of a hard time, but it has never been better for the US consumer.
Normally, yes this can't be maintained and eventually the others' buying power exceeds ours and we net produce rather than consume. But the other players are relatively worse off than us and it will be decades before they get the discipline (that's what's really lacking) to really match the US economic engine.
How are we in and losing a trade war?
Do members of a golf club have the right know all the emails and conversations within the club's administration?
Should they? Sure. But do they have a RIGHT to?
The grandparent is spot on. There is a difference between "members" & their "club" and "citizens" & their "government".
Well said. This is the truly sad part of the US' state of affairs. Our economy, defense, and other things aren't anywhere close to as bad or great as either side says. We are pretty "normal" per history. But that's the boogieman that everyone is pointing toward.
However, I think the real problem is how horrible our political system has gotten. People no longer vote for who they want, but they vote for who they don't want. A better way to run this system is to have a vote of "Who do you not want? First and second choice." Then elect the guy who got the least votes. This will make more people happy and help to unite the country.
For shit's sake, we are looking at a country where one party got kicked around like a little puppy by an outsider and in the end had no balls to stand up to him. Another party chose who they wanted prior to the decision and yet still did the dog and pony show. The only driving force for both were that the other guy may win. And we are talking about the two most powerful political parties that have impacted the world more than any others.