Screw that. This is a great way to clean up the gene pool -- some of these diseases will outright kill off the genespawn of these idiots, and others may sterilize them.
All we have to do to make it work well is make make sure the public doesn't pay for medical and disability care for people who've contracted diseases for which there are standard vaccines.
Anyone who takes medical advice from Jenny McCarthy deserves to have their lineage ended.
I'd be interesting in seeing a map of MA using color density or something to represent the ratio of net [tax receipts/spending] to population density... for all combined government spending, including highways, and all government receipts, including sales tax.
I think the map might surprise you...
In NJ, for example, it's the suburban areas that subsidize both the rural and urban areas. The urban areas, however, provide both a source of cheap(er) labor for business, and employment for people in the 'burbs... the rural areas, not too much economically.
I'd be willing to bet the farm that rural (and small-town) areas are subsidized far heavier per capita when you factor in the tax receipts from urban areas.
Of course, I'm lumping in urban commercial and industrial zones with residential zones...
I've always assumed they were expensive, and paying a lot just to have someone to call is quite frankly, too expensive. In the last 10 years, I've never needed one. How much would have having one, even just a basic, "starter model" someone competent and cheap, but no frills... what would that have cost me?
Depends on the services they are providing. It's fairly easy to call up a lawyer and ask about representation and rates. A lot of things are generally flat-rate (e.g., a lawyer for buying a home may cost $900... but certain things will be excluded from that retainer). A standard contract review may cost in the vicinity of $100 - 150, but it depends on the length, what kind of contract, your location, etc.
You should note that many employers offer free legal counsel of a couple hours a year (some states require this!) -- you can use this for employment issues, or for anything else, since it is 100% confidential from your company. This is a nice perk of being a W2 employee.
Generally, flat-rate is your best option for the little things, otherwise you might end up getting overcharged.
As for how to find a decent lawyer, there are tons of community resources in most of the US. Get in touch with your local chamber of commerce for business-related items. Get involved in community groups -- chances are someone is a lawyer, or knows one -- and usually they can refer you to one who can handle the specific thing you need.
If you are self-employed, ask your accountant -- they tend to know decent lawyers. If you work for a firm, ask around. Usually the higher in the org chart, the more likely someone can recommend a lawyer. Ask you boss -- and if they don't know, ask if they can ask their boss (or forward on your email request). Just be careful how you approach it... you don't want your boss to be wondering about legal issues:)
Question... other than your "hanging-out" friends, do you maintain any contacts? Keep in touch with old co-workers? Participate in any local organizations? These are great resources to use. You never know... I found a good pediatrician from someone at my local LUG!
Why not, the good people of our small towns and countrysides subsidize the ever lasting cycle of inner-city welfare recipients.
You're kidding, right?
Densely populated areas subsidize sparsely populated ones. Inner city "projects" are an exception, but from highway spending to general government services, urban areas receive less return per capita for their tax remits than rural areas do.
This is especially true at the federal level, where "countryside" amd "small-town" states receive far more funding, both per capita, and as a proportion of taxes remitted, than urban states (like MA & NJ) do.
If a demand is created, a business that wants a profit will swoop in to fill that demand, as always, for a price.
Assuming that the barriers to entry don't make the cost of providing that service too high (you know... like building out cabling infrastructure).
It is quite common for their to be unfulfilled demand for services because of factors that tend to create a natural monopoly... such as broadband internet service.
Look at it this way -- even if your parents were willing to spend $1000/month on high-speed internet, no one would buld out cable to them, because even at that price, it would be unprofitable. It's even worse if we begin talking abou truly remote areas, or islands.
Whether it's important for all to have access to high-speed internet is another question, but we felt that way for telephone... and I feel high-speed internet is as important to changing our way of life as the telephone was.
That'll never work, it's too obvious. Even the PHBs recognize that there are 26 letters in the alphabet... that number may raise questions.
I suggest obfuscating it slightly, pardon the 'irregularities' of my math:)
ROT-26 Swap 2*13 for 26. ROT-(2*13) Swap Triskadeca for 13 ROT-(2*Triskadeca) Swap Duplo for 2* ROT-Duplotriskadeca Add Duplotriskadeca to both sides ROT = Duplotriskadeca Eliminate 0 = Dupliskadeca Let d = 4; add 1 to each side 1 + 0 = Dupliska(4 + 1)eca = Dupliskaeeca Reorder 1 = cakeisadupel We know that l looks like 1, so go ahead and eliminate. 0 = cake is a dupe
The cake statement is a false, a lie!
Hence we can call this DoublePortal encryption, while knowing we maintained mathematical purity for the name.
Use of this naming convention for ROT(26) will surely be more amenable to the PHBs.
I fail to see how net neutrality solves this. The point of net neutrality is [simplified] to prevent ISPs from determining who can and can't put content in their pipes; or at what priority that content gets served.
If you have real net neutrality, the ISP *cannot* pay to get content that other ISPs might not have. Neutrality must be enforced from both sides. ISPs should not prioritize traffic for providers that pay, nor can they pay (or offer discounts to) providers in order to get "premium" content.
Neutrality means that ISPs offer a content-agnostic packet delivery service. At the micro level, that means no traffic-shaping or prioritizing. At the macro level, that means no involvement in deals to provide selective content to subscribers.
I was just making the point that the OP shouldn't have been surprised that a company would choose to tweak on OS to run well on the hardware they sell. This is the crux of Apple's computer business model.
Apples are easy to use, and optimised for certain tasks... and this is possible because Apple only has to deal with a very limited set of hardware components and configurations.
HP contributing to a Linux distro in order to optimise for their particular hardware configuration is similar to what Apple did.
Frankly, it makes sense that a computer system company (HP, Dell, etc) would actively pursue releasing a linux distro that works well/specifically designed to work well with their specific hardware, etc. (I presume this is going to include drivers for all of the included hardware in the mini), and is "easy" to use and looks good...
The Internet has officially been ruined. I thought AOL was bad. This is ridiculous. Now if only their was a way for us to senD Over a meSsage about how we feel...
I don't get it.
TIIAOLTNDOS?
There is, in an old locker, the new DOS?
Is this some kind of guerilla marketing campaign, suggesting we send a message by wiping our modern OSs and installing the only-hinted-at-but-surely-ready-for-beta-testing MSDOS 9.0?
ESPN has a lot of clout, if Disney chooses to excercise it.
What concerns me is if this is just a trial run for the other online presences of Disney... if they go in full-steamboatwillie-ahead, others will follow suit quickly. Even worse is AOL/TimeWarner... as both content publisher (like ESPN) and distributor (Time Warner Cable), they could use this model, but paying license fees to your sister company is more profitable to the parent org than paying to an outside company. AOL may find that its model may end up working again, if enough of the content providers in demand switch to this model.
"Capitalism" would be letting individual people pay for an ESPN360 account, and then sign in to view the videos.
This has nothing to do with whether or not it is capitalism -- though you are mistaken to think it is not.
The problem is what role the ISPs play -- are they a delivery service, or are they a retailer of services? If they are a delivery service, are they content-agnostic [net-neutrality], or not?
According to how ESPN360 works, ISPs function as a retailer of services, with ESPN as the packager/wholesaler.
Just think - if this model catches on, you'll be paying $200/month or more to your ISP for all the "free, affiliated content" you get. Of course, your only other option will be dialup, because in most cities one ISP has a local-government-granted monopoly AND we don't yet have equal-access provisions like we do for the phone lines.
If this model catches on (and it will, unless we get better support for net neutrality), what we will see is a variety of tiered packages from our large ISPs, just like what we have for cable TV. Basic, Family, Premium, Ultimate Sports, etc, at different prices. Plus some ISPs will offer an a la carte model -- $50 for basic service, plus $X for each source, $2X for some sources.
This does a couple things that the content providers (like ESPN360) really like -- it gets them out of the subscription handling/fulfillment aspect (which is expensive). It shifts some of the marketing burden onto the ISPs (who, if competing on content available, will tout the 'stations' they carry, and promote those stations).
This does a couple things the ISPs like. It allows the big ISPs to better dominate the smaller ISPs via economy of scale. It allows them to bill differently -- making bandwidth less important to the average subscriber. Joe Sixpack is going to care a whole lot more about what content is available than his bandwidth. Expect even more confusing pricing structures.
For the end-consumer, though, this stinks. All around. But since we are slaves to our content, it doesn't matter -- we'll pay and pay and pay, because we refuse to do without, and there are few viable options.
The solution to this is net neutrality. Let the ISPs carry packets, and let the consumer make agreements with the content wholesalers directly -- this is how you think it should work, and I agree.
The problem is that without legislated net neutrality, it's not going to happen. The consumer is severely outweighed by the content wholesalers/producers and the ISPs, and we need to use our legislative system in order to have our concerns make any impact on how internet service is going to be handled in the future.
Half of all married people commit adultery, too. That doesn't make it right. Antisocial behavior is antisocial behavior no matter how many people practice it.
That's nonsense. Please, look up the definition of the verb 'to socialize'.
Married people who do NOT commit adultery are practicing antisocial behavior.
Now please excuse me, I'm off to socialize with my secretary.
Really; they will put inconsequential crap about gay marriage on a ballot, but nothing like this...
Well, duh. In areas with a decent conservative population, putting gay marriage on the ballot will bring the conservatives to the polls in droves (and their religious leaders will encourage them!). This gets conservatives elected (or re-elected).
Putting privacy issues on the ballot would bring the wrong voters to the polls... it would be voters who want to fight the system and encroachment of government, not those who support the behemoth.
Did you actually think ballot issues are placed there to let the public decide an issue? They are placed there to motivate people to come to the polls.
Re:Where is the "Opt-out" button or list for this?
on
New Ads That Watch You
·
· Score: 0
I ***DO NOT WANT*** your stupid fucking targeted ads in my face in PUBLIC either, so GTFO!
It's in public, so why don't you GTFO? Since when should use of a public space be constrained by what *you* want?
You're in public. They are displaying ads. You don't have to look at them. As a matter of fact, you can go home, to a private space, and not have to see any ads at all.
Honestly, don't complain about intrusive when it's in a public space, that just doesn't make sense. You have no expectation of freedom from others' speech in public.
And if you want to get really technical, a free market would have an infinite amount of sellers and and infinite amount of buyers.
False. Where do you get these wacky ideas, from the back of a cereal box? Assuming an infinite number of buyers in a microeconomic model breaks the model, because the demand then approaches infinity. Basic math should be enough for you to realize that what you've stated is absolutely false (assuming you have some basic economic theory, which is doubtable).
It does not matter if an individual actually consciously thinks about all the factors involving their purchase decision (conscious decision is not a synonym for rational). What matters is that, in aggregate, potential buyers of a good act as if they have rationally considered all the factors. And guess what? In aggregate, they tend to.
Sure, strict rational models do not always fit the empirical evidence... this does not mean the models are not useful, or that economics is not useful. It means the models need to be revised... and there are entire fields of study dedicated to this.
I suggest additional reading in the subjects of bounded rationality and behavioral economics, this might help you understand the factors involved. Utility theory might also be good for you to read, so you understand where I'm coming from.
His post had nothing to do with the quality of indian manufacturing. Regardless of where the product is manufactured, you still have to deal with the tradeoffs between cost, quality, and features (in this case, he mentions expandability as his preferred feature).
This is a play on the axiom I've seen hundreds of times regarding speed, quality, and cost (fast, good, or cheap -- pick two).
So the point is, if you;re looking at manufactured goods, and you want cost to be tiny, it generally means you need to compromise on either quality or features of the product. This has nothing to do with the manufacturing capabilities or standards in different regions (though, generally, the region where you're manufacturing will impact the finished good, whether because of the quality of the workforce, cultural issues, local availability of quality components, transport costs if bringing in components, etc).
WTF is wrong with you? This is slashdot, we demand car analogies.
We want to get to Funkytown, approximately 300 miles away. We can drive my little coupe, or we can drive your loaded Escalade. My coupe will get us there on a single tank of gas, but it won't help us get laid. We'll have to stop for gas in your Escalade, but all the ladies will be leaving snail trails on the seats once we get there.
Ogg is the Escalade, except it won't get you laid, even if it has room for 4 girls and a minibar in the back.
I remember discussing this with fellow fencers and coaches.
Obviously, you have taken up the practice of holding an off-hand target?
The consensus was that after receiving literally thousands of blows to the head every day during practice and lessons, coaches would eventually show signs of brain damage in their (not so) old age. Basically, the younger coaches looked at the old ones and figured that perhaps it was better to hold a mask in the unarmed hand as a target instead of using their own mask/head to prevent micro-choc from debilitating them.
That's a horseshit consensus. Are you really serious that a group of coaches came to the consensus that it was a good idea to ingrain into muscle memory a false target? Glad I never took lessons from anyone in that group.
Try wearing a compression bandage under your mask instead, and instruct your pupils not to be so ham-handed. And have them do repetitive practice against eachother, or against a dummy.
I agree with you in spirit, but the plural of anecdote is not data.
Also, please read up on Ali. What he so visible suffers from is Parkinson's... he's not a good study example for Alzheimers-like syndromes, since some Alzheimers-like complications could be masked by the Parkinson's. And we don't know if his boxing had any impact on the Parkinson's, either. All of these are issues supporting my first statement about making generalizations from a single sample.
Anyway, where does one apply for more grants from the Mozilla foundation? Here are the grant amounts for 2007, see if you can read a subliminal message:
If you'd prefer to see tax cuts instead of Governmental spending then you'd probably disagree with that blanket statement.
If you'd prefer tax cuts AND government spending (funded via borrowing) then you should support Republicans. Republicans are no longer the party of fiscal responsibility (if they ever were), and if you think they are, then you've got a lot to learn.
Tax cuts and government spending are not mutually exclusive, the past eight years should have taught you that. Instead we find ourselves in deep debt, and taxes WILL need to be raised and spending WILL need to be cut to cover the debt, unless we choose to default. It'll happen once the boomers aren't the most politically important voting block, and my kids, their kids, and a couple more generations (probably) will pay for it.
If you want fiscal responsibility, and you're forced to choose between (D) and (R), choose (D). If you want small government, choose neither. If you want large government, decide how you want your government to spend, and choose accordingly.
If you take the 2nd amendment seriously then you'd probably disagree with that blanket statement.
If you take the 2nd amendment seriously, you should be crying in your milk. It's founded on the right to overthrow the government by armed insurrection at need, and if you think that's possible, please check into an asylum. The US Government exerts influence in so many ways that the ideal of armed insurrection against tyranny is laughable.
The 2nd amendment is mostly obsolete, war against the US government needs to be fought with information... and THAT's where you should focus your attention if you're serious about the ideals behind the 2nd amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
Screw that. This is a great way to clean up the gene pool -- some of these diseases will outright kill off the genespawn of these idiots, and others may sterilize them.
All we have to do to make it work well is make make sure the public doesn't pay for medical and disability care for people who've contracted diseases for which there are standard vaccines.
Anyone who takes medical advice from Jenny McCarthy deserves to have their lineage ended.
/sarcasm... kind of.
I'd be interesting in seeing a map of MA using color density or something to represent the ratio of net [tax receipts/spending] to population density... for all combined government spending, including highways, and all government receipts, including sales tax.
I think the map might surprise you...
In NJ, for example, it's the suburban areas that subsidize both the rural and urban areas. The urban areas, however, provide both a source of cheap(er) labor for business, and employment for people in the 'burbs... the rural areas, not too much economically.
I'd be willing to bet the farm that rural (and small-town) areas are subsidized far heavier per capita when you factor in the tax receipts from urban areas.
Of course, I'm lumping in urban commercial and industrial zones with residential zones...
You're kidding, right?
Densely populated areas subsidize sparsely populated ones. Inner city "projects" are an exception, but from highway spending to general government services, urban areas receive less return per capita for their tax remits than rural areas do.
This is especially true at the federal level, where "countryside" amd "small-town" states receive far more funding, both per capita, and as a proportion of taxes remitted, than urban states (like MA & NJ) do.
Assuming that the barriers to entry don't make the cost of providing that service too high (you know... like building out cabling infrastructure).
It is quite common for their to be unfulfilled demand for services because of factors that tend to create a natural monopoly... such as broadband internet service.
Look at it this way -- even if your parents were willing to spend $1000/month on high-speed internet, no one would buld out cable to them, because even at that price, it would be unprofitable. It's even worse if we begin talking abou truly remote areas, or islands.
Whether it's important for all to have access to high-speed internet is another question, but we felt that way for telephone... and I feel high-speed internet is as important to changing our way of life as the telephone was.
That's a hell of a lot more than five questions, you twit.
Learn to count.
That'll never work, it's too obvious. Even the PHBs recognize that there are 26 letters in the alphabet... that number may raise questions.
:)
I suggest obfuscating it slightly, pardon the 'irregularities' of my math
ROT-26 Swap 2*13 for 26.
ROT-(2*13) Swap Triskadeca for 13
ROT-(2*Triskadeca) Swap Duplo for 2*
ROT-Duplotriskadeca Add Duplotriskadeca to both sides
ROT = Duplotriskadeca Eliminate
0 = Dupliskadeca Let d = 4; add 1 to each side
1 + 0 = Dupliska(4 + 1)eca = Dupliskaeeca Reorder
1 = cakeisadupel We know that l looks like 1, so go ahead and eliminate.
0 = cake is a dupe
The cake statement is a false, a lie!
Hence we can call this DoublePortal encryption, while knowing we maintained mathematical purity for the name.
Use of this naming convention for ROT(26) will surely be more amenable to the PHBs.
If you have real net neutrality, the ISP *cannot* pay to get content that other ISPs might not have. Neutrality must be enforced from both sides. ISPs should not prioritize traffic for providers that pay, nor can they pay (or offer discounts to) providers in order to get "premium" content.
Neutrality means that ISPs offer a content-agnostic packet delivery service. At the micro level, that means no traffic-shaping or prioritizing. At the macro level, that means no involvement in deals to provide selective content to subscribers.
I was just making the point that the OP shouldn't have been surprised that a company would choose to tweak on OS to run well on the hardware they sell. This is the crux of Apple's computer business model.
Apples are easy to use, and optimised for certain tasks... and this is possible because Apple only has to deal with a very limited set of hardware components and configurations.
HP contributing to a Linux distro in order to optimise for their particular hardware configuration is similar to what Apple did.
S/LINUX/UNIX
What, like Apple?
I don't get it.
TIIAOLTNDOS?
There is, in an old locker, the new DOS?
Is this some kind of guerilla marketing campaign, suggesting we send a message by wiping our modern OSs and installing the only-hinted-at-but-surely-ready-for-beta-testing MSDOS 9.0?
Stupid M$ shill. Go back to Redmond, you creep.
Just remember that ESPN == ABC == Disney.
ESPN has a lot of clout, if Disney chooses to excercise it.
What concerns me is if this is just a trial run for the other online presences of Disney... if they go in full-steamboatwillie-ahead, others will follow suit quickly. Even worse is AOL/TimeWarner... as both content publisher (like ESPN) and distributor (Time Warner Cable), they could use this model, but paying license fees to your sister company is more profitable to the parent org than paying to an outside company. AOL may find that its model may end up working again, if enough of the content providers in demand switch to this model.
This has nothing to do with whether or not it is capitalism -- though you are mistaken to think it is not.
The problem is what role the ISPs play -- are they a delivery service, or are they a retailer of services? If they are a delivery service, are they content-agnostic [net-neutrality], or not?
According to how ESPN360 works, ISPs function as a retailer of services, with ESPN as the packager/wholesaler.
If this model catches on (and it will, unless we get better support for net neutrality), what we will see is a variety of tiered packages from our large ISPs, just like what we have for cable TV. Basic, Family, Premium, Ultimate Sports, etc, at different prices. Plus some ISPs will offer an a la carte model -- $50 for basic service, plus $X for each source, $2X for some sources.
This does a couple things that the content providers (like ESPN360) really like -- it gets them out of the subscription handling/fulfillment aspect (which is expensive). It shifts some of the marketing burden onto the ISPs (who, if competing on content available, will tout the 'stations' they carry, and promote those stations).
This does a couple things the ISPs like. It allows the big ISPs to better dominate the smaller ISPs via economy of scale. It allows them to bill differently -- making bandwidth less important to the average subscriber. Joe Sixpack is going to care a whole lot more about what content is available than his bandwidth. Expect even more confusing pricing structures.
For the end-consumer, though, this stinks. All around. But since we are slaves to our content, it doesn't matter -- we'll pay and pay and pay, because we refuse to do without, and there are few viable options.
The solution to this is net neutrality. Let the ISPs carry packets, and let the consumer make agreements with the content wholesalers directly -- this is how you think it should work, and I agree.
The problem is that without legislated net neutrality, it's not going to happen. The consumer is severely outweighed by the content wholesalers/producers and the ISPs, and we need to use our legislative system in order to have our concerns make any impact on how internet service is going to be handled in the future.
That's nonsense. Please, look up the definition of the verb 'to socialize'.
Married people who do NOT commit adultery are practicing antisocial behavior.
Now please excuse me, I'm off to socialize with my secretary.
Well, duh. In areas with a decent conservative population, putting gay marriage on the ballot will bring the conservatives to the polls in droves (and their religious leaders will encourage them!). This gets conservatives elected (or re-elected).
Putting privacy issues on the ballot would bring the wrong voters to the polls... it would be voters who want to fight the system and encroachment of government, not those who support the behemoth.
Did you actually think ballot issues are placed there to let the public decide an issue? They are placed there to motivate people to come to the polls.
It's in public, so why don't you GTFO? Since when should use of a public space be constrained by what *you* want?
You're in public. They are displaying ads. You don't have to look at them. As a matter of fact, you can go home, to a private space, and not have to see any ads at all.
Honestly, don't complain about intrusive when it's in a public space, that just doesn't make sense. You have no expectation of freedom from others' speech in public.
False. Where do you get these wacky ideas, from the back of a cereal box? Assuming an infinite number of buyers in a microeconomic model breaks the model, because the demand then approaches infinity. Basic math should be enough for you to realize that what you've stated is absolutely false (assuming you have some basic economic theory, which is doubtable).
It does not matter if an individual actually consciously thinks about all the factors involving their purchase decision (conscious decision is not a synonym for rational). What matters is that, in aggregate, potential buyers of a good act as if they have rationally considered all the factors. And guess what? In aggregate, they tend to.
Sure, strict rational models do not always fit the empirical evidence... this does not mean the models are not useful, or that economics is not useful. It means the models need to be revised... and there are entire fields of study dedicated to this.
I suggest additional reading in the subjects of bounded rationality and behavioral economics, this might help you understand the factors involved. Utility theory might also be good for you to read, so you understand where I'm coming from.
His post had nothing to do with the quality of indian manufacturing. Regardless of where the product is manufactured, you still have to deal with the tradeoffs between cost, quality, and features (in this case, he mentions expandability as his preferred feature).
This is a play on the axiom I've seen hundreds of times regarding speed, quality, and cost (fast, good, or cheap -- pick two).
So the point is, if you;re looking at manufactured goods, and you want cost to be tiny, it generally means you need to compromise on either quality or features of the product. This has nothing to do with the manufacturing capabilities or standards in different regions (though, generally, the region where you're manufacturing will impact the finished good, whether because of the quality of the workforce, cultural issues, local availability of quality components, transport costs if bringing in components, etc).
And so you post a direct link to it on the slashdot front page?
Way to go, kdawson, way to go. You've ensured the Alaska Volcano Observatory site is going to be down even longer.
Why would you do that? Did that site molest you when you were young or something?
That's horseshit.
If he thinks he is getting shafted, but buys the game anyway, then he is factoring in the "shaftage" as part of the price he's paying.
This doesn't contravene rational thought, nor does it contravene a free market.
He values being able to play the game high enough that he is willing to pay for it twice. That does not mean it is an irrational action.
WTF is wrong with you? This is slashdot, we demand car analogies.
We want to get to Funkytown, approximately 300 miles away. We can drive my little coupe, or we can drive your loaded Escalade. My coupe will get us there on a single tank of gas, but it won't help us get laid. We'll have to stop for gas in your Escalade, but all the ladies will be leaving snail trails on the seats once we get there.
Ogg is the Escalade, except it won't get you laid, even if it has room for 4 girls and a minibar in the back.
Obviously, you have taken up the practice of holding an off-hand target?
That's a horseshit consensus. Are you really serious that a group of coaches came to the consensus that it was a good idea to ingrain into muscle memory a false target? Glad I never took lessons from anyone in that group.
Try wearing a compression bandage under your mask instead, and instruct your pupils not to be so ham-handed. And have them do repetitive practice against eachother, or against a dummy.
I agree with you in spirit, but the plural of anecdote is not data.
Also, please read up on Ali. What he so visible suffers from is Parkinson's... he's not a good study example for Alzheimers-like syndromes, since some Alzheimers-like complications could be masked by the Parkinson's. And we don't know if his boxing had any impact on the Parkinson's, either. All of these are issues supporting my first statement about making generalizations from a single sample.
This subliminal message?
Mode vorpar doom dares, no reboot
I don't get it. Please explain.
If you'd prefer tax cuts AND government spending (funded via borrowing) then you should support Republicans. Republicans are no longer the party of fiscal responsibility (if they ever were), and if you think they are, then you've got a lot to learn.
Tax cuts and government spending are not mutually exclusive, the past eight years should have taught you that. Instead we find ourselves in deep debt, and taxes WILL need to be raised and spending WILL need to be cut to cover the debt, unless we choose to default. It'll happen once the boomers aren't the most politically important voting block, and my kids, their kids, and a couple more generations (probably) will pay for it.
If you want fiscal responsibility, and you're forced to choose between (D) and (R), choose (D). If you want small government, choose neither. If you want large government, decide how you want your government to spend, and choose accordingly.
If you take the 2nd amendment seriously, you should be crying in your milk. It's founded on the right to overthrow the government by armed insurrection at need, and if you think that's possible, please check into an asylum. The US Government exerts influence in so many ways that the ideal of armed insurrection against tyranny is laughable.
The 2nd amendment is mostly obsolete, war against the US government needs to be fought with information... and THAT's where you should focus your attention if you're serious about the ideals behind the 2nd amendment.
Your wife, sir, is she a go-er? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know-what-I-mean, say-no-more?
Just wondering what she might need AA batteries for, you see, and I'm afraid my imagination got the best of me. Sorry.