Since your doing your own distribution, you might be able to answer this question: what's the probability that someone who downloaded your stuff for free would have bought it if they wouldn't have been able to download it for free? That's the only chunk of revenue you would get if there were perfect IP enforcement. Now ask you this: how much privacy and personal freedom would you be willing to give up for that extra chunk of change? Because perfect IP enforcement is only possible in a perfect police state.
And for the record - I make content for people who ask for it. That way, I know I'll get paid.
Going to church refers to going *inside* a church and attending a service. I can't help you if your command of the english language is so bad that you can't get your thoughts across properly.
*clapclapclap* You're good. None of what you're implying or actually stating actually happened.
How's that training coming along? Made it to Sea Org yet? Are you getting bonus points for posting this crap? Or are you just trying to get out of RFP?
So... just out of curiosity. How did you manage to get your info so blatantly wrong that you claimed they were protesting inside the Scientology "churches"? I'd love to hear your story on that.
You didn't just claim to leave them alone. You claimed things were happening that were so far from what was actually happening that I find it hard to believe it was a mere misunderstanding.
This is not about religion. This is about an abusive group of people. Feel free to claim whatever else you want.
Not really. I'm merely pointing out that what you said was completely, blatantly false. Not only was it false, but there was no way to arrive at your level of misinformation by merely lacking information. You either made things up when you didn't have the details (see your comment about protesting inside churches), or you outright lied.
If you are in Scientology, you're following your SOP pretty well. Nice attempt at deflecting the conversation and steering it to an emotionally charged topic that has nothing to do with this.
Either you are truly ignorant, or you're a Scientology member (and a pretty good one, too). Just in case you're unaware of the fact that the IRS caved in to Scientology, here's a link to get you started: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/irs.html
So yes, Scientology actually outspent and outmaneuvered the friggin IRS. Yes, crimes have been committed by Scientology, and have been reported to the police. Unfortunately, Scientology is very, very good with lawsuits and personal defamation, which means that no one has been able to actually kill them off.
Right now, I regard them as a bigger threat to society than the Mafia.
Nobody went inside a church. Protests were taking place on public property. There was no slander. Merely recitation of facts as evidenced by court findings and reported across the world in a variety of news papers. They wore masks because of the well-known habit of Scientologists to completely destroy anyone who publicly or privately opposes them. There is no burning of crosses. This isn't even the beginning of a slippery slope. Scientology isn't being persecuted anymore than Nazis were persecuted by Jews.
Again, do you work for Scientology? Because your line of reasoning is identical to a number of Scientology press releases, anytime there is someone who publicly states their dislike for Scientology.
... the current protesters do not lie, do not threaten and do not file frivolous lawsuits. Scientology does. As a result, what Anonymous is doing is NOTHING like what Scientology is doing.
Unless the grandparent wants to argue that picketing a for-profit organization is like running the Mafia. In which case, I can't help him. Non sequiturs are impossible to argue against.
I think you bring up a good point, though I'm not sure I agree with making less over making more.
There's the old saw about rich vs poor: if you make 10 bucks and spend 9, you're rich. If you make 1000 bucks and spend 1001, you're poor. Barring that though, what's to prevent you from making 100K and living on 1250 a month? The only reason I can see why you would want to forgo the extra money is if you're not willing to do the jobs that pay hat much money, but that's a different story.
The reason I bring this up is that I've gone through the rich/poor cycle as well... and what bothered me the most about the poor cycle was not that I wasn't able to eat out every day, or that I couldn't afford cool trips. It was that if shit hit the fan, I had zero savings (or close). Living in the US, you're pretty much on your own.... healthcare is expensive, and there's lots of things that can hit you for major money. And for that, you need your own savings. Outside of that though, I agree - the only thing that keeps people from living on a small income is all the crap they THINK they need.
It depends on what kind of control you're talking about, doesn't it? I don't see anything wrong with dominance/submission play between consenting adults. I partake in it myself.
Wayyyyyyyy TMI.;) Though if I'd want to niggle, I'd also point out it's supposed to be D/s.
Arguing on the Internet is like competing in Special Olympics: you might win, but you'll still be a retard.
Yet, here we are, still arguing.:) The waste of time was referring to the fact that if you want to believe certain things about me, there isn't a damn thing I can say that could change your mind. After all, it's the internet, and everyone can lie.
Back on topic though. "Any man who tries to "handle" a woman is an idiot."
True. I was using "handle" as shorthand for enjoying independent behavior. Handling someone as in controlling them might not necessarily result in failure (submissive women DO exist, after all), but I would certainly agree that there's something unsavory about having to control someone else to feel good about yourself.
If you are male, and go to Brazil (and Thailand), you will begin to realize that all your life in the U.S. you have been treated badly by women. Men in the U.S. are the targets of an extreme amount of hostility. If you want to experience a society where men aren't hated, go to Brazil. A western woman was trying to get control again over the man she came with, after he had seen how nice the Thai women could be, even though the women he had seen were prostitutes, and therefore tended to be far less interesting than more moral women.
This isn't about universal peace and harmony. This is a guy complaining that not all women in the world are as subservient, ego-stroking and pleasing as Thai prostitutes.
I don't even necessarily have a problem with that approach. If he wants to marry a Thai prostitute, more power to him. I suspect he'll find other problems with that approach, but that's not the point here. But to argue that just because he has issues with women, all evil in the world is their fault is retarded on a level that rivals the logic behind the Axis-of-Evil proclamation.
Meh. I'm debating whether to deconstruct exactly how wrong you are in every single one of your sentences, but I think it'll just be a waste of time. I'll just stick to pointing out the idiocy of trying to pick up women on a site like slashdot, as well as the fact that the OP matches exactly the type of person who I see extol the benefits of dating Thai or Brazilian women - and they all, without fail, can't deal with strong, independent women. It's got nothing to do with a sensitive New Age routine (Hah! I'm still laughing at that one), and all to do with reality. Sorry if you can't handle it.
This is a non-story, and these kind of "stories" are making Slashdot feel more and more like digg.
I have to say that I've been reading about how slashdot isn't what it used to be ever since 5-digit UIDs were the domain of noobs. First people said people ought to head to The Well, then Kuro5hin, then Ars Technica, then Digg, then Ars Technica again... yet, here we are, still arguing, discussing and talking about what sites are better than Slashdot. I say that's a tremendous statement about how good Slashdot actually is. And I'll even argue that comments like yours, pointing out the lameness of some of the articles, are part of what keeps Slashdot honest and Good(TM).
Both of you. Males aren't being persecuted. You have absolutely no fucking idea what it means to be persecuted, to be the target of outright hostility and to be the victim of discrimination. Well, not unless you're black or gay. I suspect you aren't, though.
What I do suspect is that you love your women to be submissive, to accept the man as the head of the household, and to believe in serving him. This is your prerogative - if you find a woman who is like that, go for it.
However, lack of submission has absolutely nothing to do with social breakdown, hostility against males or any other crap like that. If anything, I'd argue that the social breakdown that you see around you and the hostility that is expressed against you is the result of your chauvinistic, self-centered and egotistical attitude. You just can't handle an independent woman.
Seriously - prostitutes were nice to a man? No wai! Getouttahere! Wouldaneverguessedthat. Brazilian and Thai women are nicer? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact their society is about as male dominated is it could possibly be, right?
Personally, I find that most brazilian women are either crazy or wallflowers. Thai women who made it out of Thailand seem to have adapted fairly well to western habits - but you can still tell who just arrived and who grew up here.
You are defined by the people you relate to./blockquote I understand that you see the many comments on Slashdot that equate Islam with terrorism, and put those who do not explicitly distance themselves from those comments into the same group of Islamophobes.
How is that different from you feeling lumped into the same group as the terrorists, just because you happen to espouse some similar beliefs?
I'm always stupefied by the amount of people who consider slashdot a homogeneous group. That's like saying that cats congregating around the food bowl are an organized herd.
As for the amount of Islamophobes that creep out of the woodwork.... the crap that goes on in some "enlightened" islamic countries like Saudi Arabia makes even me want to smack a few mullahs around. Fundamental Islam is so antithetical to my core beliefs that I'm indeed worried about a culture war.
And this is why I don't shop from people with perfect feedbacks. Ignore the good feedback, read the negative feedback. If the negative feedback is coherent, well laid out and contains proper spelling and grammar, I will ignore any comments from the seller about the negative feedback. Haven't had a problem so far. Then again, I shop about once every 3 years on eBay.
Talk != Action. Saying that Israel should be wiped off the map of the world is different from sending your tanks in to do that.
Neither they nor the terrorist groups deny this fact (in fact, they openly boast about it) because they claim these groups are honorable "resistance groups" and there is no shame in funding them.
I'm aware of Iran's support of Hamas. There is still a fine line between proxy wars and actual wars. The Soviet Union and the US fought many proxy wars, yet made damn sure that none of their own troops were involved. That's because both were aware of what the immediate escalation would look like.
Finally, besides the diplomatic implications of unilateral escalations, there are the practical military ones that won't go away until Iraq changes significantly. As in, becomes something similar to Saudi Arabia.
#1: An invasion would accomplish nothing, as the US will not be able to stay. And I can guarantee you that this will not be like invading Germany or Japan, where the populations were either tired of their dictators, or accepted the implications of having been defeated on a battlefield. This will be the equivalent of Israel invading Lebanon. #2: The US is currently not capable of fighting a large scale war in Iran. Not without completely abandoning Iraq.
Why do you think the current provocations of Iran - which, by the way, are technically far closer to acts of war than supporting Hamas - go unanswered? It's because everyone knows that there is not a damn thing anyone can do about them.
The only thing that could trigger a full-scale response by the Allied forces is an actual invasion of a country. The reason for this is that only a full-on invasion would cost the US more to let it slide than to tackle it head-on.
I appreciate your desire to eradicate bad people and to secure the world from terrorist acts. However, ultimately, it's all a cost-benefit analysis. And the cost-benefit analysis is so dramatically skewed against invading Iran that anything short of Iran dropping a nuke on Israel will not have any positive outcome. And that's counting externalities like saving the world from evil.
I find it amusing that you misspelled Iran "Iraq". It neatly illustrates the rest of your post.
As for your two points, you left out another option: work with Iran (not Iraq) so that it isn't a problem that they have a nuke. The problem with war is that it is unilateral, highly costly, and can be imposed on your nation just as easily as the other way around. You don't get the lesson of Iraq: pre-emptive invasion merely deepens problems. It doesn't resolve them. As for your comparison to Nazi Germany, the US only got involved after war had already broken out, as it should have. Iran has not declared war against England, has not invaded Israel or committed any other act of war.
You can believe all you want in disarming militaristic dictatorships. However, until you actually understand that Iran is not a militaristic dictatorship, has not committed an act of war, and that military action will only strengthen its government, you will only create one Iraq after another.
Last question: how do you know that a nation will turn into Nazi Germany before it actually does? If you do, I've got another word for you: thoughtcrime. Somehow, I suspect you're part "of those people" who would love to preemptively punish pre-criminals because they fit a certain profile. There's a word for those people - fascists. Welcome to Nazi Germany in the US, Kamerade.
They need to feel the heat for there to be any change.
Yes, because that worked so well for Iraq. I mean, no WMDs there anymore, and they're a happy, Western-loving... uhh. Yeah.
So what do you plan on doing when the economic sanctions (which are already in place) aren't working? Make them feel more heat? And that means ultimately.... invasion. Funny. I'd laugh, if it wouldn't be terrifying to me that people haven't even learned anything from Iraq, Part Deux.
A contrary anecdote, for what it's worth: I bought a DS (old one, not lite version) when I started to travel for business every week. My DS has probably clocked about 100,000 miles by now and a couple of hundred hours of use, along with severe abuse by sharing space with cables, external hard drives, mice and other computer paraphernalia in my laptop bag.
Still works like a charm. I'm actually waiting for it to break so I can justify buying myself a DS Lite, but no luck so far.
If you make $100k a year, 0.5% of your income amounts to $500 a year. In other words, just short of $42 a month. If you get paid biweekly, that's $21 a paycheck. Are you truly that short-sighted that you're not willing to pay $21 per paycheck to pretty much guarantee social stability (from which you profit enormously) or a well-funded hospital system (from which you also profit enormously)? I don't question your right to do with your money as you wish. I do question, however, the calculation by which you concluded that $21 (and that's assuming you make a whole lot more than most americans) a paycheck is worth more than well-funded and organized hospitals or social stability. I don't think you're heartless, I think you're shortsighted.
Then how do you explain McCain? He was declared virtually dead before the start of the primaries, trailed in every conceivable poll and was behind even Huckabee on certain ones. Yes he's the front runner now.
The only thing I can deduce from that is that all that ranting about main stream media is that this is the sour grapes of people who want someone to blame when their opinion turns out to be on the fringe. Deal with it.
I had a discussion with my girlfriend around this, and she said the same thing. Here's my problem with that approach: I can't keep up with every last bill, with every last project and with every last special interest initiative that is worming its way through the political machine. I already have a full-time job, I have hobbies and I have a girlfriend that wants attention as well. I cannot, and will not do the grunt work necessary to make an informed decision about every last idiotic bill that someone coughed up (case in point: the California Indian Gaming agreements - still can't find out all the relevant information). This is the reason why we're paying these people upwards of 150K a year to essentially sit in a cushy club and raise their hand on occasion. If we're turning them into mere mouth pieces, we don't need them at all. Vote via Internet on certain issues, have some grunt tabulate the votes on issues, and save a boat load of cash - not to mention make influence buying a whole lot more expensive.
The short of it is, these people have a job to do, and it goes (or is supposed to, at least) far beyond merely raising a hand. They are supposed to be the ones to do the in-depth research to make an informed vote on every issue that is presented. Yes, I'm disgusted by the fact that this doesn't actually happen. However, I think that turning politicians into puppets is not the right approach. I might change my mind on this, but it will require that I lose all faith that any representative will do any useful work whatsoever under any circumstance.
Nonono - it'll be terrific. While I will vote for Obama in the upcoming election, here's what I will do if Hillary gets elected: - vote for her in 2012 - vote for Jeb Bush in 2016 and 2020 - and finally, I hope that either one of the Bush twins or Chelsea Clinton decides to run for president after that, so that I can vote for them.
The end result? A beautiful series of Bushs and Clintons that will have lasted for over 40 years, putting to rest the notion that the US is some sort of democratic haven.
Why yes, I do base my voting strategy on whether I can create some giant historical joke. Why do you ask?
Slashdot Mirror
Since your doing your own distribution, you might be able to answer this question: what's the probability that someone who downloaded your stuff for free would have bought it if they wouldn't have been able to download it for free? That's the only chunk of revenue you would get if there were perfect IP enforcement. Now ask you this: how much privacy and personal freedom would you be willing to give up for that extra chunk of change? Because perfect IP enforcement is only possible in a perfect police state.
And for the record - I make content for people who ask for it. That way, I know I'll get paid.
Going to church refers to going *inside* a church and attending a service. I can't help you if your command of the english language is so bad that you can't get your thoughts across properly.
*clapclapclap* You're good. None of what you're implying or actually stating actually happened.
How's that training coming along? Made it to Sea Org yet? Are you getting bonus points for posting this crap? Or are you just trying to get out of RFP?
So... just out of curiosity. How did you manage to get your info so blatantly wrong that you claimed they were protesting inside the Scientology "churches"? I'd love to hear your story on that.
You didn't just claim to leave them alone. You claimed things were happening that were so far from what was actually happening that I find it hard to believe it was a mere misunderstanding.
This is not about religion. This is about an abusive group of people. Feel free to claim whatever else you want.
Not really. I'm merely pointing out that what you said was completely, blatantly false. Not only was it false, but there was no way to arrive at your level of misinformation by merely lacking information. You either made things up when you didn't have the details (see your comment about protesting inside churches), or you outright lied.
If you are in Scientology, you're following your SOP pretty well. Nice attempt at deflecting the conversation and steering it to an emotionally charged topic that has nothing to do with this.
Either you are truly ignorant, or you're a Scientology member (and a pretty good one, too). Just in case you're unaware of the fact that the IRS caved in to Scientology, here's a link to get you started: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/irs.html
So yes, Scientology actually outspent and outmaneuvered the friggin IRS. Yes, crimes have been committed by Scientology, and have been reported to the police. Unfortunately, Scientology is very, very good with lawsuits and personal defamation, which means that no one has been able to actually kill them off.
Right now, I regard them as a bigger threat to society than the Mafia.
No, seriously, do you?
Nobody went inside a church. Protests were taking place on public property.
There was no slander. Merely recitation of facts as evidenced by court findings and reported across the world in a variety of news papers.
They wore masks because of the well-known habit of Scientologists to completely destroy anyone who publicly or privately opposes them.
There is no burning of crosses. This isn't even the beginning of a slippery slope.
Scientology isn't being persecuted anymore than Nazis were persecuted by Jews.
Again, do you work for Scientology? Because your line of reasoning is identical to a number of Scientology press releases, anytime there is someone who publicly states their dislike for Scientology.
... the current protesters do not lie, do not threaten and do not file frivolous lawsuits. Scientology does. As a result, what Anonymous is doing is NOTHING like what Scientology is doing.
Unless the grandparent wants to argue that picketing a for-profit organization is like running the Mafia. In which case, I can't help him. Non sequiturs are impossible to argue against.
I think you bring up a good point, though I'm not sure I agree with making less over making more.
There's the old saw about rich vs poor: if you make 10 bucks and spend 9, you're rich. If you make 1000 bucks and spend 1001, you're poor. Barring that though, what's to prevent you from making 100K and living on 1250 a month? The only reason I can see why you would want to forgo the extra money is if you're not willing to do the jobs that pay hat much money, but that's a different story.
The reason I bring this up is that I've gone through the rich/poor cycle as well... and what bothered me the most about the poor cycle was not that I wasn't able to eat out every day, or that I couldn't afford cool trips. It was that if shit hit the fan, I had zero savings (or close). Living in the US, you're pretty much on your own.... healthcare is expensive, and there's lots of things that can hit you for major money. And for that, you need your own savings. Outside of that though, I agree - the only thing that keeps people from living on a small income is all the crap they THINK they need.
Wayyyyyyyy TMI.
Are we level 70 internets debaters yet?
Arguing on the Internet is like competing in Special Olympics: you might win, but you'll still be a retard.
:) The waste of time was referring to the fact that if you want to believe certain things about me, there isn't a damn thing I can say that could change your mind. After all, it's the internet, and everyone can lie.
Yet, here we are, still arguing.
Back on topic though.
"Any man who tries to "handle" a woman is an idiot."
True. I was using "handle" as shorthand for enjoying independent behavior. Handling someone as in controlling them might not necessarily result in failure (submissive women DO exist, after all), but I would certainly agree that there's something unsavory about having to control someone else to feel good about yourself.
This isn't about universal peace and harmony. This is a guy complaining that not all women in the world are as subservient, ego-stroking and pleasing as Thai prostitutes.
I don't even necessarily have a problem with that approach. If he wants to marry a Thai prostitute, more power to him. I suspect he'll find other problems with that approach, but that's not the point here. But to argue that just because he has issues with women, all evil in the world is their fault is retarded on a level that rivals the logic behind the Axis-of-Evil proclamation.
Meh. I'm debating whether to deconstruct exactly how wrong you are in every single one of your sentences, but I think it'll just be a waste of time. I'll just stick to pointing out the idiocy of trying to pick up women on a site like slashdot, as well as the fact that the OP matches exactly the type of person who I see extol the benefits of dating Thai or Brazilian women - and they all, without fail, can't deal with strong, independent women. It's got nothing to do with a sensitive New Age routine (Hah! I'm still laughing at that one), and all to do with reality. Sorry if you can't handle it.
I have to say that I've been reading about how slashdot isn't what it used to be ever since 5-digit UIDs were the domain of noobs. First people said people ought to head to The Well, then Kuro5hin, then Ars Technica, then Digg, then Ars Technica again... yet, here we are, still arguing, discussing and talking about what sites are better than Slashdot. I say that's a tremendous statement about how good Slashdot actually is. And I'll even argue that comments like yours, pointing out the lameness of some of the articles, are part of what keeps Slashdot honest and Good(TM).
Both of you. Males aren't being persecuted. You have absolutely no fucking idea what it means to be persecuted, to be the target of outright hostility and to be the victim of discrimination. Well, not unless you're black or gay. I suspect you aren't, though.
What I do suspect is that you love your women to be submissive, to accept the man as the head of the household, and to believe in serving him. This is your prerogative - if you find a woman who is like that, go for it.
However, lack of submission has absolutely nothing to do with social breakdown, hostility against males or any other crap like that. If anything, I'd argue that the social breakdown that you see around you and the hostility that is expressed against you is the result of your chauvinistic, self-centered and egotistical attitude. You just can't handle an independent woman.
Seriously - prostitutes were nice to a man? No wai! Getouttahere! Wouldaneverguessedthat. Brazilian and Thai women are nicer? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact their society is about as male dominated is it could possibly be, right?
Personally, I find that most brazilian women are either crazy or wallflowers. Thai women who made it out of Thailand seem to have adapted fairly well to western habits - but you can still tell who just arrived and who grew up here.
And this is why I don't shop from people with perfect feedbacks. Ignore the good feedback, read the negative feedback. If the negative feedback is coherent, well laid out and contains proper spelling and grammar, I will ignore any comments from the seller about the negative feedback. Haven't had a problem so far. Then again, I shop about once every 3 years on eBay.
I'm aware of Iran's support of Hamas. There is still a fine line between proxy wars and actual wars. The Soviet Union and the US fought many proxy wars, yet made damn sure that none of their own troops were involved. That's because both were aware of what the immediate escalation would look like.
Finally, besides the diplomatic implications of unilateral escalations, there are the practical military ones that won't go away until Iraq changes significantly. As in, becomes something similar to Saudi Arabia.
#1: An invasion would accomplish nothing, as the US will not be able to stay. And I can guarantee you that this will not be like invading Germany or Japan, where the populations were either tired of their dictators, or accepted the implications of having been defeated on a battlefield. This will be the equivalent of Israel invading Lebanon.
#2: The US is currently not capable of fighting a large scale war in Iran. Not without completely abandoning Iraq.
Why do you think the current provocations of Iran - which, by the way, are technically far closer to acts of war than supporting Hamas - go unanswered? It's because everyone knows that there is not a damn thing anyone can do about them.
The only thing that could trigger a full-scale response by the Allied forces is an actual invasion of a country. The reason for this is that only a full-on invasion would cost the US more to let it slide than to tackle it head-on.
I appreciate your desire to eradicate bad people and to secure the world from terrorist acts. However, ultimately, it's all a cost-benefit analysis. And the cost-benefit analysis is so dramatically skewed against invading Iran that anything short of Iran dropping a nuke on Israel will not have any positive outcome. And that's counting externalities like saving the world from evil.
I find it amusing that you misspelled Iran "Iraq". It neatly illustrates the rest of your post.
As for your two points, you left out another option: work with Iran (not Iraq) so that it isn't a problem that they have a nuke. The problem with war is that it is unilateral, highly costly, and can be imposed on your nation just as easily as the other way around. You don't get the lesson of Iraq: pre-emptive invasion merely deepens problems. It doesn't resolve them. As for your comparison to Nazi Germany, the US only got involved after war had already broken out, as it should have. Iran has not declared war against England, has not invaded Israel or committed any other act of war.
You can believe all you want in disarming militaristic dictatorships. However, until you actually understand that Iran is not a militaristic dictatorship, has not committed an act of war, and that military action will only strengthen its government, you will only create one Iraq after another.
Last question: how do you know that a nation will turn into Nazi Germany before it actually does? If you do, I've got another word for you: thoughtcrime. Somehow, I suspect you're part "of those people" who would love to preemptively punish pre-criminals because they fit a certain profile. There's a word for those people - fascists. Welcome to Nazi Germany in the US, Kamerade.
Yes, because that worked so well for Iraq. I mean, no WMDs there anymore, and they're a happy, Western-loving... uhh. Yeah.
So what do you plan on doing when the economic sanctions (which are already in place) aren't working? Make them feel more heat? And that means ultimately.... invasion. Funny. I'd laugh, if it wouldn't be terrifying to me that people haven't even learned anything from Iraq, Part Deux.
A contrary anecdote, for what it's worth: I bought a DS (old one, not lite version) when I started to travel for business every week. My DS has probably clocked about 100,000 miles by now and a couple of hundred hours of use, along with severe abuse by sharing space with cables, external hard drives, mice and other computer paraphernalia in my laptop bag.
Still works like a charm. I'm actually waiting for it to break so I can justify buying myself a DS Lite, but no luck so far.
If you make $100k a year, 0.5% of your income amounts to $500 a year. In other words, just short of $42 a month. If you get paid biweekly, that's $21 a paycheck. Are you truly that short-sighted that you're not willing to pay $21 per paycheck to pretty much guarantee social stability (from which you profit enormously) or a well-funded hospital system (from which you also profit enormously)? I don't question your right to do with your money as you wish. I do question, however, the calculation by which you concluded that $21 (and that's assuming you make a whole lot more than most americans) a paycheck is worth more than well-funded and organized hospitals or social stability. I don't think you're heartless, I think you're shortsighted.
Then how do you explain McCain? He was declared virtually dead before the start of the primaries, trailed in every conceivable poll and was behind even Huckabee on certain ones. Yes he's the front runner now.
The only thing I can deduce from that is that all that ranting about main stream media is that this is the sour grapes of people who want someone to blame when their opinion turns out to be on the fringe. Deal with it.
I had a discussion with my girlfriend around this, and she said the same thing. Here's my problem with that approach: I can't keep up with every last bill, with every last project and with every last special interest initiative that is worming its way through the political machine. I already have a full-time job, I have hobbies and I have a girlfriend that wants attention as well. I cannot, and will not do the grunt work necessary to make an informed decision about every last idiotic bill that someone coughed up (case in point: the California Indian Gaming agreements - still can't find out all the relevant information). This is the reason why we're paying these people upwards of 150K a year to essentially sit in a cushy club and raise their hand on occasion. If we're turning them into mere mouth pieces, we don't need them at all. Vote via Internet on certain issues, have some grunt tabulate the votes on issues, and save a boat load of cash - not to mention make influence buying a whole lot more expensive. The short of it is, these people have a job to do, and it goes (or is supposed to, at least) far beyond merely raising a hand. They are supposed to be the ones to do the in-depth research to make an informed vote on every issue that is presented. Yes, I'm disgusted by the fact that this doesn't actually happen. However, I think that turning politicians into puppets is not the right approach. I might change my mind on this, but it will require that I lose all faith that any representative will do any useful work whatsoever under any circumstance.
Nonono - it'll be terrific. While I will vote for Obama in the upcoming election, here's what I will do if Hillary gets elected:
- vote for her in 2012
- vote for Jeb Bush in 2016 and 2020
- and finally, I hope that either one of the Bush twins or Chelsea Clinton decides to run for president after that, so that I can vote for them.
The end result? A beautiful series of Bushs and Clintons that will have lasted for over 40 years, putting to rest the notion that the US is some sort of democratic haven.
Why yes, I do base my voting strategy on whether I can create some giant historical joke. Why do you ask?